Constructing living bridges: learning to listen to culture in an indigenous pre-school
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
AbstractThis dissertation begins from acknowledging the close relationship between culture and learning. Despite the plethora of research in pre-school education with respect to culture, the question remains how to translate what is known about early education into specific communities when their pursuit is to maintain cultural identity. This longitudinal study, carried out in partnership with Step by Step Child and Family Center, recounts a three year story of a First Nations (Mohawk) early childhood center in Quebec that actively followed their quest for innovative ways to maintain culture through their early childhood programs. The research commenced with the provocation of the Reggio Emilia approach. Initial research questions focused on where Reggio Emilia principles might resonate with Mohawk culture. However, in the course of inquiry, cultural ownership emerged as core learning, providing a major turning point in the inquiry. With the construction of children’s art studios (ateliers) in the Center, new research questions developed. What role would the arts play in developing Mohawk culture and identity in their early childhood program? The qualitative study drew on various qualitative approaches: participatory action research, narrative inquiry, grounded theory, arts-informed methods and Indigenous research. Indigenous ontological and epistemological values were fundamental in grounding and directing this study respectfully and in honor of the Indigenous participants. The study combined multiple data sources: classroom observation, teacher and researcher documentation of changing practices, photographs, interviews and focus groups. Over three years and three distinct phases, the research partnership involved 3 administrators, 10 teachers and 160 children (aged 18 months to 5 years). The phases unfolded over 320 hours of field work conducted in collaboration with the Center. The research process afforded opportunities over time to together develop a “pedagogy of listening”, which became the guiding theoretical and methodological orientation of the study, as symbolized through the “living bridge”: the conduit that carried the researcher back and forth to the community.The findings give rise to substantial implications for teaching and learning in early childhood arenas and better understanding what it means to develop “culturally relevant” programs. The emphasis on the arts played a major role in the development of a culturally relevant curriculum due to their experiential nature and sharing in Indigenous approaches of holistic and traditional learning. The thesis contends that children’s and teacher’s simultaneous inquiry can provide meaningful learning through mutual engagement. Providing children with opportunities to revisit their learning, accompanied by teachers’ documentation and sharing, came together to uphold goals of a culturally authentic and relevant program, thus holding significant implications for teacher professional development, teacher education as well as early childhood curriculum, especially for other Indigenous communities searching for ways to maintain cultural traditions and identity. The research may provide a framework for suitable entry into conversations focused on a process-oriented pedagogy grounded in cultural values. The study also contributes to current research on cultural values and the Reggio Emilia approach, revealing when and how Reggio principles could be used as provocation and when the approach needed to be set aside. Most importantly, the development of practice of a pedagogy of listening, threaded throughout this dissertation, might illuminate ways of cultivating collegial learning within early childhood communities whereby values, beliefs, and goals can be listened to attentively, reflected upon, and shared, leading to authentic, sustainable change for the benefit of all.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,022 | 0,014 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,011 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».