An exploration of anti-oppressive education in the high school ELA classroom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the past three years, the province of Manitoba has been implementing a new curriculum in English Language Arts (ELA), starting at the elementary level and more recently voluntary implementation at the high school level. An important change to the curriculum is the addition of the practice of power and agency, which can be viewed as an attempt by this curriculum to be anti-oppressive. Anti-oppressive education is the practice of teaching to all students by embracing their diversity, and creating safe spaces to actively work against various forms of social oppression (Kumashiro, 2000). The goal of this qualitative research study, that garnered data through interviews, is to discover how some high school ELA teachers in the province who self-identify as taking an anti-oppressive stance do so in their approach to students, curriculum and materials, and pedagogy. The findings show that these educators’ motivations for taking such a stance are grounded in their experiences teaching, their identities, and their professional learning. While their objectives for their teaching focused on the selection of resources, building relationships, and having meaningful class discussions. The implications of the study could guide teachers in their selection of resources, teaching and assessment tools, and pedagogical decisions in high school ELA.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".