Children’s Books about Special Needs Used as a Mediating Tool, The Perceptions of Inclusion Classroom Teachers in Mainstream Schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study addresses the disparity between the awareness of teachers in special education frameworks regarding the important role of books as a mediating tool and their reticence to use this tool. Twenty three interviews were conducted in two stages: before and after using the book Shelley the Hyperactive Turtle in the classroom. Interviews attempted to examine teachers’ perceptions regarding the use of the book with a student population that has the disorder featured in the book. Even while teachers expressed awareness of the importance of books as a mediating tool, they explained their reasons for refraining from integrating books that are not part of the official curriculum in the course of their work. The findings indicate the need for a novel approach regarding the inclusion in the curriculum of books that feature learning disorders, while simultaneously addressing teachers’ emotional needs and expanding their knowledge of the bibliotheraptic process. In this manner, books, which have a recognized and distinct mediating role, can become a significant and useful tool for teachers.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".