¿Aulas inclusivas o excluyentes?: barreras para el aprendizaje y la participación en contextos universitarios
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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 it