Feminist Dialogic Pedagogical Spaces in Teacher Education: Practical Inclusivity, Eye-opening and Change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this reflective article, I explore a feminist dialogic pedagogy of inclusive education (IE) in the sociocultural context of my and my students’ lived experience. I ask what a feminist dialogic pedagogy means to my students. The purpose of this article therefore is to advance knowledge about a feminist dialogic pedagogy in teacher education with a focus on the formation of students’ critical consciousness of IE philosophy that is currently mandated by all Canadian provinces. My intention is to contribute to an evolving scholarship of feminist pedagogy in teacher education programmes with a grounded and creative understanding of teacher candidates’ lived experience. The article argues that feminist dialogic pedagogy creates a space of inclusion for all students. Despite and across social differences, this pedagogy leads a conscious change among students, impacting their daily lives. Consequently, students successfully achieve their academic goals because they feel critically attentive to and conscious of their situated knowledge ( Haraway, 1988 , Feminist Studies, vol. 14, pp. 575–599) in educational institutions.
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 | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".