EXPERIENCES THAT SHAPE THE DEVELOPMENT OF INCLUSIVE INSTRUCTION IN PRESERVICE TEACHERS: AN INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Preservice teacher education programs are vital in teachers’ development of instructional practices for inclusive classrooms. In previous research, preservice teachers in Canada had higher scores on measures of experience with people with disabilities when compared to those in Germany. The current study investigated the proposition that differences existed because of experiences of inclusion in the respective countries. Participants were 18 Canadian preservice teachers from faculties of education in Ontario, Canada and 29 German preservice teachers from a Bavarian university. A Group Concept Mapping (GCM) technique was employed. Both groups identified Practicum Experiences, Education Program, Past Jobs, and Personal Life Experiences as contributing to the development of their inclusive practice. Only the Canadian sample identified Mentoring Relationships and Professional Development. Differences and similarities in teacher education programs are highlighted as possible contributors to the differences in Canadian and German preservice teachers’ perceptions of experiences useful for shaping their instructional practice.<p> </p><p><strong> Article visualizations:</strong></p><p><img src="/-counters-/edu_01/0946/a.php" alt="Hit counter" /></p>
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 | 0.012 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".