MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7139619397

A Kaleidoscope of Factors: Examining Early Childhood Educators’ Decision-Making Processes When Co-constructing Curriculum

2025· dissertation· W7139619397 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Therese Wiart

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace (University of Toronto) · 2025
Typedissertation
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEarly Childhood Education and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKaleidoscopeCurriculumTheme (computing)Early childhoodThematic analysisEarly childhood educationEmergent curriculum
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Children’s play and learning in childcare centres and family childcare programs are influenced by the decisions of early childhood educators (ECEs) as they co-construct an emergent curriculum within their learning communities alongside children, coeducators, professional leadership, and families. This research investigated the internal and external factors influencing the decisions of five ECEs as they responded to their unique and dynamic curriculum development process in their work with children of toddler ages. The metaphor of a kaleidoscope was used to peer closely into the intricate and complex experience of an ECE in their practice. The lens of the kaleidoscope was comprised of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model, Pyle and Danniels’ continuum of play-based learning, and Flight: Alberta’s Early Learning and Care Framework.A case study methodology included thematic analysis within and across cases. The ECEs’ “cycle of co-inquiry” for curriculum development was explored through semistructured interviews. Pedagogical documentation, a secondary source of data, provided windows into curriculum moments with toddlers. Five portraits were written using portraiture inquiry to capture a close encounter with the intersection between the ECE’s background, co-inquiry practice, and their reflections about their decision-making processes revealed by analysis of one pedagogical documentation. Four themes emerged describing the factors that influenced ECEs’ decision making across the case studies. The first theme explored how collaborative practice invited multiple perspectives. Second, within a responsive environment established for the ECE, they shared the locus of control with the learning community. The third theme illustrated how ECEs deeply listen to toddlers, which involved attending to their multimodal communication. The last theme revealed how ECEs’ dispositions and values factored into engagement with the toddlers’ learning through play.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0100.027
Scholarly communication0.0120.009
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace (University of Toronto)→Same topicEarly Childhood Education and Development→French-language works237,207→