Deconstructing a Curriculum of Dominance: Teacher Education, Colonial Frontier Logics, and Residential Schooling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article considers the idea of a curriculum of dominance in relation to the colonial logics that have, and continue to, shape the lived experiences and knowledges of both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal individuals living in Ontario, Canada. In thinking about the present absence of certain Aboriginal narratives in relation to the ‘fort’ of Canadian history, the authors contemplate the ways in which the circumscribed logics of colonialism limit how we understand historical knowledge of Aboriginal groups not only as curriculum scholars but also as teachers and students who work in and have been educated in colonial public and Catholic schooling systems. Utilizing narrative assemblage as a research and writing methodology we partake in a dialectic wherein we confront the contours of colonial frontier logics. By braiding in our lived experiences, we seek to understand how curricular materials facilitate the silencing of certain Aboriginal narratives like residential schooling, the ways in which filmic representations can serve to re-write and redress lost memories, how one can learn from those who were subject to the violence of colonialism and how, as educators, we can address the violence and historical exclusion in our teacher education programs. Through this process, we suggest that although the continued discursive violence of colonial logics shape popular understandings of Aboriginal experiences in the Canadian nation-state, as socially justice orientated teachers we must continue to challenge the re-inscriptions of a curriculum of dominance within our future 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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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".