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
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".