The Middle Ground of Curriculum: History Teachers’ Experiences in Ghanaian Senior High Schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores Ghanaian history teachers’ experiences of the "middle ground of curriculum; a crucial stage of curriculum negotiation and a process, according to Harris (2002), that includes what “teachers individually and collectively perceived and enacted. . . prior to classroom implementation” The study employed the concurrent parallel design (Quan-qual). The researchers collected quantitative data from sixty history teachers in Cape Coast Metropolis through the census method. Six teachers were randomly selected from the sixty to participate in the qualitative phase of the study. The quantitative data was analysed descriptively (means and standard deviations) while the qualitative data was analysed based on emerging themes. The findings revealed that the history departments through departmental relation, subject conceptualisation and governance influence the ways in which teachers negotiate the formal curriculum prior to teaching. More specifically, the study established the interaction of these variables that shape history teachers’ decision-making on the middle ground of the curriculum. The study, therefore, showed that the internalisation of curriculum change is a dynamic process that is evidenced at all levels of curriculum change – the high ground, middle ground of the curriculum, and lower ground
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 | 0.002 | 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".