Parent-School Collaboration and Its Role in Facilitating Research Participation of Students with mild Intellectual Disability: A Cross-Sectional Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Inclusive education emphasizes the need for students with intellectual disabilities (ID) to participate actively in all academic activities, including research. Despite this ideal, students with mild intellectual disabilities (MID) often face obstacles that hinder their engagement, revealing significant gaps in equal access to educational opportunities. Previous studies suggest that collaborative partnerships between parents and schools can play a vital role in promoting meaningful participation; however, there is limited empirical evidence on the effectiveness of these collaborations in supporting research engagement among students with MID. Purpose of the Study: The primary objective of this study was to investigate the impact of parent-school collaboration on research participation among students with MID. In particular, the study sought to determine how teacher involvement, parental engagement, school-home communication, and parental provisions collectively and individually predict students' participation in research activities. Methods: This research employed a cross-sectional survey approach, gathering data from 437 students with mild intellectual disabilities enrolled in public schools in Cross River State, Nigeria. A quantitatively validated questionnaire was used to ensure the reliability and validity of the data collected. Analyses included descriptive statistics, one-sample t-tests, and multiple regression to examine the relationships and predictive power of the identified factors. Findings: The findings revealed that students with MID generally demonstrated low levels of participation in research activities. Collectively, parental engagement, teacher involvement, school-home communication, and parental provisions influenced research participation. Among these factors, teacher involvement was the most influential predictor, followed by parental engagement and provisions, whereas school-home communication contributed the least. Conclusions: The study highlights the vital role that both educators and parents play in promoting research participation among students with MID. The results have implications that extend beyond the local context, highlighting global challenges in ensuring equitable academic opportunities for students with intellectual disabilities and underscoring the importance of promoting inclusive education practices. Implications: From a theoretical perspective, the study enhances existing models of inclusive education by clarifying the relative impact of school- and family-based support on research participation. Practically, it highlights the need for targeted teacher training, structured programs to promote parental involvement, and enhanced school-home communication channels. Policymakers are encouraged to adopt inclusive research participation guidelines to cultivate supportive learning environments, ultimately enhancing students' academic development, engagement, and long-term outcomes.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".