Science Teacher Inquiry Identity: A Comparative Duoethnographic Study of Canada and Ethiopia Viewed Through a Bourdieusian Lens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Globally, science teachers have been tasked with developing new pedagogies that incorporate inquiry-based and problem-based teaching strategies. In this article, we focus on a duoethnographic study of two teachers (the authors of the article). One of the authors teaches high school science in Canada, and the second has taught high school science in India and Ethiopia. We share our remarkably similar stories, which began with unaddressed pedagogical dilemmas and which, because of a lack in professional development opportunities, culminated in our return to graduate studies in science education. Drawing on the theoretical constructs of Bourdieu, we present our narratives as a study of how we negotiated the current science curriculum reform discourses that have shaped our professional identities. Our struggle to transform our professional identities has provided us with valuable insights as we work with preservice, novice, and in-service teachers to develop the reform-based pedagogies of inquiry-based and problem-based teaching.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.059 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".