New Teacher Perceptions of Inclusive Pedagogies: Designing New Future for the Changing Classroom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our perceptions of knowledge attainment have changed (Bezemer & Kress, 2010). The type of students our teachers once were is vastly different from the students they currently teach. We need our next generation to thrive in a dynamically, interactive world saturated with opportunities for meaning making (Kress & Selander, 2012). Our current students are responsible for continuing our society, but that does not mean we need them to become us (Gee, 2009). Rather desperately, we need them to be thinkers and expressive in a variety of modes. The world will be different when they take their rightful place as the next generation of leaders, and so too must their thinking be different (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000). This explanatory mixed-method study (Creswell, 2013; Mertens, 2014) involved an investigation into perceptions of new teachers regarding inclusive pedagogies like Universal Design for Learning (CAST, 2011). It specifically discusses the contemporary thinking of 44 new Ontario teachers regarding inclusive pedagogies in their teacher education as well as their relative intent to utilize them in their practice. This study reveals a distinct tone of skepticism and provides suggestions for the continued improvement of teacher education programs in this province.
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 | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".