Exploring Inclusive Educational Practices Through Professional Inquiry
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Porter, Gordon, Deidre Smith (Eds.). (2011). Exploring Inclusive Educational Practices Through Professional Inquiry. The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. 279 pages, ISBN 978-94-6091-556-7 (paperback), 978-94-6091-557-4 (hardback). Overview of the Book Exploring Inclusive Educational Practices provides an excellent framework for the important work of sustained reflection and implementation of inclusive education. Porter and Smith refer to inclusion, defined as all students, including those with disabilities and other special needs, are educated in regular classrooms with their peers in their community schools (p. 18/19), as being a pillar of education. They expertly weave 25 diverse case studies into a five pillared (to extend their metaphor) framework describing inclusive education. Pillar one asks readers to reflect on their commitment to inclusion--do we walk the talk of our values? Pillar two moves into practice--what does inclusion look like at the school level? What professional knowledge and practices are required to ensure that inclusion happens? Pillar three broadens to consider the entire school framework. What are the whole school level plans and practices required to make inclusion work? Pillar four aptly addresses the variety of typical challenges and barriers to making inclusive schools a reality. Pillar five addresses the role of parents, clearly respecting the critical role of parents at the heart of inclusive education. (p. 173) Providing an understanding of multiple perspectives. One of the major strengths of this book is its ability to raise the profile of the multiple perspectives of the variety of players who are required to make inclusive education work. Two vehicles provide these perspectives. First, the book provides case studies from the perspective of students, families, teachers, resource teachers and school principals, covering elementary and high school situations. These case studies provide excellent snap-shots of the lives of real people. The second vehicle to understanding perspectives comes from the various commentaries on each case situation. Commentators include the same roles as case study authors, but with more diversity. They are an international group: members of faculties of education, both professors and administrators; graduate students; leaders of community organizations; professional development consultants; and members of government ministries of education. The commentaries help the reader to develop new insights, understandings and questions. I often found myself wanting more details about the lives of the people involved in the cases, in order to reflect more deeply on strategies to resolve these challenging situations. Alas, books have limited numbers of pages. Raising the Bar The call to Raise the Bar (p.25) of expectations for educators, families and communities is excellent. More links to peer- reviewed research, regarding specific strategies, would help readers who wished to pursue their inevitable question of what do I do in my classroom/home tomorrow? Where can I begin? Some excellent strategies are shared, such as MAPs, but this area of the book could be expanded, perhaps with a reference list. …
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it