MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2980211181 · doi:10.29173/iasl7176

An Analysis of the Jamaican Grades 1-6 Curriculum for the Development of a Media and Information Literacy and Intercultural Dialogue Cross-Curriculum

2017· article· en· W2980211181 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Paulette Steward

Bibliographic record

VenueIASL Annual Conference Proceedings · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation Systems and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumInformation literacyChristian ministryMathematics educationPedagogySchool libraryLiteracyMedia literacyContent analysisSociologyPsychologyComputer scienceLibrary sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main objective of any curriculum is the relevancy of the content in meeting the curricular and co- curricular short and long term needs of the students so they can function well at their level in the society. The researcher used the content analysis methodology to analyse the content of the Grades 1-6 Ministry of Education Youth and Information (Jamaica) Curricular with the aim of developing a school library cross-curricular. Based on the analyses there was evidence that more information literacy topics were implicitly embedded in the school curriculum guides than media literacy and intercultural dialogue. The AASL Standards for the 21st Century Learner competencies was either sufficiently evident, limited or absent from these school curricular. The cooperative learning teaching strategy, the multiple intelligences theory and the Big6 information problem solving skills were also absent from these curricular. The researcher used the subject areas in addition to the MILID components to develop a cross curricular school library MILID curriculum which will facilitate the collaboration of teacher librarians and teachers in the planning and delivery of the lessons.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.314
Threshold uncertainty score0.722

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.340 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIASL Annual Conference ProceedingsSame topicEducation Systems and PolicyFrench-language works237,207