MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1567976739 · doi:10.32316/hse/rhe.v24i1.4072

Implementing Progressive Education in Alberta's Rural Schools

2012· article· en· W1567976739 on OpenAlex
Amy von Heyking

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueHistorical Studies in Education / Revue d histoire de l éducation · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous and Place-Based Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsCurriculumPoliticsHumanitiesMemoirNewspaperSociologyRural areaHistory of educationPolitical sciencePedagogyHistoryMedia studiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AbstractIn the mid-1930s, in the midst of economic depression, social turmoil and political upheaval,the province of Alberta introduced an innovative progressive school curriculum, consistingof the “enterprise” approach and the replacement of history courses with Social Studies.Historians who have examined this revision, like Robert Patterson, assert that the curriculumwas never seriously implemented, particularly in the rural schools of the province. They arguethat young and inexperienced teachers with few teaching resources were simply not up to thetask of putting the child-centred, project-based program into effect. This paper argues thatrural teachers, not inhibited by many elements of what Tyack and Cuban call “the grammarof schooling,” were actually well placed to implement hands-on, subject-integrated andstudent-directed learning activities. An examination of a range of primary source material, includingteacher memoirs, newspaper accounts and Department of Education correspondence,indicates that rural teachers, though they faced considerable challenges in fully implementingprogressive curriculum reforms, adopted and adapted teaching practices they saw as relevantand useful for the students in their classrooms.RésuméAu milieu des années 1930, dans un contexte de crise économique, d’agitation sociale et debouleversement politique, la province d’Alberta introduisit un programme d’études progressisteet innovateur, caractérisé par l’approche « entreprenariale » et le remplacement des coursd’histoire par les sciences sociales. Des historiens qui ont étudié ce changement, comme RobertPatterson, maintiennent que le programme d’études n’a jamais été véritablement mis en oeuvre,particulièrement dans les écoles rurales de la province. Ils affirment que de jeunes enseignantsinexpérimentés, travaillant avec peu de ressources pédagogiques, n’étaient tout simplement pasen mesure d’appliquer le programme orienté vers des projets centrés sur l’enfant. Cet articlesoutient que les enseignants des écoles rurales n’étaient pas limités par plusieurs éléments dece que Tyack et Cuban appellent « la grammaire de l’enseignement », mais qu’ils étaient plutôtbien placés pour mettre en pratique la transmission des savoirs basée sur l’intégration des matièreset l’apprentissage individuel. Notre étude d’un corpus de sources primaires comprenantles mémoires d’enseignants, des journaux et la correspondance du Département de l’éducationrévèle que les instituteurs ruraux, bien qu’ils aient affronté des défis importants dans la miseen oeuvre des réformes, ont su adopter et adapter dans leurs classes les pratiques pédagogiquesqu’ils trouvaient pertinentes et utiles pour leurs élèves.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.653
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.327 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it