A case study of the Learning Disabilities Association of Saskatchewan (LDAS) Arrowsmith program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Case Study research was conducted to investigate how participation in the Learning Disabilities Association of Saskatchewan (LDAS) Arrowsmith program affected the cognitive, academic, emotional, and interpersonal functioning of five students who attended this program for two to three years. Learning disabilities involve consistent cognitive processing and academic difficulties that are present in individuals who have average or higher functioning in other cognitive processing areas. The average adult with a learning disability has less education, lower employment success, and higher rates of emotional and interpersonal difficulties. The Arrowsmith program is a cognitive training program based on neuroplasticity that claims to reduce or remove cognitive functioning deficits in persons with learning disabilities. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with five students and one or both of their parents. Standardized test results and information from the school cumulative folders of the students were also reviewed. Four of the five students experienced large and significant increases in cognitive, academic, emotional, and/or interpersonal functioning following their participation in the LDAS Arrowsmith program. One of the five students had much smaller gains in cognitive and academic functioning and experienced difficulties with emotional and interpersonal functioning following participation in the program. Several themes related to participation in the LDAS Arrowsmith program are identified for the student, parent, school record perspectives and themes common to these perspectives are also identified. Possible reasons why the students had different outcomes following their participation in the LDAS Arrowsmith program are discussed. Recommendations for parents, school psychologists, teachers, schools/school divisions, the Arrowsmith program, and future research are given.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".