Participatory workshops: hands-on planning for sustainable schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this exploration, participatory planning workshops are used to implement the Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) initiative in a grade six class in Winnipeg. The approach is an effective student-centered strategy that meets the needs of children with a range of learning abilities. The benefits of participatory planning workshops for students with special needs emerged as a key success of the process. Grounded in the principles of community engagement, this document connects children’s rights to citizenship with the need to engage children in planning for sustainable development. Semi-structured interviews were integral to understanding the unique needs of the participant class. Challenges that emerged during the parental consent and student assent process are examined and strategies for future interdisciplinary collaborations are identified. An extensive literature review explores the emergence of youth participation in planning and a range of best practices for engaging children in participatory student-led processes. This research investigates international strategies for implementing the ESD initiative and considers emergent best practices at student, institutional and government levels. Schools are examined as components of community infrastructure that influence neighbourhood design and shape development. As school infrastructure ages and school facilities are challenged to become more sustainable, engaging with school communities in planning, design, renovation or building will be an important skill for planning professionals. Developing the necessary knowledge, skills and values to engage children in planning processes is illustrated as an integral component of this process.
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 | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.004 |
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".