Curriculum Alignment Among the Intended, Enacted, and Assessed Curricula for Grade 9 Mathematics.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined curriculum alignment among the intended, the enacted, and the assessed curricula in Grade 9 mathematics in two domains: content/operations and cognitive processes. The Program of Studies was used to determine the content/ operations and the Delphi method was used to identify the cognitive levels for the intended curriculum. Classroom observations were used to capture the enacted curriculum. End of unit tests were used to determine the assessed curriculum. Results indicated that curriculum alignment among the intended, enacted and assessed curricula for the mathematics content/operations was high (97% alignment). In contrast, curriculum alignment among the intended, enacted, and assessed curricula for the cognitive processes was low (7.3% alignment). This study makes a contribution towards understanding the quality of the relationship among the intended, enacted, and assessed curricula in mathematics education. The methodological framework provides a model for subsequent research on curriculum alignment among the three components of the education system.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it