A systematic review of the application of the teacher self-efficacy for inclusive practices scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to identify the scientific publications that evaluate the application of the Teaching Effectiveness Scale for Inclusive Practices (EEDPI). A systematic review was conducted to find out how many research studies have applied the Teaching Effectiveness Scale for Inclusive Practices. The research found that the EEDPI is a translation of the Teacher Efficacy for Inclusive Practices (TEIP), which was used in studies of teacher self-efficacy for inclusive practices in 2013 in four countries-Canada, Australia, Hong Kong, and Indonesia, and reapplied in 2020 in Japan and Brazil, 2021 in Saudi Arabia and Brazil, and 2022 in Brazil. The TEIP is an instrument composed of 18 questions classified into three dimensions: inclusive teaching strategies, effectiveness in behavior management and effectiveness in collaboration. The Brazilian version of the TEIP is composed of 16 items and is adapted with respect to semantic, conceptual, cultural and linguistic equivalences.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".