Conflict Management and Dialogue with Diverse Students: Novice Teachers’ Approaches and Concerns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Teaching, in settings with globalized migrant populations, does not automatically lead to peace. For example, social conflict and exclusion may be exacerbated when Othering narratives (in interpersonal interaction or curriculum texts) are not contested. However, paradoxically, in pedagogies that do invite discussion of conflicting viewpoints, marginalized students may be reluctant to voice divergent perspectives, or may be treated disrespectfully. We probed this puzzle through an exploratory quantitative and qualitative survey of how 68 novice teachers approached conflict and ethnocultural diversity in their classrooms. Most expressed some confidence in their capacities to address conflict, though many reported feeling alone, intimidated, or unwilling to engage students in constructive conflict talk. Several emphasized that responding to students’ diversities was an important part of their conflict management, while others said they treated all students the same way. Most said they needed more education and support in order to address conflict educatively in their classrooms.
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 | 0.020 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".