MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153390622 · doi:10.1111/1471-3802.12043

The impact of a teacher education course on pre‐service teachers' beliefs about inclusion: an international comparison

2013· article· en· W2153390622 on OpenAlexaff
Umesh Sharma, Laura Sokal

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Research in Special Educational Needs · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInclusion and Disability in Education and Sport
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInclusion (mineral)PsychologyTeacher educationMathematics educationMedical educationPedagogyTest (biology)Self-efficacyTeaching methodMedicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this comparative study, the impact of two stand‐alone university courses on pre‐service teachers' attitudes, concerns and teaching efficacy to teach in inclusive classrooms is examined. Twenty‐eight pre‐service teachers ( PSTs ) from A ustralia and 60 PSTs from C anada completed a survey at pre‐ and post‐stages of the course. It was found that after completion of the course, Australian participants' attitudes improved, their concerns declined, and they became more confident in their ability to teach in inclusive classrooms. Similarly, C anadian participants' concerns declined and their teaching efficacy improved, but they became more apprehensive about teaching in inclusive classrooms. Relationships among the three variables (attitudes, concerns and teaching efficacy) were examined at pre‐ and post‐test stages for both cohorts to understand how they interacted within each of the two countries. Implications of the findings for teacher education are discussed.

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)0.007
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.516
Teacher spread0.456 · 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

Citations156
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Research in Special Educational NeedsSame topicInclusion and Disability in Education and SportFrench-language works237,207