A collaborative approach to enhance quality education in Foundation Phase inclusive classes in South Africa
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Teachers in South African schools have the mandate to work together with parents to implement the inclusive education policy. However, schools and families continue to work as separate entities, and this negatively affects the support provided to learners experiencing barriers to learning. Insufficient collaboration between teachers and parents has hampered the ability to support learners who experience barriers to learning. Barriers to learning must be identified, and learners must receive collective support as early as in the Foundation Phase so that barriers do not continue to affect learners’ learning. Notably, there is minimal support for such learners in disadvantaged schools due to limited collaboration among support stakeholders. This study investigated how a collaborative approach can be useful to enhance effectiveness in teaching Foundation Phase inclusive classes. The study was underpinned by Ubuntu theory. Purposive sampling was used to select participants, and qualitative research methodology based on an interpretive paradigm was used. Focus group interviews, involving the recording of the discussion, were used to generate data. The findings of the thematic analysis revealed the importance of collaboration among teachers, parents, and other stakeholders to achieve and enhance effective inclusive teaching in the Foundation Phase. We conclude that locally available assets that reside in parents within the school environment should be used to promote inclusive teaching and learning.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it