Teaching Science Content and Practices to Students With Intellectual Disability and Autism
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
The purpose of this literature review was to synthesize recent research (2009–2018) for teaching science to students with intellectual disability and intellectual disability/autism. Authors identified a total of 15 studies; of these, 12 were determined to be methodologically sound studies using the Council for Exceptional Children quality indicators. Based on the methodologically sound studies, authors analyzed the evidence base of the instructional practices to teach science content and science practices to students with intellectual disability and intellectual disability/autism. Unlike previous literature reviews in which the focus has been on teaching science content, authors contribute to the literature on teaching science to this population by determining the evidence for teaching the science practices (e.g., asking questions, communicating findings). Resulting analysis was used to offer research-based recommendations for providing quality science instruction to students with intellectual disability and intellectual disability/autism. We conclude with limitations and possibilities for future research.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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