“It isn’t the same for everyone”: Early childhood educators’ lived experiences with cultivating social inclusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children with disabilities are less likely than their peers without disabilities to exercise their rights to education and participation in their communities. Early childhood educators play a crucial role in ensuring that all children are included in daily activities and interactions to foster children’s wellbeing. However, educators receive minimal training on fostering social inclusion in early childhood settings. The purpose of this phenomenological study was to explore thirty-seven early childhood education professionals’ experiences and perceptions of cultivating social inclusion in the context of a training program called Building Friendships. The program involved participation in a series of training workshops aimed at fostering play and friendships in diverse and inclusive child care settings. Interviews were conducted to explore participants’ perceptions and experiences with social inclusion before and after training workshops. Educators delineated a range of issues pertaining to the quality of social inclusion, and additional training appeared to serve as a catalyst for reflection and practice changes which improved the social experiences of children with disabilities in their care. This study underscores the diverse understandings and experiences of educators with regards to social inclusion and benefits associated with providing opportunities for professional development which can promote best practices.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".