Meeting vision needs of children with special educational needs: Case studies of the impact on behaviour and academic achievement
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Accessible summary Children with learning disabilities often have problems with their eyesight. We tested the eyes of nine children and checked whether they needed glasses or bigger print. We found that when they got what they needed to see better, their behaviour improved. This is important because children with learning disabilities need to be able to see as well as anyone else. Abstract Background Children with identified special educational needs are at higher risk than other children of having visual needs that are not adequately met. This paper evaluates the impact of addressing the visual needs of these children on behaviour and academic achievements in a number of case studies. Method Nine children (4–11 years of age, from four classrooms), who attended a special school in a medium‐sized town in the UK, took part in the case studies reported here. The children were part of the Special Education Eyecare (SEE) Project. Six of the children were selected because they had unmet visual needs at baseline and required bespoke interventions to meet these needs; the other three children were selected because their visual needs had been met prior to the study and no further adjustments were needed. Repeated direct observations were conducted to assess the impact of the intervention on the children's behaviour in the classroom. The observer was “blind” with regard to the visual needs of the participants. Parents and teachers completed the Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) for each child, before and after the intervention. School files were analysed to assess effects on academic achievement. Findings Subsequent to the implementation of bespoke visual adjustments, for example prescription of spectacles or changed seating in classroom, significant and sustained changes were observed with regard to the children's behaviour (i.e., increased engagement with peers and/or teachers and decreased off‐task behaviour). Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire scores showed improvements regarding total difficulties, emotional difficulties, hyperactivity and prosocial (kind and helpful) behaviour. Due to highly variable data in school files, the effects on academic achievement were inconclusive. Discussion The case studies reported here explored changes in behaviour of children with identified special educational needs after their visual needs were met. Findings show a positive overall effect on the behaviour of these children.
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.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».