Valuing Curriculum Evaluation as Scholarship: A Process of Developing a Community of Scholars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Curriculum evaluation is an essential and complex activity intended to foster understanding of how teaching-learning practices serve to meet educational goals. This position paper provides a retrospective from the authors’ lived experience of one multi-institutional collaborative nursing programs’ history of curriculum evaluation and scholarship growth over 25 years. Key themes include an overview of collaborative curriculum evaluation underpinned by three philosophical perspectives, the influence of accreditation and re-mandated post-secondary institutions on scholarship development, an affirmation of curriculum evaluation as a form of knowledge development as supported by Boyer’s model of scholarship, and the development of scholarship expertise across collaborative partners through a focus on curriculum evaluation. Examples of curriculum evaluation practices are integrated throughout the paper. This retrospective review supports the contention that collaborative curriculum evaluation provides a strong foundation upon which to develop nursing education scholarship.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.349 | 0.333 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.039 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.049 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".