Exploring Inclusive Education from the Perspective of Preservice Teachers
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the nature of preservice secondary teachers’ perceptions of the Individual Program Plan (IPP) process enrolled in a two-year Bachelor of Education program in a university in Eastern Canada. Teachers’ perceptions have been a vital feature in the successful implementation of the IPP process, and inclusion in general. Therefore, it will be crucial for educational leaders and stakeholders to have a clear understanding of preservice teachers’ perceptions of the IPP process and the factors that affect those perceptions prior to entering the profession. Results suggested that secondary preservice teachers’ tended to hold generally positive perceptions of the IPP process. A majority of preservice teachers responded positively to statements regarding the feasibility and relevance of the IPP process and held moderately positive views regarding accountability to the child on the IPP and to the process. Findings indicted however, that a majority of preservice teachers reported feeling unprepared to participate in the IPP process. Recommendations for preservice teacher education are suggested.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it