Reconciliatory Pedagogy: Teacher Perspectives and Practices
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
The release of the Canadian Truth and Reconciliation Report in 2015 has prompted research and pedagogy that focuses on Indigenous education, updated teaching standards, and re-designed curriculum; however, experiences of teachers who have been called to act in the service of reconciliation have received minimal research attention. This study found that although the majority of educators believe in the necessity of this work, few are taking steps towards reconciliation through their work as educators. This study utilized an explanatory mixed method approach to gather survey and interview data into the reconciliatory practices, challenges, and successes experienced by grades 4-9 teachers. Overall, findings of this research suggest that educators who are committed to reconciliation, self-reflection, and collaboration are more likely to incorporate aspects of reconciliatory pedagogy into their teaching. This study informs teacher practice, pre-service teacher training, professional development, and ultimately aims to move the dialogue about reconciliation forward within Canadian education.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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