The Extent to Which Resource Room Teachers Making Use of Visual Organizations to Teach Students with Learning Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed at revealing the reality of teacher’s use of learning resources rooms of graphic organizers in teaching students with learning disabilities, and the difficulties the teachers face while teaching these students. The study sample consisted of 83 of resource room teachers in Irbid Directorates of Education schools, to achieve the goals of the study, a questionnaire of 28 items was developed; 16 were used to reveal the reality of teachers’ use of learning resources, 12 items were used to reveal the difficulties that limit the teachers’ use of learning resource rooms of graphic organizers. The study also attempted to find the effect of certain variables such as gender, scientific qualifications and years of experiences on the teachers’ use of learning resource rooms of graphic organizers in teaching students with learning disabilities. The results of the study revealed the following: 1) In terms of the use of graphic organizers, the average of the means was 2.13 with a low level, and in the terms of difficulties, the average of the means was 2.77 with a high level. 2) There were significant differences among the means due to gender and in favor of males; due to level of qualifications and in favor of high diploma and, master degree; and due to years of teaching experiences and in favor of those who taught more than 10 years. The study reported certain recommendations for professionals and researchers.
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 | 0.017 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".