MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978967652 · doi:10.5430/wje.v4n6p42

The Use of Technology to Support the Learning of Children with Down Syndrome in Saudi Arabia

2014· article· en· W1978967652 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Areej Alfaraj, Ahmed Bawa Kuyini

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Education · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAssistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtant taxonTechnology integrationPsychologyEducational technologyPerceptionMobile deviceMedical educationInformation technologyMobile technologyArabicApplied psychologyMathematics educationComputer scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The research employed a survey questionnaire to explore the type of technological tools available in schools forchildren with Down syndrome (DS) in Saudi Arabia, perceptions of teachers toward the benefits of technology-assistedlearning for DS students, the skills that children with DS need to use technology, the challenges of using technology forchildren with DS, and what can be done to improve the use of technology for children with DS. The data from the 20teachers in two schools were analysed using qualitative data analysis procedures, which yielded several themes.The findings show that the sampled schools have different types of technologies but computers, iPads and projectorsare the most commonly used devices, although there are other devices such as DVD players, mobile phones, andloudspeakers among others. Many teachers understand the benefits of using technology to support children with DSand their views are supported by studies conducted in the past on the same area as presented in extant literature. Thekey challenges to using technology as identified by the teachers include lack of resources such as computers, lack ofsoftware designed in Arabic, and lack of training for teachers to enable them to support children with DS.Recommendations are discussed.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.390

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.354 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations17
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of EducationSame topicAssistive Technology in Communication and MobilityFrench-language works237,207