Situating Educational Issues in Nunavut: Perceptions of School Leaders and Teachers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to describe some educational contexts and challenges experienced by students and educators who live in Nunavut. The data for this qualitative study include twenty-four semi-structured interviews involving fourteen principals, vice-principals, and teachers from Nunavut. Four themes surfaced: student attendance, legacy of residential schools, lack of Inuktitut/Inuinnaqtun resources, and transient teachers. With regard to student attendance, participants viewed this issue as one of the most challenging aspects of their education system. Second, participants emphasized that the Nunavut Department of Education was promoting fluent Inuktitut/Inuinnaqtun and English learners. While participants valued the importance of maintaining the vitality of the Inuit language, they believed resources to promote the Inuit language were limited. Third, many principals indicated that the legacy of residential schools was a reason some school-parent relationships lacked an element of trust. Last, participants explained that the constant teacher turnover caused relational strains between educators, students, parents, and community members. Cultural compatibility theory was employed as the philosophical basis to conceptualize findings. This theory assumes that a student needs an educational experience where that learner can see, feel, hear, taste, and touch his/her cultural values and beliefs. The design of educational programs need to foster the unique identities of Inuit peoples through the implementation of curricula built upon local Inuit culture, language, and knowledge. In doing so, attendance issues within school can be addressed, for example. Also, when parents see their culture within the school curriculum and environment, they will feel more welcomed and at home in this familiar context.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".