Quebec Educational Program, Pedagogical Approaches, and Design of Educational Spaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores the major “design issues” raised by the goals, missions, and pedagogical approaches of educational programs and tries to link pedagogical approaches and the architectural design of educational spaces. The scope of this research is the latest Quebec Educational Program (QEP) published in 2005–2007. Donna Duerk’s issue-based architectural programming is used as a research approach to investigate issues and requirements for the design of educational spaces. This approach is a systematic method of inquiry that defines the requirements for a successful project, and it is used to develop a model for the design issues related to the goals, missions, and pedagogical approaches of the QEP for secondary school design in Quebec. The following ten major design issues extracted from the literature review are considered as the basis for the analysis of the QEP: health and comfort, flexibility, technology, efficiency, accessibility, safety and security, pedagogy and space, aesthetics, building condition, and school size. The latest QEP is analyzed to verify which of these design issues are related to the goals and approaches of this program and based on the issue-based programming approach, the final model of design issues related to the QEP is developed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".