MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414259029 · doi:10.21585/ijcses.v7i2.235

Designing a Student-Centric Computer Science Curriculum: Enabling Flexibility and Personalised Learning in Secondary Schools

2025· article· en· W4414259029 on OpenAlexaff
Ajay Kumar Yadav, Dil Prasad Shrestha

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Computer Science Education in Schools · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTeaching and Learning Programming
Canadian institutionsOptech (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumFlexibility (engineering)Thematic analysisNonprobability samplingCurriculum developmentQualitative propertyQualitative research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study analyses the Computer Science (CS) curricula for grades 9 and 10 in Nepal, emphasising students’ interests and needs within the social context. The study applied the mixed-methods research design. The quantitative data were collected from questionnaire surveys with students and teachers. The qualitative information was collected from curriculum designers, textbook authors, school principals, teachers and students from the Kathmandu valley, Nepal. Random and purposive sampling techniques were used to collect data from the respondents and participants. Data and information were analysed using both quantitative and thematic techniques. The study revealed significant opportunities to enhance the CS curricula by integrating interdisciplinary concepts supported by pragmatic examples. It also highlighted that improving the CS curricula for grades 9 and 10 is a top priority for both schools and students. The study proposes a student-centric CS curriculum development framework that balances between foundational concepts of CS and students' interests. This framework would address the diverse needs of students, considering their physical and mental abilities and interests in their learning. It also suggests that CS students should be included in the curriculum development committee so that they can provide practical feedback and suggestions in the CS curriculum revision process.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.676
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.341
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Computer Science Education in SchoolsSame topicTeaching and Learning ProgrammingFrench-language works237,207