Preservice Teachers’ Attitudes Toward Inclusive Education Policy in the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The attitudes of 224 preservice teachers from eight universities in the United States were measured to determine if participants’ sentiments, attitudes, and concerns about inclusion can be positively affected through a single course, i.e., using pre and post data gathered with one instrument. There were significant differences between a number of institutions’ pre and post attitudes, sentiments, and concerns that likely stem from variations in the curricula and timing of the individual courses. Key demographic variables appeared to significantly account for the wide range of responses in sentiments, attitudes and concerns in both the pre- and post-training surveys. The percent variance explained by each demographic variable indicates the most influential factors were the level of confidence in one’s ability to teach in an inclusive setting, the candidates’ level of interactions with persons with a disability, previous training related to working with persons with a disability, knowledge of legislation and policy regarding inclusion, and in their previous experience teaching students with disabilities. Legislation and policy can easily be taught in inclusive programs, but important factors relating to confidence and experience with persons with a disability require "real world", structured opportunities to promote inclusion.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".