Exploring Inclusive Education from the Perspective of Preservice Teachers
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".