“Don’t You Know That Only White Kids Like Science?”: Currere as Critical Autobiography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assessment results demonstrate a persistent achievement gap in science between Black, Latino, and Aboriginal students and their Caucasian peers. While curriculum documents espouse a Science for All slogan, little guidance is provided on the pedagogical actions that teachers can take to improve the teaching and learning of science for all students. This critical autobiography mobilizes the transformational potential of William Pinar’s method of “currere” as self-study. My review of the literature indicates scant evidence of currere’s conceptual and theoretical use by teacher educators who are preparing pre-service teachers. In this article, I employ currere as a means of self-reflection from my position as a teacher educator and Ph.D. student at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE) of the University of Toronto. I document and analyze my efforts to navigate within and through the regressive, progressive, analytical, and synthetic moments as espoused by Pinar. Ultimately, currere enables me to unleash fresh ways of conceptualizing a preservice science methods course with a social justice focus.
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 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 | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.038 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".