Use of iPads in the Education of Children with Autism-Spectrum Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of iPads on children with autism-spectrum disorder (ASD) in three areas: quality of learning, communication skills and social skills, and to determine whether there are any negative effects. We found many studies on this topic. To answer this question, we sent an online questionnaire to past and present special-education staff. The questions were retrieved from two questionnaires-"Ha'arakhat Proyekt Miẖshuv Ganim Liladim 'im Tsrakhim Meyuẖadim" (The Assessment of Creating Computer Environments in Special-Education Kindergartens) (1997) and "'Emdot Morim Klapey Shiluv Tekhnologyot Meda IT Behora'a" (Teachers' Attitudes Toward Integrating Information Technology [IT] into Instruction) (2016). The sample population included 100 subjects, 95 of which were women and 5 were men, of various occupations. The most significant occupations were: National Service ("Sherut Leumi", an alternative voluntary service for young Israelis exempt from serving in the Israel Defense Forces), teacher, and teaching assistant. The hypotheses concerning communication and learning were proved-the iPad was found to aid and improve communication and learning in children with ASD. The hypothesis concerning social skills was disproved-iPads were found to improve social skills. The hypothesis concerning the negative effects of iPads was proved as well, and a positive correlation was found; that is, the more the iPad is used, the greater are its negative effects, specifically outbursts and iPad obsession. The conclusion is that the use of breakthrough technology in special education brings significant change into the lives of children with ASD, despite its clear disadvantages.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".