GROUNDING IN INUIT WORLDVIEW: THE TRANSFORMATION OF TWO QIKIQTANI, NUNAVUT SCHOOLS
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Inuit of Inuit Nunangat (Inuit regions of Canada) and Nunavummiut have continued to call for improvements to Inuit education. As such, documented accounts from community member perspectives and from school leader reflections would assist in Inuit education improvements. This unikkaaqatiginniq (storytelling) doctoral study grounded in Inuit worldview includes two processes: a community consultation process (Chapter 2) to determine the dissertation topic, which includes how community knowledge holders of Qikiqtarjuaq and Panniqtuuq/Pangnirtung, Nunavut want study done in their communities; and an examination (Chapters 3 and 4) of the Inuit language, culture, and identity-centred bilingual school program that supported students in whole-person development, in Inunnguqsajait (becoming able human beings) and bilingualism in two Qikiqtani (Baffin), Nunavut schools. This study was undertaken to respond to the gap in the literature of few documented examples from community member and school leader perspective. Community knowledge holders included some former students, parents, Elders, Community Education Council (CEC)/District Education Authority (DEA) members, staff members, community members of Qikiqtarjuaq and Panniqtuuq/Pangnirtung, Nunavut, a regional Director of School Services, and a regional Board of Education Director and are accompanied by some of my reflections as former principal/co-principal in the schools through historical documents. The two case studies (Chapters 3 and 4) explore the concepts of Inuit language, culture, and identity-centred bilingual school program through shared vision, program development and implementation and challenges thereof, while the consultation process (Chapter 2) explores community preferred ways of doing study through a Three Paper format, with an introduction and conclusion chapter to introduce the topics and to provide a summary of the findings and key learning.Findings show that the essential components of the Inuit language, culture, and identity-centred bilingual school program supported students in whole-person development, in Inunnguqsajait (becoming able people), and in developing bilingually. Some challenges identified by knowledge holders in the study were maintaining program change, lack of Inuit worldview resources, insufficient program funding, challenges of change implementation and the time required (Qikiqtarjuaq case study), for the Panniqtuuq case study challenges identified included lack of Inuit worldview resources, insufficient Spring Camp funding, school leader and staff turnover. Findings suggest a need for further study across Nunavut to build upon these findings and to determine how other Nunavut communities want study done, and to examine and share other community experiences in developing and implementing Inuuqatigiit schools (pre-creation of Nunavut) and Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) schools (post-creation of Nunavut) through Inuit language, culture, and identity-centred bilingual school program. The findings also suggest a need to learn from community experiences of the past in supporting education program improvement in Nunavut and in celebrating what has and can be done in transforming Nunavut schools to be grounded in Inuit worldview. ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᖓᓐᓂᒥᐅᑕᐃᑦ (ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓄᓇᖏᑦ) ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᓇᕘᕐᒥᐅᑕᐃᑦ ᑲᔪᓯᓯᒪᕗᑦ ᑐᒃᓯᕋᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐱᐅᓯᒃᑲᓂᖅᑎᑦᑎᔪᒪᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᐃᒪᐃᓕᖓᒻᒪᑦ, ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂ ᑕᐅᑐᑦᑕᖏᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᐅᑉ ᓯᕗᓕᖅᑎᖏᑕ ᑕᐅᑐᑦᑕᖏᑎᒍᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᕋᔭᖅᐳᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕈᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐱᐅᓯᕚᓪᓕᑎᑦᑎᑲᓐᓂᓂᕐᒥᒃ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖃᑎᒌᓐᓂᖅ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂᐅᔪᖅ ᑐᙵᕕᓕᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑕᐅᑐᑦᑕᖓᑎᒍᑦ ᐃᓚᖃᕐᒪᑦ ᒪᕐᕉᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᑑᓐᓂᒃ: ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂ ᑐᓴᕆᐊᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ (ᐅᖃᓕᒫᒐᖅ 2) ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕐᓗᒍ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔭᕆᐊᓕᒃ ᓘᑦᑖᙳᕈᒪᔪᓄᑦ ᑕᑭᔪᒥᒃ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ, ᐃᓚᖃᕐᒪᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔨᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᕿᑭᖅᑕᖅᔪᐊᕐᒥ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐸᓐᓂᖅᑑᒥ, ᓄᓇᕘᒥ ᖃᓄᖅ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᖁᔨᓯᒪᓂᕆᔭᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓄᓇᖏᓐᓂ; ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓂᐅᔪᖅ (ᐅᖃᓕᒫᒐᖅ 3 ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 4-ᒥ) ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓᓂ, ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖓᓂ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑭᓇᐅᓂᕐᒥᓂ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓂᖅ ᒪᕐᕉᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᓕᒻᒥᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕕᒻᒥ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕆᔭᐅᓗᓂ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᓱᐃᔪᖅ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᑎᓂᒃ ᐃᓗᐃᑦᑑᓗᒍ ᐃᓄᑦ ᐱᕈᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓ, ᐃᓄᙳᖅᓴᔭᐃᓂᖅ (ᓇᒻᒥᓂᖅ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᖅᓯᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ) ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒪᕐᕉᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᕐᓗᓂ ᓄᓇᓕᐅᔫᓐᓂ ᒪᕐᕉᓐᓂ ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓂᒥ, ᓄᓇᕘᒥ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᕖᓐᓂ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂᖅ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᑐᖅ ᑭᐅᔾᔪᑎᖃᕈᒪᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᒥᒐᖅᓯᓂᐅᔪᖅ ᐅᖃᓕᒫᒐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᖃᑦᓰᓐᓇᑯᓪᓗᓐᓂ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂ ᐆᑦᑑᑎᒋᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᒻᒥᐅᑕᐅᔪᒥ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᐅᑉ ᓯᕗᓕᖅᑎᖓᒍᑦ ᑕᐅᑐᒃᑕᐅᔪᒥᒃ. ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔨᑕᐃᑦ ᑎᒍᒥᐊᖅᑎᐅᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᐅᖃᑕᐅᓚᐅᕐᒪᑕ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᒋᕙᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔭᒃᑲ, ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ, ᐃᓐᓇᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ, ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦ, ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑏᑦ, ᓄᓇᖅᑲᑎᒋᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᕿᑭᖅᑕᖅᔪᐊᕐᒥ ᐸᓐᓂᖅᑑᒥᓗ, ᓄᓇᕘᒥ, ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔨᒻᒪᕆᐅᔪᖅ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᐅᖃᑕᐅᔪᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓚᐅᖃᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᓯᒪᔭᒃᑲ ᐊᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᐅᑉ ᐃᓗᐊᓂ ᓯᕗᓕᖅᑎᐅᓯᒪᑎᓪᓗᖑ\ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᖑᖃᑎᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᖓ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᓐᓂ ᐊᑐᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᒥᓂᕐᓂ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ. ᒪᕐᕉᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕈᑕᐅᓯᒪᔫᒃ (ᐅᖃᓕᒫᒐᖅ 3 ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 4-ᒥ) ᕿᒥᕐᕈᒻᒪᑕ ᐃᓗᓕᖏᓐᓂ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓᓂ, ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖓᓂ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑭᓇᐅᓂᖓᓂ ᓯᕗᓪᓕᐅᔾᔨᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᒪᕐᕉᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᒻᒥ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᑕᐅᑐᙳᐊᕐᓂᖅ, ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕆᔭᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᓱᖅᑕᐅᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑕᐅᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᔭᕆᐊᑐᔪᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᓄᖓ, ᑐᓴᕋᓱᐊᕐᓂᖅᑕᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ (ᐅᖃᓕᒫᒐᖅ 2) ᕿᒥᕐᕈᒻᒪᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᒻᒥᐅᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᖁᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᖃᓄᖅ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑐᖃᖅᑐᒃᓴᐅᒻᒪᖔᑦ ᐊᑐᕐᓗᓂ ᐱᖓᓱᓂᒃ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᓕᒫᒐᕐᓂᒃ, ᐱᒋᐊᕈᑎᖃᕐᓗᓂ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᖅᑲᕈᑎᖃᕐᓗᓂ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᕐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓴᖅᑭᑎᑦᑎᕙᓪᓗᓂ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓇᐃᓪᓕᑎᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓕᓪᓗᐊᑕᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑐᓂᓯᓗᓂ. ᖃᐅᔨᔭᖏᑦ ᑕᑯᑎᑦᑎᒻᒪᑕ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓗᓕᖏᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓᓂᒃ, ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖓᓂᒃ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑭᓇᐅᓂᕐᒥᓂᒃ ᓯᕗᓪᓕᐅᔾᔨᓂᖅ ᒪᕐᕉᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᓕᒻᒥᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᖃᕐᓂᖅ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᐃᓚᐅᖅᑐᖅ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓂᑦ ᐃᓗᐃᑦᑑᓗᓂ ᐃᓄᒃ ᐱᕈᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓᓂᑦ, ᐃᓄᙳᖅᓴᔭᐃᑦ (ᓇᒻᒥᓂᖅ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᓕᖁᓪᓗᒍ ᐃᓄᒃ), ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᓗᓂ ᒪᕐᕉᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ, ᐃᓚᖏᑦ ᐱᔭᕆᐊᑐᔪᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᔭᐅᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔨᑕᕐᓄᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂᐅᑉ ᐃᓗᐊᓂ ᒪᑯᐊ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᑲᔪᓯᑎᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕋᒃᓴᐅᔪᑦ, ᐊᒥᒐᖅᓯᓂᖅ ᐃᓄᓐᓄᑦ ᑕᐅᑐᑦᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᑭᓱᑐᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ, ᓈᒻᒪᙱᓗᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᒥᒐᖅᓯᔪᑦ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓂᒃ, ᐱᔭᕆᐊᑐᔅᓴᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᕐᓂᐅᔪᓄᑦ ᐱᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑕᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᓄᑎᒋ ᐱᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ (ᕿᑭᖅᑕᖅᔪᐊᕐᒥ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂᐅᔪᒥ), ᐸᓐᓂᖅᑑᒥᓕ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂᖅ ᐱᔭᕆᐊᑐᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᔭᐅᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᐱᖃᓯᐅᑎᔪᑦ ᐊᒥᒐᖅᓯᔪᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑕᐅᑐᖅᑕᖏᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᑐᕋᒃᓴᐅᔪᑦ, ᑮᓇᐅᔭᑭᔅᓱᓗᐊᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᐅᐱᕐᖏᖑᐊᖅᕕᒻᒧᑦ, ᓯᕗᓕᖅᑏᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᓐᓂ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑏᑦ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᐸᓐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ. ᖃᐅᔨᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔨᑲᓐᓂᖅᐳᑦ ᓱᓕ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᒃᑲᓐᓂᕆᐊᓖᑦ ᓄᓇᕘᓕᒫᒥ ᐱᕈᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᑲᓐᓂᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᓄᓇᕘᒥ ᓄᓇᓖᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖁᔨᒻᒪᖔᑕ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᖁᔭᖓᒍᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓗᓂ ᐊᒥᖅᑳᕐᓗᓂᓗ ᐊᓯᖏᑦ ᓄᓇᓖᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᓯᒪᔭᖏᑦ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒌᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᖏᓐᓂ (ᓄᓇᕘᖅᑖᓚᐅᖅᑎᓐᓇᒍ) ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᑐᖃᖏᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕖᑦ ᓄᓇᕘᑖᖅᓯᒪᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᑕ) ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓᑎᒍᑦ, ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖓᑎᒍᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑭᓇᐅᓂᕐᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᒋᐊᕐᓂᖅ ᒪᕐᕉᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᓐᓂ. ᖃᐅᔨᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔨᑲᓐᓂᖅᐳᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᓄᓇᖅᑲᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᓯᕗᓂᑦᑎᓐᓂ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᐃᖁᓪᓗᒍ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕋᒃᓴᓂᒃ ᐱᐅᓯᒃᑲᓂᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᕘᒥ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖁᕕᐊᓲᑎᖃᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐊᑐᓚᐅᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᓱᓕ ᓄᓇᕘᒥ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕖᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᐸᓪᓕᐊᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑐᙵᕕᖃᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑕᐅᑐᑦᑕᖓᒍᑦ.
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 | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,045 | 0,015 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,010 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 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 ».