¿Aulas inclusivas o excluyentes?: barreras para el aprendizaje y la participación en contextos universitarios
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study is to define the barriers that university students have in the classroom, mainly referring to: spaces and resources, contents, methodology and participation. Therefore, we have taken as our starting point the proposal of the Universal Instruction Design (UID), developed at the University of Guelph (Canada) and adapted in Spain by Dalmau et al., (2015). Participants were 652 students belonging to three Teacher Training and Education Faculties participated in the study: two from Spain (Universidad Complutense de Madrid and Universidad Autónoma de Madrid) and one from the USA (Northern University Arizona). The data has been collected through a questionnaire designed ad hoc by the research team in the areas indicated. The results show the main barriers that students experience in the classroom. The discussion focuses on the need to introduce strategies in the professional development of university teacher training in order to design the content they teach in accordance with the principles of universal design for teaching.
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 | 0.027 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".