Views of Preservice Primary School Teachers’ on Inclusion and Differentiated Science Experiments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Today, individuals with special needs who are reported to increase each day are receiving education with their peers in general classes and are subjected to inclusive practices according to the developments in the field of special education and legal regulations. However, it is also reported that there are problems with special education in many countries. The goal of this study is to reveal the views of pre-service primary school teachers on inclusive education and science laboratory lesson taught with differentiated approach and contribute to the solution of problems in inclusive education to some extent. Study sample comprise 103 pre-service primary school teachers studying at the 2nd grade of a state university in İstanbul in 2017-2018 academic period. Quantitative data of the study carried out with pretest-post test control group random quasi-experimental pattern were published by Mertoğlu, Topçu in 2020 and only qualitative data are used in this study. Condition of inclusive students in the experiment group was mentioned only as an individual difference and science laboratory lesson was taught with differentiated approach for one term. Students in the control group took the science laboratory class according to the normal program. Data obtained with lesson evaluation form, inclusion question form and field notes were evaluated and interpreted with descriptive data analysis method. Research results show that students in both control and experiment group need to take training on inclusive education. It was found that students in experiment group gained an awareness of instructional adaptations while the views of students in control group about instructional adaptations were far from being relevant to inclusive education. Views of students in experiment group show that science lessons taught with differentiated approach contributed to them “to remove their prejudices against science, to learn and teach science”, “remove their prejudices against students with special needs”, “remove their feelings, attitudes and worries about inclusion” and “realize inclusive practices in science education when they become teachers”.
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 | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".