Ideals and Realities of Inclusive Pedagogy-An Autoethnographic Reflection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis is an autoethnographic reflection of my inclusive practices during the fifteen years of my teaching experience as a teacher while an elementary teacher trainer. By reflecting and analysing through my critical incidents in the chapter “My Classroom Journeys” I tried to explore my differentiated strategies that I chose to support disabled children in order to reduce their learning barriers. In this study, I explored my attitudinal changes from a regular teacher to more an inclusive teacher. My attitude changed into an inclusive teacher. I noted my struggles in the classroom and the way I overcame them in the form of anecdotes. These anecdotes helped to solidify my ideas. My incidents most often were concerned with students’ understanding, classroom management, assessment, student behaviour, relationships with students, and student motivation. Real classrooms are no longer a homogeneous group because every child is different. Disability studies empowered me to have more awareness about the ideological aspects of inclusive pedagogy which I described in chapter 6. In this chapter I added the ‘Realities of My Inclusive Pedagogy’. Here I tried to uncover the genuineness of my classroom environment in the form of barriers that I experienced as an inclusive teacher while implementing my differentiated strategies. I hope that this study can increase our knowledge and understanding of the realities of inclusive pedagogy in the Indian context and it revealed the barriers that are affecting disabled children and their supports when they are in inclusive classrooms. I also hope that by telling my stories, the readers of this autoethnography, particularly the teaching community, can connect and slowly change their perceptions towards disabled children more positively in the inclusive classroom with the overall goal of removing existing barriers.
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 | 0.013 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".