Cognitive Algebra Underlying Special Education Teachers’ and Psychology Students’ Attitudes Towards School Inclusion of People with Intellectual Disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attitudes towards regular school inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities (ID) are affected by factors such as disability severity, educational level, and teacher experience. Nevertheless, the ways that teachers integrate these factors to form inclusion judgments remains unclear. The current paper explores what systematic cognitive algebra rules are used to cognitively integrate this set of inclusion factors by special education teachers and psychology students. To do so, 469 special education teachers and psychology students were asked to take part in two experimental cognitive algebra studies. In each study, participants had to read a set of school inclusion scenarios and rate the probability that a scenario actor with ID could be successfully integrated into a regular school program. To this purpose, factor effects on successful school inclusion and ID related to individuality, situational aspects, and contextual considerations (e.g., school environment, grade level taught) were explored. Results suggested that participants showed attitudes to school inclusion ranking from light to moderate positive values. Situational factors, as well as context factors, were judged to be more significant than other factors in elementary education. These factors were integrated by following a cognitive summative rule. Overall, judgment for successful school inclusion follows a summative rule to integrate sources of information. This rule is maintained irrespective of the disability under consideration. However, valuation of each source of information does depend on the type of the current study sample. Implications of these results for inclusion of people with disabilities in regular schools are discussed in this paper.
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".