MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Is "Safety" Dangerous? A Critical Examination of the Classroom as Safe Space

2010· article· en· W2097316190 on OpenAlex

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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational Environments and Student Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpace (punctuation)CivilityPedagogyImpossibilitySociologyPsychologyMetaphorPhysical spaceHumanitiesPolitical sciencePoliticsLawArtPhilosophyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The notion that the classroom can, indeed must, be a safe space to promote student engagement and enhance academic outcomes is pervasive in the teaching and learning literature. Despite the prevalence of this claim, there is a dearth of empirical evidence documenting the effectiveness of safe space classrooms in achieving these goals. The purpose of this essay is to provide a critical examination of the classroom as safe space. I begin by deconstructing the common meanings of safety as presented in the pedagogical literature and provide an overview of the existing research on student perceptions of safe space learning environments. I then problematize the metaphor of the classroom as safe space through an examination of 1) the impact of safety on student intellectual development 2) the impossibility of safety for students in marginalized and oppressed populations 3) the challenges to assessing student learning in safe environments and 4) the ambiguity inherent in defining safety for students. I conclude by arguing that both educators and students are better served by the development of an alternative discourse of classroom safety, one that is predicated on the notion of classroom civility. Dans la littérature sur l’enseignement et l’apprentissage, la notion selon laquelle la classe doit vraiment être un espace sécuritaire pour promouvoir la participation de l’étudiant et améliorer ses résultats scolaires est omniprésente. Malgré la prévalence de cette affirmation, il y a une pénurie de données probantes empiriques venant étayer l’efficacité des classes en tant qu’espace sécuritaire afin d’atteindre ces buts. L’objectif du présent essai est de procéder à un examen critique de la classe en tant qu’espace sécuritaire. Je commence par déconstruire la signification courante de la sécurité telle qu’elle est présentée dans la littérature sur la pédagogie et fournis un aperçu de la recherche existante sur les perceptions des étudiants relativement aux environnements d’apprentissage sécuritaires. Je considère ensuite la métaphore de la classe en tant qu’espace sécuritaire comme un problème et examine : 1) les répercussions de la sécurité sur le développement intellectuel des étudiants; 2) le caractère impossible de la sécurité pour les étudiants qui font partie des populations marginalisées et opprimées; 3) les difficultés liées à l’évaluation de l’apprentissage des étudiants dans des environnements sécuritaires; 4) l’ambiguïté inhérente à la définition de la sécurité des étudiants. Je conclus en expliquant que les éducateurs et les étudiants sont mieux servis par la création d’un autre type de discours sur la sécurité dans la classe, qui est basé sur la notion de civilité en classe.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.475
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0070.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.323 · 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