Determinants of Social Studies Curriculum Implementation by Teachers with Intellectual Disabilities in Selected Schools of Calabar South Local Government Area of Cross River State, Nigeria: Implication for Psychology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Teachers with intellectual disabilities frequently have cognitive processing or perceptual problems. Visual processing problems interfere with understanding text, illustrations, and written work associated with a social studies lesson. Most social studies textbooks include many maps and graphs. For most teachers, these maps clarify the topics covered and those that should be covered as well; however, teachers with visual-spatial and visual-processing disorders may have difficulty interpreting such information. Hence, this study evaluated the factors that affected how the social studies curriculum was implemented by teachers with intellectual disabilities in a sample of schools in the Cross River State, Nigeria, Calabar South Local Government Area; implications for psychology. Two survey factors have been developed to guide the study. The variables under review were used to guide the literature review. The survey study's template was employed. Purposeful selection approaches were used to choose the 60 respondents that made up the study's sample. A structured questionnaire with 10 items and a four-point Likert scale was used to collect the results. Using the Cronbach Alpha reliability method, the instrument's approximate correlation was 0.78. The data was examined using a descriptive methodology. The findings of the study indicated that a teacher's teaching style and level of training among teachers with intellectual disabilities had an impact on how they instruct students in social studies. It was suggested that secondary school teachers with disabilities be given the opportunity to participate in curriculum development and implementation so that they can use student-centered methods in teaching.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".