Generating new knowledge for the field of deaf/hard-of-hearing education: A meta-synthesis of case study research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This meta-synthesis uses descriptive and thematic analysis to explore the use of, and findings from, case study research in the field of Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing (DHH) education. Findings from these analyses provide the field of DHH education with knowledge about how case study has been utilized, ways case study can enrich future research, and descriptions of gaps in the research base. Descriptive analysis findings indicated the case study research approach has been used from 1979 to 2017. Such research has been published primarily in American Annals of the Deaf, utilizes largely interview and observation data collection methods, and is most frequently used for programme evaluation and examination of teacher beliefs and practices. Thematic analysis banded findings from 52 case studies into common themes, identified important considerations for the field, ways case study can enrich the field’s use of other research methodologies, and noted gaps in the knowledge base for the education of children and young people who are deaf/hard of hearing.
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 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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".