Confidence to Manage Learning: The Self-Efficacy for Self-Regulated Learning of Early Adolescents with Learning Disabilities
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 study examined the self-efficacy for self-regulated learning of 146 early adolescents with and without learning disabilities (LD). Results from the study showed that a 7-item self-regulatory efficacy measure demonstrated factorial invariance for the adolescent sample and also for a validation sample of 208 undergraduates with and without LD. Adolescents with LD rated their self-regulatory efficacy and reading self-efficacy lower than their NLD peers. Hierarchical multiple regression showed that self-regulatory efficacy made a significant contribution to end-of-term English grade after controlling for sex, SES, reading self-efficacy, and reading score. Finally, students with LD who scored low on self-regulatory efficacy were significantly more likely than their higher-scoring LD peers to have a low end-of-term English grade, although there was no difference on a reading performance score. Several suggestions for teachers working with adolescents with LD are provided, along with directions for future 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.
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 | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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