International Comparisons of Inclusive Instruction among College Faculty in Spain, Canada, and the United States.
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
Across the globe, students with disabilities have been increasing in prevalence in higher education settings. Thus, it has become more urgent for college faculty to have a broad awareness of disability and inclusive teaching practices based on the tenets of Universal Design. In this study, we examined faculty attitudes toward disability-related topics and inclusive teaching practices and their implementation of these practices using the Inclusive Teaching Strategies Inventory (ITSI). We examined responses from faculty in the United States, Spain, and Canada in order to better understand the phenomenon of inclusive teaching across international contexts. Findings show Canadian faculty tend to positively endorse legal mandates (e.g., the provision of accommodations and disability-related laws) the most; whereas American faculty tend to positively endorse inclusive teaching practices the most. With regard to implementation, there were mixed results among the three countries, and no significant differences between Spanish, Canadian, and American faculty on incorporating inclusive features into the classroom environment. Implications for practice specifically related to disability services personnel and faculty outreach strategies 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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it