MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2600875723 · doi:10.18357/jcs.v39i3.15236

Are We Ready? Early Childhood Educator Students and Perceived Preparedness for School-Based Special Education

2015· article· en· W2600875723 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Kimberly Maich, Carmen Hall

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Childhood Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational and Psychological Assessments
Canadian institutionsFanshawe CollegeBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreparednessCurriculumPsychologyContext (archaeology)Scale (ratio)Medical educationEarly childhood educationCertificationMathematics educationPedagogyMedicinePolitical scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

his paper describes a small-scale, single-region research project to investigate early childhood educator (ECE) students’ understanding of special education in the kindergarten context that has been in place in Ontario schools since 2010. The perceived preparedness of five ECE students on placement in kindergarten classrooms was evaluated through pre- and poststudy questionnaires and through interviews with five Ontario-certified teachers teaching early learners and experienced with mentoring ECE students. Results demonstrated that ECE students’ self-ratings of combined knowledge, exposure, and experience with school-based special education did not significantly change, and these student rankings fell in the very low to moderate ratings overall (i.e., scores of 1 to 2 on a 5-point scale). Comments from the Ontario-certified teachers emerged in three main themes, including (1) strong foundations (i.e., skills and knowledge); (2) education for all (e.g., students who may not yet be formally identified); and, (3) universal frameworks (i.e., for all students with diverse needs). Suggestions for ECE preparedness and ECE curriculum changes are included.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.471
Threshold uncertainty score0.830

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.117
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.331 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Childhood StudiesSame topicEducational and Psychological AssessmentsFrench-language works237,207