Factors Affecting Autistic Students’ School Motivation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Very little identifiable research explores the factors impacting autistic students’ school motivation and how these factors may or may not affect their academic and well-being outcomes in secondary school and beyond, including post-secondary enrollment, employment, and their quality of life. Instead, research on autism and inclusive education mainly focuses on the efficacy of interventions aimed at teaching skills related to sensory, communication, social, and behavior. Methods: A secondary analysis of survey data from an original mixed-method study was conducted to investigate how environmental, teacher, and peer factors are associated with autistic students’ school motivation. Eligible participants were between the ages of 15 and 21. In total, 72 participants (n = 72) completed an online survey to share their perspectives on their school experiences. Subsequently, linear regression analysis was conducted to answer the research question. Results: Participants who rated their schools as having pleasant physical spaces and felt that their peers understood them as a person had higher levels of school motivation. Teachers were not found to be significantly related to students’ school motivation. Participants who shared that typing was their preferred mode of communication were less motivated to attend school than students who preferred speaking communication. Conclusions: Environmental and peer factors are related to more than the day-to-day school experiences of autistic students; they are also related to their school motivation. These findings add to the existing literature on inclusive education and positive school outcomes for autistic students and offer additional explanations of the barriers that affect autistic students’ graduation from secondary school and interest in attending post-secondary education.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".