Comparative outcomes of two instructional models for students with learning disabilities: inclusion with co‐teaching and solo‐taught special education
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
We compared two instructional models (co‐teaching inclusion and solo‐taught special education) for students with learning disabilities (LD) with regard to their effect on academic achievement and class attendance. Twelve inclusive classes (experimental group) and 13 special education classes (control group) participated in the study. In grade 1, there were eight inclusive classes and nine special education classes with a total of 353 students (195 without disabilities, 58 with LD in inclusion and 100 with LD in special education classes). The data were collected from academic tests. Although our results revealed no significant difference between the two models in terms of target population, objectives and assigned resources, significant differences were observed in the effects on student outcomes in reading/writing and on attendance, as the inclusion model was shown to be globally more effective compared with the special education setting.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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