We cannot teach what we don’t know: Indiana teachers talk about global citizenship education
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
Globalization significantly influences the very notion of citizenship by challenging the key principle of citizenship as idiosyncratically nation or nation-state related concept.Therefore, the discourse of global citizenship is getting more attention in programmatic educational texts and curricula. However, unlike their colleagues in Europe, Canada or South-East Asia, US educators are still less enthusiastic about introducing the concept of global citizenship in their classrooms. This study investigates how Indiana teachers conceptualize global citizenship and what in their opinions is impeding global perspectives on citizenship education in schools. In general, this research supports the findings of other studies that (1) teachers tend to rationalize the unfamiliar concept of global citizenship through more familiar concepts and discourses and (2) educators need more rigorous assistance to teach emerging types of citizenship. The study demonstrates that despite the fact that participants rarely use the term global citizenship in their instruction, they provide rationales that correspond to the notion of global citizenship.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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