MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093165566 · doi:10.1080/13613324.2011.585338

The whiteness of literacy practice in Ontario

2011· article· en· W2093165566 on OpenAlexaffabout
Geraldine Van de Kleut

Bibliographic record

VenueRace Ethnicity and Education · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCritical Race Theory in Education
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiteracySociologyPedagogyCritical race theoryRacismGender studiesNumeracyAttendanceNarrativeReading (process)Media studiesPolitical scienceLawArtLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the spring of 2008, the Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat of the Ontario Ministry of Education in Canada released a DVD that was one in a series designed to train literacy teachers in what the Ministry referred to as ‘high-yield’ comprehension strategies. Using the lens of Critical Race Theory, this article analyses the picture book used in the model lesson as well as the teaching methods recommended for all Ontarian teachers in the DVD. While the selection of the picture book fits the present policies of multiculturalism in Ontario, its romanticized portrayal of an indigenous people serves to perpetuate racism, particularly in the uncritical reading demonstrated in the DVD. In addition, the teaching methods demonstrated as ‘high-yield’ arise from the global movement towards standardization in education, and establish measurable student achievement, in a classroom portrayed as socially neutral, as the end goal of education. Nowhere in this model lesson, given in a multiracial classroom where minority races are both invisible and deficit, is difference acknowledged as present or important. The result is that this DVD, designed to be used as a training resource in all Ontarian elementary schools, serves to re-inscribe the whiteness of literacy practice in Ontario, and to silence the possibilities for debate and negotiation that are the hallmarks of democratic education.

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 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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.384
Threshold uncertainty score0.797

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.353 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRace Ethnicity and EducationSame topicCritical Race Theory in EducationFrench-language works237,207