MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133247565 · doi:10.5539/ies.v7n13p206

The Readiness of Special Education Trainees to Teach in Inclusive Program

2014· article· en· W2133247565 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Safani Bari, Mohd Hanafi Mohd Yasin, Mohd Nazri Hamzah

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Islamic Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLikert scaleSpecial educationChristian ministryPsychologyInclusion (mineral)Medical educationMathematics educationDescriptive statisticsScale (ratio)Sample (material)Teacher educationPedagogyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The training of Special education teachers have been given attention by the Ministry of Education, Malaysia. Since 1996 Special education was given the same priority as other areas in the development of education in Malaysia. In order to implement effective teaching and learning in inclusive program, teachers should be prepared and understand about the program. Therefore, this study is aimed to investigate the knowledge and attitude of special education student teachers to teach in inclusive education programs. This study used questionnaires as an instrument and a sample of 80 trainees from Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris. The design of this study was descriptive by using Likert Scale which is tabulated in percentage, frequency and mean score. Based on the data analysis, it is found that the percentage and the readiness of special education trainees are at a high level. However, innovation in teaching and practical training still need to be provided sufficiently in order to provide an opportunity for trainees to get hands on experience.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.424 · 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

Citations6
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Education StudiesSame topicEducation and Islamic StudiesFrench-language works237,207