Exemplary Teachers’ Understandings of Writing Instruction for Students with Disabilities Included in Secondary Language Arts Classes: It’s a Beautiful Struggle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Teaching writing well poses several challenges in today’s diverse classrooms. Despite a growing research base on teaching writing, outcomes for students with disabilities in secondary schools continue to be disappointing. Research in the naturalistic tradition that would help educators understand the knowledge and beliefs that influence teachers’ practice, however, is scarce. Specifically, researchers know little about how exemplary general education teachers, who often have little to no training in special education, think about writing instruction for students with disabilities. To investigate teachers’ understandings and practices for supporting students with disabilities, interviews, observations, and artifacts were analyzed using qualitative methods. Exemplary teachers’ understandings of writing instruction for students with disabilities who are included in 9th- and 10th-grade general education language arts classes included deep and integrated knowledge of content and pedagogy that enabled them to facilitate the students’ progress. Teachers had firm beliefs that (a) students with disabilities could make progress and (b) learning writing was vitally important. Teachers’ understandings of writing instruction for students with disabilities were influenced by their knowledge of content and pedagogy, their beliefs about students and writing, and the contexts within which they worked. Implications include a call for more research about (a) the relationship between teachers’ beliefs and their practices, (b) opportunities to engage in context-embedded professional development, and (c) the amount of time necessary to reflect on, respond to, and deliver meaningful feedback in a sustained dialogue about writing for students with disabilities.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".