Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study attempted to discover teachers' perceptions of the success of inclusive education - inclusion of learning disabled students - in the junior high schools of Westwind School Division #74. Several areas were explored. They included the extent to which inclusion is implemented across the Division, the teachers' perceptions of the academic and social success of the learning disabled students, the teachers' perceptions of the effects on the regular students, the teachers' evaluation of the extent to which factors stated in literature as being essential to the success of inclusion were present in their schools, and the changes needed for more successful inclusion. The sample for this study comprised all of the junior high teachers in the division who taught one or more of the core subject areas (science, social studies, mathematics, language arts) in Grades 7-9. All completed a written survey, then a sub-group were interviewed. The results demonstrated that although 82.93% of the teachers believed the regular classroom was the rightful place for the learning disabled students to learn, 80.48% felt that they were unable to meet the needs of these students. To improve the quality of the inclusive programming the respondents felt they required more planning and collaboration time, an increase in knowledge regarding programming adjustments for learning disabled students, reduced class sizes and other professional development activities to meet their individual needs.
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 | 0.018 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.043 | 0.007 |
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".