Promoting classroom inclusion for children with disabilities in rural South India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explored teachers' perception of the current state of classroom inclusion for children with disabilities in rural South India. Identification of facilitators and barriers to classroom inclusion, through consultation with teachers, informed the development of a school inclusion awareness program. This qualitative study utilized semi-structured focus groups with teachers at public and private schools in rural South India. Thematic analysis and interpretive description were applied to analyze responses and situate results within the context of rural South India. A total of 18 teachers participated in three focus groups. Three common themes emerged from the data: 1) Perceptions of disability impact inclusion; 2) Individualized education as a strategy for inclusive education and 3) Differing needs for inclusive education training. Findings suggest that current societal attitudes and education systems in India are inherently exclusionary to children with disabilities. Teacher-reported perceptions and experiences provide valuable insights for the development of a school awareness program addressing various types of disabilities, as well as inclusive education training targeted at evidence-based individualized education strategies. • Current societal attitudes paired with rigid teaching practices in India create an education system that is exclusionary to children with disabilities, negatively impacting enrollment and classroom inclusion. • Inclusive education training for teachers is essential for successful implementation of individualized educational programs for students. • Teachers would benefit from a school inclusion awareness program along with specific training on the impacts of cognitive disability on function and academic performance. • Special educators and pediatric rehabilitation professionals have the skills and clinical knowledge to generate school inclusion awareness programs that provide evidence-based strategies to support children with disabilities in the school setting.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".