Taking Ownership: The Implementation of a Non-Aboriginal Early Education Programme for On-Reserve Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this qualitative study, over the period of one year, we assessed the appropriateness of a mainstream early childhood education intervention, the Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) programme, in five on-reserve First Nations communities, by focusing on the experiences of the Aboriginal women who delivered the programme. Findings revealed a process of “taking ownership” of HIPPY. “Taking ownership” included three subprocesses: changes in the women’s views regarding (1) the strengths of the programme; (2) self-identity; and (3) the identification of the programme as Aboriginal. Through taking ownership, the women were no longer content to deliver HIPPY strictly as it was described in the programme manuals. Although the women continued to maintain that HIPPY was valuable for their communities, their actions and words clearly demonstrated that sharing cultural knowledge in the context of the programme was important to them and, they believed, important for the children and families they worked with. The process documented here points to the importance of Aboriginal culture reflected in educational provisions for Aboriginal children - whether this can be appropriately achieved through supplementing and/or adapting mainstream programmes remains a point of debate.
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 | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".