Is Inclusion for All? A Presentation on a Literature Review of Teacher and Student Perception on Inclusive Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The adaptation of inclusive education is changing the way in which students with special educational needs are taught in various parts of the world. This educational reform was based on social justice goals and on effectiveness studies, yet the outcomes of newer studies raise questions regarding the adequacy of the feedback received from educators and students concerning the effectiveness of inclusive education. This inadequate or distorted feedback may interfere with the development of modifications to inclusive education, which could improve a student’s education and quality of life. This paper will present a literature review of post-1999 literature on educator and student perception of inclusion within their educational institution, and in the process, examine factors that affect educator’s expressed opinion of the inclusion reform. It also examines the social and academic impact of inclusion on special education need students, and briefly explores the state of modern special schools. While most educators report a positive attitude towards inclusion, they are less inclined to support the concept of “full inclusion”, and cite a variety of personal, student, and environment related problems associated with the inclusive classroom. Innovative strategies such as in-class collaboration were found to be effective in promoting academic and social progress for all students in inclusion. Schools that failed to make adjustments to teach the prescribed curriculum after adopting inclusion resulted in low social development for special needs students. A summary of the limitations to inclusive research, and recommendations for future reforms to inclusion, will also be presented.
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 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 | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".