Teacher Candidates' Policy Agency to Reframe the Meaning of Citizenship in the Ontario Secondary School Curriculum.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Curriculum policy implementation occurs within a network of state, district, school, and classroom level policies that operate within and around educators’ use of formal curriculum policy documents. Starting from this observation, we report a study of teacher candidates’ policy framing activities in their use of citizenship education curriculum policy documents in the Province of Ontario, Canada. We use a frame analysis methodology to examine how four teacher candidates from one Teacher Education Program in Ontario (1) frame citizenship, (2) perceive their use of the curriculum policy document, and (3) perceive the influence of a network of curriculum policy influences in their schools. Findings reveal that the candidates each have unique ways of framing citizenship, which align to varying degrees with how the documents frame citizenship. Candidates portray themselves as able to work around policy requirements and pressures where those are misaligned with their own framings of citizenship. They needed to do this to foster student civic action. On balance, broader policy pressures appear to reinforce formal curriculum policy that does not explicitly encourage civic engagement. We conclude the formal curriculum should incorporate a specific requirement in this area to provide policy leverage to educators interested in teaching through student civic action. We also take up the issue of potential politicization of the citizenship education through teacher education programs, with our findings suggesting this is highly unlikely. Keywords: curriculum, policy, politics, citizenship, citizenship education, frame analysis, Canada, secondary school, high school
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".