Teacher’s Voices Crying in the School Wilderness: Involvement of Secondary School Teachers in Curriculum Development in Zambia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Zambia, curriculum development for primary and secondary schools is done centrally. The CurriculumDevelopment Centre (CDC), the institution placed with the responsibility of facilitating curriculum development,claims that the Zambian school curriculum is developed through a consultative and participatory approach throughcourse and subject panels where teachers and other stakeholders are represented. However, there has been noempirical evidence to suggest the roles that teachers, who are the major implementers of the same curricular, arerequired to play in the development process. This study therefore, sought to establish perceptions of secondaryschool teachers on their role in the curriculum development process in Zambia. The concurrent embedded design ofthe mixed methods approach was employed with the qualitative approach dominating the study while the quantitativewas used to add detail. Data from secondary school teachers was collected using questionnaires while interviewguides were used for Head teachers. Raw data collected from interviews and questionnaires was analyzed usingthemes and descriptive statistics and then arranged into significant patterns so as to easily interpret and understandthe essence of the data. The findings of the study clearly suggested that the majority of secondary school teachers inLusaka were willing to participate in the curriculum development process, especially in situational analysis, in theformulation of educational objectives, in setting up the curriculum project, and in the writing of curriculum materialssuch as textbooks. From the study it was concluded that teachers were aware of some of the roles that they couldplay in the curriculum development but were not adequately involved in the development process.
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 | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".