Trans Forming Education: An examination of the ways in which Teachers' construct gender and understand gender independence in TDSB elementary school classrooms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study focuses on the ways in which teachers construct and understand gender and gender independence in children. This study also explores the ways in which teachers strive to accommodate and include children who are gender independent. Six elementary school teachers who were positive space representatives or who self-identified as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered or Queer (LGBTQ) advocates in their schools were interviewed regarding the ways in which they constructed and understood gender identity and gender independence in their classrooms. The teachers, who taught between kindergarten and grade eight, were questioned about their familiarity with the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) guideline for the accommodation of transgender and gender non-conforming students and staff. Teachers' experiences with children who were gender independent were also examined. Interviews focused on examining the ways that teachers constructed gender in their classrooms. Teachers were asked to identify barriers to inclusion, as well as the resources and supports available regarding the inclusion of gender independent children. Teachers were also asked to identify any additional resources they felt would be beneficial towards facilitating the inclusion of children who were gender independent. A combination of theoretical lenses consisting of disability theory, queer theory and feminist theory has been used throughout this study. Themes found include: Gender as constructed, Gender as performed, teachers' roles in reinforcing or shaping gender performance, constructing male and female gender independence, and creating inclusive environments. The implications of these results include suggestions for creating classrooms and schools that are inclusive to children who may be gender independent.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".