Supporting Students with Visual Impairments Who Are Culturally and Linguistically Diverse: The Role of the Cultural Liaison Within Educational Teams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: This study explored the role of the cultural liaison on educational teams that support families from culturally and linguistically diverse (hereafter, diverse) backgrounds who have a child with visual impairment. Methods: Focus groups were conducted with teachers of students with visual impairments, cultural liaisons, and classroom teachers, all who had worked with diverse families and students with visual impairments in an urban Canadian school district. Transcripts of the focus groups were coded for common and divergent themes within and across groups. Results: The groups identified a need for better understanding the role of the cultural liaison, clearer communication in the translation process including messages that may be lost in translation, and more opportunities for teachers of students with visual impairments and classroom teachers to connect with cultural liaisons to develop cultural competency. Discussion: The findings highlight the importance of having access to cultural liaisons and the need to make sure all members are clear about their roles. Cultural liaisons may need additional support about resources from teachers of students with visual impairments, while those same teachers would benefit from understanding the parent perspective on visual impairment. Implications for practitioners: Classroom teachers and teachers of students with visual impairments may want to seek out professional development from cultural liaisons. Teachers of students with visual impairments can provide cultural liaisons with a list of common visual impairment terms to allow time for appropriate translation and questions before a meeting. Cultural liaisons may want to ensure that differing cultural viewpoints of the family are communicated clearly to team members and vice versa.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".