Professional Development in Indigenous Education: By Teachers, for Teachers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many school boards have been developing Indigenous frameworks and funding Indigenous programming as a response to the 94 “Calls to Action” published by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015). The actions of these school boards are a form of reconciliation. Within the Southern Alberta School Board (SASB, a pseudonym), there are strong policies in place that support Indigenous students; these policies ensure the students never have to experience the unfair treatment that past generations did through the residential school system. Teachers in this school board are also supported through professional development programs to improve their practice. However, these professional development opportunities are typically one day events run by an expert, with the expectation that the teacher will then be able to apply what was given with little to no trouble. This Organizational Improvement Plan (OIP) will focus on Crowfoot Elementary School (CES), a school that recently experienced a large turnover of teachers. These new teachers were culturally different from the Indigenous students that they came to be teaching; therefore, they were not equipped with the best strategies to manage negative behaviours exhibited by the students due to inter-generational trauma. This OIP will look to increase the capacity for teachers new to Indigenous settings to take control of their own professional development. This will be achieved by drawing from culturally relevant leadership and trauma informed practices that are connected to transformational leadership. These styles are affiliated with Indigenous knowledge through their connections to agency, collegiality, reconciliation, and decolonization.\nKey words: New teachers, decolonization, professional development, transformational leadership, culturally relevant leadership, trauma informed practice, Indigenous
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".