Canadian contexts for exploring transformative student agency through place-conscious pedagogy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Findings are presented from two case studies of student agency in relation to place-conscious pedagogy in the Canadian provinces of Alberta and Newfoundland and Labrador. For the purpose of these studies, student agency is viewed as transformative and encompasses self-determination, successful attainment of personal objectives, and enhanced willingness to address societal issues (Biesta & Tedder, 2007; Goodman & Eren, 2013). Place-conscious pedagogy uses the local community and environment as focal points for teaching and learning (Greenwood, 2013; Gruenewald, 2003; Lescure & Yaman, 2014; Kelly, 2007, 2013, 2014; Pelech & Kelly, 2017; Smith, 2007; Sobel, 2005). The underlying premise for exploring student agency in relation to place-conscious pedagogy is that students who actively participate in understanding and shaping the world around them learn to recognize their potential as agents of personal and social transformation (Kelly & Pelech, in press). Each case study is guided by two interrelated questions: what practices do place-conscious teachers offer students; and how do these teachers understand the relationship of such practices to student agency? Semi-structured interviews with classroom teachers and photographic documentation of teaching practices are used to address these questions. Our research supports ministries of education, school divisions, teacher education programs, and classroom teachers in moving forward with innovative and transformative curriculum redesign (Government of Alberta, 2017; Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, 2017). This research also contributes to development of more culturally and environmentally aware and engaged youth by recognizing, documenting, and supporting tangible commitments to the educational value of place and local awareness (Webber & Miller, 2016).
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.045 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".