Student stories dealing with issues of justice in mainstream and Sudbury school contexts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The research examines issues of justice in both a mainstream and Sudbury school contexts through a narrative research of students' perception of justice and injustice in situations at their primary and high schools in the Netherlands.By examining this neglected voice in the public debate of justice procedures in school, I clarify how their conception of justice and injustice informed significant turning points in their lives.The life history of four participants with diverse backgrounds studied in this master's thesis includes a nonviolent understanding of situations at school that were resolved from a retributive or restorative justice framework.I used two major qualitative method analyses: (1) thematic content analysis and (2) critical incident analysis.Data have been collected from eight semi-structured interviews with four students who experienced both mainstream and Sudbury school contexts.This master's thesis challenges the assumption that adults should be fully authorized to make fair judgements in school and students are incapable of making sound judgements.The research shows that the students' conception of justice and injustice entail five interrelated features, including (1) student's interest, (2) their ability to participate in situations involving justice, (3) their acceptance of authority, (4) their perception of procedural justice and ( 5) their perception of just outcomes.These students experienced that some of the limitations imposed by some adults appeared to be unjust.These recurring instances contributed to a situation in which they dropped out of the mainstream school.School contexts in which students perceived to be treated justly appear to affect multiple areas of their lives positively.This implies that justice issues are subjective in nature, socially created, and depend on collective agreement of the implemented rules and procedures that regulate justice in school.By considering issues of justice in mainstream schools from a student's perspective who has also experienced an alternative school context, a refreshing exploration of justice issues in a mainstream school context was possible.This includes the reconsideration of the ways justice practices affect students' lives, the complexities involved in students' perspectives on justice and injustice, and the way we design justice procedures in school.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".