MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409182043 · doi:10.53935/2641533x.v8i2.347

Mentorship of Special Education Teachers of Students who have Treatment and Rehabilitation Needs

2025· article· en· W4409182043 on OpenAlexaffabout
Justin Heenan, Tiffany L. Gallagher

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Educational Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCollaborative Teaching and Inclusion
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMentorshipRehabilitationMedical educationPsychologyMedicinePedagogyMathematics educationPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the role of mentorship in enhancing the self-efficacy of special education teachers working with students requiring treatment and rehabilitation. It also explores how mentorship supports the implementation of the new Ontario Language (OME, 2023) curriculum within Education and Community Partnership Programs (ECPP). A qualitative case study approach was used. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with three experienced mentors and one mentee from a publicly funded Ontario school board. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis to identify key themes related to mentorship and teacher self-efficacy. The study identified four major themes: teacher isolation, challenges of language and literacy instruction and the new Ontario Language curriculum, congruous mentorship support in ECPP settings, and informal communications and responsive mentorship. Findings highlight the importance of trust-building and technology in mentorship. This study is relevant to educators, policymakers, and administrators in special education, mentorship programs, and alternative education settings. It provides insights for improving teacher support systems within ECPP and similar learning environments. This study contributes to the limited research on mentorship for special education teachers in ECPP. It highlights the role of mentorship in overcoming professional isolation, improving instructional practices, and integrating technology to enhance teacher development.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.149
Threshold uncertainty score0.270

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.417 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Educational StudiesSame topicCollaborative Teaching and InclusionFrench-language works237,207