View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Do Special and General Education Teachers' Mindset Theories about the Malleability of Writing and Intelligence Predict Their Writing Practices?

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Do Special and General Education Teachers' Mindset Theories about the Malleability of Writing and Intelligence Predict Their Writing Practices?
Language: English
Authors: Steve Graham, Stephen Ciullo (ORCID 0000-0001-6092-8159), Alyson Collins
Source: Journal of Learning Disabilities. 2024 57(2):63-78.
Availability: SAGE Publications and Hammill Institute on Disabilities. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 16
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Grade 4
Intermediate Grades
Descriptors: Regular and Special Education Relationship, Elementary School Teachers, Writing Processes, Writing (Composition), Grade 4, Teacher Attitudes, Cognitive Processes, Positive Attitudes, Intelligence Differences, Beliefs, Writing Instruction, Writing Attitudes, Self Efficacy
DOI: 10.1177/00222194231181915
ISSN: 0022-2194
1538-4780
Abstract: 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.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1417028
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHPfbD39fve3Dh5-oOPg6PsAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDBcFxegahdXUG2Zi8wIBEICBmtv3MonOngRc0-rbTz9sYunsTyXKZznUaF5auZzMIPsouqfbWqwtEnuyDTxJbiscxfKABT5QTwAzllMfyOHGHOxaFoQeVXuuDGd-TGxym-RoF_2n3LfqcxsiFerA4dFyFRjt6cAqSqw6VekD8sLfIUXeZnU0f6G-2MCFeO5o8r9eG3k2aShu9_-J3jYGk5mw01fbSMaNS2S-b3I=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0176004877;led01mar.24;2024Mar15.03:57;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0176004877-1">Do Special and General Education Teachers' Mindset Theories About the Malleability of Writing and Intelligence Predict Their Writing Practices? </title> <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> <p>Keywords: writing; intelligence; teacher beliefs; mindset; special education; teacher efficacy</p> <p>As [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref1">12</reflink>] indicated in their report on research and teacher education to the American Educational Research Association: "Teachers are among the most, if not the most significant factors in children's learning" (p. 1). This is not only true for children in general, but for students who receive special education services (LD; [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref2">37</reflink>]). Despite the essential and critical role of teachers to students' learning, including learning to write (the subject of this investigation), research on teaching and teachers, especially special education teachers, is not as comprehensive or definitive as it should be ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref3">4</reflink>]). This is especially the case for the teaching of writing (Graham, i2023). This is unfortunate because writing is essential to students' success at school. Writing is used by students to communicate, persuade, inform, record, entertain, and explore ideas ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref4">3</reflink>]). Teaching writing improves children's reading skills ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref5">28</reflink>]), and writing about material read or presented in class enhances learning ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref6">30</reflink>]). Consequently, we need to gain a stronger understanding of teachers and how they teach writing to acquire greater clarity on the factors that shape writing instruction in schools for students who do and do not receive special education services. The current investigation addressed this issue, at least in part, by examining if general and special education teachers' mindset about students' capabilities to grow as learners and writers predicted how they reportedly taught writing.</p> <hd id="AN0176004877-2">Teacher Beliefs</hd> <p>Teacher beliefs include philosophies and personal theories about learning and teaching ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref7">1</reflink>]). This includes beliefs teachers hold about themselves, their students, where they work, what they teach, and how they teach ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref8">18</reflink>]). Such beliefs operate along a continuum of stability (stable to subject to change), and influence how teachers conceptualize instruction, the actions they take to address students' needs, and how they evaluate these actions ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref9">19</reflink>]). These beliefs not only explain teachers' actions in the classroom, but predict them as well ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref10">11</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref11">38</reflink>]). While inconsistencies can exist between what teachers believe and do, prior research has demonstrated that teachers' actions generally flow from their beliefs about learning and teaching ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref12">2</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref13">48</reflink>]). As a result, teacher beliefs are important ingredients in understanding the teaching process of any teacher, general or special education.</p> <p>Although teachers' beliefs have not commonly been included in theoretical models of writing, they do play a central role in the Writers-within-Community model (WWC; [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref14">21</reflink>]). In this model, learning to write and teaching writing are simultaneously and interactively shaped by the contexts (classrooms) in which they take place as well as the cognitive resources (including beliefs) of students and teachers ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref15">22</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref16">24</reflink>]). The WWC model proposed that the beliefs held by teachers about writing and teaching writing are complex, multifaceted, and can potentially influence any action teachers take when teaching writing. Assumptions about writing that teachers hold include beliefs about their preparation to teach writing, efficacy for teaching writing, attitudes toward teaching writing, identity as a writing teacher, reasons for writing instruction successes/failures, motivations for teaching writing, value of teaching writing, students' competence as writers, how students learn to write, how writing knowledge is acquired, the nature and permanence of writing knowledge, effective instructional writing practices, and implicit theories about the malleability of students' capabilities (commonly referred to as mindset theory; [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref17">17</reflink>]).</p> <p>In the current study, we examined if teachers' mindsets about whether writing and intellectual capabilities are changeable predicted how they taught writing. More specifically, we examined if general and special education teachers' implicit beliefs about the malleability of writing and intelligence accounted for individual differences in how they reportedly taught writing once variability due to beliefs about efficacy and preparation to teach writing were first controlled. All of participating teachers in the current study taught writing to one or more students receiving special education services. Many of the students received special education services for learning disabilities (LD).</p> <hd id="AN0176004877-3">Mindset Theory</hd> <p>Mindset theory involves the fundamental beliefs, or implicit theories, that people hold about the nature of human capabilities ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref18">17</reflink>]). The basic premise underlying mindset theory is that individuals hold implicit mindsets that range from fixed, wherein a person's capabilities are viewed as unchangeable, to a growth mindset, wherein capabilities are viewed as malleable. For example, in the area of intelligence, where much of the mindset theory research has focused, an entity or fixed theory of intelligence holds that intellectual capabilities are static and unalterable, whereas an incremental or growth mindset theory holds that intellectual capabilities can be improved and developed. Teachers' mindsets about intelligence are important because they are linked to their students' achievement. For instance, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref19">6</reflink>] reported that students in classrooms with teachers who believed in the malleability of intellectual capabilities evidenced higher mathematic achievement than students in classes with teachers who were less certain about the malleability of intelligence. They hypothesized that teachers who hold a growth mindset view of intelligence place greater emphasis on improving their teaching, resulting in more positive teaching behaviors, which leads to better student performance.</p> <p>Implicit beliefs are held about a variety of human qualities, including academic skills such as writing, giftedness, personality traits, as well as intelligence ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref20">26</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref21">39</reflink>]). Individuals can and do hold different mindsets for different capabilities ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref22">44</reflink>]). Thus, a teacher may view a capability such as intelligence as fixed, but writing as incremental and subject to improvement and growth. Such views influence how teachers filter information and the actions they take ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref23">18</reflink>]).</p> <p>Theoretically, students' mindsets are commonly viewed as important elements of students' academic success ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref24">6</reflink>]). A fixed mindset is believed to diminish student motivation and negatively impact performance, whereas a growth mindset presumably increases motivation and resilience when learning tasks are challenging ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref25">10</reflink>]). Further, students with a fixed mindset may limit opportunities for success because they commonly pursue performance goals, judging competence through their achievements. This may lead them to apply maladaptive learning strategies in order to reduce possible failures which would be reflected in the outcomes of their performance ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref26">17</reflink>]). In contrast, students with a growth mindset often pursue learning goals in order to increase their competence, viewing challenges and failure as an opportunity to grow and improve ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref27">5</reflink>]).</p> <p>Within education, research provides modest empirical evidence that a growth mindset is associated with student learning. In a meta-analysis involving 273 investigations with 365,915 students, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref28">50</reflink>] indicated that students with a stronger growth mindset had higher academic outcomes, but correlation between measures of mindset and achievement was only 0.10. They further reported that interventions designed to promote a growth mind set can enhance academic outcomes, at least for at-risk and economically disadvantaged students. In terms of writing specifically, several studies have shown that a growth mindset is related to better students' writing ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref29">9</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref30">32</reflink>]), and a study by [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref31">41</reflink>] found that fifth and sixth grade students who were taught writing strategies made the greatest gains in writing quality and output when they believed that writing was a malleable skill.</p> <p>Most research in education on mindset has focused on students. Much less research has examined teachers' mindsets and their relation to teaching or student achievement. While relatively few in number, studies with teachers have investigated a range of topics including the mindsets held by teachers (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref32">26</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref33">35</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref34">36</reflink>]), relationships between teacher and student mindsets and students' academic performance (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref35">6</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref36">43</reflink>]), and the effectiveness of training designed to promote a growth mindset among teachers (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref37">45</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref38">47</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref39">49</reflink>]). In order to better understand the relationships that exist between teachers' mindsets, their teaching practices, and ultimately students' beliefs and academic progress, more research is needed in this area, including how teachers' mindsets are related to their teaching practices (the focus of this investigation).</p> <p>Additional research on teachers' mindset is especially important for general and special education teachers. Teachers with a growth mindset are more likely than those with a fixed mindset to view learning as an opportunity to improve the competence of students receiving special education services ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref40">17</reflink>]). As a result, teachers with a growth mindset should be more likely to expect that students receiving special education services can learn and, in turn, influence these youngsters' beliefs about their own capabilities, motivations, and academic progress. Particularly important to the current investigation, teachers' mindsets can also influence how they interact with students and their approach to teaching them (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref41">42</reflink>]). For example, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref42">40</reflink>] found that teachers with a fixed view of intelligence were less likely than teachers with a growth mindset to create autonomy-supportive climates in their classroom that support students' intrinsic motivation. Because teachers with a growth mindset are more likely to view the learning challenges of students receiving special education services as an opportunity ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref43">17</reflink>]), they should more frequently engage these students in activities designed to promote learning than teachers with a fixed mindset because they believe student achievement can be changed and developed. The present study determined if this was the case for general and special education teachers who taught writing to students receiving special education services.</p> <hd id="AN0176004877-4">Writing and Teachers' Mindsets</hd> <p>In this study, teachers' mindsets about two different capabilities, intelligence and writing, were examined. Previous research showed that teachers in the United States (U.S.), where the current investigation took place, generally hold the view that intelligence is malleable and can be changed (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref44">33</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref45">36</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref46">46</reflink>]). To our knowledge, only one study has specifically examined if teachers hold a growth mindset concerning writing. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref47">26</reflink>] asked 67 general education and 67 special education who were each teaching writing to one or more special education students in the U.S. to complete separate but complimentary scales assessing their mindsets about intelligence and writing as well as other measures of students' beliefs about writing (e.g., epistemology, preparation, and knowledge). Both sets of teachers agreed that intelligence can be developed and changed: 67% of special education and 79% of general education teachers held this viewpoint. These teachers were even more positive that writing capabilities can be altered for the better, with 88% of special education teachers and 97% of general education teachers expressing this view.</p> <p>Evidence on the link between teachers' mindsets and the teaching of writing is almost nonexistent. In a quasi-experiment by [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref48">51</reflink>], second and third grade teachers received professional development on how to provide growth-oriented feedback to students on their writing. This mindset intervention did not result in improved student motivation; the quantitative outcome in this study. Even, so qualitative analyses of the discourse in teacher/student conferences suggested that students did make some motivational growth that was not captured by the quantitative measure.</p> <p>Additional information on teachers' mindsets concerning the malleability of writing can be drawn from studies examining teachers' epistemological beliefs about writing. In a series of investigations, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref49">26</reflink>] studied U.S. elementary grade teachers' epistemological beliefs about how one becomes a good writer (e.g., writing is an innate or fixed ability) and knows about writing (e.g., writing knowledge is certain). The general and special education intermediate-grade teachers in this study expressed moderate disagreement that writing abilities were fixed and writing knowledge was certain ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref50">26</reflink>]). Primary grade teachers from across the U.S. in a second study ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref51">29</reflink>]) also moderately disagreed that writing knowledge was certain, but they slightly agreed that writing capabilities were fixed. In a third study ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref52">31</reflink>]), intermediate-grade special education teachers of deaf and hard of hearing students from 15 U.S. states moderately disagreed that writing abilities were fixed and slightly disagreed that writing knowledge was certain. In this third investigation, beliefs about the fixed nature of writing development and certainty of writing knowledge did not predict teachers' reported writing practices. This stands in contrast to findings from [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref53">34</reflink>] who found that beliefs about the fixed nature of writing development and knowledge were related to reported writing practices of primary grade teachers in the Greater China Region ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref54">34</reflink>]). While it is difficult to make direct comparisons between these studies due to differences in how epistemological beliefs were measured, the grade teachers taught, and culture in the case of the [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref55">34</reflink>] study, the findings from these studies suggest that elementary grade teachers generally view writing as malleable, and these beliefs <emph>may</emph> predict teachers' writing practices.</p> <hd id="AN0176004877-5">Research Questions and Predictions</hd> <p>The current study addressed the following research questions:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <bold> Research Questions 1 (RQ1): </bold> Do general and special education teachers differ in their reported writing practices (RQ1)?</item> <p></p> <item> <bold> Research Questions 2 (RQ2): </bold> Do mindset beliefs about malleability of writing and intelligence predict teachers' reported writing practices (RQ2)?</item> </ulist> <p>The current study was an extension of [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref56">26</reflink>]. This prior investigation examined the beliefs that 76 general and 67 special education teachers held about writing. All of these teachers taught at least one fourth-grade child identified as having a special need (most of these children received services for LD). Almost all of these teachers participated in the current study: 75 general and 65 special education teachers. The prior investigation determined if general and special education teachers held different beliefs about preparation to teach writing, efficacy for teaching writing, attitudes toward writing, epistemological beliefs about writing, and the malleability of writing and intelligence, but it did not examine how teachers taught writing or if teacher beliefs predicted reported writing practices. The current study focused specifically on differences in the reported writing practices of general and special education teachers (RQ2), and whether teachers' mindset about writing and intelligence predict how writing was taught by these teachers (RQ2). Three teachers from [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref57">26</reflink>] were not included in the current study because they did not complete the survey on their writing practices. The prior investigation did not find any statistically significant differences in general and special education teachers' mindsets regarding writing and intelligence. Given that the samples in the prior investigation and this one differed by only three teachers, we did report the mean scores for writing and intelligence mindsets as well as the two covariates for efficacy to teach writing for the 140 teachers in this study, but we did not report any statistical comparisons between general and special education teachers on these four variables (the outcomes for such analyses were identical to [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref58">26</reflink>]).</p> <p>Fourth grade was selected as the focal point in this study for two reasons. One, this grade is a crucial transition period in writing instruction, as greater emphasis is placed on using writing as a tool for learning once students have moved out of the primary grades ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref59">14</reflink>]). Two, by this point, students had ample time to develop and diverge as writers, making it possible for teachers to make more informed judgments about the adaptability of both writing and intelligence.</p> <p>Previous research has examined how writing is taught by general education teachers in elementary schools ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref60">13</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref61">15</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref62">20</reflink>]). Most teachers in these studies applied a variety of instructional procedures for teaching writing and made multiple adaptations for less skilled writers in their classes, but most of these procedures were applied infrequently, often less than once a month ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref63">23</reflink>]). We located no contemporary studies examining how writing was taught by special education teachers. We anticipated that general education teachers would report they had students write more often (i.e., writing frequency) and applied instructional practices to teach writing more frequently than their special education peers (RQ1). We based this prediction on [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref64">26</reflink>] who reported general education teachers liked teaching writing more and were more knowledgeable about how to teach writing than special education teachers. This should increase the likelihood that general education teachers devote more attention to teaching writing than special education teachers. However, we did expect that special education teachers would report making more adaptations for teaching writing than general education teachers (RQ1). The field of special education places greater emphasis on individualization than general education ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref65">53</reflink>]).</p> <p>In examining if teachers' mindsets toward writing and intelligence predicted their reported writing practices (RQ2), we first controlled for variance due to teachers' experience (i.e., years teaching), beliefs about preparation to teach writing, and efficacy for doing so. Beliefs about preparation and efficacy are consistently related to teachers' reports of how they teach writing ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref66">23</reflink>]). The inclusion of these two control variables brought greater precision to our analyses of the predictive value of teachers' mindsets. We anticipated that teachers' mindsets for both writing and intelligence would predict teachers' reported practices for teaching writing because prior research has shown that teachers' actions generally flow from their beliefs about learning and teaching ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref67">2</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref68">48</reflink>]). While it is possible that the relationships between reported teaching practices and mindsets differ for general and special education teachers, we did not anticipate that type of teacher would mediate the relationships between teachers' mindsets and writing practices. In [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref69">26</reflink>], teachers' mindsets for writing and intelligence did not differ between general and special education teachers.</p> <hd id="AN0176004877-6">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0176004877-7">Participants</hd> <p>The special and general education teachers (<emph>N</emph> = 140) in this study were from 65 schools located in 12 U.S. school districts. All of the participating general education teachers taught Grade 4, and they provided writing instruction to one or more students receiving special education services. Many of the students on their case load were students with LD. Likewise, the special education teachers taught writing to at least one or more fourth grade students classified with a high incidence disability, including students with LD. The 140 teachers were part of a larger project investigating writing beliefs of teachers ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref70">26</reflink>]). The general education teachers in the current study taught in all but two of the 65 schools, whereas the special education teachers were in all but nine of the schools. Thus, most participating schools (83%) included at least one special education and one fourth grade general education teacher.</p> <p>There were 75 and 65 general education and special education teachers, respectively, in this study. A majority of the special education teachers held a master's degree (61%), with the remaining special educators holding a bachelor's degree (39%). Somewhat similarly, almost two-thirds of the general education teachers held a master's degree (65%), and the remaining general education teachers had completed a bachelor's degree (35%). Both groups of teachers had considerable teaching experience. The special education teachers averaged 12.28 years of teaching (<emph>SD</emph> = 9.76; range 1 to 42 years), whereas the general education teachers had taught for 9.16 years on average (<emph>SD</emph> = 5.76; range 1 to 27 years). While there was no statistically significant difference between special and general education teachers' educational level (<emph>p</emph> =.59), special education teachers had more classroom experience than their general education counterparts (<emph>p =</emph>.02).</p> <p>On average, the special education teachers reported teaching 18 students with disabilities (<emph>SD</emph> = 9.30; range 5 to 45 children), whereas the general educators typically taught writing to six students with disabilities (<emph>SD</emph> = 3.81; range one to 18 children). General educators taught these children in several different contexts, including multiple classrooms (i.e., departmentalized instruction) as well as clustered-inclusion classrooms with higher than average special education caseloads. The special education teachers provided writing instruction to students with disabilities mainly within the context of the general education classroom (inclusive settings), but close to 30% of these teachers provided such instruction in resource rooms.</p> <p>We dropped one teacher from the main analyses because this educator had completed just one-half of the items on the mindset writing scale. This general education teacher held a bachelor's degree, had taught for 6 years, viewed her writing preparation as equivalent to her preparation in other areas, and taught writing to four students with disabilities. Consequently, she was relatively similar to the other general education teachers whose data were analyzed.</p> <hd id="AN0176004877-8">Procedures</hd> <p>Teachers were emailed an electronic questionnaire to complete. Each teacher was paid US$200 for completing the questionnaire and participating in the larger study. All of the teachers completed and returned the questionnaire.</p> <p>The questionnaire asked teachers to provide personal information (e.g., educational degree, years teaching, school and district, number of students receiving special education services taught to write, and teacher type [special or general education]). The questionnaire also included multiple scales that measured mindset about the malleability of writing and intelligence, beliefs about preparation to teach writing and other subjects (reading, math, science, and social studies), efficacy for teaching writing, as well as how writing was taught. A detailed email explaining the purpose of the survey was sent to each teacher, and teachers were asked to answer questions honestly. They were also informed their responses would not be shared with other school personnel and would remain anonymous.</p> <hd id="AN0176004877-9">Measures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0176004877-10">Mindset Theories of the Malleability of Writing and Intelligence</hd> <p>Teachers were administered 12 items that assessed their mindsets about the malleability of intelligence (incremental vs. entity views) and malleability of writing capabilities (incremental vs. entity views). Malleability of intelligence was assessed with a measure designed by [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref71">16</reflink>]. This scale included six items (e.g., you can always greatly change how intelligent you are), and teachers were asked to respond to an item using a 6-point Likert-type scale, with scores ranging from <emph>strongly disagree</emph> (1.0) to <emph>strongly agree</emph> (6.0). Three of the items were negatively worded. After reversing the scores for the negatively worded items, an overall score for this measure was obtained by summing the response to items and dividing by six. Higher scores indicated stronger agreement that intelligence is changeable.</p> <p>The six items for writing mindset were identical to the items included in the intelligence mindset measure except the word "writing capability" was substituted for "intelligence." The writing mindset items were administered in a separate section of the survey than the intelligence mindset items. After reversing scores for the three negatively worded items, an overall score was obtained by summing item responses and dividing by six. Higher scores indicated stronger agreement that writing capabilities are changeable.</p> <p>A factor analysis of the 12 items included in these two measures resulted in a two-factor solution, accounting for 64% of the variance. The first factor included the six intelligence mindset items, and it accounted for 43% of the variance (eigenvalue = 5.22; coefficient alpha =.91). Factor loadings for these items were: (a) you can learn new things, but you can't really change your basic intelligence (0.56); (b) you have a certain amount of intelligence, and you can't really do much to change it (0.56); (c) you can always greatly change how intelligent you are (0.95); (d) your intelligence is something that you cannot change very much (0.96); (e) no matter how much intelligence you have, you can always change it quite a bit (0.66); and (f) no matter who you are, you can change your intelligence a lot (0.84).</p> <p>The second factor included the six writing mindset items, accounting for 20% of the variance (eigenvalue = 2.56; coefficient alpha =.84). The factor loadings for these items were: (a) you can learn new things, but you can't really change your basic writing capabilities (0.85); (b) you have a certain amount of writing capability, and you can't really do much to change it (0.90); (c) you can always greatly change how capable a writer you are (0.57); (d) your writing capabilities are something you cannot change very much (0.56); (e) no matter how much writing capability you have, you can always change it quite a bit (0.63); and (f) no matter who you are, you can change your writing capabilities a lot (0.49). The two scales measured distinct but slightly correlated constructs (correlation between writing mindset and intelligence mindset was 0.36).</p> <hd id="AN0176004877-11">Preparation to Teach Writing</hd> <p>The questionnaire included 5 items asking teachers about their preparation to teach writing, reading, math, science, and social studies. These items were taken mostly from [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref72">8</reflink>]. Each item included a 4-point Likert-type scale where teachers rated their overall level of preparedness to teach the target subject area: none (score of 1.0), minimal (score of 2.0), adequate (score of 3.0), and extensive (score of 4.0).</p> <hd id="AN0176004877-12">Teachers' Self Efficacy for Teaching Writing</hd> <p>The questionnaire included an efficacy for teaching writing scale from [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref73">25</reflink>]. It included eight items, accompanied by a 6-point Likert-type scale where teachers indicated if they <emph>strongly disagreed</emph> (score of 1.0) to <emph>strongly agreed</emph> (score of 6.0). A factor analysis of these eight items produced a two-factor solution. One factor, efficacy to overcome writing difficulties, accounted for 49% of the variance (eigenvalue = 3.96; coefficient alpha =.83) contained the following five items and factor loadings: knows how to increase student retention of information not remembered (0.74), can help students with the most difficult writing problems (0.63), can adjust a writing assignment for a student experiencing difficulty (0.70), knows how to redirect disruptive behavior during writing time (0.63), and can accurately assess if a writing assignment was at the correct level of difficulty for a student experiencing difficulty (0.72). The second factor, general efficacy to teach writing, accounted for 15% of the variance (eigenvalue = 1.19; coefficient alpha =.80) included these three items and factor loadings: improve writing by finding better ways of teaching it (0.40), knows the steps for teaching a writing concept so it can be mastered quickly (0.99), and can exert extra effort to help students write better (0.70). An overall score for each efficacy construct was obtained by calculating the average score for the items that constituted it. A higher score indicated teachers were more efficacious.</p> <hd id="AN0176004877-13">Writing Frequency</hd> <p>The questionnaire contained three items that asked teachers to indicate how frequently students were asked to write narrative, informative, and persuasive text, respectively. These items were from [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref74">8</reflink>], and teachers replied to each item by reporting the writing frequency for each type of writing assessed using a 7-point Likert-type scale: never (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref75">1</reflink>), several times a year (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref76">2</reflink>), monthly (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref77">3</reflink>), weekly (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref78">4</reflink>), several times a week (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref79">5</reflink>), daily (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref80">6</reflink>), and several times a day (<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref81">7</reflink>). A factor analysis of the three items indicated that they constituted a single construct, accounting for 57% of the variance (eigenvalue = 1.71; coefficient alpha =.62). Factor loadings were: narrative text (0.77), informative text (0.65), and persuasive text (0.84). An overall score was obtained by taking the average of the three items. Higher scores indicated students wrote more often.</p> <hd id="AN0176004877-14">Teaching Writing</hd> <p>The questionnaire included 11 items asking teachers how often they taught specific aspects of writing (e.g., grammar, planning) and 18 items querying teachers about how often they made adaptations for the weaker writers in their classroom (e.g., extra mini-lessons, extra encouragement, extra modeling of skills and strategies). These items were taken from [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref82">15</reflink>]. Teachers responded to the 29 items using the same 7-point Likert-type scale described above (i.e., emphasis on students' writing).</p> <p>A factor analysis of the 29 items, using an oblique rotation, yielded a two-factor solution. One item (teaching typing) was eliminated before applying the oblique rotation because it has a very low communality score (.09). One factor, adapting writing instruction, accounted for 40% of the variance (eigenvalue = 11.16; coefficient alpha =.94), and it contained 19 items, with all but one item assessing adaptations made for weaker writers. One teaching writing item (teaching handwriting) did load on this factor at 0.47, but it was dropped from this construct because it did not fit conceptually. The remaining 18 items and their factor loadings were: additional conferencing (0.63), greater opportunities to choose own writing topic (0.59), additional grammar instruction (0.68), additional punctuation/capitalization instruction (0.83), additional mini-lessons (0.83), additional planning instruction (0.79), additional revising instruction (0.72), additional text organization instruction (0.67), extra reteaching of writing skills and strategies (0.67), additional handwriting instruction (0.61), modifying pace of instruction (0.65), additional spelling instruction (0.79), additional spelling strategy instruction (0.48), additional phonics instruction for spelling (0.64), extra encouragement (.73), extra modeling of skills and strategies (0.72), additional sentence writing instruction (0.63), and extra feedback (0.54).</p> <p>The second factor, teaching writing skills/processes, accounted for 14% of the variance (eigenvalue = 3.95; coefficient alpha =.91), containing nine items, all assessing how frequently teachers taught specific aspects of writing. These items and their factor loadings were: teaching planning (0.70), teaching revising (0.85), teaching editing (0.89), teaching spelling (0.37), teaching grammar (0.78), teaching punctuation/capitalization (0.72), teaching sentence construction (0.75), teaching text organization (0.67), and teaching vocabulary for writing (0.55).</p> <p>An overall score for teaching writing and writing adaptations were obtained by calculating the average score for the items that constituted said factor. A higher score indicated teachers taught selected aspects of writing more frequently and made adaptations for struggling writers more often, respectively.</p> <hd id="AN0176004877-15">Analytic Procedures</hd> <p>We first report the means and standard deviations for teachers' beliefs involving our two predictors (writing and intelligence mindsets) as well as beliefs about preparation to teach writing and efficacy to teach writing (control variables). Next, we determined if general and special education teachers' reported practices for teaching writing differed (RQ1). This involved three ANOVAs with type of teacher (general and special) as the independent variable. One analysis focused on writing frequency. The second analysis involved how frequently teachers taught writing skills/processes, whereas the third analysis concentrated on adaptations teachers made for writing. In each of these analyses, the dependent variable was the mean score for the construct (e.g., total score for adaptations). While the data were nested by school (more than one teacher came from each school), we did not control for nesting because the ICCs between school and each measure were statistically nonsignificant (all <emph>p</emph>s <.428) and low (.001 to.016). We also conducted follow-up ANOVAs for each item on the writing frequency, writing skills/processes, and writing adaptations scales. This was done whether the omnibus test for the total score for a scale was statistically significant or not. A Bonferroni adjustment was applied based on the number of items in each scale (e.g., writing frequency had three items, resulting in an alpha of.017;.05/3).</p> <p>To determine if teachers' beliefs about the malleability of writing and intelligence predicted teachers' reported writing practice (RQ2), we conducted three hierarchical multiple regression analyses. This included one for writing frequency, another for teaching writing, and a third for writing adaptations. For each of reported writing practices (e.g., writing frequency), the following control variables were entered into the first block of the regression analysis: type of teacher (special and general), preparation to teach writing (i.e., an overall score comparing preparation to teach writing to preparation in other subject areas), teaching experience (i.e., number of years spent teaching), efficacy to overcome writing difficulties, and general efficacy to teach writing. In Step 2, we entered our two predictors: malleability of writing competence and malleability of intelligence, allowing us to determine the collective and unique contribution of these two beliefs in predicting reported writing practices once variance due to the control variables was eliminated. At Step 3, the interaction between type of teacher and malleability of writing capability as well as the interaction between type of teacher and malleability of intelligence were entered as a block into the regression equation. This allowed us to determine if there was an interaction between teacher type and beliefs about malleability. If a significant interaction was obtained for any teacher reported writing practice, follow-up regression analyses were conducted with each teacher type separately.</p> <hd id="AN0176004877-16">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0176004877-17">Special and General Education Teachers' Beliefs</hd> <p>Collectively, special and general education teachers moderately agreed that writing capabilities (<emph>M</emph> = 5.17; <emph>SD</emph> = 0.74) and intelligence (<emph>M</emph> = 4.58; <emph>SD</emph> = 1.06) were malleable (see Table 1). These teachers also moderately agreed they were confident about their efficacy to provide writing instruction to overcome students' writing difficulties (<emph>M</emph> = 4.76; <emph>SD</emph> = 0.76). They slightly agreed they were confident to provide general writing instruction (<emph>M</emph> = 4.08; <emph>SD</emph> = 0.91).</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 1. Special and General Education Teacher Beliefs About Writing.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th /><th align="center" colspan="2">Special education teachers</th><th align="center" colspan="2">General education teachers</th><th align="center" colspan="2">All teachers combined</th></tr><tr><th align="left">Teacher beliefs</th><th align="center"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>SD</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>SD</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>SD</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Writing mindset</td><td>5.05</td><td>0.86</td><td>5.28</td><td>0.61</td><td>5.17</td><td>0.74</td></tr><tr><td>Intelligence mindset</td><td>4.45</td><td>1.15</td><td>4.70</td><td>0.96</td><td>4.58</td><td>1.06</td></tr><tr><td>Efficacy overcome writing difficulties</td><td>4.75</td><td>0.78</td><td>4.77</td><td>0.74</td><td>4.76</td><td>0.76</td></tr><tr><td>General efficacy to teach writing</td><td>3.96</td><td>0.99</td><td>4.19</td><td>0.83</td><td>4.08</td><td>0.91</td></tr><tr><td>Teaching experience</td><td>12.28</td><td>9.76</td><td>9.16</td><td>5.76</td><td>10.61</td><td>8.00</td></tr><tr><td>Preparation to teach writing<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">a</xref></td><td>2.83</td><td>0.65</td><td>3.27</td><td>0.66</td><td>3.06</td><td>0.69</td></tr><tr><td>Preparation to teach reading<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">b</xref></td><td>3.40</td><td>0.49</td><td>3.41</td><td>0.55</td><td>3.41</td><td>0.52</td></tr><tr><td>Preparation to teach math</td><td>3.11</td><td>0.77</td><td>3.04</td><td>0.73</td><td>3.07</td><td>0.75</td></tr><tr><td>Preparation to teach science</td><td>2.51</td><td>0.73</td><td>2.79</td><td>0.66</td><td>2.66</td><td>0.74</td></tr><tr><td>Preparation to teach social studies</td><td>2.42</td><td>0.86</td><td>2.96</td><td>0.63</td><td>2.71</td><td>0.79</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note.</emph> Scores for writing and intelligence mindset ranged from 1.0 to 6.0 with higher scores representing a stronger belief in mindset malleability; scores for efficacy ranged from 1.0 to 6.0 with higher scores representing greater confidence in teaching capabilities; scores for preparation ranged from 1.0 to 4.0 with a score of 1.0 representing no preparation, 2.0 minimal preparation, 3.0 adequate preparation, and 4.0 extensive preparation.</p> <p>2 Teachers believed they were better prepared to teach writing than science and social studies (both <emph>p</emph>s <.001). <sups>b</sups> Teachers believed they were better prepared to teach reading than writing (<emph>p</emph> <.001).</p> <p>Table 1 presents teachers' beliefs about their preparation to teach writing, reading, math, science, and social studies as assessed with a 4-point Likert-type scale (a score of 1.0 equaled no preparation, 2.0 minimal preparation, 3.0 adequate preparation, and 4.0 extensive preparation). For teaching writing, reading, and math, collectively special and general education teachers generally indicated their preparation was adequate (mean scores between 3.06 and 3.41), with scores for teaching science and social studies slightly lower (mean scores between 2.66 and 2.71). A 2 (type of teacher) by 5 (subject area) ANOVA with repeated measures yielded statistically significant main effects for type of teacher, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref83">1</reflink>, 138) = 9.650, <emph>p</emph> =.002, and subject area, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref84">1</reflink>, 138) = 76.754, <emph>p</emph> <.001. The interaction was not statistically significant, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref85">1</reflink>, 138) = 1.801, <emph>p</emph> =.182. Overall, general education teachers believed they were better prepared to teach these five subject areas (<emph>M</emph> = 3.09; <emph>SD</emph> = 0.45) than special education teachers (<emph>M</emph> = 2.85; <emph>SD</emph> = 0.46). Post-hoc analyses revealed that collectively teachers were more positive about their capabilities to teach reading than writing (<emph>p</emph> <.001). In contrast, they were more positive about their capabilities to teach writing that they were about teaching science and social studies (both <emph>p</emph>s <.001). There were no statistically detectable differences between preparation to teach writing and math (<emph>p</emph> =.931).</p> <hd id="AN0176004877-18">Reported Writing Practices (RQ1)</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0176004877-19">Writing Frequency</hd> <p>Collectively, special and general education teachers reported students wrote narrative (<emph>M</emph> = 2.83; <emph>SD</emph> = 1.07) and informative text (<emph>M</emph> = 3.14; <emph>SD</emph> = 1.07) once a month (see Table 2), and persuasive writing several times during the year (<emph>M</emph> = 2.37; <emph>SD</emph> = 0.97). There was, however, no difference in the total score for writing frequency between special (<emph>M</emph> = 2.75; <emph>SD</emph> = 0.80) and general education teachers (<emph>M</emph> = 2.81; <emph>SD</emph> = 0.77), <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref86">1</reflink>, 138) = 0.239, <emph>p</emph> =.626. When we examined differences between special and general education teachers for each type of writing applying a Bonferroni adjusted alpha of.017 (.05/3), there was only one statistically detectable difference. General education teachers reported greater writing frequency for informative writing (<emph>M</emph> = 3.36; <emph>SD</emph> = 1.15) than did special education teachers (<emph>M</emph> = 2.89; <emph>SD</emph> = 0.91), <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref87">1</reflink>, 137) = 6.971, <emph>p</emph> =.009.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 2. Reported Writing Practices of Special and General Education Teachers in the Study.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th /><th align="center" colspan="2">Special education teachers</th><th align="center" colspan="2">General education teachers</th><th align="center" colspan="2">All teachers combined</th></tr><tr><th align="left">Writing practice</th><th align="center"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>SD</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>SD</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>SD</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="7">Writing frequency</td></tr><tr><td> Narrative</td><td>2.97</td><td>1.04</td><td>2.71</td><td>1.09</td><td>2.83</td><td>1.07</td></tr><tr><td> Informative<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td>2.89</td><td>.91</td><td>3.36</td><td>1.15</td><td>3.14</td><td>1.07</td></tr><tr><td> Persuasive</td><td>2.38</td><td>.98</td><td>2.37</td><td>.97</td><td>2.37</td><td>.97</td></tr><tr><td> Total score</td><td>2.75</td><td>.80</td><td>2.81</td><td>.77</td><td>2.78</td><td>.78</td></tr><tr><td colspan="7">Teaching writing skills/processes</td></tr><tr><td> Planning<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td>3.75</td><td>1.29</td><td>4.54</td><td>.92</td><td>4.17</td><td>1.17</td></tr><tr><td> Revising<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td>3.91</td><td>1.14</td><td>4.67</td><td>.83</td><td>4.31</td><td>1.05</td></tr><tr><td> Editing<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td>3.94</td><td>1.12</td><td>4.77</td><td>.83</td><td>4.39</td><td>1.08</td></tr><tr><td> Spelling</td><td>3.92</td><td>1.28</td><td>4.08</td><td>1.24</td><td>4.01</td><td>1.26</td></tr><tr><td> Grammar<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td>3.97</td><td>1.28</td><td>5.09</td><td>.85</td><td>4.57</td><td>1.19</td></tr><tr><td> Punctuation/capitalization<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td>4.43</td><td>1.03</td><td>5.00</td><td>.85</td><td>4.57</td><td>1.19</td></tr><tr><td> Sentence construction<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td>3.97</td><td>1.15</td><td>4.79</td><td>.96</td><td>4.41</td><td>1.23</td></tr><tr><td> Text organization<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">**</xref></td><td>3.72</td><td>1.22</td><td>4.41</td><td>1.06</td><td>4.09</td><td>1.18</td></tr><tr><td> Vocabulary</td><td>3.92</td><td>1.16</td><td>4.29</td><td>1.24</td><td>4.12</td><td>1.11</td></tr><tr><td> Total score<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td>3.95</td><td>.92</td><td>4.62</td><td>.68</td><td>4.31</td><td>.86</td></tr><tr><td colspan="7">Writing adaptations</td></tr><tr><td> Extra encouragement</td><td>4.95</td><td>1.11</td><td>4.79</td><td>1.45</td><td>4.86</td><td>1.30</td></tr><tr><td> Extra conferencing</td><td>4.21</td><td>1.62</td><td>4.63</td><td>1.30</td><td>4.44</td><td>1.47</td></tr><tr><td> Choice</td><td>4.18</td><td>1.21</td><td>4.52</td><td>1.50</td><td>4.36</td><td>1.38</td></tr><tr><td> Extra grammar instruction</td><td>4.52</td><td>1.29</td><td>4.77</td><td>1.49</td><td>4.66</td><td>1.40</td></tr><tr><td> Extra punctuation/capitalization</td><td>4.62</td><td>1.27</td><td>4.15</td><td>1.45</td><td>4.36</td><td>1.38</td></tr><tr><td> Extra mini-lessons</td><td>4.37</td><td>1.27</td><td>4.40</td><td>1.35</td><td>4.39</td><td>1.31</td></tr><tr><td> Extra planning instruction</td><td>4.12</td><td>1.27</td><td>4.33</td><td>1.44</td><td>4.24</td><td>1.36</td></tr><tr><td> Extra revising instruction</td><td>4.06</td><td>1.36</td><td>4.42</td><td>1.37</td><td>4.25</td><td>1.37</td></tr><tr><td> Extra text organization instruction</td><td>4.20</td><td>1.42</td><td>4.52</td><td>1.22</td><td>4.37</td><td>1.32</td></tr><tr><td> Reteaching</td><td>3.81</td><td>1.86</td><td>3.19</td><td>1.80</td><td>3.48</td><td>1.85</td></tr><tr><td> Extra handwriting instruction</td><td>4.42</td><td>1.48</td><td>4.04</td><td>1.42</td><td>4.21</td><td>1.45</td></tr><tr><td> Modified pace</td><td>4.43</td><td>1.53</td><td>4.09</td><td>1.60</td><td>4.25</td><td>1.57</td></tr><tr><td> Extra modeling strategies/skills</td><td>4.83</td><td>1.34</td><td>4.87</td><td>1.41</td><td>4.85</td><td>1.37</td></tr><tr><td> Extra spelling instruction<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">***</xref></td><td>5.00</td><td>1.33</td><td>3.67</td><td>1.74</td><td>4.29</td><td>1.70</td></tr><tr><td> Extra spelling strategy instruction</td><td>4.88</td><td>1.74</td><td>4.97</td><td>1.89</td><td>4.93</td><td>1.81</td></tr><tr><td> Extra phonics for spelling instruction</td><td>4.65</td><td>1.37</td><td>4.92</td><td>1.39</td><td>4.79</td><td>1.39</td></tr><tr><td> Extra sentence instruction</td><td>4.40</td><td>1.46</td><td>4.16</td><td>1.44</td><td>4.27</td><td>1.45</td></tr><tr><td> Extra feedback</td><td>5.97</td><td>1.18</td><td>6.00</td><td>1.32</td><td>5.99</td><td>1.25</td></tr><tr><td> Total</td><td>4.53</td><td>.99</td><td>4.67</td><td>1.08</td><td>4.50</td><td>1.03</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>3 <emph>Note.</emph> Scores ranged from 1.0 to 6.0 (1.0 = never; 2.0 = several times a year, 3.0 = monthly, 4.0 = weekly, 5.0 = several times a week, 6.0 = daily, 7.0 = several times a day).</item> <item>4 <emph>p</emph> <.001 between general and special education teachers. <sups>***</sups><emph>p</emph> =.001 between general and special education teachers.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0176004877-20">Teaching Writing Skills/Processes</hd> <p>Across all teachers collectively, each of the nine writing skills/processes were reportedly taught on a weekly basis (all mean scores ranged from 4.01 to 4.57; see Table 2). The frequency with which general and special education teachers reportedly taught these writing skills/processes (see total score Table 2) differed significantly, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref88">1</reflink>, 138) = 24.596, <emph>p <</emph>.001. Special education teachers reported teaching these skills/processes weekly (<emph>M</emph> = 3.95; <emph>SD</emph> = 0.92), whereas general education teachers indicated they taught them several times a week (<emph>M</emph> = 4.62; <emph>SD</emph> = 0.68). Post-hoc analyses were conducted to determine which of the nine specific writing skills/processes were reportedly taught more frequently by special and general education teachers, using a Bonferroni adjustment of.006 (.05/9). General education teachers taught seven of these nine writing skills/processes more frequently than special education teachers (all <emph>p</emph>s =.001 or less). The only exceptions involved teaching spelling and vocabulary, as no statistically detectable differences (using the Bonferroni adjustment) were found for how often the two groups of teachers reportedly taught these two skills.</p> <hd id="AN0176004877-21">Instructional Adaptations</hd> <p>Across all teachers collectively, the most common reported adaptation was providing extra feedback (<emph>M</emph> = 5.99; <emph>SD</emph> = 1.25), which occurred daily (see Table 2). The next most frequently reported adaptations involved providing extra spelling strategy instruction (<emph>M</emph> = 4.93; <emph>SD</emph> = 1.81), extra encouragement (<emph>M</emph> = 4.86; <emph>SD</emph> = 1.30), extra modeling of strategies/skills (<emph>M</emph> = 4.85; <emph>SD</emph> = 1.37), extra phonics instruction for spelling (<emph>M</emph> = 4.79; <emph>SD</emph> = 1.39), and extra grammar instruction (<emph>M</emph> = 4.66; <emph>SD</emph> = 1.40). These reported adaptations occurred several times a week. All other reported adaptations occurred once a week, except for reteaching writing skills and strategies (<emph>M</emph> = 3.48; <emph>SD</emph> = 1.85), which occurred monthly. Despite the variation in how frequently teachers reported making individual adaptations, special (<emph>M</emph> = 4.53; <emph>SD</emph> = 0.99) and general education teachers' (<emph>M</emph> = 4.67; <emph>SD</emph> = 01.08) overall reported total adaptation (see Table 2) score did not differ significantly, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref89">1</reflink>, 138) = 0.148, <emph>p =</emph>.701. When we examined teacher differences for each of the 18 writing adaptations separately using a Bonferroni adjustment of.003 (.05/18), there was a statistically detectable difference for only one of the adaptations. Special education teachers (<emph>M</emph> = 5.00; <emph>SD</emph> = 1.33) reported providing extra spelling instruction more often than general education teachers (<emph>M</emph> = 3.67; <emph>SD</emph> = 1.74; <emph>p <</emph>.001).</p> <hd id="AN0176004877-22">Do Beliefs About Malleability of Writing and Intelligence Predict Teachers' Writing Practices...</hd> <p>Table 3 presents the results from the three regression analyses examining if beliefs about the malleability of writing and intelligence predict reported teaching practices once the control variables of teacher type (special and general), preparation to teach writing, teaching experience, efficacy to overcome writing difficulties, and general efficacy to teach writing were first controlled, These analyses also examined if there was an interaction between malleability of writing preparation and teacher type as well as malleability of intelligence and teacher type.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 3. Regression Analyses Examining Whether Malleability of Writing and Malleability of Intelligence Predict Reported Writing Practices.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">Regression Analyses</th><th align="center"><italic>B</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>SE</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>t</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>p</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="5">Writing frequency</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"> Control variables—Step 1</td></tr><tr><td> Teacher type</td><td>.05</td><td>.14</td><td>.39</td><td>.695</td></tr><tr><td> Teaching experience</td><td>.01</td><td>.01</td><td>.85</td><td>.395</td></tr><tr><td> Preparation to teach writing</td><td>.05</td><td>.11</td><td>.44</td><td>.664</td></tr><tr><td> Efficacy to overcome writing difficulties</td><td>.04</td><td>.11</td><td>.34</td><td>.736</td></tr><tr><td> General efficacy to teach writing (<italic>F</italic> change = 1.188; <italic>R</italic>2 change = 4.3%)</td><td>.12</td><td>.09</td><td>1.32</td><td>.190</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"> Predictors—Step 2</td></tr><tr><td> Writing mindset</td><td>−.20</td><td>.10</td><td>−2.01</td><td>.047</td></tr><tr><td> Intelligence mindset (<italic>F</italic> change = 3.213<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn5">*</xref>; <italic>R</italic>2 change = 4.5%)</td><td>.15</td><td>.071</td><td>2.16</td><td>.033</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"> Interaction—Step 3</td></tr><tr><td> Writing mindset × Teacher type</td><td>−.04</td><td>.21</td><td>−.19</td><td>.849</td></tr><tr><td> Intelligence mindset × Teacher type (<italic>F</italic> change = 0.717; <italic>R</italic>2 change = 1.0%)</td><td>−.14</td><td>.17</td><td>−1.03</td><td>.305</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">Teaching writing skills/processes</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"> Control variables—Step 1</td></tr><tr><td> Teacher type</td><td>.69</td><td>.14</td><td>5.03</td><td>.000</td></tr><tr><td> Teaching experience</td><td>.00</td><td>.01</td><td>.52</td><td>.603</td></tr><tr><td> Preparation to teach writing</td><td>.08</td><td>.11</td><td>.77</td><td>.442</td></tr><tr><td> Efficacy to overcome writing difficulties</td><td>.33</td><td>.11</td><td>3.12</td><td>.002</td></tr><tr><td> General efficacy to teach writing (<italic>F</italic> change = 7.894**; <italic>R</italic>2 change = 22.9%)</td><td>−.12</td><td>.09</td><td>−1.34</td><td>.181</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"> Predictors—Step 2</td></tr><tr><td> Writing mindset</td><td>−.20</td><td>.10</td><td>−2.06</td><td>.042</td></tr><tr><td> Intelligence mindset (<italic>F</italic> change = 3.371<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn5">*</xref>; <italic>R</italic>2 change = 3.8%)</td><td>.15</td><td>.07</td><td>2.21</td><td>.029</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"> Interaction—Step 3</td></tr><tr><td> Writing mindset × Teacher type</td><td>.14</td><td>.21</td><td>.70</td><td>.487</td></tr><tr><td> Intelligence mindset × Teacher type (<italic>F</italic> change = 2.004; <italic>R</italic>2 change = 2.2%)</td><td>−.27</td><td>.14</td><td>−2.00</td><td>.047</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">Writing adaptations</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"> Control variables—Step 1</td></tr><tr><td> Teacher type</td><td>−.09</td><td>.18</td><td>−.50</td><td>.622</td></tr><tr><td> Teaching experience</td><td>−.01</td><td>.01</td><td>−.64</td><td>.523</td></tr><tr><td> Preparation to teach writing</td><td>.07</td><td>.14</td><td>.53</td><td>.596</td></tr><tr><td> Efficacy to overcome writing difficulties</td><td>.29</td><td>.14</td><td>2.04</td><td>.044</td></tr><tr><td> General efficacy to teach writing (<italic>F</italic> change = 1.260; <italic>R</italic>2 change = 4.5%)</td><td>−.05</td><td>.12</td><td>−.45</td><td>.655</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"> Predictors—Step 2</td></tr><tr><td> Writing mindset</td><td>−.21</td><td>.13</td><td>−1.63</td><td>.105</td></tr><tr><td> Intelligence mindset (<italic>F</italic> change = 1.339; <italic>R</italic>2 change = 1.9%)</td><td>.06</td><td>.09</td><td>.68</td><td>.497</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"> Interaction—Step 3</td></tr><tr><td> Writing mindset × Teacher type</td><td>−.33</td><td>.28</td><td>−1.18</td><td>.241</td></tr><tr><td> Intelligence mindset × Teacher type (<italic>F</italic> change = 0.727; <italic>R</italic>2 change = 1.00%)</td><td>.13</td><td>.19</td><td>.67</td><td>.504</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>5 <emph>p</emph><.05. **<emph>p</emph> <.001.</p> <hd id="AN0176004877-23">Writing Frequency</hd> <p>Collectively, the control variables, writing and intelligence mindset scores, and the interaction between the mindset measures and teacher type accounted for 9.8% of the variance in the total score writing frequency. The control variables accounted for a statistically nonsignificant 4.3% of the variance in reported writing frequency (see Table 3). The entry of mindset scores for writing and intelligence, however, accounted for a statistically significant 4.5% of the variance in reported writing frequency when entered into the second step of the analysis. In the third step of the analysis. The interaction between the two malleability measures and type of teacher accounted for an extra one percent of the variance, which was not statistically significant. When all variables except the interactions were entered into the analysis, only writing mindset (<emph>p</emph> =.047) and intelligence mindset (<emph>p</emph> =.033) made a unique and statistically significant contribution to predicting writing frequency.</p> <hd id="AN0176004877-24">Teaching Writing Skills/Processes</hd> <p>Collectively, the control variables, intelligence and mindset scores, and the interaction between the mindset measures and teacher type accounted for 28.9% of the variance in the total score for teaching writing/skills processes. The control variables accounted for a statistically significant 22.9% of the variance in how frequently teachers reported teaching writing skills/processes (see Table 3). In turn, the entry of writing mindset and intelligence mindset accounted for a statistically significant 3.8% of the variance in teaching writing skills/processes when entered into the second step of the analysis. In the third step of the analysis, the interaction between the two mindset measures and type of teacher accounted for an extra 2.2% of the variance, which was not statistically significant. When all variables except the interaction terms were entered into the analysis, the following four variables made a unique and statistically significant contribution to predicting teaching writing skills/processes: writing mindset (<emph>p</emph> =.042), intelligence mindset (<emph>p</emph> =.029), efficacy for overcoming writing difficulties (<emph>p</emph> =.002), and type of teacher (<emph>p <</emph>.001).</p> <hd id="AN0176004877-25">Writing Adaptations</hd> <p>Collectively, the control variables, intelligence and mindset scores, and the interaction between the mindset measures and teacher type accounted for 7.5% of the variance in the total score for writing adaptations. The control variables accounted for a non-statistically significant 4.5% of the variance in writing adaptations (see Table 3). In turn, the entry of writing mindset and intelligence mindset accounted for a non-statistically significant 1.9% of the variance in writing adaptations when entered into the second step of the analysis. In the third step of the analysis, the interaction between the two mindset measures and type of teacher accounted for an extra 1.1% of the variance, which was not statistically significant. When all variables except the interaction terms were entered into the analysis, only efficacy for overcoming writing difficulties (<emph>p</emph> =.044) made a unique and statistically significant contribution to predicting writing adaptations.</p> <hd id="AN0176004877-26">Discussion</hd> <p>Teachers' mindsets about the nature of human capabilities ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref90">17</reflink>]) are important ingredients in students' academic success ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref91">6</reflink>]). Prior research and theory support the contention that teachers' actions flow from their beliefs about the nature of learning ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref92">2</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref93">18</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref94">24</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref95">48</reflink>]). The beliefs that teachers hold impact how they conceptualize instruction, the actions they take to address students' needs, and how they evaluate these actions ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref96">19</reflink>]). In essence, teachers' beliefs, including mindsets about the malleability of intelligence and academic skills, explain and predict teachers' actions in the classroom ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref97">11</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref98">17</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref99">38</reflink>]). Extending an earlier study by [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref100">26</reflink>], where general and special education teachers' mindsets for writing and intelligence were compared, the current investigation examined if teachers' mindsets regarding these two human capabilities predicted their reported practices for teaching writing. This study also provided a needed exploration and comparison of how writing was taught by both general and special education teachers.</p> <hd id="AN0176004877-27">Teachers' Mindsets Predict Reported Writing Practices</hd> <p>Teachers in the present study generally had a growth mindset for writing and intelligence. Overall, general and special education teachers moderately agreed that writing can be improved and developed and that intelligence is subject to improvement and growth. These outcomes directly mirror the findings from [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref101">26</reflink>] as the current study included all of the teachers from the prior investigation with three exceptions (one general and two special education teachers). They are also consistent with studies showing teachers typically believe that intelligence is malleable (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref102">35</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref103">36</reflink>]) and writing development and knowledge are not fixed or certain ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref104">31</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref105">29</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref106">26</reflink>]).</p> <p>As predicted, teachers' mindsets for writing and intelligence accounted for variance in writing frequency and the teaching of writing processes/skills. Collectively, teachers' mindsets toward writing and intelligence predicted writing frequency and the teaching of writing skills/processes after variance due to teaching experience, preparation to teach writing, and efficacy for doing so was first controlled. Further, teachers' mindset about the malleability of writing and the malleability of intelligence each made a statistically significant and unique contribution to predicting writing frequency and teaching writing skills/processes once variance due to teaching experience, preparation, efficacy, and the other mindset was first controlled.</p> <p>The finding that writing mindset predicted these reported writing practices were consistent with [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref107">34</reflink>] who found that beliefs about the fixed nature of writing development and knowledge predicted the reported writing practices of teachers in the Greater China Region. Similar to the current study, this prior investigation found teachers who viewed writing as more changeable (in terms of development and knowledge) indicated they taught writing more frequently than teachers who expressed a more fixed view of writing. These findings support multiple theoretical conceptions about teachers' beliefs including theories advocating teachers' actions flow from beliefs about learning and teaching, (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref108">18</reflink>]), teachers' mindsets influence teaching ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref109">17</reflink>]), and teachers' beliefs about writing shape how writing is taught ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref110">24</reflink>]). Additional support for these theoretical perspectives was provided by our finding that teachers who believed intelligence was more malleable reportedly taught writing skills/processes more frequently than teachers who believed intelligence was less malleable.</p> <p>Contrary to predictions, writing and intelligence mindsets did not predict how frequently teachers reportedly made adaptations to writing instruction. It is possible that teachers' mindset for intelligence did not predict the writing adaptations they reportedly made because they do not see such adaptations as influencing intelligence. This can be directly assessed in future studies similar to the current one by asking teachers what aspects of students' functioning writing adaptations impact (e.g., writing, reading, intelligence). We were particularly surprised that teachers' mindset for writing did not predict reported writing adaptations because a basic premise underlying instructional adaptations for a skill like writing is they can enhance students' performance ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref111">23</reflink>]). It is possible that the expected association between teachers' writing mindset and the application of writing adaptations was not observed because teachers believed that writing growth was mainly linked to the teaching of writing processes and skills and not in the adjustments they made for students in such instruction. Future research could explore this thesis by directly asking teachers what instructional procedures most likely impacted students' growth as writers. In any event, additional research is needed to replicate the findings from this study, and explore other aspects of relationships between teachers' mindsets and writing practices. This includes moving beyond the study of teachers who were selected because they taught specific kinds of students (i.e., children receiving special education services in this study) as well as conducting studies with teachers at different grade-levels. It also includes observing teachers' writing practices. It is possible that relationships between teachers' mindsets and writing instruction differ when practices are observed rather than reported. Teachers may inflate how often they engage in specific instructional activities when surveyed. Finally, future studies should ask teachers how they define intelligence.</p> <p>Consistent with our predictions, the relationships between mindsets and reported writing practices were not mediated by type of teacher (i.e., general or special). We based this prediction on [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref112">26</reflink>] finding that general and special education teachers' writing and intelligence mindsets did not differ. Additional research is needed to replicate our finding about the mediating effect of teacher type, and determine if it holds when general and special education teachers are not specifically selected because they teach writing to children receiving special education services, writing instruction is observed, and/or different grade-levels are studied.</p> <p>It is important to note that teachers' mindsets and the control variables, which focused on individual characteristics of teachers (i.e., type of teacher, teaching experience, and beliefs about preparation and efficacy to teach writing), accounted for just 7.5% to 28.9% of the variance in teachers' reported writing practices. This raised questions about what factors explain the remaining variance in teachers' writing instructional practices. Consistent with the WWC model ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref113">21</reflink>], i2023), we anticipate that contextual factors such as the curriculum adopted by the school or district, teachers' master schedule (e.g., Does it include a writing block?), and other school, district, state, and national-level policies influence how writing is taught. Research is needed that examines how teachers' individual characteristics and contextual variables shape and constrain interactively how both general and special education teachers provide writing instruction. While the findings from this study suggest that teachers' mindsets make a small but significant contribution to how writing is taught, substantive changes to the teaching of writing will require more than the development of positive mindsets. It will involve policy-level decisions to devote more time to writing and writing instruction, better preparation of teachers, as well as more consistent application of effective writing practices with all students ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref114">23</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0176004877-28">General and Special Education Teachers' Writing Practices Differed (Somewhat)</hd> <p>We predicted that general education teachers would report greater writing frequency for their students and teach writing skills/processes more often that their special education colleagues. This prediction was supported in part, as general education teachers indicated they taught writing skills/processes more frequently than special education teachers. When all items on the writing instruction scale were considered collectively, general education teachers taught the specified writing skills and processes once a week or more often, whereas special education teachers taught them less often. With two exceptions, follow-up analyses showed all writing skills/processes assessed were taught more frequently by general education teachers than special education ones. The exceptions were the teaching of spelling and vocabulary. No statistically detectable differences were found between general and special education teachers in how frequently they taught these skills.</p> <p>We hypothesized that general education teachers would devote more attention to teaching writing skills/processes because they are more knowledgeable and efficacious about teaching writing than special education teachers ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref115">26</reflink>]). Additional research is needed to replicate our findings as well as determine why general education teachers reportedly taught writing skills/processes more often. This may be a consequence of more than just knowledge and efficacy. There are multiple differences between general and special education that could account for the observed differences in this investigation. These included differences in teaching philosophies, case-loads, and teacher responsibilities to provide a few examples ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref116">53</reflink>]). Special education teachers may also devote less attention to teaching writing skills/processes than general education teachers because of their legal obligations to provide instruction to meet established individualized educational goals, which may focus more on reading and math than writing, as well as less time to provide such instruction. A fruitful approach for determining why teaching differences exist between general and special education is through interviews or focus groups where general and special education teachers are queried about why they teach writing as they do.</p> <p>Contrary to predictions, there was no difference between general and special education teachers in students' writing frequency or reported writing adaptations. This may be a consequence of how teachers were chosen to participate in this study. We recruited general and special education teachers from the same schools, and 70% of the special education teachers provided instruction to students with disabilities, including students with LD, in the general education classroom. As a result, it is likely that general and special education teachers may have worked closely together, collectively deciding the types of writing to be assigned as well as adaptations to be made. It is further possible that special education teachers influenced general education teachers' writing adaptations because they encouraged general education teachers to use the same ones they did. General education teachers may have also set the stage for how often students wrote because they viewed themselves as the lead teacher in the general education classroom. As with findings concerning the teaching of writing skills/processes, replication is needed. It is important to determine why each group of teachers employed the instructional procedures they did. It is especially critical to study special education teachers practices as contemporary accounts of how they teach writing are virtually nonexistent.</p> <p>It is interesting to note that across all items assessed, general education teachers taught writing skills/processes (<emph>M</emph> = 4.62) as frequently as they made adaptations for writing (<emph>M</emph> = 4.67). In contrast, special education teachers appeared to place more emphasis on making adaptations (<emph>M</emph> = 4.53) than on teaching writing skills/processes (<emph>M</emph> = 3.95). This difference may be a consequence of the preparation special education teachers receive, which may place greater emphasis on targeted writing instruction instead of how to deliver general writing instruction. This difference may also reflect basic assumptions underlying special education services, including the view that special education teachers are instructional specialists concerned with individualization ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref117">53</reflink>]). If these findings are replicated in future studies, it is important that researchers explore the implications of such findings for teacher preparation and classroom practices.</p> <hd id="AN0176004877-29">Limitations</hd> <p>This study included 140 teachers, but they were not randomly selected from the general population of teachers in the participating schools. Instead, both general and special education teachers had to teach writing to one or more fourth-grade students receiving special education services. Interpretation of our findings, therefore, must take this into account.</p> <p>This study was based on teacher self-reports. We assumed that teachers can and did accurately report what they believed and how they taught writing. There is evidence that teachers self-report data provides an accurate representation of what they actually do in the classroom (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref118">7</reflink>]). Even so, it is important to keep in mind that teachers' reports of their writing practices were not directly observed.</p> <p>Finally, most of the general and special education teachers working in this study were from the same schools. While this helped control for the influence of context in our analyses, it cannot control for all contextual differences between the two groups of teachers.</p> <hd id="AN0176004877-30">Practical Implications</hd> <p>Caution must be exercised when drawing educational implications from descriptive and correlational data. Further, the study did not directly evaluate special and general education teachers' writing instructional practices, but relied on their self-reports concerning such efforts. This must be kept in mind when considering our recommendations.</p> <p>This study demonstrated teachers' mindsets predict how frequently they reportedly assign writing and how often they teach writing skills/processes. While the amount of variance that teacher mindsets accounted for was modest, this does represent an area that can potentially have a positive impact on both teachers and students. Given that teachers' mindsets are malleable (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref119">45</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref120">47</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref121">49</reflink>]), and students of teachers with growth mindsets evidence stronger academic performance and more positive mindsets themselves (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref122">6</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref123">43</reflink>]), we encourage general and special education teachers to examine their own mindsets and adjust them as needed. This can be promoted through personal efforts by individual teachers or more systematic efforts involving schools or teacher education programs. For example, individual teachers can use instruments such as the ones presented in this investigation to evaluate their mindsets for both writing and intellectual capabilities. This can include considering how these beliefs influence their teaching practices and efforts to become better teachers as well as how they convey their beliefs to their students. Such evaluations can provide a catalyst for teachers to change their beliefs ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref124">36</reflink>]).</p> <p>While we did not assess teacher educators' mindsets, we would further encourage them to consider the beliefs they hold about the malleability of writing and intelligence and encourage them to determine how they convey these beliefs to preservice teachers. Teacher education programs should also directly address preservice teachers' mindset and their potentially positive and negative effects for their own professional development and their students' academic success. This includes engaging preservice teachers in activities that target enhancing teachers' thoughts, beliefs, and feelings about the malleability of their students' capabilities (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref125">52</reflink>]). Similar activities can be applied by school systems when they provide inservice education.</p> <p>The current study demonstrated that special education teachers do contribute to writing instruction in schools. The special education teachers in this study indicated they devoted considerable effort to teaching writing skills/processes and adapting writing instruction. This needs to become more common in schools. To achieve this objective, both University preparation programs and schools need to do a better job of preparing special education teachers to teach writing ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref126">26</reflink>]).</p> <p>General and special education teachers reported that they rarely asked students to write narrative, informative, or persuasive text. The first two types of writing occurred once a month and the later one several times a year. This is not enough. The What Works Clearinghouse Practice Guide for teaching writing to elementary students recommended that one hour of the school day be devoted to teaching writing, with at least one-half of this time devoted to students' writing text ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref127">25</reflink>]). Teachers need to increase students' writing because prior studies have shown that elementary students do little writing at school ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref128">23</reflink>]), but increasing how much students write can improve the quality of their text ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref129">27</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0176004877-31">Conclusion</hd> <p>The mindsets that teachers hold about the malleability of writing and intelligence predicts how they teach writing. This is true for both general and special education teachers who provide instruction to students who receive special education services. Greater attention needs to be directed at the mindsets of both general and special education teachers and how these mindsets influence what teachers do in the classroom and ultimately their students' performance.</p> <ref id="AN0176004877-32"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref7" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Ashton P. T. (2014). Historical overview and theoretical perspectives of research on teachers' beliefs. In Fives H., Gill M. G. (Eds.), International handbook of research on teachers' beliefs (pp. 31–47). Routledge. https://<ulink href="http://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203108437.ch3">www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203108437.ch3</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref12" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Basturkmen H., Loewen S., Ellis R. (2004). Teachers' stated beliefs about incidental focus on form and their classroom practices. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 243–272. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.243</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref4" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bazerman C., Berninger V., Brandt D., Graham S., Langer J., Murphy S., Matsuda P., Rowe D., Schleppegrell M. (2018). The lifespan development of writing. National Council of English.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref3" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Billingsley B., Bettini E. (2017). Improving special education teacher quality and effectiveness. In Kauffman J., Hallahan D., Pullen P. (Eds.), Handbook of special education (2nd ed., pp. 501–520). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref27" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Blackwell L., Trzesniewski K., Dweck C. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development, 78, 246–263. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.00995.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref19" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bostwick K., Collie R., Martin A., Durksen T. (2020). Teacher, classroom, and student growth orientation in mathematics. A multilevel examination of growth goals, growth mindset, engagement, and achievement. Teaching & Teacher Education, 94, 103100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103100</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref81" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bridge C. A., Hiebert E. H. (1985). A comparison of classroom writing practices, teachers' perceptions of their writing instruction, and textbook recommendations on writing practices. The Elementary School Journal, 86(2), 155–172. https://doi.org/10.1086/461440</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref72" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Brindle M., Harris K.R., Graham S., Hebert M. (2016). Third and fourth grade teachers' classroom practices in writing: A national survey. Reading & Writing: An International Journal, 9, 929–954. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9604-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref29" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Camacho A. (2021). Writing motivation in school: Examining the contribution of motivation to writing performance in Portuguese middle school students [Unpublished Dissertation]. University of Porto.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carr P., Dweck C. (2011). Intelligence and motivation. In Sternberg R., Kauffman S (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of intelligence (pp. 748–770). Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chan K., Elliott R. G. (2004). Relational analysis of personal epistemology and conceptions about teaching and learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(8), 817–831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2004.09.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cochran-Smith M., Zeichner K. (Eds.). (2005). Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education. American Educational Research Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coker D., Farley-Ripley E., Jackson A., Wen H., MacArthur C., Jennings A. (2016). Writing instruction in first grade: An observational study. Reading & Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 29, 793–832. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9596-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Common Core State Standards: National Governors Association and Council of Chief School Officers. (2010). <ulink href="http://www.corestandards.org/">http://www.corestandards.org/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cutler L., Graham S. (2008). Primary grade writing instruction: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 907–919. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012656</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dweck C. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Taylor & Francis.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dweck C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fives H., Buehl M. M. (2012). Spring cleaning for the "messy" construct of teachers' beliefs: What are they? Which have been examined? What can they tell us? In Harris K. R., Graham S., Urdan T. (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook: Vol 2. Individual differences and cultural and contextual factors (pp. 471–499). American Psychological Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gates P. (2006). Going beyond belief systems: Exploring a model for the social influences on mathematics teacher beliefs. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 63, 347–309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-005-9007-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gilbert J., Graham S. (2010). Teaching writing to elementary students in Grades 4 to 6: A national survey. Elementary School Journal, 110, 494–518. https://doi.org/10.1086/651193</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graham S. (2018a). A writer(s) within community model of writing. In Bazerman C., Berninger V., Brandt D., Graham S., Langer J., Murphy S., Matsuda P., Rowe D., Schleppegrell M. (Eds.), The lifespan development of writing (pp. 271–325). National Council of English.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graham S. (2018b). A revised writer(s)-within-community model of writing. Educational Psychologist, 53(4), 258–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2018.1481406</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graham S. (2019). Changing how writing is taught. Review of Research in Education, 43(1), 277–303. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0091732X18821125</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graham S. (2023). Writer(s)-within-community model of writing as a lens for studying the teaching of writing. In Horrowitz R. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of international research on writing, Vol. II (pp. 337–350). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graham S., Bollinger A., Booth Olson C., D' Aoust C., MacArthur C., McCutchen D., Olinghouse N. (2012). Teaching elementary school students to be effective writers: A practice guide. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/practiceguide/writing_pg_062612.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graham S., Collins A., Ciullo S. (2023). Special and general education teachers' beliefs about writing and writing instruction. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 56(3), 163–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194221092156</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graham S., Harris K. R., Santangelo T. (2015). Research-based writing practices and the common core: Meta-analysis and meta-synthesis. Elementary School Journal, 115, 498–522. doi.org/10.1086/681964</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graham S., Hebert M. (2011). Writing-to-read: A meta-analysis of the impact of writing and writing instruction on reading. Harvard Educational Review, 81(4), 710–744. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.81.4.t2k0m13756113566</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graham S., Hsiang T., Ray A., Zheng G. (2022). Predicting efficacy to teach writing: The role of attitudes, perceptions of students' progress, and epistemological beliefs. Elementary School Journal, 123(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1086/720640</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graham S., Kiuhara S., MacKay M. (2020). The effects of writing on learning in science, social studies, and mathematics: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 90(2), 179–226. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0034654320914744</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graham S., Wolbers K., Dostal H., Holcomb L. (2021). Does teacher efficacy predict writing practices of teachers of DHH students? Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 26(3), 438–450. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enab012</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gunderson E., Hamdan N., Sorhagen N., D'Esterre A. (2017). Who needs innate ability to succeed in math and literacy? Academic-domain specific theories of intelligence about peers versus adults. Developmental Psychology, 53, 1188–1205. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000282</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gutshall C. (2014). Pre-service teachers' mindset beliefs about student ability. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 12, 785–802. https://<ulink href="http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/2931/293132659011.pdf">www.redalyc.org/pdf/2931/293132659011.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hsiang T., Graham S., Yang Y. (2020). Teachers' practices and beliefs about teaching writing: A national survey of grades 1 to 3 teachers. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 33(10), 2511–2548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10050-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ilhan-Beyazatas D., Dawson E. (2017). A cross-national study of student teachers' views about intelligence: Similarities and differences in England and Turkey. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 5, 510–516. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2017.050324</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jones B., Bryant L., Snyder J., Malone D. (2012). Preservice and inservice teachers' implicit theories of intelligence. Teacher Education Quarterly, 39, 87–101. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ989785</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kauffman J., Hallahan D., Pullen P. (2017). Handbook of special education (2nd ed.). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klassen R., Tze V., Betts S., Gordon K. (2011). Teacher efficacy research 1998-2009: Signs of progress or unfulfilled promise. Educational Psychology Review, 23(1), 21–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9141-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuusisto E., Lane S., Tirri K. (2017). How do school children and adolescents perceive the nature of talent development? A case study from Finland. Education Research International, 2017, 204–213. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/4162957</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leroy N., Bressoux P., Sarrazin P., Trouilloud D. (2007). The impact of teachers' implicit theories and perceived pressures on the establishment of an automative supportive classroom. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 22, 529–545. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173470</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Limpo T., Alves R. (2014). Implicit theories of writing and their impact on students' response to SRSD intervention. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 571–590. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12042</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mascret N., Elliot A., Cury F. (2017). The 3 × 2 achievement goal questionnaire for teachers. Educational Psychology, 37, 346–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2015.1096324hal-01649398</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mesler R., Corbin C., Martin B. (2021). Teacher mindset is associated with development of students' growth mindset. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 76, 101299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2021.101299</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Molden D., Dweck C. (2006). Finding "meaning" in psychology: A lay theories approach to self-regulation, social perception, and social development. American Psychologist, 61, 192–203. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.61.3.192</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Patrick S., Joshi E. (2019). " Set in stone" or "willing to grow"? Teacher sensemaking during a growth mindset initiative. Teaching and Teacher Education, 83, 156–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.04.009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Poliquin A. (2010). Exploring preservice teachers' views of intelligence (UNLV Thesis/Dissertation/Professional Papers/Capstone (Paper 820)). University of Nevada.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rissanen I., Kuusisto E., Tuominen M., Tirri K. (2019). In search of growth mindset pedagogy: A case study of one teacher's classroom practices in a Finnish elementary school. Teaching & Teacher Education, 77, 204–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.10.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roothooft H. (2014). The relationship between adult EFL teachers' oral feedback practices and their beliefs. System, 46, 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.07.012</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seaton F. (2018). Empowering teachers to implement a growth mindset. Educational Psychology in Practice, 34, 41–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/02667363.2017.1382333</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sisk V., Burgoyne A., Sun J., Butler J., McNamara B. (2018). To what extent and under what conditions are growth mind-sets important to academic achievement? Two meta-analyses. Psychological Science, 29, 549–571. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617739704</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Truax M. (2018). The impact of teacher language and growth mindset feedback on writing motivation. Literacy Research and Instruction, 57, 135–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2017.1340529</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yeager D. S., Walton G. M. (2011). Social-psychological interventions in education: They're not magic. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 267–301. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311405999</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zigmond N., Kloo A. (2017). General and special education are (and should be) different. In Kauffman J., Hallahan D., Pullen P (Eds.), Handbook of special education (2nd ed., pp. 249–262). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0176004877-33"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R324A170086 to the Texas State University. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stephen Ciullo</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>Graph https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6092-8159</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Steve Graham; Stephen Ciullo and Alyson Collins</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref125"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref129"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1417028
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Do Special and General Education Teachers' Mindset Theories about the Malleability of Writing and Intelligence Predict Their Writing Practices?
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Steve+Graham%22">Steve Graham</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Stephen+Ciullo%22">Stephen Ciullo</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6092-8159">0000-0001-6092-8159</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Alyson+Collins%22">Alyson Collins</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Learning+Disabilities%22"><i>Journal of Learning Disabilities</i></searchLink>. 2024 57(2):63-78.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: SAGE Publications and Hammill Institute on Disabilities. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 16
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+4%22">Grade 4</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Intermediate+Grades%22">Intermediate Grades</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Regular+and+Special+Education+Relationship%22">Regular and Special Education Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Teachers%22">Elementary School Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+Processes%22">Writing Processes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+%28Composition%29%22">Writing (Composition)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+4%22">Grade 4</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Attitudes%22">Teacher Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cognitive+Processes%22">Cognitive Processes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Positive+Attitudes%22">Positive Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intelligence+Differences%22">Intelligence Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Beliefs%22">Beliefs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+Instruction%22">Writing Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+Attitudes%22">Writing Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Efficacy%22">Self Efficacy</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1177/00222194231181915
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0022-2194<br />1538-4780
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: 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.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1417028
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1417028
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1177/00222194231181915
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 16
        StartPage: 63
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Regular and Special Education Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Writing Processes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Writing (Composition)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 4
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cognitive Processes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Positive Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intelligence Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Beliefs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Writing Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Writing Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self Efficacy
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Do Special and General Education Teachers' Mindset Theories about the Malleability of Writing and Intelligence Predict Their Writing Practices?
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Steve Graham
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Stephen Ciullo
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Alyson Collins
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0022-2194
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1538-4780
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 57
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Learning Disabilities
              Type: main
ResultId 1