Perspectives of Canadian Teacher Candidates on Inclusion of Children with Developmental Disabilities: A Mixed-Methods Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This mixed-methods study reports on the perspectives of 208 teacher candidates on teaching children with developmental disabilities and delays (DD) in inclusive classrooms from Kindergarten to Grade 6. The questionnaire included items on demographics, experience, knowledge, and feelings of competence, advocacy, and sense of efficacy. Open-ended questions addressed challenges and successes experienced when including children with DD. Findings suggest that qualitative items elicited more positive responses than traditional questionnaire items and elicited more nuanced and sophisticated understanding of the challenges and successes associated with social inclusion. In the qualitative data, respondents showed understanding of dilemmas associated with inclusive education. Feelings of competence about teaching children with DD and about collaborating with colleagues predicted general sense of efficacy scores; those with experience advocating for individuals with disabilities reported greater knowledge, experience, and confidence related to teaching students with DD. Knowledge, experience, and confidence were highly correlated. Implications for teacher education are discussed.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it