case study learning disability student

John and College Studies: A Case Study in Accommodating Learning Disabilities

John has a learning disability which affects auditory processing. Like many students with invisible disabilities, such as learning and psychological impairments, he is sensitive to the attitudes and perceptions of fellow classmates and instructors regarding his need for a notetaker in class. He is reluctant to announce this need among his classmates, fearing perceptions of preferential treatment, invalid reasons, and negative stereotyping (e.g., that he is lazy or stupid).

Access Issue

John needed to obtain lecture notes as an accommodation. He was too embarrassed to make such a request of his classmates. Although the student disability resource center had provided paperwork and approval for monetary compensation for a notetaker, nearly two weeks had passed and still no classroom volunteers were identified.

Intervention from the student disability resources office included contact with the instructor who then made a general announcement in class about the need for a notetaker, noting that monetary compensation would be provided; if there were no volunteers, the disability resources office staff would recruit on campus for a paid notetaker enrolled in the class. It was also recommended that the instructor provide lecture outlines and the option for the student to tape record the lectures. Additional support was provided to the student through disability management counseling, which reinforced self-advocacy and learning skills.

This case shows how:

• The three-way coordination of the student, faculty, and office of disability services can effectively support the student who has concerns about what others might think and help him attain needed academic accommodations.
• The disability resources office may help a student develop self-advocacy and learning skills.

Open Access is an initiative that aims to make scientific research freely available to all. To date our community has made over 100 million downloads. It’s based on principles of collaboration, unobstructed discovery, and, most importantly, scientific progression. As PhD students, we found it difficult to access the research we needed, so we decided to create a new Open Access publisher that levels the playing field for scientists across the world. How? By making research easy to access, and puts the academic needs of the researchers before the business interests of publishers.

We are a community of more than 103,000 authors and editors from 3,291 institutions spanning 160 countries, including Nobel Prize winners and some of the world’s most-cited researchers. Publishing on IntechOpen allows authors to earn citations and find new collaborators, meaning more people see your work not only from your own field of study, but from other related fields too.

Brief introduction to this section that descibes Open Access especially from an IntechOpen perspective

Want to get in touch? Contact our London head office or media team here

Our team is growing all the time, so we’re always on the lookout for smart people who want to help us reshape the world of scientific publishing.

Home > Books > Learning Disabilities - Neurological Bases, Clinical Features and Strategies of Intervention

The Child with Learning Difficulties and His Writing: A Study of Case

Submitted: 30 May 2019 Reviewed: 16 August 2019 Published: 20 November 2019

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.89194

Cite this chapter

There are two ways to cite this chapter:

From the Edited Volume

Learning Disabilities - Neurological Bases, Clinical Features and Strategies of Intervention

Edited by Sandro Misciagna

To purchase hard copies of this book, please contact the representative in India: CBS Publishers & Distributors Pvt. Ltd. www.cbspd.com | [email protected]

Chapter metrics overview

1,142 Chapter Downloads

Impact of this chapter

Total Chapter Downloads on intechopen.com

Total Chapter Views on intechopen.com

The purpose of this paper is to present one child with learning difficulties writing process in multigrade rural elementary school in México. It presents Alejandro’s case. This boy lives in a rural area. He shows special educational needs about learning. He never had specialized attention because he lives in a marginalized rural area. He was integrated into regular school, but he faced some learning difficulties. He was always considered as a student who did not learn. He has coursed 2 years of preschool and 1 year of elementary school. Therefore, this text describes how child writes a list of words with and without image as support. Analysis consists to identify the child’s conceptualizations about writing, his ways of approaching, and difficulties or mistakes he makes. The results show that Alejandro identifies letters and number by using pseudo-letters and conventional letter. These letters are in an unconventional position. There is no relationship grapheme and phoneme yet, and he uses different writing rules. We consider his mistakes as indicators of the learning process.

• writing difficulties
• learning difficulties
• writing learning
• writing process
• special education

Author Information

Edgardo domitilo gerardo morales *.

• Faculty of Philosophy and Letters, National Autonomous University of Mexico, México City, México

*Address all correspondence to: [email protected]

1. Introduction

One of the purposes of Mexican education system is that students acquire conventional writing during first grades in elementary school [ 1 ]. This purpose consists of students to understand the alphabetical code, its meaning, and functionality. In this way, they can integrate into a discursive community.

The elementary school teacher teaches a heterogeneous group of children [ 1 ,  2 ]. Some students show different acquisition levels of the writing. This is due to literacy environment that the family and society provide. Thus, some children have had great opportunities to interact with reading and writing practices than others. Therefore, some students do not learn the alphabetical principle of writing at the end of the scholar year. They show characteristics of initial or intermediate acquisition level of the writing. In this way, it is difficult for children to acquire writing at the same time, at the term indicated by educational system or teachers.

In addition, there may be children with learning difficulties in the classroom. Department of Special Education teaches some children. Students with special educational needs show more difficulties to learn than their classmates [ 3 ]. They require more resources to achieve the educational objectives. These authors point out that special educational needs are relative. These needs arise between students’ personal characteristics and their environment. Therefore, any child may have special educational needs, even if he/she does not have any physical disability. However, some students with learning difficulties do not have a complete assessment about their special educational needs. On the one hand, their school is far from urban areas; on the other hand, there are not enough teachers of special education for every school. In consequence, school teachers do not know their students’ educational needs and teach in the same way. Thereby, students with learning difficulties do not have the necessary support in the classroom.

Learning difficulties of writing may be identified easily. Children with special educational needs do not learn the alphabetical principle of writing easily; that is, they do not relate phoneme with grapheme. Therefore, children show their conceptualizations about writing in different ways. Sometimes, teachers censor their students’ written productions because they do not write in a conventional way. Children with special educational needs are stigmatized in the classroom. They are considered as less favored. At the end of the scholar year, children do not pass.

Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to present one child with special educational needs writing process in a Mexican multigrade rural school. This text describes how the child writes a list of words with and without image as support. Analysis consists to identify the child’s conceptualizations about writing [ 4 ], his ways of approaching, and difficulties or mistakes he makes. These mistakes are the indicators of learning process [ 5 ].

This paper presents Alejandro’s case. This boy lives in a rural area. He shows special educational needs about learning. He never had specialized attention because he lives in a marginalized rural area. He was integrated into regular school, but he faced some learning difficulties. He was always considered as a student who does not learn. Therefore, this text describes Alejandro’s writing, what he does after 2 years of preschool and 1 year of elementary school.

2. Children with learning difficulties and their diagnosis

According to the National Institute for the Evaluation of Education [ 6 ], Mexican education system provides basic education (preschool, elementary, and secondary school) for students with special educational needs. There are two types of special attention: Center of Multiple Attention (CAM, in Spanish) and Units of Service and Support to Regular Education (USAER, in Spanish). In the first one, children with special educational needs go to this Center. These children receive attention according to basic education and their educational needs. In the second, specialized teachers on special education go to school and provide support to students. These teachers provide information to school teachers too. In this way, there is educational equity and inclusion in Mexican school [ 7 ].

Physical appearance : Teacher describes the child’s physical characteristics. These features indicate the type of food the student eats, care his or her person, the parents’ attention, among other elements.

Behavior observed during the assessment : In this section, the teacher should record the conditions in which the assessment was carried out: child’s attitude, behavior, and interest.

Child’s development history : This section presents conditions in which pregnancy developed, physical development (ages in which child held his/her head, sat, crawled, walked, etc.), language development (verbal response to sounds and voices, age in which said his/her first words and phrases, etc.), family (characteristics of their family and social environment, frequent activities, etc.), hetero-family history (vision, hearing, etc.), medical history (health conditions, diseases, etc.), and scholar history (age at which he/she started school, type of school, difficulties, etc.).

Present condition : In this, there are four aspects:

It refers to student’s general aspects: intellectual area (information processing, attention, memory, understanding, etc.), motor development area (functional skills to move, take objects, position of his/her body, etc.), communicative-linguistic area (phonological, semantic, syntactic and pragmatic levels), adaptation and social interaction area (the child’s skills to initiate or maintain relationships with others), and emotional area (the way of perceiving the world and people). In each one, it mentions the instruments he suggests, although there is not enough information about them [ 3 ].

The second aspect is the curricular competence level. Teacher identifies what the student is capable of doing in relation to established purposes and contents by official curriculum.

The third aspect is about the learning style and motivation to learn. It presents physical-environmental conditions where the child works, their interests, level attention, strategies to solve a task, and the incentives he receives.

The fourth aspect is information about the student’s environment: factors of the school, family, and social context that influence the child’s learning.

Psycho-pedagogical assessment allows to identify children’s general educational needs. In this way, the school teacher could have information about the students’ difficulties. However, it is a general assessment. It contains several aspects and does not go deeper into one.

Therefore, this paper does not propose a new assessment. It consists of presenting one child’s writing difficulties, his ways of conceptualizing writing, and some mistakes he gets to make.

3. Students with learning difficulties and their scholar integration

Since 1993, Mexican system education has tried to offer special education services to students with special educational needs in basic education [ 8 ]. The first step was to promote the integration of these children in regular education classrooms. However, only insertion of the student in the school was achieved. Therefore, the system of education searched for mechanisms to provide advice to teacher. In this way, student with learning difficulties can be attended at the same time in the classroom [ 8 ].

Educational integration has been directly associated with attention of students with learning difficulties, with or without physical disabilities [ 8 ]. However, this process implies a change in the school. For this, it is necessary to provide information and to create awareness to the educational community, permanent updating of teachers, joint work between teacher, family, and specialized teachers.

At present, Mexican education system looks at educational integration as process in which every student with learning difficulties is supported individually [ 9 ]. Adapting the curriculum to the child is the purpose of educational integration.

Curricular adequacy is one of the actions to support students with learning difficulties [ 10 , 11 ]. This is an individualized curriculum proposal. Its purpose is to attend the students’ special educational needs [ 3 ]. At present, Mexican education system indicates that there should be a curricular flexibility to promote learning processes. However, it is important to consider what the child knows about particular knowledge.

Regarding the subject of the acquisition of written language, it is necessary to know how the children build their knowledge about written. It is not possible to make a curricular adequacy if teachers do not have enough information about their students. However, children are considered as knowledge builders. Therefore, there are learning difficulties at the process.

4. Alejandro’s case

This section presents Alejandro’s personal information. We met him when we visited to his school for other research purposes. We focused on him because the boy was silent in class. He was always in a corner of the work table and did not do the activities. For this, we talked with his teacher and his mother to know more about him.

Alejandro is a student of an elementary multigrade rural school. He was 7 years old at the time of the study. He was in the second grade of the elementary school. His school is located in the region of the “Great Mountains” of the state of Veracruz, Mexico. It is a rural area, marginalized. To get to this town from the municipal head, it is necessary to take a rural taxi for half an hour. Then, you have to walk on a dirt road for approximately 50 min.

Alejandro’s family is integrated by six people. He is the third of the four sons. He lives with his parents. His house is made of wood. His father works in the field: farming of corn, beans, and raising of sheep. His mother is a housewife and also works in the field. They have a low economic income. Therefore, they receive a scholarship. One of his older brothers also showed learning difficulties at school. His mother says both children have a learning problem. But, they do not have any money for attending their sons’ learning difficulties. In addition, there are no special institutes near their house.

The boy has always shown learning difficulties. He went to preschool for 2 years. However, he did not develop the necessary skills at this level. At classes, this child was silent, without speaking. Preschool teachers believed that he was mute. Nevertheless, at scholar recess, he talked with his classmates. Alejandro was slow to communicate with words in the classroom.

When he started elementary school, Alejandro continued to show learning difficulties. At classes, he was silent too. He just watched what his classmates did. He did not do anything in the class. He took his notebook out of his backpack and just made some lines. Occasionally, he talked with his classmates. When the teacher asked him something, Alejandro did not answer. He looked down and did not answer. He just ducked his head and stayed for several minutes.

When Alejandro was in second grade, he did different activities than his classmates. His teacher drew some drawings for him and he painted these drawings. Other occasions, the teacher wrote some letters for him to paint. The child did every exercise during several hours. He did not finish his exercises quickly. Sometimes he painted some drawings during 2 h.

Although Alejandro requires specialized attention, he has not received it. He has not had a full psycho-pedagogical assessment at school by specialized teachers. His school does not have these teachers. Also, the child was not submitted to neurological structural examination or neurophysiological studies to exclude an organic origin of his learning difficulties. His parents do not have enough financial resources to do this type of study for him. In addition, one specialized institution that can do this type of study for free is in Mexico City. It is so far from child’s house. It would be expensive for the child’s parents. Therefore, he is only attended as a regular school student.

For this reason, this paper is interested in the boy’s writing process. This is because Alejandro coursed 2 years of preschool and 1 year of elementary school; however, he does not show a conventional writing yet. In this way, it is interesting to analyze his conceptualizations about writing and difficulties he experiences.

5. Methodology

The purpose of this paper is to know the child’s ways to approach writing spontaneously and his knowledge about the writing system. For this, the author used a clinical interview. He took into account the research interview guide “Analysis of Disturbances in the Learning Process of Reading and Writing” [ 12 ].

The clinical interview was conducted individually. We explored four points, but we only present two in this text: to write words and to write for image.

Interviewer took the child to the library room at school. There were no other students. First, the interviewer gave the child a sheet and asked to write his name. Alejandro wrote his name during long time. Interviewer only asked what it says there. He answered his name: “Alejandro.” Next, the interviewer asked the child to write some letters and numbers he knew. Alejandro wrote them. The interviewer asked about every letter and number. The child answered “letter” or “number,” and its name.

To write words : The interviewer asked the child to write a group of words from the same semantic field in Spanish (because Alejandro is from Mexico) and one sentence. Order of words was from highest to lowest number of syllables. In this case, interviewer used semantic field of animals. Therefore, he used following words: GATO (cat), MARIPOSA (butterfly), CABALLO (horse), PERRO (dog), and PEZ (fish). The sentence was: EL GATO BEBE LECHE (The cat drinks milk). The interviewer questioned every written word. He asked the child to show with his finger how he says in every written production.

To write for image : This task was divided into two parts. The first analyzed the size and second analyzed the number.

Interviewer used the following image cards: horse-bird and giraffe-worm ( Figure 1 ). Every pair of cards represents a large animal and a small animal.

Cards with large and small animals.

The purpose of this first task was to explore how the child writes when he looks at two images of animals with different size. The animal names have three syllables in Spanish: CA-BA-LLO (horse), PA-JA-RO (bird), etc. In this way, we can see how the child writes.

The interviewer used the following pair of cards for second task ( Figure 2 ).

Cards for singular and plural.

First card shows one animal (singular) and the second shows some animals (plural). In this way, we search to explore how the child produces his writings when he observes one or more objects, if there are similarities or differences to write.

The interviewer asked what was in every card. Next, he asked the child to write something. Alejandro wrote something in every picture. Afterward, the interviewer asked the child to read every word that he wrote. Child pointed with his finger what he wrote.

After, the interview was transcribed for analysis. We read the transcription. The author analyzed every written production. He identified the child’s conceptualizations about writing. He compared the written production and what the child said. In this way, the analysis did not only consist to identify the level of writing development. This text describes the child’s writing, the ways in which he conceptualizes the writing, the difficulties he experienced to write, and his interpretations about writing.

6. Alejandro’s writing

This section describes Alejandro’s writing process. As we already mentioned, Alejandro is 7 years old and he studies in the second grade of the elementary school. His teacher says the child should have a conventional writing, because he has already coursed 1 year of elementary school, but it is not like that. Most of his classmates write a conventional way, but he does not.

We organized this section in three parts. The first part presents how Alejandro wrote his name and how he identifies letters and numbers; the second part refers to the writing of words; and the third part is writing for picture.

6.1 Alejandro writes his name and some letters and numbers

The first part of the task consisted of Alejandro writing his name and some letters and numbers he knows. His name was requested for two reasons. The first reason is to identify the sheet, because the interviewer interviewed other children in the same school. Also, it was necessary to identify every written productions of the group of students. The second reason was to observe the way he wrote his name and how he identified letters and numbers.

The interviewer asked the child to write his name at the top of the sheet. When the interviewer said the instructions, Alejandro was thoughtful during a long time. He was not pressed or interrupted. He did not do anything for several seconds. The child looked at the sheet and looked at everywhere. After time, he took the pencil and wrote the following on the sheet ( Figure 3 ).

Alejandro’s name.

The interviewer looked at Alejandro’s writing. He asked if something was lacking. The interviewer was sure that Alejandro knew his name and his writing was not complete. However, Alejandro was thoughtful, and looked at the sheet for a long time. The interviewer asked if his name was already complete. The child answered “no.” The interviewer asked the child if he remembered his name. Alejandro denied with his head. So, they continued with another task.

Alejandro has built the notion of his name. We believe that he has had some opportunities to write his name. Perhaps, his teacher has asked him to write his name on his notebooks, as part of scholar work in the classroom. We observed that Alejandro used letters with conventional sound value. This is because he wrote three initial letters of his name: ALJ (Alejandro). The first two letters correspond to the beginning of his name. Then, he omits “E” (ALE-), and writes “J” (ALJ). However, Alejandro mentions that he does not remember the others. This may show that he has memorized his name, but at that moment he failed to remember the others, or, these letters are what he remembers.

Subsequently, the interviewer asked Alejandro to write some letters and numbers he knew. The sequence was: a letter, a number, a letter, another letter, and number. In every Alejandro’ writing, the interviewer asked the child what he wrote. In this way, Alejandro wrote the following ( Figure 4 ).

Letters and numbers written by Alejandro.

For this task, Alejandro wrote for a long time. He did not hurry to write. He looked at sheet and wrote. The child looked at the interviewer, looked at the sheet again and after a few seconds he wrote. The interviewer asked about every letter or number.

We can observe that Alejandro differentiates between letter and number. He wrote correctly in every indication. That is, when the interviewer asked him to write a letter or number, he did so, respectively. In this way, Alejandro knows what he needs to write a word and what is not, what is for reading and what is not.

Also, we can observe that the child shows a limited repertoire of letters. He did not write consonants. He used only vowels: A (capital and lower) and E (lower). It shows us that he differentiates between capital and lower letter. Also, he identifies what vowels and letters are because the child answered which they were when the interviewer asked about them.

6.2 Writing words from the same semantic field

Asking the child to write words spontaneously is a way to know what he knows or has built about the writing system [ 12 ]. Although we know Alejandro presents learning difficulties and has not consolidated a conventional writing, it is necessary to ask him to write some words. This is for observing and analyzing what he is capable of writing, what knowledge he has built, as well as the difficulties he experiences.

The next picture presents what Alejandro wrote ( Figure 5 ). We wrote the conventional form in Spanish next to every word. We wrote these words in English in the parentheses too.

List of words written by Alejandro.

At the beginning of the interview, Alejandro did not want to do the task. He was silent for several seconds. He did not write anything. He looked at the sheet and the window. The interviewer insisted several times and suspended the recording to encourage the child to write. Alejandro mentioned he could not write, because he did not know the letters and so he would not do it. However, the interviewer insisted him. After several minutes, Alejandro took the pencil and started to write.

Alejandro wrote every word for 1 or 2 min. He required more seconds or minutes sometimes. He looked at the sheet and his around. He was in silence and looking at the sheet other times. We identified that he needs time to write. This shows that he feels insecure and does not know something for writing. He feels insecure because he was afraid of being wrong and that he was punished by the interviewer for it. It may be that in class he is penalized when he makes a mistake. There is ignorance because he does not know some letters, and he has a low repertoire of the writing system. Thus, Alejandro needs to think about writing and look for representing it. Therefore, this is why the child needs more time to write.

We identified that the child does not establish a phoneme-grapheme relationship. He only shows with his finger from left to right when he read every word. He does not establish a relationship with the letters he used. In each word, there is no correspondence with the number of letters. The child also does not establish a constant because there is variation in number and variety of letters sometimes.

Alejandro used letters unrelated to the conventional writing of the words. For example, when he wrote GATO (cat), Alejandro used the following letters: inpnAS. It is possible to identify that no letter corresponds to the word. Perhaps, Alejandro wrote those letters because they are recognized or remembered by him.

Alejandro shows a limited repertoire of conventional letters. This is observed when he uses four vowels: A, E, I, O. The child used these vowels less frequently. There is one vowel in every word at least. When Alejandro wrote PEZ (fish), he used two vowels. We observed that he writes these vowels at the beginning or end of the word. However, we do not know why he places them that way. Maybe this is a differentiating principle by him.

There is qualitative and quantitative differentiation in Alejandro’s writing. That is, he did not write any words in the same way. All the words written by him are different. Every word has different number and variety of letters. When two words contain the same number of letter, they contain different letters.

When Alejandro wrote MARIPOSA (butterfly), he used five letters. The number of letters is less than what he used for GATO (cat). Maybe he wrote that because the interviewer said “butterfly is a small animal.” This is because the cat is bigger than the butterfly. Therefore, it may be possible that he used lesser letters for butterfly.

In Spanish, PERRO (dog) contains five letters. Alejandro wrote five letters. In this case, Alejandro’s writing corresponds to the necessary number of letters. However, it seems that there is no writing rules for him. This is for two reasons: first, because there is no correspondence with the animal size. Horse is larger than dog and Alejandro required lesser letters for horse than for dog. Second, CABALLO (horse) is composed by three syllables and PERRO (dog) by two. Alejandro used more letters to represent two syllables. In addition, it is observed that there is a pseudo-letter. It looks like an inverted F, as well as D and B, horizontally.

When Alejandro wrote PEZ (fish), the interviewer first asked how many letters he needed to write that word. The child did not answer. Interviewer asked for this again and student said that he did not know. Then, interviewer said to write PEZ (fish). For several minutes, Alejandro just looked the sheet and did not say anything. The interviewer questioned several times, but he did not answer. After several minutes, Alejandro wrote: E. The interviewer asked the child if he has finished. He denied with his head. After 1 min, he started to write. We observed that his writing contains six letters. Capital letters are predominated.

Alejandro used inverted letters in three words. They may be considered as pseudo-letters. However, if we observe carefully they are similar to conventional letters. The child has written them in different positions: inverted.

May be there is a writing rule by Alejandro. His words have a minimum of four letters and a maximum of six letters. This rule has been established by him. There is no relation to the length of orality or the object it represents.

We can identify that Alejandro shows a primitive writing [ 4 ]. He is still in writing system learning process. The phoneticization process is not present yet. The child has not achieved this level yet. He only uses letters without a conventional sound value. There is no correspondence to phoneme-grapheme, and he uses pseudo-letters sometimes.

6.3 To write for image

Write for image allows us to know what happens when the child writes something in front of an image [ 12 ]. It is identified if there is the same rules used by the child, number of letters, or if there is any change when he writes a new word. It may happen that the length of the words is related to the size of the image or the number of objects presented. In this way, we can identify the child’s knowledge and difficulties when he writes some words.

6.3.1 The image size variable

The first task is about observing how the child writes when he is in front of two different sized images. That is, we want to identify if the image size influences on his writings. Therefore, two pairs of cards were presented to Alejandro. Every pair of cards contained two animals, one small and one large. The interviewer asked Alejandro to write the name on each one ( Figure 6 ).

Horse and bird writing.

Based on the writing produced by Alejandro, we mentioned the following:

Alejandro delimits his space to write. When he wrote for first pair of words, the child drew a wide rectangle and he made an oval and several squares for the second pair of words. The child wrote some letters to fill those drawn spaces. It seems that Alejandro’s rule is to fill the space and not only represent the word.

When Alejandro writes the words, we identified that he presents difficulty in the conventional directionality of writing. He wrote most of words from left to right (conventional directionality), but he wrote some words from right to left (no conventional). For example, the child started to write the second word on the left. He wrote seven letters. He looked at the sheet for some seconds. After, he continued to write other letters on the right. He wrote and completed the space he had left, from right to left.

Alejandro shows two ways to write: left–right (conventional) and right–left (no conventional). When he wrote the last word, the child wrote one letter under another. There was no limited space on the sheet. Alejandro wrote it there. The child has not learned the writing directionality.

When we compared Alejandro’s writings, we identified that the number of letters used by him does not correspond to the image size. Although the images were present and he looked them when he wrote, the child took into account other rules to write. The six names of animals had three syllables in Spanish and Alejandro used nine letters for CABALLO (horse) and eleven for PÁJARO (bird). The letters used by him are similar to the conventional ones. However, these are in different positions. There are no phonetic correspondences with the words. The child shows a primitive writing. Alejandro has not started the level of relation between phoneme and grapheme yet. We can believe that the boy wrote some letters to cover the space on the sheet. Alejandro takes into account the card size instead of the image size.

After writing a list of words, the interviewer asked Alejandro to read and point out every word he wrote. The purpose of this task is to observe how the child relates his writing to the sound length of the word. When Alejandro read CABALLO (horse), he pointed out as follows ( Figure 7 ).

Alejandro reads “caballo” (horse).

Alejandro reads every word and points out what he reads. In this way, he justifies what he has written. In the previous example, Alejandro reads the first syllable and points out the first letter, second syllable with the second letter. At this moment, he gets in conflict when he tries to read the third syllable. It would correspond to the third letter. However, “there are more letters than he needs.” When he reads the word, he shows the beginning of phoneticization: relation between one syllable with one letter. This is the syllabic writing principle [ 4 ]. Nevertheless, he has written more letters. Therefore, Alejandro says “o” in the other letters. In this way, we can point out that Alejandro justifies every letters and there is a correspondence between what he reads and what he writes.

When Alejandro reads the second word, the child pointed out as follows ( Figure 8 ).

Alejandro reads “pájaro” (bird).

Alejandro makes a different correspondence syllable-letter than the first word. Although his writing was in two ways, his reading is only one direction: from left to right. The first syllable is related to first three letters he wrote. The second syllable is related to the fourth letter. But, he faces the same problem as in the previous word: “there are many letters.” So he justifies the other letters as follows. He reads the third syllable in relation to the sixth and seventh letter. And, reads “o” for the other letters.

When interviewer showed the next pair of cards, Alejandro wrote as following ( Figure 9 ).

Giraffe and worm writing by Alejandro.

When the interviewer shows the pair of cards to Alejandro, the child said “It’s a zebra.” So, the interviewer said “It’s a giraffe and it’s a worm” and pointed out every card. The interviewer asked Alejandro to write the name of every animal. First, the child draws a rectangle across the width of the sheet. Next, he started to write on the left side inside the rectangle. He said the first syllable “JI” while writing the first letter. After, he said “ra,” he wrote a hyphen. Then, he said “e” and wrote another letter. At that moment, he looked at the sheet and filled the space he left with some letters ( Figure 10 ).

Giraffe writing.

Alejandro shows different rules of writing. These rules are not the same as previous. He delimited the space to write and filled the space with some letters. The child tries to relate the syllable with one letter, but he writes others. There is a limited repertoire of letters too. In this case, it seems that he used the same letters: C capital and lower letter, A capital and lower letter, and O. We believe that he uses hyphens to separate every letter. However, when he wrote the first hyphen, it reads the second syllable. We do not know why he reads there. Alejandro had tried to use conventional letters. He uses signs without sound value. In addition, there is no relation phoneme and grapheme.

When Alejandro wrote GUSANO (worm), he drew a rectangle and divided it into three small squares. Then, he drew other squares below the previous ones. After, he began to write some letters inside the squares, as seen in the following picture ( Figure 11 ).

Worm writing.

Alejandro used other rules to write. They are different than the previous. Alejandro has written one or two letters into every box. At the end, he writes some letters under the last box. There is no correspondence between what he reads and writes. There are also no fixed rules of writing for him. Rather, it is intuited that he draws the boxes to delimit his space to write.

6.3.2 Singular and plural writing

The next task consists to write singular and plural. For this, the interviewer showed Alejandro the following images ( Figure 12 ).

Cards with one cat and four cats.

Alejandro drew an oval for first card. This oval is on the left half of the sheet. He wrote the following ( Figure 13 ).

Alejandro writes GATO (cat).

Next, the interviewer asked Alejandro to write for the second card, in plural. For this, Alejandro draws another oval from the middle of the sheet, on the right side. The child did not do anything for 1 h 30 min. After this time, he wrote some different letters inside the oval ( Figure 14 ). He wrote from right to left (unconventional direction).

Alejandro writes GATOS (cats).

Alejandro wrote in the opposite conventional direction: from right to left. He tried to cover the delimited space by him. His letters are similar to the conventional ones. Also, there are differences between the first and the second word. He used lesser letters for first word than the second. That is, there are lesser letters for singular and more letters for plural. Perhaps, the child took into account the number of objects in the card.

The writing directionality may have been influenced by the image of the animals: cats look at the left side. Alejandro could have thought he was going to write from right to left, as well as images of the cards. Therefore, it is necessary to research how he writes when objects look at the right side. In this way, we can know if this influences the directionality of Alejandro’s writing.

With the next pair of images ( Figure 15 ), the interviewer asked Alejandro to write CONEJO (rabbit) and CONEJOS (rabbits).

Cards with one rabbit and three rabbits.

Alejandro draws a rectangle in the middle of the sheet for the first card (rabbit). He said “cone” (rab-) and wrote the first letter on the left of the sheet. Then, he said “jo” (bit) and wrote the second letter. He said “jo” again and wrote the third letter. He was thoughtful for some seconds. He started to write other letters. His writing is as follows ( Figure 16 ).

Alejandro writes CONEJO (rabbit).

At the beginning, Alejandro tries to relate the syllables of the word with first two letters. However, he justifies the other letters when he read the word. There is no exact correspondence between the syllable and the letter. As well as his writing is to fill the space he delimited.

Alejandro takes into account other rules for plural writing. He drew a rectangle across the width of the sheet. Starting on the left, he said “CO” and wrote one letter. Then, he said “NE” and drew a vertical line. After, he said “JO” and wrote other letters. His writing is as follows ( Figure 17 ).

Alejandro writes CONEJOS (rabbits).

Alejandro writes both words differently. He reads CONEJO (rabbit) for first word and CONEJOS (rabbits) for the second. Both words are different from each other. But, he wrote them with different rules. This is confusing for us because there are vertical lines between every two letters in the second word. We believe that the child tried to represent every object, although he did not explain it.

In summary, Alejandro shows different writings. He used pseudo-letters and conventional letter. These letters are in unconventional positions. There is no relationship between grapheme and phoneme yet; and, he uses different writing rules.

7. Conclusions

We described Alejandro’s writing process. According to this description, we can note the following:

Alejandro is a student of an elementary regular school. He presents learning difficulties. He could not write “correctly.” However, he did not have a full assessment by specialized teachers. His school is so far from urban areas and his parents could not take him to a special institution. Therefore, he has not received special support. Also, there is not a favorable literacy environment in his home. His teacher teaches him like his classmates. Usually, he has been marginalized and stigmatized because “he does not know or work in class.”

We focused on Alejandro because he was a child who was always distracted in class. We did not want to show his writing mistakes as negative aspects, but as part of his learning process. Errors are indicators of a process [ 5 ]. They inform the person’s skills. They allow to identify the knowledge that is being used [ 13 ]. In this way, errors can be considered as elements with a didactic value.

Alejandro showed some knowledge and also some difficulties to write. The child identifies and distinguishes letters and numbers. We do not know if he conceptualizes their use in every one. When he wrote, he shows his knowledge: letters are for reading, because he did not use any number in the words.

The writing directionality is a difficulty for Alejandro. He writes from left to right and also from right to left. We do not know why he did that. We did not research his reasons. But, it is important to know if there are any factors that influence the child to write like this.

The student does not establish a phoneme-grapheme relationship yet. He is still in an initial level to writing acquisition. He uses conventional letters and pseudo-letters to write. There are no fixed rules to write: number and variety of letters. However, we observed student’s thought about writing. He justifies his writings when he reads them and invents letters to represent some words.

There is still a limited repertoire of letters. He used a few letters of the alphabet. Therefore, Alejandro needs to interact with different texts, rather than teaching him letter by letter. Even if “he does not know those letters.” In this way, he is going to appropriate other elements and resources of the writing system.

Time he takes to write is an important element for us. He refused to write for several minutes at the beginning. After, he wrote during 1 or 2 min every word. As we mentioned previously, we believe that Alejandro did not feel sure to do the task. Perhaps, he thought that the interviewer is going to penalize for his writing “incorrectly.” He felt unable to write. Therefore, it is important that children’s mistakes are not censored in the classroom. Mistakes let us to know the child’s knowledge and their learning needs.

We considered that class work was not favorable for Alejandro. He painted letters, drawings, among others. These were to keep him busy. Therefore, it is important for the child to participate in reading and writing practices. In this way, he can be integrated into the scholar activities and is not segregated by his classmates.

About children with learning difficulties, it is important that these children write as they believe. Do not censor their writings. They are not considered as people incapable. It is necessary to consider that learning is a slow process. Those children will require more time than their classmates.

Special education plays an important role in Mexico. However, rather than attending to the student with learning difficulties in isolation, it is necessary that the teacher should be provided with information and the presence of specialized teachers in the classroom. In this way, the student with learning difficulties can be integrated into class, scholar activities, and reading and writing practices.

We presented Alejandro’s writing process in this paper. Although he was considered as a child with learning difficulties, we identified he shows some difficulties, but he knows some elements of the writing system too.

Acknowledgments

I thank Alejandro, his parents, and his teacher for the information they provided to me about him.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

• 1. SEP. Aprendizajes Clave Para la Educación Integral. Plan y Programas de Estudio Para la Educación Básica. México, D.F.: Secretaria de Educación Pública; 2017. ISBN: 970-57-0000-1
• 2. SEP. Propuesta Educativa Multigrado 2005. México: Secretaria de Educación Pública; 2005
• 3. García-Cedillo E, Escalante I, Escandón M, Fernández L, Mustre A, Puga I. La Integración Educativa en el Aula Regular. Principios, Finalidades y Estrategias. México: Secretaría de Educación Pública; 2000. ISBN: 978-607-8279-18-0
• 4. Ferreiro E, Teberosky A. Los Sistemas de Escritura en el Desarrollo del Niño. México, D.F.: Editorial Siglo XXI; 1979. ISBN 968-23-1578-6
• 5. Dolz J, Gagnon R, Vuillet Y. Production écrite et Difficultés D’apprentisage. Genève: Carnets des Sciences de L’education. Université de Genéve; 2011. ISBN: 2-940195-44-7
• 6. INEE. Panorama Educativo de México. Indicadores del Sistema Educativo Nacional 2017. Educación Básica y Media Superior. México: Instituto Nacional para la Evaluación de la Educación; 2018
• 7. SEP. Modelo Educativo: Equidad e Inclusión. México: Secretaria de Educación Pública; 2017. ISBN: 978-607-97644-4-9
• 8. SEP. Orientaciones Generales Para el Funcionamiento de los Servicios de Educación Especial. México: Secretaria de Educación Pública; 2016. ISBN: 970-57-0016-8
• 9. SEP. Estrategia de Equidad e Inclusión en la Educación Básica: Para Alumnos con Discapacidad, Aptitudes Sobresalientes y Dificultades Severas de Aprendizaje, Conducta o Comunicación. México, DF: Secretaria de Educación Pública; 2018
• 10. Durán M. Las Adecuaciones Curriculares Individuales: Hacia la Equidad en Educación Especial. México: Secretaría de Educación Pública; 2016. ISBN 968-9082-33-7
• 11. CONAFE. Discapacidad Intelectual. Guía Didáctica Para la Inclusión en Educación Inicial y Básica. México: Secretaria de Educación Pública; 2010
• 12. Ferreiro E, Gómez M. Análisis de las Perturbaciones en el Proceso de Aprendizaje de la Lecto-Escritura. Fascículo 1. México: SEP-DGEE; 1982
• 13. Vaca J. Así Leen (Textos) los Niños. Textos Universitarios. México: Universidad Veracruzana; 2006. ISBN: 968-834-753-1

© 2019 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Continue reading from the same book

Learning disabilities.

Published: 17 June 2020

By Rakgadi Grace Malapela and Gloria Thupayagale-Tshw...

755 downloads

By Tatiana Volodarovna Tumanova and Tatiana Borisovna...

624 downloads

By Maria Tzouriadou

963 downloads

• Professionals
• Success Stories
• Join Email List
• Case Studies

The following are some case studies of dyslexics with whom we have worked over the past years. In each story, we provide background information, the course of therapy that integrates the individual's strengths and interests, and the outcomes—all of which are positive.

Case Studies for using strengths and interests

Case Study One:

Grace has a diagnosis of dyslexia. She has trouble with visual scanning, processing, and working memory. She also has difficulties with spelling and sequencing for problem solving. She has strong verbal skills and is artistic abilities. She learns well with color and when her hands are occupied.

Grace struggled with note taking because of her difficulties with spelling and visual scanning (looking from the board to her paper). Furthermore, she could not keep up and got "lost" in the lecture (particularly for subjects that were already difficult for her). Grace’s teachers thought that she was not putting forth the effort, because they often saw her daydreaming in class. When the therapist asked Grace about this, she admitted that sometimes she would daydream because she did not know where they were in the lecture. She also desperately wanted to blend in with her peers, so she looked to them to see what she was supposed to be doing. However, when she was permitted to follow along with a book that she could highlight in and make her own doodles and notes in the margins during the lecture, she was able to focus her energy on the teacher and have notes that she could refer back to later with all of the main points highlighted. Using Grace's kinesthetic learning style and preference for color, she was able to participate with her peers, decrease her anxiety in class, and develop a skill that will help her to learn better across the curriculum.

Due to her difficulties with sequencing, working memory, and reading, Grace struggled with numerical operations and story problems in math. Her problem solving skills were good when she could leverage her strengths: connecting abstract ideas and thinking at the macro level. Hence, when she could connect a concept to a real life problem, she could inevitably come up with a creative solution and grasp the concept; however, her poor numerical operations skills were still holding her back. The therapist remembered Grace's interest in color and tactile learning style and introduced her to a number of "hands-on" ways of solving the problem: calculating probability with colored marbles, using her fingers for multiplication, and solving equations with objects to represent the variables. In this manner, Grace not only grasped the concept that was presented at the macro-level, but using her love of color and keeping her hands moving she could reliably solve for the answer. Employing colored pencils for numbering steps or placing hash marks in multi-step directions helped Grace stay on point and not skip steps in complex problems. These strategies were incorporated into her 504 Plan and were communicated to her math teacher.

Case Study Two:

Amy has a diagnosis of dyslexia. She enjoys creative writing, fashion, and art. She is extremely bright and has a strong memory. She benefits from rule-based instruction. If you tell her a rule once, she will be able to recite it to you the next time you see her. She delights in being able to be the teacher and teach the rules herself or correct others’ errors.

Amy’s stories often jumped around without any cohesion or plot. The clinician suggested that Amy work on her stories on a daily basis. Amy drafted her stories about glamorous people and enjoyed illustrating their wardrobes. Her clinician helped her to expand and revise her story using a multi-sensory tool to teach her the parts of story grammar. She was able to revise her own story, by adding the components of a good plot (characters, setting, initiating event, internal response, plan, and resolution). With several revisions, she produced a well-developed story and colorful illustration that was framed and displayed. The combination of using Amy’s interests, learning style, and a powerful reinforcement (framing and displaying the finished product) lead Amy to become proficient in telling stories and in revising her own work.

Case Study Three:

Ryan has a diagnosis of PDD-NOS that affects his language, social, and literacy skills. He also struggles with anxiety. He has a number of interests including: pirates and treasure, cooking, watching his favorite TV shows, and drama. Ryan has a strong memory and conveys a great deal of social knowledge when he is acting or drawing.

Due to Ryan’s anxiety associated with reading and writing, he often protested and completely shut down when presented with something to read or write. Ryan watched a number of shows that taught lessons about friendship or had a “moral to the story.” He was able to take some of those themes and stories and modify them, inserting kids from his school as the characters, and adding himself as a character and narrator. Given his interest in drawing, he illustrated his story, and made it into a short book.

The clinician wanted to incorporate his interest in writing and illustrating stories to improve his social skills. The therapist suggested that Ryan make his story into a play, and that he could be the director. Through a series of role-plays, Ryan was able to overcome his social anxiety and invite a peer to act in his play. Numerous social skills were targeted: greetings, turn-taking, active listening, problem solving, and flexibility for handling unforeseen circumstances. Ryan has now directed four plays, and has written countless others. To date, five of his peers have come and acted in his plays. (It has become a “cool” thing to do in Ryan’s social circle). He has gained a great deal of confidence in relating to his peers and in his strength of writing and directing plays.

In addition to social skills, Ryan has struggled with reading and following directions, asking for clarification, and comprehending and using abstract vocabulary. These areas were addressed using his interests in cooking and treasure hunts. Ryan participated in a number of baking projects that required him to locate the directions on the package, sequence and follow each step in a sequence, and determine the meaning of new vocabulary. Since this was in a context that he enjoyed, his attention was high and his anxiety was non-existent. Furthermore, Ryan had the opportunity to learn a new recipe and build on his strength for baking. Since his learning was in context, he was able to remember the meanings of abstract vocabulary. Ryan’s social skills were targeted when he went to the various offices in the building and offered his baked treats. He inevitably received positive social feedback.

Another motivating context for boosting Ryan’s reading for directions and vocabulary skills was participating in scavenger hunts around the building. He enjoyed the challenge of complex directions because there was an element of surprise and adventure. There was a notable consequence if he incorrectly followed the directions. This created the opportunity for Ryan to ask for directions or seek clarification. Since his learning was in context (i.e., he was looking at a fire extinguisher when he was reading the word for the first time), it was memorable. Many conjunctions (but, therefore, so, if) and sequence words (when, at the same time, before, after, next) were targeted multiple times, which led to mastery. This multi-sensory activity was enjoyable for both Ryan and the clinician. For Ryan, it resulted in greater participation, gains, and retention than traditional teaching approaches.

in this section

• Learn about Dyslexia
• What the Literature Says
• Reading Interest Inventories
• Writing IEP Goals
• Getting to Work (or Play)
• Quiz: Understanding Students' Strengths and Interests
• Dyslexia and Intervention
• Apps for Dyslexia and Learning Disabilities
• Software & Assistive Technology
• Contact Us    |   
• Disclaimer & Privacy Policy    |   
• Staff Login

© 2024 The Regents of the University of Michigan.   U-M Gateway

A collective case study of nursing students with learning disabilities

Affiliation.

• 1 Franciscan University of Steubenville, Steubenville, Ohio, USA. [email protected]
• PMID: 14535146

This collective case study described the meaning of being a nursing student with a learning disability and examined how baccalaureate nursing students with learning disabilities experienced various aspects of the nursing program. It also examined how their disabilities and previous educational and personal experiences influenced the meaning that they gave to their educational experiences. Seven nursing students were interviewed, completed a demographic data form, and submitted various artifacts (test scores, evaluation reports, and curriculum-based material) for document analysis. The researcher used Stake's model for collective case study research and analysis (1). Data analysis revealed five themes: 1) struggle, 2) learning how to learn with LD, 3) issues concerning time, 4) social support, and 5) personal stories. Theme clusters and individual variations were identified for each theme. Document analysis revealed that participants had average to above average intellectual functioning with an ability-achievement discrepancy among standardized test scores. Participants noted that direct instruction, structure, consistency, clear directions, organization, and a positive instructor attitude assisted learning. Anxiety, social isolation from peers, and limited time to process and complete work were problems faced by the participants.

Publication types

• Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
• Adaptation, Psychological*
• Attitude of Health Personnel*
• Disabled Persons / education
• Disabled Persons / psychology*
• Education, Nursing, Baccalaureate / methods
• Education, Nursing, Baccalaureate / standards*
• Education, Special
• Educational Status
• Faculty, Nursing / standards
• Interprofessional Relations
• Learning Disabilities / psychology*
• Needs Assessment
• Nursing Education Research
• Self Efficacy
• Social Support
• Students, Nursing / psychology*
• Surveys and Questionnaires
• Teaching / methods
• Teaching / standards

• Armenia response
• Gaza response

• High contrast
• Press centre

Search UNICEF

Case studies on disability and inclusion.

To document UNICEF’s work on disability and inclusion in Europe and Central Asia region, UNICEF Regional Office for Europe and Central Asia has developed a set of five case studies.

UNICEF takes a comprehensive approach to inclusion, working to ensure that all children have access to vital services and opportunities. When UNICEF speaks about “inclusion” this encompasses children with and without disabilities, marginalized and vulnerable children, and children from minority and hard-to-reach groups.

The case studies have a specific focus on children with disabilities and their families. However, many of the highlighted initiatives are designed for broad inclusion and benefit all children. In particular, this case study, covers such topics as: Inclusive Preschool, Assistive Technologies (AT), Early Childhood intervention (ECI), Deinstitutionalisation (DI).

Case studies

Case study 1: “Open source AAC in the ECA Region”

Files available for download (1).

Case study 2: “Inclusive Preschool in Bulgaria”

Case study 3: “Assistive technology in Armenia"

Case study 4: “Early childhood intervention in the ECA region”

Case study 5: “Deinstitutionalization in the ECA region”

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

LEARNING DISABILITY : A CASE STUDY

The present investigation was carried out on a girl name Harshita who has been identified with learning disability. She is presently studying at ‘Udaan’ a school for the special children in Shimla. The girl was brought to this special school from the normal school where she was studying earlier when the teachers and parents found it difficult to teach the child with other normal children. The learning disability the child faces is in executive functioning i.e. she forgets what she has memorized. When I met her I was taken away by her sweet and innocent ways. She is attentive and responsible but the only problem is that she forgets within minutes of having learnt something. Key words : learning disability, executive functioning, remedial teaching

Related Papers

The Indian Journal of Pediatrics

Sunil Karande , Madhuri Kulkarni

International Journal of Scientific Research in Computer Science Applications and Management Studies

Monika Thapliyal

This paper reviews the research work on 'learning disability' in India. It studies the social and educational challenges for learning disabled, and details research in India, concerning the aspects of diagnosis, assessment, and measures for improvement. The paper critically examines the development in their teaching-learning process, over the years. It highlights the role of special educator in their education and explores the impact of technology and specific teaching-aids in the education of learners with learning disability. The later part of the paper, throws light on the government policies for learning disabled and attempts to interpolate their proposed effect in their learning. It concludes with possible solutions, learner progress, based on the recommendations from detailed analysis of the available literature.

International Journal of Contemporary Pediatrics

Shipra Singh

Background: Specific learning disability (SLD) is an important cause of academic underachievement among children, which often goes unrecognized, due to lack of awareness and resources in the community. Not much identifiable data is available such children, more so in Indian context. The objectives of the study were to study the demographic profile, risk factors, co-morbidities and referral patterns in children with specific learning disability.Methods: The study has a descriptive design. Children diagnosed with SLD over a 5 years’ period were included, total being 2015. The data was collected using a semi-structured proforma, (based on the aspects covered during child’s comprehensive assessment at the time of visit), which included socio-demographic aspects, perinatal and childhood details, scholastic and referral details, and comorbid psychiatric disorders.Results: Majority of the children were from English medium schools, in 8-12 years’ age group, with a considerable delay in seek...

Journal of Postgraduate Medicine

Sunil Karande

Fernando Raimundo Macamo

IJIP Journal

The cardinal object of the present study was to investigate the learning disability among 10 th students. The present study consisted sample of 60 students subjects (30 male students and 30 female students studying in 10th class), selected through random sampling technique from Balasore District (Odisha). Data was collected with the help of learning disability scale developed by Farzan, Asharaf and Najma Najma (university of Panjab) in 2014. For data analysis and hypothesis testing Mean, SD, and t test was applied. Results revealed that there is significant difference between learning disability of Boys and Girls students. That means boys showing more learning disability than girls. And there is no significant difference between learning disability of rural and urban students. A learning disability is a neurological disorder. In simple terms, a learning disability results from a difference in the way a person's brain is "wired." Children with learning disabilities are smarter than their peers. But they may have difficulty in reading, writing, spelling, and reasoning, recalling and/or organizing information if left to figure things out by them or if taught in conventional ways. A learning disability can't be cured or fixed; it is a lifelong issue. With the right support and intervention, children with learning disabilities can succeed in school and go on to successful, often distinguished careers later in life. Parents can help children with learning disabilities achieve such success by encouraging their strengths, knowing their weaknesses, understanding the educational system, working with professionals and learning about strategies for dealing with specific difficulties. Facts about learning disabilities Fifteen percent of the U.S. population, or one in seven Americans, has some type of learning disability, according to the National Institutes of Health.

Indian Pediatrics

Rukhshana Sholapurwala

samriti sharma

Baig M U N T A J E E B Ali

The present article deals with the important factors related to learning disability such as the academic characteristics of learning disability, how learning disability can be identified in an early stage and remedial measures for learning disability. It tries to give an insight into various aspects of learning disability in children that will be of help in designing the tools and administering them properly.

Iconic Research and Engineering Journals

IRE Journals

This article explains how learning disability affect on one's ability to know or use spoken affects on one's ability to know or use spoken or communication, do mathematical calculations, coordinate movements or direct attention learning disabilities are ignored, unnoticed and unanswered such children's needs are not met in regular classes. They needed special attention in classrooms. Learning disability is a big challenge for student in learning environment. The teacher's role is very important for identifying the learning disability. Some common causes and symptoms are there for children with learning disability. The classroom and teacher leads to main important role in identification and to overcome their disabilities.

RELATED PAPERS

MAKALAH TINJAUAN DAN MANFAAT PENELITIAN

Shinta Lailatun Ni'mah

Thomas Burbey

Dino Burtini

Servet Tekin

Transportation Research Part A: General

Michael Bronzini

International Journal of Remote Sensing

David Figueras

Biocatalysis and Agricultural Biotechnology

Muhila Muhila

Bulletin of the Geological Society of Greece

George Drakatos

pemikiran ibnu miskawih

achmad hafif

CSEE Journal of Power and Energy Systems

Md Liton Hossain, PhD

Vandermi Silva

Materials and Structures

Robert Jockwer

Vinoth Kumar

Adriano Fisch

Physics Letters B

T. Poghosyan

BMJ paediatrics open

Elizabeth Elliott

Scripta Nova-revista Electronica De Geografia Y Ciencias Sociales

Angela Lucia Araujo Ferreira

Romanian Journal of Legal Medicine

Gabriel Gorun

Transformation: An International Journal of Holistic Mission Studies

Miroslaw Wyrzykowski

Miecze Europy, wyd. 2.

Igor Górewicz

Zarka Vujic

Naniana N I M R O D Benu

Wahana Fisika

Revista De Estudios Politicos

Quentin Skinner

See More Documents Like This

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• Skip to main navigation
• Skip to page content

Center for Accessibility and Disability Resources

• Application for Academic Accommodations
• Application for Residence Life Accommodations
• Temporary Medical or Pregnancy and Parenting Application
• Bison Accessibility Portal (Student)
• Bison Accessibility Portal (Faculty)
• Bison Accessibility Portal Faculty Support
• Bison Accessibility Portal Student Support
• Note Taker Application
• Prospective Student Information
• Apps to Support Students in Higher Ed
• Guidelines for Documentation
• Emotional Support Animals Information
• Pregnant and Parenting Student Information
• Temporary Medical Conditions
• Campus Resources
• Assistive Technology
• Student Handbook
• Complete Prospective Students Handbook
• Alternative Textbook and Course Materials
• Note-taking Accommodations
• Testing Accommodations
• Student Rights and Responsibilities
• Dispute Resolution and Grievance Procedures
• Faculty Rights and Responsibilities
• Faculty Handbook
• Accommodations Overview
• Tap Career Pathways Guide
• Tap Handbook
• Newsletters
• Chronic Medical Conditions

Learning Disabilities

• Mental Health Conditions
• Meet our Staff

Learning disabilities are neurodevelopmental conditions that affect a person's ability to acquire, process, store, and retrieve information, often resulting in difficulties with certain academic skills. These disabilities are not indicative of a lack of intelligence but rather involve specific challenges in areas such as reading, writing, spelling, math, or organizational skills. Learning disabilities are typically lifelong and may manifest differently in each student. Common types include dyslexia (impacting reading and language processing), dysgraphia (affecting writing abilities), and dyscalculia (influencing mathematical skills). The challenges associated with learning disabilities can significantly impact academic performance and daily functioning, but with appropriate support, accommodations, and targeted interventions, individuals with learning disabilities can navigate educational and professional settings effectively. Understanding and addressing these challenges is essential to fostering an inclusive and supportive environment for individuals with learning disabilities. 

Effects in the Classroom

The effects can vary depending on the nature and severity of the condition, but here are some common ways in which learning disabilities may affect students:

Academic Challenges:

• Reading and Comprehension: Students with learning disabilities may struggle with reading and comprehending written material, which can hinder their ability to understand course content.
• Writing Skills: Difficulties in organizing thoughts and expressing ideas in writing may affect assignments, essays, and exams.

 Note-Taking and Listening:

• Processing Speed: Learning disabilities may impact a student's ability to process information quickly, making it challenging to keep up with lectures and take effective notes.
• Auditory Processing: Difficulty in processing auditory information may affect the understanding of spoken instructions or class discussions.

Time Management:

•  Executive Functioning: Learning disabilities can impact executive functions such as planning, organization, and time management, making it challenging for students to meet deadlines and manage their coursework efficiently.

Test-Taking Challenges:

• Memory Issues: Students may struggle with retaining and recalling information during exams, impacting their performance on timed assessments.
• Test Anxiety: The stress associated with exams may be heightened for students with learning disabilities, affecting their ability to perform under pressure.

Social and Emotional Impact:

• Self-Esteem: Struggling academically may negatively impact a student's self-esteem and confidence, potentially leading to feelings of frustration and inadequacy.
• Social Interactions: Learning disabilities can also affect social interactions, as students may feel isolated or different from their peers.

Advocacy and Communication:

• Self-Advocacy: Students with hidden disabilities may face challenges in advocating for their needs, such as requesting accommodations, communicating with professors, and seeking additional support.

Technology and Accessibility:

• Use of Assistive Technology: Students with learning disabilities may benefit from using assistive technologies, but the availability and integration of these tools can vary across educational institutions.

Accommodations and Support Services:

• Access to Accommodations: The effectiveness of accommodations, such as extended time on exams or alternative formats for assignments, can significantly impact a student's ability to demonstrate their knowledge and skills.

How Faculty Can Support Students with Chronic Medical Conditions

 Universal Design for Learning (UDL): Design courses and materials that are accessible to a wide range of learners. Provide multiple means of representation, engagement, and expression to cater to different learning styles. Clear Communication: Offer clear instructions both verbally and in writing. Use visual aids, charts, and diagrams to enhance understanding. Encourage students to ask questions and seek clarification. Flexible Assessment:

• Allow alternative forms of assessment, such as project-based assignments or oral presentations, to assess understanding beyond traditional exams.
•  Consider flexible deadlines or extended time for assignments when possible.

Provide Lecture Materials in Advance: Share lecture notes, slides, or reading materials before class, giving students an opportunity to review and familiarize themselves with the content. Utilize Technology:

• Explore the use of assistive technologies or offer resources that can benefit a diverse range of learners.
• Ensure that course materials and online platforms are accessible.

Encourage Peer Support:

• Foster a collaborative learning environment where students can work together and support one another.
• Establish peer mentoring or study groups to provide additional assistance.

Regular Check-ins:

• Schedule one-on-one meetings with students to discuss their progress, address concerns, and offer personalized support.
• Create a welcoming atmosphere where students feel comfortable discussing their learning needs.

Provide Written Feedback: Offer constructive and specific feedback on assignments, highlighting strengths and areas for improvement. Written feedback can be particularly beneficial for students with learning disabilities.

Inclusive Classroom Policies:

• Clearly outline your policies, including expectations for attendance, late assignments, and participation, to provide structure and reduce anxiety.
• Be open to discussing individual needs and consider making reasonable accommodations as necessary.

Professional Development:

• Stay informed about inclusive teaching practices and attend workshops or training sessions on accommodating diverse learners.
• Collaborate with disability support services within the institution to access resources and expertise.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• PMC10569535

A comparative case study of the accommodation of students with disabilities in online and in-person degree programs

1 Center for Education Through Exploration, School of Earth and Space Exploration, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, United States of America

2 Student Accessibility and Inclusive Learning Services, Educational Outreach and Student Services, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, United States of America

Logan E. Gin

3 Sheridan Center for Teaching and Learning, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, United States of America

Ariel D. Anbar

4 School of Molecular Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, United States of America

James P. Collins

5 School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, United States of America

Paul LePore

6 School of Social and Family Dynamics, The College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, United States of America

Sara E. Brownell

7 Research for Inclusive STEM Education Center, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, United States of America

Associated Data

The data analyzed in this study describe students' individual disability statuses. They also include enough demographic information to make re-identification of individuals possible. For these reasons, it is not possible to publicly release the raw data. Qualified researchers may request access through https://uoia.asu.edu/contact .

Fully online degree programs are an increasingly important part of the higher education ecosystem. Among the many challenges raised by the growth of fully online courses and degree programs is the question: Are institutions providing online students with disabilities accommodations that are comparable to those provided to students in traditional in-person degree programs? To explore this question, we compared students in a fully online biology degree program to students in the equivalent in-person degree program at a large research university. For each group, we assessed the frequency with which students register with the disability resource center, the range of specific accommodations provided, and course grades. Results show that students in the in-person program were nearly 30% more likely to be enrolled with the disability resource center, and that students in the online program were offered a narrower range of accommodations. However, in relative terms (i.e., compared to students without disabilities in their degree program), online students with disabilities perform better than in-person students with disabilities.

1. Introduction

Legal requirements institutionalized the provision of learning accommodations for students with disabilities in American colleges and universities [ 1 – 3 ]. Within this context, a disability is defined as “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a record of such impairment, or being regarded as having such an impairment” [ 1 , 3 ]. Accommodations are an adjustment to a course or degree requirements made to allow a student with a disability to have equal access to that course or degree and, by definition, are intended to ensure that students with disabilities have educational experiences as equivalent as possible to students without disabilities. However, as Gin et al. [ 4 ] discuss, contemporary higher education has changed dramatically since these statutes were enacted. Notably, because university structures that provide disability accommodations predate the availability and growth of both online courses and fully online degree programs, common accommodations provided are specific to the obstacles to learning that students might face when attending in-person courses. Therefore, in-person accommodations may not be as well suited to addressing the needs of online students with disabilities.

Online education offers some inherent accommodations relative to in-person settings, particularly when viewed through the historical lens of disability accommodation [e.g., 5]. For example, students do not need to physically move across campus to get to class, rendering some accommodations related to mobility moot. Similarly, pre-recorded lectures or video conference-based instruction easily allow for pausing, repeated viewing, or playback at different speeds. These can be seen as “built in” accommodations for students with certain conditions such as ADHD. Asynchronous instruction gives students greater time flexibility for completing their work, which can be helpful for students with chronic health conditions who may have frequent doctor appointments or flare ups.

At the same time, the modality of teaching online may present novel challenges and, thus, the need to consider how to adapt common accommodations or create new accommodations to best support fully online students. For example, test-taking accommodations, such as reduced distraction environments in a room on campus, cannot be provided for students who are physically situated across the world. Depending on students’ living situations, a quiet testing environment may not be available. The issue of video-monitored exam proctoring has been increasingly debated during the COVID-19 pandemic [e.g., 6 – 8 ], with some work suggesting that it may exacerbate student mental health struggles [ 9 – 11 ].

Thus, it is an open question whether the inherent accommodations of the online modality allow students with disabilities to learn and succeed academically or if the range of accommodations offered to online students is, indeed, narrower and if this in turn hinders the performance of online students with disabilities. Please note that we chose to use “person-first language” (e.g., students with disabilities) in this article, although we do recognize that this choice is not universally preferred [ 9 ].

1.1. Access to disability accommodations for online students

A pair of recent studies gives some insight into the challenges faced by online students with disabilities. Gin et al. [ 9 ] interviewed students with disabilities in courses that were rapidly shifted to an online format in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Gin et al. [ 4 ] conducted a follow-up survey a year later to test if students with disabilities were being provided adequate accommodations online after instructors had more time to be comfortable teaching online. In both studies the authors found that students with disabilities faced obstacles to receiving the disability accommodations to which they were legally entitled. Early on in the pandemic, students with disabilities were often completely forgotten about and their standard accommodations were often not enacted. A year later, students with disabilities were receiving their accommodations, but often these accommodations were not meeting their needs, both in the new modes of instruction and because of the changing needs of students due to the pandemic. Collectively, these studies highlight that students with disabilities currently are not being adequately supported in many online environments.

These studies brought important issues to light and, through the interviews and open-ended survey questions, allowed students with disabilities to reveal barriers associated with online learning in their own words. However, both studies are limited in that they only capture the experiences of those students who chose to participate in the studies. By examining administrative data, the present study will build on Gin et al. [ 4 , 9 ] and explore the experiences of all registered students with the Disability Resource Center at a single institution.

1.2. Academic performance of students with disabilities

To our knowledge, there are no prior studies that examine the academic performance of postsecondary students with disabilities in fully-online degree programs. In research exploring traditional in-person postsecondary settings, Kimball et al. [ 12 ] studied both persistence and academic achievement of students with disabilities. Although many results point to lower persistence, Kimball et al. argue that the evidence is not conclusive, owing generally to the use of correlational data. Similarly, Fichten et al.’s [ 13 ] review of existing evidence finds mixed conclusions, with studies finding equivalent persistence [ 14 ], albeit with longer time to graduation [ 15 , 16 ], or less persistence [ 17 , 18 ]. Looking at academic achievement, studies often examine the success of students with specific types of disabilities. For example, Dong & Lucas [ 19 ] examined academic performance of students across majors with a range of disabilities and, importantly, studied the performance of students who did and did not register for campus disability services. These authors found the students with disabilities—whether psychological, cognitive, or physical disabilities—were less likely to persist than students who reported no disability. They also found that students with psychological or cognitive disabilities who requested accommodations were more likely to be in good academic standing, although this relationship was not found for students with physical disabilities. Interestingly, Lee [ 20 ] found that STEM majors with disabilities received significantly fewer accommodations than non-STEM majors.

Although research has shown many specific disability accommodations to have a positive impact on student success, these results are not universal. A recent randomized controlled study examined the value of accommodations for students with ADHD or learning disabilities in which students were allowed to complete tests in a separate, reduced-distraction environment [ 21 ]. Their results show that not only did the separate testing room not improve test performance, but that students with ADHD or learning disabilities performed worse in the separate testing room compared to students in the classroom. Using the Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS:04/06) data set, Mamiseishvili & Koch [ 22 ] studied factors that predicted first- to second-year persistence among students with disabilities, including specific accommodations. Analyzed in isolation, they found that classroom note-taking accommodation was significantly related to increased persistence and that alternative exam formats and additional time were not significant. However, these did not rise to the level of inclusion in the authors’ final regression model. In a single-university study modeling cumulative GPA, Kim & Lee [ 23 ] found that including specific disability accommodations added only a small amount of explanatory power to their regression model. Newman et al. [ 24 ] looked more broadly and examined the effect on the persistence of students with disabilities of the use of resources that are available to all students regardless of disability status, such as tutoring and writing or study centers. Their results show that accessing only these universally available resources led to significantly higher persistence, whereas accessing only disability-related support had no effect on persistence. Notably, Newman et al. relied on data from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2, a nationally representative study, and, thus, included students with disabilities who choose not to disclose this information to their college or university [ 25 ].

1.3. The present study

We examine administrative data from students in both an in-person and a fully online biology degree program at a large, public research university. Our focus on a science degree program follows from the substantial body of work, particularly in recent years, showing failures in achieving diversity, equity, and inclusion in the sciences and engineering [e.g., 26 – 28 ] and our own prior work examining course grade equity for women, racial and ethnic minorities, low-income, and first generation to college students in online biology [ 29 , 30 ]. Thus, against this backdrop, we consider whether students with disabilities in an online biology degree program are afforded an equitable experience both relative to their online peers without disabilities and relative to in-person degree students. In this study we pose the following research questions:

RQ1: Do in-person and fully online students differ in either the frequency of reported disabilities or the frequencies of receiving specific accommodations?

RQ2: Do students with disabilities compared to students without disabilities differ in academic performance between in-person and fully online degree programs?

2.1. Description of population and data sources

We collected three types of student data:

• Academic data: individual course grades, overall grade point average,
• Demographic data: student gender, race/ethnicity, college generation status, and Pell Grant eligibility (an indicator of socioeconomic status), and
• Disability data: categorical disability type and specific accommodations requested by course.

All students were enrolled in the Biological Sciences degree program. This degree is offered both in-person and in a fully online mode, but both modes are housed in the same academic unit and were designed to be identical in their curriculum structure. We included course enrollments from Fall 2014–Fall 2019 for the in-person program and Fall 2017–2019 for the online program (Note that the online degree program began in Fall 2017, but grew rapidly in enrollment, eventually surpassing in-person enrollment). The end point was chosen to avoid the confounding effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, which necessitated a shift to remote instruction for all students beginning midway through the Spring 2020 semester. We do wish to acknowledge the effects the pandemic has had on students with disabilities; please see Gin et al. [ 4 , 9 ] for examinations of those effects. In order to make our findings more general and to avoid undue influence from unique circumstances that can emerge in smaller courses, we limited our analysis to the large, required courses that are the focus of the first two years of the degree program. These include the two-course introductory biology sequence, genetics, evolution, a two-semester introductory chemistry series, two organic chemistry courses, and introductory physics. Most of these courses include a laboratory component. These are also the same set of courses analyzed in a previous study, the focus of which was course grade equity in online courses with respect to gender, race/ethnicity, household income, and college generation status [ 29 ].

Data regarding student disability status and the specific accommodation requests are stored separately from ordinary academic and demographic data. For this reason and to ensure there was no possibility that personally identifying information related to disability status was revealed, we took steps to ensure that the identifiable disability data were handled only by staff members within the Disability Resource Center (DRC). Note that we will use the DRC abbreviation as a generic term, but such organizations may also be called a Disability Services Office, Student Accessibility Center, among other names. The lead author compiled the academic and demographic data based on the selection criteria described above. These data were then sent to the office in charge of approving and coordinating disability accommodations who performed a match to their internal database, de-identified the data, and returned the new dataset to the lead author for analysis. Details of this process were reviewed and approved by the Arizona State University institutional review board (IRB, protocol #9105). Consent was not obtained because the data were analyzed anonymously.

Prior research on the subject of disability accommodations has argued for the importance of including and prioritizing the perspectives of students with disabilities themselves [ 31 ]. The present study relies on de-identified administrative data. It would not be possible to conduct such a broad survey of the types of accommodations sought and the course grades earned by students with disabilities in these degree programs. Nonetheless, it is important to acknowledge that the administrative data do not capture the full depth and range of the academic experiences of these students and that since we are only analyzing students who are registered with the DRC, we are only examining the experiences of students who have the resources and support to have achieved a diagnosis.

2.2. Description of analyses

We calculated descriptive statistics for the student demographic variables, students’ disability status, disability type, and the frequencies of disability accommodations that were received. The categories used for disability type are the same used in Gin et al. [ 4 , 9 , 31 ]. Following the procedure of our prior studies [ 29 , 30 ], we used a linear mixed effects regression to estimate the effect of student disability status on course grades, adjusting for the effects of prior academic performance (GPA in other courses, abbreviated as GPAO, [ 27 ]), whether the student earned fewer than 30 credit hours, gender, race/ethnicity, age, college generation status, and socioeconomic status (fixed effects) and including random effects for each student and class section. GPAO was a continuous variable on a 0–4.33 (A+) scale. Age was treated as a categorical variable (18–25 and over 25 years of age). These categories distinguish the more “traditional” aged (18–25 years old) students from older students and are also of roughly equal sizes among the online program students. The remaining fixed effects were analyzed as binary variables: fewer than 30 credit hours or not, binary gender (female, male), race/ethnicity (BLNP [Black, Latine, Native American, or Pacific Islander], White or Asian), college generation status (first-generation, continuing-generation), socioeconomic status (Pell eligible, non-Pell eligible). We also used logistic regression to estimate the effects on DRC registration of degree program modality (online or in-person) and possible interaction effects between modality and gender, race/ethnicity, college generation status, and socioeconomic status. For model selections, we employed both forward selection (starting with a minimal model and adding predictors stepwise) and backwards elimination (starting with a full model that consisted of all of the above predictors and removing predictors stepwise) [ 32 ].

Note that, in contrast to Mead et al. [ 29 ], we did not fully exclude students with missing demographic data or students who received “withdraw” grades in a course. Because the focus of the present study goes beyond just grades analysis, there was no need reduce our analytical power by excluding these data when analyzing DRC enrollment or the types of accommodations given. However, for regressions involving grades or demographics, we excluded any course enrollments where the student received a “withdraw” grade and we excluded students with missing demographics data.

2.3. Positionality statement

Our research team consists of both women and men as well as first generation college graduates and individuals who received Pell grants as students. Some of us are members of the LGBTQ+ community and some of us identify as having depression. Most of us have served as instructors of courses who have worked directly with the DRC to provide students with disabilities with accommodations. One of us has received accommodations for a disability through the DRC as an undergraduate and graduate student.

3.1. Population demographics

The total population included 5586 students, 2908 from the in-person degree program and 2678 from the online degree program ( Table 1 ). Women were a majority in both groups, although substantially more so in the online program (74% vs. 59%). About a third of students in both programs were BLNP. Just under half of the in-person students were Pell eligible, while somewhat more than half were Pell eligible among the online program students. Similarly, the percentage of first-generation students was also higher online (43% vs. 33%). In summary, although the two populations are similar, the online program has slightly more representation of each of the four historically marginalized groups (consistent with our own prior work, [ 29 ]). Another important demographic consideration is student age, which also differs substantially between the in-person and online populations. The median age for in-person students in our dataset is 19 as compared to 25 in the online population.

1 n (%); Median (IQR); Note: percentages shown exclude “decline to state”

Table 2 shows the percentage of students in each program who are registered with the DRC. With 8% of in-person students and 4.7% of online students registered for a disability accommodation, this is well below published estimates for the overall proportion of students with a disability (19.4%; [ 33 ]). However, previous research also finds that only about a third of students with disabilities disclose this information to their school [ 25 ], which would put the two populations in our study near to the prior estimates. Full demographic details for the students with any disability accommodation may be found in S1 Table . Table 2 also shows the percentages of students whose listed “primary” disability falls within either learning disability (including ADD/ADHD; see [ 9 ] for a discussion of this categorization) or mental health/psychological disability. These are the most common disability types in our data set, which is consistent with prior analysis [ 34 ]. Students in both groups were registered with other disabilities types, including, Acquired Brain Injury, Chronic health condition, Hearing loss, Neurological, Physical disability, and Visual loss, but each of these categories had fewer than 20 individual students and our research protocol prohibits us from presenting results for subgroups smaller than this size. It is also important to note that the personal experiences of individuals, even with the same type of disability, are unique [ 35 , 36 ]. Thus, we caution against making generalizations concerning all individuals who share a disability type or specific disability.

Finding 1: DRC enrollment is significantly lower among online program students

There are two important dimensions to this research question: differential access to (or use of) disability support services and a differential range of services provided. To examine the first dimension of this, we used logistic regression to determine whether students in the online or in-person modalities were equally likely to be registered with the university DRC. To test for possible differences within these populations, we performed additional regressions that included student demographics and interactions between the degree program type and each of gender, race/ethnicity, Pell grant eligibility, college generation status, age, and whether the student has fewer than 30 credit hours.

Overall, we find significant differences in DRC enrollment associated with degree program mode (in-person or fully online). Specifically, in-person program students are nearly 30% more likely to be enrolled with the DRC ( Table 3 ). Regarding demographics, we will first consider a main effects model to examine how the demographic effects differ by degree program mode. We will then add a series of interaction terms to see whether these demographic effects vary in their impact for in-person and online students. In the main effects model ( S2 Table ), we find that women are much more likely to be registered with the DRC as are students older than traditional college age. Pell eligible students are slightly more likely to be registered while first-generation students are somewhat less likely to be registered. No significant differences exist in the main effects model with respect to race/ethnicity or credit hours earned.

1 OR = Odds Ratio, CI = Confidence Interval

Considering the full model with degree program modality interaction effects ( Table 4 ), we see that women are more likely to be registered in both programs, but that this effect is stronger for in-person students. In contrast to the main effects model, we see that BLNP is significant when the program interaction effects are considered. BLNP students in the online program are more likely than white or Asian students to be registered with the DRC, but in the in-person program BLNP students are slightly less likely to be registered. There are also similar, but smaller differences with respect to college generation status, with first generation students in the in-person program being significantly less likely to be registered than first generation students in the online program. For online students, having fewer than 30 credit hours is a negative predictor of DRC registration; this is not the case in-person. No significant interactions with program modality were found for student age or Pell eligibility.

Finding 2: Online degree program students with disabilities are given access to a narrower range of accommodations

Table 5 presents an overall summary, for common accommodation categories, of the frequency at which they are received by students in both the in-person and online program courses. A complete list of accommodation types is provided in S3 Table . There are several accommodation “types” that are much less common for online students than in-person students. These include:

1 i.e., accommodations with at least 5% occurrence in one mode

• “Reduced Distraction” environment for testing
• Flexible attendance
• Peer notetaking services
• Audio recording

The impact of these varies in severity. Depending on the nature of the online course, “audio recording” and “flexible attendance” may be irrelevant in the majority of cases. However, both “reduced distraction environment” and “peer notetaking services” are accommodations that can reasonably be seen as addressing needs that are common to both in-person and online learning. A previous nationwide study found notetaking to be the third most common accommodation with 26% of students surveyed reporting receiving this kind of support [ 18 ]. It is important to state that the notetaking accommodation here refers to a peer notetaker, i.e., a fellow classmate who is compensated to share their own notes with the student receiving the accommodation. Thus, while dictation software or other technology solutions have some overlap with the intended benefits of the peer notetaking services accommodation, those tools are not entirely equivalent.

Conversely, we see that some accommodations are somewhat more common in the online group. These include Assistive Technology and PDF with Recognized Text (i.e., ensuring that PDF documents are compatible with screen readers). These accommodations are understandably important in the computer-based learning environment of the online program. We found that extra time on exams is the most common accommodation in both modalities and flexible assignment deadlines is the second and fourth most common for online and in-person, respectively, but in both cases, the percentages of students receiving these accommodations are higher in the online modality.

Finding 3: The relative performance of students with disabilities in the online program exceeds that of the in-person program

Our regression model finds a significant interaction effect between disability status (i.e., a student requesting a disability accommodation for a particular course) and learning modality. Specifically, in-person students with disabilities earn grades 0.19 grade units lower than their peers as compared to students in the online degree program ( Fig 1 , Table 6 ). The overall grade effect associated with disability accommodation was positive, but non-significant. This model also finds significant effects associated with demographics categories and online program status. Similar demographic findings from a closely related student population were described in [ 29 ]. Recognizing Finding 1—significant demographic and program modality differences in DRC enrollment—we explored the addition of interactions between these factors and the disability status term, but none of these interactions were statistically significant.

Whereas having a disability was not associated with an overall grade difference, the results do show a significant interaction effect between disability status and modality.

1 CI = Confidence Interval

We explored possible interaction effects involving specific types of disabilities using the same categories as in Table 6 . The learning disability and mental health/psychological disability categories represent a large majority of students in this population (see Table 2 ). Our modeling showed students in each of these categories to have similar patterns of course performance to our initial regression model (i.e., to have a negative grade effect associated with the in-person degree program). See S4 Table for details. The small number of students with other types of disabilities limited our ability to detect possible interaction effects associated with any of those disability types.

4. Discussion

Regarding our first research question, our results show that systematic differences exist between the two modalities of degree programs studied, with students in the online program being less likely to enroll with the DRC or request disability accommodations. There are also notable differences in the demographic effects by modality, such as online BLNP students being more likely to have a disability accommodation and online students with fewer than 30 credit hours being less likely to have any accommodation. The online students are also offered a narrower range of disability accommodations. With respect to our second question, we find that the relative academic performance of students with disabilities to students without disabilities differs between the online and in-person degree programs. In relative terms (i.e., compared to students without disabilities in their degree program), online students with disabilities perform better than in-person students with disabilities.

The differences in the types of accommodations provided online as compared to in-person reflect a combination of accommodations that are impractical/impossible to provide to a distributed and remote population of students and accommodations that are inherently unnecessary online. This is very much the pattern we anticipated, and it highlights the inherent advantages and disadvantages of online learning for students with disabilities. However, the differential rates of registration and requests for accommodations with the university DRC across both modality and student demographics raise questions about whether all students are being made aware of and given access to these resources. Our findings are consistent with the issues raised in Gin et al. [ 4 ] and Terras et al. [ 37 ], both in the specific lack of access to distraction-free testing and peer notetaking services for online students and in the overall lower rates of DRC registration among the online students studied.

Our findings with respect to the demographic predictors of DRC enrollment contribute to a somewhat varied set of previous findings. The largest demographic effect we observed was that of gender, in which women were much more likely to be registered for an accommodation. This sits in contrast to Henderson [ 38 ], Wagner et al. [ 39 ], and Newman et al. [ 25 ] which present evidence of the opposite trend. However, the U.S. Department of Education reported gender parity with respect to disability status among undergraduates and found that women were more likely to report a disability among postbaccalaureate students [ 33 ]. It is important to note that our study population has a high population of women, owing in part to the discipline of the program studied (biology) and in part to the fact that the online program enrolls proportionately more women [ 29 ]. As additional studies are performed involving online programs, it will be interesting to see how these demographic effects compare to results from in-person programs.

It goes beyond our data to make claims about whether the underlying rate of disabilities differs systematically between the in-person and online degree programs. However, if we assume that this rate of disability is constant, then our data point to systematic differences between these two degree programs across one or more of a number of factors related to how students with disabilities approach these programs. This may include students’ awareness of these university services or of their personal eligibility for receiving them. It may include students’ perceived value of the available accommodations or their willingness to request accommodations. Lastly, the differences in usage may stem from perceived and real differences in the need for accommodation in the in-person versus online programs, even for students with very similar personal circumstances. We expand upon each of these possibilities in the following paragraphs.

4.1. Awareness

It is possible that the online program students are less well-informed about the availability of support through the DRC [e.g., 9 , 40 ]. This could follow from a lack of informal sharing of information that is more likely to occur in in-person learning environments. Supporting this explanation is the fact that for online students, having fewer than 30 credit hours was predictive of less DRC enrollment, whereas this was not the case among in-person students. This suggests that, despite the university’s many lines of communication to its online program students, including traditional academic advisors and “success coaches” who provide support to online students for things like time management and career exploration, many students early in their college journey may not receive the support that they may require and be entitled to.

4.2. Eligibility

Complicating this subject is the question of which students are considered eligible to receive accommodations. In addition to the structural issues addressed in the Gin et al. studies, prior research has highlighted the “documentation disconnect”, in which a student was deemed eligible for a disability accommodation at the K–12 level, but, due to more stringent requirements for documentation of disability, was not found to be eligible for the same accommodation at the college level [ 41 , 42 ]. Sparks & Lovett [ 43 ] also conclude that the breadth of methods for diagnosing a learning-disabled student has led to a situation in which there is substantial overlap in the academic performance of “learning disabled” and “non-learning disabled” students. The literature calls attention to ways that a student may have an expectation of receiving a disability accommodation, but not be eligible in practice. Some of these factors may be exacerbated in the case of fully online degree programs. For example, the documentation disconnect described previously occurs in part because different laws mandate disability accommodation in K–12 than in higher education and in part because standards for K–12 disability status vary by state. Given that online undergraduate programs are often marketed toward out-of-state students, the fraction of these ineligible students may be greater in an online program as compared to the traditional in-person degree programs at the same university. In addition, given that our prior work showed that the online program attracted relatively more students from lower socioeconomic status backgrounds [ 29 ], it is possible that online students with disabilities are, on average, less able than the in-person degree students to obtain the medical diagnoses necessary to demonstrate their eligibility.

Assuming that online students with disabilities are aware of their support options and, bearing in mind our results showing the limited range of accommodations that are commonly received ( Table 5 ), it is possible that some students are making an informed choice to not ask for accommodations. That is to say that these students may believe that the accommodations that are made available to them do not effectively address their needs. We have no evidence that speaks directly to this possibility. However, in considering more indirect evidence, Gin et al. [ 4 , 9 ] found that some students with disabilities struggled to be granted the kind of support they felt was justified during the emergency shift to online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. There is also the question of a perceived stigma associated with requesting accommodations, so students must see these accommodations as having a value that exceeds the effort required to obtain them and any negative consequences (e.g., judgement or bias against them) they may associate with them.

4.4. Willingness to request

Numerous previous studies highlight the important possibility of students who choose not to address or report their disabilities [ 5 , 12 , 25 , 44 ]. This may be even more true in online courses and programs where students will have fewer and more limited interactions with their peers or with faculty members. The limited nature of these interactions makes it easier, and perhaps more appealing, to keep one’s disability status private. It also removes opportunities for students to learn about the types of accommodations available or the potential value of those resources. Similarly, it may be more difficult for online instructors (or student peers) to recognize instances where a student may benefit from disability services. Therefore, the mediated nature of an online degree program expands the concept of a “hidden disability”, providing many students with disabilities the choice whether or not to disclose their disability status to others. In an in-person setting, a hidden disability might be a mental health condition, but in an asynchronous online setting, this category could include deafness, physical disabilities, or chronic health conditions, many of which would be readily apparent in-person. Thus, students not registering with the DRC could be a conscious decision not to reveal their disability to others, and the nature of online learning gives students in those degree programs more autonomy regarding this decision.

Looking at results from both Tables ​ Tables5 5 and ​ and6, 6 , a final possibility is that the differences in the frequencies of requested accommodations follow from the inherent accommodations provided by the online learning modality. Put simply, perhaps students online need fewer accommodations because of the asynchronous flexible nature of the learning environment. Consider peer notetaking services, for example, which our results show to be a relatively common accommodation in-person, but not available to online students. It may be the case that some students who would have requested this kind of accommodation for a synchronous, in-person class do not see it as necessary for an asynchronous, online delivery where they can freely pause, rewind, or rewatch lectures at their convenience. Alternatively, perhaps our results are driven by a self-selection effect in which students with disabilities preferentially enroll in the online degree program knowing that they will not need to request disability accommodations. This kind of strategic enrollment would imply a high level of effective self-determination, something that prior work has shown to be associated with academic success [ 45 ]. Therefore, if such behavior is widespread, then our observed grade differences reflect a combination of the inherent affordances of the online modality and the presence of students with the skills of self-determination that help them to be successful.

Prior research is mixed on whether online courses are seen as preferable by students with disabilities, with much of the difference coming from how attentive a given institution or instructor has been to accessibility [ 12 , 46 , 47 ]. The present study does not examine instructional practices or technology use at the level of individual courses, but strategies for effective and accessible online learning have been reviewed elsewhere [e.g., 48 ] and could be the basis for future research expanding on our work.

This study relied on administrative data because these data provide a complete summary of the university’s available DRC services and students’ use of these services. However, our work cannot speak directly to the students’ perspective in requesting, declining to request, or receiving DRC services, nor can it speak to factors related to the self-determination of these students. The latter is one of the more widely studied constructs for both predicting success of students with disabilities and for designing support programs to promote success [e.g., 49 – 52 ]. Future work is needed to explore whether our findings reflect an underlying difference in the level of self-determination between students in in-person and online degree programs or, perhaps, that the skills associated with self-determination (self-advocacy, goal setting, etc.) must be applied differently in online settings.

We conclude this section by reiterating that our regression results with respect to course grades suggest that students with disabilities who are registered with the DRC in the online degree program have an equal or better opportunity to succeed as their in-person counterparts. Therefore, we tentatively conclude that online students with disabilities can be well-supported in that modality. However, we do underscore that our interpretation of the grade results is complicated by the fact that we can only analyze students who were officially eligible for and proactively chose to request support from the campus DRC, thus it may be the case that our finding with respect to grades is biased by a selection for the most well-informed students with disabilities. Or, relatedly, that online students with disabilities that are registered with the DRC are the more privileged group of students with disabilities, so the grade advantage that we see online is simply because the more privileged group of students with disabilities are represented in the dataset.

4.6. Limitations

Although we believe this work is an important first step in closing a gap in the existing understanding of disability accommodations in online learning environments, we also wish to highlight some limitations. First, there are reasons to predict that some students with disabilities might be more likely to prefer an online degree program. This could lead the population of students with disabilities online to be systematically stronger academically and more motivated to succeed. Testing this possibility would require an indicator of prior academic performance, such as high school GPA or standardized test scores, but these data are not uniformly collected at admission to the online degree program that we studied, thus we are unable to rule it out. Second, the overall percentage of students with disabilities is smaller in the online program than the in-person one. If there exist substantial numbers of online students who could benefit from disability accommodation, but who are not registered to receive them, this could have biased our comparison of online to in-person grades by disability accommodation status.

Although we explored the possible differential effects among students with different types of disabilities and found no such differences, it bears repeating that our primary results aggregate all students with any disability. It goes without saying that the nature of the barriers to academic achievement experienced by a student with reduced mobility and those experienced by a student with a learning disability are very different. The same is true within these broad categories of disability. Critically, we also cannot assume that an in-person student and an online student with the same type of disability will have the same barriers to academic success. It is also important to note that the personal experiences of individuals, even with the same type of disability, are unique [ 35 , 36 ]. Thus, we caution against making generalizations concerning all individuals who share a disability type or specific disability and acknowledge that our aggregated analyses may conceal important variability.

The other notable limitation is the use of administrative data. Although these data did allow us to examine research questions that are troublesome for survey and interview research-based approaches, the administrative data do not capture a complete picture of any one student’s experience. This is particularly true when studying students with disabilities, each of whom must be categorized within an existing category for disability type (and other demographic characteristics).

5. Conclusion

The use of online learning will certainly continue to grow among institutions of higher education. It is, therefore, essential that these institutions examine and continuously monitor how their existing disability accommodations align with the needs of students in online courses and fully online degree programs. Previous survey- and interview-based research has found that students with disabilities in online courses feel less well supported and encounter more obstacles to receiving accommodations [ 4 , 9 , 37 ]. In our study, administrative data from a fully online degree program suggests that this kind of unequal accommodation persists. While our analysis of course grades indicates that the affordances of online learning for students with disabilities may outweigh any disadvantages caused by the gaps in accommodation, there remains an obligation for administrators and faculty to ensure that students are equitably supported across both in-person and online programs. In particular, if the types of accommodations offered predate the online program, there may be gaps either due to the appropriateness of those accommodations for fully online courses or due to the practical realities of providing those accommodations to remote students. Although the details of disability accommodations will vary, we hope that the present study will offer a starting point for self-study at any institution with new or existing online degree programs and that our results will inspire these institutions to look for ways to better support their online students with disabilities.

Supporting information

Acknowledgments.

We thank ASU’s Student Accessibility and Inclusive Learning Services for their support in providing access to the anonymous data analyzed in this study.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by grant #GT11046 from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute ( www.hhmi.org ), awarded to JPC, SEB, PL, and ADA and grant #2012998 and #1644236 from the National Science Foundation ( www.nsf.gov ), awarded to SEB. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Data Availability

• PLoS One. 2023; 18(10): e0288748.

Decision Letter 0

PONE-D-23-10145

Dear Dr. Mead,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 16 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at  gro.solp@enosolp . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jolanta Maj

Academic Editor

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability .

"Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories . Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions . Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

3. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. 

4. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

The reviewers agreed on the high quality of the submitted manuscript and cited its importance. The reviewers pointed out possible corrections that would improve the text, which I, as editor, also agree with. Therefore, I would like to ask you to address the reviewers' comments or argue why making changes is not possible. 

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear authors,

I have had the privilege of reviewing your paper titled "Comparing Disability Accommodations in Online and In-Person Biology Degree Programs". As a reviewer, my goal is to help improve the quality of the paper so that it is suitable for publication in the PLOS ONE Journal. To this end, I have provided a detailed evaluation of your work in the attached "Reviewer's Comments" file. I hope these observations will be useful to you in reviewing and improving your manuscript. Please note that my comments are offered with the intention of being constructive and improving the quality of the work.

Best regards,

Reviewer #2: The authors made the analysis of administrative data to compare the frequency of reported disabilities, frequencies of receiving specific accommodations and academic performance of in-person and fully online degree programs students. I really appreciate the work which was done to minimize the effect of external factors, including COVID-19 effects. According to my opinion, both the research and the paper are very well prepared, therefore my remarks are rather not very significant:

1. Please explain the inconsistence in the information in Ethics Statement (Consent was not obtained because the data were analyzed anonymously. The work was done under a protocol approved by the ASU IRB. This is stated in the manuscript) and Data Availability Section (The data analyzed in this study involve students' individual disability statuses and are considered very sensitive. We were granted permission to analyze them, but do not have permission to disseminate the data themselves). This is explained in details in the paper (line 182 and next), but need to be clarify in the Additional information section.

2. There is a huge discrepancy in number of students using notetaking services (Table 5. Percentage of accommodation-eligible students receiving common accommodations by mode - line 344). Did you check if the reason is using notetaking (dictating) software instead notetaking services by online students?

3. I really appreciate the analysis of factors related to how students with disabilities approach programs (line 412 and next), however in the part Willingness to request (line 471 and next) please consider if one of the reason is lover pressure of the environment during online classes. Visibility of students difficulties and needs during online classes is much more difficult to recognize by both teachers and peers and therefore fostering to disclosure is significantly lower in this group.

4. Another possible factor to analyze is higher motivation of some students with disabilities to study online because it seems to be easier option to them. Are students with ASD more willing to online studies because of their communication difficulties? Are students with motor difficulties or blindness more willing to online studies because of their mobility difficulties?

5. Please check „orphans” in text editing, i.e. line 318-319, 381, 389.

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article ( what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #2:  Yes:  Katarzyna Jach

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool,  https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at  gro.solp@serugif . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: Review Comments.docx

Author response to Decision Letter 0

18 May 2023

Please see response to reviewers in the uploaded document.

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

PONE-D-23-10145R1

Dear Dr. Mead,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ , click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at gro.solp@gnillibrohtua .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact gro.solp@sserpeno .

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Thank you for the opportunity to read you excellent paper! All the necessary changes have been made! Congratiulations.

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article ( what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Reviewer #1:  Yes:  Víctor-Hugo Perera Rodríguez

Acceptance letter

Dear Dr. Mead:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact gro.solp@sserpeno .

If we can help with anything else, please email us at gro.solp@enosolp .

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Jolanta Maj

Featured Topics

Featured series.

A series of random questions answered by Harvard experts.

Explore the Gazette

Read the latest.

Harvard asks students about sexual assault and misconduct in third survey since 2015

Navigating Harvard with a non-apparent disability

Yes, it’s exciting. Just don’t look at the sun.

Anticipate, accommodate, empower.

Nadine Gaab, Michael Ashley Stein, Andrew Clark, Arthur Kleinman.

Photos by Jon Chase/Harvard Staff Photographer; photo illustration by Judy Blomquist/Harvard Staff

Nikki Rojas

Harvard Staff Writer

How to ensure students with disabilities have an equal chance to succeed?

Second in a four-part series on non-apparent disabilities.

Nearly one in four Americans has a disability, according to the CDC . Many disabilities — such as chronic pain, learning disabilities, diabetes, and depression — are “non-apparent,” or not immediately obvious to others, presenting their own set of challenges.

So how can professors design their classes to give all students an equal chance to succeed?

The Law School’s Michael Ashley Stein — who has taught classes such as “Disability, Human Rights, and Development” at Harvard Law School and “Disability Law and Policy” at Harvard Kennedy School — finds it useful to draw connections across affinity groups.

“People of color might point out racism and women and others might point out sexism. To me, all those prejudices and civil- and human-rights-violating type actions are grouped under ableism,” said the visiting professor and co-founder and executive director at the Law School’s Project on Disability . “It’s important when teaching disability to create those linkages, and to create the kind of affinity and solidarity that reaches across groups.”

A tool favored by Andrew Clark , senior lecturer on music and director of choral activities at Harvard, is the Universal Design for Learning framework geared to different types of learners. It gives students options to demonstrate what they’ve learned.

“I have in the last 10 years been in many settings with students where they’ve talked openly about depression or anxiety, whereas 40 years ago, they would not have talked about it.” Arthur Kleinman

Clark began teaching “Music and Disability” in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences in 2016. He was inspired by his early years working at a music camp for individuals with disability and chronic illness and a desire to learn more about the intersection between music and disability studies. Students examine musicians or specific works with disability narratives and consider “how disability justice is enacted and embodied.”

“There’s a difference between accommodation and anticipation,” Clark said. “If we can design our classes — as well as extracurricular activities and student life — to anticipate every person rather than to accommodate everyone, that’s true inclusion. That’s making students feel empowered rather than accommodated.”

Nadine Gaab , associate professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, who has centered her work on non-apparent disabilities for more than 20 years, uses the messaging platform Slack to offer students multiple ways to communicate, incorporates scholars with disabilities in her syllabus, and has flexible participation and assignment submission policies.

This spring, Gaab is teaching “Children with Learning and Developmental Differences.” Students learn about the challenges faced by children with conditions such as dyslexia, dyscalculia, and dysgraphia, as well as the teachers, administrators, and medical teams working with them.

“We identify a number of different barriers that prevent us from delivering optimal care for children with invisible and visible disabilities,” Gaab said. “We then identify solutions in educational and community settings that could work in response to those challenges.”

Students apply what they’ve learned to real-world community spaces by identifying accessibility problems and proposing solutions — some of which have already been implemented, Gaab noted.

Mental health, particularly among students, is of interest to psychiatrist Arthur Kleinman . The Esther and Sidney Rabb Professor of Anthropology in the FAS, professor of medical anthropology in global health and social medicine, and professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School has been teaching for more than 40 years and has noticed marked changes in how students approach mental health issues.

“People are much more open about this,” said Kleinman, who noted that he used to discourage students from disclosing mental health issues because of stigma.

“I have in the last 10 years been in many settings with students where they’ve talked openly about depression or anxiety, whereas 40 years ago, they would not have talked about it. The responses they get today are also very different. They’re very supportive.”

While the professors say the stigma around non-apparent disabilities and mental health are lessening, they also agreed that more can be done to create more inclusive learning and research environments — at Harvard and beyond.

“It’s an extra cognitive load,” explained Gaab. “It’s extra-hard work to fit into a system that’s designed for the average learner. It’s really important to make sure that students recognize that in themselves, and faculty are aware, that it’s not that students are lazy or even ‘stupid.’ They’re really trying hard.”

Share this article

• University Disability Resources serves as the central resource for disability-related information, procedures, and services for the Harvard community.
• Students who wish to request accommodations should contact their School’s Local Disability Coordinator.
• The 24/7 mental health support line for students is 617-495-2042. Deaf or hard-of-hearing students can dial 711 to reach a Telecommunications Relay Service in their local area.
• Harvard Law School Project on Disability

Also in this series

4 students with conditions ranging from diabetes to narcolepsy describe daily challenges that may not be obvious to their classmates and professors

You might like

Survey open April 2 through May 2 for degree-seeking students

Lab, telescope specialist details Harvard eclipse-viewing party, offers safety tips

College accepts 1,937 to Class of 2028

Students represent 94 countries, all 50 states

Pushing back on DEI ‘orthodoxy’

Panelists support diversity efforts but worry that current model is too narrow, denying institutions the benefit of other voices, ideas

So what exactly makes Taylor Swift so great?

Experts weigh in on pop superstar's cultural and financial impact as her tours and albums continue to break records.

share this!

March 25, 2024

This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies . Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

fact-checked

trusted source

First study on teacher effectiveness for students with and without disabilities

by Michigan State University

Research has often focused on how teachers and educators can best instruct and accommodate students with disabilities. However, are the methods used to teach students with disabilities effective and inclusive for all students? Michigan State University researchers are some of the first to answer that question.

Faculty and doctoral students from across MSU, including from the College of Social Science and the College of Education, offer some of the first findings on differentiating the effectiveness of instruction for students with and without disabilities.

Their study suggests that to help schools make decisions that are best for student outcomes, policymakers may want to consider teacher quality measures that look separately at these student groups.

Published in the journal Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , the research presents a major breakthrough in understanding how to best measure achievement for both students with and without disabilities.

"Most students with disabilities spend most of their school day in general education classrooms, but many teachers indicate they receive insufficient training and preparedness to educate these students," said Scott Imberman, study author and professor in the Department of Economics in the College of Social Science and the College of Education.

"We thought that through the use of statistical measures of teacher quality, we could identify which teachers are more effective teachers with these students and how much general education teachers' ability to instruct these students varies."

It's important that students with disabilities have access to high-quality teachers, and not all teachers receive the necessary training and skills to support those students. They also can struggle more with certain subjects, such as math. Student success outcomes are also often determined by how the entire class performs rather than how individual students perform.

When it comes to evaluating the success of all students, numerical measures known as value-added measures, or VAM, are typically used. However, these measures often do not distinguish between evaluating students with and without disabilities.

The MSU research team created a study using data from the Los Angeles Unified School District due to the large number of enrollees and students with disabilities. They created two specific value-added measures—one for evaluating the effectiveness for teachers instructing students with disabilities and the other for students without disabilities.

They found that some of the best-performing teachers for students without disabilities have lower value-added scores for students with disabilities. Similarly, they noted that top-performing teachers for students with disabilities have lower value-added scores for students without disabilities. This means that some students who may appear to be matched with a high-quality teacher could actually be better off with other teachers.

The bigger inequity, according to Imberman, is that although "some general education teachers do have specialized skills that make them more effective for students with disabilities, our case study in Los Angeles suggested disabled students are typically not matched to these teachers."

While the results do not identify how to better match teachers with students with disabilities, they do raise the point to schools and policymakers to explore how both groups of students and, especially those with disabilities, can have better academic gains. It is also necessary that educators, especially those who have been teaching longer, receive the appropriate training to support students with disabilities.

"We hope that our methods can be used in the future to help school officials better match students with disabilities to the teachers who are best equipped to instruct them and better assess which teachers might need additional training in educating disabled students ," Imberman said.

Provided by Michigan State University

Explore further

Feedback to editors

Study reports that age is the driving force in changing how stars move within galaxies

3 hours ago

Newly hatched chicks can instantly recognize objects with vision, even if they've only ever experienced them by touch

4 hours ago

A return to roots: Lab builds its first stellarator in 50 years and opens the door for research into new plasma physics

6 hours ago

A new estimate of US soil organic carbon to improve Earth system models

New research uses coaxial 'dish' antenna to scan for dark matter

'Unheard of in structural biology': New enzyme models reveal disease insights

Transmitting entanglement between light and matter in the metropolitan network of Barcelona

7 hours ago

These plants evolved in Florida millions of years ago. They may be gone in decades.

Focusing ultra-intense lasers to a single wavelength

8 hours ago

Classical optical neural network exhibits 'quantum speedup'

Relevant physicsforums posts, motivating high school physics students with popcorn physics.

Apr 1, 2024

How is Physics taught without Calculus?

Mar 29, 2024

Why are Physicists so informal with mathematics?

Mar 24, 2024

The changing physics curriculum in 1961

Suggestions for using math puzzles to stimulate my math students.

Mar 21, 2024

The New California Math Framework: Another Step Backwards?

Mar 14, 2024

More from STEM Educators and Teaching

Related Stories

Study finds Black boys are less likely to be identified for special education when matched with Black teachers

Mar 6, 2024

What factors help students with disabilities transition to college?

Mar 9, 2022

4.7 percent of students with disabilities experience homelessness

Mar 28, 2023

Students with disabilities hardest hit by school closures

Feb 22, 2022

Study: Fewer than half of K-12 PE teachers use high-quality instruction with disabled students

Feb 25, 2022

Training helps teachers anticipate how students with learning disabilities might solve problems

Jul 12, 2021

Recommended for you

Research reveals significant effects of onscreen instructors during video classes in aiding student learning

Mar 25, 2024

Prestigious journals make it hard for scientists who don't speak English to get published, study finds

Mar 23, 2024

Using Twitter/X to promote research findings found to have little impact on number of citations

Mar 22, 2024

Gender and racial discrimination uncovered in leadership positions at Australia's leading universities

Mar 15, 2024

Study finds children in Flint experienced educational declines even if they did not have lead pipes

Could iPhones replace microscopes in early STEM education?

Let us know if there is a problem with our content.

Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form . For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines ).

Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request

Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors.

Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages.

E-mail the story

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Phys.org in any form.

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

More information Privacy policy

Donate and enjoy an ad-free experience

We keep our content available to everyone. Consider supporting Science X's mission by getting a premium account.

E-mail newsletter

• Study Guides
• Homework Questions

Case Study Journal- A Student-Teachers Dilemma - Brett Trettin

• Arts & Humanities

A classification tool to foster self-regulated learning with generative artificial intelligence by applying self-determination theory: a case of ChatGPT

• Cultural and Regional Perspectives
• Open access
• Published: 01 April 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Thomas K. F. Chiu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2887-5477 1  

Generative AI such as ChatGPT provides an instant and individualized learning environment, and may have the potential to motivate student self-regulated learning (SRL), more effectively than other non-AI technologies. However, the impact of ChatGPT on student motivation, SRL, and needs satisfaction is unclear. Motivation and the SRL process can be explained using self-determination theory (SDT) and the three phases of forethought, performance, and self-reflection, respectively. Accordingly, a Delphi design was employed in this study to determine how ChatGPT-based learning activities satisfy students’ each SDT need, and foster each SRL phase from a teacher perspective. We involved 36 SDT school teachers with extensive expertise in technology enhanced learning to develop a classification tool for learning activities that affect student needs satisfaction and SRL phases using ChatGPT. We collaborated with the teachers in three rounds to investigate and identify the activities, and we revised labels, descriptions, and explanations. The major finding is that a classification tool for 20 learning activities using ChatGPT was developed. The tool suggests how ChatGPT better satisfy SDT-based needs, and fosters the three SRL phrases. This classification tool can assist researchers in replicating, implementing, and integrating successful ChatGPT in education research and development projects. The tool can inspire teachers to modify the activities using generative AI for their own teaching, and inform policymakers on how to develop guidelines for AI in education.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) can generate text, pictures, 3D models, animations, or other content, and its technologies are becoming more powerful, useful, and prevalent, being incorporated into mainstream applications. This emerging technology has influenced education by developing interactive learning experiences, providing tailored coaching, and even producing instructional resources such as worksheets and videos (Chiu, 2021 ; Kasneci et al., 2023 ; Rospigliosi, 2023 ). GenAI may have the great potential to transform the way we learn and access information by adapting to individual needs and preferences, making education more accessible and engaging for all learners (Chang & Kidman, 2023 ; Chiu, 2023 ). There is an urgent need for research into the most effective ways to use GenAI in education in order to enhance learning outcomes for all learners (Chiu, 2023 ; Kasneci et al., 2023 ; Rospigliosi, 2023 ). Some argue, however, that depending too much on these technologies may result in a reduction in human interaction, individualized guidance, and higher-order thinking skills, all of which are essential for effective learning. There may also be concerns regarding the accuracy and reliability of AI-generated educational resources (Farrokhnia et al., 2023 ; Rospigliosi, 2023 ). Furthermore, self-regulated learning (SRL) is regarded as a prerequisite for life-long learning in higher education (Roth et al., 2016 ). Its process can be seen as a cycle model of three main phases: forethought, performance, and self-reflection (Zimmerman, 2011 ). SRL is closely linked to academic accomplishment in students and work-related learning in adults (Sitzmann & Ely, 2011 ). Individuals with strong SRL abilities must be able to learn independently and deal with a wide range of challenges (Peverly et al., 2003 ). As a result, GenAI may be able to both engage and disengage students in SRL.

These student engagement and disengagement can be explained using the construct of motivation that is the force that energises students to be engaged in a particular activity (Chiu, 2021 , 2022 ; Olivier et al., 2021 ). Self-determination theory (SDT), one of the most popular theories in current behavioral science, provides a wide framework for understanding the elements that enhance human motivation and well-being (Ryan & Deci, 2020 ). SDT co-founders Richard M. Ryan and Edward L. Deci suggest that satisfying people’s basic needs for autonomy, competence, relatedness, and autonomy is vital for individual and social functioning. This theory is widely applicated in various contexts e.g., workplace, parenting, and learning environments (Manganelli et al., 2018 ; Ryan & Deci, 2020 ). Most previous SDT-based educational research was conducted to understand how teachers and digital support (refer to needs satisfaction from digital environments) satisfy student needs (Ahmadi et al., 2023 ; Chiu, 2021 ). These two types of support have various effects on student engagement. Empirical studies suggest that digital support from AI is strongly associated with student engagement in overall SRL (Chiu et al., 2023 ; Wu et al., 2023 ; Xia et al., 2023 ). For example, Wuet al. ( 2023 ) suggested that in blended learning, ChatGPT significantly improved student behavioural, cognitive, and emotional engagement more than search engines; Chiu et al. ( 2023 ) revealed that the use of AI chatbots may not be able to support relatedness of most students, and satisfy competence of low ability students. Besides, how to integrate GenAI in education is understudied, and its effects on student learning are unclear. These imply that how we use GenAI determines if the technology is need-supportive or need-thwarting in each phrase of SRL. ChatGPT, one of the most well-known GenAI tools, is a chatbot built on a large language model. It can communicate with users in a human-like manner. It can respond to questions, write articles, give advice, and create code in a fluent and natural way. To fill this research gap, this study used a Delphi research design to understand how ChatGPT as GenAI supports student SDT needs in each phrase of SRL from the perspective of Hong Kong school teachers.

The findings of this study propose a classification tool to foster student SRL using ChatGPT by applying SDT. This tool contributes to the field of AI in education and SDT-based research by discussing how ChatGPT fosters the three SRL phrases and satisfies SDT-based needs. It can help researchers replicate, design, and implement their educational technology research and development projects using ChatGPT. It can also give teachers and policymakers ideas on how to teach with ChatGPT and make policies for AI in education, respectively.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows: We begin by outlining the theoretical background for this study and past research on how ChatGPT as digital support fosters SRL and satisfies SDT needs. The study’s goal and research design are then described. Following that, we present the results of the analyses, followed by a discussion of the findings and our conclusions.

Theoretical background

Srl and learner motivation.

Over the last three decades, general SRL conceptions have evolved (Roth et al., 2016 ). SRL first appeared in the 1980s and rose to prominence in the 1990s. Despite the enormous amount of SRL research published, there is no unified definition of SRL. Each theory/model focuses on different perspectives (Pintrich, 2000 ). For example, Zimmerman ( 2011 ) suggests SRL consists of self-generated thoughts, feelings, and acts that are methodically directed by personal goals. Zimmerman and Moylan ( 2009 ) describe a social cognitive model of SRL that incorporates motivational variables with metacognitive processes in three iterative phases: forethought, performance, and self-reflection. Pintrich’s ( 2002 ) theory of SRL included forethought, monitoring, control, and refection. These theories and models have clear similarities and suggest SRL should have cyclical and three distinct phases (Bruso et al., 2020 ). The first phrase is forethought and consists of task analysis and self-motivation beliefs. Learners analyze tasks, set learning goals, and plan strategies based on their prior knowledge. This task analysis is affected by self-motivation beliefs such as self-efficacy and interest, along with personal views of how well the tasks can be performed and the value of learning. The performance phase has two processes: self-control and self-observation. Learners enhance their learning by employing various self-control strategies, such as self-instruction, time management, environmental structuring, and help-seeking, all of which are based on the learners’ own self-observations. The phase of self-reflection consists of self-judgment and self-reaction. The self-reaction that learners take in response to their own judgment of their performance and cause attributions can either boost or reduce satisfaction and motivation to learn. Based on their perceived goals, learners evaluate their performance. If the learners are unsuccessful in achieving their goal, the cyclical process starts over by analyzing which task strategies have and have not been successful. Due to this adaptive process, the learners might continue to be motivated to do the activity again in the hopes of getting a better outcome (Zimmerman, 2011 ). Overall, the SRL cycle requires learners to set goals, evaluate progress, and adjust learning strategies. Learning is self-directed, requiring self-awareness, self-monitoring, and self-motivation, and can be learned through SRL. Related studies SRL strategy use is related to motivational level and personality traits (Bruso et al., 2020 ; Dörrenbächer & Perels, 2016 ). Needs satisfaction in SDT of motivation can be used to look at ways to foster the SRL process in each phase.

Digital SDT based support from with ChatGPT as GenAI

SDT theory explains human needs, motivation, and well-being in a social and cultural context (Ryan & Deci, 2020 ). It suggests three innate needs: autonomy, relatedness, and competence. Individuals’ motivation increases when their needs are supported and satisfied, shifting from amotivation to intrinsic motivation. This theory is widely applied in various education contexts, such as face-to-face, online, and blended learning (Chen & Jang, 2010 ; Chiu, 2021 , 2022 ; Ryan & Deci, 2020 ). SDT-based research has investigated how teacher support (e.g., behaviors) affects student needs satisfaction in a variety of learning settings, including classrooms, playgrounds, as well as online and blended learning (Ahmadi et al., 2023 ; Chen & Jang, 2010 ; Chiu, 2021 , 2022 ; Guay, 2022 ; Xia et al., 2022 ). Digital needs support refers to the design of digital learning environments to support student SDT needs (Chiu, 2021 ). This support can be achieved through digital autonomy, which can be satisfied by multiple resources for the same learning unit; students can choose the resources they prefer (Chiu, 2021 , 2022 ). Digital competence support should consider learner expertise, ensuring that different instructional formats support different levels of thinking skills (Luo et al., 2021 ). Digital relatedness can be supported by using emotional design and familiar or user-friendly digital tools (Chiu et al., 2020 ; Valle et al., 2022 ). Digital support, particularly in AI, has not been extensively studied in SDT-based research (Chiu, 2021 ; Ryan & Dec, 2020 ). Accordingly, how ChatGPT as digital support satisfies basic needs remains unclear.

SRL with ChatGPT as GenAI

Four recent studies have speculated that ChatGPT as an AI tool has the ability to promote the SRL process (Chiu, et al., 2023 ; Molenaar et al., 2023 ; Wu et al., 2023 ; Xia et al., 2023 ). ChatGPT as an AI tool may have the potential to promote the SRL process. Students must remain motivated throughout the forethought phase, actively participate in learning activities during the performance phase, and reflect on and review their learning experience during the self-reflection phase (Pintrich, 2000 ; Wu et al., 2023 ; Zimmerman, 2011 ). As noted in the last section, ChatGPT may be considered a digital support to satisfy student needs for greater motivation, which fosters the SRL process throughout the forethought phase. During the performance phase, students can use ChatGPT to receive new ideas and insights for their learning activities as needed (i.e., when they encounter learning difficulties) (Baidoo-Anu & Owusu Ansah, 2023 ; Wu et al., 2023 ). ChatGPT has the potential to keep students engaged in their learning. During the self-reflection phase, students may ask ChatGPT for comments on what they learned and how to improve their learning (Kasneci et al., 2023 ; Wu et al., 2023 ). Overall, ChatGPT may provide individualized and interactive educational learning, as well as precise explanations and step-by-step instruction. It may offer students rapid and useful guidance while also answering their queries, and they might successfully develop SRL (Wu et al., 2023 ). However, its linked activities and impacts have received little attention.

Research gaps

As we discussed, ChatGPT as GenAI is new to school teaching and has the potential to improve and hinder learning (Chiu, 2023 , 2024 ; Kasneci et al., 2023 ; Rospigliosi, 2023 ). We are not sure what ChatGPT activities teachers can teach with and students can learn from. Although ChatGPT is a resourceful, conversational, and one-to-one environment that is focused on the needs of the students (Chang & Kidman, 2023 ), the impact of ChatGPT-based activities on SRL and needs satisfaction is not clear. Besides, digital (ChatGPT in this study) support requires more attention in SDT-based research (Ryan & Deci, 2020 ). Accordingly, more studies are needed to explore the learning activities using ChatGPT and their effects on needs satisfaction and the SRL phase.

Additionally, most SDT-based research was conducted in western culture. However, eastern teachers’ perspectives may differ from those of western teachers. (for example, individualistic vs. collectivist societies) (Chiu, 2022 ; Iyengar & Lepper, 1999 ). Because of this cultural difference, it is important to study this issue from eastern teachers’ perspectives. The findings could add to the field of GenAI in education and SDT-based research (digital support) by adding more eastern perspectives.

This study and method

Research goal.

This study aims to examine how ChatGPT as GenAI satisfies student needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness in SRL from a teacher perspective using the Delphi approach. Its goal is to provide a mutually exclusive and collectively listed list (classification tool) of learning activities using ChatGPT that satisfy SRL needs. The two major research questions are: From a school teacher perspective,

What learning activities can foster the three SRL processes of forethought, performance, and self-reflection?

What learning activities can satisfy the three SDT needs for autonomy, competence, and satisfaction?

We collaborated with qualified school educators to determine how to use ChatGPT to satisfy each SDT need for SRL. We first compiled a list of ChatGPT learning activities with all the participants, followed by removing some that were no longer relevant and adding those that were. We further clarified the descriptions of each activity and linked each one to an SDT need and an SRL phase. Researchers and practitioners may use the findings to better replicate, execute, and synthesize research in educational technology (GenAI, AI, and ChatGPT) for enhancing student motivation and engagement in SRL.

Research design

As GenAI in education is still in its infancy and exploratory, the ideas on how to use the technology to support learning may not reach a consensus yet. A Delphi study uses an iterative process of questionnaires interleaved with controlled feedback to obtain a reliable consensus view from a group of experts (Dalkey & Helmer, 1963 ). It is possible to obtain a wide variety of opinions for decision-making. The anonymous process avoids conflicts between experts and encourages objective participation. Therefore, a Delphi design is used to get consensus to answer the two research questions.

Three Delphi rounds are usually enough to create an equilibrium where further rounds do not affect findings dramatically for most studies (Ahmadi et al., 2023 ; Teixeira et al., 2020 ). Our panel of SDT school teachers with expertise in educational technology created an initial list of learning activities with ChatGPT, and refined it using three Delphi rounds.

To solicit diverse but authoritative perspectives on how teachers can support student needs using ChatGPT in SRL, we assembled a panel of school teachers with different major teaching subjects. The teachers (i) had experience in designing and implementing learning activities with ChatGPT for 5 months (considered as an “experienced teacher” as it is new to schools), (ii) had at least 3 years of SDT-based teaching experience in schools, (iii), received at least 6 h of professional training on SDT, and (iv) received at least 6 h of professional training on ChatGPT. They all have experience in designing and executing SDT-based instructional design for blended learning and in using ChatGPT to design and deliver their learning activities.

No minimum panel size is set as there is no reached consensus to determine the sample size of Delphi studies (Jorm, 2015 ). Previous research on developing classifications used 10–34 participants (Ahmadi et al., 2023 ; Teixeira et al., 2020 ). To control for attrition, we invited and involved 36 participants from three university and school partnership projects on AI and education, or SDT, for this study. Their major teaching subjects included English (7), Chinese (7), Mathematics (7), Science (6), Humanities & Art (5), and Technology (4). Their schools covered the various academic levels of the students in Hong Kong.

Participants

Due to the cultural differences—eastern versus western schooling, or individualistic versus collectivist cultures (Iyengar & Lepper, 1999 ), teachers in the east may have a different perspective on ChatGPT’s needs support from the west. Most of the SDT-based studies for education were conducted in the west. As a result, it sought to investigate the goal from an eastern perspective. It recruited 36 teachers ranging in age from 25 to 55 from 15 Hong Kong schools. Twenty were female, and sixteen were male. They all meet the selection criteria for this Delphi study.

Research procedures

First, together with the teachers, we created the initial list of SRL activities using ChatGPT. To our knowledge, not much rigorous research has been done on ChatGPT for school education because it is new in schools, especially when it comes to SDT and SRL viewpoints. Most of the discussions happen in higher education, particularly in assessment (Chiu, 2023 ). As a result, we compiled learning activities from (i) journal papers pertaining to digital support, (ii) online discourse and viewpoints from academics, researchers, and educators, as well as (iii) instructional designs created by the practitioners in our workshops. We also asked the participants to suggest at least 10 ChatGPT learning activities. Due to the significant redundancy that ensued, we grouped related activities and eliminated those that ChatGPT does not offer. As a consequence, the initial list had 31 activities. We distributed the survey online for this study.

In Round 1, the teachers gave qualitative comments on each learning activity’s label name, description, and reasons. They also assessed the activity’s relevance to SDT and SRL. When the activity is relevant, they indicate which SDT needs and SRL phases are primarily impacted by the activities. At the end of the survey, we gave the teachers a full list of learning activities and asked them to determine whether any activities looked to be duplicates. To assist in developing a more thorough list, the teachers were also invited to suggest any other activities they believed were missing from the list. After each round of the Delphi process, we refined the learning activities in response to the teachers' feedback. Where action recommendations involved major changes (e.g., substantially different function descriptions), the revised learning activity was considered a new activity. In response to teacher comments following each round of the Delphi process, we made modifications to the learning activities. Revised learning activities were regarded as new ones in the next round. We sent the teachers the most recent list of activities, together with information on how they affect SRL phases and SDT needs, in Rounds 2 and 3.

In Rounds 2 and 3, we sent the teachers the most updated list of activities, together with information on how they affect SRL phases and SDT needs. The teachers had the option of using or not using the comments in their revised decision. Regarding the label, description, and reasons for the activity, they were requested to provide qualitative comments. Then, we asked them to describe how each activity affects the phases and needs. At the end of each round, we also asked them to mark any redundant activities and add any that were missing. An activity was added to the final list of learning activities using ChatGPT when consensus was established about its impact and no modifications were suggested.

Consensus criteria

There are no predetermined standards for reaching consensus on every topic in each Delphi study (Keeney et al., 2006 ). Getting every participant to agree on a single item in a survey is simpler than getting them to agree on six items, or on a binary option, than on five-point Likert scales. As a result, creating consensus criteria is an inherently subjective process that requires taking into account the nature of questions and the scale of answers, as well as the number of participants. A systematic review study by Diamond et al. ( 2014 ) revealed that only around half of Delphi studies defined and reported an exact agreement level; those that did reported agreement levels ranging from 51 to 95 percent. In this study, we used a 75 percent agreement level, aligned with previous similar Delphi studies (Ahmadi et al., 2023 ; Teixeira et al., 2020 ). After the three rounds were completed, we compiled contentious activities that some teachers had said should be removed because they were redundant. We asked the teachers to indicate which activities should be removed. The activities that were agreed upon by more than half of the teachers were removed.

Round 1 and 2

The Delphi Round 1 survey was completed by the 36 teachers. Three of the thirty-one learning activities on the initial list came to an agreement. We combined 13 activities into 6, removed 1, and proposed 2 new activities based on the qualitative comment. Then we sent the 22 learning activities that failed to come to an agreement to the teachers in the next round for more comments. All the teachers completed the survey in Round 2. Of the 22 activities, 10 activities came to an agreement. We used the qualitative comments to combine seven activities into four and remove one. Then we sent the eight activities that failed to come to an agreement to the teachers for more comments in Round 3.

All the teachers completed the Round 3 survey. Of the 8 remaining activities, 7 reached consensus, and one was removed. Table 1 shows all the learning activities and their descriptions; Table  2 shows all the learning activities and their impact on SDT needs and SRL phases. The analyses after the three rounds revealed that the teachers in Hong Kong suggested 20 learning activities using ChatGPT that could satisfy SDT needs to foster SRL in schools. They search information, get examples, check their answers, generate review questions to check for their understanding, create new problems for practice, create challenging problems, get insight into complex problems, ask ideas for their improvement, make lists or outlines, summarize their own work, ask for definitions, generate questions for discussions, generate questions for essays, get feedback for their work, practice peer feedback, prepare for tough conversations, visualize a problem, anticipate ChatGPT’s outputs, grade ChatGPT’s outputs, and debate with ChatGPT.

Overall, the majority of learning activities (11 out of 20) could better satisfy students' basic needs for competence, followed by learning activities that better satisfy students' needs for autonomy. The fewest activities are in favor of relatedness. Moreover, the results reveal that in SRL phases, both performance and self-reflection are better supported by eight activities using ChatGPT. Forethought is better supported by four activities.

This Delphi study suggests a classification tool to foster student SRL by applying SDT from the teacher perspective. It identified and categorized 20 SDT-based learning activities using ChatGPT for SRL. As we discussed in the literature review, ChatGPT has the potential to motivate or demotivate students in SRL (Chiu et al., 2023 ; Kasneci et al., 2023 ; Rospigliosi, 2023 ). How ChatGPT impacts SRL and needs satisfaction remains unclear. More research is needed to investigate how ChatGPT-based activities impact needs satisfaction and the SRL phase. Moreover, a relevant classification tool is needed to guide practitioners and scholars to teach and conduct intervention research. The tool proposed in this study could advance the field of GenAI in education and SDT-based research.

In this paper, the results have five major theoretical and practical implications: (i) how ChatGPT satisfies SDT-based needs, (ii) how it supports the SRL process, (iii) what the list suggests, and how to use the list of ChatGPT based learning activities in (iv) research and (v) teaching.

First, the results revealed that more ChatGPT-based learning activities could adequately satisfy student needs for competence. The nature of this emerging technology may be the driving force behind it. ChatGPT provides students with instant, tailored feedback and is very informative (Chiu, 2023 , 2024 ; Javaid et al., 2023 ). The answers to the students’ queries and issues are available anytime and anywhere (#3, #11, and #14). Additionally, students may get more proficient through practice and asking more questions (like #5, #6, #18, and #19). They may believe that they can finish tasks and respond to any queries when using ChatGPT for learning (Gill et al., 2024 ; Javaid et al., 2023 ). Furthermore, the teachers thought ChatGPT may provide students with a sense of agency or ownership over their learning. Teachers in conventional teacher-centered classrooms could offer new problems or questions to the class or give instructions. In non-AI technology-enhanced classrooms, students also get similar online information (e.g., similar search keywords on Google). There is no interactive or one-to-one information retrieval process in these two types of classrooms. ChatGPT is different and allows students to continuously communicate with ChatGPT to obtain their own ideas, examples, and questions (Gill et al., 2024 ; Javaid et al., 2023 ; #2, #7, #9, #12, and #13), enhancing their ownership. Personalized digital learning environments that enable students to voice their desires and get their preferred ideas are more likely to be created (Pataranutaporn et al., 2021 ). Additionally, the teachers felt that there are not enough ChatGPT-based learning activities that may satisfy student relatedness (only two). This finding is consistent with other previous research that indicates digital needs support has less attention to relatedness (Butz & Stupnisky, 2017 ; Chiu, 2021 ; Molina et al., 2022 ). A plausible explanation is that students still thought of ChatGPT as a machine interface even though it could converse with them in a human-like way. This suggests that in ChatGPT based settings, students might not feel warm and connected (Chiu, 2021 ). This finding confirms that most SDT-based research on educational technology focuses on the needs for competence and autonomy (Chiu, 2021 ; Molina et al., 2022 ). Accordingly, ChatGPT offers benefits and creates new learning opportunities to better satisfy the needs for competence and autonomy.

Second, according to the teachers, ChatGPT-based learning activities can support three SRL phases: forethought, performance, and self-reflection. During the forethought phase, learning activities (#2 and #11) might provide more precise descriptions and examples for problem clarification, along with alternate suggestions for learning strategies (#1 and #9). A clear understanding of problems is more likely to keep students motivated. In the performance phase, the teachers thought that the suggested ChatGPT-based activities in the results may foster SRL processes. Students may practice and obtain additional fresh ideas for solving problems (#7), as well as become ready for applying what they have practiced and learned (#12, #13, #15, #16, and #20) by using ChatGPT. One important procedure in this phase is asking for help, which ChatGPT fosters more effectively than teachers. Students may use ChatGPT to make rapid, customized, and limitless requests (Gill et al., 2024 ; Javaid et al., 2023 ). In the final phase, teachers felt that ChatGPT might help students with their self-reflection process by giving them feedback (#3, #4, and #14), letting them practice self-reflection techniques (#18 and #19), and providing them with further suggestions for improvement (#5, #6, and #8). These imply that ChatGPT has the potential to offer a resourceful, engaging, and conversational student-centered environment that is focused on the needs of the students. These findings are aligned with the studies on how to foster SRL through ChatGPT (Baidoo-Anu & Ansah, 2023 ; Kasneci, 2023 ; Wu et al., 2023 ). This environment, which encourages “think pair and share” thinking, fosters the SRL skills of low-ability students while pushing high-ability kids to reach their full potential (Xia et al., 2023 ).

Third, out of the three SDT-based needs, the only one that ChatGPT learning activities satisfy among all three SRL phases is competence. ChatGPT cannot adequately satisfy relatedness and autonomy at every SRL phase. This suggests that ChatGPT might not be able to satisfy every need of the student on its own. Well-researched teacher needs support is still required for young students’ SRL process (Baars et al., 2022 ). Since school children are still developing, teachers must provide them with direction and guidance. To fully utilize each student’s SRL potential, ChatGPT and the teacher should collaborate (Chiu et al., 2023 ). Despite the fact that needs satisfaction is an integrative concept, autonomy and relatedness are still better satisfied by ChatGPT, according to SDT (Ryan & Deci, 2020 ). More studies may be needed to investigate how ChatGPT supports needs for autonomy and relatedness in every phase of SRL.

Fourth, the findings provide a classification tool to assist researchers in replicating, using, and integrating successful educational technology research and development projects (e.g., GenAI-ChatGPT, text-image generator, and voice-text generator). To assess whether specific digital learning activities have the greatest impact on needs satisfaction, motivation, and SRL processes, the researchers can use the tools to conduct intervention research to provide more evidence on whether ChatGPT can foster the SRL process. The developers may use activities to improve educational ChatGPT development.

Finally, SRL with ChatGPT is new to school teaching (Xia et al., 2023 ). Although the classification tool gives suggestions for using ChatGPT to foster the SRL process and satisfy SDT needs, many of these activities are not typical or less common teaching practices. Teachers would need to modify them for their own teaching. The tool also makes a good starting point for many innovative teaching methods. Moreover, policy makers can use this tool for guidelines for AI in education, and run professional development for integrating ChatGPT as GenAI in education.

Overall, this study suggests a classification tool for how to foster student SRL with ChatGPT by applying SDT. As ChatGPT is the most common GenAI tool in teaching and learning, the tool can be applied to other GenAI tools. Researchers and practitioners can use the learning activities suggested in this classification tool to research the impact of other GenAI tools on SRL and satisfaction.

Limitations and future research suggestions

This study identifies six limitations as well as potential research directions. Intervention and experimental research: The effects of each ChatGPT learning activity are not investigated in this study. Despite the fact that the teachers in this study acknowledged that the activities on the list might help with SDT needs satisfaction and the SRL process, ChatGPT teaching and learning are still relatively new and understudied (Chiu, 2023 , 2024 ; Rospigliosi, 2023 ). It is unclear how it supports SDT needs and the SRL process. Future research might use an experimental or interventional design to examine the impact of each activity on needs satisfaction and the SRL process.

More innovative activities: ChatGPT is an emerging technology that is always adding new features (Chang & Kidman, 2023 ; Kasneci et al., 2023 ). Co-design or design-based studies that capture diverse perspectives from engineers, educational researchers, and practitioners are recommended to generate more innovative activities with ChatGPT.

International panelists: the purpose of this study is to gather the viewpoints of eastern practitioners. The findings have made a significant contribution to local and regional research and educational communities. A more diversified panelist, on the other hand, is proposed for a new Delphi investigation (Ahmadi et al., 2023 ). For example, to completely represent the spectrum of viewpoints, the panel should include SDT and educational technology experts, as well as practitioners from various regions.

Learning diversity: ChatGPT has the potential to narrow and broaden learning diversity, or the digital divide (Chiu, 2023 ). This was not considered in this study. Individual differences, such as gender and learning capacity, should be included in future research.

Blended learning: this study solely looked at the impact of digital support (ChatGPT). However, blended learning is the most common practice in schools when using technology (Chiu, 2021 ). Teachers and digital needs support should work together. This classification may not simply apply to classroom instruction because the aims and contexts differ. In future studies, a new classification tool should include teacher needs support.

Relationships in SDT needs and SRL phases: although this classification tool aims to provide an exclusive classification list, i.e., each activity only serves one need in SDT or one phase in SRL. However, the three needs and the three phases are closely related. They are not mutually exclusive. Future research should use correlational studies to investigate how the activities impact the needs and phases.

Given how this field of AI in education is emerging, this study provides a useful exploratory start to understand GenAI links to the SRL process by applying SDT. To our knowledge, we established the first classification tool of its kind in this study to thoroughly canvass eastern school teacher perspectives on how ChatGPT influences SRL and needs satisfaction. It obtained consensus from 36 qualified school teachers using a best-practice three-round Delphi approach (Ahmadi et al., 2023 ; Diamond et al., 2014 ). Eastern teachers differ from Western teachers (for example, individualistic versus collectivist societies) (Chiu, 2023 ; Iyengar & Lepper, 1999 ). Because of this cultural difference, this study’s findings contribute to the field by adding an eastern teacher perspective. We expect that this tool will make it simpler for researchers to identify better ways to explore how ChatGPT may promote student motivation, as well as for practitioners to adopt those activities to improve student SRL and outcomes.

Data availability

The datasets used for the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Ahmadi, A., Noetel, M., Parker, P. D., Ryan, R., Ntoumanis, N., Reeve, J., & Lonsdale, C. (2023). A classification system for teachers’ motivational behaviours recommended in self-determination theory interventions. Journal of Education Psychology, Advance Online Publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000783

Article   Google Scholar  

Baars, M., Khare, S., & Ridderstap, L. (2022). Exploring students’ use of a mobile application to support their self-regulated learning processes. Frontiers in Psychology, 13 , 793002. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.793002

Baidoo-Anu, D., & Ansah, L. O. (2023). Education in the era of generative artificial intelligence (AI): Understanding the potential benefits of ChatGPT in promoting teaching and learning. Journal of AI, 7 (1), 52–62.

Bruso, J., Stefaniak, J., & Bol, L. (2020). An examination of personality traits as a predictor of the use of self-regulated learning strategies and considerations for online instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68 , 2659–2683. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09797-y

Butz, N. T., & Stupnisky, R. H. (2017). Improving student relatedness through an online discussion intervention: The application of self-determination theory in synchronous hybrid programs. Computers & Education, 114 , 117–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.06.006

Chang, C. H., & Kidman, G. (2023). The rise of generative artificial intelligence (AI) language models-challenges and opportunities for geographical and environmental education. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 32 (2), 85–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2023.2194036

Chen, K. C., & Jang, S. J. (2010). Motivation in online learning: Testing a model of self-determination theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 26 (4), 741–752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.01.011

Chiu, T. K. F. (2021). Digital support for student engagement in blended learning based on self-determination theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 124 , 106909. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106909

Chiu, T. K. F. (2022). Applying the Self-determination Theory (SDT) to explain student engagement in online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 54 (sup1), 14–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2021.1891998

Chiu, T. K. F. (2023). The impact of Generative AI (GenAI) on practices, policies and research direction in education: A case of ChatGPT and Midjourney. Interactive Learning Environments, Advanced Publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2253861

Chiu, T. K. F. (2024). Future research recommendations for transforming higher education with Generative AI. Computer & Education: Artificial Intelligence, 6 , 100197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100197

Chiu, T. K. F., Jong, M. S. Y., & Mok, I. A. C. (2020). Does learner expertise matter when designing emotional multimedia for learners of primary school mathematics? Educational Technology Research and Development, 68 , 2305–2320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09775-4

Chiu, T. K. F., Moorhouse, B. L., Chai, C. S., & Ismailov, M. (2023). Teacher support and student motivation to learn with artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot. Interactive Learning Environments, Advanced Online Publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2172044

Dalkey, N., & Helmer, O. (1963). An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Management Science, 9 (3), 458–467. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.9.3.458

Diamond, I. R., Grant, R. C., Feldman, B. M., Pencharz, P. B., Ling, S. C., Moore, A. M., & Wales, P. W. (2014). Defining consensus: A systematic review recommends methodologic criteria for reporting of Delphi studies. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67 (4), 401–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.12.002

Dörrenbächer, L., & Perels, F. (2016). Self-regulated learning profiles in college students: Their relationship to achievement, personality, and the effectiveness of an intervention to foster self-regulated learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 51 , 229–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.09.015

Farrokhnia, M., Banihashem, S. K., Noroozi, O., & Wals, A. (2023). A SWOT analysis of ChatGPT: Implications for educational practice and research. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, Advanced Online Publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2195846

Gill, S. S., Xu, M., Patros, P., Wu, H., Kaur, R., Kaur, K., & Buyya, R. (2024). Transformative effects of ChatGPT on modern education: Emerging Era of AI Chatbots. Internet of Things and Cyber-Physical Systems, 4 , 19–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iotcps.2023.06.002

Guay, F. (2022). Applying self-determination theory to education: Regulations types, psychological needs, and autonomy supporting behaviors. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 37 (1), 75–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/08295735211055355

Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (1999). Rethinking the value of choice: A cultural perspective on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76 (3), 349–366. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.3.349

Javaid, M., Haleem, A., Singh, R. P., Khan, S., & Khan, I. H. (2023). Unlocking the opportunities through ChatGPT Tool towards ameliorating the education system. BenchCouncil Transactions on Benchmarks, Standards and Evaluations, 3 (2), 100115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbench.2023.100115

Jorm, A. F. (2015). Using the Delphi expert consensus method in mental health research. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 49 (10), 887–897. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004867415600891

Kasneci, E., Seßler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., & Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103 , 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274

Keeney, S., Hasson, F., & McKenna, H. (2006). Consulting the oracle: Ten lessons from using the Delphi technique in nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 53 (2), 205–212. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03716.x

Luo, Y., Lin, J., & Yang, Y. (2021). Students’ motivation and continued intention with online self-regulated learning: A self-determination theory perspective. Zeitschrift Für Erziehungswissenschaft, 24 (6), 1379–1399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-021-01042-3

Manganelli, L., Thibault-Landry, A., Forest, J., & Carpentier, J. (2018). Self-determination theory can help you generate performance and well-being in the workplace: A review of the literature. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 20 (2), 227–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422318757

Molenaar, I., de Mooij, S., Azevedo, R., Bannert, M., Järvelä, S., & Gašević, D. (2023). Measuring self-regulated learning and the role of AI: Five years of research using multimodal multichannel data. Computers in Human Behavior, 139 , 107540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107540

Molina, F., Molina, M. D., & Molina, C. (2022). Motivating learning through digital apps: The importance of relatedness satisfaction. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction . https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2097777

Olivier, E., Galand, B., Morin, A. J., & Hospel, V. (2021). Need-supportive teaching and student engagement in the classroom: Comparing the additive, synergistic, and global contributions. Learning and Instruction, 71 , 101389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101389

Pataranutaporn, P., Danry, V., Leong, J., Punpongsanon, P., Novy, D., Maes, P., & Sra, M. (2021). AI-generated characters for supporting personalized learning and well-being. Nature Machine Intelligence, 3 (12), 1013–1022. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-021-00417-9

Peverly, S. T., Brobst, K. E., Graham, M., & Shaw, R. (2003). College adults are not good at self-regulation: A study on the relationship of self-regulation, note taking, and test taking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95 (2), 335–346. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.335

Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92 (3), 544–555. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.92.3.544

Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory into Practice, 41 (4), 219–225. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_3

Rospigliosi, P. A. (2023). Artificial intelligence in teaching and learning: What questions should we ask of ChatGPT? Interactive Learning Environments, 31 (1), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2180191

Roth, A., Ogrin, S., & Schmitz, B. (2016). Assessing self-regulated learning in higher education: A systematic literature review of self-report instruments. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 28 , 225–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-015-9229-2

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61 , 101860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860

Sitzmann, T., & Ely, K. (2011). A meta-analysis of self-regulated learning in work-related training and educational attainment: What we know and where we need to go. Psychological Bulletin, 137 (3), 421–422. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022777

Teixeira, P. J., Marques, M. M., Silva, M. N., Brunet, J., Duda, J., Haerens, L., La Guardia, J., Lindwall, M., Lonsdale, C., & Markland, D. (2020). A classification of motivation and behavior change techniques used in self-determination theory-based interventions in health contexts. Motivation Science, 6 (4), 438–455. https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000172

Valle, N., Brishke, J., Shenkman, E., & Ritzhaupt, A. D. (2022). Design, development and evaluation of the Citizen Science Cancer Curriculum (CSCC): A design and development case study. TechTrends, 66 (4), 666–680. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00737-6

Wu, T. T., Lee, H. Y., Li, P. H., Huang, C. N., & Huang, Y. M. (2023). Promoting self-regulation progress and knowledge construction in blended learning via ChatGPT-based learning aid. Journal of Educational Computing Research, Advanced Online Publication . https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331231191125

Xia, Q., Chiu, T. K. F., Chai, C. S., & Xie, K. (2023). The mediating effects of needs satisfaction on the relationships between prior knowledge and self-regulated learning through artificial intelligence chatbot. British Journal of Educational Technology, 54 (4), 967–986. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13305

Xia, Q., Chiu, T. K. F., Lee, M., Temitayo, I., Dai, Y., & Chai, C. S. (2022). A self-determination theory design approach for inclusive and diverse artificial intelligence (AI) K-12 education. Computers & Education, 189 , 104582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104582

Zimmerman, B. J. (2011). Motivational sources and outcomes of self-regulated learning and performance. Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance. Routledge.

Google Scholar  

Zimmerman, B. J., & Moylan, A. R. (2009). Self-regulation: Where metacognition and motivation intersect. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 299–315). Routledge.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank you for the school teachers for participate this study.

This study is funded by General Research Grants (Project Code: 14610522).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Faculty of Education, Centre for Learning Sciences and Technologies, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong, China

Thomas K. F. Chiu

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas K. F. Chiu .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

This study got ethical clearance from the author’s university. There is no conflict of interests between the author and participants.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Chiu, T.K.F. A classification tool to foster self-regulated learning with generative artificial intelligence by applying self-determination theory: a case of ChatGPT. Education Tech Research Dev (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-024-10366-w

Download citation

Accepted : 09 March 2024

Published : 01 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-024-10366-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Generative AI
• Self-determination theory
• Self-regulated learning
• Digital support
• Delphi study
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research