Examining three primary school curricula for their ability to promote health literacy development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Primary schools have been identified as key settings in which to develop childhood health literacy (HL). However, little is known about how well existing curricula promote HL development amongst primary school aged children. The purpose of this paper was to analyse the health and physical education curricula of Australia, British Columbia (Canada), and New Zealand. Content analysis underpinned by Nutbeam’s Levels of HL (functional, interactive, critical) and Hjelm’s Dimensions of Health was used to analyse the three curricula. Similar trends were found between all three curricula, with the greatest emphasis placed on social health and physical health, and less emphasis on emotional and spiritual health. Consistent with other research, learning descriptors were found to most commonly relate to interactive HL, with critical HL occurring the least frequently. Findings from this study may guide the development of future iterations of each curriculum. Further, this paper provides an example of how other curricula can be analysed for their ability to comprehensively promote HL development.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".