Teacher-librarians and teachers: Partners in the collaborative curriculum development process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research study explored, tracked, and presented findings of how the Collaborative Program Planning, Teaching and Evaluation process was used for curriculum development in an elementary school in Prince Edward Island, Canada. A teacher-librarian, two classroom teachers, and a technology teacher used the CPPT model to develop, implement, teach, and evaluate two resource-based learning projects within a school library program. Through an action research approach, the study employed several data collection tools: participant and direct observations, interviews with four educators and eight students, curriculum document analysis, and a researcher's reflective journal. Key findings resulting from observations and interview transcripts are reported under the following themes: CPPT Process: Planning Sessions, Implementation and Teaching of Projects, and Evaluation/Assessment, Benefits and Barriers to the CPPT Process, Student Learning, Information Literacy, The Role of the Teacher-Librarian, and Student Interviews. Discussions and the implications for education and teacher collaboration highlighted the curriculum leadership role of the teacher-librarian.
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 | 0.051 | 0.106 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".