Environmental education action research with immigrant children in schools: Space, audience and influence
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.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it