The Optimistic Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Studentswith 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 article reviews three studies that provide evidence that students with learning disabilities (LD) display optimistic academic self-beliefs, even in the face of relatively poor academic performance. In the fi rst study, a quantitative approach was used to explore the spelling and writing self-effi cacy of 133 adolescents with and without LD. Students with LD over-estimated their performance in spelling and writing. In the second study, a series of interviews with 28 adolescents with LD and 7 specialist LD teachers revealed that the students viewed themselves as low in academic optimism, whereas the teachers viewed the students as overly optimistic about academic tasks. A third study explored the academic motivation and procrastination of 208 undergraduates with and without LD, and found students with LD had moderate levels of optimism about academic tasks, but lower levels of optimism about self-regulatory capabilities. The paper concludes with a presentation of common and emergent themes from the three studies, and offers recommendations for practitioners and avenues 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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