An Exploratory Study on the Development of Curriculum in Human Development and Family Science for Elective High School Credit System
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to explore the implications for the development of curriculum in Human Development and Family Science (HDFS) to prepare for elective courses in the high school credit system. To this end, we compared and analyzed the curricula of New South Wales, Australia and Ontario, Canada, which operate a competency-based student choice curriculum, and the curriculum of elective subjects. The implications derived from the analyses are as follows. First, when developing an elective curriculum related to HDFS, it is proposed to provide a concrete educational context by linking educational goals and learning activities with regard to what future social competencies can be cultivated. Second, in order to include educational content that fosters future competencies in the HDFS elective, it is recommended to first reflect upon learners’ changing lives and growth when selecting and composing educational content. As the relationship surrounding learners expands, the perspective the HDFS elective promotes should be expanded accordingly, and a wide perspective should be made so learners can observe the connection between their lives and society. Third, it would be useful to provide “core questions” and “exploration topics” in the curriculum document. Key questions are expected to reflect the learner
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it