Investigating the Attitudes of Elementary School Teachers, School Psychologists and Guidance Research Center Personnel on the Process of Preparing the Individualized Educational Program and Challenges Faced during the Related Process.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Th is study aims to analyze attitudes of elementary school teachers, school psychologists and guidance research center personnel regarding developing an individualized educational program (IEP) process as well as challenges faced during related process, according to several variables. Th e study included 201 participants who were working in several districts of Ankara province. Th e Attitudes towards Development Process Scale and Challenges during Development Process Scale were used in this study. Th e scales were developed and validity and reliability of them have been investigated by researchers. Results have shown that, with exception of age variable, attitudes with respect to development process and challenges faced varied according to post as an elementary school teacher, school psychologist or guidance research center personnel as well as to variables such as institution participants worked in, previous involvement in in-service training and previous participation in development. While terms of in-service training sessions did not lead to a signifi cant difference in attitudes, it proved to be a variable causing signifi cant diff erences in terms of challenges faced. Findings regarding attitude diff erences across variables revealed that gender [t(201) = .29; p > .07] and participation in in-service training programs [t(78) = 1.83; p > .07] did not lead to a signifi cant diff erence on attitudes whereas age [F(2-198) =7.67; p .09], whereas age [F(2-198) =3.78; p Key Words Individualized Educational Program (IEP), Team, Developing Process, Attitudes towards IEP, Guidance and Research Centers. Liability to develop individualized educational programs (IEP) to meet educational requirements of children with special needs have been introduced in several legislations. Th is liability is provided under USA Education for All Handicapped Children Act dated 1975, Canada School Act dated 1995 and UK Education Act dated 1996 (Fiscus, & Mandell, 1997; T.C. Basbakanlik Ozurluler idaresi Baskanligi, 2005). Taking into consideration studies regarding development and implementation in Turkey, it is observed that such studies are rather new and that development and implementation for individuals with special needs were introduced through Decree Law no 573 enacted in 1997. Th rough this Decree Law, right of education was provided to all individuals with special needs so that they could benefi t from educational facilities (MillI Egitim Bakanligi [MEB], 1997; Sucuoglu, & Kargin, 2006). In aftermath of Decree Law dated 1997, Regulation on Special Education Services dated 2000 defi ned in its article no 62. According to this defi nition, is the special curricula developed for an individual in need of special education, which is approved by his/her parents; being developed in line with needs of individual as well as teacher and parents, including also supportive education services in accordance with designed purposes. Article 63 of abovementioned regulation provides for setting up of IEP Development Teams. …
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".