4.2 Article

Secondary Educators' Writing Practices for Students with Disabilities: Examining Distance Learning and In-Person Instruction

Journal

JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY
Volume 38, Issue 4, Pages 472-487

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/01626434221142816

Keywords

prostatic neoplasms; Genetic Testing; practice guidelines; safety-net providers; qualitative

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This is a national survey on secondary teachers in the United States who specialize in special education and/or English language arts. The results indicate that teachers received minimal preparation for teaching writing through distance or in-person instruction during the COVID-19 pandemic. Compared to in-person instruction, teachers used fewer writing assignments, evidence-based writing practices, and adaptations for students with disabilities in distance learning.
We report results of a national survey of secondary teachers who teach special education and/or English language arts in the United States. A total of 50 teachers from 27 different states completed the survey. In the survey, we asked teachers about their experience delivering distance and in-person instruction during the COVID-19 pandemic. We specifically focused on three broad areas: writing assignments, writing instructional practices, and adaptations used to support students with disabilities. We also collected information about teacher characteristics, technology use, and teacher attitudes and self-efficacy about writing. On average, teachers reported receiving minimal preparation to teach writing via distance or in-person instruction. When compared to in-person instruction, teachers reported using fewer writing assignments, evidence-based writing practices, and adaptations for students with disabilities during distance learning. We provide implications for teacher professional development and detail limitations related to sample size and response rate

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available