Inclusive Education and Pedagogical Change: Experiences from the Front Lines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many educators hold beliefs that including students, at least to some degree, has academic and social benefits, however, they struggle with fundamental pedagogy. With a global shift from a segregated lens to that of an inclusive lens, special education teachers who once held positive beliefs towards segregated special education are now faced with a new reality of teaching students with disabilities in inclusive classroom settings. This paper highlights the experiences of ten educators who transitioned from teaching in a self-contained class to an inclusive class. Focus group and interview themes indicated that all had experienced a shift in their pedagogy- their overall beliefs and teaching methods- after they taught students with disabilities in inclusive classrooms. Despite their special education training, these educators were challenged by their own beliefs and expectations, the attitudes of others, and systematic barriers within the education system. Highlights of their change process include the positive performance of students with disabilities, the growth and development of the other students, and their overall pedagogical self-reflection. As a result, a framework, the Inclusive Educators’ Continuum of Change, was developed to highlight the change process and connect this research to the literature on inclusion and teacher change. This diagram can provide teacher educators a framework for discussing pedagogical change. Implications for professional development and teacher training for inclusive practice, as well as maximizing the educator skills in Professional Learning Communities (PLC) and mentorship opportunities will be highlighted.
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 | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".