A study of public school teachers’ opinions on inclusive education
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The opinion of public schools teachers towards inclusive education was studied. The predominantly positive modality of their attitude to inclusion, the primacy of factors for improving the quality of inclusive practice (a systematic approach to its organization and the creation of support services), the priority of problems related to their own professional activities over others were revealed. The methodological basis of the study was the constructive paradigm and the activity approach. To collect empirical data, a mass online survey was used, conducted using the Yandex.Forms Internet service and organized with the assistance of the Chelyabinsk City Committee for Education in June 2023. The questionnaire developed by the authors’ team and used for the survey included nine questions aimed at identifying the teachers’ opinion. The authors came to the following main conclusions. The analysis of the survey data showed that teachers have different attitudes towards the idea of implementing inclusive education in a mainstream school. The majority of teachers surveyed (63.8%) support it, of which more than a half of the respondents see the idea as promising (51.3%). However, one quarter of the respondents (25.2%) have a negative attitude towards it, considering it nonviable, and 10.9% see it as another paper project. The teachers’ opinion is based on their attitude towards inclusive education and their assessment of the factors that will improve its quality, constructive proposals and identified problems. The study and comparison of its results with data from other surveys showed that the teachers’ opinion towards inclusion is changing – a positive trend is observed: comparing the results of previous studies, the proportion of teachers who have a positive attitude towards inclusive education is increasing. The attitude of teachers towards inclusive education is often positive, but every third does not support the idea. This attitude is not affected by factors of teachers’ participation in the inclusive educational process and their length of service at school. At the same time, among those working on adapted programs, those who are negative and indifferent to inclusion are almost twice as many, which indicates the presence of problems in this process. Among the proposed factors influencing the improvement of the quality of inclusive education, teachers gave priority to the system of support for inclusive education built in the school. The overwhelming majority of teachers (regardless of their opinion) do not deny the role of the school administration and the management decisions it makes. However, no category of teachers names the administration among the primary factors in improving the quality of inclusive practice. Most of all, in inclusive education, teachers are concerned about the problems of their own activities (motivation, stimulation, management of a mixed class, class size, lack of assistants, etc.) within the framework of inclusion, and the problems of interaction between participants in this process, the presence of structures – administrative and specialized – recede into the background and the following planes.
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 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
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; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».