Educators engaged in curriculum work: Encounters with relationally responsive curriculum practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Culturally Nourishing Schooling (CNS) project is focused on whole‐of‐learning community efforts that aim to improve the educational experiences and achievements of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander learners. The project supports school‐based professional learning strategies, broad school or system‐level initiatives and deep engagement with local community, including students and their families. One of the professional learning strategies in the project is a 2‐day intensive curriculum‐focused workshop, which ran for the first time in 2021 within urban, regional, and remote school settings across New South Wales, Australia. The first day of the curriculum workshop introduces teachers and local Cultural Mentors to three analytic frameworks that they utilise to appraise curriculum resources available in the public domain. The curriculum resources appraised are all examples of curriculum designed to support educators with embedding an Indigenous knowledges focused National Cross‐Curriculum Priority into their curriculum. On the second day of the workshop, teachers are tasked with appraising and revising a curriculum unit of work that they or colleagues have planned for the upcoming teaching semester. The curriculum workshop culminates with the revised teaching and learning resources being presented to the full group of workshop participants, and subsequently each teacher is asked to write a reflection about the curriculum work that they have engaged in. For this paper, data analysis draws on ‘three sensibilities’ that invite enacting a form of onto‐epistemic heterogeneity. These sensibilities are multiplicity, horizontality and dialogicality. This analytic undertaking simultaneously explores the entanglements, and grapples with the possibilities, of re‐imagining curriculum and related pedagogical practices that seek to ‘delink from the colonial matrices of power’.
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 | 0.023 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.027 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".