特殊教育教师和普通教育教师关于写作和智力可塑性的思维理论能否预测他们的写作实践?

IF 2.4 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SPECIAL Journal of Learning Disabilities Pub Date : 2024-03-01 Epub Date: 2023-07-07 DOI:10.1177/00222194231181915
Steve Graham, Stephen Ciullo, Alyson Collins
{"title":"特殊教育教师和普通教育教师关于写作和智力可塑性的思维理论能否预测他们的写作实践?","authors":"Steve Graham, Stephen Ciullo, Alyson Collins","doi":"10.1177/00222194231181915","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Seventy-five general and 65 special education teachers working in the same 65 elementary schools in 12 different U.S. school districts were surveyed about their mindsets concerning the malleability of writing and intelligence as well as their practices for teaching writing. All teachers taught writing to one or more fourth-grade students receiving special education services, including students with learning disabilities. Both general and special education teachers typically held a growth mindset toward the malleability of writing and intelligence. Collectively, these teachers' mindsets predicted writing frequency (i.e., frequency of students' writing) and how often they taught writing skills and processes once variance due to teachers' preparation, efficacy to teach writing, teaching experience, and type of teacher was first controlled. The observed relationships between teachers' mindsets and reported practices for teaching writing were not mediated by type of teacher (i.e., general or special education). General and special education teachers did not differ in writing frequency for three types of writing collectively (narrative, informative, and persuasive) or how frequently they made 18 adaptations for teaching writing collectively, but general education teachers reported teaching writing skills and processes more often than their special education counterparts. Recommendations for future research and implications for practice are presented.</p>","PeriodicalId":48189,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Learning Disabilities","volume":" ","pages":"63-78"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Do Special and General Education Teachers' Mindset Theories About the Malleability of Writing and Intelligence Predict Their Writing Practices?\",\"authors\":\"Steve Graham, Stephen Ciullo, Alyson Collins\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00222194231181915\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Seventy-five general and 65 special education teachers working in the same 65 elementary schools in 12 different U.S. school districts were surveyed about their mindsets concerning the malleability of writing and intelligence as well as their practices for teaching writing. All teachers taught writing to one or more fourth-grade students receiving special education services, including students with learning disabilities. Both general and special education teachers typically held a growth mindset toward the malleability of writing and intelligence. Collectively, these teachers' mindsets predicted writing frequency (i.e., frequency of students' writing) and how often they taught writing skills and processes once variance due to teachers' preparation, efficacy to teach writing, teaching experience, and type of teacher was first controlled. The observed relationships between teachers' mindsets and reported practices for teaching writing were not mediated by type of teacher (i.e., general or special education). General and special education teachers did not differ in writing frequency for three types of writing collectively (narrative, informative, and persuasive) or how frequently they made 18 adaptations for teaching writing collectively, but general education teachers reported teaching writing skills and processes more often than their special education counterparts. Recommendations for future research and implications for practice are presented.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48189,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Learning Disabilities\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"63-78\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Learning Disabilities\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194231181915\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/7/7 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SPECIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Learning Disabilities","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194231181915","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在美国 12 个不同学区的 65 所小学工作的 75 名普通教师和 65 名特殊教育教师接受了关于他们对写作和智力可塑性的心态以及写作教学实践的调查。所有教师都向一名或多名接受特殊教育服务的四年级学生(包括有学习障碍的学生)教授写作。无论是普通教育教师还是特殊教育教师,通常都对写作和智力的可塑性持成长心态。这些教师的心态共同预测了写作频率(即学生写作的频率)以及他们教授写作技巧和过程的频率,但首先要控制由于教师的准备情况、教授写作的效率、教学经验和教师类型造成的差异。观察到的教师心态与所报告的写作教学实践之间的关系不受教师类型(即普通教育还是特殊教育)的影响。普通教育教师和特殊教育教师在三种类型的写作(叙事性、信息性和说服性)的写作频率上没有差异,他们为写作教学集体做出 18 项调整的频率也没有差异,但是普通教育教师比特殊教育教师更经常地教授写作技巧和写作过程。本文提出了今后研究的建议和对实践的启示。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Do Special and General Education Teachers' Mindset Theories About the Malleability of Writing and Intelligence Predict Their Writing Practices?

Seventy-five general and 65 special education teachers working in the same 65 elementary schools in 12 different U.S. school districts were surveyed about their mindsets concerning the malleability of writing and intelligence as well as their practices for teaching writing. All teachers taught writing to one or more fourth-grade students receiving special education services, including students with learning disabilities. Both general and special education teachers typically held a growth mindset toward the malleability of writing and intelligence. Collectively, these teachers' mindsets predicted writing frequency (i.e., frequency of students' writing) and how often they taught writing skills and processes once variance due to teachers' preparation, efficacy to teach writing, teaching experience, and type of teacher was first controlled. The observed relationships between teachers' mindsets and reported practices for teaching writing were not mediated by type of teacher (i.e., general or special education). General and special education teachers did not differ in writing frequency for three types of writing collectively (narrative, informative, and persuasive) or how frequently they made 18 adaptations for teaching writing collectively, but general education teachers reported teaching writing skills and processes more often than their special education counterparts. Recommendations for future research and implications for practice are presented.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
3.30%
发文量
30
期刊介绍: The Journal of Learning Disabilities (JLD), a multidisciplinary, international publication, presents work and comments related to learning disabilities. Initial consideration of a manuscript depends upon (a) the relevance and usefulness of the content to the readership; (b) how the manuscript compares to other articles dealing with similar content on pertinent variables (e.g., sample size, research design, review of literature); (c) clarity of writing style; and (d) the author"s adherence to APA guidelines. Articles cover such fields as education, psychology, neurology, medicine, law, and counseling.
期刊最新文献
Derivational Morphology Training in French-Speaking 9- to 14- Year-Old Children and Adolescents With Developmental Dyslexia: Does It Improve Morphological Awareness, Reading, and Spelling Outcome Measures? Graph Out Loud: Pre-Service Teachers' Data Decisions and Interpretations of CBM Progress Graphs. What Environments Support Reading Growth Among Current Compared With Former Reading Intervention Recipients? A Multilevel Analysis of Students and Their Schools. Ongoing Teacher Support for Data-Based Individualization: A Meta-Analysis and Synthesis. The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act: Clarifying the Relationship Between Free Appropriate Public Education and Least Restrictive Environment
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1