Disrupting the Colonial Agenda within Graduate Teacher Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Truth and Reconciliation’s Calls to Action (2015a) highlight education as a means of reconciliation. The purpose of our study was to understand if and how the content and pedagogy within a graduate Foundations of Education course using an anti-racist education framework enabled in-service teachers to challenge the colonial narrative and integrate Indigenous knowledges and perspectives into their classrooms. We interviewed six graduate students and identified key themes related to experiencing and enacting anti-racist education. The results suggest the necessity of identifying one’s positionality, using relational pedagogy, and employing critical self-reflection to interrupt the colonial story and promote Indigeneity within the Canadian context. Les appels à l’action de la Commission de vérité et de réconciliation soulignent l’importance de l’éducation comme moyen de réconciliation. L’objectif de cette étude était de comprendre dans quelle mesure le contenu et la pédagogie d’un cours supérieur portant sur les fondements de l’éducation et reposant sur un cadre antiraciste a permis aux enseignants en service de contester le récit colonial et d’intégrer des connaissances et des perspectives autochtones dans leur enseignement. Nous avons interviewé six étudiants aux cycles supérieurs et identifié des thèmes clés portant sur l’expérience et la mise en œuvre de l’éducation antiraciste. Les résultats semblent révéler un besoin d’identifier soi-même son positionnement, d’employer une pédagogie relationnelle et de s’engager dans une autoréflexion critique pour interrompre le récit colonial et promouvoir l’indigénéité dans le contexte canadien. Mots clés: éducation antiraciste; décolonisation des études supérieures; pédagogie de la formation des enseignants; conscience coloniale; formation des enseignants à la justice sociale
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".