Primary/Junior Pre-Service Teachers’ Knowledge, Attitudes, and Perceptions of Including Students with ADHD in General Education Classrooms: A Mixed-Method Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Negative attitudes towards students with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) are a lingering challenge in the education system. It is important to examine pre-service teachers’ perceptions of ADHD in an educational setting due to the influential roles of teachers on students. Pre-service teachers’ knowledge and attitudes, as well as their perceptions of ADHD, have powerful influences on the ways in which teachers' pedagogical decisions affect their interactions and relationships with students. The purpose of the study was to explore pre-service teachers’ knowledge of ADHD and their attitudes and perceptions towards including ADHD in the general classroom. The purpose of this study was informed by two research questions: Do coursework and practicum experience influence pre-service teachers’ knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of including students with ADHD in the general education classroom? What underlies a change in pre-service teachers’ knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of including students with ADHD in the general education classroom? A mixed-method study was conducted using a sequential explanatory design, examining 28 primary/junior pre-service teachers from a university, in a city in Ontario. Pre-test and post-test data were collected through questionnaires, responses to vignettes, and in-depth individual interviews. Questionnaire analysis indicated four significant differences from time 1 to time 2. Three individual interviews were conducted; overall pre-service teachers had positive attitudes towards students with ADHD, but lacked content knowledge and felt there were weaknesses in their knowledge due to their teacher education program design. This study provides an in-depth understanding of pre-service teachers’ knowledge, attitudes (what they think or feel) and perceptions (their understanding or interpretation) of students with ADHD. Findings of this study could be of interest to Ontario curriculum developers, policy makers, teacher educators, and practicing teachers.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".