MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1993690266 · doi:10.15663/wje.v16i3.45

Working across cultures in indigenous science education

2011· article· en· W1993690266 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael Michie

Notice bibliographique

RevueWaikato journal of education · 2011
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueIndigenous and Place-Based Education
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésIndigenousScience educationSociologyPedagogyIndigenous cultureTraditional knowledgePsychologyPolitical scienceBiologyEcology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The research in this thesis considers the ability of westerners, primarily teachers, to work cross-culturally with indigenous students in four of the settler states, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA. It looks particularly at identity learning as a way in which westerners enhance their understanding and attitudes to another culture. Identity learning, and culture shock as an associated process, is examined in relation to the ideas of border crossing and culture brokerage. A number of issues were raised, some through the literature, which became foci for the research. Examination of border crossing indicated that some westerners were successful as cross-cultural communicators but did not suggest why. Discussions of cultural borders gave rise to their critique as being essentialised but failed to suggest how this was to be overcome. Anthropological models did not give any characterisation to the role of culture broker, although the ethnohistory literature gave some insight. The influence of culture shock on westerners working in indigenous communities in the settler states was not particularly understood nor its relationship to identity learning explored. A qualitative methodology is used involving a series of interviews with eight participants who were considered to be experienced in cross-cultural communication with a background in education. From the interviews a series of narratives were written which revealed their experiences and understandings particularly about their border crossings, culture brokerage and opinions regarding teaching indigenous students and teaching them science. These narratives became the major source of data for analysis. This research shows that many westerners who are successful working in cross-cultural settings value the culture of their indigenous hosts. This is the consequence of enhanced identity learning and can be the result of culture shock. Not all westerners learn to value the other culture and may either leave the community or stay for some other reason. Border crossers are able to think beyond the limitations of an essentialised ‘we and they’ dichotomy and locate themselves in other ways relative to the border. Culture brokerage is a strategy that individuals choose to use, sometimes on the behalf of a government or institution. The characteristics of an effective culture broker are those of a border crosser and this establishes a nexus between border crossing and culture brokerage. Suggestions regarding preparation to teach in indigenous communities reflect the enhancement of identity learning and promotion of border crossing. Preservice training should include experience practicum teaching with indigenous students. Effective teaching of indigenous students could be supported by hiring experienced teachers and extending their stays. All teachers who go to work in indigenous communities need to be aware of culture shock and its possible impact and mechanisms for minimising its impact need to be established through mentoring programs. The context of the students needs to be taken into account by consideration of their culture and appropriate interpretation of the curriculum and implementation of teaching strategies. Teachers need to acknowledge that they are in positions of power but need to negotiate that respectfully with their indigenous students. As teachers of science they need to have a more inclusive idea of the nature of science so they can facilitate the border crossings of their indigenous students.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,249
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,997

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,036
Tête enseignante GPT0,373
Écart entre enseignants0,337 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations10
Publié2011
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueWaikato journal of educationMême sujetIndigenous and Place-Based EducationTravaux en français237 207