The co-development of a new inclusive pedagogical planner
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Typically, across Canada, curriculum and special education are separate and distinct branches within provincial departments of education. The development of two branches within one provincial department has created a challenge for classroom teachers expected to integrate provincial curricular and special education mandates. Some teachers have reported they grapple with “curriculum overload” (National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, 2010) while others feel “ill-equipped” to sustain an inclusive pedagogical practice (Black-Hawkins, 2010; Florian, 2008). The purpose of this qualitative collaborative action research study was to co-develop, with teachers, a new Inclusive Pedagogical Planner (IPP). A new IPP intended to support and guide teachers as they integrate provincial mandates regarding curriculum and special education. The central research questions for the study were (1) Can a new IPP, that is useful, practical, and supports and guides an inclusive planning process, be co-developed with classroom teachers, and (2) Can curriculum and inclusion be integrated into a new IPP that facilitates the development or advancement of an inclusive pedagogical practice? Recruited for the study as active collaborators were four middle-years teachers. The active collaborators engaged in every aspect of the study as they contributed to the design, implementation, and critical analysis of the new IPP. The findings initially revealed that this group of teachers grappled with curriculum overload and some felt ill-equipped as they developed or tried to sustain an inclusive pedagogical practice. However, as a result of being a collaborative member of this study and participating in the co-development of the new IPP they identified a positive change in their inclusive pedagogical practice. They also indicated that they benefited from having an opportunity to dialogue with their colleagues and reflect on their own theories and ideas about inclusion and their pedagogical practices regarding the curriculum. Opportunities for further development of the IPP and future research include (a) using new IPP as a teaching tool with undergraduate students, (b) implementation of the IPP with a larger number of participants spanning a broader range of grade-levels and years of teaching experience, and (c) the supporting binder could be enhanced with the addition of new resources.
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 | 0.027 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".