MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3183104224 · doi:10.1177/0145482x211016918

Graphic Reading Performance of Students with Visual Impairments and Its Implication for Instruction and Assessment

2021· article· en· W3183104224 on OpenAlexaff
Kim T. Zebehazy, Adam Wilton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Visual Impairment & Blindness · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTactile and Sensory Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGraphicsMathematics educationBar chartReading (process)CurriculumAffect (linguistics)Computer sciencePsychologyMultimediaPedagogyComputer graphics (images)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The ability of students to engage with graphical materials supports learning in science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics areas. For students with visual impairments, understanding the factors that contribute to the effective interpretation of graphics can promote meaningful access to the curricula. Methods: Forty students with visual impairments completed multiple-choice question tasks for five types of graphics presented in their medium of choice and provided difficulty ratings. The teachers of students with visual impairments rated the students on several factors. Statistical analyses investigated the relationship between performance differences and teacher-rated factors. Results: Significant differences in performance between print and tactile graphics users were found for bar graph, map, and total correct responses on all tasks. For some tasks, perceived difficulty by tactile graphic users did not align with actual performance. Teachers’ ratings of students who had Individualized Education Program goals for graphics, independence in using graphics, problem-solving ability, mathematics ability, and frequency of engaging with graphics contributed to significant differences in performance across total correct and most individual graphic results. Discussion: Although medium type was a significant contributor across graphic types, some teacher-rated variables appeared to mitigate the importance of medium on student performance. Depending on the graphic type, experience, content knowledge, skills with graphics, and confidence and motivation can all affect student performance when interpreting graphics. Implications for practitioners: Teachers should provide students with early and frequent opportunities to engage with graphics and support their problem-solving abilities regarding how to engage with different graphic types to enhance their independent use of graphics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.355 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Visual Impairment & BlindnessSame topicTactile and Sensory InteractionsFrench-language works237,207