Disability-Related Accommodations in Fieldwork: A Survey of Health Professional Educators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The number of students living with disabilities entering post-secondary education, including health professional programs (HPPs), is increasing. However, disabled students continue to experience challenges in both the on-campus and fieldwork components of these programs. The purpose of this study is to understand the experiences and perspectives of fieldwork educators to determine how they can be supported by HPPs when supervising students living with disabilities. An online survey was developed and circulated to fieldwork educators who supervise students in nine HPPs at McMaster University in Canada. Descriptive statistics and content analysis were used to analyze survey responses. The survey was completed by 42 respondents, 10 of whom reported living with a disability and demonstrated a nuanced understanding of accommodation issues. More than half of the total respondents reported they had supervised disabled students in fieldwork; however, only 12 received accommodation plans and evaluation occurred informally, if at all. Respondents requested training on how to accommodate specific student needs. Efficient processes are needed for educator training, and the involvement of educators is needed in accommodation development. Accommodations must be evaluated to ensure students have equitable opportunities for learning and assessment. Educators living with disabilities provide valuable insights on dismantling systemic barriers to inclusion.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".