Teacher Inquiries into the Education Journeys of Rangatahi in Alternative Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This action research (AR) project explored critical moments from the education experiences of disenfranchised rangatahi (young people) in Alternative Education (AE). The rangatahi hoped their stories would help teachers, principals, Boards of Trustees, and the Ministry of Education understand their experiences and hear their recommendations for helping vulnerable rangatahi in the future. AE teachers utilised storytelling and arts-based methods that enabled rangatahi to tell their stories. The relational and collaborative nature of AR was crucial to amplify the voices of the rangatahi and their AE teachers. This article shares insights from AE teachers’ inquiries and the AR process. The stories were thematically analysed to understand common schooling experiences. Experiences of microaggressions and microaffirmations, social and cultural spaces, transition and transience, exclusion and alienation, identities and relationships, and pedagogical approaches all impacted rangatahi identity and learning. Recommendations for how teachers and school leaders might adapt their practices to support disenfranchised rangatahi are considered.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".