Defending Francophone and Indigenous Perspectives in Alberta’s Social Studies Curriculum: The Views of 13 Francophone Education Stakeholders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many social studies teachers have argued that the mandate to distinctively value Francophone and Indigenous perspectives is unjust without similarly valuing other perspectives within Alberta’s K–12 social studies curriculum (Gani, 2022a; Gani & Scott, 2017; Scott & Gani, 2018). Rather than outlining why these two sets of perspectives need to be specifically taught, the current curriculum justifies this mandate based on vague and undefined “historical and constitutional reasons” (Alberta Education, 2005, p. 4). Using an online survey and a focus group interview, Raphaël Gani asked 13 Francophone education stakeholders in Alberta (e.g., teachers, heritage group representatives, education consultants) to justify the distinct attention given to Francophone and Indigenous perspectives in the social studies curriculum. To facilitate this process, participants were asked to respond to quotes from Alberta educators questioning the need to distinctly acknowledge these perspectives. The participants’ responses offered a vision of Canada, a goal for education in Alberta, and a means to achieve this goal. They also offered an original view on the nature of Francophone perspectives, their relationship with Indigenous perspectives, along with how both Francophone and Indigenous perspectives are distinct from the many other diverse perspectives in Alberta today. De nombreux enseignants trouvent que le mandat de valoriser distinctement les perspectives des francophones et des Autochtones est injuste puisque d’autres perspectives ne sont pas valorisées de la même manière dans le programme albertain d’études sociales pour la maternelle à la 12e année (Gani, 2022a ; Gani et Scott, 2017 ; Scott et Gani, 2018). Plutôt que d’expliciter pourquoi ces deux types de perspectives se doivent d’être spécifiquement enseignés, le programme d’études actuel justifie ce mandat en s’appuyant sur de vagues « raisons historiques et constitutionnelles » qui ne sont pas définies (Alberta Education, 2005, p. 4). À l’aide d’un sondage en ligne et d’un groupe de discussion, Raphaël Gani a demandé à 13 intervenants en éducation francophone de l’Alberta (p. ex. enseignants, représentants de groupes patrimoniaux, conseillers en éducation) de justifier l’attention distincte accordée aux perspectives francophones et autochtones dans le programme d’études sociales. Pour faciliter ce processus, on a demandé aux participants de réagir à des citations d’éducateurs albertains remettant en question la nécessité de reconnaître distinctement ces perspectives. Les réponses des participants offrent une vision du Canada, un objectif pour l’éducation en Alberta et un moyen d’atteindre cet objectif. Ces réponses offrent également un point de vue original sur la nature des perspectives francophones, leur relation avec les perspectives autochtones, ainsi que sur la manière dont ces deux types de perspectives se distinguent de nombreuses autres perspectives en Alberta.
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 | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.035 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".