The Corporatization of Educational Materials and Its Effects or Influence on the Ways That University Instructors and Professors Teach in an Age of Globalization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study utilized a qualitative case study design methodology to explore the corporatization of educational materials and its effects and influence on the ways university professors or instructors teach in an age of globalization. The study’s fundamental purpose was to investigate the views of university professors’ use of pre-designed, pre-selected teaching materials such as textbooks, workbooks, teaching manuals, and coursewares for teacher education program at one mid-sized comprehensive Canadian university. The researcher investigated the pedagogical experiences of nine university professors recruited through the Dean’s Office in the faculty of education via random sampling. The study findings revealed that textbooks are an antinomy as participants appeared to have ambivalent values for using them as pedagogical tools; on the one hand they supported textbooks, while at the same time they experienced cognitive dissonance as they questioned the content of the textbooks. This study revealed the paradox of textbooks whereby governmentality and performativity in pedagogy in general and educator agency in particular imposed by neoliberal institutions can limit the scope of teaching in higher education institutions. Furthermore, textbook selection and use often face time limitations as one-size-fits-all primers, and comes at the cost of creativity, research, knowledge deconstruction, and knowledge creation. Similarly, the findings suggest that pedagogy is a complex phenomenon that requires pedagogical orientations to deconstruct subtle sites through academic collaboration, reciprocity, and avoidance of corporatized pedagogical tools in the process of knowledge creation and its deconstruction.
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 | 0.019 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".