Disabled Students in Fieldwork Education: Academic Coordinators’ Perspectives on Accommodation Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Learning in a fieldwork setting is a requirement of many professional postsecondary programs, and prominent in health professions education. However, fieldwork education requirements can create additional challenges for disabled students. Academic coordinators, who are responsible for students’ placements, hold an important role in supporting disabled students in their fieldwork education. Nevertheless, studies on the roles and experiences of academic coordinators supporting students who require accommodations are limited. This exploratory study examined the perspectives of academic coordinators regarding their practices in supporting disabled students in health professions programs. The study employed a mixed methods design. Fifteen academic coordinators from occupational therapy programs completed a quantitative survey. Then, five of the academic coordinators participated in semi-structured interviews that supported the interpretation of the quantitative results. Academic coordinators faced complex barriers in providing disabled students the support they needed to succeed in fieldwork. Two main themes emerged: (1) ACs constantly navigated tensions with institutional norms regarding fieldwork and (2) ACs manage fieldwork accommodations within ever-changing human dynamics and social norms. Collaborative practices with fieldwork educators enabled the academic coordinators to overcome some of these barriers and create a more inclusive fieldwork education experience for disabled students. Further institutional and community resources are required.
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 | 0.021 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".