MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399878057 · doi:10.55016/ojs/ajer.v50i4.55070

Multicultural Education in Canadian Preservice Programs: Teacher Candidates' Perspectives

2004· article· en· W4399878057 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Donatille Mujawamariya, Gada Mahrouse

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Journal of Educational Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicDiverse Educational Innovations Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMulticultural educationMulticulturalismTeacher educationPedagogyPsychologyMathematics educationEducational researchSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report examines Canadian teacher candidates' perspectives on the multicultural education component of the preservice teacher education program they attend. The data analyze were collected through a questionnaire that set out to explore whether teacher candidates were satisfied with the multicultural education preparation they received and their ideas on how it might be improved. We present the findings in two parts. First we consider the teacher candidates' critiques and suggestions on multicultural education to reveal that the majority of respondents did not feel adequately prepared to the challenge teaching in ethno-racially diverse classrooms. Their responses point to specific programmatic and structural shortcomings of current multicultural curricula in Canadian teacher education programs. They suggest ways to improve the multicultural education curriculum including compulsory courses, more diversity among faculty and teacher candidates in the program, and an integrative approach across the teacher education curriculum. We then analyze the discourses embedded in their responses to examine how multicultural education is being understood by teacher candidates. Here we show that common understandings are often articulated through the paradigm of difference, through which the problems and the solutions are believed to be about the Other. We argue that these understandings promote rather than disrupt practices that sustain white hegemony. The article concludes with a discussion of the practical implications.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.356

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0400.007
Scholarly communication0.0070.001
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.306 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Journal of Educational ResearchSame topicDiverse Educational Innovations StudiesFrench-language works237,207