Understanding teachers' perceptions of the motor difficulties of children with developmental coordination disorder (DCD)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Children with developmental coordination disorder (DCD) are often identified by classroom teachers and the identification process relies heavily on teachers' perceptions. The literature would suggest that teachers' perceptions may be influenced by a child's gender, behaviour and the type of motor problem they demonstrate. To date, the influence of these factors on teachers' perceptions of children with DCD has not been empirically tested. AIM: This study investigated whether child gender, behaviour and type of motor problem influenced teachers' ratings of concern and importance of intervening for children with motor difficulties. SAMPLE: One hundred and forty-seven teachers of children from 6 to 9 years of age participated in this study. METHOD: Hypothetical case scenarios were developed that experimentally manipulated the factors of child gender (male/female), behaviour (disruptive/non-disruptive) and type of motor problem (fine motor/gross motor). Teachers were given two case scenarios of the same gender (that varied by behaviour) and rated: (a) their degree of concern about children's motor problems and (b) how important they thought it was for the child to receive intervention for that problem. RESULTS: The effect of child gender on teachers' perceptions depends upon the type of motor problem. While child behaviour had a marginal influence on teachers' perceptions, interestingly, teachers appeared to recognize motor problems only in the absence of disruptive behaviour. The type of motor problem demonstrated also influenced teachers' perceptions. CONCLUSION: This study provides preliminary insight into factors that influence teachers' perceptions of children with DCD with clear implications for the classroom identification of children with DCD.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".