Reading Development: Exploring the Lived Experiences of Individuals with High Functioning Autism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reading expands learning opportunities for individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) by improving their communication and functional skills, and, in the long run, improving their quality of life. Research is needed to gain a better understanding of how individuals with autism experience their reading development from their own perspectives and the perspectives of their parents. Our knowledge of the experiences of individuals with ASD can be expanded by listening to and reflecting on their voices. Therefore, this study empowered four young adults with High Functioning Autism (HFA) and their parents to share stories and experiences about these young adults’ reading development from early childhood through adolescence. A qualitative multiple-case design was used. Data sources included eight one-on-one semi-structured interviews, researcher’s field notes, and a reflective journal. Qualitative analysis led to eight emergent cross-case themes: 1) differences and similarities in reading profiles, 2) advantage in expository text, 3) challenges in reading, 4) reading strategies, 5) behaviour support, 6) interest and motivation, 7) supportive parents, and 8) different school experiences. Based on rich, in-depth descriptions, this study sheds light on the diverse and varied experiences of four young adults with HFA in their reading development from early childhood through adolescence. The findings of this study help to fill the gap by adding voices of individuals with HFA and their parents. The findings provide researchers with recommendations on case study design and interviews with individuals with HFA, educators with suggestions for instructional practices, and parents with practical guidance.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".