A Study of Classroom Teachers' Experiences in a Collaborative Learning Community: Learning to Improve Support for Students with characteristics of ADHD and their Literacy Learning
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This research investigated elementary classroom teachers' experiences in a collaborative learning community (CLC) on the topic of supporting the literacy learning of students with characteristics of ADHD. Five general education classroom teachers participated in biweekly CLC meetings over a 5-month period. Qualitative methods of data gathering were employed in the form of participant observations in the classroom and during 9 CLC meetings. Participants were also interviewed three times. The first interview was conducted before the CLC meetings began, the second interview was conducted immediately after formal CLC meetings had ceased, and the final interview was conducted 6 months after meetings had ended. Three main findings emerged from the research. First, participants' literacy teaching of their students with characteristics of ADHD was positively influenced as a result of their participation in the CLC. This positive influence came through an interaction of factors related to their knowledge, skills, attitudes, and beliefs. It also resulted from a reconceptualization of both their understanding of their students with characteristics of ADHD and of themselves as literacy teachers. Second, certain aspects of the CLC contributed to this positive outcome. These aspects were the opportunity to work with colleagues, participant control over the format and content of CLC, and repeated opportunities to reflect on and refine teaching practice. Third, personal and contextual factors shaped the participants' experiences within the CLC. Participants who had challenges during their own schooling were more driven and committed to understand and respond to their students’ diverse learning needs. Participants with the most number of years of teaching experience had a more fully realized skill set, higher levels of self-efficacy, and lower levels of stress related to teaching and meeting the needs of their students with characteristics of ADHD. Implications for school literacy teaching, preservice education, in-service education, and future avenues for research are discussed in light of the findings.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,014 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,009 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».