Instructional Strategies and Educational Outcomes for Students with Developmental Disabilities in Inclusive “Multiple Intelligences” and Typical Inclusive Classrooms
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
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.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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