Dreams of woken souls: the relationship between culture and curriculum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This text is a venture in honoring principles manifest within conversations for being related. It focuses upon the relationship between culture and curriculum, combining academic discourse relating to the construction of identity, policy and curriculum with conversations undertaken with 42 members of a school community in Aotearoa New Zealand; the intention being to inform the project of teaching culture. This study contributes to curriculum theory by describing a 'language' for the processes and purposes of culture in education, and by modeling the principles of that 'language.' The 'language' describes the tone for conversations for being related, the assumption being that the speakers will contribute their own vocabulary. Principles of the suggested language include the following 'tonal' qualities: • adopting a global perspective of culture that honors particularities of the local context; • incorporating many ways of knowing culture and expressing that knowing; • developing non-oppositional interpretations of cultural difference; • perceiving the teaching of culture as a collaborative, long-term, holistic project; • affirming the coexistence of change and constancy in understandings of culture; • making explicit the teacher's curricular contribution to understandings of culture; • respecting the voices of community, voices that may amend and stand alongside the academic canon. In conclusion, this study suggests that while an initial premise of fluidity and complexity in understandings of culture is present in academic and community sources, so too are principles of constancy which emphasize relatedness. In order that these principles may inform understandings of culture in the teaching of culture, a revisionary perspective is needed towards the canon (particularly the sources of knowledge to be regarded as authoritative), and towards the research, interpretation and representation of understandings of culture. The development of a 'language for being related' is suggested as one way in which teacher and researcher understandings of culture might embrace diversity and equity issues in curriculum. This project contributes to the much needed discussion on ways in which 'culture' might work to promote a philosophy of education that combines many ways of knowing in conversations for being related.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".