The Effectiveness of Simultaneous Prompting in the Teaching of Towel Folding Skills for Students with Intellectual Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this research was to study the effectiveness of teaching with the simultaneous prompting in teaching students with intellectual disabilities attending the vocational education center and their ability to fold towels. Multiple baseline models with inter-subject probe stage, which is one of the single-subject research methods, has been used. The subjects of the research are three students, one female and two males, between the ages of 16-18. The dependent variable of the study was determined as the ability to fold the towel and the independent variable as the teaching with the simultaneous prompting using the physical prompt as a model + verbal prompt and error correction. In the study, inter-observer reliability and procedural reliability data were collected. Graphical analysis was used to determine the effectiveness of teaching with the simultaneous prompting. According to the findings obtained from the research, simultaneous prompting teaching is effective in teaching students with intellectual disabilities the ability to fold towels. It has been observed that the skill of folding towels into shapes continues to last two, three, and four weeks after the end of the education and that the subjects can generalize the skill in different types of towels.
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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".