Influence of Regular Teacher Development Programmes on Implementing Inclusive Education in Public Primary Schools, Morogoro Municipal, Tanzania
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the influence of regular teacher professional development programs on implementing inclusive education in public primary schools in Morogoro Municipal, Tanzania. The study also assesses how continuous professional development affects their ability to accommodate and engage students with diverse educational needs within mainstream classrooms. To this end, the study adopted the Social Learning Theory, proposed by Canadian-American psychologist Albert Bandura in 1977. This theory posits that learning occurs through observation, imitation, and modeling, influenced by factors such as attention, motivation, attitudes, and emotional conditions to frame the analysis. A convergent research design under a mixed research approach was utilized, employing both probability and non-probability sampling techniques to select respondents Data were collected from five (5) Heads of Schools (HoSs) and fifty (50) Teachers using interview guides and questionnaires. The study found that professional development for teachers plays a crucial role in promoting effective inclusive education practices, curriculum development, and student achievement. However, the study also highlighted a limited understanding of how these practices are implemented and interact within the school settings to support inclusive education. The hypothesis test indicated a significant momentous relationship between teacher professional development programs and the implementation of inclusive education in public primary schools. The study concluded that school administrators should focus on improving this professional development to enhance inclusive education practices. The study also resolved that effective professional development and inclusive education practices jointly create a supportive school environment that improves teaching and learning outcomes for all students. Therefore, the study recommended that the Ministry of Education and PORALG organize capacity-building programs for HoSs and teachers, focusing on inclusive education skills and effective implementation strategies.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".