Editors’ Introduction
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Editors’ Introduction Bryan McKinley Jones Brayboy, Teresa L. McCarty, Angelina E. Castagno, and Patricia D. Quijada Cerecer The journal of american indian education has entered its 61st volume year! We are excited by the possibilities that lie ahead, beginning with the lineup of authors and articles in this issue. We launch the volume with Vincent Werito and Vangee Nez, who ask us to consider the ways that Indigenous teachers think about their teaching practices and their students’ learning practices when engaged through culturally appropriate materials. Their article, “‘Light a Little Candle in Their Hearts’: Learning From Educators of Indigenous Youth About Culturally Sustaining/Revitalizing Teaching Practices in Contemporary Contexts,” raises important questions about what kinds of academic content matter and how Indigenous-based content should be used to teach Indigenous children. Werito and Nez ask us to consider Indigenous pedagogies and call for researchers to be more systematic and purposeful in focusing on Indigenous students who learn through Indigenous-centered pedagogies. In many ways, this article lays important groundwork for future research on the full meaning of pedagogy: the process of thinking about both teaching and learning. In the next article, “‘You’re Not Going to Round Me to Zero, You’re Going to Round Me to at Least One, I Will at Least Be One’: Lumbee Erasure, Identity, and Stories of a Lumbee Professor and a Lumbee Student,” Brittany Danielle Hunt and Megan Locklear raise the following questions: What does it mean to have a professor/teacher who understands your identity and your lived experiences? What does it mean to have a student who understands their professor’s identity and lived experiences? Many Indigenous students still have not had an Indigenous professor. This article illuminates the need for the presence and visibility of teachers who understand their students and the power of those teachers in the learning of students. And finally, Adam T. Murry, Tyara Marchand, Emily Wang, and Daniel Voth, in their article, “The Five-Factor Model of Indigenous Studies: A Quantitative Content Analysis of Postsecondary Indigenous Studies Websites in Canada, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand,” offer four areas of intersection in Indigenous Studies programs in four [End Page 1] countries. These global intersections, drawn from an analysis of web-sites, include Indigenous methodologies, Indigenous community involvement, Indigenous ways of knowing and being, and student communities. Their article inspires further questions for all of us: What role does Indigenous Studies play in service to our communities? What role can it play? What role should it play? The article is an invitation for deeper consideration of these questions. Taken together, this trio of articles points us toward how language, culture, representation, and well-being intersect in learning communities, and their significance. These communities are dyads (Hunt and Locklear), teachers and youth (Werito and Nez), and higher education programming (Murry et al.). We agree that seeing oneself in the learning materials and teaching practices, and in the context of our own critically reflexive teaching, is crucial to vital Indigenous futures. We admire this collection of important research and are honored to bring it forward. Please enjoy, and gift this wisdom forward. [End Page 2] Warmly, Bryan McKinley Jones Brayboy and Teresa L. McCarty, Editors Angelina E. Castagno and Patricia D. Quijada Cerecer, Associate Editors Bryan McKinley Jones Brayboy and Teresa L. McCarty Editors Angelina E. Castagno and Patricia D. Quijada Cerecer Associate Editors Copyright © 2022 Arizona Board of Regents
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».