Writing is a fundamental, involved, and versatile language and literacy skill utilised within and beyond schooling for a range of purposes (Finlayson & McCrudden, Reference Finlayson and McCrudden2020; Graham, Reference Graham2019). For example, writing is used as a vehicle for learning, recording information, arguing or persuading, entertaining, or expressing feelings (Graham, Reference Graham2019). Moreover, scholars have asserted that learning to write requires years to master as writing is a complex activity (Hertzberg, Reference Hertzberg2012). Concomitantly for Australian educators, writing instruction is considered core business as teachers adhere to the Australian Curriculum guidelines (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority, 2023).
Yet teachers vary in their capacity for writing instruction. Numerous teachers feel inadequately prepared to teach writing (Finlayson & McCrudden, Reference Finlayson and McCrudden2020; Graham & Harris, Reference Graham and Harris2009), with often limited preparation during preservice teacher training (Carter et al., Reference Carter, Abbott and Wright2022). Compounding low teacher efficacy is an inadequate propensity for recognising and responding to significant writing difficulties (Yakut, Reference Yakut2021), including dysgraphia (Kalenjuk, Laletas, et al., Reference Kalenjuk, Laletas, Subban and Wilson2022). In this study, dysgraphia refers to a specific learning disorder (SLD) in written expression (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). This includes significant difficulties with handwriting, spelling, grammar, planning, or composition (Buğday & Sarı, Reference Buğday and Sarı2022; Chung et al., Reference Chung, Patel and Nizami2020). Supporting students with dysgraphia requires teachers to engage in inclusive practices (Nationally Consistent Collection of Data on School Students with Disability, 2021a).
Australian teachers face increasing pressures and expectations to support learners with diverse needs and capacities due to education policies and teaching standards, which are largely framed by an inclusive agenda (cf. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority, 2022, 2023; Education Council, 2019; Nationally Consistent Collection of Data on School Students with Disability, 2021b). An agenda for inclusion refers to the rights of all children to participate in and be supported to learn at school (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, 2020), contextualised as inclusive education (IE). National policies have emerged from global shifts towards IE as a consequence of international collaborations and actions, such as the Salamanca Statement (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 1994) and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities (2006).
Teachers require specific skill sets and training to identify and accommodate students with learning diversity (Subban et al., Reference Subban, Bradford, Sharma, Loreman, Avramidis, Kullmann, Sahli Lozano, Romano and Woodcock2023), including learning profiles with dysgraphia. Graham et al. (Reference Graham, Harris, MacArthur, Schwartz and Wong1991) offered a series of guiding principles about best instructional practices for writing to suit learners with varying capacities. These guiding principles included (a) engaging exemplary, consistent, and high-quality writing instruction; (b) tailoring writing to meet the learning needs of individuals; (c) explicitly teaching handwriting, spelling, and sentence construction; (d) increasing student knowledge of the writing topic and genre; (e) supporting writing motivation; and (f) taking advantage of technology (Graham et al., Reference Graham, Harris, MacArthur, Schwartz and Wong1991).
Researchers also recommend self-regulated strategy development, or SRSD, as a possible intervention for students with learning difficulties (Harris & Graham, Reference Harris and Graham2009). This approach emphasises the effectiveness of modelled, explicit, scaffolded, and tailored instruction for writing (Mason et al., Reference Mason, Harris and Graham2011). SRSD is delivered by responsive teachers who work collaboratively with students on writing strategies, memorisation, and goal setting (Graham & Harris, Reference Graham and Harris1993; Mason et al., Reference Mason, Harris and Graham2011). Additional approaches used in classrooms that have gained popularity have included Multisensory Structured Language, or MSL, especially to support learners with dyslexia (Australian Dyslexia Association; https://dyslexiaassociation.org.au/). Although MSL may be effective in supporting learners with writing difficulties, researchers have also cautioned that it may fall short if underlying motor and language deficits are not identified (Berninger et al., Reference Berninger, Richards, Nielsen, Dunn, Raskind and Abbott2019). Berninger et al. (Reference Berninger, Richards, Nielsen, Dunn, Raskind and Abbott2019) recommended that teachers adapt writing programs according to individual students once comprehensive psychology-based assessments have been undertaken to identify and address underlying difficulties.
To aptly address dysgraphia, a strong sense of teacher self-efficacy (Bandura, Reference Bandura1977) may be a prerequisite: ‘Teacher self-efficacy refers to teachers’ beliefs about and confidence in their ability to successfully perform a task’ (Chunta & DuPaul, Reference Chunta and DuPaul2022, p. 299). Self-efficacy has been identified as an important element for the effective implementation of IE (Wray et al., Reference Wray, Sharma and Subban2022). Significantly, there is a strong relationship between teacher self-efficacy, student academic achievement, and student motivation (Wray et al., Reference Wray, Sharma and Subban2022). Teachers who welcome IE appreciate social equity and the value of diversity, and view a range of social conditions as disablers rather than disablement attributed to individual student differences (Woodcock et al., Reference Woodcock, Sharma, Subban and Hitches2022).
There are several studies that show teachers generally adopt positive attitudes towards IE to varying degrees while conceding there are challenges (Finkelstein et al., Reference Finkelstein, Sharma and Furlonger2021; Sharma et al., Reference Sharma, Loreman, May, Romano, Lozano, Avramidis, Woodcock, Subban and Kullmann2023; Subban & Mahlo, Reference Subban and Mahlo2017). Teachers’ concerns have largely focused on feeling underprepared (Serry et al., Reference Serry, Snow, Hammond, McLean and McCormack2022; Sharma & Sokal, Reference Sharma and Sokal2015) with limited resources, increased workloads, as well as contemplating the challenges or the appropriateness of IE (Jury et al., Reference Jury, Laurence, Cèbe and Desombre2023). Modern studies have emphasised that collective efficacy may be a key tenet of successful IE implementation, meaning the way in which a school might communally support students requiring additional care (Chong & Ong, Reference Chong, Ong, Garvis and Pendergast2016; Sharma et al., Reference Sharma, Loreman, May, Romano, Lozano, Avramidis, Woodcock, Subban and Kullmann2023; Subban et al., Reference Subban, Bradford, Sharma, Loreman, Avramidis, Kullmann, Sahli Lozano, Romano and Woodcock2023). However, there is no research to support this approach specifically in the context of dysgraphia.
A recent scoping review has revealed limited research on dysgraphia, including educator-specific perspectives (Kalenjuk, Laletas, et al., Reference Kalenjuk, Laletas, Subban and Wilson2022). Thus, this study explores the experiences of Australian educators who have worked directly with students with dysgraphia. Within this context, educator refers to qualified teachers who offer writing instruction to students diagnosed with dysgraphia, including, but not limited to, classroom teachers or tutors. Consequently, the study asks, What are Australian educators’ lived experiences of dysgraphia?
Materials and Methods
This study is primarily concerned with the experiences of dysgraphia (rather than dysgraphia as such) in its phenomenological and ontological pursuits. Phenomenology is the study of phenomena (experiences of dysgraphia) through an interrogation of lived experience (an educator’s perspective). Interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA; Smith et al., Reference Smith, Jarman, Osborn, Murray and Chamberlain1999) was the preferred methodology of this inquiry as it generates qualitative data to elicit in-depth and rich accounts of subjective experiences. Alase (Reference Alase2017) defines IPA as ‘a tradition (or approach) that interprets and amplifies the “lived experience” stories of research participants’ (p. 12), permitting the data to speak for itself. This type of hermeneutic approach is participatory by nature in its subjectivity, indicating that the researcher is actively visible and involved in the process (Finlay, Reference Finlay2002).
The spotlighting of subjectivity enables the participants to voice or express their views in comprehensive ways (Finlay, Reference Finlay2014). It involves generating idiographic accounts through semistructured interviews with researcher reflexivity (Biggerstaff & Thompson, Reference Biggerstaff and Thompson2008; Pietkiewicz & Smith, Reference Pietkiewicz and Smith2014). Idiographic can be defined as extensive and nuanced analysis of personal experience, which includes context or circumstances (Pietkiewicz & Smith, Reference Pietkiewicz and Smith2014). For this study, IPA can be considered appropriate and ethical given the complexity and sensitivity that often enshroud research on disability (Shosha, Reference Shosha2012). IPA also invites the researcher to engage in reflexive ways throughout the process (Finlay, Reference Finlay2002). To do this well, the researcher must be conscious of their own biases, learn to articulate these and, to the extent this is possible, set them aside (Vagle, Reference Vagle2009), a process known as bridling (Dahlberg, Reference Dahlberg2006). A detailed overview of the IPA method of data generation and analysis will ensue later in this paper.
This study is an important component in the context of a larger research project undertaken to understand the experiences of dysgraphia that involved five children (aged 10–12; Kalenjuk et al., Reference Kalenjuk, Wilson, Subban and Laletas2023) and their parents (Kalenjuk et al., Reference Kalenjuk, Subban, Wilson and Laletasin press). Thus, this study is tangential in its proximity to the main participants (children) whose voices have been central to understanding the experiences of dysgraphia (Kalenjuk et al., Reference Kalenjuk, Wilson, Subban and Laletas2023). To undertake each of these studies (children, carers, educators), formal ethical approval was granted by the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (Project ID 30317). Written assent was obtained from participants, including permission to use transcriptions and visual data sources within publications.
Subsequently, educators volunteered to participate in this study via parent invitation through a snowball referral process set up by the research team. The study sought a minimum sample size of three to five participants, which is permitted in IPA studies (Alase, Reference Alase2017; Biggerstaff & Thompson, Reference Biggerstaff and Thompson2008). Further, ‘transferability’ as relatability was the applicable type of generalisability in this small sample size, rather than a statistical application (Smith, Reference Smith2018). To this end, a small number (four) of participants expressed initial interest. However, one educator did not follow up, nor provide any details, on several invitations to participate. Accordingly, three qualified teachers were recruited under the guise of pseudonyms: Pippa, Jessica, and Giulia. The educator participants were previously unknown to the research team and lived in or beyond Greater Melbourne into regional Victoria. In proximity to Melbourne, their home locations orientated east and north central, approximately 44 to 209 km away from its central business district.
Each interview was scheduled for at least 1 hour and ended when saturation point was reached, which usually landed shortly after the hour. Each interview was conducted via Zoom videoconferencing, because of the COVID-19 pandemic (Carroll et al., Reference Carroll, Forrest, Sanders-O’Connor, Flynn, Bower, Fynes-Clinton, York and Ziaei2022). The first author conducted the interviews. In the interest of declaring personal bias for research trustworthiness, the first author previously conducted a self-study before embarking on work with participants as she, herself, was an educator and current parent of a child with dysgraphia (see Kalenjuk, Subban, et al., Reference Kalenjuk, Subban, Laletas and Wilson2022).
IPA Method
IPA can be summarised as a cyclical process with several iterative stages (Biggerstaff & Thompson, Reference Biggerstaff and Thompson2008). These stages are described as follows:
Stage 1 involved data generation and engagement (Alase, Reference Alase2017; Biggerstaff & Thompson, Reference Biggerstaff and Thompson2008). For this study, three transcripts were generated through semistructured interviews, with 20 base prompts and room for follow-up questions tailored to the participant. The semistructured nature allowed the researcher to establish rapport, ask probing questions, and follow the participants’ lead to gain further insights, novelty, or interest (Aguinis & Solarino, Reference Aguinis and Solarino2019; Smith & Fieldsend, Reference Smith and Fieldsend2021). In this way, the prompts invited participants to tell, for example, ‘… your experiences of dysgraphia’ or ‘what assistive technology [was offered to] students with dysgraphia’ or how the educators were ‘… supported at the school or through professional development’. The interviews were captured through audio and video recording by Zoom, including auto-generated transcripts. These Zoom transcripts were transferred into Word, cross-checked for accuracy, and corrected by the research team.
Stage 2 comprised initial commenting and noting (Alase, Reference Alase2017). After reading and rereading each transcript, the research team made notes and highlighted salient aspects of each text. For example, Jessica’s transcripts mentioned that ‘schools are still allowed to decide their own way of teaching’, and the researcher has noted, ‘intimating desire for greater accountability and consistency across schools’.
Stage 3 marked the explication of descriptive, linguistic, conceptual, or super-ordinate (interpretive) themes (Alase, Reference Alase2017; Finlay, Reference Finlay2014). During this stage, the research team positioned themselves within the data by noting their own responses, such as thoughts that came to mind, questions that arose, or emotions that were provoked while locating or constructing concepts (Finlay, Reference Finlay2014). This process of ‘dwelling’ (Finlay, Reference Finlay2014, p. 125) compels a purposeful suspension of judgement (Biggerstaff & Thompson, Reference Biggerstaff and Thompson2008). The first author’s leading role in this process encompassed ongoing reflexivity (Finlay, Reference Finlay2002).
Stage 4 included identifying common threads across each dataset and identifying the diverse, idiographic, and nuanced aspects (Alase, Reference Alase2017; Biggerstaff & Thompson, Reference Biggerstaff and Thompson2008; Finlay, Reference Finlay2014). During this stage, the research team used conceptual coding to organise the data (Smith, Reference Smith2018). To do this, a manual process was undertaken of cutting up and sorting the transcripts into logical groupings (clusters) as similarities began to emerge so that the researcher could code them accordingly. This involved directly interacting with the data. To crosscheck the results, the data were imported into NVivo 20 for digital coding. Several concepts emerged, such as stratagem (strategies or approaches), vexation (puzzled or confused), and sufferance (unpleasant feelings), reflecting the essence of the educators’ collective experiences (see Table 1).
Table 1. Conceptual Clusters With Examples of Patterning Across Each Transcript
Stage 5 involved the research team checking for patterns across the data (Alase, Reference Alase2017) and explicating the phenomenological essence of the experience (Finlay, Reference Finlay2014). The phenomenological essence can ‘be understood as a structure of essential meanings that explicates a phenomenon of interest’ and that without which the phenomenon would not exist (Dahlberg, Reference Dahlberg2006, p. 11). This process demanded a deeper analysis focused on unearthing profound meanings related to the lifeworld of the participants, and these results have been depicted in Table 2.
Table 2. The 4Cs Phenomenological Concepts About the Experiences of Dysgraphia in this Study
Results
IPA studies offer access to the lifeworld or lived experience of participants through constructing existential ideas, themes, or concepts that feature human predicament (Alase, Reference Alase2017; Finlay, Reference Finlay2014). Examples of existential stems include what it means ‘to be’ (notion of being), the significance of relationships, meaningful human experiences, or spatial and temporal concepts (Finlay, Reference Finlay2014). The study aimed to elicit in-depth perspectives about dysgraphia through an educator lens. The educators’ collective and idiographic experiences of dysgraphia involved several interlocked and dynamic qualities that pertained to both their professional and personal spheres of influence. These spheres were orientated by existential and conceptual drivers of morality, hope, and benevolence. Table 2 depicts the findings through four key phenomenological concepts about the collective experiences of dysgraphia for the educator participants in this study:
-
1. Circumstances: Lifeworld or lived experiences (professionally and personally), including participants’ beliefs and values, both shaped and informed educational priorities, professional identity, as well as self-efficacy.
-
2. Challenges: An entanglement of dissonant factors, such as curriculum expectations, student writing capacity and comorbidity, led to emotional responses (vexation, sufferance), as well as professional challenges.
-
3. Complexities: The personalised and complex nature of their students’ learning profiles created further challenges.
-
4. Compassion: Hope, empathy, and benevolence were drivers for building professional capacity.
Giulia
Giulia’s early teaching experience, working as the only teacher in a remote Aboriginal community in Western Australia, fostered a sense of resilience and determination to teach children of all ages to read and write. Giulia’s moral purpose became apparent when she noted, ‘I’d like to think I have a good relationship with all my students’ and thus emphasised the centrality of the teacher–student relationship (Ainsworth & Bowlby, Reference Ainsworth and Bowlby1991). By focusing on building healthy relationships, Giulia contributed to the creation of a culture of inclusion. Giulia noted how ‘literacy was always my number one focus’, and her work activated a love of literacy, which subsequently fostered an interest in dysgraphia in her later teaching years in Melbourne.
A collection of professional experiences led Giulia to private tuition, appreciating the intense and personalised effort involved in intervention. According to Witzel and Mize (Reference Witzel and Mize2018), ‘educators must be apprised of the needs of students who struggle with literacy … without awareness, concerns may not lead to targeted instructional changes’ (p. 36). Of the three educators, Giulia spoke in depth about an array of interventions she used within her practice, including, but not limited to, suitable types of erasable or gel pens and pencil grips, types of lined paper, slant boards, teaching explicit handwriting, use of dry-erase boards, dictation, planning for writing, scribing, touch-typing, speech-to-text features, and sentence starters. Giulia’s eclectic and vast experiences in supporting diverse learners have promoted her own levels of self-confidence and self-efficacy for writing instruction.
Jessica
Jessica advocated for a parental voice in shaping the dysgraphia conversation. For example, Jessica noted, ‘I’m on a Dyslexia Support … Facebook’ page and navigated dysgraphia exchanges through this portal. Thus, Jessica’s experience of travelling in parental circles has informed some of her professional views. Jessica says, ‘Dysgraphia hasn’t been picked up at school — it’s something that [the parents] found out themselves [and] they’ve noticed themselves that something’s not right’. Jessica studied psychology before transitioning into the field of education and teaching, and although Jessica had limited classroom experience, she demonstrated the power of multiple perspectives in building empathy for diverse learners by contributing a parental lens. In this way, Jessica maintained liminal positionality by straddling ‘insider’ (teacher) and ‘outsider’ (parent) dichotomies (Ellis et al., Reference Ellis, Adams and Bochner2011; Thomson & Gunter, Reference Thomson and Gunter2011).
Jessica’s vexation about limited dysgraphia awareness may have contributed to her own experience of sufferance. Jessica was restricted in her capacity to adequately support students with complex learning profiles due to a range of external factors. For example, when reflecting on her initial teacher training, Jessica shared how she
can’t remember any [subjects] where we did neurodiversity. You could have chosen to do disability as a stream, which I didn’t do. I did one seminar on autism, which was from a parent who came in … [well] she’s not just a parent but that’s where her, I guess, her point of view was coming from … and that was an ‘opt-in’ thing.
Thus, Jessica’s self-efficacy may have been more aptly nurtured through MSL formal training, which has led to her experiencing direct encounters of children with dysgraphia as well as offering her a toolkit for supporting them.
Pippa
Pippa was an expert teacher of 20 years who became awakened to dysgraphia when she encountered her first student with a comorbidity of ADHD and dysgraphia in her latest teaching role. As a master-level trained educator, Pippa explained how
literacy had more of a focus on students that were coming from non-English speaking backgrounds but more looking at diversity and that probably had more of a focus on literacy but more looking at diversity and that probably [did not include SLDs].
Pippa reiterated, ‘[Dysgraphia is] not something that probably comes up … until a teacher’s got a student in front of them’.
Pippa also touched on her own daughter’s experience of writing frustration (not dysgraphia) during the home learning situation created by the COVID-19 pandemic, which gave her insight into the world of dysgraphia. Once again, this empathetic engagement with personal experience opened a possibility for Pippa to reconsider the case of her student (with dysgraphia), which has presented as a genuinely perplexing and complex situation. Pippa accepted that dysgraphia ‘can be quite disheartening for students … [my student] needs a lot of encouragement’. Pippa’s softening of her views towards writing disabilities might be attributed to a disruption in previous notions held about dysgraphia. She stated, ‘When I started teaching, dyslexia/dysgraphia was such a broad term and … it’d almost become [the term] we give kids when we don’t know what else to call [it]’.
Figure 1 summarises the teachers’ support mechanisms used in responses to students with dysgraphia.
Figure 1. Summary of Support Mechanisms Included in Educator Study.
Discussion
This study, as the first of its kind, was guided by the following research question: What are Australian educators’ lived experiences of dysgraphia? The findings indicated that although each participants’ academic, professional, and personal experiences were nuanced and diverse, each were inaugurated to the world of dysgraphia on the job, leading to learning about and addressing dysgraphia in self-directed ways, creating reactive rather than proactive processes.
Once aware of dysgraphia, the educator participants developed a suit of intuitive and responsive practices for individual students with dysgraphia, such as building positive student–teacher relationships, applying explicit instruction, scaffolding tasks, enforcing repetition, co-planning, and setting writing goals. However, supporting students with dysgraphia had not been without challenges, vexation, and sufferance, which were juxtaposed against their own moral compasses orientated towards benevolence and optimism.
Interlocking spheres have been developed to characterise the essential experiences of dysgraphia, as depicted by the participants (see Figure 2).
Figure 2. Depiction of Interlocking Spheres of Influence of the Participants’ Experiences of Dysgraphia.
The complexity of the participants’ experiences underscores the need to provide professional guidance on writing interventions and the value of collective efficacy through establishing a school-based or systems-approach to SLDs (Sharma et al., Reference Sharma, Loreman, May, Romano, Lozano, Avramidis, Woodcock, Subban and Kullmann2023). Whole-school approaches to dysgraphia can optimise the effectiveness of teachers who play a central role in writing development (Graham, Reference Graham2019).
Researchers continue to emphasise the importance of teacher self-efficacy in driving students’ learning (Chong & Ong, Reference Chong, Ong, Garvis and Pendergast2016; Chunta & DuPaul, Reference Chunta and DuPaul2022; Woodcock et al., Reference Woodcock, Sharma, Subban and Hitches2022; Wray et al., Reference Wray, Sharma and Subban2022). Bandura (Reference Bandura1977) stated that ‘an efficacy expectation is the conviction that one can successfully execute the behavior required to produce the outcomes and capacity to cope with a situation’ (p. 193). All three participants experienced varying levels of self-efficacy due to a range of factors that limited their capacity to aptly address dysgraphia. Moreover, high levels of teacher self-efficacy and empathy are paramount for creating an inclusive culture (Sharma et al., Reference Sharma, Loreman, May, Romano, Lozano, Avramidis, Woodcock, Subban and Kullmann2023; Woodcock et al., Reference Woodcock, Sharma, Subban and Hitches2022; Wray et al., Reference Wray, Sharma and Subban2022). According to Woodcock et al. (Reference Woodcock, Sharma, Subban and Hitches2022), an inclusive culture is ‘one in which teachers recognise their ability to facilitate learning and reduce barriers to learning and participation for all students in their classrooms’ (p. 2).
Research also suggests that ‘evoking empathic care and emotions related to compassion may result in positive changes in attitudes’ (Parchomiuk, Reference Parchomiuk2019, p. 58). Jessica’s and Pippa’s levels of empathy for students with dysgraphia were derived from compassion for their own offspring’s challenges with writing. These levels were matched by Giulia, who described deep empathy for her students with writing challenges. In these instances, the dual role of parent/educator supported empathetic classroom responses, yet was not a mandatory criterion for empathy. In the broader context of disability, Parchomiuk (Reference Parchomiuk2019) suggests that empathy can be acquired through knowledge acquisition and teacher education. Thus, dysgraphia-specific professional learning may enhance teachers’ levels of empathy, as well as self-efficacy in supporting students with dysgraphia. Teacher education would include appropriate types of interventions for responding to dysgraphia.
One aspect of the data that was not obvious was whether the teachers adopted a response-to-intervention (RTI) model (McKeown et al., Reference McKeown, Brindle, Harris, Graham, Collins and Brown2016) for developing student capacities in whole-class settings. RTI is one example of a school-based system and involves three tiers of support focused on explicit instruction: Tier 1, as whole-class learning; Tier 2, for smaller groups who require supplemental instruction; and Tier 3, for intensive support (one or two students; Ardoin et al., Reference Ardoin, Witt, Connell and Koenig2005; McKeown et al., Reference McKeown, Brindle, Harris, Graham, Collins and Brown2016; Serry et al., Reference Serry, Snow, Hammond, McLean and McCormack2022). In a recent literature review on writing interventions, Finlayson and McCrudden (Reference Finlayson and McCrudden2020) highlighted the effectiveness of explicit instruction in driving improvement in writing, regardless of the time period of the intervention (i.e., 6 weeks or 12 months; Finlayson & McCrudden, Reference Finlayson and McCrudden2020).
Importantly, when students receive additional classroom time and resources at increasing levels of intensity and do not make learning gains, it suggests the presence of a disability (Ardoin et al., Reference Ardoin, Witt, Connell and Koenig2005). Thus, RTI can assist teachers to identify students at risk or those who may require specialised services beyond the classroom (Ardoin et al., Reference Ardoin, Witt, Connell and Koenig2005). In these scenarios, classroom educators can subsequently activate a referral process and garner expert collaboration in best support for classroom-level intervention in ways that are specific to the individual student (Ardoin et al., Reference Ardoin, Witt, Connell and Koenig2005). A more refined yet comprehensive version of the RTI model, the multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS) espouses a broader view, which includes behavioural and social-emotional supports and invites multiple stakeholders in decision-making processes (Chunta & DuPaul, Reference Chunta and DuPaul2022).
For students with SLDs engaged in MTSS (Tier 3), or in private tuition, teachers and tutors might implement an MSL (Institute for Multisensory Structured Language Education; https://www.multisensoryeducation.net.au/) intervention program, the preferred approach for both Giulia and Jessica. Schlesinger and Gray (Reference Schlesinger and Gray2017) caution that ‘scientific evidence is lacking’ (p. 220) and thus MSL does not yet qualify as an evidence-based practice. MSL comprises teaching methods that focus on sequential, explicit, systematic, and cumulative instruction across multiple layers of language (Birsh, Reference Birsh2019). MSL targets phonological, orthographical, morphological, or syntactical information, as well as semantics. MSL also uses a range of sensory stimulations to support learning (Lim et al., Reference Lim, Yeo and Handayani2022). To better support learners with writing difficulties, Graham (Reference Graham2019) suggests addressing the structured characteristics of language rather than the multisensory aspects.
To do this, teachers might implement SRSD, an evidence-based process to address aspects of executive function, such as planning, analysing, revising, and orchestrating complex skills required for text composition (Graham et al., Reference Graham, Harris, Olinghouse and Meltzer2007; McKeown et al., Reference McKeown, Wijekumar, Owens, Harris, Graham, Lei and FitzPatrick2023). Scholars have identified executive function or ‘mental governance’, as well as working memory, or ‘mental workspace’, as the primary sources of weakness for students with SLDs (Berninger et al., Reference Berninger, Abbott, Cook and Nagy2017, Reference Berninger, Richards, Nielsen, Dunn, Raskind and Abbott2019). Weakness in executive function was described by educator participants as, for example, difficulties in translating thoughts to paper or gaining focus, similarly reported in previous research (Berninger et al., Reference Berninger, Abbott, Cook and Nagy2017). These writing challenges can impact student motivation, resulting in behavioural and emotional changes when faced with writing tasks, impacting mental health (Berninger et al., Reference Berninger, Richards, Nielsen, Dunn, Raskind and Abbott2019).
The Australian Curriculum has included provisions for students with disabilities that offer flexibility for teachers as each can adapt the content, pedagogy, and environment to suit individuals (Price & Slee, Reference Price and Slee2021). These provisions, for example, encourage the use of Universal Design for Learning principles in classroom teaching, such as incorporating multiple modes in lesson delivery (i.e., using a combination of spoken language and visual or moving images; CAST, 2022). Universal Design for Learning aims to maximise access and engagement in preferred ways for all students (Foxworth et al., Reference Foxworth, Hashey, Dexter, Rasnitsyn and Beck2022). Other provisions emphasise personalised learning focused on individual student strengths and interests, as well as reasonable adjustments (Price & Slee, Reference Price and Slee2021). The use of assistive technologies constitutes types of reasonable adjustments and can boost writing motivation (Chelkowski et al., Reference Chelkowski, Yan and Asaro-Saddler2019; Cumming & Draper Rodríguez, Reference Cumming and Draper Rodríguez2017). As mentioned by all participants, voice-to-text apps, keyboarding, laptops, and other digital tools can significantly support students with writing difficulties (Graham, Reference Graham2019).
A whole-school assessment approach is also an essential feature of quality planning for writing success for students with learning difficulties. However, scholars of inclusion have conceded that appropriate assessment practices were a ‘recurring issue … [and one] that focused on fitting students with a disability into a mainstream learning area content and general capabilities, rather than having a curriculum that was inclusive of their specific needs’ (Price & Slee, Reference Price and Slee2021, p. 73). The Australian Curriculum has addressed these issues in recent iterations (Price & Slee, Reference Price and Slee2021). Pippa’s compassion for her ‘super-clever’ student created mental dissonance when negotiating assessment practices. Pippa may have been better supported with professional learning in the Australian Curriculum’s disability and inclusion provisions in the context of dysgraphia.
Limitations
Researcher involvement is a hallmark of hermeneutic studies and attracts a degree of bias and limited replicability. The research team aimed for transparency for replicability and practised specific tactics such as bridling and reflexivity to reduce researcher influence and lift trustworthiness. A small study size also limits the range of diverse perspectives, including gender, class, or race identity markers. The research team strived for ‘conceptual’ and ‘transferable’ rather than ‘statistical generalisability’ in this smaller study, which may, at least, reach a diverse audience in its relatability (Smith, Reference Smith2018). Large-scale, dysgraphia-specific future research may be warranted to explore several of the concerns raised by the educators of this study, such as the level of dysgraphia awareness, lack of teacher training, or use of appropriate intervention measures. Ideally, future research will garner a wider and more diverse demographic and perspectives.
Conclusion
Using an IPA methodology, three educators were interviewed about their experiences of dysgraphia in relation to their students diagnosed with dysgraphia to offer deep insights and nuanced accounts. The results unveiled how educators developed their professional capacity and levels of self-efficacy in supporting students with dysgraphia through direct encounters. With a strong moral purpose, hope, and benevolence, all three educators persisted in customising the learning for their students, appreciating the complexity of the dysgraphia learning profile. Two of the educators were self-driven to learn more about supporting diverse learners in literacy and, consequently, trained as MSL tutors. However, these same educators asserted that teacher training in dysgraphia would have better prepared them to adequately support and accommodate their students with writing difficulties. Dysgraphia-specific training and collective efficacy coupled with further research may be warranted to support teachers’ efforts to address dysgraphia more effectively in the classroom.
Data availability statement
Raw data relating to this project are protected by confidentiality because of the sensitive nature of the topic. As a result, the full dataset is not available. Queries regarding deidentified data or research methods employed to examine the data should be addressed to the authors.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge that this research was undertaken on the lands of the Kulin Nations. A warm appreciation is extended to the research participants under the guise of pseudonyms — Pippa, Jessica, and Giulia — who generously offered their time, insights, and experiences of dysgraphia as original data sources for this paper. The authors would like to thank Dr Lynette Pretorius and the members of the Monash University writing group Ghostwriters as well as Dr Diana Jeske for helpful discussions in the preparation of this manuscript. Dr Sue Wilson contributed to this research project during her tenure with Monash University and thus remains co-author under this affiliation. She is the director for the WERD Network (https://www.werdnetwork.com.au/about-werd-network).
Funding
The authors did not receive any specific grants from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors for the preparation or publication of this manuscript. However, the first author is supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship to undertake PhD studies.
Competing interests
The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.
Open access
