The Transition Process for Adolescents with Learning Disabilities: Perspectives of Five Families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative study examines, from the perspective of the families, the transition process to employment or postsecondary education for adolescents with learning disabilities (LDs) and the interplay of the roles of parents, students with LDs, and teachers. Using a case study design, series of three in-depth interviews were conducted with five individuals with LDs and with their parents. Data were analyzed inductively. The findings indicate that the families all had informal transition plans; formal transition plans were not written. For four of the families, the transition process was successful and occurred in two phases spanning the elementary and secondary school years. In the first phase parents controlled the transition process, and during the second phase they transferred this responsibility to their children with LDs. Parents’ high expectations and advocacy; students’ hard work, self-determination and self-advocacy; and teachers’ mentoring and support also contributed to the achievement of transition goals. Throughout the process parents, adolescents with LDs, and teachers worked collaboratively. In the fifth case, only the factor of parental advocacy was in place, and it was insufficient to bring about a successful transition for the adolescent with LDs.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".