Realizing 'quality' in Indigenous early childhood development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study used the BC Aboriginal Child Care Society’s (BCACCS) Draft Quality Statement on Aboriginal Child Care (quality statement) as a starting point to identify Indigenous values for early childhood programming and describe how Aboriginal early childhood practitioners implement these values in Indigenous early childhood practice. Building on the view that in early childhood education, we must move ‘beyond quality to meaning-making,’ (Dahlberg, Moss & Pence, 1999), this study explored a working definition of ‘Indigenous quality care,’ comprised of five values reflected in the quality statement and supported by Indigenous early childhood education literature: Indigenous knowledge, self-determination, a holistic view of child development, family and community involvement, and Indigenous language. Using an Indigenous research methodology, I conducted audio-recorded telephone interviews with ten Aboriginal early childhood practitioners in British Columbia to identify how they operationalize the five values in practice. Findings from this study describe the successes and challenges Aboriginal early childhood practitioners face implementing programs that reflect Indigenous values for early childhood development. This study contributes to the ‘reconceptualist movement for quality care’ (Pence & Pacini-Ketchabaw, 2008) by further identifying how Indigenous notions of ‘quality’ differ from their mainstream counterparts, and sharing how mainstream notions of quality care continue to pervade the field and create challenges for Indigenous early childhood practice. Findings from this study also contribute to Indigenous early childhood education literature by sharing concrete strategies the Aboriginal early childhood practitioners in this study used to implement Indigenous values for early childhood education and care.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".