Three heads are better than one: Students, faculty, and educational developers as co-developers of Science curriculum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Curriculum planning should be a shared responsibility that involves students. To encourage higher education students to actively participate in their own education, we believe in the idea of engaging students as partners in learning and teaching. We have developed an Applied Curriculum Design in Science course at McMaster University that is aimed at engaging students as co-creators of curriculum. In this course, upper-year students form partnerships with faculty and educational developers and work in groups to co-create learning modules that become key components of a foundational Science course offered to first-year students. We present a scholarly exploration of our rationale for the course, the implementation and critical analysis of the initiative, and ideas for sustaining the co-created pedagogical approaches and continued student engagement in co-creating components of the curriculum.
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 | 0.018 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.030 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.030 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.042 | 0.011 |
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".