Can hearts and minds be changed in an 'experimental' Chinese kindergarten
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reviews a visit to a private university kindergarten in Beijing. Further visits are planned to continue to monitor developments. The kindergarten was recommended as an example of innovative provision. The university own thirty kindergarten schools throughout the city and are patronised by wealthy Chinese families. We found some of these kindergartens to be teaching in a didactic manner. The kindergarten was a member of the International Baccalaureate (IB) of schools who were authorised to use the Primary Years Programme (PYP). The most significant and distinctive feature of the IB Primary Years Programme is the six transdisciplinary themes. These themes of: Who we are; Where we are in place and time; How we express ourselves; How the world works; How we organize ourselves and Sharing the planet are intended to offer a balance between learning about or through the subject areas, and learning beyond them by allowing students to "step up" beyond the confines of learning within subject areas. This is achieved by the teachers developing a programme of inquiries which are in-depth investigations into important ideas and require a high level of involvement on the part of the pupils. It is acknowledged that assessment is an important part of each unit of inquiry as it both enhances learning and provides opportunities for pupils to reflect on what they know, understand and can do. The teacher's feedback to the pupils provides the guidance, the tools and the incentive for them to become more competent, more skilful and better at understanding how to learn. \nThe experimental setting was also used for trainees at the university as well as kindergarten practitioners throughout Beijing. We focused on identifying commonalities and differences between the Early Years provision in the Chinese kindergarten and what we would expect to see in England.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".