Respect, Responsibility, Relevance, and Reciprocity: What the 4 Rs of Indigenous Research Offer Toward Decolonizing a Mathematics Classroom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Working to decolonize one’s mathematics teaching practice can create tensions between honouring Indigenous ways of knowing and being and not appropriating or tokenizing Indigenous cultures. This paper describes a mathematics teacher’s path towards decolonization in her grade 6/7 classroom in Saskatchewan, Canada. Through self-study research, Giroux created a framework using the 4 Rs of Indigenous research (respect, responsibility, relevance, and reciprocity), posing the research question: What is the value of my 4 Rs pedagogical framework for my professional growth as I aim to disrupt power and control in my mathematics classroom? Data, collected through a research journal, critical friend interviews, and student work, were examined using thematic analyses. Findings point to several semantic and latent themes of noticeable importance in disrupting power and control, while strengthening relationships, within the classroom. In this paper, the themes are presented and discussed in the context of decolonizing the mathematics classroom and for grounding the teaching and learning of mathematics in Indigenous perspectives and pedagogies based in the 4 Rs framework. Implications of the research include possibilities for K-12 educators to embrace and engage with Indigenous perspectives toward disrupting traditional power norms, promoting student agency, and strengthening relationships in the classroom and beyond.
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 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 | 0.013 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".