Cognitive Meaning of Inclusive Education of Students with Disability in Regular Education Teachers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Successful inclusive education strongly represents the development of society, promoting better living conditions for students with disabilities.
 Objective: This study explored the mental representation of knowledge of inclusive education and disability held by regular education teachers with experience in this field.
 Methods: First, participants performed a conceptual definition task through the Natural Semantic Networks technique. Teachers defined ten target concepts related to the cognitive schema of inclusive education. They had 60 seconds to define each target, using verbs, adjectives, nouns, and pronouns, after rating the definers’ quality to conceptualize the target. Subsequently, the authors implemented a constraint satisfaction neural network to simulate the school inclusion schema's behavior and carried out a chronometric cognitive analysis using data from the first study.
 Results: Participants organized the educative inclusion meaning on four dimensions (definition, actors' qualities, stakeholders, and inclusion program effects). However, some concepts about school integration and conventional education appeared in the educative inclusion schema. Further, computer simulations showed that participants seem to have an internal locus of control over inclusive actions. Generally, experience with students with disabilities promotes the formation of a favorable educational inclusion schema. However, even though participants in this study have experience in inclusion programs, they are still constructing the inclusive education schema.
 Conclusion: The cognitive evaluation provides useful information to empower teachers to be aware of their knowledge and biases on inclusive education and the importance of their work in the success of school inclusion programs.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".