Deconstructing residential immersive life skills programming through a pedagogical lens: mechanisms that can facilitate learning for youth with disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Residential Immersive Life Skills ( RILS ) programs are unique programs for youth with disabilities. Situated, experiential, psychoeducational and strengths‐based learning approaches expose youth to opportunities and experiences that can facilitate the development of adaptive behaviours. This study examined the pedagogy of RILS programs to facilitate life skills development in youth. This study draws on 25 qualitative interviews that were conducted with nine youth who attended one of three separate RILS programs. Interviews were conducted at three different time points: pre‐program, 3 months post‐program and 12 months post‐program. Data were analysed using a constructivist grounded theory approach. The analysis provided evidence of the intended learning approaches that are mobilised in the RILS pedagogy (applied mechanisms): situated and experiential learning and psychoeducational and strengths‐based learning approaches. The transcripts also uncovered three behavioural and emotional elements in the RILS pedagogy (implicit mechanisms): the power of (1) interpersonal connections; (2) culture of collective understanding; and (3) emotional contagion. Findings validated evidence of applied mechanisms and uncovered the hidden behavioural and emotional mechanisms in the RILS pedagogy. This in‐depth insight is central to further developing not only independence‐oriented life skills programs, but also broader education programs for youth with disabilities.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".