(Un)learning to teach: a narrative inquiry into the experiences of Canadian teacher-returnees from Northeast Asia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Teachers who have decided to teach in foreign cultures and school cultures have taken steps to change their professional landscapes. They must adapt to working with students and colleagues who may have different perspectives on teaching and learning. This shift in personal and professional context may lead to the creation of new teacher identities, resulting from a transformation in teachers' cultural identities. This investigation explores the cultural and identity impact of intercultural teaching experiences and examines the potential of such curricular situations for contributing to multicultural education and educational globalization. This research is a self-study narrative inquiry with 3 co-participants, following the research tradition of Connelly and Clandinin (Connelly & Clandinin, 1988; Clandinin & Connelly, 2000). The field texts for this study comprise my stories of experience and those of my co-participants which we encountered in schools as students, student teachers, and teachers in Canada and either Hong Kong or Japan. I collected the experiential stories for this study via five interviews, individual reflective writing assignments, and through participant observation at Bay Street School. Examination of my co-participants' and my own stories of experience have led me to uncover transitions in our identities via our cross-cultural experiences. I have also gained insight into how upon Canadian reentry our hybrid identities enable us to interpenetrate intercultural teaching methods within multicultural curricular situations. As a result of the findings from this study, I recommend the addition or expansion of various forms of intercultural teaching to the curricula of teacher education programs to potentially enhance multicultural education in Canadian schools. Additionally, I suggest globalization efforts through intercultural teaching as a potentially beneficial means of educating Canadian society about other cultures to prepare for an increasingly culturally diverse society, and to meet the growing needs of a shrinking, interconnected world.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| 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".