Defining "success" in Indigenous education: exploring the perspectives of Indigenous educators in a Canadian city
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to frame success for Indigenous students in public boards in the experience, knowledge and beliefs of practicing Indigenous educators. Seven Indigenous public school educators in teaching and leadership roles were asked to discuss what success for Indigenous students meant to them. Through a relational, narrative interview process, a cohesive focus emerged on holistic views of education and success, the importance of non-Indigenous teachers' engagement with multiple Indigenous perspectives, particularly those of their own students and their families, and the centrality of trusting, interconnected relationships between teachers, students, and families. The findings are practical and directly applicable due to the educator-to-educator design of the study, and are also contextualized within Indigenous models of success (Canadian Council on Learning, 2007, 2009; Toulouse, 2013). It is noteworthy that Indigenous educators focused on designing public education through Indigenous worldviews and pedagogies to benefit all students. This study is significant in its ability to illuminate a broader view of success in public education as well as to provide specific examples to build this holistic success.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.060 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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".