Examining the inclusion experiences of students with intellectual disabilities : a study focusing on the transition from elementary to secondary school
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transitioning from elementary to secondary school is a major event in adolescents' lives and can be associated with academic, social, and emotional challenges (Shaffer, 2005; Sirsch, 2003). Considerably less research has focused on the transitional experiences of students with intellectual disabilities (lD) as they enter secondary school and the role of educational inclusion in this process (Noland, Cason, & Lincoln, 2007). Conceivably, students with ID who leave inclusive elementary schools, where they have been educated alongside their peers without ID, and who enter segregated secondary educational placements may experience unique social and emotional challenges (Farmer, Pearl, & Van Acker, 1996; Fryxell & Kennedy, 1995; Shaffer, 2005). This study examined the transitional experiences of 6 students with ID and the role of educational inclusion, with a focus on elementary to secondary school transitions from inclusive to segregated settings and vice versa. This study included the collection of multiple sources of data. Semi-structured interviews with 6 caregivers and students with ID were conducted. Students' Individual Education Transitional Plans were discussed in caregivers' interviews to determine how they shaped students' educational inclusion experiences (Ontario Ministry of Education & Training, 1999/2000/2004). Parts ofthe following questionnaires were "qualitized" (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998) and administered orally: "Youth Self-Report" (YSR; Achenbach, 2001 c) and "Child Behaviour Checklist Caregivers Form" (CBLC/6-18; Achenbach, 200la). The findings of this study contribute to the literature on educational inclusion by highlighting the positive/negative social and emotional impact of congruent and incongruent transitional experiences of students with ID and the role of educational inclusion.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".