Nanadagikenim: Incorporating Indigenous Ways of Knowing into the Social Work Curriculum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reflects on the process of developing an undergraduate social work course curriculum that sought to re-imagine a traditionally Eurocentric format into a blended Indigenized learning experience. Two researchers came together in partnership to determine if students would have a richer learning experience if Indigenous Ways of Knowing (IWK) was included in the delivery of a standard social work curriculum. Much like the alliance model of the “Kanien’kehaka Kaswenta (Two Row Wampum)” (Sinclair et al., 2009, p. 237), this curriculum development sought to respectfully integrate IWK and Western knowledge in order to provide an alternative, inclusive educational experience for students. Students provided qualitative reflections on the course that embodied Indigenous values such as relationality, reciprocity, responsibility, and respect. This paper is a reflection and in-depth analysis of the driving forces, inspiration, and process the Indigenous author went through to re-imagine a transformative, decolonized educational experiences for students.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.037 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".