Re-conceptualising How We Respond to Secondary Gifted Learners' Needs: A Critical Narrative and ANT Approach Investigating Programming and Placement Within Ontario's Current Public Education System
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In spite of significant scholarly attention paid to the needs of intellectually Gifted students, programming and placement practices in publicly funded educational institutions in North America have remained stagnant in the 21st Century (Gallagher, 2015; see also Borders, Woodley, & Moore, 2014; Brown & Stambaugh, 2014; Gallagher, 2000). Critical disability theorists have made significant advancements toward more socially just systems of education for individuals with exceptionalities who have been stigmatized for their impairments by investigating the attitudinal, structural, and political barriers that create the disability of one’s impairment. This research was poised to address the same social injustice of inaccessibility for a group of marginalized pupils with a bona fide exceptionality—Intellectual-Giftedness—in pursuit of intellectual accessibility. This social constructionist and interpretivist, Critical Narrative Inquiry (CNI) focused on the construction, deconstruction, and reconceptualisation of pedagogical responses to the needs of secondary Gifted learners in public education in Ontario, Canada.\nThis dissertation is comprised of four chapters and four integrated articles that offer scholarly, methodological, and data discoveries at various phases along my learning journey toward identifying precisely what is preventing the intellectual accessibility in our classrooms and schools for our high-ability pupils. Together, these chapters and manuscripts embody my learning as both participant and researcher, from taking issue with the robust stagnation of the field of Gifted education to problematizing our varied approaches to meeting the needs of these pupils, as well as employing a novel methodological approach using complementary “show and tell” methods that drew upon material-semiotics and autoethnography, which gave rise to a more complex, more three-dimensional way of understanding the topography (Hamilton & Pinnegar, 2013) of this status quo phenomenon. A close and meticulous examination of the features, the different terrain, and the contours show exactly what and how this phenomenon is existing so we may engage in informed debate as to why we might be subscribing to a recycling of what Sayer (1992) calls “practically adequate” practices and discourses.\nThis research contributes meaningfully to this renewed conversation around re-taking responsibility for our high-ability pupils in public education. I offer four calls to action for educational stakeholders and policymakers that must be implemented in order to disrupt the established status quo of programming and placement practices based on replicated policy that do not serve the contemporary needs of high-ability pupils today. This work has implications for the classroom and school levels, at system and governance levels, as well as for the fields of Gifted education and Disability Studies.
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 | 0,010 | 0,013 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,036 | 0,069 |
| Communication savante | 0,018 | 0,008 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,007 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,007 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 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 ».