Understanding Teachers’ Information Needs, Perceived Competencies, and Information Seeking Behaviours for Special Education Information
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The focus of this research is to better understand teachers’ information needs, perceived competencies, preferences for information sources, and information seeking behaviours related to special education by level of teaching experience. A mixed methods approach to research was employed using a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods. Eighty-five elementary and intermediate school teachers (J.K. through Grade 8) from Catholic and public school boards in southern Ontario, Canada, completed an online survey questionnaire. Semi-structured, follow-up interviews were then conducted with 11 teachers to further explore the issues. The participants were classified into three experience level groups (i.e., novice, intermediate, and expert teachers) based on 9 indicators of teaching and special education experience and expertise. The participants’ special education information needs were coded to the Council for Exceptional Children’s (CEC) 10 Professional Standards for Special Education (2009) to better understand how teachers with different levels of experience perceive their special education needs and to examine how their needs relate to the CEC’s Professional Standards. The semi-structured interview data was used to provide further illumination on the results of the survey data. Overall, teachers’ most frequently identified needs involved instructional strategies (including differentiated instruction) and how to create inclusive classrooms. More experienced teachers were better able to identify and articulate their special education needs. Distinct patterns of source preferences were found based on teachers' experience levels. Novice teachers most preferred face-to-face consultations with knowledgeable experts and least preferred sources of information that were passive, individual activities such as searching online; reading professional books, magazines, and research resources; or watching videos. They reported being less successful at finding the specific information they needed from these sources. Expert teachers favoured research and professional literature and online sources. Teachers also indicated a preference for one source of online special education information and reported only using a few websites as their main point of access for special education information: school board websites, the Ontario Ministry of Education website, and a variety of disability association websites. The ultimate goal of this research is to provide information on how to better support and meet teachers’ information needs related to special education.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,022 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».