Environmental education action research with immigrant children in schools: Space, audience and influence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article considers environmental projects as means for engaging elementary school-aged immigrant children in their community. Based on an environmental research project with children aged 9–12 involved in their school’s Green Committee (GC), we identify multiple components for enabling meaningful children’s participation. Space was essential in creating a context for children to discover and express their voice. The combination of capacity-building and research activities as well as rapport-building between children, adults and the environment fostered care and ownership. Reaching out to a variety of audiences including peers and parents helped orient and strengthen the GC’s actions. The children were listened to but also actively sought and responded to audiences. Influence involved receiving external funding, completing landscaping of the school’s front courtyard as well as engagement with adults considering (or not) members’ views. The project showed that if supported by committed and facilitating adult educators these children remained motivated and that their process had the power to lead others into action and change. Children valued the socio-physical and aesthetic aspects of the environment, and furthermore, their engagement provided them with a sense of belonging. The GC experience itself illustrates how an action research project that involves a small group of children can serve as a model to create meaningful participation of children and broader partnerships in schools on collective interests.
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 | 0.017 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".