An Assessment of Ghana’s Enacted Kindergarten Curriculum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drawing on the policy enactment theory, the present study assessed the enacted kindergarten (KG) curriculum in Ghana. Participants were 101 kindergarten teachers in one district of the Upper West Region of Ghana. They completed the Kindergarten Enacted Curriculum Scale (KECS) once. The KECS included 13 items (KG1) and 17 items (KG2) that assessed the extent to which participants taught content in four subscales: literacy and numeracy (LN), psychosocial skills (PS), environmental studies (ES), and physical development (PD). Participants responded to items on a 4-point Likert scale as major focus (scored 3), minor focus (scored 2), touched on briefly (scored 1), and not taught (scored 0). Descriptive and inferential statistics were computed for the entire scale and for each subscale. Results indicated that most participants focused on the LN and ES subscales; with the most neglected content areas being the PS and PD subscales. Most KG1 teachers focused on LN (Listening/Speaking—97.7%), with the lowest percentage in PS (Getting Along/Others— 25.0%) and PD (Physical Exercise—29.5%). Similarly, KG2 teachers focused on ES (Healthy Individual-93.0%), and the lowest percentage in PS (Knowing/Living with Others–39.3%) and PD (Spatial Awareness—42.1%). PS was positively correlated with PD, ES, and KECS. Inferential tests revealed gender differences for the PD subscale. Data indicated grade level differences in teaching LN and PD. These findings suggest that kindergarten teachers in this study continued to focus on academics (LN and ES), despite the emphasis of the KG curriculum being on the holistic development of the young child. Keywords: Assessment, curriculum, kindergarten, Ghana, teachers
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".