Comparative Study of Iran and the UK national curriculum based on the principles of Mind, Brain and Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compares the national curriculum of Iran and the UK to find out how the educational system indeveloping countries such as Iran can be improved. Because of implementing thinking skills and cognitive education,the educational system in the UK benefits from a high-quality standard. The science of mind, brain, educationintroduces some principles to improve teaching and learning methods and provide thoughtful and lifelong learnersfor the societies. In this study, we specified the main parts of the national curriculum in both countries and selectedsome of the principles to determine whether these two countries apply them in their national curriculum. Some ofthese principles focus on some significant issues: teaching models, the use of Meta-discipline and HolisticTechniques, authentic learning experiences, use of products, processing and progressing Evaluations, developingexplicit learning objectives, how to benefit from thinking and reflective practices, using collaborative and democraticactivities, preparing students to set personal objectives, giving themselves feedbacks, technology and flippedclassrooms, and beginning Year- Round Schooling. The results show that Iran needs more precise and detailedlearning objectives in its curriculum, use of democratic and collaborative activities with academics and students,develop thinking and reflective practices which play vital roles in upgrading the educational system. Moreover, it issuggested that the UK and Iran should consider embedded evaluations and flipped classrooms to meet the needs ofnew generation of learners.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".