The Rights Project: How Rights Education Transformed a Classroom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current research has suggested many possible benefits of rights education, including increased empathy, tolerance and respect (Alderson, 1999; Allan & I’Anson, 2004; Covell, 2005; Decoene & De Cock, 1996). In this case study of a rights education project - the Rights Project - we demonstrate some ways rights discourse served to transform the understanding of a group of four year-olds in a preschool. Rather than contributing to the maintenance of a hierarchical, rules regulated classroom, rights education transformed the classroom into a new learning environment based on equity, inter-dependence and group accountability. This article focuses specifically on children’s discussions around, and practical use of, two articles stated in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: Article 13, ‘the right to be listened to’ and Article 31, ‘the right to play’ (United Nations General Assembly, 1989). As children explored the meaning of each right, their understanding of social being transformed and their recognition of the relationship between rights and responsibilities seemed to shift their perspectives from ‘me’ to ‘we’.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
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".