MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Measuring teacher efficacy to implement inclusive practices

2011· article· en· W1726725194 on OpenAlexaffabout
Umesh Sharma, Tim Loreman, Chris Forlin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Research in Special Educational Needs · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTeacher Education and Leadership Studies
Canadian institutionsConcordia University of Edmonton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScale (ratio)Sample (material)Inclusion (mineral)Self-efficacyPsychologyReliability (semiconductor)Teacher preparationPerceptionMedical educationTeacher educationMathematics educationMedicineGeographySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to develop an instrument to measure perceived teacher efficacy to teach in inclusive classrooms. An 18‐item scale was developed on a sample of 607 pre‐service teachers selected from four countries (Canada, Australia, Hong Kong and India). Factor analysis of responses from the sample revealed three factors: efficacy in using inclusive instruction, efficacy in collaboration and efficacy in dealing with disruptive behaviours. The alpha coefficient for the total scale was 0.89. Alpha coefficients for the three factors ranged from 0.85 to 0.93. Reliability analysis for the total scale as well as factors for each country suggested that the scale provides a reliable measure of pre‐service teacher perceptions of self‐efficacy for inclusion across different countries.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.634
GPT teacher head0.580
Teacher spread0.055 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations744
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Research in Special Educational NeedsSame topicTeacher Education and Leadership StudiesFrench-language works237,207