Families’ Experiences With Online Instruction and Behavior Support During COVID-19

Abstract

In the Spring of 2020, COVID-19 forced school buildings to close across the United States. As a result, many early learning programs and elementary schools moved their services online. Families of young children with challenging behaviors receiving complex educational and behavioral services in traditional brick-and-mortar classrooms were suddenly required to work closely with educators to support their children’s academic, social-emotional, and behavioral progress. This study used a qualitative approach to examine families’ experiences with children’s challenging behavior, online instruction, and behavior support during COVID-19 school building closures. Findings underscore important themes related to families’ perceptions of child challenging behavior at home, challenges with children’s meaningful participation in online instruction, families’ perceived responsibilities and priorities, and future recommendations. Implications for educators are discussed.

Challenging behavior is a common concern among families with young children of all abilities (Hemmeter et al., 2021). Historically, researchers defined young children’s behavior as “challenging” when it interfered with learning or social interactions, or when it was dangerous to the child or others (Fox et al., 2002). The concept of challenging behavior in children, however, has evolved and should be considered through an intersectional lens recognizing multiple contextual factors. When young children engage in challenging behaviors such aggression, tantrums, or self-injury, their social identities (e.g., gender, race, and (dis)ability) all likely intersect to influence how it is identified and reported by adults in their environment (Dever et al., 2016). For instance, young children in minoritized racial groups have been rated as having higher levels of challenging behaviors by their teachers (Kulkarni & Sullivan, 2022). Both children’s and adults’ intersectional identities likely contribute to the conceptualization of young children’s challenging behavior in early learning and home environments.

Studies aimed at understanding the family impact of parenting a child with challenging behavior consistently describe feelings of stress, isolation, and parental incompetence (Doubet & Ostrosky, 2015). Families that have young children with challenging behavior face increased caregiving demands that may contribute to negative family interactions (Lucyshyn et al., 2018). These families often report negative impacts on their routines, family roles, and emotional well-being. For example, families may avoid community outings that are important to their family’s overall quality of life, like going to church or visiting friends, due to concerns about their child’s behavior (Hayes & Watson, 2013).

Family-Professional Partnerships

Effective family-professional partnerships promote important benefits for families. Partnerships are correlated with parental self-efficacy, parental well-being, and positive parent-child interactions (Trivette et al., 2010). For example, successful partnerships increase parental confidence and competence (Dunst & Dempsey, 2007) and decrease parental stress (Burke & Hodapp, 2014). Family-professional partnerships occur when families and professionals work together to build upon each other’s’ expertise and experiences for the purpose of making and implementing decisions that will directly benefit a child. Successful family-professional partnerships are characterized by commitment, effective communication, mutual respect, trust, equality, and professional competence (Blue-Banning et al., 2004; Turnbull et al., 2015).

Given the added stress and lost learning opportunities when children engage in challenging behavior, family-professional partnerships are crucial for supporting these children and their families (Doubet & Ostrosky, 2015; Trivette et al., 2010). Family members are the experts of their own family values, beliefs, and cultural practices. Family interactions can either promote challenging behaviors or reduce them; therefore, family members play a critical role in the trajectory of their child’s behavioral repertoire and learning experiences (Dunlap & Fox, 2008). Professionals should build trusting relationships and communicate with families about the behavior support process in ways that are family-centered, practical, and grounded in neutral, objective data (Kelly et al., 2022). They should also communicate and respond appropriately to families when cultural differences arise in the identification and definition of challenging behavior (Beneke & Cheatham, 2016). Professionals who work with families marginalized by education systems (e.g., families from Black or Indigenous communities) may need to engage in additional trust- and relationship-building activities before families can safely and effectively collaborate with them (Ishimaru, 2020). Finally, professionals must collaborate with families to develop behavior strategies that are culturally and contextually fit to the social and physical environment in which they are implemented (Dunlap & Fox, 2008).

COVID-19 Disruptions and Online Instruction

In the Spring of 2020, COVID-19 disrupted education for 55.1 million students across the United States (Peele & Riser-Kositsky, 2020). The Pacific Northwest was the first region to be significantly impacted by the virus (Baker & Fink, 2020). In response, school buildings were closed, largely resulting in a model of online learning across an extended period (Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, 2020). Many families with young children receiving individualized educational and behavioral services in traditional brick-and-mortar classrooms were suddenly required to take on the role of their child’s primary service provider and many felt unprepared to do so without significant support from their child’s teacher and educational team (e.g., Hill, 2020). Although schools were mandated to continue providing specially designed instruction and services from related service specialists to student with disabilities, there is a lack of research examining the behavior supports and instruction families received from educators, or how families and educators partnered with them to support children’s behavior and learning at home.

Prior to COVID-19, few, if any, early learning programs were delivered online; therefore, there was no model of remote learning for educators and families to follow. The literature suggests that early learning programs took varied approaches to educating young children and supporting their families during the pandemic, when in-person learning was unavailable. For example, educators relied on technology to communicate with families (Tarrant & Nagasawa, 2020), set up online classes through synchronous Zoom meetings or asynchronous videos (Steed & Leech, 2021; Szente, 2020), and/or delivered learning materials to families’ homes (Dayal & Tiko, 2020). These strategies, however, relied on family members or caregivers to significantly support or directly implement children’s learning at home, placing a burden on families who were already likely experiencing other COVID-19 stressors (Luna et al., 2023).

Conceptual Framework

This study draws upon two conceptual frameworks to describe families’ perceptions of challenging behavior and their experiences with online learning and behavior support during the first several months of online instruction due to COVID-19 school building closures. First, Dunst and Trivette’s (2009) family capacity-building framework was used to frame family roles, understand the impact of COVID-19 school closures on the whole family unit, and center families’ experiences throughout the analysis process. The family capacity-building framework is a strengths-based model of early intervention focused on promoting family competence and confidence. It centers the family role in family-professional partnerships and promotes family capacity-building strategies based on six guiding principles (Dunst & Trivette, 2009).

Dual capacity-building was the second framework used to guide this work (Mapp & Bergman, 2019). It was used to guide interpretation of families’ educational recommendations and connect findings to implications for educators, program administrators, and policy makers. The dual capacity-building framework asserts that strong family-professional partnerships are established when both families and educators are provided with the requisite knowledge and ability to support one another and meaningfully collaborate. In turn, these family-professional partnerships lead to positive child, family, educator, and program outcomes (Mapp & Bergman, 2019; Mapp & Kuttner, 2013). This framework suggests that when certain conditions are met and shared goals are identified, families and school staff are well-positioned to equitably collaborate and sustain long-lasting partnerships. Taken together, these two frameworks provide a foundation for understanding families’ perspectives and experiences during COVID-19.

The purpose of this research study was to investigate families’ experiences supporting their young children with online instruction and behavior during the initial months of COVID-19 school building closures. The following research questions guided this study:

• RQ1. How did families describe their young children’s challenging behaviors following school building closures?

• RQ2. What were families’ experiences with online learning during school building closures?

• RQ3. What recommendations do families with young children with challenging behaviors have regarding online instruction during school building closures?

Methods

Our study used qualitative, in-depth interviewing to understand families’ experiences with early learning and behavior support during initial COVID-19 school building closures. A qualitative approach allowed us to understand and describe families’ complex experiences and interactions with education settings during early stages of the COVID-19 crisis. Our study was conducted over 6 months, beginning in June 2020.

Researcher Positionality

Qualitative researchers are the primary instrument of data collection and analysis; therefore, it is important to acknowledge the role that the researcher plays in influencing the topic under study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). All three authors are white women who are Board Certified Behavior Analysts (BCBA). We have years of experience working with young children with challenging behaviors and their families. The first two authors also acknowledge how our personal experiences as parents of young children during COVID-19 school closures influenced our positionality. To understand our positionality in relation to this topic, we engaged in a process of reflexivity throughout the research process by documenting and discussing our experiences as parents, our preconceived assumptions about other parents’ experiences, and the similarities and differences between our participants’ experiences and our own.

Sampling

We used purposeful sampling to obtain diverse participants who could provide in-depth knowledge about their experiences (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). We identified families for recruitment from an existing recruitment database within a university-based research center. Their research participant experience signaled they were likely to be comfortable with, and capable of, reflecting on and sharing information about their families’ early learning experiences.

Participants

Recruitment

Recruitment began after research approval was obtained from a university institutional review board. We recruited family members by sending a short email in their preferred language (English or Spanish), inviting them to participate in the study. Five family members responded to the initial recruitment email via phone or email and were screened for eligibility. Family members were included as participants in the study if they reported having (a) at least one child enrolled in an early learning program or elementary school between March and June 2020, (b) their child had an individualized education plan (IEP) with at least one goal related to social-emotional learning or behavior, (c) their child engaged in challenging behavior at home between March and June 2020, and (d) their child was between 3 and 8 years old at the time of the study. All five families who were screened met inclusion criteria.

Family members

We identified one member of each family as a primary participant: Anna, Paul, Louisa, Piper, and Katrina. Each family member had between 1 and 5 children living in the home. Four family members identified as biological parents to children that qualified them for this study. One family member was the biological aunt and adoptive parent to two qualifying children and biological mother to one qualifying child (Anna). Four participants identified as women, and one identified as a man. Their annual incomes ranged from $30,000 to over $150,000. Participant education levels ranged from a ninth-grade education to a master’s degree. Four participants identified as white, and one identified as Black. One participant also identified as Latina. See Table 1 for a summary of family member demographic information.

Table 1.

Family Member Demographic Characteristics.

Family member	Ethnicity/race	Gender	Age	Level of education	Household income	Primary occupation	Number of children living in the home	Number of children with IEPs
Anna	White	Woman	35	Less than high school degree	$30,000–39,000	Stay-at-home mom	5	4a
Louisa	White, Latina	Woman	37	Master’s degree	$70,000–79,999	Research technician	1	1
Katrina	White	Woman	34	Master’s degree	$70,000–79,999	Dance teacher	2	1
Piper	White	Woman	35	Bachelor’s degree	$150,000+	N/A	1	1
Paul	Black	Man	44	Some college, but no degree	$40,000–49,999	Chef	3	2

Note. IEP = individualized education plan.

^aIEP status reported by family member.

Children

Each family member had one or more children who attended a publicly funded elementary school or early learning program, qualified for special education services, and demonstrated challenging behaviors. Anna had three qualifying children and Paul had two. Louisa, Piper, and Katrina each had one qualifying child. Family members reported a range of child behaviors including lack of cooperation, tantrums, aggression, property destruction, taking items from others without permission, feces smearing, and elopement. Three children had documented functional behavior assessments (FBAs) and individualized behavior intervention plans (BIPs). Children’s racial and ethnic identities were similar to their family members. See Table 2 for a summary of child demographic information.

Table 2.

Child Demographic Characteristics.

Family member	Child	Child grade level	Disability a	Race/ethnicity	BSP
Anna	Aston	ELP	OCD, EBD	White	No
	Shannon	ELP	ADD, ADHD, NAS	White	No
	Sarah	ELP	FASD, ODD	White	No
Louisa	Alice	Kindergarten	Unspecified	White, Latina	Yes
Katrina	Cailean	Kindergarten	Unspecified	White	No
Piper	Parkes	First grade	16p11.2 microdeletion, ASD, ADHD, SPD, language delay, hypotonia	White	Yes
Paul	Makayla	ELP	ASD	Black	Yes
	Trinity	ELP	ASD	Back	No

Note. BSP = behavior support plan; ELP = early learning program; OCD = obsessive-compulsive disorder; EBD = emotional-behavioral disorder; ADD = attention deficit disorder; ADHD = attention deficit hyperactive disorder; NAS = neonatal abstinence syndrome; FASD = fetal alcohol spectrum disorders; ODD = oppositional-defiant disorder; SPD = sensory processing disorder; ASD = autism spectrum disorder.

^aReported by family member participant.

Data Collection

We collected data from multiple data sources, specifically participant interviews and documents shared by the family. We collected basic demographic information from four of five participants via an online survey using Qualtrics prior to conducting interviews. Demographic data was collected from the fifth participant at the beginning of the interview via Zoom video conferencing software in response to the participant’s request. Following interviews, each participant received a $100 gift card as compensation.

Interviews

We used semi-structured interview questions to elicit focused information about families’ educational and behavior support experiences during COVID-19 school building closures (see Supplemental Material for interview questions). At the beginning of each interview, each family member identified their qualifying children and described their strengths. Anna, Paul, and Katrina also identified children that did not qualify them for this study. While Anna described experiences related to her three qualifying children throughout the interview, she also discussed experiences with her oldest son (i.e., non-qualifying child). Paul and Katrina rarely mentioned non-qualifying children during their interviews. During each interview we asked families about their children’s challenging behavior at home and at school prior to and during school building closures, their experiences with instruction and behavior supports prior to school building closures, and their experiences with instruction and behavior supports during COVID-19 school building closures. Our semi structured interview protocol was developed by the first two authors based on the conceptual framework, previous literature, and research questions.

Interviews were conducted using FERPA-compliant Zoom video conferencing software and then video- and audio-recorded and transcribed via Zoom. All interviews were conducted in family members’ preferred language. Four were conducted in English by the first author and one was conducted in Spanish by a doctoral student and native Spanish speaker. The Spanish language interview was transcribed in Spanish and then translated to English. All transcripts were reviewed for accuracy prior to coding. Family members participated in one interview each and interviews ranged from 1.40 to 1.68 hours, with an average of 1.55 hours.

Artifacts

We asked families to share any documents or email communications collected between March and June of 2020 that may contribute to our understanding of the information shared during interviews. We provided suggestions about what types of artifacts would be useful to share (e.g., email correspondence between family members and educators at their child’s school or early learning program, IEPs, FBAs, BIPs, academic or social-emotional materials provided by school personnel). Most document artifacts were email communications between families and programs, however, artifacts also included IEPs, FBAs, BIPs, and visual supports. Family members provided 68 pages of artifacts; however, the range of artifact submission from each family varied between 2 to 30 artifacts. Family members who reported less access to resources (e.g., technology, income, literacy) tended to share fewer artifacts while those who reported greater access to resources shared the most artifacts. Artifacts were used to validate or invalidate data gathered during interviews.

Data Analysis

We used thematic analysis to identify common themes among our participants’ experiences (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Data sources yielded a total of 150 pages of transcripts, 7.73 hours of video files, 68 pages of artifacts, and 23 pages of researcher notes and memos. Transcripts and artifacts were uploaded into Dedoose, a software program to facilitate qualitative analysis. Two members of the research team independently coded the data over 4 months, meeting biweekly to discuss progress and make analysis decisions. Data analysis occurred in several steps. First, we developed a preliminary codebook to use during first-round coding that consisted of a priori codes (i.e., codes developed prior to analysis) based on our conceptual framework and research questions. The preliminary codebook included 17 codes with detailed descriptions. Examples of codes included “Closures affecting caregivers,” “Family empowerment,” “Child behavior.” Following codebook development and initial research team meetings, we began first round coding by independently coding transcripts and artifacts using a structural coding process (Saldaña, 2016). During first-round coding, we applied a priori structural codes while allowing for additional, inductive codes. This resulted in a combination of deductive and inductive coding using structural, descriptive, and values codes (Saldaña, 2016). As we coded, we generated research notes and analytic memos which we shared at biweekly meetings to further develop the coding scheme and reorganize codes. For example, following first round coding of the first three transcripts, we collapsed the codes “Families as educators,” “Family empowerment,” “Family-identified needs,” and “Family-identified strengths” under a single code called “Family expertise.” This iterative analysis process helped us compare codes and check for consistency and accuracy of code application, while simultaneously identifying any disconfirming evidence (Patton, 2015). Members of the research team wrote analytic memos once following interviews and twice during coding.

We prepared for second round coding by independently code mapping to visually reorganize, restructure, and make meaning of the data (Saldaña, 2016). We used the free online platform, Padlet, to visually display, organize, and restructure the data throughout two rounds of code mapping. Following code mapping, we developed a preliminary operational model diagram to visually display analytic categories and evidence to make meaning of families’ experiences. The combination of multiple rounds of versus code mapping and operational model diagramming resulted in the development of broad themes and claims. These broad themes and claims were then shared with colleagues and “shop talked” (Patton, 2015). Finally, we grouped codes from the first-round coding and code-mapping processes to conduct second round coding (Saldaña, 2016). This coding process allowed us to further develop themes, confirm initial claims, and locate disconfirming evidence. For a visual of the data coding process, see Figure 1. We continued this iterative process of coding, theme development, and shop-talking until we reached analysis satiation (Patton, 2015).

Figure 1.

Coding process diagram.

Trustworthiness and Credibility

We used several methods for establishing the trustworthiness and credibility of our findings (Brantlinger et al., 2005). First, we collected evidence from multiple sources (e.g., interviews, artifacts) and cross-analyzed the data. Second, we worked closely with trusted colleagues familiar with the topic under study. Members of the research team met and debriefed bi-weekly during coding cycles, theme development, and the initial writing process. Finally, we developed a member check survey based on Birt et al.’s (2016) modified five-step synthesized member check (SMC) process to enhance the credibility of our findings. SMC steps include: (a) preparing a synthesized summary of major research themes, (b) checking on participant availability to complete the SMC, (c) distributing the SMC with an explanation of the overall purpose, (d) gathering responses and analyzing any new data, and (e) integrating new evidence into the findings. Four family members completed the survey online using Qualtrics. One family member completed the survey over the phone. Based on data collected during the SMC, we modified one theme and removed another.

Findings

All family members reported COVID-19 school building closures impacted the academic, social-emotional, and behavioral supports their children received from school personnel. In turn, these changes in services impacted the whole family. We identified themes related to family members’ perceptions of children’s challenging behavior following school building closures (RQ1), family experiences with online learning (RQ2), and family member recommendations for online instruction (RQ3).

Families’ Perceptions of Challenging Behavior

Initially, when asked what challenging behaviors their children engaged in, many family members described their child’s difficulty with communication, an academic skill, or an important home-based routine. For example, Paul’s first response to this question was “[My daughter] had very limited communication. She also had . . . she wasn’t able to write or read.” He went on to describe the difficulties his family encountered with both his daughters’ communication and academic behaviors. Katrina mentioned a lack of self-advocacy as her son’s biggest challenging behavior and Anna initially described her daughter, Shannon’s, difficulty during a morning routine. After additional probing, however, most family members revealed further behaviors traditionally seen as “problematic” by school staff like aggression, elopement, feces smearing, and lack of cooperation with adult instructions.

Family members did not appear to consider challenging behavior a primary identifying characteristic of their child. Though most families reported their children engaged in challenging behavior at home following closures, it did not seem to be their primary concern. Rather, most families described their children holistically. They suggested challenging behaviors were manageable given sufficient resources, time, and support. In general, families seemed more interested in discussing skill delays, experiences and concerns with online instruction, competing responsibilities, and maintaining their families’ emotional well-being.

Families’ Experiences With Online Learning

In response to RQ2, each family participant described a unique and complex experience with online education during the initial months of school building closures. While the initial study purpose was to discover how children with behaviors of concern and their families experienced online learning, we found family members mostly described their experiences and recommendations irrespective of child behavior. Four major sub-themes related to families’ experiences emerged from the data: difficulty participating in meaningful online instruction, increased family responsibilities, impact on the whole family unit, and a focus on prioritizing emotional family well-being.

Difficulty participating in meaningful online instruction

Family members found it challenging for their children to participate in meaningful online instruction. Due to a timely response by district staff, program administrators, and educators, all families received the technology necessary to access online learning (e.g., laptops, tablets). Access, however, does not guarantee participation. Their children were often unable to participate in all instruction offered to them without significant assistance. One family member, Piper, said it took “considerably more time and effort” than she expected to support her son’s meaningful online participation.

Katrina’s family was able to sustain momentum for online learning during the month of April, but quickly burned out. While her son was able to participate in online classes with her support, it eventually exhausted her to the point that they dropped out of all but one, 30-minute class per week by the end of the year. She described it this way:

It took us about maybe two weeks to kind of get into a rhythm, and then I think April was great. I think we got about halfway through May, and then it was like, we were lucky if we got online learning done, if we followed the whole schedule.

Anna had multiple children participating in online instruction ranging from preschool through middle school. Online engagement was a challenge for all her children. While she worked hard to support her children’s meaningful participation in online instruction, it was overwhelming for her. In describing her families’ overall experience, she said, “This online distance learning is too much for our family. It’s a fight every day.” Anna reported her family members frequently argued about the participation expectations in online instruction.

Some family members described concerns their child’s skill delays prevented them from participating in online learning. They were also concerned that their children’s lack of participation in academic instruction would increase the learning gap between them and their peers and possibly result in additional social-emotional or behavioral challenges over time. This concern was evident across all family members. Paul described this concern for his two daughters, both diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) by saying “We will fall behind because of those behaviors . . . We have to find a way to recover those and to help them to keep going, to keep learning.”

Family members reported an overall lack of attention to their children’s social-emotional and behavior support needs during the school building closure. Four of the five families reported that their children’s educators delivered general, but not individualized, social-emotional instruction online. Only one of the four family members, however, believed online social-emotional instruction was beneficial for her child (Katrina). Family member, Louisa, felt her daughter, Alice, was learning the social-emotional skills she needed to be successful in social situations at school prior to COVID-19. When school buildings closed, the opportunities that Alice needed to practice social skills with peers in person was no longer available. This led Louisa to believe “. . . I feel like nothing virtual has helped [Alice] with the emotions, because Alice already knew what she had to do when she left school. But she wasn’t able to practice it. And the virtual stuff doesn’t teach her that.”

Increased family responsibility

Family members felt increased responsibility for their children’s academic and social-emotional learning during online instruction. All family members reported spending increased time and energy helping their children access online instruction, understanding the learning schedule, navigating technology issues, participating in online learning activities, troubleshooting barriers to engagement, and supplementing online instruction with home-based activities. While some embraced their role as primary educator, others expressed concern that the demands of their new role were beyond their capability and negatively affected family dynamics. Piper’s child initially received approximately 2 hours of online, teacher-led instruction per day. To supplement, she provided an additional 3 hours of home-based instruction per day. When Piper’s son had difficulty engaging in class online, she reduced the number of hours he spent online, but increased home-based instruction. Additionally, Piper created and implemented her own behavior support strategies at home (e.g., visual supports, offering choices, embedding her son’s preferred interests in learning activities) to prevent challenging behavior and support her son’s engagement in home-based instruction.

Paul worked closely with his children’s early learning educators to support their learning and positive behaviors at home. Paul communicated frequently with his daughters’ educators to modify and supplement the online learning opportunities that were being provided with social-emotional and academic learning activities based on his family’s needs, values, and priorities. Paul’s educators honored his families’ preferences and supported their learning goals by providing additional resources (e.g., written instructions, video models, visual supports) and hands-on materials delivered directly to their home. Paul felt grateful for the increased responsibility supporting his children at home, saying, “I don’t say it’s a good thing that this happened . . . but [my wife and I] got to know [our children] more and we got to help them to try and enforce some of the things that they already knew.”

Louisa, Anna, and Katrina also felt increased responsibility supporting their child at home but found it to be more difficult than Paul or Piper. All three were committed to helping their children learn but unsure of how to fulfill the role of primary educator. All of them reported a lack of competence and confidence in supporting their children’s learning. Katrina reported that for the first several weeks, she received a large packet of printed materials weekly from the school for her son, Cailean, but did not receive instructions on how to use them and quickly felt overwhelmed. Cailean’s teachers emailed worksheets and other printable materials that Katrina could use at home, but she did not have a printer, so she was unable to use them. In sum, most parents felt overwhelmed by their increased responsibility as educators in the home during online instruction for a variety of reasons. Perhaps Anna described this best when she said, “I’m not a teacher. I can’t do what they do . . . You’re gonna have to educate me before I can educate them.”

Impact on the whole family unit

Family members felt as though the shift to online education, and the increased responsibility they held for supporting their children in this new learning environment, impacted their whole family. Some family participants described this impact negatively, reporting an increase in family stress and marital tension. Anna expressed concern about the change in dynamic between her husband and older son, saying “It’s put fire between my husband and my son because my husband is not a learner like [Anthony], whereas I am.” She also described negative interactions between her and her older son when he was unable to complete online learning activities due to his disability.

All five families expressed strong emotions about their experiences. Most described ongoing frustration and exhaustion with supporting their child’s online instruction. Louisa described it as “having a battery with no charge.” Louisa suggested the exhaustion her and her husband felt supporting their daughter led to increased fighting between them by saying “. . . it’s much more difficult to keep the peace of mind as a couple when we’re so tired . . .”

Katrina also felt exhausted trying to maintain a full day schedule for her son at home, while working part time and caring for her younger daughter, saying “We got weary . . . I got tired of managing all of it every day . . . There’s a reason I don’t homeschool my kids.”

Unlike the other family participants, Piper suggested that the move to online learning had a positive impact on her family. Her son, Parkes, was in first grade and engaged in significant challenging behaviors at school prior to COVID-19. While he had a BIP in place at school, Piper questioned whether it was being implemented with fidelity. Parkes often came home from school feeling deflated and described himself as a “bad kid.” When the school building closed, Piper was able to provide home-based behavior support and academic instruction in addition to the online instruction that Parkes received from his teachers. She described how the shift impacted her family by saying “. . . it’s been really good for him. And for me, it’s been really good. . . . [When Parkes was in school] it was a very difficult time and has been for three years . . .”

Focus on prioritizing family emotional well-being

While families expressed concern about their child’s ability to participate in learning during school building closures, all prioritized the emotional well-being of the family unit over child instruction. Families demonstrated this priority in different ways. For example, Katrina’s son only attended one, 30-minute social-emotional lesson online per week by the end of the school year and no academic instruction. Anna also allowed her children to stop attending online instruction based on the guidance of individuals within her formal and informal support networks to prioritize the emotional well-being of her family unit. She summarized her commitment to family well-being by saying, “Coming from a family that has depression, anxiety, social-emotional delays, we’ve had to prioritize mental health over education in our home.”

Unlike Anna and Katrina, Louisa maintained her child’s attendance in online instruction through the end of the school year. However, when asked about her continued participation in online instruction into the following school year (2020–2021), Louisa shared the importance of her family’s emotional well-being by saying: “I’ll just try to have peace at home to help my daughter . . . I’ll keep moving forward with the academics, but that won’t be my priority.”

Family Member Recommendations for Online Instruction

To answer RQ3, all five family members provided recommendations for educators and administrators, and district leaders regarding online learning and behavior support should school building closures persist long term or occur again in the future. Recommendations related to the following two categories: “hands-on” materials and family-professional partnerships.

“Hands-on” materials

Family members recommended schools provide more “hands-on” (i.e., physical) materials for them to supplement online learning at home. Two families had access to physical materials throughout their experience and spoke positively about the benefits of these materials. Educators for Paul’s daughter, Makayla, delivered physical learning and behavior support materials to her home immediately following school building closures. They also frequently emailed individualized visual supports to Paul aimed at helping him increase Makayla’s understanding of online learning expectations and facilitate engagement in online social-emotional activities with peers. Despite his positive experience, he suggested that should online instruction persist long into the future, “it’s going to be challenging for us as parents, we would want more materials” during school building closures.

Piper felt that Parkes’s teachers did not provide sufficient physical materials necessary for supporting his individualized learning and recommended that schools spend more time gathering and delivering learning materials to students. Anna, Katrina, and Louisa agreed that young children, especially those with disabilities or challenging behavior that interfere with online learning, needed access to supplemental “hands-on” materials. They added that along with materials, parents should be provided with instructions on how to help their children use the materials to maximize benefit. Katrina described these materials as “learning kits” that could be assembled and distributed to families. Even though she received some printed materials from her school district to supplement Cailean’s online instruction, she described the materials as “thick” and “indecipherable” packets. In sum, all families wanted access to materials with adequate instructions to help them support their children’s learning at home.

Family-professional partnerships

Family members recommended school personnel spend more time building positive, supportive partnerships with families when children attend school online. Family members described the importance of family capacity building as central to the concept of family-professional partnerships. Paul reported he received a lot of support from his daughter’s educators and school family support team following school building closures. While reflecting on recommendations he would make to school leaders though, he said:

I would ask them to come up with a support system that helps parents with challenged kids. Besides helping [children] to learn at home, a way to help [parents] feel comfortable or absorb all that pressure. There is going to be a lot of pressure because there’s a lot of . . . we use a lot of energy with these kids.

Katrina suggested that schools could increase family capacity by arranging family member introductions and encouraging them to form family support groups. She did not “think that the school can figure it out on their own,” meaning that schools cannot and should not be solely responsible for shouldering a family’s increased responsibility related to supporting young online learners with challenging behavior, but suggested that schools could facilitate social connections between families to establish informal support networks to “. . . just [be] able to talk to other parents and figure out how we can ease the burden for one another . . .”

Several family members suggested their lack of expertise prevented them from offering their children all the support they needed to be successful learners online. They emphasized the importance of partnering with educators to increase their capacity to implement instruction at home and recommended that educators and administrators spend more time developing plans to increase family skills. Anna, Piper, and Louisa all explicitly stated that educators and specialists had important training and skills that they did not. However, they followed these statements by saying that when their young children were learning from home, parents fulfilled the primary educator role; therefore, it was crucial for them to learn how to effectively educate their children. Anna described this by saying: “. . . I really learned that for me and my kids I learn so much from professionals . . . I pick up on what they’re doing, and I try to copy them.”

Family members described the importance of effective and meaningful collaboration and communication with school staff to support their children. Several family members prefaced their family-school communication recommendation with descriptions of the challenges they had receiving timely, useful communication from educators and administrators about online learning schedules, expectations, and child progress. Anna felt responsible for initiating nearly all communication with her children’s educators and administrators. She reported that she would often send emails or leave phone messages for educators that went unanswered. When she was able to reach them, the interaction was often brief and tense. Piper also described insufficient communication interactions between her and her child’s educators. She emphasized the importance of meaningful communication between family members and educators beyond the standard, “one-off, 20-minute, check the boxes” IEP meeting. When asked what that might look like, she said:

. . . talk with families in an in-depth conversation. Call the parents. If they don’t answer the phone, go to their house . . . Make an individual plan. Look, this is the irony of it all, right? Make an individual education plan. That’s what you should be doing.

Discussion

The current study examined families’ experiences with children’s online instruction and behavior support during the initial months of COVID-19 school building closures. Findings revealed important themes related to family members’ perceptions of challenging behavior, family members’ experiences with online learning, and family members’ recommendations. This study provides new information about early COVID-related, online learning impacts for young children with complex educational and behavioral needs and their families.

Defining Challenging Behavior

Family members described their children’s challenging behavior differently than expected based on commonly reported behaviors in the literature (e.g., Matson & Nebel-Schwalm, 2007). Their descriptions indicated differences between how family members and educators may define challenging behavior. When asked to describe their children’s challenging behavior, family members initially identified communication and academic skill delays. Only after multiple probes did they identify the types of behavior often labeled “challenging” by educators. Though somewhat surprising, this finding is consistent with a small body of literature examining family and professional definitions of challenging behavior (e.g., Kulkarni & Sullivan, 2022). It is likely that families and professionals are influenced by context and culture (their own and those of others) when identifying behaviors of concern. Adult expectations may also influence the different kinds of behaviors parents and professionals identify and prioritize for intervention. Professionals who have a history of working with young children with disabilities may expect their students to have developmental delays, but not challenging behavior (Banks & Obiakor, 2015). On the other hand, family members may expect their young children to have challenging behavior (e.g., tantrums), but not developmental delays. Future research should broadly focus on differences between family members’ and educators’ definitions of challenging behavior, and how definitional differences impact behavior interventions across school and home environments. Future research should also explore how changes in instructional environments (i.e., changes from in-person to online instruction) influence the identification and prioritization of behavior for intervention and the types of instruction that are delivered to them.

Following focused questioning about challenging behavior, most family members generally avoided describing their children’s challenging behavior as central to their experiences during COVID-19 school building closures. Rather, they tended to focus discussions on the impact that the shift from in-person to online instruction had on their families, the subsequent increased responsibility they felt for supporting their children’s academic and social-emotional learning, and the effort they made maintaining their families’ emotional well-being. There are several reasons for why families may have described their experiences in this way. First, it is possible that the shift family members made from caregiver to caregiver and educator was more stressful than their child’s challenging behavior; therefore, more salient of a discussion issue. Similarly, it is possible that other stressors associated with COVID-19, but unrelated to child challenging behavior, increased simultaneously with family members’ new educator roles, resulting in cumulative stressors that impacted overall family functioning and well-being. For example, several participants reported that they or other family members living in the home started telecommuting, were furloughed, or lost their jobs entirely during the pandemic. This is consistent with some family stress models that suggest one major event (i.e., COVID-19) can result in a pile up of stressors that affect the whole family social system (Perry, 2005). Families may have perceived COVID-19 stressors unrelated to their child’s behavior to be more impactful on their daily functioning at the time of the study, and thus more important to emphasize during interviews, than their child’s behavior.

Family Responsibilities and Well-Being

School building closures had a profound impact on families’ lives by shifting the balance of their roles and responsibilities. Like other emerging studies exploring family participant experiences during COVID-19 (e.g., Dong et al., 2020; Garbe et al., 2020), family members in our study felt unprepared for their new roles and responsibilities during school building closures. In response, families tended toward a “survive and then thrive” approach to managing their new demands by prioritizing family well-being over their children’s academic learning (Garbe et al., 2020, p. 57). Families’ responses are consistent with well-known psychological models that suggest people tend to concentrate on meeting basic needs and building secure relationships before prioritizing their own individualized learning (Bloom, 1956; Maslow, 1943).

Implications for Online Learning During School Building Closures

Similar to our findings, recent literature on the impacts of COVID-19 school closures demonstrates home-based implementation of young children’s instruction and behavior support heavily relied on families, leading to increased opportunity gaps for children whose family members did not have the capacity to serve as their children’s primary educator (e.g., Steed & Leech, 2021). In the future, educators can take measured steps to narrow opportunity gaps for children with disabilities and challenging behavior by increasing effective family-school communication and culturally responsive, family-capacity building strategies (Garbe et al., 2020; Luna et al., 2023). Educators can prepare for online learning by meeting with family members to gather information about their priorities for their young children’s behaviors and learning. Such information may include how SDI and behavior support priorities shift from in-person to online learning environments. Educators may use this information to increase family capacity by providing family members with knowledge about how to use everyday family routines and experiences to support their educational and behavioral priorities now. In the event of future building closures, they may also use the information to inform online instruction by combining teacher-directed instruction with family capacity building strategies (Dunst & Trivette, 2009). These strategies should be revisited as often as educators and families need.

Limitations

The findings of this study should be interpreted with respect to the following limitations. First, this study was conducted immediately following COVID-19 school building closures. While temporal context was intentionally considered throughout the study’s design and implementation, family members’ limited experiences with online learning at the time of the study likely impacted their responses to interview questions. At the time of this study, there were still many uncertainties about COVID-19 (e.g., pandemic duration) and school closures (e.g., when and how school buildings would open again). It is possible that given a longer time with similar circumstances, families would respond differently to questions about their child’s challenging behavior, online instruction, and recommendations for school supports. Second, family members provided varying amounts of artifact data. This prevented us from cross-analyzing transcript and artifact data equally across participants, possibly limiting the scope of data triangulation. Additional data collection and analysis of artifacts or similar data sources would likely increase the trustworthiness and credibility of the findings.

Conclusion

This study describes families’ experiences helping their young children with challenging behaviors participate in online education during initial COVID-19 school building closures. The findings offer promising information about what families need to effectively support young children’s learning at home should school building close again. Understanding families’ experiences and responding to their recommendations may help policymakers, administrators, and educators prepare for future disruptions to traditional education systems for vulnerable student populations (i.e., young children with disabilities, young children with behaviors that interfere with learning) by designing policies and procedures that center family needs and build family capacity.