Technology Supporting Written Productivity in Children with Learning Disabilities: A Critical Review
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
BACKGROUND: Occupational therapists working with school-aged children are often in the position of recommending technology to enhance written productivity. The outcome of using technology on the writing of children with learning disabilities has not been reviewed critically, and this knowledge is necessary for evidence-based practice. PURPOSE: To review evidence regarding the use of technology to support written productivity in children with learning disabilities. METHODS: A systematic search of seven databases, plus a manual search, retrieved 864 papers published between 1985 and March 2012. Twenty-seven papers (28 studies) met inclusion criteria. FINDINGS: The evidence is of a moderately low level and results are inconclusive; however, trends suggest a positive influence of some technology on children's performance and behaviour. Methodological limitations exist in most studies and the description of specific technology intervention is often combined with teaching instructions. IMPLICATIONS: The available research is encouraging, but high-quality investigations with newer technologies are needed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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