MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4288434506 · doi:10.5539/ies.v15n4p117

The Development of Digital Technology to Support Learning in Children with Disabilities

2022· article· en· W4288434506 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kanvipa Hongngam, Donnaya Injumpa, Kallaya Chanapai

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChild Development and Digital Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersThailand Science Research and InnovationSuan Dusit University
KeywordsContext (archaeology)PsychologyEducational technologyBlended learningMedical educationMathematics educationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study was conducted with the following objectives: 1) to develop digital technology that supports learning in children with disabilities; 2) to test the effectiveness of digital technology used in children’s learning. The sample selected to study the current context of and needs of digital technology consisted of a group of 46 teachers and parents. The sample group of children with disabilities who participated in the digital technology experiment comprised three children. The sample group who took part in the experiment in fieldwork comprised 45 children from nine types of disabilities; these were purposively sampled. The research instruments consisted of 1) ten easy-books with single vowels in Thai; 2) ninety individual implementation plans; 3) computer software to promote the reading of ten stories; 4) an evaluation form for children with disabilities’ reading ability in Thai vocabulary in Prathom level 1; 5) a survey form for the current context of and the needs for digital technology to promote the children’s learning; 6) an interview form for the current context of and the needs for digital technology to promote the children’s learning. The data were analysed with the statistics of mean, standard deviation (SD) and efficiency assessment, using the E1/E2 formula with the 80/80 criteria. The research found that the effectiveness assessment value of digital technology to promote the children’s learning was found at the rate of 86/90, which was higher than the standard rate.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.339 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Education Studies→Same topicChild Development and Digital Technology→French-language works237,207→