First Nations Education : Curriculum Action Research for Change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Responding to Article 13 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (United Nations 2008), this research centred on the mobilization of Indigenous knowledge and epistemologies through the creation of Indigenous curriculum resource materials for an intermediate classroom in a First Nations school. This research is crucial because there is a gap between talking about Indigenous Knowledges and the transmission of Indigenous Intellectualism. Indigenous scholarship is now focused on developing Indigenous theoretical models to support identity resurgence, epistemologies, and practices within First Nations communities. This research integrates three Indigenous philosophical stances: Red Pedagogy, Resurgence, Radical Indigenism and four Stó:lō principles: Sxwōxwiyám [Ancient Narratives], Shxwelí [Understanding of Life-force], Shxwélméxwelh [Life-ways], Xwelméxwqel [The Language] to establish the framework for a theoretical model of Indigenous curriculum design (S'iwesá:ylhem [Teachings for the Children]). Using Curriculum Action Research (McKernan, 1998), Stó:lō specific curriculum resource materials were created and implemented. This case-study found that the primary factor in successful curriculum design and positive student engagement with the curriculum resource materials was relationship, especially with Stó:lō historian Naxaxalhts'i who has collected many of the sxwōxwiyám used in the content. In conclusion, this research offers five recommendations for educational researchers: (1) There needs to be further research into unpacking the Stó:lō intelligences embedded in sxwōxwiyám, (2) There is a need for curriculum action research that would work toward a coherent progression of Stó:lō sxwōxwiyám in the curriculum, (3) There is a need to create a Halq’eméylem dictionary for elementary students, (4) There are research opportunities to explore how to best establish technology infrastructures and utilize technology in curriculum resource development, and (5) There is a need for longitudinal research projects on Indigenous curriculum development and Indigenous curriculum resource materials development.
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 | 0.124 | 0.119 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.003 |
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".