Revisiting sloyd：curriculum development of design and craft in Iceland : sloyd pedagogy as the basis for design and craft education in Iceland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sloyd pedagogy was established in Iceland towards the end of 19 century, as the basis of Craft education. It was aimed at general education, with a pedagogical framework based on the pedagogy of Nordic Sloyd. Various curricula focusing on Sloyd pedagogy were developed until 1999, when the discipline was re-established as a new technological subject based on technological literacy, innovation and design. The new subject was named Design and Craft. It was influenced by the national curricula of New Zealand, Canada and England. Design and Craft education is compulsory for grades 1- 8 (ages 6-13), but is optional for grades 9-10 (ages 14-15). In Design and Craft, students base the generation of ideas and design on authentic problems and fashion their artefacts from resistant materials. The design systems are based on electronic circuits, mechanisms, pneumatics and structures. Sloyd pedagogy is still an important aspect of the subject: it has been developed and remains the basis of the curriculum. In 2013, a new curriculum for Design and Craft was established, with an increased focus on Sloyd pedagogy. This curriculum seems to have generated a new debate about the value of Sloyd pedagogy in general education. The article describes the establishment of Craft education in Iceland and how Sloyd pedagogy has developed within the subject area, since its inception.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".