Towards more inclusive schools: a scoping review of school-based disability awareness programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This scoping review explored the current worldwide landscape of school-based disability awareness programs that aim to increase students' positive attitudes towards their peers with disabilities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The scoping review followed Arksey and O'Malley's (2005) six-stage process, revised by Levac et al. (2010). A comprehensive search was completed in seven electronic databases from September 2011 to June 2023. Data management was supported by Covidence review software. Descriptive statistics summarised frequency counts on program development, delivery, and components. Thematic analysis was used to generate themes related to educational content. RESULTS: Seventy-two studies from 26 countries, published in six languages, were included in the review. Programs were delivered across various school settings (kindergarten, primary, and secondary schools) by teachers, individuals with disabilities, researchers, and other professionals. Secondary school activities emphasised social contact and simulations, while kindergarten and early elementary programs used vicarious contact methods through storybooks and videos depicting characters with disabilities. Educational content included general knowledge of disability, feelings towards people with disabilities, and skills to interact with disabled peers. CONCLUSIONS: There is a wide range of school-based disability awareness programs that can inform strategies and approaches to support inclusion of students with disabilities.
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 | 0.018 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".