Non-Indigenous Teacher Induction in the Northwest Territories: The Survey Findings of a Pre-Service Orientation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This project illustrates why some teachers move to the north and stay for many years, and why many do not. I have experienced many new colleagues over the years. Some choose to stay and build their careers and families in northern communities, while others do not last longer than their first year. This project revolves around a “Six Month In” survey that reflects upon a highly successful initiative, the New to the Northwest Territories (NWT) Educators’ Conference (N2NEC) hosted by the Department of Education, Culture and Employment, Government of the NWT. The conference is meant to induct new/new to the NWT teachers in a manner that aids teachers positive transitions into northern classrooms. The N2NEC provides an introduction to the people of the NWT, their history and experiences in the Euro-Canadian classroom. The purpose of my study was to help create and analyze the data from the post-conference, “Six Months In” survey. Participants reflected upon whether or not they found the sessions valuable, and applicable, to their new classrooms and communities. The survey required new/new to the north teachers to indicate what sessions were impactful. Participants were to make reflections regarding what they found most valid and valuable, after actually experiencing their new northern classrooms and residing in their new NWT community. After examining the data, I concluded that the value of the conference is evident in the responses of the participants. I determine relationship-building with students and the community is imperative to a successful teaching career in the north, as elsewhere. I support induction programs, such as the N2NEC, and make recommendations for other jurisdictions to implement a similar support for new teachers, especially in Indigenous communities.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".