MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791428530 · doi:10.5430/jct.v7n1p97

From an Academician's Preschool Diary: Emergent Curriculum and Its Practices in a Qualified Example of Laboratory Preschool

2018· article· en· W2791428530 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Özge Metin Aslan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Curriculum and Teaching · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicDiverse Educational Innovations Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObservational studyCurriculumPsychologyPreschool educationBridge (graph theory)Early childhood educationPedagogyQualitative researchMathematics educationField (mathematics)Medical educationSociologyMedicineSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this research; a laboratory preschool located in one of the northern states of the United States ofAmerica and operating under the Child Development Institute, explains the practices about the Emergent Curriculumand builds a bridge between theory and practice in preschool education. It is thought that bringing good examples ofa laboratory school in the United States with a long history in the field of education to the national domain literaturewill be especially useful for teachers, researchers and specialists working on this field. The method of the study wascarried out by the observational case study which is one of the qualitative research designs. In addition, the documentanalysis method was used to support the information obtained from the observations over time. Obtained dataconsisted of observations made by the researcher in the preschool, unstructured teacher interviews, and informationobtained from the handbook of the kindergarten. The findings are discussed in the headings on the basis of theEmergent Program: Beginning of the day: Arrival in preschool exploration time and gym, large group time/classmeeting, activity time and free play, large and small group activities, use of learning centers, outdoor, role of teacherin practice and role of family and parent involvement practices.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.424

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Curriculum and TeachingSame topicDiverse Educational Innovations StudiesFrench-language works237,207