Self-Efficacy From the Perspective of Adolescents With LD and Their Specialist Teachers
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 used qualitative methodology to investigate the self-efficacy beliefs of early adolescents with learning disabilities (LD). We conducted a series of focus group interviews with 28 Grade 8 and 9 students with LD and individual interviews with 7 specialist LD teachers. Content analyses of the student and teacher data resulted in 2 a priori and 3 inductive themes: self-efficacy, calibration and levels of self-efficacy, students' self-awareness, attributions for failure, and problems and solutions. The students viewed themselves as low in self-efficacy and generally accurate in the calibration of their efficacy and performance, whereas the teachers viewed the students as overconfident about academic tasks. In contrast to the teachers, the students viewed verbal persuasion as a valued source of self-efficacy. Students attributed their failures to lack of effort, whereas their teachers attributed student failure to uncontrollable deficits. Problems and solutions related to student motivation were discussed from student and teacher perspectives.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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