The Role of Instructional Assistants in Regular Classrooms: Are They Influencing Inclusive Practices?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The placement of instructional assistants to support students in inclusive environments has increased dramatically during the past two decades. Assignment of instructional assistants to regular classrooms has become a primary tool i n schools for the provision of inclusive placement of students with severe disabilities (Wolery, Werts, Caldwel l , Snyder, & Lisowski , 1995). The employment of instructional assistants has occurred with limited research and has been characterized as one of the least studied in special education (Jones & Bender, 1993; Giangreco, Edelman, Broer, & Doyle, 2001). Teachers and administrators are often reluctant to accept regular classroom placement for exceptional students without the support of an instructional assistant (French, 1999). Addit ional supports are deemed necessary because of safety, behavior, or curricular concerns. Parents have encouraged schools to provide the maximum resources available for their children (Mueller & M u r phy, 2001). The limited research concerning instructional assistants has been characterized by two themes: responsibilities and training. Gaps exist in the research on topics such as guidelines for hiring and supervising instructional assistants, acknowledgment of their work, and examination of interactions between i n structional assistants and students (Giangreco et al., 2001). Observational studies exploring interactions in the classroom have shed some light on the effect of the instructional assistant's role in inclusive classrooms. Young, Simpson, Myles , and Kamps (1997) reported that teachers' interactions with students wi th disabilities were infrequent, but increased when an instructional assistant was more than two feet away from the student. Giangreco, Edelman, Luisel l i , and MacFarland (1997) have described the close proximity of instructional assistants to students as hovering, noting that it may result in separation of exceptional students from their classmates and interference with peer interactions Marks , Schrader, and Levine (1999) interviewed instructional assistants and found that instructional assistants (a) assumed primary responsibility for i n clusion, (b) d i d not wish exceptional students to be a bother to teachers, (c) felt responsible for daily academic needs, and (d) were valued by teachers as an expert regarding the student.
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 | 0.007 | 0.102 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".