Effective Strategies for Working with Children with Autism in Mainstream Classrooms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study the education is identified as one of the key performance areas in the occupational therapy practice framework. The occupation of education includes academic (math, reading , writing), non-academic (recess, lunch, self-help skills), extracurricular (sports, band, cheerleading, clubs), and prevocational and vocational activities. The objective of this study is to assess out the effectiveness of classroom strategies for children with autism in mainstream classroom. The methodology adopted under this study is 20 children with autism and 24 teachers were included in the control group(N=10,12) and experimental group(N=10,12). Canadian Occupational Performance Scale, Teachers Attitude Towards Inclusion Scale, and Behaviour Rating Scale were used before and after the use of classroom strategies. The results of this study are experimental group, COPM, there was a significant difference in the pretest and post-test of the performance (p=0.005) and satisfaction (p=0.013) component of COPM. When goals addressed in the control and experiment groups were compared between groups, it showed significant difference in the post tests of both the groups in performance (u=0.005) and satisfaction (u=0.005) component of COPM. The pre-test and post-test of the POS (attitude towards student with disability in inclusive setting) and total component showed significant difference (p= 0.003 and 0.004) whereas there is no significant difference in the control group. The classroom strategies have a positive effect on the occupational performance for children with autism in mainstream classroom. It is effective in bringing positive attitude among teachers towards inclusion. It also improves the classroom behaviours of the children.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".