Factors Affecting Experiential Learning Experiences of University Students with Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Experiential learning (EL) experiences are an important component of a university education, positively impacting career-related attitudes, knowledge, and skills. Students also require EL opportunities to gain experiences required for admission to competitive graduate and professional programs. Students with disabilities face barriers accessing and benefiting from such opportunities. Purpose: This study examined the degree to which demographic factors, type and severity of disability, dispositional factors, and overall adjustment and well-being are predictive of the quality of EL experiences among university students with disabilities. Methodology/approach: A survey was distributed to undergraduate students with disabilities who have participated in EL courses. The results were analyzed using multiple linear regression. Findings/conclusions: Dispositional and adjustment and well-being variables, including the environmental mastery dimension of their psychological well-being rather than demographic factors, such as gender or type and severity of disability, are significant predictors of the quality of EL experiences among students with disabilities. Implications: For students with disabilities to have academically and professionally successful EL experiences, post-secondary institutions must continue to provide appropriate accommodations and educate instructors about the diverse and complex needs of this student group. This must include an understanding of the uniqueness of each individual student’s needs.
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 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".