The political is personal: reflections on facilitating action research in gender issues in science education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Action research is emerging as a promising means of promoting individual and societal change in the context of university programmes in teacher education. However, significant gaps exist in the literature regarding the use of action research groups for the education of science teachers. Therefore, an action research group, dealing with gender issues in science education, was established within the context of a graduate course in action research at OISE/UT. The group met 14 times from September of 1992 until May 1993, and consisted of the author and five other science teachers from the Toronto area. Two of us were in the primary panel, two in the intermediate panel and two in the tertiary panel. Five teachers are female and one male. The experiences of the group form the basis of this study. A methodology of participant observation supported by interviews, classroom visits, journals, group feedback and participant portfolios provided a means of examining our experiences from the perspectives of the participants in the group. This case study examines the development of the author as a participant, researcher and facilitator of action research through a critical examination of group dynamics and power issues arising within the action research group. The results of this study confirm that facilitators should undertake their own action research within the context of their groups in order to examine their own taken-for-granted assumptions about teaching and learning. Through such reflections, we will continue to problematise the social and political aspects of science education, and make explicit how the political is personal for each of us as science educators.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.144 | 0.128 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.083 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".