Instructional Strategies and Educational Outcomes for Students with Developmental Disabilities in Inclusive “Multiple Intelligences” and Typical Inclusive Classrooms
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Pedagogical practices based on Gardner's (1983) theory of multiple intelligences (MI) are often cited as potentially facilitative of inclusion of students with developmental disabilities (Armstrong, 1994; Eichinger & Downing, 1996; Falvey, Givner, & Kimm, 1996). However, no research to date has examined this relationship. The purpose of this study was to examine the engaged behavior and social interactions of 10 students with developmental disabilities in two types of inclusive classrooms–those that ascribed to MI pedagogy, instruction, and assessment, and those that used no specific educational theory or approach to instruction. The study was intended to be exploratory in nature to generate hypotheses for future investigations. Data were collected using MS-CISSAR (Greenwood, Carta, Kamps, & Delquadri, 1997), a software program for gathering and analyzing observational data in classrooms. Results suggested that the experiences of the participants in both typical and MI-inclusive classrooms were more alike than different. Participants in both types of classrooms were engaged primarily in whole-class, independent seatwork, and traditional classroom activities, and were engaged less frequently in small groups or multiple response activities. However, participants were observed more frequently to be engaged in multiple response activities in MI classrooms, and in both noninstructional time and individual seatwork activities that were different from those of peers in typical classrooms. The participants in MI classrooms spent more time interacting with their typical peers, whereas those in typical classrooms spent more time interacting with adults during 1:1 activities that were different from those of their peers. The results are discussed in terms of their educational and research implications, limitations, and suggestions for further research.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,009 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle