A Parent's Autoethnography: Examining My Experiences and Identity as Parent, Educator, and Researcher While Teaching Literacy to My Adolescent Sons Who Have Autism and Use Augmentative and Alternative Communication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This autoethnography was completed from my unique perspective as a mother to two adolescent \nsons with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) who have complex communication needs and use \naugmentative and alternative communication (AAC) to communicate. Although literacy is a \nhuman right (Ontario Human Rights Commission, 2022a), it often has been overlooked in my \nsons’ self-contained classrooms in high school. As my sons’ parent and educator, I gathered my \nreflections, observations, descriptions, journals, lesson plans, and artifacts to examine the \nexperiences I encountered in developing their literacy. Initially, I conducted a pilot project based \non Erickson and Koppenhaver’s (2007) Children With Disabilities: Reading and Writing the \nFour Blocks® Way, the results of which guided my planning in teaching literacy with an \nadaptation of the more recent Comprehensive Literacy for All: Teaching Students With \nSignificant Disabilities to Read and Write (Erickson & Koppenhaver, 2020). I coded by hand \neach line of the collected data to extract categories and then streamline these into the meaningful \nthemes to respond to my two research questions: (a) What are the experiences of a parent \neducator who has been teaching literacy awareness and skills to her adolescent sons who both \nhave autism and use AAC devices? (b) Does the experience shape her identity as a parent, \neducator, and researcher? Thematic findings pertaining to the first question revealed experiences \nrelated to planning and questioning and my own transformational learning and mindshift. \nThematic findings related to the second question include: Parental concerns; Educator: \nadvocating and imposter syndrome; Researcher: Lesson planning and questioning; and \nTransformational learning and mindshift. Findings are discussed in light of the literature on \nexperiences of parents as educators of children with exceptionalities. The study also presents \nimplications for theory, practice, and research, as well as limitations and future directions.
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 | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".