How important is practicum to pre-service teacher development for inclusive teaching? Effects on efficacy in classroom management.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sixty pre-service teachers were surveyed about their confidence, concerns, and efficacy for inclusive classroom teaching before and after a course on inclusive education. Some students experienced a practicum in an inclusive setting alongside the coursework, and some students did not. Both groups made significant gains in all dependent variables and their subscales from pre- to post-treatment. However, the students who experienced a practicum in an inclusive setting developed greater teacher efficacy in classroom management than those students with no practicum. Given the importance of successful classroom management to teacher retention and student success, the findings support the importance of high-quality inclusive practica as an essential feature of effective inclusive teacher preparation programs. Nous avons fait une enquête auprès de soixante enseignants avant l’emploi; les questions portaient sur leur niveau de confiance, leurs préoccupations et leur efficacité à créer une salle de classe inclusive avant et après un cours sur l’éducation inclusive. Certains étudiants ont fait un stage dans un milieu inclusif en plus de leur travail de cours, d’autres n’ont pas suivi le stage. Les deux groupes ont réalisé des progrès importants relativement à toutes les variables et leurs sous-échelles entre le pré- et le post-traitement. Toutefois, les étudiants ayant passé par le stage dans un milieu inclusif sont devenus plus efficaces dans la gestion de salle de classe que ceux n’ayant pas fait le stage. Compte tenu de l’importance d’une bonne gestion de classe dans le maintien à leur poste des enseignants et dans la réussite des élèves, les résultats de cette étude viennent appuyer le rôle d’un stage de qualité dans un milieu inclusif comme composante essentielle des programmes de formation des enseignants.
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 | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".