MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3172823166 · doi:10.82308/21808

The challenges of teaching the religion component of the ethics and religious culture program: a study of secondary teachers in the Montreal area

2017· article· en· W3172823166 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sabrina Jafralie

Notice bibliographique

RevueOpen MIND · 2017
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueReligious Education and Schools
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésComponent (thermodynamics)PedagogySociologyReligious educationSocial science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

In 2008, the Ministry of Education (MEERS) instituted the new program entitled Ethics and Religious Culture (ERC). The program is now compulsory in elementary and secondary education, in both public and private schools. The advent of the ERC program marks a significant change in the history of religious education in Quebec. Prior to 2008 courses in religion were primarily designed as either Catholic or Protestant. The introduction of this secular non-confessional program was met with a great deal of resistance, controversy and debate, including court battles, criticisms in the media, and discussions in the scholarly literature. One of the most frequent concerns expresses in the scholarly discussion relates to the expedited implementation of the program and the impact of this on teachers. Here teachers' lack of preparation to teach the religion competency is particularly underscored. In spite of this concern, there has been almost no empirical research to date which focusing explicitly on the experience of teachers, studies which provide a voice to those who are primarily responsible for the implementation of the program, and hence, in the end, responsible for its success. This study investigates the experiences of secondary school ERC teachers. It focuses on the challenges they face, particularly with respect to the religion component. The study also contains an auto ethnographic component which considers my own experience teaching ERC. Data was collected through semi-structured interviews and a focus group to answer four questions: 1) "How do teachers understand their role and responsibilities as teachers of religion in secondary public schools? 2) What challenges does teaching the religion competency pose for the secondary school ERC teachers? 3) How do teachers view the program's commitment to neutral teaching as the preferred professional posture? 4) What types of professional support would assist in addressing the challenges they face? The responses from the teachers interviewed served as points of reference for my reflection on the challenges I face with the program. There are four conceptual themes emerging from the findings. The first theme relates to administrative and systemic support. The teachers in the study are very frustrated with the lack of importance given to the program, in terms of both workload allocation and professional development. The participants are very positive about the religion component of the program. At the same time, they yearn for greater knowledge about religious culture. The second theme, Pedagogical Resilience and Support, addresses how the teachers manage given the absence of professional training and resources. The teachers in the study are animated by a sense of professionalism which reflects a deep concern for the well-being of their students. The third theme, the need for professional development, further highlights the pedagogical resiliency of the participants and the overwhelming need for in-service training. The first three themes relate to concerns over implementation as discussed in the scholarly literature. The last theme, the professional postures of teachers, highlights how adopting an appropriate professional posture is complex and far from obvious. The ERC program's preference for teacher neutrality generated a great deal of critical reflection, questioning, nuancing and contextual considerations. My own position on this issue, which was highly assured at the beginning of the study, evolved significantly through my interactions with the teachers in the study.

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)0,006
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies
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 enseignants0,143
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0060,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0020,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
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 Opus0,095
Tête enseignante GPT0,415
Écart entre enseignants0,320 · 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.

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

Citations2
Publié2017
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueOpen MINDMême sujetReligious Education and SchoolsTravaux en français237 207