(Re)conceptualising risk: left numb and unengaged and lost in a no‐man’s‐land or what (seems to) work for at‐risk students
Classification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This review of current research into at‐risk programmes serves to categorise and characterise existing programmes and to evaluate the contribution of these programmes to assisting students at risk from marginalised backgrounds. This characterisation questions the (sometimes) implicit assumptions and the consequences of those assumptions inherent in and behind these various accounts. Using as a lens the (various and varied) understandings of social justice and the goals of education, the author identifies three sometimes overlapping and sometimes contesting standpoints in relation to at‐risk students, characterised as instrumentalist or rational technical, social constructivist or individualist, and critical transformative or empowering. It is argued that a critical transformative understanding of risk may deliver improved outcomes for young people by challenging 'the school context in which the young people are located'. Keywords: student risksocial justicecritical pedagogy Acknowledgements The author extends a special thanks to the teachers and especially the students who made this study possible. Thanks also to the very constructive and helpful comments from the anonymous reviewers on a previous draft. Notes 1. See, for example, International Journal of Inclusive Education, a special issue on 'Pedagogies as an Issue of Social Justice and Inclusion' (Lingard and Mills Citation2007a). 2. Munns's (Citation2007) conceptualisation of both small e engagement (commitment to classroom experiences) and big E engagement (commitment to education), as described in The Fair Go Project, is an example of transformative understandings of risk differentiating between substantive and procedural engagement. 3. Gale (Citation2000) identifies three contesting views of social justice: retributive, redistributive and recognitive. For further details, see Gale and Densmore (2002). 4. The Victorian Certificate of Applied Learning (VCAL) is a hands‐on option for students in Years 11 and 12. It gives practical work‐related experience, as well as literacy and numeracy skills and the opportunity to build personal skills that are important for life and work. Like the Victorian Certificate of Education (VCE), VCAL is an accredited secondary certificate (for further information, see http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/vcal/). 5. In Australia, according to a report released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 43% of all students attend fee‐paying schools. This proportion is higher in secondary education. Victoria is the most privatised of all Australian states (see http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/lookupMF/1E44BCDEF87BCA2FCA2568A9001393E7). 6. The New Community Schools initiative in Scotland seeks to improve participation, raise achievement, improve health and transform communities. 7. For more information about Productive Pedagogies, see the Education Queensland website which describes these powerful and comprehensive set of messages for policy reform and realignment (http://education.qld.gov.au/public_media/reports/curriculum-framework/qsrls/). 8. In Canada, see, for example, Smith et al. (Citation2001).
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it