Accessibility in Teaching Assistant Training: A Critical Review of Programming from Ontario’s Teaching and Learning Centres
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is increasingly understood that university education must be accessible to persons with disabilities. The responsibility to make the university accessible is arguably shared by all of us and yet, the extent to which it has become fully accessible is certainly suspect. By undertaking qualitative, discursive analysis of websites, online texts and other materials provided by Ontario’s teaching and learning centres, this paper seeks to do two things. First, it provides a critical overview of the types of training currently available at Ontario universities for teaching assistants on accessibility and teaching. This review will outline initiatives directed towards compliance with Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) requirements, those focused on education and advocacy (as well as areas of overlap) and broader equity training which encompasses accessibility. Second, this paper, considering the content of the reviewed material and informed by critical disability studies, offers up an articulation of future directions for research, writing, advocacy, and training on teaching assistant development on accessible teaching. Il est de plus en plus accepté que l’éducation universitaire doit être accessible aux personnes handicapées. Certes, la responsabilité de rendre l’université accessible est partagée par tous et pourtant, la mesure dans laquelle celle-ci est devenue totalement accessible est sans nul doute suspecte. Après avoir entrepris des analyses qualitatives et discursives de sites web, de textes en ligne et d’autres documents fournis par des centres d’enseignement et d’apprentissage de l’Ontario, on cherche dans cet article à accomplir deux choses. Tout d’abord, l’article présente un aperçu critique des types de formation disponibles à l’heure actuelle dans les universités de l’Ontario à l’intention des enseignants auxiliaires sur l’accessibilité et l’enseignement. Cet examen va décrire les initiatives mises en place en vue de répondre aux exigences de la Loi sur l’accessibilité pour les Ontariens handicapés, ainsi que celles qui se concentrent sur l’éducation et la promotion des intérêts (et sur des domaines qui se chevauchent) et celles qui se rapportent à une formation plus vaste sur l’équité qui englobe l’accessibilité. Ensuite, prenant en considération le contenu des documents examinés et des études critiques sur la situation des personnes handicapées, l’article offre des propositions de directions futures pour la recherche, la rédaction, la promotion des intérêts et la formation en vue du développement professionnel des enseignants auxiliaires en matière d’enseignement accessible.
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 | 0.034 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.035 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".