MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3047595693 · doi:10.1177/1476718x20942940

Are early childhood educators in Southern Ontario being sufficiently prepared for teaching Indigenous students?

2020· article· en· W3047595693 on OpenAlexaffabout
Iris Lamb

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Early Childhood Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParental Involvement in Education
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousGraduation (instrument)Early childhoodEarly childhood educationMedical educationPedagogyPsychologyMedicineDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research highlights the importance of inclusive and culturally responsive teaching. This study sought to understand to what extent Early Childhood Educators (ECEs) in Southern Ontario, upon graduation from their pre-service programmes, feel they are prepared for teaching Indigenous students and supporting Indigenous families in an inclusive, culturally relevant environment. The study took a pragmatist, two-phase approach which consisted of a document review of Ontario Early Childhood Education college programmes, followed by an online survey in which recently graduated Early Childhood Educators were asked about their college experiences regarding education in Indigenous Studies. Of the 23 examined colleges, only 1, or 4.34 per cent, offered a mandatory course in Indigenous Studies, and of the 34 surveyed Early Childhood Educators, only 8.82 per cent indicated they felt that their pre-service training sufficiently prepared them for teaching Indigenous students. Consequently, there appears to be a gap in Early Childhood Education pre-service training regarding Indigenous awareness and education. This study recommends that more research be conducted in this specific area, as the sample size for both phases of this study was small, and the apparent correlation does not equal causation; nevertheless, the resulting data from this study are alarming and provide an impetus for further research.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.333
Threshold uncertainty score0.960

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.327 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Early Childhood ResearchSame topicParental Involvement in EducationFrench-language works237,207