Teachers’ Perceptions of Training Module for Accommodating Students with Intellectual Disabilities and Autism Spectrum Disorders Learning Life Skills Online
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study piloted a training module designed to help teachers accommodate students with intellectual disabilities and autism spectrum disorders learning life skills online. The goal of the study was to examine the effectiveness of the model through an investigation of teachers' perceptions of the training module. The effectiveness of the training module was evaluated through semi-structured interviews. Data was collected from thirteen participants, including general and special education teachers at the elementary and high school levels in a few Western provinces of Canada. The findings suggest that both groups of teachers positively viewed universal design for learning (UDL). Secondly, the findings suggest that both groups of teachers were familiar with in-person UDL and/or accommodations. Thirdly, both sets of teachers believe that the challenges faced by students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and intellectual disability (ID) were exacerbated by online learning. Additionally, both sets of teachers’ perceptions of the training module were positive. Lastly, both sets of teachers would have liked to see a greater emphasis on relationship-building in the training module. These findings provide insight into teachers' perceptions of the training module which can help improve the current training module and guide the development of future training modules. These findings can contribute to the development of an effective evidence-based teacher decision-making model which may promote the use of appropriate accommodations. Appropriate accommodations may contribute to the development of adequate life skills which may improve overall life satisfaction for students with disabilities (Aryes et al., 2013; Bouck, 2010).
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".