A Program Evaluation of an Inclusive Model for Training Pre-Service General Education Teachers to Work with Students with Special Needs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate a program using an inclusive model (e.g., course work in special education and special education liaison support) on the beliefs, practices, and skills of pre-service middle and secondary general education teachers (n = 26) regarding their preparedness to work with students with special needs. A pre- and post-survey, adapted from the General Education Teachers’ Beliefs and Attitudes toward Planning for Mainstreamed Students (G-TBAP; Schumm, Vaughn, Gordon, & Rothlein, 1994) survey, was administered to participants in an urban research university in the Southeast. The graduate students were resurveyed while they were completing their practicum experiences. Statistically significant results were found in the post-survey indicating the inclusive model was effective for this program. Multiple dependent t-test analyses indicated that the overall beliefs, practices, and skills were improved for participants, "t(25) = -4.156, p = 0.000. Limitations and future directions are discussed.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".