An Investigation of Teachers’ Attitudes towards Children with Asperger’s Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this research is to measure the teachers’ awareness of, and attitudes towards children with Asperger’s Syndrome (AS, hereafter). The main intention was to sample primary school teachers; however time constraints dictated that the 30 teachers (male and female), who participated in this study, were postgraduate students and teaching staff. The instrument used in this study was a questionnaire that consisted of 34 items; 15 on attitude and 15 on knowledge. The independent variables were gender, age and experience of teaching children with Special Educational Needs; the dependent variables were knowledge of and attitude towards children with AS. The responses were subjected to a range of tests which, in the first place, showed there were some problems with the design of the questionnaire, also that responses were not a normal distribution, so the chosen tests were non-parametric, mainly Mann-Whitney U test. Very few differences in knowledge or attitude were found among the different groups of teachers. No significant differences in either knowledge or attitude were found in age or gender. The one interesting finding was that whilst teachers with experience of teaching children with Special Educational Needs (SEN, hereafter) had more knowledge, they were no more likely to have positive attitudes than others.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".