Teaching young people more than “how to survive austerity”: From traditional financial literacy to critical economic literacy education
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Financial literacy education is often narrowly conceptualized as teaching students how to manage their finances. Furthermore, few studies have investigated teachers’ beliefs and approaches to teaching financial literacy beyond whether they have the knowledge and capacity to deliver personal finance lessons. This case study explores the ways in which self-identified critical teachers in Ontario and Québec, Canada swim against the current of traditional financial literacy teaching. I present data from two rounds of in-depth qualitative interviews and one round of deliberative inquiry focus groups conducted in 2019 and 2020. Findings detail the specific skills, knowledge, and pedagogical strategies teachers use to reframe conventional financial literacy toward a critical economic literacy education that asks broader questions about the political economy and intersecting systems of oppression. This study complicates the ways in which financial literacy education is conceptualized and researched and suggests the need for further research with teachers.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it