Disability-Related Accommodations in Rehabilitation Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Students with disabilities are underrepresented in post-secondary education, including health professional programs. They experience higher rates of attrition and lower rates of graduation compared to their non-disabled peers. Some research indicates that educators engage in ableist practices preventing students with disabilities from successfully completing these programs. Educators report difficulty meeting the myriad of professional and educational expectations in professional programs. Rehabilitation professions provide a unique opportunity for research given their emphasis on participation and inclusion. Purpose: The purpose of this program of research was to explore the educator perspective in the accommodation of students with disabilities in professional rehabilitation programs. Method: There are three studies that constitute this thesis. The first study is a critical discourse analysis in which the most relevant texts in the accommodation process were examined. The second study is an institutional ethnography informed study, whereby university-based educators were interviewed about their actions in the accommodation process of students with disabilities. The final study is an interpretive description that involved interviews with fieldwork educators who provide disability-related accommodations to students in their work settings. Findings: The texts involved in the accommodation process revealed varied and conflicting discourses and subject positions for educators in rehabilitation programs. University-based educators identified tensions reconciling the focus on students in the post-secondary education context with the focus on clients in the healthcare context, for which they were preparing students. However, fieldwork educators were generally at ease with the accommodation process as they integrated accommodations into the broader goal of learning. Implications: This body of work provides insight into the reasons why educators may struggle with the accommodation process in professional rehabilitation programs. It also identifies potential solutions for educational programs and future directions for research.
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 | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".