MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411204087 · doi:10.5206/eei.v35i1.18549

Training Pre-service Teachers to Fulfill Special Education Responsibilities in Ontario, Canada: A Content Analysis

2025· article· en· W4411204087 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Kianna Mau, Alexandra Minuk, Jordan Shurr

Bibliographic record

VenueExceptionality Education International · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTeacher Education and Leadership Studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContent analysisTraining (meteorology)PedagogyService (business)Teacher educationPsychologyProfessional developmentSpecial educationContent (measure theory)Mathematics educationMedical educationSociologyBusinessMedicineMathematicsSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As inclusive education becomes the norm in Kindergarten to Grade 12 classrooms, general education teachers have a growing need for knowledge and skills in inclusive and special education (ISE) practice. While many early-career teachers pursue professional development in special education, pre-service teacher training plays an essential role in preparing educators to support the diverse needs of exceptional learners. In this study, we examined ISE-related course content from pre-service–teacher-education programs in Ontario, Canada. We analyzed a total of 1,011 course descriptions from 14 provincially accredited pre-service–teacher-education programs using summative content analysis. Our findings have shed light on what might be missing in Ontario pre-service–teacher-education programs: (a) a need for exceptionality-related content in core curriculum courses, (b) consistency in ISE training across grade-level divisions, and (c) training specific to effective collaboration with educational assistants. We highlight the need for policymakers to mandate strong ISE integration into pre-service–teacher-education programs.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.211
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.188
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.229 · 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.

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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExceptionality Education InternationalSame topicTeacher Education and Leadership StudiesFrench-language works237,207