Teachers' attitudes towards inclusion in physical education: An eye-tracking study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Teachers have expressed negative attitudes towards inclusive physical education (PE), leading to the irregular inclusion of students with disabilities (SWD). Guided by the Elaboration Likelihood Model, the objectives of this study were to: a) examine the effect of information from Opheas Steps to Inclusion (SI) document on teachers attitudes regarding inclusive PE, and b) examine the association between attention, cognitive processing, relevance, and attitude change. Teachers (N=50) were exposed to information from the SI document. Attention data were collected via eye tracking technology. Attitudes significantly improved from baseline to post-information (t(49) = -3.16, p < .05), and from baseline to the two-week follow up (t(41) = -2.04, p < .05). Attention (B=.16, p<.01) was a significant predictor of attitude change, R2=.63, F(4,42)=16.70, p<.01. Teachers attitudes improved after attending to information from the SI teaching resource, which suggests that the resource may be valuable for enhancing teachers attitudes toward inclusive PE.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".