Pathways of Change Agents: A Pedagogical Possibility for Critical Consciousness Development in Youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a society stratified by race, gender, religion, disability, and many other social positions, people have differential and unequal life opportunities. A pluralistic multicultural approach fails to recognize this systemic injustice and even contributes to perpetuating it by not addressing this problem. Therefore, acknowledging and challenging the structural factors that oppress the marginalized and minoritized people is imperative to achieving a more just and better society. This qualitative case study aimed to understand how to promote critical consciousness through an educational practice at schools. Accordingly, I examined a junior-high elective in Calgary, the Agents of Change, in which students identified a social problem that affected their communities and took action against it, with the focus on how this course facilitated the development of critical consciousness in youth. I interviewed the teacher and two students who engaged in the course for the 2019-2020 school year and investigated the course-related documents created by the participants. The findings demonstrate the development of critical consciousness in the students, which include: gaining a more contextual understanding of social problems; establishing a specific concept of activism based on their own life experiences and expertise; obtaining a stronger sense of self-confidence to bring about positive social changes; and acknowledging more social justice communities around them. How the teacher strove to facilitate the students’ growth and what contextual factors around the school and the curriculum were considered are also discussed in detail.
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 | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".