Belonging and participation as portrayed in the curriculum guidelines of five European countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study seeks to explore how the belonging and participation, as well as its related concepts, are framed in the national curriculum guidelines of the Netherlands, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. We employed a scoping study with concept-mapping methodology. The results reveal macro level principles related to human rights and values, multiliteracy and language, policy measures and ideologies. Meso level principles stressed that education is supposed to guarantee a child’s overall development and skills acquisition, participation involvement in the activities related to a child’s environment and cultural heritage. The micro level principles were indicative of the need for inclusive and accessible physical and social environments, along with teaching methods which foster positive attitudes about diversity and teachers’ expertise levels to address diversity. We also found the importance of designing opportunities that encourage socializing, building relationships, and belongingness. Additionally, the results show how frequently the chosen key concepts are represented in the guidelines. Based on our study we can conclude that curriculum guidelines do not provide sufficent frameworks for promoting children’s belonging and participation. Further exploration on those concepts is needed, along with increased scholarly attention within the spheres of ECEC and compulsory education practice to enable inclusion for all children.
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 | 0.015 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".