Teacher Candidates Mentoring Disabled Students in a Community Practicum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How does working with university students with disabilities influence the practice of teacher candidates (TCs) in Bachelor of Education (BED) programs? How do experiences in mentoring disabled students and helping them to self-advocate influence TCs’ understanding of inclusion and their development of teaching strategies and skills? Our paper explores these questions through a research project involving a community practicum for TCs, in which they studied theory and pedagogy related to mentoring and self-advocacy skills, and applied their learning by mentoring disabled students and implementing self-advocacy workshops. Our theoretical and conceptual framework consists of three components embedded in an Experiential Learning format: (a) Lizzio’s (2006) Five Senses of Student Success, a model used to inform the design and delivery of transition strategies in postsecondary education; (b) Peer Mentoring; and (c) Self-Advocacy. Data included group and individual interviews, questionnaires, and weekly reports. Results of our qualitative data analysis indicate that participating in peer mentoring and self-advocacy training was an effective way for teacher candidates to develop positive attitudes toward inclusion of students with disabilities and acquire teaching skills and strategies. Further, these activities supported the transition to University for students with disabilities.
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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".