Learning Experiences of Highly Able Learners With ASD: Using a Success Case Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Empirical studies investigating twice-exceptional students’ learning experiences and intricate needs remain scarce to date. Even though highly able learners with autism spectrum disorder (ASDs) demonstrate potential for high achievement and/or creative productivity, they also face potential psychosocial distresses such as anxiety disorders and poor self-concept. This study aimed to explore positive educational opportunities for highly able learners diagnosed with ASD. Using a success case method, the researchers invited two fifth-grade highly able learners with ASD to participate in this study. Data collection included interviews, observations, questionnaires, and supplementary artifacts. Adopting a general inductive analysis approach and a Glaserian coding paradigm, the researchers identified a core category, supportive school context (SSC), along with three subcategories: (a) curriculum flexibility, (b) strength-based approaches, and (c) safe environment. The findings could provide effective pedagogical strategies for teachers, school administrators, and parents. Furthermore, we rendered several suggestions 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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".