Transforming Preservice Teacher Practices and Beliefs through First Nations, Métis, and Inuit Critical Service‐Learning Experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Education is deeply implicated in the recent calls to action by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015) as both a source of, and solution for, past historical injustices. Given the persistent and detrimental impacts of a colonial past on Canada's First Peoples, including a strong distrust of educational institutions, we maintain any service-learning program involving Indigenous communities requires a strong commitment to social justice. In this chapter, we set out the historical and contemporary context that surrounds service-learning as well as ways in which service-learning practitioners can support transformative learning with Indigenous communities. Due to the unique nature of this work, we outline processes that foster transformative learning, including: critical examinations of colonial history; the role of power and privilege in society; and, a willingness to engage in Indigenous perspectives. We conclude that service-learning programs with Indigenous people are acts of reconciliatory pedagogy where reconciliatory learning is arguably one of the most impactful forms of service-learning that students can undertake in contemporary times.
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 | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".