A Commentary on Kenya’s Response to the Global STEM Movement from Social Justice Perspectives: Would School-Community Innovation Centres/Makerspaces Address Apparent Gaps in the Proposed Curriculum?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper discusses Kenya’s proposed STEM curriculum in the context of the new education system. The new education system aims at socioeconomic development following Kenya’s Vision 2030 and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The paper refers to social justice perspectives to discuss strengths and weaknesses of the proposed STEM curriculum. Our exploration of the reform documents led to the question: Has Kenya got the means to benefit from the progressive reform ideas given meagre resources and local worldviews that might conflict with the scientific/STEM worldview? In response to this dilemma, the paper suggests innovation centres or do-it-yourself centres akin to makerspace activity, as one way to engender the development of endogenous science/STEM. Setting endogenous science/STEM as the framework for the proposed STEM curriculum is likely to seamlessly address the socioeconomic goals as stipulated for the new education system.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".