Students’ experiences of paraeducator support in inclusive physical education: helping or hindering?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Paraeducators are foundational to the success of inclusive education programs, yet little is known about how students experience their support over time. The aim of the study was to determine the meaning of the physical and symbolic presence of paraeducator support in physical education across elementary (approximately ages 6–11), middle (ages 12–14), and high school years (ages 15–18) for students experiencing physical impairment. Using an interpretative phenomenological analysis and life story research approach, data were retrospectively gathered as the participants looked back on their school experiences. The thematic analysis of one-on-one semi-structured interviews of five participants (3 women and 2 men), aged 18–30 years (average age 23) generated three themes. The themes were (a) initially I didn’t question their (in)action, (b) over time, their presence created social interaction barriers, and (c) blurred boundaries of friendship, independence, and interdependence. Relational ethics provided the conceptual framework for the study. In elementary school, the participants reflected on their impoverished engagement in physical education as their paraeducators looked on. In early middle school, the physical presence and over protection of paraeducators thwarted social skill development leading to social dependence, distancing the participants from their peers. Toward late middle school, the participants found themselves negotiating relational boundaries to gain independence yet preserve beneficial interdependence. In high school the participants lamented the loss of their paraeducators as valuable communication conduits, leaving them feeling abandoned. The participants recommended that during the elementary years paraeducators provide meaningful strategies for participation. Further, during upper elementary and middle school years, paraeducator support should be discretionary, with students (and parents) determining support requirements, in anticipation of an increasing need for autonomy during high school years.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".