MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972242286 · doi:10.2511/rpsd.27.4.227

Instructional Strategies and Educational Outcomes for Students with Developmental Disabilities in Inclusive “Multiple Intelligences” and Typical Inclusive Classrooms

2002· article· en· W1972242286 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer Katz, Pat Mirenda, Stan Auerbach

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCollaborative Teaching and Inclusion
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyInclusion (mineral)Theory of multiple intelligencesMathematics educationSpecial educationClass (philosophy)Observational studyDevelopmental psychologyTypically developingPedagogySocial psychologyAutismComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.092
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.358 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch and Practice for Persons with Severe DisabilitiesSame topicCollaborative Teaching and InclusionFrench-language works237,207