MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406214761 · doi:10.5430/jct.v14n1p90

Crafting an English Ebook for the Merdeka Curriculum: Insights from Indonesian High School Teachers

2025· article· en· W4406214761 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nur Azmi Rohimajaya, Rudi Hartono, Issy Yuliasri, Sri Wuli Fitriati

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Curriculum and Teaching · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational Curriculum and Learning Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndonesianCurriculumMathematics educationPreferenceSchool teachersQualitative researchPedagogyPsychologySociologyMathematicsLinguisticsSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Need analysis is an essential component of Research & Development (R&D) and cannot be separated from the process as a whole. This study analyzed the need for an English ebook model based on the Merdeka curriculum for Indonesian Senior High Schools. Using a descriptive qualitative approach, the study investigated the requirements for the research purpose. Data were collected through questionnaires from 68 English Senior High School teachers in Pandeglang, Banten Province, Indonesia, and analyzed qualitatively. The findings revealed that almost all English teachers agreed that the English coursebook should reflect the Merdeka curriculum, with a preference for interactive ebook formats. Both students and teachers expressed a need for an introductory English ebook as a learning medium in the classroom. Specifically, teachers emphasized the importance of incorporating local content and interactive elements. These findings provide a foundation for developing an English ebook model based on the Merdeka curriculum, tailored to the needs of Indonesian Senior High School students and aligned with current educational trends.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.332 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Curriculum and TeachingSame topicEducational Curriculum and Learning MethodsFrench-language works237,207