Creating a Responsive Society for Effective Implementation of Inclusive Education: The Case for the Adoption of the Socioecological Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inclusive education increases human capital such as knowledge, skills, social interactions, and health, which enhance individuals’ chances for higher earnings, social mobility, and sustainable growth within communities and countries. For inclusive education to be successful, a written plan or an individualized education plan has been advocated for. The concept of this plan defines special education programs, accommodations, and services that a school board will provide for students or the practice of helping students meet their educational goals through educational programs that modify certain course requirements to be either above or below age-appropriate, grade-level expectations, and the provision of alternative course or class expectations that help students acquire knowledge and skills that are not part of the curriculum. Therefore, using this plan, the proponents of inclusive education advocate for the inclusion of individuals living with physical and mental impairments, such as sensory or mobility limitations, intellectual disabilities, language disorders, and behavior disorders, to promote education access to marginalized groups in society. On the other hand, the opponents of inclusion education argue that the concept of a written plan, or an individualized education plan, seems ineffective and paradoxical to the general government’s policy on an inclusive classroom. A review of existing literature on inclusive education shows that the inconsistencies in both the concept and implementation of inclusive education are the outcomes of the dichotomy between an unresponsive society, which encourages a stagnant or ill-prepared system, and a rapidly evolving political correctness environment. As a way forward, we recommend the adoption of a social-ecological model for creating a responsive society for the effective development and implementation of inclusive education policies based on the findings of our consolidated literature review. Received: 19 May 2024 / Accepted: 27 June 2024 / Published: 8 July 2024
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 | 0.058 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.126 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.036 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.030 |
| Research integrity | 0.025 | 0.029 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".