Bibliographic record
Abstract
At first glance, Levy Visano and Lisa Jakubowski provide a rationale, framework and model for teaching controversial issues in higher education.At a deeper level, this book explores the post-structural and post-modern paradigm of Paulo Friere's radical critical pedagogy (1970) by providing a Canadian context and perspective.In both cases, the central themes explore the role of power and privilege, grounded in struggle and oppression by hearing the "voice of the silenced," and using culture and social context as the basis for learning and growth.Just as Friere focused on educating illiterate adults in Brazil to be able to look critically at the world in order to develop self-dignity, self-awareness and societal change through experience and action, these authors address similar experiences of First Nations Peoples and other marginalized groups.The central premise of the book is that teaching controversy is valued and necessary at the university level, yet problematic and difficult to achieve because of the power differential between students and teachers, and between those of privilege (white male) and those of marginalized groups.The authors state:Traditional models of teaching and learning continue to judge differences, colonize compliance and shackle the imagination.What is required is a more emancipatory and transformative pedagogy, grounded in struggle.Through a more critical education, we will uncover our assumptions, learn more about our own learning, selfconsciously challenge the dominant ethos and develop oppositional currents".(p.12) Controversial issues and teaching, however, are threatening to students, and to the dominant culture, because they are designed to question rather than reinforce the moral, political, social, economic and intellectual organization of society that is transmitted overtly and covertly through traditional educational institutions.The authors suggest that teachers must adjust and unlearn their patterns of teaching and learning by developing a more equitable reconceptualization of the student-teacher relationship.This renegotiating involves developing mutual respect, creating a "friendship of intellectuals", surrendering power to the students, developing alternative testing and grading, abandoning lecture for dialogue and coupling learning with activism (p.27).In order to "Unravel the Complexities of Controversy", Visano and Jakubowski state that one must focus on the meaning of the social and cultural context, negotiate boundaries between the participants, and be cognizant of institutional constraints.The authors combine a social constructivist (Friere, 1970) framework grounded in the revolutionary need to change and improve Judith Ableser
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 | 0.008 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.042 | 0.006 |
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".