Rivers of identity and cultural landscapes: A journey of creating culturally relevant and sustainable pedagogy based on identity constructions depicted in student written spoken word poetry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract If culturally relevant and sustainable pedagogy (CRSP) is intended to base education within students' experiences of culture, then a method is required to bring these experiences to the teacher's attention. As a potential method for bringing to light these experiences, the research question is explored: in what ways does student-written spoken word poetry depict identity constructions in a manner that supports the creation of Culturally Relevant and Sustainable Curriculum? Also examined is the question: to what extent and in what ways do spoken word poetry workshops contribute to the development of a classroom culture based on mutual understanding of cultural experiences? Content analysis of 55 student poems, student/teacher interviews and a pre/post questionnaire provide the data for this research. Findings displayed that identity constructions of Northern California urban high school students' spoken word poetry illuminated specific instances of relationships to culture. Poems far surpassed interviews and questionnaires in regards to details of students' cultural identities, which illuminates that an art form facilitating personally intimate spaces for expression is well suited to communicating relationships to culture. Student interview responses affirmed the capacity of spoken word poetry to transform the priorities of the classroom culture to value empathy and a thirst to understand peers' relationships to culture. Limitations arose in that detailed relationships to culture presented in student writing are too specific to construct a curriculum relevant to the entire class. The wealth of information present in poems implies utility of spoken word poetry as a tool for culturally relevant curriculum development. This study points the way to future longitudinal projects that assess the effects of curriculum developed from culturally relevant identity constructions present in student poems. Key words: Culturally Relevant Pedagogy, Curriculum Development, Spoken Word Poetry, Classroom Culture, Urban Youth
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".