University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The interaction of teacher knowledge and motivation with organizational influences on the implementation of a hybrid reading intervention model taught in elementary grades

(USC Thesis Other)

The interaction of teacher knowledge and motivation with organizational influences on the implementation of a hybrid reading intervention model taught in elementary grades

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION 1

The Interaction of Teacher Knowledge and Motivation with Organizational Influences on the
Implementation of a Hybrid Reading Intervention Model Taught in Elementary Grades.

by

Daniel J. Sosa

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2019

Copyright 2019 Daniel J. Sosa
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I must acknowledge the hard work and dedicated professionalism of the intervention
teachers in the school district under study. A person should count themselves fortunate and
blessed when they have the chance to be connected to a group of caring, passionate, like-minded
colleagues who get up every day to make someone else’s life better. I am squarely in that
category of lucky people. From the first moment I had the chance to get to know all of you, in
that small library/conference room portable at the Adult School, I knew we had something
special. The support system you have created is one in which you should all be very proud.
Thank you for your continued dedication to the most vulnerable, often marginalized students in
the District. It makes a difference!
To my OCL Cohort Five Colleagues – it was a privilege to study with you for these two
and half years. In talking with friends and co-workers enrolled in education doctorate programs
at other institutions, I came to realize that the breadth of experience and expertise in our program
was so unique. Thank you for sharing your unique perspectives and experiences with me, for
challenging my assumptions, and helping me to become a better leader. I have no doubt that each
one of you will be doing amazing things in your chosen fields. Fight On!
I am grateful to the professors I had throughout the OCL program. It is not often when a
student has the opportunity to take a class from the person who wrote the book or articles they
read for said class! The expertise, dedication to learning, professionalism, and patient guidance
were very much appreciated. I learned so much from Dr. Robles, Dr. Canny, Dr. Pincus, Dr.
Rueda, Dr. Ott, and Dr. MacCalla. Your passion for your areas of study – from leadership, to
learning, to economics, and diversity – was infectious and exactly what I expected from USC.
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

3
Finally, I cannot say enough great things about my dissertation chair, Dr. Artineh
Samkian. I knew you were a special professor when it took me two semesters to register for your
class because the seats filled up in less than two minutes. But it was getting to know you that
made all the difference in this process. Your kind manner and clear direction were very much
appreciated. I will always remember your encouragement and guidance throughout this process,
but especially in the last term. You are a class act and USC is fortunate to have you on staff. God
bless you!
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

4
DEDICATION
I have many people to thank for helping me reach the end of this long journey, but first
and foremost I must recognize God the Father and my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I could do
nothing without your faithful provision in my life. Your love and grace are made perfect in my
imperfection and you have worked through me to make this achievement possible. When things
were not going well and my enthusiasm waned, I remembered the scripture that says “In all
things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his
purpose” (Romans 8:28, NIV). Help me to never forget the gifts I have been given, to “lead with
vision” (Proverbs 29:18), and to use them to further your Kingdom. Amen!
To my best friend and wife Laura, I do not have the words to express the gratitude I have
for you. Your self-less sacrifices that allowed me the time and space to pursue this crazy dream
never went unnoticed. You have been the steady rock of our family and the love of my life for
the last two and a half decades. I’m grateful for the times when you suggested I stay late at work
to finish a paper or online module, or the weekends I spent in my tiny closet office researching
and writing while you were taking care of everything else, or for the encouragement you gave
me when I lost my motivation and could not spend one more day reviewing interview transcripts.
This achievement is as much yours as it is mine. Like all the things in our shared life, we will
share this because we did it together.
I am grateful to my children, Daniel, Abigail, Eleanor, and John, for the support you guys
showed me while I was going on this journey. You will never know how much it meant to me
when you would ask me how my program was going or when you would duck your heads into
the “Harry Potter” office to say “Hi!” while I was in class. I did this as much for you as for me –
to show you that the whole world is open to you and you can become whatever you want to be. I
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

5
am proud of each one of you and eternally grateful to God for your beautiful spirits, kindness
and curiosity.
Thank you to my family, friends and colleagues who have supported me and been models
of what it means to be a scholar-practitioner. To my mother and father, Michelle and Rex
Kiphut: I will always be grateful for the sacrifices you made for me in our little three-bedroom
house in Riverside, CA. I love you both. To my grandparents, Pop and Gram: I will love you
forever and I am so lucky to have sat at your feet all those years. Thank you for pouring
yourselves into me so that I could pour myself into others. To my brothers, Doug and Brian
Kiphut: You both hold a special place in my heart and are two of the smartest people I know. To
our best friends, Kirk and Holly Wolf: I will always be grateful for the day when DJ pushed
Benny off the hay bale in preschool and forced us to get to know you two. Your friendship has
been a gift from the Lord and thank you for your love, guidance, and for bringing us to The
Grove. To my close colleagues, David Culberhouse, Diane Williams, Shannon Miller, and Julian
Rodriguez: You will never know how much your encouragement, friendship, and trusted words
of wisdom have meant to me over the years. I thank you for encouraging me to be a better leader
and a better person.
I did not get here on my own – I stood on all your shoulders – and I am better for the
experience.

“I can do all things through him who gives me strength” (Philippians 4:13, NIV).
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 2
DEDICATION 4
LIST OF TABLES 8
LIST OF FIGURES 9
ABSTRACT 10
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 11
Introduction of the Problem of Practice 11
Organizational Context and Mission 13
Organizational Goal 15
Description of Stakeholder Groups 16
Stakeholders Groups’ Performance Goals 19
Stakeholder Group for the Study 19
Purpose of the Project and Questions 20
Methodological Framework 21
Definitions 22
Organization of the Project 23

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 24
Treatment Integrity in Interventions
Criticality of Treatment Integrity to Multi-Tiered Systems of Support 25
Multidimensionality of Treatment Integrity 26
Assessment Challenges to Treatment Integrity 27
Implementing Multi-Tiered Systems of Support 29
Primary Prevention Structures 29
Secondary & Tertiary Prevention Structures 30
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences 31
The Clark and Estes Gap Analytic Framework 31
Knowledge and Skills 32
Knowledge Influences 32
Motivation 37
Self-efficacy Theory 38
Expectancy-value Theory 40
Organization 43
General Theory 43
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and
Motivation and the Organizational Context 50

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS 55
Participating Stakeholders 55
Interview Sampling Strategy and Rationale 57
Qualitative Data Collection and Instrumentation 59
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

7
Documents and Artifacts 60
Interviews 62
Data Analysis 65
Credibility and Trustworthiness 67
Ethics 69
Limitations and Delimitations 71

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS 73
Participating Stakeholders 74
Findings 76
Elementary Intervention Teachers Possessed Strong Base-Level Knowledge
(Level 1) and Desire for the Organization to Provide Them with a Deeper Level of
Knowledge (Level 2) Related to Their Work. 77
Being Connected to Job-Alike Colleagues was Important for Sharing Ideas and
Combatting Feelings of Isolation 95
Decisive Administrative Leadership at the School Site Level Assisted Elementary
Intervention Teachers in Effectively Performing Their Jobs 105
Synthesis 113

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION 116
Implications for Practice 117
Elementary Intervention Teachers 117
School Site Administrators 118
Academically At-Risk Students 119
Recommendations for Practice 120
Knowledge Recommendations 120
Motivation Recommendations 123
Organization Recommendations 126
Future Research 130
Conclusion 131

References 134

Appendices
Appendix A: Interview Protocol 146
Appendix B: Information Sheet 151
Appendix C: Documents Analyzed and included in Findings 152
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

8
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Stakeholders’ Performance Goals 19
Table 2. Knowledge Influences and Types 37
Table 3. Motivation Influences and Types 42
Table 4. Organizational Influences & Setting/Model 49
Table 5. Schools Included in Study by Geographic Location 74
Table 6. Intervention Teachers’ Experience in Education 75
Table 7. Experience as Elementary Intervention Teacher 75

KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

9
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Visualization of Conceptual Framework 50
Figure 2. Redacted agenda number 1 from Committee meeting 82
Figure 3. Redacted agenda number 2 from Committee meeting 83
Figure 4. Redacted agenda number 3 from Committee meeting 83
Figure 5. Partially redacted meeting notes from Committee meeting 84
Figure 6. Partially redacted Intervention Teacher Training/PLC agenda 88
Figure 7. MTSS-A Decision Flow Chart (Procedural Aide) 88

Figure 8. Partially redacted Department Goals and Objectives document from IUSD
Curriculum Department. 89

KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

10
ABSTRACT
Understanding the interactions between intervention teachers’ knowledge and motivation
and the organizational influences that support and/or inhibit their work is important to study for a
variety of reasons. Given the expansion of Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) and the
accompanying fiscal expenditures required to implement them, it is critically important for
decision makers to deeply understand the staff charged with implementing the interventions. The
purpose of this study was to examine the Inland Unified School District’s (IUSD) elementary
intervention teachers, through the lens of the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework – to
understand their knowledge, motivation and the organizational (KMO) influences that impact
them as they teach a hybrid model of reading intervention that included both direct instruction
and computer assisted instruction. Assumed KMO influences emerged from a review of the
research literature and were explored through a qualitative methodology that included
document/artifact collection and participant interviews. The study participants were ten
elementary intervention teachers, each with at least three years’ experience performing reading
intervention in IUSD and with total experience in the field of education of between eight and
thirty-six years. The findings from the study indicated the following: the elementary intervention
teachers had strong base-level knowledge and wanted the organization to provide them with a
deeper level of knowledge and skills related to their work; a connection to job-alike colleagues
was important for sharing ideas and combatting feelings of isolation; and decisive administrative
leadership at the school site level assisted elementary intervention teachers in effectively
performing their jobs. Recommendations are presented in Chapter Five to support the
intervention teachers, increase organizational performance and goal attainment, and are based
upon research-supported strategies.
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

11
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Introduction of the Problem of Practice
Public schools were established for the purpose of strengthening our young republic and
promoting the democratic ideals of preparing people to become productive citizens, promoting
cultural unity and improving social conditions, enriching people’s lives, and for creating a
productive workforce by helping people to become economically self-sufficient (Center on
Educational Policy, 1996). Inherent to the notion of democracy is the necessity to support the
common good, a mindset the great John Dewey held and wrote of over a century ago when he
told America that the greater community must want the same thing for all children that the most
informed parents want for their children (Dewey, 1907). Linda Darling-Hammond echoed
Dewey’s position in discussing equitable access to education in stating that “If we cannot build
such schools at this moment in history, I believe that a deeply stratified society – one divided by
access to knowledge and the opportunity to learn – could undo our chances for democratic life
and government” (Darling-Hammond, 1996, p.7). At the turn of the 21
st
Century, the ideal of
increasing access for all to a high-quality education was put into law with the adoption of the No
Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 (No Child Left Behind [NCLB], 2003). NCLB brought
an increase in accountability for state and local education agencies for the academic success of
all student groups, punctuated by incremental increases in the expected levels for achievement in
broad reading and mathematics skill attainment for all students. Students at-risk of not meeting
or exceeding those goals, hereby referred to as “at-risk students”, were expected to be given
extra assistance or intervention to reach proficiency.
One unsuccessful intervention that has been utilized for decades to support at-risk
students is retention, or having a child repeat the same grade level in the successive year
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

12
(Jimerson, 2003). Research performed in the late 1990s indicated that in certain school
districts in the United States, 30-50% of ninth graders had been retained at least once in their
educational careers (Alexander, Entwisle & Kabbani, 1999; McCoy & Reynolds, 1999). Studies
have estimated that annually almost 2.5 million students are retained at a cost of more than $14
billion (Dawson, 1998). McCoy and Reynolds (1999) conducted a study of over 1,100 students
who had been retained in elementary school, looking at their subsequent academic achievement
at age 14. Utilizing an extensive set of control variables, they found that retention was associated
with lower reading and mathematics achievement at age 14. The conclusion from this study
states that “these findings suggest that intervention approaches other than grade retention are
needed to better promote school achievement…” (McCoy & Reynolds, 1999, p. 273). Jimerson
(1999) conducted a longitudinal, comparative study of previously retained students and lower
achieving promoted students through the age of 20. He found that retained students were more
likely to drop out of high school by 19, were less likely to have earned a high school diploma by
age 20, were less likely to enroll in post-secondary schools, earned less per hour and received
poorer employment evaluation ratings than their low-achieving promoted peers. Clearly, an
alternative intervention strategy is necessary to give greater assurance of future success and to
ensure greater educational equity for at-risk students.
For nearly twenty years researchers and education practitioners have been designing,
piloting, and scaling up intervention frameworks to support at-risk students that are generally
referred to as Response to Intervention (RtI). RtI was initially developed as an alternative
method to the discrepancy model for identifying students with learning disabilities to receive
special education support (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007). This innovative approach was codified into
law by the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

13
2004 - P.L. 108-446 (Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 2004). In the
intervening years, RtI has evolved into more than it was first intended and is now an accepted
tiered approach to delivering academic intervention within a prevention model in general
education settings (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007; Vaughn, Denton, & Fletcher, 2010). Moreover, with
the inclusion of a tiered framework approach to supporting students’ behavior and
social/emotional health through school-wide positive behavior supports (SWPBS), many
researchers and practitioners have re-conceptualized both RtI and SWPBS under a new umbrella
framework called Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) (Freeman, Miller, & Newcomer,
2015). MTSS is a powerful framework for supporting at-risk students at the earliest signs of
academic or behavioral struggles and is a more student-centered approach than retention.
Research describes a number of elements common to successful MTSS frameworks,
including designation of prevention tiers, identification of students for support, the nature of the
preventative interventions, creation of response and evaluation systems, and collaboration with
other district departments (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007). Underpinning all of these components are the
human resources tasked with making these frameworks a reality in districts/schools. A program
is only as strong as the individuals who do the work on a day-to-day basis. A problem of practice
that should be studied is understanding the needs and perceptions of those staff members tasked
with implementing an MTSS framework, as their work is paramount to the success of our at-risk
students.
Organizational Context and Mission
The Inland Unified School District (IUSD – this is a pseudonym used for this study) is
located in the southwestern United States. IUSD is a public-school district comprised of 33
schools, covering almost 100 square miles: 20 – elementary schools (Serving grades K-6); two –
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

14
fundamental schools (Serving grades K-8); five – junior high schools (Serving grades 7-8);
four comprehensive high schools (Serving grades 9-12); and two alternative high schools
(Serving grades 9-12) (The organization’s website)
1
. During the 2014-2015 school year, IUSD
had a total enrollment of less than 30,000 students and the demographic composition of the
student body was predominately Hispanic/Latino, followed by White, Asian, Filipino, and
African American, respectively (Education Data Partnership, 2016). In terms of poverty and
English language acquisition, almost half of the enrolled students qualified for Free or Reduced
Meals and approximately one out of seven students were considered English Language Learners
(Education Data Partnership, 2016).
The stated mission of the IUSD was to “…Provide all students a rigorous and relevant
education in a safe learning environment” (see Footnote 1). It had been stated in public Board of
Education meetings that as the district moved into the era of Common Core State Standards, the
work of the IUSD curriculum division would be to prepare all students to be 21
st
Century
Learners that have the capacity to demonstrate collaboration, creativity, critical thinking and
could communicate effectively (see Footnote 1). These skills are commonly referred to as the
4C’s and IUSD subscribed to the P21 Framework for 21
st
Century Learning (P21, 2007). To
support all learners in achieving the stated mission and vision for 21
st
Century learning, IUSD
had committed to support the whole child with a comprehensive system of tiered supports in
both academics and behavior across the district.
To support elementary students, teachers, and schools in meeting the academic side of
this goal, IUSD had placed intervention teachers at each elementary school site with the charge

1
The URL for this site has been withheld to protect the anonymity of the organization under
study.
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

15
of providing reading intervention to students who were significantly below mastery level.
More precisely, this stakeholder group had a goal of providing reading intervention utilizing a
specific model within a tiered support structure. At the lowest level, Tier 1, universal supports
were provided to all students within the general education classroom. The next level of support,
Tier 2, typically occurred outside of the classroom in which the student was enrolled but was still
considered a general education support available to all students. The most intensive level of
support, Tier 3, was provided to students who had not demonstrated success with Tier 2 supports,
was characterized by smaller group sizes and more frequency, and continued to remain within
the general education portion of the system. This support framework was IUSD’s incarnation of
MTSS. This study focused on an MTSS framework applied to academics (MTSS-A).
Organizational Goal
At the time the study was conducted, IUSD had three goals published in its Local Control
Accountability Plan (LCAP). They were incorporated into one document the District refered to
as the Inland Unified School District LCAP, 2017-2020. Each local educational agency in
California is required by law to develop an LCAP document, containing locally generated goals
that are in alignment with eight state priorities (California Department of Education, 2017, July
17). These goals are to be achieved within a three-year time period. In past years, school boards
were required to review and, if necessary, amend their goals annually. Beginning in the 2017-
2018 school year, the California State Board of Education transitioned to true three-year goals, in
which the goals remain unchanged over the three-year period, as districts measure progress
toward meeting the goals. The intermediate goals, or actions and services, are reviewed annually
and adjusted as necessary.
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

16
The IUSD Board of Education updated the goals in 2017, transitioning from five goals
to three. Two of the three goals aligned to instruction of students and one addressed
parent/student connectedness to school. The goal that was most relevant to this study was:
Inland Unified School District students will increase the percentage of students in grades three-
eight scoring ‘Standard Met’ or ‘Standard Exceeded’ in English Language Arts, as measured by
Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) results. These levels are accepted by
California as indicating mastery of the California Common Core State Standards (California
Department of Education, 2016, September 9). The benchmark for the goal was aligned to the
end of year summative assessment, as this assessment produces a mastery level for each student
tested (California Department of Education, 2016, September 9). Although there did not seem to
be a published measure or measures with which IUSD intended to directly monitor the progress
toward this goal, the actions/services outlined in the district’s LCAP associated with MTSS-A
provided a window into the extent to which the district believed this framework was crucial to
future success. The 2017-2018 LCAP contained expenditures in excess of $3,500,000 annually
in support of MTSS-A (the organization’s website)
2
. Those expenditures accounted for personnel
and materials costs associated with the implementation of this framework.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
IUSD was a large, dynamic, and complex organization that was made up of a variety of
stakeholder groups (Education Data Partnership, 2016). Three defined groups whose
performance had a significant and direct impact on achievement of the organization’s
performance goal were: (1) academically at-risk students, (2) elementary intervention teachers,
and (3) school site administrators. It can be argued that these stakeholders had a special

2
Ibid
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

17
influence on the attainment of the organizational goal, in that the first group (academically at-
risk students) required the remaining two groups to expend more resources, time, effort, and
diligence to attain the goal. That is, students who achieve the desired level of academic
performance with no additional support provided (except typical general education instruction)
enable IUSD to move closer to achieving its stated organizational goal with minimal additional
effort from the various stakeholders. Goals for each of these stakeholder groups, as well as the
organization, can be found in Table 1.
The academically at-risk student group must make the most significant growth to ensure
that IUSD achieved the performance goal of increasing the number of students demonstrating
mastery of standards each year. Members of this group had complex needs and challenges –
academic, behavioral, social/emotional, familial, etc. – that contributed to their lower levels of
achievement (Gresham, 2009). Academically at-risk students generally tend to be children that
exhibit low-levels of motivation toward school. This can come from years of underachievement
in reading or mathematics, which cause knowledge gaps to develop. As students fall farther
behind their peers and struggle in class, they can turn to avoidance behaviors or withdraw from
the learning environment. Mitigating one or more of these factors can result in improved
academic performance.
Site administration were tasked with ensuring Multi-Tiered Systems of Support in
Academics (MTSS-A) practices and procedures were functioning and that all stakeholders were
adhering to their role within the system, thereby ensuring support was provided to the
academically at-risk students. They were integral in safeguarding the integrity of the designed
interventions through monitoring program implementation, providing support, retraining,
encouragement, and guidance to the intervention teachers when necessary, and coordinating,
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

18
interpreting, and analyzing the outcome data. They were also essential in facilitating
communication between the parents or families of at-risk students and the school staff. Often
site administrators coordinated regular meetings in which school site teams explained the nature
of academic interventions provided to the children, reviewed progress monitoring data generated
from those designed interventions, set goals for future success, and encouraged parental support
of those school-based goals. These processes were crucial to the movement of students between
the various tiers of intervention.
The vehicle that schools used to accomplish the important function of decreasing the
achievement gap for at-risk students was targeted intervention, delivered by an intervention
teacher. For the purpose of this study, an elementary intervention teacher was a full-time
certificated staff member who had been hired by the school district specifically to deliver
instruction in an intervention setting and did not have a regular student roster. Their rosters
fluctuated, based upon the needs of the students and the school, and they delivered
specialized/targeted instruction utilizing specific curricular materials, in both digital and print
formats. Instruction was delivered during a set intervention time during the school day.
Capturing this time could be accomplished in many ways, with many school sites utilizing a
defined instructional schedule whereby major content blocks were delineated by grade level.
This format allows for blocks of intervention time to be placed within the schedule and can give
greater assurance that students who are placed into intervention do not miss core content
instruction (reading/language arts, mathematics, science or history/social science) when they are
out of their regular classroom assignment. Additionally, these professionals were expected to
establish individual goals for the students they supported, provide engaging and meaningful
instruction and conduct regular progress monitoring of the students’ goals. The activities of the
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

19
elementary intervention teachers were pivotal to the success of IUSD’s at-risk students. Table
1 illustrates IUSD’s mission, global organizational goal and the goals for three critical
stakeholders.
Stakeholders Groups’ Performance Goals
Table 1
Organizational Mission
The Inland Unified School District (IUSD) provides all students a rigorous and relevant education
in a safe learning environment.
Organizational Performance Goal
By June 2020, IUSD will increase the percentage of students in grades 3-8 scoring “Standard
Met” or “Standard Exceeded” in English Language Arts, as measured by Smarter Balanced
Assessment Consortium results.
Elementary Intervention
Teachers
Academically At-Risk
Students
Site Administrators
By June 2018, 100% of IUSD
elementary intervention
teachers will have provided
academic intervention, within
an MTSS framework, to at-risk
students using both direct and
computer assisted instruction,
to improve student
achievement in reading.
By June 2018, 100% of
academically at-risk students
in grades three through six
who have attended
intervention will increase one
mastery level as measured by
the SBAC assessment.

By June 2018, 100% of IUSD
elementary principals will
have documented the
implementation of academic
interventions, delivered using
direct and computer assisted
instruction, to 100% of
students receiving Tier 2 or
Tier 3 reading intervention.

Stakeholder Group for the Study
Whereas a complete analysis of this problem of practice would involve all stakeholder
groups, for practical purposes, the stakeholder group that was the focus for this study were
elementary intervention teachers. The stakeholders’ goal, supported by site administration, was
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

20
that 100% of IUSD elementary intervention teachers will have provided academic intervention
to at-risk students using a combination of direct instruction and computer assisted instruction, to
improve student achievement in reading at their school site. Elementary intervention teachers
were vitally important to the achievement of the global organizational goal. The services
provided by these staff members had a direct, concrete influence on the future academic success
of academically at-risk students. As part of their due diligence in performing their function,
these teachers must have accurately delivered the interventions in accordance with the
intervention design. Failure to properly deliver interventions often results in unreliable
assessment results, inefficient use of instructional time and resources, and could lead to the
placement of students in more restrictive learning environments (Noelle and Gansle, 2006).
Actively monitoring and supporting the elementary intervention teachers in meeting the
intermediate goal was theorized to have a positive impact on the organization achieving its
global goal of all students meeting or exceeding mastery of standards.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to examine the knowledge, motivation and organizational
(KMO) influences that support and/or inhibit elementary intervention teachers from delivering a
hybrid model of intervention that included both direct instruction and computer assisted
instruction. The analysis focused on KMO influences related to achieving this goal. While a
complete evaluation project would focus on all IUSD stakeholders, for practical purposes, the
stakeholders of focus in this study were elementary intervention teachers.
The following questions guided this study, examining the knowledge, motivational and
organizational influences on IUSD’s elementary intervention teachers:
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

21
1. What are the elementary intervention teachers’ knowledge and motivation related
to providing academic intervention in reading using a hybrid model, to at-risk
students?
2. What do elementary intervention teachers perceive to be the critical organizational
influences or resources impacting their knowledge and motivation to provide
academic intervention in reading using a hybrid model, to at-risk students?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources?

Methodological Framework
This applied research study attempted to appraise a particular practice within one of
IUSD’s programs, with the resultant data providing decision makers more information regarding
the efficacy of an organizational program. A qualitative approach was the most appropriate
design for the study, as I examined the knowledge and motivation the elementary intervention
teachers had in providing reading intervention to at-risk students in IUSD through asking them
about the elements that supported or impeded their ability to implement this specific model. I
was interested in reviewing the process the elementary intervention teachers utilized at the time
of the study, finding the meaning they constructed about their work and their interpretation of
their experiences through the lens of knowledge, motivation and organizational influences (Clark
& Estes, 2008; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Using this approach, I served as the key instrument of
data collection and multiple data sources were collected through artifact/document collection and
participant interviews (Creswell, 2014). The qualitative approach allowed for the design of the
study to be emergent, responsive to the “richly descriptive” data that were collected (Creswell,
2014, Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p.17). It was anticipated that the data collection and analysis
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

22
would follow an inductive/deductive path (Creswell, 2014); with the artifact/document
collection illuminating the current state of practice and informing the interview questions,
followed by participant interviews aimed at understanding the elementary intervention teachers’
perceptions of any organizational influences to their knowledge and motivation necessary to
reach the organizational goal. Creswell (2014) reminds us that this type of design or structure of
inquiry will lead to a more complex, holistic understanding of the multiple factors influencing
social phenomena, in this case, the elementary intervention teachers’ role in achieving their
stakeholder goal and contributing to the achievement of the organizational goal of increasing the
percentage of students in grades 3-8 scoring “Standard Met” or “Standard Exceeded” in English
Language Arts.
Definitions
Tiered Intervention / Multi-Tiered System of Support: At the lowest level, Tier 1, universal
supports are provided to all students within the general education classroom. The next level of
support, Tier 2, typically occurs outside of the classroom in which the student is enrolled but is
still considered a general education support available to all students. The most intensive level of
support, Tier 3, is provided to students who have not demonstrated success with Tier 2 supports,
is characterized by smaller group sizes and more frequency, and continues to remain within the
general education portion of the system.
Intervention Teacher: Full-time certificated staff member who has been hired by the school
district specifically to deliver instruction in an intervention setting and does not have a regular
student roster. Their rosters fluctuate, based upon the needs of the students and the school, and
they deliver specialized/targeted instruction utilizing specific curricular materials, in both digital
and print formats.
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

23
Hybrid Intervention Model: Teaching model that utilizes computer software to diagnostically
place students at a certain level within the program at which they begin skill building for
improved reading performance. The hybrid nature of the model occurs when the intervention
teachers stop students from interacting with the computer software and provides them with
directed, skill specific instruction when the student is not successful in the program.
Organization of the Project
Five chapters are used to organize this document. This chapter provided the reader with
the background and context for the problem of practice related to teachers’ knowledge and
motivation to implement reading intervention as well as the organization’s support in doing that
work. The organization’s mission, goals, stakeholders and the framework for the project were
introduced. Chapter Two provides a review of current literature surrounding the scope of the
study. Topics of treatment integrity and implementing Multi-Tiered Systems of Support will be
addressed. Additionally, general details about knowledge, motivation and organizational
elements are discussed and presented, as well as literature related to these concepts in the context
of my problem of practice. Chapter Three outlines the research methods used, the sample of
participants, data collection methods and a discussion of the data analysis process. It also speaks
to strategies used to ensure the study was conducted ethically, and was one that was credible and
trustworthy. In Chapter Four, the data are assessed and analyzed and findings presented. Chapter
Five provides solutions and recommendations, based on the study’s findings and supporting
literature, for enhancing organizational outcomes, as well as possible options for future research.

KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

24
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Given the expansion of MTSS-A intervention frameworks in schools and districts across
the U.S. and the accompanying fiscal expenditures required to implement them, it is more
important than ever for decision makers to better understand the staff charged with implementing
the interventions within these frameworks. Staff bring with them their own knowledge,
motivations, and responses to organizational structures to everything they do, adding value or
inhibiting success to the implementation of the most well-designed plan (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Therefore, it is important to look closely at those individuals’ influences on the intervention
adopted in IUSD. Noelle and Gansle (2006) discuss the importance of treatment plan
implementation (TPI), the concept of implementing an intervention plan as designed or with
fidelity, asserting TPI’s criticality to the proper evaluation of a student’s response to an
intervention, stating “an intervention is effective only to the extent that it is implemented” (p.
33). If the underlying influencers on the staff held responsible for implementing an intervention
are not clearly understood, potentially impacting the accuracy of implementation of an
intervention, it would be very difficult to determine with confidence the specific impact an
intervention may or may not have had for a student. Educators and practitioners have a duty to
ensure that interventions have been provided to at-risk student and that those interventions were
delivered appropriately, as the results from planned interventions are often trusted to be valid and
reliable and, therefore, used for instructional decision making or student identification purposes
(Glover & DiPerna, 2007). The first step in bringing greater assurance to this obligation is for
those within the system to have a clearer understanding of the needs and perceptions of staff
responsible for the successful implementation of academic interventions.

KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

25
Treatment Integrity in Interventions
Criticality of Treatment Integrity to Multi-Tiered Systems of Support
The emergence of Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) as a significant paradigm
through which resources and support are provided to at-risk students substantiate the need to pay
close attention to Treatment Integrity (TI). Treatment integrity (TI) refers to the extent to which
an intervention was used or implemented as it was intended (Codding, Livanis, Pace, & Vaca,
2008). Integral to any Response to Intervention or MTSS service delivery model is the balance
between ongoing assessment and evidence-based interventions at each tier of the process (Glover
& DiPerna, 2007). In order for these two equally important elements to function harmoniously,
educators must ensure that the interventions have been implemented according to the manner
they were designed. Glover and DiPerna (2007) assert that as schools move toward the practice
of adopting evidence-based interventions to close achievement gaps and to determine how
resources will be allocated for at-risk and failing students, TI must be a pivotal piece of the of the
process.
Providing prescriptive, intensive Intervention services to at-risk or failing students is often a
resource intensive endeavor. This reality can cause schools and systems to believe they are
allocating scarce resources toward a small segment of the student body at the expense of a larger
group; invariably competing for the same portion of a dwindling budget. Bruhn, Lane, & Hirsch
(2014) conducted a review of various secondary or Tier 2 interventions within larger MTSS
models with an objective of providing decision makers with sound guidance. They assert that
central to all MTSS models is the fundamental tenet that prior to elevating a student to a more
intensive tier of intervention, site decision makers must have knowledge that the Tier 1
interventions were completed as prescribed (Bruhn, Lane, & Hirsch, 2014). It is typical that as
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

26
the tiers of intervention increase, the cost of intervention materials and personnel to teach
them increased accordingly (Bruhn, Lane, & Hirsch, 2014). These decisions must be informed
by measuring the treatment integrity data of the Tier 1 level interventions so that it is clearly
understood whether the Tier 1 interventions were delivered as planned and if more intensive
supports are necessary.
Multidimensionality of Treatment Integrity
Researchers agree that it is useful to conceptualize TI as a multidimensional construct,
yet not all dimensions may be applicable to all school-based interventions. Peterson, Homer, and
Wonderlich (1982), in their landmark study, identified one of two most crucial components of TI
to be Adherence. Petersen et al (1982) defined Adherence as a simple ratio between the numbers
of treatment elements observed in implementation over the total number of treatment elements
required by the intervention. Waltz, Addis, Koerner, & Jacobson (1993), building upon the
seminal work of Petersen et al (1982), emphasized the uniqueness of Competence (skill in
implementing the treatment) as being separate from simple Adherence. Waltz et al (1993)
presumed differences in the quality of treatment delivery were influenced by the motivation or
training of the interventionist.
Dane and Schneider (1998), reviewing the literature from prevention science, described
TI as containing five distinct dimensions: Adherence, Quality of Delivery (Competence),
Program Differentiation, Exposure, and Participant Responsiveness. They preserved the Petersen
et al (1982) definition of Adherence and conceptualized a new dimension they called Program
Differentiation. Dane and Schneider (1998) were the first to add Exposure and Participant
Responsiveness to the literature base. Participant Responsiveness relates to the level of
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

27
engagement and enthusiasm on the part of the individual receiving the treatment. By adding
this dimension, they moved the study of TI to include a focus on participant outcomes.
According to Schulte, Easton, and Parker (2009), not all dimensions identified in the
research literature will be important for all school-based interventions. They promoted four
critical factors decision makers should keep in mind: (1) the intervention target; (2) the
intervention recipients; (3) the treatment agents; and (4) the nature of the service delivery.
Schulte et al (2009) suggest that when choosing a factor upon which to focus, it is important to
be clear on the purpose for measuring TI. That is, in certain instances, an Adherence lens may
be most appropriate if the goal is to monitor a treatment plan. If the objective is to monitor an
intervention in a Response to Intervention (RtI) model, a Participant Responsiveness lens would
be useful (Schulte et al, 2009). The research literature clearly demonstrates the
multidimensional and nuanced nature of TI, perhaps contributing to inconsistent monitoring by
K-12 school staff.
Assessment Challenges to Treatment Integrity
Academic researchers and school personnel alike spend countless hours and funds
devising curricula and strategies in an effort to increase student achievement, yet they fail to
assess one of the lynch pins to the success of those plans; they forget about TI. Lane, Bocian,
MacMillian, and Gersham (2004) argue it is essential to assess TI because when it is overlooked
the intervention’s validity (both internal and external) can be negatively impacted. Another
outcome of omitting TI measures are that intervention procedures can be haphazardly changed,
resulting in the outcomes lacking replicability. There are many ways professionals can assess
TI, including: direct observation, feedback from a consultant, self-reporting/monitoring or
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

28
behavioral interviews, analyzing intervention products, and utilizing scripted materials or
manuals (Lane et al, 2004).
Bruhn, Hirsch, and Lloyd (2015) conducted a review of selected literature devoted to TI
in primary intervention programs in K-12 schools. The purpose was to ascertain the number of
studies in which quantifiable data was collected and published on TI. The authors searched 786
articles published from 1993-2012, of which only 79 met their rigorous six-part inclusion
criteria. The researchers found that only 36 studies (46%) included quantifiable data on TI
(Bruhn et al, 2015). These finding are problematic because “The lack of treatment integrity data
raises questions about the interpretation of findings in these studies [those without published
data], as high levels of implementation should not be assumed” (Bruhn et al, 2015, p. 344).
Cochrane and Laux (2008) conducted a national survey of certified school psychologists
(NCSP) to determine the importance school psychologists place on the use and measurement of
TI within the context of their regular practice. They identified 6,958 NCSPs with valid email
addresses, of which 806 self-selected to participate in the 13-item survey. Cochrane and Laux
(2008) discovered that only 11.3% of the NCSPs indicated that they “always” measured TI,
41.6% measured it “sometimes”, and 33.5% stated “no-never” do they measure TI (p.501). The
researchers continued by asking the NCSPs what percentage of time would the paperwork from a
problem-solving team include a discussion of TI. The survey data suggested that over 67% of
the time team paperwork would not include TI data (Cochrane and Laux, 2008). Even
intervention and assessment experts fail to make the assessment of TI a part of their systemic
practices. These failures can have a direct impact on the multi-tiered service delivery models
taking hold within our K-12 education system.

KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

29
Implementing Multi-Tiered Systems of Support
Primary Prevention Structures
Successful implementation of MTSS share common factors resulting in coordinated
services that are responsive to the documented needs of students, beginning within the
mainstream classroom. Fuchs, Fuchs, and Compton (2012) advocate for a “smart” way to
implement RtI or MTSS, building on the groundwork laid in the first decade of implementation
of these types of support systems for struggling students. The authors agree that supports for all
students should begin in the general education classroom, with the mainstream teacher utilizing
differentiated instruction with resources from the core program. Universal screening processes
(administered to all students) should be leveraged to identify students who may be at-risk or are
not responding to core program instruction (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, 2012). In this structure,
teachers engage in problem-solving processes within a team-based approach to address student
deficiencies in academic, behavioral or social-emotional skills. Instructional support resources
provided by teachers or other personnel can be research-based but empirical validation is not
necessary (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, 2012). For example, small group instruction, tutoring, and
peer-assisted learning are useful strategies for primary prevention that could be validated via an
experimental design, if necessary.
Secondary & Tertiary Prevention Structures
For some students, primary prevention structures are inadequate to address their
deficiencies in academic skills (e.g. literacy or numeracy) and more intensive support structures
are necessary to bridge the gaps. Vaughn, Denton, and Fletcher (2010) documented the reasons
why certain groups of students require more intensive intervention to bridge the achievement gap
and give them access to core curriculum. Secondary prevention structures differ from those in
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

30
the primary phase in that they are more skill-focused (vary the type of treatment), occur within
small groups (vary the group size), and are delivered for a specific time (vary time of
intervention) (Vaughn, Denton, & Fletcher, 2010). According to this definition, the support
provider/teacher utilizes evidence-based (empirically validated) instructional resources that are
aligned to core (primary) instruction with students continuing to struggle after primary
prevention supports have been provided. Additionally, the support provider/teacher develops
distinctive, student-specific goals addressing skill gaps during this phase of support and monitors
those goals over time (Vaughn, Denton, & Fletcher, 2010). As a result of this type of secondary
prevention structure, struggling readers can make accelerated progress when exposed to more
effective intervention and are given more time to practice. However, when students remain
unsuccessful after secondary prevention has been provided, they should be offered more
intensive intervention (Tier 3) after a reasonable time within a less intensive intervention (Tier 2)
(Gersten, Beckmann, Clarke, Foegen, Marsh, Star, et al., 2009.) Factors that influence
‘reasonable time’ vary but are typically related to: (1) intensity of Tier 2 intervention
(intervention characteristics); and (2) characteristics of the students (degree of deficiency within
subject area).
Gersten, Compton, Connor, Dimino, Santoro, Linan-Thompson, et al. (2008) provided an
informative guidebook with which practitioners could design and implement comprehensive
MTSS for students at-risk or failing in reading in the primary grades. In a clear and cogent
manner, the authors provide useful details pertaining to intensive or tertiary prevention
structures. They recommend intensive instruction (Tier 3) be provided daily for students who
continue to struggle after less intense interventions have been delivered (Gersten et al, 2008). At
this level of intensive support, teachers should focus on a smaller set of skills/instructional
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

31
objectives, utilizing diagnostic assessments to target instruction. At the tertiary prevention
level, instruction should be paced at a slower rate, include ample opportunities for extended
practice and consistent feedback, and account for at least 45 to 120 additional minutes per week
(Gersten et al, 2008). Consistent with the secondary prevention model, instructional and progress
monitoring plans must be created and supervised through a school-based team approach.
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
The Clark and Estes Gap Analytic Framework
Clark and Estes (2008) devised an analytic framework useful for leaders and practitioners
interested in increasing the performance of their organization. The framework can be leveraged
to clarify organizational goals and identify potential gaps between current performance and
performance goals, providing leaders the information necessary to create targeted solutions to
increase performance. Clark and Estes (2008) posit the factors impacting stakeholder
performance can be grouped into three broad categories: Knowledge, Motivation, and
Organizational Influences (KMO). The knowledge required by a stakeholder to achieve a
performance goal can often be attributed to one of four knowledge types – Factual, Conceptual,
Procedural, or Metacognitive (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Motivation is made up of three
critical elements commonly referred to as Active Choice, Persistence, and Mental Effort (Clark
& Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Ameliorating potential influencers on the motivation of
stakeholders can result in increased performance. The final element that can impact stakeholder
performance are organizational influences such as material resources, work-related processes,
and organizational culture (Clark & Estes, 2008). Organizational performance can be negatively
impacted if any of these influencers get in the way of a stakeholder achieving a performance
goal.
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

32
The Clark and Estes (2008) framework was used to analyze the KMO influences on
elementary intervention teachers as they provided academic intervention in reading to at-risk
students, using a specific model. The first section of this literature review addresses the
knowledge and skills necessary for this stakeholder group to meet their goal. Section two
reviews the assumed motivational influences on the elementary intervention teachers. The final
section explores two of the organizational influences that impact the stakeholder group achieving
their goal. The effect these assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences have
on elementary intervention teachers were investigated through the methodology discussed in
Chapter Three.
Knowledge and Skills
Clark and Estes (2008) contend that the factors impacting organizational performance can
be grouped into three broad categories, one of which is knowledge and skills. In order to
perform their jobs correctly and meet their goal, thus contributing to the organizational goal, the
intervention teachers must possess the requisite knowledge and skills that will allow them to
complete their day-to-day tasks and problem-solve when they encounter new and novel
situations (Alexander, Schallert, & Reynolds, 2009; Rueda, 2011). The Clark and Estes (2008)
framework can be leveraged to identify potential gaps and create solutions to increase
performance. If knowledge and skill gaps are identified, organizations can allocate resources
toward employee development or training programs to increase the knowledge and skills of their
workforce (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009; Grossman & Salas, 2011). The literature reviewed below
describes the general knowledge influences that exist and two specific knowledge related
influences for IUSD’s elementary intervention teachers.
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

33
Knowledge influences. The term knowledge can be enigmatic; its exact meaning
often difficult to articulate. A common conceptualization found in the literature divides
knowledge into four discrete types: (1) Factual; (2) Conceptual; (3) Procedural; (4)
Metacognitive (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Factual knowledge can be thought of as basic
facts or elements related to a specific discipline (Krathwohl, 2002). These are pieces of
information that an individual would need to perform a specific task or solve a problem, such as
knowing the correct software to use to complete a report for a supervisor. Conceptual knowledge
is knowledge of how basic facts relate to form relationships or structures that function together
(Krathwohl, 2002). Understanding systems, models, generalizations, or theories are examples of
conceptual knowledge (Rueda, 2011). The third type of knowledge is procedural. This
knowledge type describes how to do something and can be general or subject-specific
(Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Examples of procedural knowledge would include how to
properly prepare a slide for examination under a microscope or conducting gap analysis.
Metacognition is the final type of knowledge and is often described as “thinking about thinking.”
This type of knowledge allows an individual to know how and why he or she does something
and is critical to strategic planning (Rueda, 2011). It is also the key component in reflection.
All the knowledge types are important for individual and organizational performance.
However, for the purposes of this study, the two knowledge types that were focused on for
elementary intervention teachers were conceptual and procedural. IUSD elementary intervention
teachers must possess the requisite depth of knowledge of intervention strategies and practices
(procedural) and they must understand the interrelationship between Multi-Tiered Systems of
Support (MTSS) and intervention fidelity (conceptual). The two knowledge influences are
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

34
detailed in the following sections with supporting research attesting to their relevance for this
IUSD stakeholder group.
Teachers depth of knowledge of intervention strategies and practices. Intervention
outcomes for students can be positively influenced by deepening the teachers’ knowledge of
effective practices. Spear-Swerling and Cheesman (2012) conducted a study in which they
examined the knowledge of 142 elementary teachers involved in implementing a Response to
Intervention model (a precursor to Multi-tiered Systems of Support) in reading, through the
administration of a two-part survey. After analysis of the survey responses the researchers found
that an influencing factor in the success of students assigned to reading intervention was the
teachers’ knowledge-base in reading, particularly their understanding of pedagogical approaches
to teaching the subject (Spear-Swerling & Cheesman, 2012). Further, teachers must possess
some familiarity and experience with research-based instructional programs and interventions.
Knowledge of effective reading instruction, including phonemic awareness, phonics, alphabetics,
fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension, is paramount to teachers’ work with struggling readers
(Catts, Higan & Adolf, 2005). All teachers of reading need knowledge that facilitates the early
identification of struggling students, through assessment and intervention practices.
Researchers studying the effect of teaching and multi-level assessment found that there
are several variables that impact the effectiveness of interventions and MTSS frameworks. They
include the sensitivity of the student placement procedures, the extent to which high quality
teacher strategies are utilized, the intensity and extensiveness of teacher professional learning
and support systems, and the existence of student assessment procedures and systems
(Weisenburgh-Snyder, Malmquist, Robbins, & Lipshin, 2015). The authors suggest that one of a
number of crucial components of effective MTSS practices is high quality student assessment or
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

35
performance data, as these data drive all facets of the framework – from identification to
proper placement, informing instructional decisions, and indicating teacher training needs.
Weisenburg-Synder et al (2015) conclude that the combination of high-quality instructional
practice, coupled with consistent assessment practice in both the short and mid-terms (daily and
weekly), lead to positive gains for students.
Interrelationship between MTSS and Intervention. Critical to the implementation of RtI
(or MTSS) is teacher knowledge of key features of the framework, including: the differences
between interventions at each tier, the underpinnings of universal screening (types of
assessments used and when they are administered), and the nature and purpose of various
assessments within the system. Lynn and Douglas Fuchs are two of the foremost authorities in
the field of responsive intervention and have been publishing in this field for over two decades.
A segment of their work focuses on the building of effective models for intervention. The
researchers have advocated for a clear understanding of these systems, beginning with universal
screening (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007). Universal screening occurs for all students in Tier 1, with at-
risk students closely monitored for a short-term (5-6 weeks). Secondary prevention or Tier 2
instruction involves one or more rounds of research-based, small group instruction with students
who consistently performed poorly during Tier 1 instruction (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007). According
to the authors, the duration of Tier 2 instruction can vary from 12-20 weeks, combined with
frequent progress monitoring both during and at the conclusion of the intervention (Fuchs &
Fuchs, 2007). Students unresponsive to secondary prevention receive Tier 3 or Tertiary
prevention services, involving individualized instruction followed by progress monitoring.
Broadly, Fuchs and Fuchs (2007) categorize interventions into two models: problem-solving and
standard protocol. Understanding each type and in what situations one should be chosen over
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

36
another is a level of knowledge to which ever school system should aspire to provide to their
staff. Problem solving models typically take an individualized approach, with services for the
unique needs/gaps of each learner served and carried out by a highly trained professional, such as
a school psychologist or interventionist (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007). Standard-protocol, on the other
hand, is designed to promote new skill attainment, and is typically recognized as highly scripted,
research-validated programs that can be delivered by a certificated teacher or supervised para-
professional (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007). Understanding the interrelationships between the many
technical portions of a MTSS framework is crucial if teachers are to maximize their efforts and
students’ time to close identified gaps in reading.
Researchers reviewed the components of effective tiered support systems (MTSS) and
concluded that there were several common components shared by all. Prasse, Breunlin, Giroux,
Hunt, Morrison, & Thier (2012) posit that for MTSS to be effective teachers must recognize the
need for high-quality core instruction (Tier 1) for all students, taking professional responsibility
for the instruction that occurs and committing to making it a priority. Another common
component of effective MTSS are increasing levels (Tiers 2 and 3) of intervention based on
need, not label, gradually become more intensive with each change in tier. At the core of the
MTSS model is the marriage of evidence-based instruction and intervention with ongoing
assessment. Assessment of students happens in a variety of ways, through criterion-reference and
curriculum-based assessments, for the purpose of data-based decision making (Prasse et al,
2012). When teachers participate in data-based decision-making for at-risk students, coupled
with the delivery of high-quality core curriculum with intervention, the outcome is often
significant improvement in the early literacy skills of young students, eventually becoming on-
grade level readers (Prasse et al, 2012). Supporting teachers in building their understanding of
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

37
and skill in delivering effective core instruction and intervention, along with sound assessment
practices, within a MTSS framework, leads to student success.
Table 2 displays the knowledge influences related to IUSD. The literature identified two
important knowledge influences and their corresponding knowledge types that will directly
impact the ability of the stakeholder group to achieve the goal.
Table 2
Knowledge Influence and Types
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type
1. Teachers need to possess the requisite depth of knowledge of
how to implement intervention strategies.
Procedural

2. Teachers need to understand multi-tiered systems of support
(MTSS) frameworks and the delivery of interventions within each
tier of the framework.
Conceptual

Motivation
The second critical factor that impacts organizational performance is Motivation (Clark
& Estes, 2008). An organization will not achieve its goals if the stakeholders are not willing to
start or to sustain the activities necessary to accomplish the goals (Schunk, Meece, & Pintrich,
2012). According to Mayer (2011), motivation is internal to the individual and is a crucial
ingredient in maintaining and completing goal-directed behaviors. For example, motivation
influences the level of engagement an individual exerts toward their everyday work, the transfer
of learning from the training environment to the work environment and the connectedness they
feel toward the organization’s leadership (Alexander, Schallert, & Reynolds, 2009; Aguinis &
Kraiger, 2009; Grossman & Salas, 2011; Pintrich, 2003). Researchers agree that motivation is
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

38
made up of three indices that, when present, signify a motivational impact on an individual:
Active Choice, Persistence, and Mental Effort (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011).
Many different theories attempt to explain the effects motivation has on individual
choice, persistence and effort. This study will review the literature of two of those philosophies,
Expectancy Value Theory and Self-Efficacy Theory, as a means of explaining the motivational
influences of the stakeholder group. It was assumed that Self-Efficacy Theory might explain the
confidence intervention teachers must have in their ability to provide academic interventions to
at-risk students. Additionally, it was assumed that Expectancy Value Theory would shed light on
the motivation elementary intervention teachers must possess to see value in delivering
interventions to at-risk students.
Self-efficacy theory. Bandura (2000) posited the Social Cognitive Theory, in part, as a
way to explain the agency individuals have to shape and create their own environments. Central
to this theory is the concept of self-efficacy. In his Self-Efficacy Theory (SE), Bandura tells us
that the beliefs individuals hold regarding their abilities to learn and perform activities are
causally connected to the level of effort and persistence they expend on a given activity, their
expectancies for success, their goal attainment, and the amount of stress felt during difficult
situations (Bandura, 2000; Pajares, 2006). When individuals feel self-efficacious, they are more
likely to choose a challenging task, expend the mental effort to complete the activity, and to
engage in self-regulatory strategies in planning for the next activity (Bandura, 2000; Pajares,
2006).
In this study, SE was examined on the individual level, although Bandura maintains that
SE has a social component as well that he calls Collective Efficacy (Bandura, 2000). Research
attributes the genesis of SE to four sources: mastery experience, vicarious experience, social
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

39
persuasions, and physiological reactions (Pajares, 2006). The primary mode for individuals to
build their SE is through mastery experiences, or personal experiences, whereby we encounter
success or failure (Pajares, 2006). Vicarious experiences can be thought of as those instances
when an individual observes another person performing a task or activity (Pajares, 2006); for
instance, a teacher modeling a behavior for his or her students. Social persuasions are the third
source of SE and can be thought of as feedback an individual receives from others (Pajares,
2006). The final source of SE, physiological reactions, is based upon the emotional and
physiological feedback individuals perceive from their bodies during certain activities (Pajares,
2006). All the sources identified by Bandura are impacted by positive and negative inputs and
are believed to be strong predicators of behavioral outcomes (Graham & Weiner, 1996).
Elementary intervention teachers must be confident in their skills. There exists a large
body of research which dates to the mid-1970s pointing to the influence of teacher self-efficacy
to student achievement (Armor, 1976; Ashton & Webb, 1986; Muijs & Reynolds, 2015). A
study performed in 75 Italian junior high schools, with over 2000 teachers, examined a
conceptual model linking teacher self-efficacy to their job satisfaction and student achievement
(Caprara, Barbaranelli, Steca, & Malone, 2006). Consistent with Bandura’s notion of Collective
Efficacy, the researchers hypothesized that given the nature of the instructional model at the
junior high level (multiple teachers exert influence on a single student), each teacher’s personal
efficacy would be somewhat dependent on the outcomes of their co-workers in promoting the
academic success of the students (Caprara et al, 2006). This notion is similar to that of the
elementary intervention teachers in this study. Their findings indicated that the teachers’ self-
efficacy was a primary motivator and that there was a reciprocal effect between the teachers’
self-efficacy beliefs and the students’ academic achievement (Caprara et al, 2006).
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

40
Lamorey and Wilcox (2005) conducted a qualitative study of teacher self-efficacy with
a group of practitioners delivering early intervention services. The purpose of the study was to
create a self-efficacy scale that would apply to early intervention (EI) teachers. The basis of this
scale was an instrument that had been tested for over thirty years in K-12 schools and was based
upon Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory; the Teacher Efficacy Scale (TES) created by Gibson
and Dembo (1984). One of the goals of the study was to examine the relationship between the
EI teacher’s characteristics and their self-efficacy. Lamorey and Wilcox (2005) found that EI
teachers’ self-efficacy was positively associated with increased years of service in that field,
indicating that self-efficacy builds over time and with experience.
Classroom teachers perform their daily duties in complex environments filled with
dozens of other humans, each with their own motivations, preoccupations, and needs. Managing
all these factors is critical to accomplishing the goal of learning for all students. Rimm-Kaufman
and Sawyer (2004) conducted a quasi-experimental study in which they reviewed the
implementation of a particular classroom intervention program with 69 kindergarten through
third grade teachers, measuring the participants’ self-efficacy. Findings indicated that teachers
who utilized more components of the program experienced higher self-efficacy in those areas of
their classroom practice. This is consistent with the body of research associating teacher
practices to high levels of self-efficacy (Rimm-Kaufman & Sawyer, 2004).
Expectancy-value theory. Eccles (2006) and her colleagues studied the motivational
factors that influenced the goals and behaviors of school-aged children over a twenty-year
period, distilling the findings into a comprehensive model connecting beliefs and choices. The
resultant theory, Expectancy Value Theory (EVT), postulates that individuals make choices
based upon two factors; the expected level of success and the perceived value the individual
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

41
places upon the choice or the outcome (Eccles, 2006). In the most basic sense, EVT can be
summed up by two fundamental questions: “‘Can I do the task?’ and ‘Do I want to do the task?’”
(Eccles, 2006, p.1). As the first question indicates, EVT is somewhat connected to self-efficacy
(Pajares, 2006). According to Rueda (2011), the value one finds in an activity is what influences
them to start and their expectancies are what motivate them to persist in completing the activity.
The ‘values’ portion of EVT can be subdivided into four unique constructs – attainment,
intrinsic, utility, and cost values, respectively (Eccles, 2006; Rueda, 2011). Attainment value is
the significance a person attaches to performing a task well, where intrinsic value is the
enjoyment an individual receives from completing a task (Eccles, 2006; Rueda, 2011). Utility
value refers to the extent that task completion helps one achieve a short- or long-term goal or
earn a future reward and cost value is the perceived cost, in terms of time, expense, or effort that
is required to complete an activity (Eccles, 2006; Rueda, 2011). Individuals who believe they
can do something and expect to have some measure of success are more likely to make the
choices, expend the effort and persist than those who do not believe they are able or will have
success at a given task (Pintrich, 2003).
Elementary intervention teachers must perceive interventions have value. The degree
to which an individual is successful at an activity rests in large part to their motivation,
particularly the expected value of a task. For elementary intervention teachers to achieve their
goals they must find value in the work in order to be motivated to do the work. A team
conducted a qualitative study of 32 elementary schools in the Netherlands, surveying over 500
teachers, to gain insights into effective school improvement schemes (Thoonen, Sleegers, Oort,
Peetsma, & Geijsel, 2011). Among the findings was an interesting association; higher teacher
expectancy levels resulted in increased self-efficacy and engagement in work related tasks
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

42
(Thoonen et al, 2011). That is, when teachers have a stronger sense that they can achieve a
desired result (expectant value) their engagement increases. Lastly, Thoonen et al (2011) found
that the more teachers internalized the organizational goals into their personal goals the greater
value they had for job-related activities.
Foley (2011) conducted a quantitative study of almost 200 kindergarten through third
grade teachers’ implementation of a specific reading comprehension innovation. She
hypothesized, using EVT as her underpinning, that teachers had to find value in the innovation
before they would devote time and effort into its implementation. Two of the three findings
directly related to expectancy and value. Foley (2011) found a positive correlation between
expectancy and teacher motivation to persist with the innovation – the greater the expectancy for
success, the stronger the implementation. Additionally, there was a positive correlation between
the value teachers placed on the innovation and their level of implementation (Foley, 2011),
indicating that the value teachers placed on the program could have some predictive quality.
Table 3 displays the assumed motivational influences related to IUSD. The literature identified
two assumed motivational influences that may directly impact the ability of the stakeholder
group to achieve their goal.
Table 3
Motivational Influence and Types
Motivation Influence Motivation Type
1. Elementary intervention teachers must believe they are capable
of providing academic intervention combining direct instruction
with computer assisted instruction to improve student
achievement in reading.
Self-Efficacy
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

43
2. Elementary intervention teachers need to perceive value in
providing academic intervention to at-risk students to increase
their achievement.
Expectancy Value

Organization
The final dimension leaders must consider when reflecting upon the influences of
stakeholder performance is that of the organization itself (Clark & Estes, 2008). All
organizations are unique, living, dynamic entities made up of multiple, interdependent parts
tasked with working in concert to accomplish broader organizational goals (Rueda, 2011;
Thacker, Bell & Schargel, 2009). They are complex systems and the influence organizations
exert over their stakeholders is pervasive. For example, organizational processes and the
availability of resources often inhibit highly motivated stakeholders, who possess top-notch
knowledge and skills, from achieving their goals (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011).
Organizations develop their own culture and it is this culture that acts as a filter moderating the
activities taking place (Clark & Estes, 2008; Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Rueda, 2011).
Kezar (2001) identified culture as one of six main categories of organizational change models
present in the literature base. Addressing the shortcomings and barriers brought about by
organizational culture, while leveraging the positive effects of culture on productivity, has been
described by Clark & Estes (2008) as being arguably the most important work process to which
leaders must attend.
General theory. To many people, the concept of ‘culture’ is primarily attributable to
individuals or ethnic groups because culture and cultural processes are generally invisible,
exercised in an automated fashion, and can possess values that can be considered relative in
nature (Rueda, 2011). Schein (2004) describes culture as “an empirically based abstraction”
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

44
centered around the climate and practices an organization develops (p.7). More specifically,
organizational cultures can be described as the beliefs, core values, norms, goals,
process/procedures, and sentiments the organization espouses and seeks to transfer from one
member to another over time (Clark & Estes, 2008; Schein, 2004). Leaders must be cognizant of
the abstract, often unseen aspects of their organization’s culture, understand the effects it has on
achievement of organizational goals, articulate the behaviors and actions related to the culture
that may be impeding progress, and set plans in place to bring about desired change (Schein,
2004). The question often asked is: How can leaders articulate and observe phenomena that are
fundamentally hidden, invisible or unspoken?
Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) conceptualized culture as being composed of discrete
units of analysis they called cultural models and cultural settings. By cultural models, the
researchers refer to the “shared mental schema or normative understandings of how the world
works…” (p. 47) These models are shared ways of understanding, thinking, and archiving
organizational knowledge and they are highly contextualized (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001;
Rueda, 2011). Cultural models can also be thought of as unobservable behaviors, structures or
groupings stakeholders engaging in and are ubiquitous within an organization. A stakeholder
may interact with a number of cultural models in their organization within any given day. As
such, they can promote or obstruct stakeholders from pursuing goals (Rueda, 2011). In this way,
cultural models can have a direct impact on stakeholder motivation – both positively and
negatively.
Cultural settings are those places where people gather to accomplish a task or the
contexts in which policies are enacted (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Rueda, 2011). In an
educational organization, cultural settings would include the classrooms, playgrounds, lunch
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

45
areas, staff lounges, professional learning spaces, PTA rooms, school parking lots, the district
office, and district Board Room, just to name a few. The organizational stakeholders engage
with various cultural models within these unique settings. Through this lens, it can be seen that
cultural models and settings have a symbiotic relationship, with their interplay contingent upon
the specific setting. That is, the cultural models that are possible in one context shape and are
shaped by the setting in which they reside. According to Gallimore & Goldenberg (2001),
although culture exists in settings, it also exists in the absence of settings. For example, ABC
Unified School District may hold the cultural model of regular, meaningful teacher collaboration
central to accomplishing their goal of increasing student achievement and constructs cultural
settings that support and promote those models. However, XYZ Unified School District holds a
cultural model in which teacher comparison is paramount, constructing a cultural setting that
rewards certain teachers over others. The absence of a cultural model of productive
collaboration is missing from the second example. This short example clearly illustrates the
point made by Rueda (2011) that the organizational processes, policies and structures (settings)
can have a direct impact on the achievement of organizational goals.
There are countless cultural models and many cultural settings within IUSD that may
influence the elementary intervention teachers under review in this study. For the purpose of this
evaluation, two assumed organizational influences were identified from the literature. In order to
meet their stakeholder goal, elementary intervention teachers must be provided with appropriate
professional learning opportunities so they can effectively instruct at-risk students (cultural
model and setting). Additionally, the role of the intervention teacher must be supported through
effective administrative leadership (cultural model).
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

46
Appropriate professional learning opportunities. Quality teaching has a profound,
positive impact on student learning (Hattie, 2003, 2012). There are many factors that contribute
to this fact, an important one being teachers’ consistent engagement with professional learning
opportunities. Ongoing professional learning for teachers improves their efficacy, knowledge of
content, pedagogical practices, overall instruction, and assessment (Akiba & Liang, 2016;
Ingvarson, Meiers, & Beavis, 2005). There has been a clear shift within the literature in the
nomenclature associated with these types of activities away from professional development to
professional learning. This shift is intentional and significant, connoting a transfer in where the
responsibility for professional growth ultimately lies. Akiba and Liang (2016) suggest that
development was a passive endeavor, with the responsibility for learning placed on the
developer. They note that learning “implies a more internal focus or constructivist approach in
which the teacher becomes an active participant who is responsible for his or her own
learning…and reflects a growth model” (p.55). This subtle change points toward another
important facet of professional learning. Since the link between quality teaching and student
outcomes is clearly understood, creating consistent opportunities for professional learning within
an individual school or district can be a significant catalyst for achieving organizational goals
(Akiba & Liang, 2016; Roesken, 2011).
Creating opportunities for professional learning is only one part of the responsibility of
an organization. The type of professional learning opportunity matters as well. The research
base is replete with studies attesting to an association between specific professional learning
configurations and increased student achievement, such as teacher collaboration, teacher
networks, and grade level teams (Goddard, Goddard, & Tschannen-Moran, 2007; Moolenaar,
Sleegers, & Daly, 2012; Saunders, Goldenberg, & Gallimore, 2009). Professional learning
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

47
communities (PLC), made popular by Richard DuFour and Robert Eaker (2009), have also
been associated with increased student outcomes across grade levels and content areas. In PLCs,
teachers work together to focus on how students learn specific skills and content (Bausmith &
Barry, 2011), they engage in rich, reflective conversations around unique problems of practice
(Horn & Little, 2010), and collectively construct and share new knowledge and skills to increase
student learning (Lieberman & Miller, 2011). Akiba and Liang (2016), in a four-year
longitudinal study of professional learning activities, found the most effective professional
learning opportunities involved teachers collaborating and comminuting with colleagues at deep
levels, centered around teaching strategies and student learning in their own problems of
practice. The researchers emphasized the need for school and district leaders to “facilitate
teacher-centered collaborative and research-based learning activities led by teacher leaders…[as]
it is likely these investments in promoting teachers’ professional learning activities will result in
improved student learning” (p. 107).
Effective administrative leadership. The researcher of school reform and principal
leadership, Michael Fullan (2004), characterizes successful school leadership as that which
encourages problem solving and deep learning, builds a culture of collaboration, and seeks to
foster leadership capacity in others to affect and sustain change. Effective administrative
leadership is a crucial ingredient in cultivating school cultures that encourage collaboration and
communication among teachers to solve unique problems of practice (Supovitz, Sirinides, &
May, 2010). Consistent, high-quality communication and collaboration among teachers can
increase student outcomes in reading. Taylor, Pearson, Clark and Walpole (2000) conducted a
study of 14 high-poverty schools, looking for common factors that lead to improved reading
achievement of primary grades students. Analysis of the data demonstrated a correlation between
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

48
increased gains on fluency and retelling measures and schools where a culture of
communication and collaboration were regularly a part of the teachers’ practice (Taylor et al.,
2000). Site and district administrative leaders can have a direct, positive influence on the
policies, practices, and structures of a school, its culture and climate, and availability of
resources to staff (Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Korkmaz, 2007; Leithwood, Seashore, Anderson, &
Wahlstrom, 2004).
Administrative leaders, particularly school principals, can play a central role in initiating
and sustaining organizational changes focused on improving student achievement through their
effective management of schools and support of teachers (Bryk, 2010; Leithwood et al., 2004).
Supovitz et al. (2010) culled the research literature on principal leadership, identifying three
common activities that support effective teaching and learning: (1) Setting mission and goals, (2)
Encouraging trust and collaboration, (3) Actively supporting instruction. In setting the mission
and goals for the school, leaders define the vision, communicate it to stakeholders, and develop
goals to achieve the vision (Supovitz et al., 2010). Leithwood et al. (2004) posit additional
leader actions that support this activity include monitoring organizational performance,
promoting effective communication and collaboration, and creating high expectations. Effective
school leaders encourage a culture of trust and collaboration, working to build collaborative
practices that strengthen the school (Leithwood et al., 2004). Heck, Larson, & Marcoulides
(1990) found that principals of high performing schools worked tirelessly to create school
cultures where administrators and teachers worked collaboratively to improve the instructional
program and engage in problem solving. Lastly, effective administrators actively support
instruction by “creating a learning ethos and providing…hands-on support for teachers”
(Supovitz et al., 2010, p. 35). One of the most significant leadership predicators of student
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

49
learning outcomes is the fostering of cooperation and shared beliefs within a school that has a
distinctive sense of community (Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2003).
Table 4 displays the assumed organizational influences related to IUSD. The literature
identified two assumed motivational influences that will directly impact the ability of the
stakeholder group to achieve their goal.
Table 4
Organizational Influence & Setting/Model
Organizational Influence Organizational Setting/Model
1. IUSD must provide appropriate professional learning
opportunities to elementary intervention teachers in order for
them to achieve their stakeholder goal.
Cultural Setting and Model
2. IUSD must support the elementary intervention teachers’ role
within the organization through effective administrative
leadership.
Cultural Model

KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

50
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation
and the Organizational Context
Figure 1

Figure 1. Visualization of Conceptual Framework
Figure 1 represents the conceptual framework for this study. The Inland Unified School
District is represented by the large blue circle in the center of the figure. Elementary intervention
teachers, the stakeholder group of focus, are represented by the smaller green circle within the
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

51
larger blue circle. The stakeholder goal, achievement of which directly contributes to the
positive forward movement of the organization, is shown at the bottom of the figure, contained
within the yellow rectangle.
Clark and Estes (2008) and Schein (2004) tell us that organizations construct their own
cultures. Since culture can be perplexing to describe, observe or measure, Gallimore and
Goldenberg (2001) have provided a useful conceptualization they call ‘cultural settings’ and
‘cultural models’. These are the discrete units that make up an organization’s broader culture
and are represented in the figure by a Venn diagram. This graphic was chosen to demonstrate the
interdependent relationship of cultural settings and cultural models. The cultural models that are
possible in one context shape and are shaped by the setting in which they reside. This interplay
or push/pull effect is represented in the figure by the orange, double-headed arrow. The literature
clarified the type of influences the organization has on the stakeholders in this study. It is clear
that quality teaching has a positive impact on student achievement (Hattie, 2012). Akiba and
Liang (2016) found that ongoing professional learning (PL) can improve teachers’ efficacy and
skills. It is incumbent on IUSD to provide appropriate professional learning for their elementary
intervention teachers if they are to achieve their goal. Utilizing experiential knowledge, I
conceptualized PL to be both a cultural setting and a cultural model, as PL can be a physical
setting in which one finds him or herself as well as a model for ongoing support. In the figure,
this is depicted by placing PL within the center of the Venn diagram. Another salient point
found in the literature was the need for effective leadership to sustain organizational change.
Bryk (2010) and Leithwood et al., (2004) found that administrative leaders are crucial to
supporting and sustaining organizational changes to improve student outcomes. Effective
administrative leadership is a cultural model that the elementary intervention teachers must rely
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

52
upon in order to meet their goal. This is depicted on the cultural model side of the Venn
diagram.
The cultural settings and models impact the stakeholders in this study and this fact is
represented in the figure by orange, one-way arrows emerging from each side of the Venn
diagram. The arrows point toward the green stakeholder circle, indicating that the elementary
intervention teachers, their work and motivation, are affected by the cultural setting and models
of the organization. The teachers are part of the larger organization and, in turn, they cannot
escape the pressures and influences of the IUSD. Consequently, both the elementary intervention
teachers and the organization have an impact on the achievement of the stakeholder goal listed,
illustrated by the one-way, orange arrows.
As stated previously, all organizations are unique and dynamic, made up of multiple,
interdependent parts given the job of working in concert to accomplish broader organizational
goals (Rueda, 2011). IUSD is made up of a number of stakeholder groups: students, parents,
teachers, administration, and classified staff. The literature illuminated the need for elementary
intervention teachers to possess two specific types of knowledge in order to achieve their goal.
Central to the success of IUSD’s at-risk student population are effective interventions. Noell and
Gansle (2006) assert that an intervention is only effective if it was delivered according to how it
was designed. It is vital for IUSD’s elementary intervention teachers to acquire the depth of
procedural knowledge for how to implement intervention strategies that form the model.
Additionally, since interventions in IUSD occur within an MTSS (tiered) framework, the
elementary intervention teachers must have the conceptual understanding of the types of supports
provided within each tier of the framework (Schulte et al., 2009). These two distinct, yet
complimentary knowledge types are noted within the stakeholder circle, each with its own green
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

53
circle connected by a two-headed arrow. The two-headed arrow is indicative of the connected
nature of these knowledge and skill types. The work of IUSD’s elementary intervention teachers
will not be as effective if they cannot conceptualize the MTSS framework to a level of
automaticity so that they understand how their contributions fit into the system and, therefore,
why it is important to have interventions delivered as planned. Stated another way, these
knowledge types have a reciprocal relationship.
No actions taken by the intervention teachers would be accomplished without motivation.
The literature base tells us motivation is made up of three parts: active choice, persistence and
mental effort (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). For IUSD’s intervention teachers, it is critical
for them to believe they have the skills and knowledge to accomplish their goal. This is defined
as self-efficacy (Bandura, 2000). An extensive body of research exists pointing to the
importance of teacher self-efficacy (Armor, 1976; Ashton & Webb, 1986; Muijs & Reynolds,
2015). Once teachers believe they can be successful, they must believe their actions have value
and will make a difference. This is called expectancy value (Eccles, 2006). The literature is
clear that if IUSD’s intervention teachers are going to achieve their goal, they must believe the
interventions are worthwhile (Thoonen, Sleegers, Oort, Peetsma, & Geijsel, 2011). These
motivational factors are noted in the figure, within green stakeholder circles. The factors have
direct influence on the knowledge and skills of the intervention teachers, designated by orange
arrows. Experiential knowledge tells us that if an individual lacks self-efficacy, they are less
likely to put forth the requisite mental effort and persistence to learn new skills or they may
avoid making the active choice to sharpen their skills. This motivational force can be viewed by
the orange, one-way arrow from Self-Efficacy toward both knowledge influences. Similarly, if
the intervention teachers do not find value in learning about the MTSS framework and their
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

54
place within it or if they perceive the interventions themselves to be ineffective, they may not
choose to put forth the effort (mental or physical) to perform their tasks well. This motivational
force is conceptualized as a separate orange, one-way arrow from Expectancy Value to the
knowledge types. Both of these hypothetical scenarios illustrate the powerful impact motivation
can have on the achievement of the stakeholder goal.

KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

55
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
The purpose of this project was to examine the knowledge, motivation and organizational
(KMO) influences that support and/or inhibit the Inland Unified School District’s (IUSD)
elementary intervention teachers from delivering a hybrid model of intervention that includes
both direct instruction and computer assisted instruction. The following questions were asked to
frame the study:
1. What are the elementary intervention teachers’ knowledge and motivation related to
providing academic intervention in reading using a hybrid model, to at-risk students?
2. What do elementary intervention teachers perceive to be the critical organizational
influences or resources impacting their knowledge and motivation to provide
academic intervention in reading using a hybrid model, to at-risk students?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources?
This chapter presents the research design, methods for data collection, and the analytical
processes to be undertaken with the data. A detailed description of stakeholders and rationale for
their selection, the artifact/document collection and interview processes and protocols, and
ethics, credibility, and trustworthiness of the study are also included in this chapter.
Participating Stakeholders
Elementary intervention teachers were the stakeholder group of focus for this study. This
group was selected because of the pivotal role they play in decreasing the achievement gap for
at-risk students in IUSD schools. For the purpose of this study, an intervention teacher was a
certificated staff member who had been hired by the school district to deliver specialized
academic instruction in an intervention setting, utilizing specific curricular materials in both
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

56
digital and print formats. They did not have a regular student roster, as their rosters fluctuated
based upon the needs of the students and the school. These professionals were expected to
establish individual goals for the students they support, provide engaging and meaningful
instruction and conduct regular progress monitoring of the students’ goals. These three factors
were critical to full implementation of the MTSS framework practiced in IUSD.
IUSD employed approximately 34 elementary intervention teachers at the time of the
study, with each elementary school having at least one full time equivalent (FTE) intervention
teacher and just over half of the schools having the services of two FTEs. Ninety-one percent of
the schools with two FTE intervention teachers were designated by the District as school-wide
Title I schools and all were designated by the California Department of Education (CDE) as
“Program Improvement” prior to the 2015-2016 school year (when the CDE dropped such
designations). These two distinctions are mentioned to highlight that students enrolled in these
schools generally experience poverty (school-wide Title I designation) and the schools had
missed academic achievement expectations in one or more student sub-group areas for three or
more years (Program Improvement status). Both of these factors suggested a need for additional
academic supports. One of the schools with two FTE intervention teachers was a high
performing/low poverty school, however, due to dramatic growth in student enrollment over a
short period of time the school was transitioned to a multi-track, year-round format. The
additional FTE for intervention was placed at the school to accommodate the complexities of
providing consistent interventions as students go off- and come on-track.
The participants selected for the study were ten teachers who regularly provided reading
intervention support using a specific computer assisted instruction program on the campus. This
distinction was in place because not all the intervention teachers employed by IUSD provided
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

57
reading intervention to the students at their school site (some specialize in mathematics
support). The selection criteria resulted in a two-tiered (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) mixed-
purposeful sample (Johnson & Christensen, 2015). The number of participants was manageable
and representative, given the time-bounded nature of the study.
Interview Sampling Strategy and Rationale
The first phase of a two-tiered sampling process (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) involved the
selection of the case under study; reading intervention taught through a hybrid teaching model
that combined the use of computer assisted instruction with teacher directed instruction. The
second phase involved a purposefully selected group of elementary intervention teachers
(Johnson & Christensen, 2015; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). All teachers meeting
the three pre-established criteria were invited to participate in the study. A brief explanation of
the study and an invitation to participate was sent to the teachers via email. Since this was a
time-bound study, I attempted to obtain agreement from ten teachers to participate in the study.
The initial invitation communicated that the first ten teachers to agree would be selected. The
first request was sent in late-May 2018. This invitation generated five teachers interested in
participating in the study. Confirmation was sent to the first group of participants thanking them
for their interest and making appointments for the interviews. These interviews were completed
by the middle of June 2018. At this point in the year IUSD has ended school and the elementary
intervention teachers were no longer working over the summer break. A second request for
participants was sent via email in mid-August 2018, at the beginning of the 2018-19 school year.
This request indicated the specific number of teachers I was attempting to interview, including
the number needed by their geographic location within IUSD (as explained in Criterion three to
follow). This request generated an additional six interested teachers, thereby completing the
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

58
mixed-purposeful sample required, including the bifurcation by geographic region.
Confirmations were sent to the five teachers needed to complete the study and arrangements
made for the interview. One regret was sent to an interested teacher that she could not be
included in the study, as her inclusion would have resulted in an over-sampling of one
geographic region of IUSD. There was a total of two formal email requests sent to the identified
pool of elementary intervention teachers. The purpose of the one-to-one interviews was to gain
an “in-depth understanding of the specific cases: information-rich cases” (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016, p.96) and to answer research question numbers one and two.
Criterion 1. Participants for the interviews had access to the computer assisted
instruction resources provided by IUSD for reading intervention at the elementary level. The
computer assisted instruction resources coupled with direct teacher instruction were at the heart
of this study and therefore any participant must have had access to them in the execution of their
daily work. This criterion brought consistency of resources to the interviews and related to
research question number one.
Criterion 2. Participants for the interviews were elementary intervention teachers with
various years of experience using the computer assisted instruction resources. This criterion
allowed for the inclusion of any elementary intervention teachers using the hybrid model that
was under study. Experiential knowledge dictated that those teachers using the model the longest
had the greatest knowledge and adherence to the instructional model and could share the level of
motivation required to maintain fidelity to that instructional format. Additionally, including
teachers who were new or relatively new to the delivery model in the study illuminated varying
degrees of knowledge necessary to instruct in that manner. This criterion supported answering
research questions one and two.
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

59
Criterion 3. The elementary intervention teachers were stratified by geographic
location within the school district. IUSD could roughly be bifurcated into two, distinct
geographic regions. One region tended to contain schools in which fewer students qualified for
federal free or reduced fee lunch (a typical measure of poverty among families), while the other
contained schools with significantly more students who qualified for federal free or reduced fee
lunch subsidies. Since this was a time-bound study, I interviewed five teachers from each stratum
(total of ten teachers to interview).
Qualitative Data Collection and Instrumentation
This applied study attempted to appraise a particular practice within one of IUSD’s
programs, with the resultant data providing decision makers information regarding the efficacy
of an organizational program. The participants selected for the study were ten teachers who
regularly provide reading intervention support and had access to a specific computer assisted
instruction program on the campus. A qualitative approach was the most appropriate design for
the study, as I examined the knowledge and motivation the elementary intervention teachers had
in providing reading intervention within an MTSS framework to at-risk students in IUSD
through asking them about the elements that support or impede their ability to implement this
specific model. I was interested in reviewing the process elementary intervention teachers
utilized at the time of this study, finding the meaning they have constructed about their work and
their interpretation of their experiences through the lens of knowledge, motivation and
organizational influences (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Using this approach, I was the key
instrument of data collection and multiple data sources were collected through document
collection and participant interviews. The qualitative approach allowed for the design of the
study to be emergent, responsive to the “richly descriptive” data that was collected (Creswell,
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

60
2014, Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The data collection and analysis followed an
inductive/deductive path (Creswell, 2014). The artifact/document collection phase illuminated
the initial learning and planning the organization engaged in at the onset of the MTSS framework
initiative in IUSD, and the professional learning and collaboration opportunities that make up the
support structures for the elementary intervention teachers. The documents informed the creation
of the interview questions. Next, the participant interview phase was meant to understand the
elementary intervention teachers’ perceptions of any organizational influences to their
knowledge and motivation they deemed necessary to reach the organization’s goal. Because of
the timing of the data collection phase of the study (collection began at the end of one school
year and resumed at the beginning of the next school year), there was significant time for me to
reflect upon the perceptions of the first group of teacher participants before interviewing the
second group of participants. This resulted in emergent understandings and “hunches” related to
possible themes that I used to inform the subsequent interviews. Creswell (2014) suggested an
emergent-type of design or structure of inquiry leads to a more complex, holistic understanding
of the multiple factors influencing the research participants. In this case, an emergent design
coupled with a longer than expected interview window gave me a nuanced understanding of the
elementary intervention teachers’ role in the implementation of the hybrid intervention model
and how their efforts contributed to the achievement of the organizational goal of increasing the
percentage of students in grades 3-8 scoring “Standard Met” or “Standard Exceeded” in English
Language Arts.
Documents and Artifacts
In phase one of the data collection I looked for data sources to enhance my understanding
of why the elementary intervention teachers implemented the hybrid model the way they did.
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

61
This was accomplished through a document review process. Merriam & Tisdell (2016) define
the term document to be “an umbrella term to refer to a wide range of written, visual, digital, and
physical material relevant to the study” (p. 162). The researchers provide a number of common
examples of documents, such as organizational records, materials, and documents, digital
resources, and historical accounts. To support a deeper understanding for the current study, I
searched for documents in alignment with the research questions.
Research Questions one and two focus on the knowledge and motivation elementary
teachers have in order to perform their tasks well and the organizational influences they perceive
to have influence on their work. These documents were not publicly available, consequently, I
made a formal request to be provided with any documents related to the initial planning of MTSS
in the district. IUSD staff provided documents related to the district committee that had been
charged with creating the district’s MTSS framework. The documents that shed light on the
initial learning engaged in by the organization and its stakeholders (as to the underpinnings of
MTSS), research-based models of providing reading intervention, and the selection of
appropriate curricular materials to do this work. The documents included meeting agendas and
minutes, as well as a few meeting presentations (PowerPoints). Additionally, I searched for
documents pertaining to any professional learning, training, or collaboration IUSD provided to
support the intervention teachers. These documents were not publicly available either, resulting
in a second request for documents. I specifically requested documents detailing district-initiated
meeting schedules and agendas, professional learning community (PLC) outcomes,
documentation or process templates. IUSD staff graciously complied with my request in a
timely manner, providing district-initiated PLC agendas and meeting minutes, MTSS framework
process charts, intervention documentation templates (often referred to as Student Study Team or
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

62
SST forms), and department goal setting documents detailing annual goals and objectives for
MTSS-related initiatives. All documents were provided in digital format.
Interviews
The second phase of the data collection involved interviews of the purposefully selected
elementary intervention teachers (Johnson & Christensen, 2015; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). The purpose of the interviews was to gain an “in-depth understanding of the
specific cases: information-rich cases” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p.96) and all interviews sought
to answer research questions numbers one and two. As mentioned previously, the elementary
intervention teachers were stratified by geographic location within the school district and I
interviewed five teachers from each stratum. A digital recording device was utilized during the
interviews, with the participants’ permission, so that all responses could be accurately captured
and interview comments transcribed later for analysis.
The interviews all took place during non-school time, that is, after their work day had
concluded, and at a location of the teachers’ choosing. Six out of the ten interviews took place in
the intervention teachers’ own classroom at a time in which they are not scheduled to provide
intervention services to students (as noted). Four of the ten interviews took place at an off-
campus location chosen by the individual teacher. The locations were public coffee shops;
however, to conduct the interviews, the participants and I sat in quiet locations away from other
store patrons. Further, during the interviews I took a stance that was non-threatening, non-
judgmental, sensitive, and respectful – before, during, and after the interviews. This type of
attitude is recommended for interviewers and can lead to rapport building (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). I believe conducting the interviews within a familiar space to the teacher or one of their
choosing and being mindful of my interview stance led to an increased feeling of calmness and a
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

63
reduction in anxiety on the part of the intervention teachers. This was evidenced by the calm
demeanor exhibited by the intervention teachers, the inclusion of personal stories and
recollections of shared experiences from our time together in the organization, and a general
sense of warm collegiality I felt while interacting with the teachers.
The interview protocol was structured to be flexible with the teachers’ time. I committed
to keeping the teachers no more than one hour at a time, hence, the protocol was split at a point
at which I anticipated we would be after one hour. Using this format, my initial plan was to
interview each teacher twice, with the first in-depth interview lasting approximately one hour in
length and a follow-up interview of no more than 30 to 45 minutes would then be arranged to
conclude the interview protocol. Upon commencing with the interviews, I quickly realized that
they were moving more rapidly than I had anticipated. During the first interview, we reached the
end of the first section at approximately the 37-minute mark. I notified the teacher we were
finished with the first section and asked if she would like to schedule a time to complete the
second portion of the interview. She requested we keep the interview going to finish the
protocol. I complied with her request and the interview was concluded in just under one hour.
For interviews two through five, I took the same approach, monitoring the time and making the
teachers aware when we had reached the mid-point of the protocol. All of the teachers chose to
continue the interview instead of scheduling another session. For interviews six through ten,
since there had been approximately nine weeks in between the time when I began interviews to
when the interviews would be completed, I reflected upon my experiences in the first set of
interviews and changed the protocol slightly to account for a single interview session. All ten
interviews lasted under one hour, with each interview time as follows: (1) 59 minutes; (2) 38
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

64
minutes; (3) 57 minutes, (4) 40 minutes; (5) 57 minutes; (6) 39 minutes; (7) 44 minutes; (8) 48
minutes; (9) 41 minutes; (10) 59 minutes.
The interviews followed a semi-structured approach, in which an interview protocol was
used. The semi-structured protocol was preferable in this situation, as it assisted in bringing
uniformity to the questions being asked, while allowing for follow-up questions as appropriate.
A small number of demographic questions were asked at the outset of the interview. The purpose
of these were to aid in the analysis of the interview responses. Since all teacher who meet the
criteria were invited to participate, there were a variety in years of experience within teaching (in
general) and within the function of teaching intervention (specifically). Additionally, due to the
bifurcated nature of IUSD, it was useful to capture which geographic area the participating
teachers served. The interview questions were grouped on the protocol to roughly follow the
flow of the research questions. Since the conceptual framework posited that certain cultural
settings and models (the organizational structures) exert influence on the elementary intervention
teachers’ knowledge, skills, and motivation, which has a direct bearing on them accomplishing
their goal, there were questions designed to gain insights into the cultural settings and models at
work in IUSD. There were groups of questions that asked about the teacher’s knowledge of the
intervention model (the “K” in the KMO gap analysis model), their motivation to teach reading
intervention (the “M” in the KMO gap analysis model), and possible organizational structures
within the system that may have helped or inhibited them from performing their job well (the
“O” in the KMO gap analysis model). All of the interview questions were tightly aligned to the
research questions and conceptual framework for the study and the full protocol can be reviewed
under Appendix A.

KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

65
Data Analysis
Data analysis began during data collection for both the artifact/document collection and
interviews. I wrote reflective notes after each document was reviewed and interview conducted,
documenting ideas for further exploration, concerns, connections made between artifacts and
interviews, and possible codes as they emerged. After leaving the field, the audio interviews
were downloaded, achieved, and transcribed. The raw audio files were downloaded from the
digital recording device and uploaded to an encrypted, password protected cloud-storage
solution. Upon confirmation the raw audio files were saved successfully, the original files were
deleted from the audio device. A similar process was followed for the digital documents that
were requested from IUSD staff. Documents were downloaded from the original email
communication and uploaded to the secure, password protected cloud-storage site. The original
email communication was then permanently deleted from my email inbox. These processes were
done to protect the confidentiality of the study participants and district stakeholders and to
comply with assurances provided to the USC Internal Review Board (IRB) in terms of data
handling and storage study data. Further, all audio files of the interviews were transcribed
through a service called rev.com. The audio was uploaded to a secure website, encrypted with
LTS 1.2 encryption (Rev.com, n.d.) and the service generated an interview transcript in
Microsoft Word format. The resultant Word document was time stamped to match the audio file
and each person (interviewer and interviewee) was put as a separate entry within the document.
After retrieving the transcript from the secure site, I reviewed it for errors. Because some
of the interviews took place in loud, public settings, from time to time the transcript would
indicate garbled or misunderstood audio as “inaudible.” In those instances, I carefully reviewed
the sections for contextual clues that could possibly unlock the inaudible content. There were
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

66
less than one out of three instances when I could not ascertain the context of the missing word
or words. When faced with a situation in which I was not confident in my recollection of the
conversation or could use contextual clues to fill in the missing word, I left the tag “inaudible” in
the transcript. During the transcript review process, I also deidentified any data that could not be
included, such as proper names of people, places, curricular materials or anything else I deemed
a danger to the anonymity of the interviewee, school site or district.
Upon completing the clean-up process, the files were ready for coding. I utilized a
software program called ATLAS.ti to code and manage the qualitative data analysis process.
This program can handle various types of qualitative data, including transcripts and documents. I
began the coding process by creating a priori codes aligned to the conceptual framework and
research questions for the study. Initially, there were approximately 20 a priori codes linked to
the conceptual framework and 11 a priori codes aligned to the research questions. In the first
phase of analysis, I utilized an open coding method, looking for empirical codes that emerged
from the data and applying a priori codes from the conceptual framework and research questions.
Twenty-six unique empirical codes were used to represent concepts in the transcript and
document analysis portion of phase one. Since the conceptual framework and research questions
are grounded in the KMO influences at play in this study, I eventually reconfigured the a priori
and empirical codes to include the KMO influence for which it was associated. One of the
powerful features of ATLAS.ti is the program’s capability to aggregate common codes across
multiple transcripts or documents. As I engaged in the coding of additional transcripts and
review of document artifacts, the program was tracking the typicality of the codes I was
assigning.
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

67
When the first pass through all of the transcripts and document artifacts was done, I
created a codebook within the program and reviewed it for emerging themes. The codebook
contained portions of the quotations I had identified and the document names I tagged as
important datum. Reflecting upon these data, patterns began to emerged across
interviews/artifacts. I reengaged with the data a number of times during the second phase of
analysis, in which I aggregated the empirical and a priori codes, creating analytic or axial codes.
During this process I looked for typicality of the axial codes, again sorting the codes and
utilizing the codebook through the program. In the final phase of data analysis, I identified
pattern codes and themes that emerged, relating them to the conceptual framework and research
questions.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Central to all qualitative research studies is the need for credibility and trustworthiness.
Traditionally, studies that can be replicated, both by method and findings, are trusted; the
knowledge ascertained from them can be used by practitioners to bring about changes in people’s
lives (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Merriam & Tisdell (2016) assert that research conducted
ethically and with rigor tends to be treated as trustworthy. Qualitative researchers grapple with
the desire for validity while performing the type of research that often cannot be directly
replicated. Ratcliffe (1983) and Lincoln and Guba (1985) contend that for qualitative
researchers, the objective is to produce results that, when analyzed by an outside party, make
sense or are ‘credible.’ In the present study, I utilized a number of strategies to increase the
trustworthiness and credibility of the results.
One method to increase trustworthiness and credibility (interval validity) is to use
triangulation (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In this approach, multiple methods,
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

68
multiple data sources, multiple theories, or multiple investigators are used during the data
collection process. This strategy buffets against the concern that the findings were the result of a
single data method and source and also can assist in reducing systemic bias. In my study, I
utilized two data collection methods (document review and interviews) that resulted in two
distinct data sets from which conclusions were drawn. Furthermore, the study design,
conducting interviews of teachers from distinct geographic sections of the district lends to
increased credibility and decreased self-reporting biases.
A second strategy to increase credibility is to use rich, thick descriptions in conveying the
findings (Creswell, 2014). Researchers use this strategy by including detailed descriptions of the
settings, elements of shared experiences, or multiple facets of a theme. This strategy can
transport the reader into the situation and make the findings more realistic and believable. To do
this, I have included dozens of quotes taken from almost 10 hours of interviews with the
participating teachers. Also, facsimiles or reproductions of germane documents uncovered
during the data collection process are included in the appendices for the reader to personally
review. Each theme presented contains multiple sub-themes, thereby parsing out the theme into
specific, connected pieces. These points add rich, dynamic, illustrative description to the study,
thereby bringing additional validity or credibility to the findings.
The impetus for this study comes from my strong desire to provide equitable, responsive
services to some of the most vulnerable youth in the school systems in which I have served. I
recognized that the deep aspiration I have to provide the best academic intervention to the most
struggling students had the potential to color my perceptions or cause me to be biased toward one
delivery method over another. One way I minimized the possibility that my own agenda and
biases affected the data analysis was through the use of reflexivity as suggested be Merriam and
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

69
Tisdell (2016). The authors suggest that researchers must understand how the situation or
problem shapes them as much as how they report on and possibly shape the problem. Maxwell
(2013) claims that researcher biases can never be eliminated in qualitative research, but the
implications of those biases on “the conduct or conclusions of the study” can be understood and
mitigated (p. 124). Consequently, I actively worked to discipline my subjectivity during the
document review, interview, data analysis, and final reporting phases of this study.
Ethics
In this qualitative study, I was interested in answering the research questions through
interviewing a segment of the elementary intervention teachers to finding the meaning they
attribute to the knowledge, motivation and the organizational influences that impact their work.
This work was accomplished by interacting with the intervention teachers, my participants in this
study, and engaging them in conversation. In order to safeguard the credibility of the data
collected, engender trust between myself and the research participants, and ensure the study
retains the rigor with which it has been designed, I treated the teachers with respect and
conducted the study in an ethical manner (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Glesne (2011) asserts a
critical hallmark of ethical qualitative research is the tenet of informed consent. That is,
participation in any study is voluntary, the participants are made aware of any aspect of the study
that could impact their well-being, and they have the ability to leave the study at any time
without fear of penalty or retribution. Additionally, participants must be assured the information
they provide, whether observed or given in written or verbal form, will be kept confidential
(Glesne, 2011). To achieve this, I provided information sheets to each study participant at the
beginning of the interview portion of the study. Potential participants were asked to carefully
review the form and seek clarity if necessary (Krueger & Casey, 2009).
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

70
To avoid coercion, I did not provide an incentive to participate in the study. However,
as a demonstration of gratitude for participating, I provided each participant with a thank you
note. This minor token of appreciation was not discussed with the participants and was sent to
the participants via U.S.P.S. mail after the study, as an additional measure to avoid the
appearance of coercion.
In an effort to remain “present” with the participants during the interview portion of the
data collection process, I recorded the interviews using a digital recording device. I sought
active, verbal permission from the participants to record the interviews before they commenced,
as well as included that fact on the information sheets and in the verbal introduction provided to
each interviewee. Any digital data collected during the data collection portion of the study was
kept on a password protected computer and stored on the Web in a password protected cloud-
storage account in a system that does to allow data mining. Passwords for both security features
were kept solely by me on a thumb-print enabled, personal device and have not been shared.
The organization in which this study took place is one in which I was employed for four
years, from 2013-2017. During that time, I served in two different administrative positions. I
served as the Director of Assessment and Instructional Technology from 2013-2014, then
transitioned to the Director of Elementary Curriculum from 2014-2017. While in both positions,
I had numerous opportunities and occasions to visit elementary school sites and classrooms. One
of my duties as Director of Elementary curriculum was to build, guide, and support the MTSS
framework for IUSD. In that capacity, I had countless interactions with classroom teachers,
intervention teachers, and site administration in a professional learning capacity. Examples of
the types of interactions I engaged in while discharging my duties, that could have been
connected to academic interventions, included: provided trainings, reviewed student data, and
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

71
facilitated problem solving meetings with various IUSD stakeholders. I never supervised any
elementary classroom teachers (including intervention teachers) or site administration while
employed with IUSD.
Limitations and Delimitations
As with any study, there are limitations to this study. This was a limited and time-bound
study restricted to one public school district in the southwestern United States. Consequently,
the findings are potentially transferrable for this district alone and may not be generalizable to
different settings. While the sample size was appropriate for this study (n=10) and the emergent
themes meaningful to those stakeholders within the organization under study, caution should be
taken from drawing wide-ranging conclusions from this study. In fact, the primary purpose of
this study was applied, so generalization was not the aim.
The selection process serves as both a limitation and a delimitation of the study. While all
intervention teachers meeting the pre-established criteria were eligible to participate in the study,
because of the time-bound constraints of the study, the study was limited in the levels of
experience held by the group of participants. If the study would have been conducted over a
longer period of time, within the current school year or even over a number of school years, there
would likely have been more experienced teachers from which to choose. On the other hand,
because I controlled to selection process, by establishing the criteria while devising the
methodology for the study, I would have chosen to select a homogenous group of teachers with a
specific level of experience, either within the overall profession of teaching or in the provision of
intervention teaching (specially). Consequently, the findings will be limited based upon the
experience levels of the teachers who responded the quickest to the requests to participate.
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

72
Furthermore, limitations could have been introduced into the study through the data
collection methods. This study collected data through document collection and interviews.
While due diligence was taken to review all available documents related to the research
questions and conceptual framework, some may be overlooked, were unable to be located, or
were not considered for inclusion. This could have caused a gap in understanding of
organizational processes and supports, limiting the findings. In terms of data collection, the
addition of observations could have strengthened the approach. There are a number of reasons
why observations were not included in the study. Initially, data collection began in the late spring
of the school year. In the state in which this study took place all schools are required to
administer computerized end of the year summative assessments to their students during a
twelve-week window from mid-March through early June. During this time period the regular
instructional schedule is changed to allow for maximum utilization of computers on campus with
which to conduct testing. During that time period regular intervention services were truncated or
stopped completely. This fact severely hampered high-quality observations from occurring and if
they occurred the class sessions would have been significantly different from the norm.
Finally, researcher bias could have been a limitation in this study. Although I conducted a
lengthy review of the literature related to MTSS, and the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences that bear upon this study, it is possible that some relevant literature was
missed, thus limiting the concepts considered in my conceptual framework. Furthermore, since I
acknowledged possessing a deep interest in providing equitable, responsive services to the youth,
and much of my administrative career has been spent building or strengthening academic
programs and providing academic intervention to the most struggling students, my perceptions
may have been colored or caused me to be biased toward one delivery method over another.
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

73
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
The purpose of this project was to examine the knowledge, motivation and organizational
(KMO) influences that supported and/or inhibited the Inland Unified School District’s (IUSD)
elementary intervention teachers from delivering a hybrid model of intervention that included
both direct instruction and computer assisted instruction. The following questions guided this
study:
1. What are the elementary intervention teachers’ knowledge and motivation related to
providing academic intervention in reading using a hybrid model, to at-risk students?
2. What do elementary intervention teachers perceive to be the critical organizational
influences or resources impacting their knowledge and motivation to provide academic
intervention in reading using a hybrid model, to at-risk students?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources?
Data were collected through a series of interviews with ten of IUSD’s elementary
intervention teachers, as well as a limited review of documents pertaining to the training and
support IUSD provided to the intervention teachers over a period of three years. This chapter
begins with a description of the stakeholders under study. This is followed by a discussion of the
findings and themes that emerged from an analysis of the qualitative data, based on the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences present in the context of IUSD. The
findings section attempts to answer Research Questions 1, and 2, as Question 3 will be addressed
in Chapter Five.

KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

74
Participating Stakeholders
There were approximately 34 elementary intervention teachers employed in IUSD at the
time of this study, with each elementary school having at least one full time equivalent (FTE)
intervention teacher and just over half of the schools having the services of two FTEs. In order
to keep the number of participants manageable and representative, given the time-bound nature
of the study, ten teachers were selected for study. These teachers varied in experience within the
field of education and in the position of elementary intervention teacher. The school district is
unique in that it can roughly be bifurcated into two, distinct geographic regions. One region
tends to contain schools in which fewer students qualify for federal free or reduced fee lunch (a
typical measure of poverty among families), while the other contains schools with significantly
more students who qualify for federal free or reduced fee lunch subsidies. These portions of the
district are commonly referred to within IUSD as the “Hills” and the “Valley,” respectively.
Taking this into consideration, the sample was split evenly along those lines, with five teachers
selected from the Hills and five from the Valley. Tables 5, 6, and 7 detail the regional
breakdown of the teacher sample, years of experience in education, and years of experience as an
elementary intervention teacher.
Table 5
Schools Included in Study by Geographic Location
Name of School Geographic Location
Adams Valley
Burr Hills
Hamilton Hills
Jefferson Hills
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

75
Schuyler * Valley
Mulligan Valley
Reynolds Hills
Madison Valley
Washington Hills
Note. Pseudonyms are being used for the elementary school names. *Two intervention teachers were interviewed
from one school.

Table 6
Intervention Teachers’ Experience in Education
Years Number of Teachers
1 to 5 0
6 to 10 2
11 to 15 3
16 to 20 2
21 to 25 2
26 to 30 0
31 to 36 1

Table 7
Experience as Elementary Intervention Teacher
Years Number of Teachers
1 0
2 0
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

76
3 2
4 5
5+ 3

Findings
This study examined the KMO influences supporting and/or inhibiting elementary
intervention teachers from performing their job of providing reading intervention to at-risk
students by utilizing a hybrid model combining computer assisted instruction with teacher direct
instruction. The assumed influences (Tables 2, 3 and 4) and the conceptual framework (Figure
1) presented in Chapter Two were grounded in evidence from the research literature base and
reconceptualized based upon my experiential knowledge of the specific context within the
organization. The findings presented in this chapter are the result of semi-structured interviews
with ten elementary intervention teachers that took place in June and September of 2018,
respectively. Additional data were collected through a document review which occurred from
June to August 2018. Three themes emerged through the data analysis process that provide
insight into the research questions and corroborate the assumed influences shared in Tables 2, 3
and 4. Additionally, these themes illuminate interactions between organizational and
knowledge/motivation influences (themes one and three) and between motivation and knowledge
influences (theme two). The three themes are as follows:
1. Elementary intervention teachers possessed strong base-level knowledge (Level 1) and
desire for the organization to provide them with a deeper level of knowledge and skills
(Level 2) related to their work.
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

77
2. Being connected to job-alike colleagues was important for sharing ideas and
combatting feelings of isolation.
3. Decisive administrative leadership at the school site level assisted elementary
intervention teachers in effectively performing their jobs.
Elementary Intervention Teachers Possessed Strong Base-Level Knowledge (Level 1) and
Desire for the Organization to Provide Them with a Deeper Level of Knowledge (Level 2)
Related to Their Work
The interviews with intervention teachers and artifact/document review highlighted that
over the four years IUSD has actively supported its MTSS framework in academics at the
elementary level the organization has provided a strong foundation of knowledge to its teachers
doing that work. This foundation has thus produced what could be described as Level 1
knowledge. This level of knowledge includes both conceptual and procedural knowledge
(Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Krathwohl (2002) described conceptual knowledge as
knowledge of how disparate concepts relate to each other to form relationships. Individuals
possess procedural knowledge when they understand how to do a general or specific task or
function (Rueda, 2011). This organizational function interacts with teacher knowledge, as might
be expected, and their motivation. When individuals are provided with the knowledge and skills
needed to perform their jobs they are more likely to make the active choice to put forth the
mental effort required for the job and persist when the job becomes difficult (Clark & Estes,
2008). These knowledge types are directly connected to Research Questions 1 and 2 (as detailed
above). During the interviews the elementary intervention teachers addressed and reflected upon
their depth of knowledge of the preferred teaching model (hybrid) and the training that
accompanied the implementation of the software program, the district-arranged professional
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

78
learning community (PLC) meetings where they learned about the district’s MTSS framework
and expectations, and their use of intervention strategies. There is evidence that suggests the
intervention teachers possessed the Level 1 knowledge and skills the district intended them to
learn, but moving into the future they perceived a need for IUSD to move beyond Level 1
knowledge and skills to a deeper knowledge and more nuanced skill set, or Level 2 knowledge
and skills, if they are to continue to grow as professionals and better serve at-risk students.
Virtually all of the intervention teachers were meeting the goal of regularly utilizing
the hybrid model for reading intervention.
Nine out of the ten teachers interviewed stated they regularly used the hybrid intervention
model. This model utilizes computer software to diagnostically place students at a certain level
within the program at which they begin skill building for improved reading performance. The
software provided video game-like activities to instruct students at their level. The hybrid nature
of the model occurs when the intervention teachers stop students from interacting with the
computer software and provide them with directed, skill specific instruction when the student
become “stuck” or are not successful in the program. Teachers are notified by the software that a
student may be experiencing troubles by the presence of a red apple icon on the student’s screen.
Each of the teachers using the model had established a procedure or structure for this type of
teaching model. Sally, a teacher from Jefferson school, located in the Hills, noted that “I teach
my kids as soon as they see a red apple, which is an indicator that they are struggling, they know
to raise their hand and ask for help.” Sally explained her classroom structure as:
They come in and work independently and the actual program itself tells me when there
is a problem with an activity… I want to address that problem as soon as possible. I will
pull them off of that program to not continuing to spin their wheels, and address that
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

79
need as soon as possible. I will pull them, sometimes you have kids with the same
need, and I can work with two or three kids, sometimes it's a one-on-one basis. I
typically have a list ‘when I have to see Miss [Sally] today’ and their name will be up
there and they know at some point during their intervention time, I'm gonna call them
over to see me.
When asked if the district prescribed the specific structure of her classroom and instruction, Sally
commented, “My understanding, when Lexia is given out, is you should be teaching the program
to fidelity. I personally teach it to fidelity.” Noelle and Gansle (2006), in discussing treatment
integrity – another term for intervention fidelity – stated that “an intervention is effective only to
the extent that it is implemented” (p. 33). This means that if an intervention is not implemented
as planned or with fidelity it cannot be deemed effective. Sally’s explanation of the red apple
icon, its significance, and her classroom structure for providing intervention clearly indicate that
she has knowledge of and is actively implementing the hybrid model preferred by IUSD.
Moreover, her comment that she is teaching the program with “fidelity” infers that she believes
she is performing in accordance with the district’s desires.
Another example of IUSD’s teachers utilizing the hybrid model came from Dolley, a
teacher from a Valley school. Dolley typically works with primary grades students (grades one
through three) as her school (Madison) has two intervention teachers due to being designated a
Title I school. Title I schools are provided additional fiscal resources to support increasing
academic achievement. At Madison, among other programs and services to support their
students of poverty and low performers, the school employs an additional intervention teacher.
When asked about what she uses to provide academic intervention she stated “We use Lexia.
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

80
This is our second year, third year. No, it's our third year.” Dolley continued to explain the
structure of her classroom and the accompanying instruction:
It's very individualized…I see a student is struggling based on how they're doing in a
lesson. It notifies pretty quickly. It lets you know if they're spending a lot of time on a
lesson. You can see how much time they're spending. If they’re…attempting to do the
lesson over and over then it's like a red flag. It pops up. It lets me know ‘hey you need to
pull this student’ and kind of go over [skills]. It will even tell me really specifically
[what] they’re missing…I'll look at the lesson that [it] provides. I read it and I'll go
through with it…[They] come to work with me at the table. And sometimes I'll have
more than one need so I'll start with one and then I'll kind of move on to the next.
Sometimes I will have three kids with me at the back table.
Although Dolley’s description of the manner in which the computer program alerts the
teacher was slightly different than Sally’s, the essence of the comment was the same. Dolley
was keenly aware of her student’s progress while engaged in the program and was constantly
monitoring her students’ progress. When she mentioned students “come to work with me at the
table,” she means she pulled the student away from the computer program and worked in small
groups with a student or group of students who may have been struggling. Vaughn, Denton, and
Fletcher (2010) contend that secondary prevention structures, like the one described by Dolley,
are more skill-focused, occur within small groups, and are delivered for a specific time. Dolley’s
description of her classroom and how she responded to and supported struggling learners can
clearly be categorized as a secondary prevention structure, and therefore in alignment with the
district expectation. During initial implementation of the hybrid model, IUSD provided the
intervention teachers knowledge through training in which they were made aware of the system
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

81
prompts or alters and to provide appropriate teacher-directed instruction to the students when
necessary. The comments of Dolley and Sally indicate that they acted on that knowledge as a
regular part of their practice.
IUSD provided Level 1 knowledge in the selection of and training on identified
resources when implementing the reading intervention program.
Early in the MTSS framework planning process IUSD made the decision to allow schools
to choose from a short list of interventions. The interventions had to conform to certain criteria
that were established by an MTSS-A Committee assembled to provide guidance in the
development of the framework. Three meeting agendas and one document containing meeting
minutes were obtained and analyzed during data collection. To protect the anonymity of the
school district and teachers under study, the documents have been redacted to remove
identifiable information. This includes the name and title of a guest speaker who presented at one
of the committee meetings.
Figure 2 is a partially redacted agenda from the committee meeting in February 2015 in
which the district brought in an intervention researcher from a local university to train committee
members on various portion of the MTSS methodology. This training included learning from
“current research” and “identifying resources…and interventions for use within the various tiers
of intervention.” At the April 2015 committee meeting the district’s elementary intervention
teachers were included, as illustrated in Figure 3, and the two groups were asked to apply a set of
criteria to programs found on the “What Works Clearinghouse” website to find potential
resources for the district. What Works Clearinghouse is a public website maintained by the
Institute of Education Sciences, a division of the U.S. Department of Education, that reviews and
vets educational research in the areas of “programs, products, practices, and policies” (What
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

82
Works Clearinghouse, n.d.). At this meeting the committee engaged in searching for potential
resources and were tasked with determining ones for closer review. Figure 4 is the partially
redacted agenda for the final meeting of that year in which the combined MTSS Committee and
Interventions Teachers group provided final recommendations to the district for “viable Tier 2
programs” for the next year. At this meeting, the combined group compiled recommendations
that were acted upon by IUSD. In the meeting notes from that day, one of the programs listed as
a potential Tier 2 product was Lexia Reading. This is the computer-assisted reading intervention
program that was adopted by the district and is part of the hybrid intervention model under study.
The documents presented here and reviewed during the data collecting process provide evidence
that these activities occurred. The meeting agendas from the IUSD MTSS-A Committee
meetings that occurred between February to May 2015 substantiate the claim that the district
engaged in a purposeful process to learn about, apply a standard set of criteria toward, and
identify research-proven resources for use in the MTSS framework.
Figure 2

Redacted agenda number 1 from Committee meeting.
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

83
Figure 3

Redacted agenda number 2 from Committee meeting.
Figure 4

Redacted agenda number 3 from Committee meeting.
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

84
Figure 5

Partially redacted meeting notes from Committee meeting.
Once selected, IUSD provided each intervention teacher with introductory or launch
training and one year of professional development support for the computer assisted instruction
program. IUSD identified the potential for knowledge and skill gaps to exist with the
introduction of the new materials, so the organization chose to allocate resources toward
employee development to increase the knowledge and skills of their workforce (Aguinis &
Kraiger, 2009; Grossman & Salas, 2011). Specifically, when asked about the launch training,
the intervention teachers expressed satisfaction with the experience. One of the teachers,
Melanie from Mulligan school located in the Valley, said “We originally were trained by the
Lexia people, so I feel like I am very comfortable with the program.” Teddie from Burr school
in the Hills commented “the Lexia training was completely valuable and we needed that.” When
asked about any ongoing support that was provided to the intervention teachers by IUSD, Sally
from Jefferson school explained the support provided as follows:
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

85
I did have professional development through that program. That was super helpful,
being able to learn how to read the data within that program. I was able to have …
Someone actually came out to the school and watched me do it and gave me suggestions
on some of the things that they offer that I didn't know about within the program. That
was really fantastic.
Summing up the level of base support provided by IUSD to the elementary intervention teachers
during the initial launch period, Angelica, from Schuyler school located in the Valley, said “I
feel resourced. I feel the district has done an excellent job of resourcing me with a spectrum of
curriculums to address different reading needs.” All ten of the elementary intervention teachers
made statements similar to this when asked to described the support the District provided to them
to do their jobs.
When Melanie stated that she was comfortable with the program, we can infer that is due
to the publisher training that was provided. This statement was supported by Teddie’s comments
that the training was valuable and by Sally when she ended her explanation by punctuating the
support was “really fantastic.” Finally, Angelica’s statement was a clear example that the
resources and support provided to the teachers by IUSD gave them the perception they had the
knowledge necessary to run the program. Additionally, their comments could be viewed as in
alignment with the work of Aguinis and Kraiger, (2009) who asserted that well-designed training
programs can bring about measurable increases in an individual’s procedural and strategic
knowledge.
IUSD provided dedicated intervention teacher meetings (PLCs) over three years to
support the teachers’ work and provide them Level 1 knowledge and skills.
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

86
Similarly to the product acquisition and training decision described in the subtheme
above, IUSD made the commitment to provide job-alike support meetings to the elementary
intervention teachers from the inception of the MTSS framework. This could have been done for
many reasons. Before IUSD engaged in the work of bringing cohesion to the intervention
structure in the district, the provision of academic support to at-risk students was done in what
could be described as a hap-hazard manner. The district provided the teacher, curricular
resources, and limited direction to school sites. In talking with the intervention teachers for this
study many stated the success and direction of the intervention programs at their school sites
(prior to the commencement of intervention teacher PLC meetings) was largely dependent on
decisions they made in isolation. That is, if they saw fit to provide intervention in a certain
manner, they did it. IUSD provided very limited direction in the form of processes and
procedures to guide their work. One of the veteran intervention teachers named Abigail
described her experience early on as “I felt like as a teacher I was kind of out there on my own. I
was the program unto myself in some ways…There was no support. We were kind of out there.”
When asked to elaborate on the type of support she was or was not provided very early on she
describes it as:
I just kind of had to set things up...The climate in the school [was] very supportive to
intervention, intervention programs, I just feel like there could [have been] a little bit
more administrative support, more training, and I felt like the administrators are coming
to me for information, to me for things rather than... there just wasn't a lot of knowledge
and leadership going on.
By Abigail using the phrase “program unto myself” she meant that she felt as though she was
doing her job without clear direction and guidance. At the time she started intervention she had
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

87
more than two decades of experience teaching in both general and special education roles, so it
could be assumed that the lack of support, while frustrating and probably troublesome, did not
preclude her from providing support for students. This point is supported by her mention of the
culture at the school being “supportive of intervention, intervention programs.” Gallimore and
Goldenberg (2001) conceptualized culture as being composed of discrete units of analysis they
called cultural models and cultural settings. Cultural settings are those places where people
gather to accomplish a task. In the conceptual framework for this study it has been posited that
elementary intervention teachers must be provided with cultural settings in which they receive
appropriated professional learning opportunities to help them do their jobs. Before IUSD
undertook the work of building a uniform structure of supports for students and a more organized
work structure for the intervention teachers, Abigail’s comment highlighted the need for the
district to provide structured support for their intervention teachers in doing meaningful work.
During the data collection process, I uncovered a number of agendas for intervention
teacher meetings, the earliest of these dated September 2015, and documents explaining
intervention procedures. From the agendas it appears the intervention teacher meetings were
dedicated to: supporting teacher understanding of the MTSS framework (from a theoretical
standpoint), training on various process and procedures related to implementing supports within
the framework, base-level data analysis and progress monitoring practices, communicating
results of intervention to stakeholders, and collaborating with job-alike colleagues to improve
practice. The meetings varied in date but generally occurred three times per year. Saunders,
Goldenberg and Gallimore (2009) found significant improvement in student achievement was
realized in schools when grade-level (job-alike) teams were provided with training, consistent
meeting times, and explicit protocols linking student learning needs to improving instruction.
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

88
The trainings and workshops organized and presented by IUSD appear to support those
findings. An example of an intervention meeting agenda is provided as Figure 6 and an example
of a procedural support document provided to the intervention teachers during a training can be
viewed in Figure 7.
Figure 6

Partially redacted Intervention Teacher Training/PLC agenda.

Figure 7

MTSS-A Decision Flow Chart (Procedural Aide)
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

89
Figure 8 was obtained during data collection and represents a “Goals and Objectives”
document the Director in charge of leading IUSD’s MTSS framework implementation created in
preparation for the 2016-17 school year. This is an illustrative example of similar documents
found for the 2015-16 and 2017-18 school years. In this document there were several projects,
initiatives and committees listed, including the MTSS-A initiative. Under this initiative there are
two sections; one for the “Intervention Teacher Trainings and Workshops” and one for groups
called “Site MTSS Teams.” Akiba and Liang (2016) found that ongoing professional learning for
teachers has a positive impact on their knowledge of content, pedagogical, instructional and
assessment practice and self-efficacy. The goals and objectives, projects and meeting dates
columns for the intervention teacher trainings and workshops section support the assertion that
IUSD purposefully engaged in providing dedicated support to the intervention teachers in the
district and are supportive of the findings from Akiba and Liang (2016). Moreover, by the
definition provided by Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) these professional learning
opportunities could easily be categorized as cultural settings; a setting in which the teachers were
provided with knowledge to effectively implement the district’s MTSS framework.
Figure 8

Partially redacted Department Goals and Objectives document from IUSD Curriculum Department.
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

90
Intervention teachers felt the PLCs need to evolve to address the Level 2
knowledge and skills perceived necessary by the teachers.
The IUSD elementary intervention teachers have been supported by the district with
regular professional learning community (PLC) meetings since September 2015. PLCs were
made popular through the work of DuFour and Eaker (2009) and have been found to be a
supportive structure for teachers and other educational professionals who share similar work or
problems of practice. Lieberman and Miller (2011) described this type of arrangement as one in
which teachers collectively construct and share new knowledge and skills to increase student
learning. As described in the prior subtheme, IUSD intervention teachers engaged in acquiring
Level 1 knowledge that directly impacted their practice of providing reading intervention to at-
risk students. This regular, ongoing support was recognized and appreciated by the elementary
intervention teachers. When asked to describe the PLCs she had been a part of as an intervention
teacher, Dolley stated it this way:
As an intervention group we did meet three times a year and kind of go over data and
what was, what sites were doing. How they were working out kinks or working things out
and suggestions. It's good to hear what other schools, what other teacher are doing, what
other sites are doing.
When asked about how she felt about the intervention teacher PLCs , Abigail stated:
I think it's really helpful to talk to other intervention teachers. I think we're having similar
problems or similar successes, and have different ideas. And it feels better to come in and
feel like we're in the same situation.
From Dolley’s comments we can infer the PLC meetings helped her process the work she was
doing at her school site. By using the term “working out the kinks,” she meant the process of trial
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

91
and error that often comes with learning something new. A similar sentiment could be seen in
Abigail’s comments. She said the PLCs helped her feel as though she was in the same ‘situation’
as the other intervention teachers. They both appreciated the supportive environment of the PLC
meetings.
Angelica’s comments regarding the regular intervention teacher meetings seem to build
upon the thoughts shared by Dolley and Abigail. She described the PLCs as follows:
Well, we have our intervention meetings and so we learn there. I love being connected to
the other intervention teachers because if you read the emails, we get stuck, and we first
talk here on campus, and then we have community, educated community and people who
are doing our job and figured it out…I'm not just blowing sunshine, but really the
meetings with the other MTSS, the other intervention teachers, they're gold.
In describing the intervention teacher PLCs all three teachers used positive sensory language to
express how they felt as a result of these meetings. Horn and Little (2010) found PLCs support
teacher engagement in rich, reflective conversations around unique problems of practice. Dolley
shared that as a result of the PLCs she feels its “good to hear [from others]”, whereas Abigail
described the outcome as one that makes her “feel better,” and Angelica shared the strongest
description when she expressed she “love[s] being connected” and the meetings are “gold.” All
of these expressions are in alignment with research on the potential positive effects of PLCs on
their participants.
Table 6 displayed the range of years of experience in the position of elementary
intervention teacher. There were no teachers involved in this study that had fewer than three
years of experience in this position. Eighty percent (80%) of the participating teachers had four
or more years of experience as an elementary intervention teacher in IUSD. Table 7 shows the
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

92
total years of experience in the field of education for the teachers participating in this study.
Again, 80% of the teachers in this study had between 11 and 36 years of experience in the field
of education. Digging deeper into this group, 50% of that segment had 16 to 25 years of
experience in teaching. During the interviews with the intervention teachers, all ten of the
teachers mentioned they were ready for IUSD to provide them with additional professional
learning that was beyond Level 1 knowledge and skills, which is what they had been
experiencing over the last calendar year. Melanie, an intervention teacher who is in the “5 +”
category for years of experience as an intervention teacher, described her perceptions of the
topics addressed at the recent PLCs as “…sometimes there's a lot of re-teaching, so I think that
they're not taking into account that some of us have done this for many years, and they're giving
us the same trainings over and over again.” Teddie, an intervention teacher who is in the “3”
category for years of experience as an intervention teacher, expressed the following about her
experience at the most recent intervention teacher PLC:
There wasn't enough information that I felt was valuable to miss a whole day of being
with the kids to go to. Example our last one was all day and it was on [the Universal
Screening Tool] everything we knew… Unless you were a new teacher that came in…but
it is just very basic. I mean the trainees are nice people and but I just don't think it was
very valuable.
These data suggest that this group of professionals felt they needed different professional
learning opportunities than a first- or second-year teacher intervention teacher. When Melanie
stated that “there was a lot of re-teaching” she meant that the topics being presented at the PLCs
were ones she already understood. We can infer from this that she desired something different
and more aligned to her experience level from the current professional learning opportunities.
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

93
Teddie echoed that perception when she mentioned the content on the agenda was not valuable
enough for her to “miss a whole day being with the kids” and that the topics were “very basic.”
Darling-Hammond (1997), in discussing ways to reform school systems regarding the provision
of knowledge and skills to teachers, strongly suggests providing teachers with learning
opportunities that are responsive to their perceived needs. For the elementary intervention
teachers interviewed for this study it is clear that they believed IUSD provided them with
appropriate Level 1 knowledge and skills but they were ready to move beyond this into different
or more nuanced knowledge and skills.
A clear topic for future professional learning emerged during the analysis of the interview
transcripts. Seven of the ten teachers mentioned they would appreciate training in advanced
skills to teach reading. As intervention teachers they realized there are many times when their
students do not respond to the computer-assisted reading instruction and require additional
support. This is the basis for the hybrid intervention model. In those times, the teachers
methodically go through their repertoire of strategies in an attempt to fill the gaps for their
students. In reflecting upon their skills in teaching reading at a fundamental level, 70% of the
teachers indicated they could use a deeper knowledge in this area. In expressing her ideas for
future professional learning the district could provide that would help her do her job, Abigail
commented “I'd like some kind of workshops on reading and reading skills. Higher level reading
skills. We've had some of that, maybe not enough.”
In responding to a similar question, Dolley, a teacher with an advanced background in
reading instruction, stated:
I'm always trying to learn new techniques when it comes to reading, because I feel like
what works with one kid doesn't always necessarily work with another. So, I'm always
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

94
trying to see like is there a workshop I can go to; is there a class I can take. Just to
know [more of] the background – maybe the tricks to like help a student.
Teddie, a teacher with almost ten years of experience in education – all at the elementary
level – shared her thoughts this way:
[I need a] hands on way to meet students that can't learn in a regular classroom
environment. Things that we can do to help [with] comprehension that is so hard to teach.
You know if they can't read the test at their grade level and we're expecting them to
comprehend it on the [state summative assessment] I don't know how to help with that.
The teachers used slightly different expressions for their perceptions, however, they were
essentially stating the same fundamental need. When Teddie said “help with reading
comprehension,” Dolley mentioned “new techniques when it comes to reading,” and Abigail
shared she would like “workshops on reading skills” they were expressing a desire for more
advanced knowledge in this essential area. Spear-Swerling and Cheesman, (2012), in a study of
142 elementary reading teachers involved in tiered intervention, found that all teachers of
reading need knowledge that facilitates the early identification of struggling students, through
assessment and intervention practices. Catts, Higan, and Adolf (2005) determined knowledge of
effective reading instruction, including phonemic awareness, fluency, vocabulary, and
comprehension, is crucial for teachers who work with struggling readers. The need to address
Level 2 knowledge and skills in the area of foundational reading instruction, desired by the IUSD
elementary interventions teachers, is not only supported by their experiences performing the job
but is in alignment with research in reading instruction and reading intervention.

KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

95
Being Connected to Job-Alike Colleagues was Important for Sharing Ideas and
Combatting Feelings of Isolation
By the nature of their positions in IUSD, the elementary intervention teachers have very
specialized jobs. As elaborated above in Theme 1, the vast majority of the participating teachers
had been in the field of education for over a decade, many for over 20 years, and 100% had been
in the position no less than three years. Although they were considered general education
teachers, that is, not part of special education services, not all of their classroom colleagues
understood the true nature of the intervention work they performed or welcomed them as part of
the general education team. The intervention teachers were sometimes viewed by their general
education colleagues as having some “other” type of position where they could come and go as
they pleased or that they just put kids on computers and watched them as they played. General
classroom teachers who held this view sometimes were hesitant or resistant to sending their
students to intervention. When this misperception was coupled with the lack of a job-alike
colleague on campus with whom they could work collaboratively, a number of the intervention
teachers expressed feelings of isolation. This point was shared by Angelica, who had a partner
intervention teacher at her school, when asked what support the district could provide for
elementary intervention teachers. She said, “Maybe partner a little bit more and have more of
those conversations, 'cause we've been doing intervention for a few years and some intervention
teachers are feeling isolated and alone.” I asked her to clarify what she meant by ‘partner;’
whether that meant a partnership between the intervention teachers and the District or if the
District should have provided partner teachers to all sites. She answered:
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

96
Probably both. Probably both…because I have a lot of support here with [my partner
teacher]
3
and the staff, but when we meet with our [District] MTSS [team] I have learned
that is not the norm. That is not always the norm. There are some [teachers with partners]
but there are a lot of teachers who don’t have partners who get a lot questions and push
back and lack of cooperation.
Angelica’s comments emphasize how, even for veteran teachers, doing intervention work
without a partner teacher can be challenging and can lead to feelings of isolation. It bears
repeating that 50% of the participating teachers in this study and almost half of the overall
intervention teacher group in IUSD did not have a partner teacher at their school site. During the
interview phase of the data collection process there were strong allusions to the harsh reality a
number of the teachers faced when they are the ‘only one’ on campus who performed their job.
These feelings were juxtaposed to those of teachers who worked at a school with more than one
intervention teacher. Some of those teachers made direct statements regarding their partner
teacher while others stated appreciation for being at a school in which they had another teacher
with whom they could closely work, as Angelica mentioned in her comment above. All of the
teachers (100%) shared the powerful impact that PLCs or informal networks had on combatting
feelings of isolation and how they enhanced their professional practice. The emergence of this
theme was unexpected, yet completely understandable and, in hindsight, logical after hours of
interviews with the participating teachers.

3
Teacher name redacted in this quote to respect anonymity.
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

97
Solo elementary intervention teachers clearly recognized the importance of high
self-efficacy and the impact of being the only intervention teacher on their campus.
One of the first teachers interviewed was Sally, a veteran teacher in the “11 to 15 years of
experience” category who has both special education and general education experience. During
the interview Sally shared how she performs her job supporting struggling students with reading.
She mentioned her special education experience was invaluable to her ability to provide support
for students, as she had years of experience differentiating instruction for children and designing
learning environments that were conducive to positive experiences for children. Sally’s
experience in this position has only been at a school assigned one intervention teacher. When we
reached the portion of the interview protocol dedicated to probing on teacher self-efficacy, Sally
stated:
I feel I'm very capable of doing intervention. I think with my background of working
with kids in special needs and being able to accommodate and modify assignments, being
able to understand how sometimes to see and how to spot and how to help students who
could possibly have learning disabilities… has made the transition into an intervention
teacher [role] much easier.
As the interview progressed she was the first to mention the stark differences in peer-to-peer
support that is missing when a teacher is without a partner or another person who performs a
similar job on campus. In the portion of the interview protocol devoted to inquiring about the
support provided by IUSD to the intervention teachers, she stated (emphasis added):
And there's not a lot of time for us to talk about what's working within each other [at the
intervention teacher PLCs]. Especially at school sites that only have one intervention
teacher. Some schools have two or three and so they can talk to each other and tweak
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

98
things and work on things together. For someone like myself, who's here by myself, I
need to set a time, usually outside of the school day, to meet with other intervention
teachers so I sometimes feel we need more time together.
Her comments shed light on what she feels she needs to perform her job well. Clearly,
Sally’s comments about her self-efficacy suggest she believes she has the knowledge and skills
necessary to do her job. What is interesting is her framing of what is missing from the
intervention teacher PLCs. What is important to her, because she is alone at her site, is having
time to connect with other intervention teachers. There is a growing body of research supporting
the positive impact of other types of teacher networks, outside of formal ‘PLCs’, in combatting
professional isolation (Schiff, Herzog, Farley-Ripple, & Iannuccilli, 2015). The collaboration
time is so important to her that Sally seeks out professional connections outside of her work day
to fill the void she has identified with the formal intervention teacher PLCs – “I need to set a
time, usually outside of the school day, to meet with other intervention teachers.” Sally’s
solution to the problem of a lack of open collaboration time for solo intervention teachers is
supported by the research literature and, equally importantly, meets her personal needs and
perceptions.
This feeling was reiterated by Melanie, another veteran intervention teacher. Her
experience was somewhat different from Sally in that she had spent the vast majority of her
tenure as an intervention teacher at a school with two full time intervention teachers. At the time
of the interview she had moved to a new school in which she was the only intervention teacher.
In a section of the interview devoted to inquiry into teachers’ knowledge of the MTSS
framework in IUSD, Melanie interrupted her description of the process (as she understood it)
with the following:
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

99
Here, it's harder because there's only one of me, whereas at my old school I had a
partner, and we were able to meet those needs. But now, I'm just ... we're kinda scaling
back the amount of minutes which ... [I’m] not thrilled about.
The ‘scaling back’ she was referring to was the amount of support she could provide to her
students, from what she was used to providing with a larger team, because she was the only
intervention teacher on site. At a later point in the interview Melanie reflected upon the team she
was a part of at her former school by saying “I didn't even realize how lucky we were at the
time.” Toward the end of the interview she was asked directly to speak to the feelings of
isolation she seemed to be expressing. She stated her feelings as:
I was worried, coming back into intervention and having that feeling [of isolation]. At
[my former school
4
] we had two of us, so we were very close. That position started a very
personal ... we're friends outside…so it really ... I had that with her, and we always had
somebody to bounce something off of, and then coming here and being the only one at an
unfamiliar site was very intimidating.
The final comment should be viewed as a culmination on the reality of isolation felt by
solo intervention teachers. Melanie’s comments denote her desire, and that of the other teachers
who expressed similar feelings, to find another connection with a trusted colleague as some had
experienced in the past. The solo intervention teachers were desiring the organization to provide
them with a cultural setting that includes others who perform the same job. To some degree,
these teachers were provided with that setting during their intervention teacher PLCs, but by the
comments of these teaches, that time was not enough. To fill that gap left by the organization, the
solo intervention teachers have created their own informal networks (cultural settings) through

4
School name removed to protect anonymity of school and teacher.
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

100
which they can connect with others. Schiff, Herzog, Farley-Ripple, and Iannuccilli, (2015)
identified four key findings in terms of the value teachers place on networks, two of which being
universal value and social value, respectively. The authors asserted that Universal value is
associated with the network’s power to enhance employee satisfaction and knowledge, while the
Social value was connected to the more affective features of networks, such as building and
enhancing friendships, school climate, and supporting the individuals’ emotional needs.
Melanie’s comments, being symbolic of the greater group of solo intervention teachers, suggest
that in the infrequency of the cultural setting created by IUSD – the PLC network – she was
missing both of these aspects.
Opportunities to connect with other intervention teachers were valued and had a
synergistic effect on teacher practices.
One strategy to combat feelings of isolation is to connect employees with others who
preform similar jobs (Mawhinney, 2008; Williams, Prestage, & Bedward, 2001). It was noted in
Theme 1 that IUSD provided support in the form of regular intervention teacher PLCs for the
past three years. Notwithstanding the finding that these meetings need to evolve to the next level,
the IUSD intervention teachers found the time they spend together to be valuable. Interestingly,
many teachers noted the positive impact their informal networks have on improving their
practice and motivation. Mayer (2011) tells us that motivation is an internal phenomenon critical
to the completion of goal-directed behaviors. Additionally, motivation influences the level of
engagement individuals exhibit in their everyday work, the transfer of new learning into work
and the connectedness individuals feel toward the organization (and people within the
organization). During interviews with teachers this fact, the additive value of informal networks,
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

101
rose to the surface as one that had a positive impact on the participating teachers’
professional practice and motivation.
One of the intervention teachers, Abigail, discussed a simple, yet powerful informal
connection that was impactful for her. When asked to share her feelings of the collaboration she
had experience with as an intervention teacher, she commented:
One of the best things that happened last year was that we sent out a group email and then
the list of all the intervention teachers on the website. It's funny because you think
something that simple ... But that was really empowering to be able to reach out to other
teachers in the district, other intervention teachers, and collaborate, or just email.
Peggy, a veteran intervention teacher from a Valley school, shared a similar comment
when asked how the district supported their work as intervention teachers. Even though the
question was intended to elicit feedback about a district support or process, she saw one way the
district supported the teachers was to put them in contact with each other. She stated: “We as
intervention teachers also support each other. They've [the other intervention teachers] been
pretty open about e-mailing, meeting, so I've had a good experience.”
Teddie, when asked to describe her perceptions of the value she received from
collaborating with her intervention teacher colleagues, said:
Those were the best parts of the meetings. You know, you've got to hear what people are
doing in their sites and that's all you want to know, you want ideas. It was a great
learning experience for me to hear what they are doing and to know that we are all in the
same boat trying to figure this out together. So, I really enjoy these opportunities.
She continued to describe the tangible benefits she derived from working closely with her
colleagues:
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

102
We share resources. We don't have to come up with our own thing. We did planning
together a couple of summers ago and we'd meet and then we share our communication
tools that go home or report cards that we do for our kids. So…and I think that we [don’t]
all have to create on our own and there's no competitions…it's just I can do this, can you
do this? And it's good.
The types of collaboration or personal connections described by Peggy, Abigail and
Teddie could be viewed as examples of what Williams, Prestage, and Bedward (2001) called
‘spontaneous collaborations.’ The researchers distinguish between two types of collaboration;
that which is structured and collaboration that is spontaneous in nature. They define spontaneous
collaboration as “working relationships between teachers and their colleagues that are
voluntary…development-oriented…and unpredictable” (Williams, Prestage, & Bedward, 2001,
p. 255). Sharing an email and staffing list with the intervention teachers, resulting in the
professionals communicating with each other on topics of their choosing at times that suited
them, fits the definition of spontaneous collaboration. This was true for the out-of-school,
summer preparation work-experience shared by Teddie. These types of connections between
colleagues had the potential to break down silos, enhance teacher knowledge and professional
practice and combat teacher isolation. The spontaneous collaborations built, on a more frequent
basis, the sort of cultural settings the organization was responsible for producing .
To some of the intervention teachers, the physical location of their classroom made
engaging, meaningful collaboration with colleagues difficult. To overcome this challenge,
Angelica took a proactive approach, engaging her principal as part of the solution.
I can't do my job in isolation. I absolutely have to have collaboration. I have to…I have
Peggy [her partner intervention teacher], and we were moved here last year, by the way
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

103
[pointing to her classroom space]. We were on the other side of the campus because
intervention was for the last teachers hired and you get whatever classroom. I was over in
the [farthest] corner, close to four, five, six. Makes sense. She was in a portable on the
other side, and never the two shall meet because we have different schedules and
everything. We asked the principal, ‘We need to collaborate the way grades one, two and
three are grouped and they collaborate.’ Peggy and I need to collaborate, so we were
moved here. Great support. It goes to job satisfaction I think.
The language that Angelica used to describe the significance collaboration has upon her was a
clue to what may have motivated her to approach her site principal for assistance. She was
certain she could not perform the functions of her job without the ability to work with
colleagues. This can be seen in her use of the phrases “cannot work in isolation” and “absolutely
have to have collaboration.” Clearly, Angelica perceived collaboration with colleagues to be
mission critical to the performance of her job as a reading intervention teacher – “Peggy and I
need to collaborate.” This perception was so strong that it led her to exercise a level of boldness
in asking for a room relocation to be closer to her partner teacher. In her statement she
connected the importance of the collaboration between she and her partner to be on the same
level as that of other general education teachers at Schuyler school. This belief that the two
groups’ collaborations are equal speaks to the power of Collective Efficacy. Bandura (2000)
asserts that the self-efficacy individuals feel toward their own knowledge, skills and abilities is
manifested in groups or social settings as Collective Efficacy. In a study of 75 Italian Junior
High Schools, which included over 2000 teachers, Caprara et al (2006) found that teachers’ self-
efficacy (their Collective Efficacy) had positive effects on job satisfaction and student
achievement. Angelica’s description ends with the reflection that the room change was evidence
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

104
of the way her principal supports her work and that it led to increased job satisfaction. Her
statement is in alignment with the findings in the Capara et al (2006) study.
Another type of collaboration opportunity that was mentioned during teacher interviews
was that of ‘informal’ or ‘social’ networks. These terms are used to describe the connections the
IUSD intervention teachers make with trusted colleagues outside of their regular work day (as
described by Sally) and outside of the regular work environment. For some of the teachers, these
collaborations serve to provide emotional support for the often-difficult job they perform. In
years past these connections may have taken place in the teachers’ lounge or other “school-based
congregational spaces used for teacher-to-teacher interaction” during a break in the school day or
over lunch (Mawhinney, 2008, p. 196). Other teachers use these types of collaborations as
informal professional learning. During a portion of the interview devoted to collecting
information about teacher PLCs in IUSD, Martha, a veteran teacher from a Hills school,
answered a question about the location where the PLCs took place this way: “In the classroom.
Oh, are you saying like here at school or there at Mike’s
5
?” Later in the interview she went into
more depth about her informal network:
I think at this point in time, after four years now you've kind of started networking. So,
like [Teacher A] and [Teacher B], [Teacher C]
6
and the gal that, what's her name?
[Teacher D]. We kind of chit chat. And so, when there was frustrations, like when it
comes time to test, [Teacher D] helps. So, she's really good about [providing] that
[support].

5
Name of location deidentified.
6
Teacher names redacted in this quote to respect anonymity.
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

105
Martha described the informal, colleague-initiated support she received to be as
valuable to her practice as the formal training and support she was provided by IUSD, especially
with testing students. These supports sessions occurred outside of the regular work environment.
Interestingly, the ‘Mike’s’ Martha referred to when asked about the location of where she and
her colleagues met is a partial name of a local restaurant frequented by district employees. In this
brief comment, Martha gave me insight into where she believed meaningful interactions take
place. Her statement supports Mawhinney’s (2008) finding that the physical space in which
teachers engage in informal collaboration and social support is important. To IUSD’s elementary
intervention teachers, being provided typical spaces in which to collaborate was less important
than ensuring they connected with trusted colleagues to provide symbiotic support that improved
their Collective Efficacy. This links to one of the influences in the conceptual framework;
cultural settings. The organization (IUSD) is responsible for its overall culture, as noted by
Gallimore & Goldenberg (2001). Clearly, the elementary intervention teachers were longing for
more regular, meaningful collaboration times with trusted job-alike colleagues. IUSD would be
wise to address this need and in doing so could gain credibility with an important employee
group.
Decisive Administrative Leadership at the School Site Level Assisted Elementary
Intervention Teachers in Effectively Performing Their Jobs
IUSD’s elementary intervention teachers possess the base-level knowledge, skills and the
motivation in order to perform their jobs of providing reading intervention to at-risk students
using the hybrid model. However, Clark and Estes (2008) remind us that even employees with
all the necessary knowledge and motivation may not achieve their goal if there are organizational
barriers placed in their path. Those barriers or challenges often materialize in the form of
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

106
resource availability or process/procedure hurdles. Organizations control these factors;
factors which it has been argued can be most impacted by leaders (Clark & Estes, 2008). In
school districts, one important group of leaders are school site administrators. School site
administrators, herein referred to as principals, are often viewed as the CEO of their school. This
group of leaders are the organizational agents charged with ensuring the orderly operation of the
school site and are held accountable for the academic achievement of the students enrolled at the
school. Fullan (2004) posits effective principals have the ability to positively change culture,
encourage problem solving and deep learning among staff, and build the leadership capacity of
others in the work of sustaining change.
The Conceptual Framework for this study asserted the IUSD intervention teachers’ work
was influenced by the Cultural Settings and Models sustained by the organization. Gallimore &
Goldenberg (2001) hypothesized overall organizational cultural could be bifurcated into discreet
parts they called Cultural Settings and Models. Cultural settings are those physical spaces where
members of an organization find themselves in, such as a school or a professional learning
opportunity. IUSD’s district administration exercised influence over the cultural settings
experienced by the intervention teachers through the professional learning opportunities provided
to them since the inception of the MTSS framework roll-out, the implementation of district-
purchased instructional resources, and provision of the intervention teacher PLCs. This was
discussed at length in Theme 1 and 2 above. Gallimore & Goldenberg (2001) write of cultural
models as intangible or unseen influences that can impact employees in the achievement of their
goals. Examples of these would be various ways of understanding, thinking and acting that are
perpetuated by an organization (as a whole) or leader within and organization. The school
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

107
principals in IUSD have a direct effect on the cultural models experienced by the elementary
intervention teachers.
This finding helps to answer Research Question 2 (as detailed above) and addresses the
assumed motivational and organizational influences listed in Table 8. From analysis of the
interview transcripts there is evidence that suggests IUSD principals play an important role in the
intervention teachers preforming their job effectively and reaching the organizational goal of
each teacher utilizing the hybrid model for reading intervention. Two particular areas of
leadership, or cultural models, that came through in the data were the influence principals have
on implementing an instructional schedule at their school site and the trust they demonstrate in
their intervention teachers.
Instructional or master schedules were perceived to be critical to the successful
implementation of reading intervention.
Within an MTSS framework, students failing or at-risk of failing can be provided with
targeted support specific to their identified needs. In Chapters One and Two, each tier of the
MTSS framework as implemented in IUSD was described. A hallmark of the MTSS framework
in IUSD is the ability to vary the number of students in each grade level group and the frequency
with which they receive the intervention treatment. Students in various grade levels all have
distinct needs that require slightly different solutions. This reality can quickly create a situation
in which an intervention teacher or team, in an attempt to maximize their time and resources,
must develop a schedule with which they will organize service for struggling students. As a
colleague of the general education teachers on campus the elementary intervention teachers do
not have the authority to impose a certain schedule of services on a school site staff. To
accomplish this task, they must rely on the authority of the school principal.
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

108
During the interviews a clear theme that emerged was the necessity of a uniform
schedule that organizes when intervention will occur and ensures students enrolled in the
treatment will not miss core instruction as a result of receiving the reading support. The
intervention teachers were adamant that this type of support must be championed by the
principal. As the instructional leader on the campus, the principal is uniquely positioned to make
this crucial support a reality for the intervention teachers. Dolley described her principal’s
support with a schedule as: “That's the other thing is we have a master schedule. Our principal
doesn't want to interrupt core time so we are on a master schedule.” Further into the interview
she expanded on the impact a defined schedule has on her and the other teachers at her school.
In referring to how her practice has been influenced as a result of the master schedule, Dolley
stated:
I don't feel rushed because when I first started Lexia, I was only able to see them
sometimes twice a week for 10 weeks because of the way we didn't have a master
schedule and things like that. So, at that point it was a little frustrating because I felt like I
wasn't giving them the support that they needed.
From her comments we can see that the absence of a defined schedule for instruction, or a master
schedule, was a cause of frustration. Dolley did not have the ability to “see” the students as often
as she deemed necessary because of the way intervention was scheduled or time was structured.
When Dolley said “I don’t feel rushed,” we can infer that the presence of the master schedule
puts her more at ease and gives her the time she needs to better serve her students. We can
extrapolate that having a schedule has helped to increase her self-efficacy, as evidenced by her
comment that previous to the schedule she felt frustrated because she “wasn’t giving them the
support they needed.” When individuals feel self-efficacious, they are more likely to choose a
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

109
challenging task, expend the mental effort to complete the activity, and to engage in self-
regulatory strategies in planning for the next activity (Bandura, 2000; Pajares, 2006). For
Dolley, the implementation of a master schedule allowed her to provide services to more student
with a more confident mindset and it also met the needs of the teachers from whom students
were begin taken for intervention.
A lot of teachers don't like their students being pulled out of the classrooms. That kind of
led for her to make this master schedule because when intervention first started there
wasn't [a master schedule]. She brought in this new master schedule that more teachers
were on board with because they [the students] weren't being pulled from their core time.
The intervention teachers recognized that the principal must exercise leadership in the
implementation of a master schedule. Dolley verbalized this point when she characterized her
principal as “She's been super supportive because there was a lot of push back on her as far as
students being pulled [for intervention].” A similar feeling was shared by Teddie when asked
how her supervisor supports her role and about where scheduling fit into providing reading
intervention. She stated her feelings this way:
She's really good about not pulling [me] to other things. She values the program so she
makes sure that I'm in my classroom able to do it. She is giving me great schedules so I
have time to progress monitor because it's time consuming…The whole master schedule
is built upon intervention. So, they [teachers] are given the intervention schedule and then
they build off of that to make sure that these kids aren't missing any [class].
When asked how her supervisor supports her role as an elementary intervention teacher,
Angelica stated:
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

110
Well, first of all, that there's a master calendar that shows that it's valued, because [if]
there is no master calendar, then I wouldn't have clear time for intervention to happen.
Then it would not be effective, and then, the teachers would use that as, ‘See, I'm not
sending my kiddos. What you do is ineffective.’ So, my position is valued. The schedule
provides for me to be successful.
The “it” Angelica is speaking of in her statement refers to her job; providing reading
intervention. She perceived the mere presence of a master schedule at Schuyler school
demonstrates that her principal values intervention and values her position. She stated this when
she said “my position is valued” and it caused her to be more “successful.” This was shared by
Teddie, as well, when she stated “she values the program so she makes sure I’m in my classroom
to do it.” Built into the Conceptual Framework of this study, and one of the assumed influences
based upon the research literature, is Expectancy Value. Expectancy Value Theory (EVT), states
that individuals make choices based upon two dynamics; the expected level of success and the
perceived value the individual places upon the choice or the outcome (Eccles, 2006). Pajares
(2006) alludes to EVT being connected to self-efficacy. In Angelica’s statement describing the
impact the schedule had on her practice, “The schedule provides for me to be successful,” it can
be extrapolated that she felt more efficacious and, therefore, valued by her supervisor and the
overall staff. When teachers feel their actions are valued by the important people in their
professional life, their co-workers and supervisor, they are more likely to find value in the
activity themselves (Foley, 2011).
Trust was an important part of a supportive environment for teachers.
Throughout the interview process the IUSD intervention teachers shared myriad
examples of how principal leadership affects their daily work. Many teachers provided examples
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

111
of ways both district and site leadership provided resources, training and time for them to
perform their jobs well. One consistent factor found in virtually all of the comments pertaining
to leadership was the concept of trust. Teachers expressed this concept differently; some
mentioned directly that they felt trusted by their principals while others stated that their
principals let them do their jobs. This last incarnation can be understood as having trust placed
in the teacher, to the degree they do not require consistent supervision. Ultimately the presence
of a trusting relationship between the intervention teachers and the principals was crucial to the
teachers’ perception of a successful intervention program.
Melanie, a veteran intervention teacher and one of the first to teachers to bring the hybrid
model of reading intervention to IUSD, when asked to describe the type of support provided by
her principal, verbalized it this way:
The fact that she used [school funds] to hire aides for us to create a tier 3, tier 2 program,
to differentiate between those. The fact that she gave us the ability to research these
programs and present them, she was very supportive and gave us – [she] had a lot of trust
in us.
When the same question about principal support was posed to Sally, she shared, “She just lets me
do what I need to do. To be honest, she trusts in what I'm doing.”
A number of teachers expressed the manner in which their principal exercised trust in
their work as experts in providing intervention. Peggy described her principal as:
He's very supportive. He will back me no matter what. I've had to come back and say, ‘I'm
sorry. I disagree with this [a certain] program for certain students’ needs, especially the
first graders who are ELL's. On top of having speech impediments, some children cannot
hear the prompt in the program. He would say, ‘Do whatever you feel that ...You're the
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

112
expert and you do whatever you feel that, that intervention needs to be met.’ So, he's
been very supportive.
Angelica, Peggy’s partner intervention teacher at Schuyler school, described the same principal
as: “He's very easy to work for, and he believes in us as professionals.”
Eliza, a teacher from Hamilton school in the Hills, characterized her principal’s expression
of trust in the intervention team as:
I think she supported us by knowing that we were doing our job. And so, when it came
down that there were any issues with teachers, really towards the end there wasn't, because
we had such a good program… She supported us in a way that basically the teachers
probably didn't even bother going to her if they were not happy with something, because
she knew we were doing our job the way we were supposed to do it.
When Peggy uses the term “He’s got my back” in her description, she meant the principal
trusted the work she did and showed support to her. This is also seen toward the end of the quote
when she expressed that even when she disagreed with the recommendation of a certain program
the principal deferred to her expertise in the final decision – “You're the expert and you do
whatever you feel…” Deferring to a perceived level of expertise can be an informal way for a
leader to show support for a subordinate. Eliza shared similar feelings by mentioning the
principal knew she and her partner were “doing our job.” In the excerpts above, the principals
were perceived to be communicating their trust in the intervention teachers by providing support
for their instructional decisions to the greater teaching staff. Supovitz et al. (2010) identified
three common activities school leaders can engage in to support effective teaching and learning –
two of which are demonstrated here; encouraging trust and collaboration, and actively supporting
instruction. In the words of Angelica, “He believes in us as professionals.” These are examples
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

113
of the powerful nature of cultural models. When an organization promulgates effective
administrative leadership practices, it can enhance the motivation of its employees (Schunk,
Meece, & Pintrich, 2012).
Synthesis
This chapter presented the findings from ten, semi-structured interviews with IUSD’s
elementary reading intervention teachers and a limited document review. The interviews were
designed to understand the knowledge-, motivation-, and organizational-influences on the goal of
providing reading intervention to at-risk students using a hybrid instructional model that
combines computer-assisted with direct teacher instruction. The limited document review was
engaged in to uncover additional evidence to more clearly understand the work IUSD leaders,
both administration and teachers, engaged in while building a MTSS framework to support at-
risk students. Three main themes emerged during analysis and evidence was presented to support
the connection of the themes to the research questions.
The elementary intervention teachers possessed strong base-level knowledge (Level 1)
and desired for the organization to provide them with a deeper level of knowledge and skills
(Level 2) related to their work. All of the teachers interviewed had been in this position for no
less than three years at the time of the study and the group averaged 17.8 years of experience in
their field of education. The level of training they had most recently received had not kept up
with their level of expertise and was perceived to be introductory. All of the teachers noted the
organization had been effective in providing them with the base-level knowledge they needed to
perform their jobs, but they realized the time for more advanced training has arrived. The vast
majority of teachers interviewed (70%) sought advanced knowledge in the teaching of reading.
These findings were consistent with the research literature on the essential skills needed for
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

114
individuals tasked with supporting children who struggle to read and answered Research
Questions 1 and partially 2.
The intervention teachers expressed an understanding of the powerful influences being
connected to job-alike colleagues had for sharing ideas and combatting feelings of isolation.
Roughly half of the overall elementary intervention teacher group in IUSD and exactly half of
the sample group of teachers in the study did not have a partner teacher at the school site to
which they were assigned. This was referred to as being a “solo” intervention teacher. Teachers
in this group were keenly aware of the struggles they faced without a partner, most importantly, a
feeling of isolation. To combat this, the teachers developed formal support networks and
informal social networks with job-alike teacher in an effort to share practices and share the
workload. The interactions present here are between the intervention teachers’ motivation and
the organization. That is, because the organization failed to support the teachers with more
frequent cultural settings (PLC or collaboration meetings) the solo teachers drifted into feelings
of isolation, which made it difficult to keep their motivation high. The teachers who had partner
teachers on their site openly expressed gratitude for them and recognized the fortunate position
in which they worked. The strategies utilized by the solo teachers were in alignment with
research on the power of collaborative groups and the positive impact of informal social
networks and answered Research Question 2.
Finally, the data collected during the interviews clearly supported the assertion that
administrative leadership at the school site level is important for the elementary intervention
teachers to effectively perform their jobs. Principals, as agents of the organization, play a pivotal
role in setting up the Cultural Models under which their employees labor. Generally speaking
those organizational functions have direct interaction with and impact the motivations and
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

115
knowledge attainment of the employees. Specifically, the two cultural models identified by
the elementary intervention teachers in this study that had a positive impact on their motivation
were the provision of instructional or master schedules and actions taken by their principals
which demonstrated trust in the work they performed. Within the MTSS framework, students
are placed within discreet tiers of support carefully created to meet their needs. This often results
on multiple groupings which can be difficult to manage. The intervention teachers unequivocally
pointed to the implementation of a master schedule for instruction and intervention as a critical
tool to make their work more effective. This enhanced their motivation. Additionally, the
teachers noted how powerful it was to have a supervisor who trusted their work and treated them
like a professional. These findings are consistent with the literature on effective school
leadership that states, among other things, that effective leaders encourage collaboration among
teachers, engender trust, promote effective communication, and actively support instruction
(Fullan, 2004; Leithwood et al, 2004; Supovitz, Sirinides, & May, 2010;) and answered Research
Question 2.
The findings presented in this chapter and the corresponding evidence from teacher
interviews and document collection are the foundation for the recommendations presented in
Chapter Five.

KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

116
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
The Inland Unified School District (IUSD) has been engaged in the development of a
Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) framework since 2015 for the purpose of helping
students at-risk of failing to meet state standards in reading. This work was focused on the
elementary grades (grades Kindergarten through Six), during which time IUSD placed
intervention teachers at each of its elementary schools to accomplish the organizational goals
stated in Chapter One. Additionally, IUSD invested in a number of research-based curricular
resources, one of which being a computer assisted reading intervention program called Lexia
Core 5 Reading. The instructional design created by IUSD staff for the utilization of the Lexia
resources required the elementary intervention teachers to interact with the computer-assisted
instructional tools in order to fill any gaps in understanding that persisted for the enrolled
students. This model has been referred to as a hybrid instructional model, since the model
combines both computer-assisted and teacher-directed instruction. The purpose of this project
was to examine the knowledge, motivation and organizational (KMO) influences that supported
and/or inhibited IUSD’s elementary intervention teachers from delivering the hybrid
instructional model of intervention. The questions that guided this study were:
1. What are the elementary intervention teachers’ knowledge and motivation related to
providing academic intervention in reading using a hybrid model, to at-risk students?
2. What do elementary intervention teachers perceive to be the critical organizational
influences or resources impacting their knowledge and motivation to provide academic
intervention in reading using a hybrid model, to at-risk students?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources?
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

117
This concluding chapter will discuss the implications for practice, recommendations for
current practice, future research possibilities, and end with a summary of the project.
Implications for Practice
Implications for each stakeholder group identified in Chapter One can be asserted based
on the findings in this study. The conclusions about the elementary intervention teachers, school
site administrators, and academically at-risk students were considered in light of the findings.
Since students were not directly addressed by the study, notwithstanding the research literature
presented herein regarding the documented benefits of highly effective teachers on student
outcomes, the conclusions reached for this important student group are based upon my
experiential knowledge and professional judgment. Implications for these stakeholders are
presented here.
Elementary Intervention Teachers
The creation of an MTSS framework through which early reading intervention was
provided to at-risk students gave many of the IUSD elementary intervention teachers the
opportunity to find their passion in teaching. The findings from this study have shown that the
intervention teachers believed strongly in what they were doing and were willing to work hard to
improve their craft, often enduring professionally isolating conditions, so that IUSD’s most
vulnerable students could enjoy success. If the organization does not change to better support the
existing intervention teacher group, it risks losing these teaches to burn-out, transfer out of the
assignment, or even early retirement. A substantial turn-over in this highly-qualified and
effective group would have dire consequences to IUSD. As noted in the analysis, it took the
intervention teachers at least three years of practice to become confident in their abilities to
provide targeted intervention to academically at-risk students. It stands to reason any new
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

118
teachers would need the same amount of time to become as skilled as the ones who might
leave. This would mean lost productively and potentially slower academic progress while the
teachers become acclimated to the MTSS systems. Conversely, if IUSD were to take heed to
these findings and put in place supports for the intervention teachers, their productivity and
motivation are likely to increase. For example, if IUSD made instructional master schedules a
system-wide structure across all elementary school campuses, this would be viewed very
favorably by the intervention teachers. The resultant outcomes would be increased efficiency of
services, increases in the number of students supported by intervention, and greater coherence
across schools. Additionally, an increase in service to IUSD’s struggling students would likely
increase student outcomes. The instructional schedules would benefit the intervention teachers
by giving them a defined time to see students, as well as sending them a clear signal the
organization was supportive of their work. Changes such as these could result in higher
employee satisfaction and loyalty from the intervention teachers.
School Site Administrators
School site administrators exercised a significant amount of influence over the day-to-
day professional lives of the elementary intervention teachers. The findings of the study
demonstrated that the existence of instructional or master schedules at school sites were crucial
organizational ingredients to the perceived success of the intervention teachers. Also, site
administrators should seize the opportunity to build cultural settings in which the intervention
teachers can collaborate with other intervention teachers and the classroom teacher colleagues at
their particular school. Supporting that type of collaboration has the potential to increase the self-
efficacy of the intervention teachers. When school site administrators provided supports to the
intervention teachers, and those teachers perform at a high-level, students are more likely to have
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

119
their reading gaps closed and do better in school. Increasing student success in reading will
help site administrators meet or exceed their schools’ academic goals. Ultimately, a principal is
assigned to a school site to ensure student outcomes increase year after year. Effective early
intervention can make that year-over-year success a reality for school site principals, so it is in
their self-interest to fully support this District expenditure of fiscal and human resources.
Academically At-Risk Students
Early reading intervention has been shown to greatly improve long-term outcomes for
students. Unfortunately, when academically at-risks students are not provided with effective
reading intervention early in their academic careers, they have far fewer choices later in life.
Many chronically struggling students end up misdiagnosed with learning disabilities and are
forced into more restrictive special education settings. This occurs more frequently for students
of color and male students versus female students (Gersten et al, 2008). Effective intervention
programs support academically at-risk students early, filling instructional gaps, and leading to
increased mastery of academic standards. IUSD’s hybrid reading intervention model had the
potential to assist more students than small-group intervention alone, in a format that engaged
students. The intervention teachers interviewed for the study spoke at length about the increased
confidence they witnessed when students began to progress through the hybrid format. IUSD
must continue to provide supports for its elementary intervention teachers and insist on effective
leadership from its school site administrators, if their students are to close the achievement gap in
reading. This would benefit all stakeholders in IUSD, help the organization reach its stated goals,
and provide bright futures for one of the district’s most vulnerable group of youngsters.

KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

120
Recommendations for Practice
Based on the research literature, the Inland Unified School District (IUSD) has made a
prudent decision to expend organizational resources to build and sustain a Multi-Tiered System
of Supports (MTSS) framework, utilizing research-based materials, to support at-risk students in
reading. The literature suggests there are many benefits to systematic reading intervention
delivered within a tiered model, such as it has the potential to increase the number of students
who receive help to improve their reading ability earlier in their school careers, thereby
potentially decreasing the number of inappropriate refers to special education due to a reading
deficit, particularly for students of color (Gersten et al, 2008). Strengthening the reading ability
of at-risk students can also have a direct, positive impact on those students’ mastery levels on
end of year summative assessments, such as the Smarter Balanced assessments in English
Language Arts; one of the strategic goals within IUSD. The study of teachers’ perceptions of a
hybrid reading intervention model delivered within a MTSS framework found that IUSD had
provided adequate initial training and support for the model, but other aspects of the system
could be enhanced to more completely support the elementary intervention teachers.
Recommendations in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences, based
on the findings of the study, are presented in the following sections.
Knowledge Recommendations
The term knowledge can be enigmatic; its exact meaning often difficult to articulate. A
common conceptualization found in the research literature divides knowledge into four discrete
types: (1) Factual; (2) Conceptual; (3) Procedural; (4) Metacognitive (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda,
2011). In order to perform their jobs correctly the elementary intervention teachers must possess
the requisite knowledge and skills that will allow them to complete their day-to-day tasks and
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

121
problem-solve when they encounter new and novel situations (Alexander, Schallert, &
Reynolds, 2009; Rueda, 2011). For the purposes of this study, the assumed knowledge types that
were focused on were conceptual (declarative) and procedural. The two knowledge influences
under study are detailed in the following sections with supporting research attesting to their
relevance for this IUSD stakeholder group. Both knowledge types were found to be relevant for
the study participants during the interviews and document analysis.
Conceptual (Declarative) knowledge recommendation. Conceptual (declarative)
knowledge increases when an individual learns how facts relate to form relationships or
structures that function together (Krathwohl, 2002). The data analysis supported the assertion
that the elementary intervention teachers possessed a solid working understanding of multi-tiered
systems of support (MTSS) frameworks and the delivery of the hybrid intervention model (Level
1) but desired further in-depth knowledge of the delivery of advanced reading interventions
within the tiers of the framework (Level 2) in order for them to feel they were performing their
jobs well. Seven out of the ten teachers interviewed spoke of their desire to learn more advanced
skills in diagnosing reading problems and intervening to solve those problems when the district-
provided reading intervention materials were not enough. According to Clark and Estes (2008),
education is effective when people need to “acquire conceptual, theoretical, and strategic
knowledge and skills” that will help them in situations that change from one day to the next;
what are often called new and novel situations (p. 59). Education is also an effective tool when
the new knowledge needs to be based in current research of best practices or includes learning of
the underlying causes of why things happen (Clark and Estes, 2008). The conceptual
(declarative) knowledge recommendation is to provide the elementary intervention teachers with
advanced education (professional learning) in the fundamentals of reading instruction, including
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

122
how to pinpoint specific areas of weakness with at-risk readers and the activities that
correspond to supporting each area of weakness.
Procedural knowledge recommendation. Procedural knowledge allows a person to
describe how to do something and can be general or subject-specific (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda,
2011). In order to do their jobs effectively, the elementary intervention teachers in IUSD
stressed their desires to receive more advanced knowledge in the fundamentals of teaching
reading to at-risk students. Clark and Estes (2008) state that the use of training is effective when
people need demonstration, guided practice and feedback to perfect a new procedure or set of
skills. When training employees, Clark and Estes (2008) assert that training sessions should be
structured and sequenced in a similar fashion as the job is performed. Linda Darling-Hammond
(Darling-Hammond, 1996) has long been a proponent of investing in teachers to improve student
outcomes. Professional learning experiences must be developed with a mind toward how
teachers learn. Experiences should be created that leverage collaboration among teachers,
including modeling new strategies and opportunities to practice and reflect on them (Darling-
Hammond & Richardson, 2009). In many instances these collaborative opportunities occur
within professional learning communities. Darling-Hammond & Richardson (2009) note that in
many learning communities, teacher observation of colleagues is a common practice. Protocols
designed by the National Reform Faculty can put a structure to peer observation. Research has
found that done consistently over time these types of professional learning activities, such as
peer observation, lead to positive change in teachers’ skills, knowledge, and effectiveness
(Lustick & Sykes, 2006; Sato, Wei, & Darling-Hammond, 2008). Therefore, the procedural
knowledge recommendation is to provide elementary intervention teachers training in the form
of job shadowing, in which the teachers can directly observe a colleague or other trusted expert
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

123
perform advanced reading instruction with at-risk students in reading. To bring structure to
those shadowing sessions, the elementary intervention teachers should collaboratively create an
observation protocol that can be used as a learning and organizational tool for the teachers to
record their new learnings and connect them to the prior education provided.
Motivation Recommendations
Another critical factor that impacts organizational performance is motivation (Clark &
Estes, 2008). An organization will not achieve its goals if the stakeholders are not willing to
start or to sustain the activities necessary to accomplish the goals (Schunk, Meece, & Pintrich,
2012). According to Mayer (2011), motivation is internal to the individual and is a crucial
ingredient in maintaining and completing goal-directed behaviors. Motivation influences the
level of engagement an individual exerts toward their everyday work, the transfer of learning
from the training environment to the work environment and the connectedness they feel toward
the organization’s leadership (Alexander, Schallert, & Reynolds, 2009; Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009;
Grossman & Salas, 2011; Pintrich, 2003). Researchers agree that motivation is made up of three
indices that, when present, signify a motivational impact on an individual: Active Choice,
Persistence, and Mental Effort (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011).
There were two motivational theories that were assumed at the onset of this study and are
supported within the research base; Expectancy Value Theory and Self-Efficacy Theory. Self-
Efficacy Theory explains the confidence intervention teachers had in their ability to provide
academic interventions to at-risk students. Additionally, Expectancy Value Theory sheds light on
the internal motivation the elementary intervention teachers possessed – motivation that helped
them to see value in delivering interventions to at-risk students. The IUSD elementary
intervention teachers perceived value in providing academic intervention to at-risk students to
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

124
increase their achievement. When prompted with a “devil’s advocate” type of question
during the interviews (see Appendix A, question number 13), all ten of the intervention teachers
stated they found intervention to be extremely valuable for struggling students. Many of the
teachers answered the question in an indignant tone, as if to emphasize the ridiculousness of the
assertion that providing intervention was foolhardy. It was clear from their answers and the way
they answered it that they felt very strongly about the expectancy value of intervention. In terms
of increasing or building the motivation of the elementary intervention teachers, value is not an
area that would benefit from a recommendation because a value-gap does not exist with these
stakeholders. However, if IUSD were to implement both knowledge recommendations, the
intervention teachers would be tasked with learning a new set of advanced skills. Research tells
us that as employees are acquiring new knowledge or skills the organization should be mindful
to support their motivation to persist if the employees face challenges (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Hence, I will propose a recommendation only in the area of self-efficacy as a pro-active
approach to supporting the intervention teachers while they assimilate new skills.
Self-Efficacy. The elementary intervention teachers stated they believed they had
confidence in their ability to provide academic intervention, that combined direct instruction
with computer assisted instruction, to improve student achievement in reading. To this end, they
were ready for more advanced knowledge in the fundamentals of teaching reading. If the
intervention teachers are provided with this new professional learning, they may struggle with
implementing the new knowledge and skills, which could negatively impact their self-efficacy.
Pajares (2006) observed that feedback and modeling increased self-efficacy. This suggests that
providing the elementary intervention teachers with modeled examples combined with timely
feedback on their performance, as noted in the knowledge recommendation, has the potential to
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

125
increase their self-efficacy. Therefore, consistent with the procedural knowledge
recommendation, the recommendation for increasing self-efficacy is to provide training in which
an expert demonstrates the proper teaching of advanced instruction in reading and observes the
intervention teachers as they practice the new skills, providing the intervention teachers with
both positive and corrective feedback or coaching for improvement.
Bandura (2000) has found the genesis of self-efficacy comes from four sources, one of
which is vicarious experiences. Vicarious experiences can be thought of as those instances when
an individual observes another person performing a task or activity (Pajares, 2006); for instance,
a teacher modeling a behavior for his or her students or an expert modeling a teaching practice
for a novice instructor. Schunk (1995) notes that there are three factors or types of interventions
that can increase an individual's self-efficacy; two of which are modeling and feedback. The
author posits the argument that observing competent models successfully complete a task or
activity can elicit the belief in the observer that they, too, can accomplish a similar activity by
following the pattern or steps observed, thereby raising their self-efficacy. Schunk (1995) states
“these models illustrate how effort and positive thoughts can overcome difficulties...Mastery
models demonstrate faultless performance from the outset” (p.114). Additionally, specific
feedback on performance is likely to increase self-efficacy when the feedback is focused on how
performance has improved (Schunk, 1995). Merely stating that the person did well on a task is
not as meaningful as specificity on which aspects of the performance were improved.
Competent models, coupled with credible feedback on future performance learned from those
models, are persuasive sources of self-efficacy information.

KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

126
Organization Recommendations
The final dimension leaders must consider when crafting recommendations to improve
organizational and stakeholder performance is that of the organization itself (Clark & Estes,
2008). All organizations are unique, living, dynamic entities, made up of multiple,
interdependent parts tasked with working in concert to accomplish broader organizational goals
(Rueda, 2011; Thacker, Bell & Schargel, 2009). They are complex systems and the influence
organizations exert over their stakeholders can be pervasive. For example, organizational
processes and the availability of resources often times inhibit highly motivated stakeholders, who
possess top-notch knowledge and skills, from achieving their goals (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda,
2011). Organizations develop their own culture, and it is this culture that acts as a filter,
moderating the activities taking place (Clark & Estes, 2008; Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001;
Rueda, 2011).
As discussed in Chapter Two, Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) conceptualized culture
as being composed of discrete units of analysis they called cultural models and cultural settings.
By cultural models, the researchers refer to the “shared mental schema or normative
understandings of how the world works…” (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001, p. 47). These
models are shared ways of understanding, thinking, and archiving organizational knowledge and
they are highly contextualized (Rueda, 2011). Cultural settings are those places where people
gather to accomplish a task or the contexts in which policies are enacted (Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001; Rueda, 2011). For the purpose of this study, two organizational influences
were identified from the literature and explored in the data analysis. In order to meet their
stakeholder goal, elementary intervention teachers must be provided with appropriate
professional learning opportunities so they can effectively instruct at-risk students (cultural
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

127
setting). Additionally, the role of the intervention teacher must be supported through
decisive administrative leadership at the school site and district levels (cultural model).
Cultural models. Gallimore & Goldenberg (2001) assert that organizational
performance increases when there are clear ‘Cultural Models’ present. Cultural models can be
thought of as unobservable behaviors, structures or groupings stakeholders engage in and these
models are ubiquitous within any organization. This suggests that the role of the elementary
intervention teacher would be supported through the presence of cultural models, such as
decisive or effective administrative leadership. In general, the intervention teachers perceived
IUSD to support their role within the organization. All of the teachers interviewed made the
statement somewhere during their interview that they felt supported by the district. From the
district level, the teachers believed they were supported through the provision of curricular
materials, training, and collaborative meetings held three times per year. Although no
intervention teacher used the terms “through effective or decisive administrative leadership,” we
can interpret their confidence in the role the district played in supporting them to be one of
effective or decisive leadership. A recommendation to improve performance is for IUSD’s
school site administrators to actively cultivate cultural models, like those displayed from the
district level. Specifically, these cultural models should be ones that demonstrate effective
administrative leadership practices, such as supporting teachers through resource acquisition and
systemization of practices (e.g. implementing instruction or master schedules on campuses),
encouraging trust, collegiality and cohesion among staff, and setting a vision and goals for the
school.
School site administrative leaders, particularly school principals, play a central role in
initiating and sustaining organizational changes focused on improving student achievement
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

128
through their effective management of schools and support of teachers (Bryk, 2010;
Leithwood, et al, 2004). Supovitz, et al, (2010) identified three common activities that support
effective teaching and learning: (1) Setting mission and goals, (2) Encouraging trust and
collaboration, (3) Actively supporting instruction. In setting the mission and goals for the school,
leaders define the vision, communicate it to stakeholders, and develop goals to achieve the vision
(Supovitz et al., 2010). Effective school leaders encourage a culture of trust and collaboration,
working to build collaborative practices that strengthen the school (Leithwood et al., 2004).
Heck, Larson, & Marcoulides (1990) found that principals of high performing schools worked
tirelessly to create school cultures where administrators and teachers worked collaboratively to
improve the instructional program and engage in problem solving. Effective administrators
actively support instruction by “creating a learning ethos and providing…hands-on support for
teachers” (Supovitz et al., 2010, p. 35). School site principals have a unique opportunity (or
obligation) to create cultural models for their staff that will facilitate deep levels of collaboration
and cohesion, thereby combatting feelings of isolation among staff and increasing the likelihood
of increased academic achievement for the students under their care.
Cultural settings. Organizational performance increases when individuals are provided
appropriate Cultural Settings (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Rueda, 2011). The conceptual
framework for this study asserted that IUSD was obligated to provide appropriate professional
learning opportunities (Cultural Settings) to the elementary intervention teachers in order for
them to achieve their stakeholder goal. The data analysis and findings suggested that, as an
organization, IUSD was successful in providing appropriate training and workshop opportunities
for the elementary intervention teachers to build their Level 1 (base) knowledge. Additionally,
all of the teachers interviewed perceived their semi-regular intervention teacher meetings to be
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

129
extremely valuable. They looked forward to the times when they could collaborate with their
job-alike colleagues, often times creating their own informal networks to meet their needs when
no formal collaboration days were available. The vast majority of the teachers interviewed
suggested that they would welcome more regular intervention teacher collaboration
opportunities; to improve their professional practice, work on shared problems of practice and to
stay connected to trusted colleagues. This suggests that an important catalyst for change could be
found in the manner and regularity in which teachers work together toward a common objective.
Therefore, a recommendation would be for school leaders, both at the district and school site
levels, to facilitate more regular collaboration meetings (at least every two months) in which
teachers are engaged in meaningful work and professional learning with job-alike colleagues,
focused on common problems of practice.
The research base is rich with studies attesting to an association between specific
professional learning configurations and increased student achievement, such as teacher
collaboration, teacher networks, and grade level teams (Goddard, Goddard, & Tschannen-Moran,
2007; Moolenaar, Sleegers, & Daly, 2012; Saunders, Goldenberg, & Gallimore, 2009).
Professional learning communities (PLC), made popular by Richard DuFour and Robert Eaker
(2009), have also been associated with increased student outcomes across grade levels and
content areas. In PLCs, teachers work together to focus on how students learn specific skills and
content (Bausmith & Barry, 2011), they engage in rich, reflective conversations around unique
problems of practice (Horn & Little, 2010), and collectively construct and share new knowledge
and skills to increase student learning (Lieberman & Miller, 2011). Akiba and Liang (2016), in a
four-year longitudinal study of professional learning activities, found the most effective
professional learning opportunities involved teachers collaborating and communicating with
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

130
colleagues at deep levels, centered around teaching strategies and student learning in their
own problems of practice. The researchers emphasized the need for school and district leaders to
“facilitate teacher-centered collaborative and research-based learning activities led by teacher
leaders…[as] it is likely these investments in promoting teachers’ professional learning activities
will result in improved student learning” (p. 107). The intervention teachers in IUSD would
benefit greatly from the types of cultural settings that would allow them to come together on a
regular basis and work on their common problems of practice.
Future Research
The participants in this study were ten elementary intervention teachers who provided
reading intervention to at-risk students utilizing a hybrid model that included computer assisted
instruction coupled with direct teacher instruction. They were from a moderately sized, public
school district in the Southwestern United States in which roughly half of the schools receive
Title I funding from the federal government.
7
Half of the teachers in the study served at Title I
schools and half served at non-Title I schools. Moreover, the focus of the study was on teacher
perceptions of the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that enhance or inhibit
teachers from performing their jobs. As such, the generalizability of this study cannot be
extended to a broader population. Expanding the study to include other concepts would be
beneficial to better understand the effect of the hybrid intervention model.
Once such addition could be the inclusion of all the teachers in one school district.
Because of the time-bound nature of this study, I was only able to include approximately 30% of
the total elementary intervention teachers in IUSD. The inclusion of more teachers may have

7
Title I funding is provided to schools with moderate to high levels of poverty, as measured by
the percentage of students who qualify for federal free or reduced lunch subsidies under the
National School Lunch Program.
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

131
allowed for a deeper understanding of the existing findings or the inclusion of additional
findings centered around teacher perceptions. Additionally, the study could be extended over a
longer period of time to capture changes in the culture of the intervention teachers as original
teachers left the assignment and new teachers added. Further, the study did not focus on student
outcomes related to instruction via the hybrid model. Future study could include a focus on
student reading mastery outcomes over time, which would introduce quantitative variables to be
analyzed, and lend to insights on the degree to which the hybrid model of reading intervention
increases academic outcomes for students.
Conclusion
The ambition of public education in the 21
st
Century is that all students will be College,
Career and World Ready when they graduate from high school. They will have mastered and be
able to apply the skills of collaboration, critical thinking, and creativity, all while communicating
effectively to wide and diverse audiences. Today’s students are expected to seamlessly integrate
various types of media – print and digital, prose and poetry, video and audio – to compose
original works that demonstrate deep levels of understanding. Every year our education system
produces more students able to do these fantastic things and showcase their talents, as evidenced
by increasing percentages of students who graduate from high school college or career ready.
But the cruel reality is that for those select students who struggle to read at or near grade level,
their future options are significantly reduced. For far too long struggling students were retained
as a means of providing them help when they struggled in school (Jimerson, 2003). Research has
found that this solution costs the county billions of dollars annually and results in those children
falling farther behind (Dawson, 1998). It is as important as ever for our education systems to find
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

132
and correct reading difficulties early in a child’s educational career, utilizing research-based
methods like tired interventions (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007).
The Inland Unified School District (IUSD) engaged in the creation of a Multi-Tiered
System of Support (MTSS) framework for the delivery of reading intervention in the elementary
grades. This study focused on one component of that MTSS framework as taught by elementary
intervention teachers. Specifically, the purpose of this study was to examine the knowledge,
motivation and organizational (KMO) influences that supported and/or inhibited the IUSD
elementary intervention teachers from delivering a hybrid model of intervention that included
both direct instruction and computer assisted instruction. The questions that guided this study
were:
1. What are the elementary intervention teachers’ knowledge and motivation related to
providing academic intervention in reading using a hybrid model, to at-risk students?
2. What do elementary intervention teachers perceive to be the critical organizational
influences or resources impacting their knowledge and motivation to provide academic
intervention in reading using a hybrid model, to at-risk students?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources?
Data was collected through a document review and interviews with ten, purposefully
selected elementary intervention teachers who met criteria established prior to the study
commencing. After analysis was performed, three salient themes emerged. First, the elementary
intervention teachers possess strong Level 1 knowledge and skills and desire for the organization
to provide them with deeper, Level 2 knowledge and skills related to their work. Second, being
connected to job-alike colleagues is critical for sharing ideas and combatting the isolation that
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

133
comes with serving as an intervention teacher. Finally, it was found that decisive
administrative leadership assisted the teachers in performing their job effectively.
To advance the existing intervention program and support the elementary intervention
teachers, it was recommended that IUSD invest in providing advanced training to the
intervention teachers in the fundamentals of reading instruction. This was directly addressed by
70% of the teaches interviewed as a logical next step to building their professional portfolio.
Often times student progress gets stalled sometime during intervention and the teachers
recognize their need for advanced skills to solve those problems. Additionally, that advanced
knowledge should come with shadowing of experts and consistent feedback, as the intervention
teachers implement the new skills. This recommendation is supported by research on adult
learning (Schunk, 1995). Lastly, the organization must cultivate positive cultural models and
settings, challenging school site administration to take charge of those aspects of the school that
will support the work of the intervention teachers. These recommendations will put IUSD’s
intervention programs on solid footing for years to come, benefiting a greater number of
struggling students each year.
With the change in the funding formula for California public schools, switching to more
local control and accountability, public school districts have an existential need to clearly and
accurately document the outcomes of actions and services provided to its students. Millions of
dollars per year are expended on interventions with sometimes very few documented metrics and
often times little in the way of real, systematic progress for students. Studies such as this could
have a positive impact on school districts as stakeholders grapple with measuring and monitoring
services provided with limited resources.

KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

134
References
Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and
teams, organizations, and society. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 451–474.
doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163505
Akiba, M., & Liang, G. (2016). Effects of teacher professional learning activities on student
achievement growth. Journal of Educational Research, 109(1), 99-110.
Alexander, K., Entwisle, D., & Kabbani, N. (1999, November-December). Grade retention,
social promotion, and “third way” alternatives. Paper presented at the National
Invitational Conference hosted by the Laboratory for Student Success at Temple
University for Research in Human Development and Education, Alexandria, VA.
Alexander, P. A., Schallert, D. L., & Reynolds, R. E. (2009). What is learning anyway? A
topographical perspective considered. Educational Psychologist, 44(3), 176-192.
Armor, D. (1976). Analysis of the school preferred reading program in selected Los Angeles
minority schools.
Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers' sense of efficacy and
student achievement. Longman Publishing Group.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78.
Bausmith, J. M., & Barry, C. (2011). Revisiting professional learning communities to increase
college readiness: The importance of pedagogical content knowledge. Educational
Researcher, 40(4), 175-178.
Bruhn, A. L., Hirsch, S. E., & Lloyd, J. W. (2015). Treatment integrity in school-wide programs:
A review of the literature (1993–2012). The journal of primary prevention, 36(5), 335-349.
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

135
Bruhn, A. L., Lane, K. L., & Hirsch, S. E. (2014). A review of tier 2 interventions conducted
within multitiered models of behavioral prevention. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral
Disorders, 22(3), 171-189.
Bryk, A. S. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(7), 23-30.
California Department of Education, (2016, September 9). Understanding the CAASPP Student
Score Reports. Retrieved from: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/ca/caasppssreports.asp
California Department of Education, (2017, July 17). Local Control and Accountability Plan
(LCAP). Retrieved from: http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/lc/
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Steca, P., & Malone, P. S. (2006). Teachers' self-efficacy
beliefs as determinants of job satisfaction and students' academic achievement: A study at
the school level. Journal of school psychology, 44(6), 473-490.
Catts, H.W., Higan, T.P., & Adolf, S.M. (2005). Developmental changes in reading and reading
disabilities. In H.W. Catts & A Kamhi (Eds.), The connections between language and
reading disabilities, 25-40. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Center on National Education Policy. (1996). Do We Still Need Public Schools? Bloomington,
In: Phi Delta Kappa.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Cochrane, W. S., & Laux, J. M. (2008). A survey investigating school psychologists'
measurement of treatment integrity in school-based interventions and their beliefs about
its importance. Psychology in the Schools, 45(6), 499-507.
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

136
Codding, R. S., Livanis, A., Pace, G. M., & Vaca, L. (2008). Using performance feedback to
improve treatment integrity of classwide behavior plans: An investigation of observer
reactivity. Journal of applied behavior analysis, 41(3), 417-422.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Dane, A. V., & Schneider, B. H. (1998). Program integrity in primary and early secondary
prevention: are implementation effects out of control?. Clinical psychology review, 18(1),
23-45.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). The right to learn and the advancement of teaching: Research,
policy, and practice for democratic education. Educational Researcher, 25(6), 5-17.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The Right To Learn: A Blueprint for Creating Schools That Work.
The Jossey-Bass Education Series. Jossey-Bass, Inc., Publishers, 350 Sansome Street,
San Francisco, CA 94104..
Darling-Hammond, L., & Richardson, N. (2009). Research review/teacher learning: What
matters. Educational leadership, 66(5), 46-53.
Dawson, P. (1998). A primer on student grade retention: What the research says. Communique,
26, 28–30.
Dewey, J. (1907). The School and Society: being three lectures by John Dewey supplemented by
a statement of the University Elementary School. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (Eds.). (2009). On common ground: The power of professional learning
communities. Solution Tree Press.
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved
from http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

137
Education Data Partnership, (2016). District Summary Data for 2014-15. Retrieved from -
http://www.ed-data.org/
Foley, L. S. (2011). Exploring K–3 Teachers' Implementation of Comprehension Strategy
Instruction (CSI) Using Expectancy-Value Theory. Literacy Research and
Instruction, 50(3), 195-215.
Freeman, R., Miller, D., & Newcomer, L. (2015). Integration of Academic and Behavioral
MTSS at the District Level using Implementation Science. Learning Disabilities--A
Contemporary Journal, 13(1).
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2007). A model for implementing responsiveness to
intervention. Teaching exceptional children, 39(5), 14-20.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Compton, D. L. (2012). Smart RTI: A next-generation approach to
multilevel prevention. Exceptional children, 78(3), 263-279.
Fullan, M. (2004). Leadership across the system. Insight, 61, 14-17.
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45–56.
Gersten, R., Compton, D., Connor, C. M., Dimino, J., Santoro, L., Linan-Thompson, S., & Tilly,
W. D. (2008). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to Intervention and
multi-tier intervention for reading in the primary grades. A practice guide.(NCEE 2009-
4045). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional
Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education. National
Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education
Sciences. Retrieved from http://ies. ed. gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides.
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

138
Gersten, R., Beckmann, S., Clarke, B., Foegen, A., Marsh, L., Star, J. R., et al. (2009).
Assisting students struggling with mathematics: Response to intervention (RtI) for
elementary and middle schools (NCEE 2009-4060). Washington, DC: National Center
for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education.
Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of
educational psychology, 76(4), 569.
Glesne, C. (2011). Chapter 6: But is it ethical? Considering what is “right.” In Becoming
qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.) (pp. 162-183). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Glover, T. A., & DiPerna, J. C. (2007). Service delivery for response to intervention: Core
components and directions for future research. School Psychology Review,36(4), 526-
540. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/2
19648485?accountid=14749
Goddard, Y. L., Goddard, R. D., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2007). A theoretical and empirical
investigation of teacher collaboration for school improvement and student achievement in
public elementary schools. Teachers college record, 109(4), 877-896.
Graham, S., & Weiner, B. (1996). Theories and principles of motivation. Handbook of
educational psychology, 4, 63-84.
Gresham, F. M. (2009). Evolution of the treatment integrity concept: Current status and future
directions. School Psychology Review, 38(4), 533-541.
Grossman, R., & Salas, E. (2011). The transfer of training: What really matters. International
Journal of Training and Development, 15(2), 103–120.
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

139
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996). Reassessing the principal's role in school effectiveness:
A review of empirical research, 1980-1995. Educational administration quarterly, 32(1),
5-44.
Hattie, J. (2003). Teachers Make a Difference, What is the research evidence?. Retrieved at
http://research.acer.edu.au/research_conference_2003/4/
Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. London:
Routledge.
Heck, R. H., Larsen, T. J., & Marcoulides, G. A. (1990). Instructional leadership and school
achievement: Validation of a causal model. Educational Administration Quarterly, 26(2),
94-125.
Horn, I. S., & Little, J. W. (2010). Attending to problems of practice: Routines and resources for
professional learning in teachers’ workplace interactions. American educational research
journal, 47(1), 181-217.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. §§ 300.307,
300.309 and 300.311 (2012).
Ingvarson, L., Meiers, M., & Beavis, A. (2005). Factors affecting the impact of professional
development programs on teachers' knowledge, practice, student outcomes &
efficacy. Education Policy Analysis Archives/Archivos Analíticos de Políticas
Educativas, 13.
Jimerson, S. (1999). On the failure of failure: Examining the association of early grade
retention and late adolescent education and employment outcomes. Journal of School
Psychology, 37, 243–272.
Jimerson, S. (2003). Grade retention rates in the United States. Communique, 31, 30–31.
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

140
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2015). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed approaches (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Kezar, A. (2001). Theories and models of organizational change. Understanding and facilitating
organizational change in the 21st century: Recent research and
conceptualizations. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 28(4).
Korkmaz, M. (2007). The effects of leadership styles on organizational health. Educational
Research Quarterly, 30(3), 22.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice,
41(4), 212–218
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Chapter 4: Participants in a focus group. In Focus
groups: A practical guide for applied research (4th ed.) (pp. 66-68). Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Publications.
Lamorey, S., & Wilcox, M. J. (2005). Early intervention practitioners’ self-efficacy: A measure
and its applications. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 20(1), 69-84.
Lane, K. L., Bocian, K. M., MacMillan, D. L., & Gresham, F. M. (2004). Treatment integrity:
An essential—but often forgotten—component of school-based interventions. Preventing
School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 48(3), 36-43.
Leithwood, K., Seashore, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). Review of research: How
leadership influences student learning.
Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (2011). Learning communities. Journal of Staff Development, 32(4),
16-20.
Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

141
Lustick, D., & Sykes, G. (2006). National board certification as professional development:
What are teachers learning?. education policy analysis archives, 14, 5.
Mawhinney, L. (2008). Laugh so you don't cry: teachers combating isolation in schools through
humour and social support. Ethnography and Education, 3(2), 195-209.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education
McCoy, A. R., & Reynolds, A. J. (1999). Grade retention and school performance: An
extended investigation. Journal of School Psychology, 37, 273–298.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Moolenaar, N. M., Sleegers, P. J., & Daly, A. J. (2012). Teaming up: Linking collaboration
networks, collective efficacy, and student achievement. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 28(2), 251-262.
Muijs, D., & Reynolds, D. (2015). Teachers' Beliefs and Behaviors: What Really Matters?. The
Journal of Classroom Interaction, 50(1), 25.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C.A. § 6301 et seq. (West 2003).
Noelle, G. H., & Gansle, K. A. (2006). Assuring the Form Has Substance Treatment Plan
Implementation as the Foundation of Assessing Response to Intervention. Assessment for
Effective Intervention, 32(1), 32-39.
P21, (2007). P21 Framework for 21
st
Century Learning. Retrieved from -
http://www.p21.org/index.php
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

142
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved
from http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/.
Peterson, L., Homer, A. L., & Wonderlich, S. A. (1982). The integrity of independent variables
in behavior analysis. Journal of applied behavior analysis, 15(4), 477-492.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686.
Prasse, D. P., Breunlin, R. J., Giroux, D., Hunt, J., Morrison, D., & Thier, K. (2012). Embedding
Multi-Tiered System of Supports/Response to Intervention into Teacher
Preparation. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 10(2), 75-93.
Ratcliffe. J.W. (1983). Notions of validity in qualitative research methodology. Knowledge:
Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 5(2), 147-167.
Rev.com (n.d). Retrieved November 21, 2018 from Rev.com page, How It Works:
https://www.rev.com/transcription/how-it-works .
Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & Sawyer, B. E. (2004). Primary-grade teachers' self-efficacy beliefs,
attitudes toward teaching, and discipline and teaching practice priorities in relation to the"
responsive classroom" approach. The Elementary School Journal, 104(4), 321-341.
Roesken, B. (2011). Hidden dimensions in the professional development of mathematics
teachers: In-service education for and with teachers. Springer Science & Business
Media.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York: Teachers
College Press.
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

143
Saunders, W. M., Goldenberg, C. N., & Gallimore, R. (2009). Increasing achievement by
focusing grade-level teams on improving classroom learning: A prospective, quasi-
experimental study of Title I schools.
Sato, M., Wei, R. C., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Improving teachers’ assessment practices
through professional development: The case of National Board Certification. American
Educational Research Journal, 45(3), 669-700.
Schein, E. H. (2004). The concept of organizational culture: Why bother? In E. H. Schein,
(Ed.), Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed., pp. 3–24). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey Bass.
Schiff, D., Herzog, L., Farley-Ripple, E., & Iannuccilli, L. T. (2015). Teacher Networks in
Philadelphia: Landscape, Engagement, and Value. Penn GSE perspectives on urban
education, 12(1), n1.
Schulte, A. C., Easton, J. E., & Parker, J. (2009). Advances in treatment integrity research:
Multidisciplinary perspectives on the conceptualization, measurement, and enhancement
of treatment integrity. School Psychology Review, 38(4), 460.
Schunk, D. H. (1995). Self-efficacy, motivation, and performance. Journal of Applied Sport
Psychology, 7(2), 112-137.
Schunk, D. H., Meece, J. R., & Pintrich, P. R. (2012). Motivation in education: Theory,
research, and applications. Pearson Higher Ed.
Spear-Swerling, L., & Cheesman, E. (2012). Teachers’ knowledge base for implementing
response-to-intervention models in reading. Reading and Writing, 25(7), 1691-1723.
Supovitz, J., Sirinides, P., & May, H. (2010). How principals and peers influence teaching and
learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(1), 31-56.
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

144
Taylor, B. M., Pearson, P. D., Clark, K., & Walpole, S. (2000). Effective schools and
accomplished teachers: Lessons about primary-grade reading instruction in low-income
schools. The Elementary School Journal, 101(2), 121-165.
Thacker, T., Bell, J. S., & Schargel, F. P. (2009). Creating school cultures that embrace
learning: What successful leaders do Eye on Education. 6 Depot Way West Suite 106,
Larchmont, NY 10538.
Thoonen, E. E., Sleegers, P. J., Oort, F. J., Peetsma, T. T., & Geijsel, F. P. (2011). How to
improve teaching practices: The role of teacher motivation, organizational factors, and
leadership practices. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(3), 496-536.
Vaughn, S., Denton, C. A., & Fletcher, J. M. (2010). Why intensive interventions are necessary
for students with severe reading difficulties. Psychology in the Schools, 47(5), 432-444.
Waltz, J., Addis, M. E., Koerner, K., & Jacobson, N. S. (1993). Testing the integrity of a
psychotherapy protocol: assessment of adherence and competence. Journal of consulting
and clinical psychology, 61(4), 620.
Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced Leadership: What 30 Years of
Research Tells Us about the Effect of Leadership on Student Achievement. A Working
Paper.
Weisenburgh-Snyder, A. B., Malmquist, S. K., Robbins, J. K., & Lipshin, A. M. (2015). A
Model of MTSS: Integrating Precision Teaching of Mathematics and a Multi-Level
Assessment System in a Generative Classroom. Learning Disabilities--A Contemporary
Journal, 13(1).
What Works Clearinghouse. (n.d.). What Works Clearinghouse | Find What Works!. Retrieved
October 1, 2018, from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/ .
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

145
Williams, A., Prestage, S., & Bedward, J. (2001). Individualism to collaboration: The
significance of teacher culture to the induction of newly qualified teachers. Journal of
Education for Teaching: International research and pedagogy, 27(3), 253-267.

KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

146
APPENDIX A
Interview Protocol
I. Introduction (Appreciation, Purpose, Line of Inquiry, Plan, Confidentiality, Reciprocity,
Consent to Participate, Permission to Record):
Thank you for agreeing to participate in my study. I appreciate the time that you have set
aside to answer my questions. As I mentioned when we spoke last, the interview should take
about an hour.
Before we get started, I want to provide you with an overview of my study and answer
any questions you might have about participating in this interview. I am currently enrolled as a
doctoral student at USC and I am conducting a study focusing on how elementary intervention
teachers implement a reading intervention model that includes both direct and computer assisted
instruction. I am particularly interested in understanding the knowledge and motivation
elementary intervention teachers believe they must possess in order to implement the
intervention model and any organizational structures they perceive may support or inhibit
achieving their goal. I am talking to multiple intervention teachers to learn more about this
process.
Let me assure you that I am here today strictly as a researcher. That is, the nature of my
questions are not evaluative. I will not be making any judgments on how you are performing as
an intervention teacher. Also, this interview is confidential; I will use a pseudonym to protect
your confidentiality and will do my best to de-identify any of the data I gather from you. Your
real name will not be shared with anyone and the perspectives you provide may only be shared
with my dissertation chair and committee. I will not share them with other teachers, the
principal, or the district.
The data for this study will be used within my dissertation and while I may use some of
what you say as direct quotes, none of the data will be directly attributed to you. As I just
mentioned, I will be using a pseudonym to protect your identity and de-identifying any of the
data I gather from you. I am happy to provide you with a copy of the final dissertation if you are
interested.
I have a number of questions to ask you related to various aspects of being and
intervention teacher in the school district. I want to be mindful and respectful of your time, so I
have structured these questions into two sections. Because of this, I will need to conduct two
separate interviews with you. I will work with you to accommodate your work and personal
schedule as we calendar the interview dates.
As stated in the Study Information Sheet I shared with you, I will keep the data in a
password protected computer and all data will be destroyed after 3 years.
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

147

Do you have any questions about the study before we get started?
[Pause and answer any questions posed by participant.]
If you don’t have any (more) questions, I would like to have your permission to begin the
first interview. I have brought a recorder with me today so that I can accurately capture what you
share with me. The recording is solely for my purposes to best capture your perspectives and
will not be shared with anyone. May I also have your permission to record our conversation?
II. Setting the Stage (Developing Rapport and Priming the Mind, Demographic items of
interest (e.g. position, role, etc.))
I’d like to start by asking some background questions about you.
• What school do you currently teach at?
o Is that school in the “Hills” or in the “Valley”?
o How long have you been teaching at this school?
• Could you tell me about your background in education?
o How long have you worked in the field of education?
o What roles or positions have you held while in education?
• How did you become involved in teaching intervention to elementary students?
o How long have you been teaching intervention in reading?
o Tell me about your role in the intervention program at your school.
o Can you provide a specific example that best demonstrates your role in the
program at your school?
o How long have you been using this program?

III. Interview 1 (Interview Questions are directly tied to Research Questions):
I’d like to ask you some questions about how you provide intervention in reading.
1. Tell me about how you deliver (or teach) the district’s reading intervention program.
2. Does the district specify that you teach the intervention in a specific way and if so,
describe that process.
a. What does this intervention look like – can you describe the steps you follow
when implementing the intervention?
3. What does this intervention sound like – can you describe a typical verbal exchange
between yourself and a student, using the hybrid model of instruction?
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

148
4. Describe how you navigate teaching in a “hybrid approach.” That is, using the
computerized instruction with your own direct instruction.
a. Please describe how teaching intervention in this hybrid approach is similar or
different than what you were used to before you started using this program.
5. What are some ways that the district could support you in teaching this hybrid model of
intervention?

Now I’d like to ask you some questions about the Multi-Tiered Systems of Support framework.
6. In your own words, please describe the components of the district’s MTSS framework.
7. Walk me through how the different interventions within each tier of the MTSS
framework work together?
8. Can you provide a specific example of a time you implemented the intervention that you
felt went well in each tier?

I’d like to ask you how you feel about teaching reading intervention.
9. Tell me how you feel about your ability to provide academic support to at-risk students?
a. Can you provide a specific example of a time that demonstrates why you feel this
way about your ability to provide academic support to your students?
10. How do you feel about your ability to teach reading intervention using both direct
instruction and computer assisted instruction – the hybrid approach?
a. What are some positive elements of this model?
b. What are some areas of improvement for this model?
11. Tell me about a time when you taught reading intervention and you thought to yourself “I
know how to do this!”
12. Now, tell me about a time when you taught reading intervention and you thought to
yourself “that didn’t go so well. I don’t know how to do this!”
13. Some people argue that it’s not helpful to provide academic interventions to at-risk
students who are so low in academics. What would you say?
a. What would you say are some positive elements to providing them intervention?
b. What are some negative elements to providing them intervention?
If needed: Thank you for your time today. Your insights will be valuable to my study. As
I mentioned when we began today, I will follow-up with you at a later date to ask a few more
questions related to my research study. I will contact you to set up an appointment to meet with
you at a time that in the very near future.

KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

149
III. Interview 2 (Interview Questions are directly tied to Research Questions):
Skip this section if continuing with first interview session

Thank you for taking the time to talk to me again. When we talked last time, we focused our
conversation on the interventions you teach, the MTSS framework, and how you felt about
teaching them. Now we’re going to switch gears and talk about your organization – the school
district.

I would like to have your permission to begin the second interview. Again, I have a recorder with
me today so that I can accurately capture what you share with me. The recording is solely for
my purposes to best capture your perspectives and will not be shared with anyone. May I also
have your permission to record our conversation?

c. How did you learn about the district’s MTSS framework?
d. Can you describe any formal or informal support you received in the last calendar
year on the IUSD MTSS framework?
14.
15. How would you describe the professional learning opportunities the district has provided
you, related to doing your job?
a. How did you find out about any professional learning opportunities?
b. What were some reasons you decided to attend?
c. How did you feel about the quality of that professional learning?
d. What do you think were the strengths of this professional learning?
e. What do you think were the weaknesses of this professional learning?
16. What would be an example of a professional learning opportunity, related to your job, the
district could provide that could help you do your job better?
17. Describe how the district, as an organization, supports your role as an elementary
intervention teacher.
18. Describe how your immediate site supervisor supports your role as an elementary
intervention teacher.
a. Tell me about a time your immediate site administration supported your role
within the district?
19. What do you perceive are essential characteristics of site administrators that would enable
them to support intervention teachers?
20. Tell me how your site administrator communicates important information to you and the
other teachers at your school.
a. Give me an example of a time when your site administrator communicated
important information to you.
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

150
b. Does his or her method of communication work for you or meet your needs?
c. What are any ways your site administrator could improve his or her
communication of important information?
21. Tell me about a time when you participated in any structured collaboration, sometimes
called professional learning communities or PLCs, with other teachers.
a. Please describe where these PLCs occur (e.g. at your school site, at district
meetings, off campus, etc).
b. Walk me through what a typical PLC you are involved in looks like.
c. How do you feel about the quality of that collaboration?
d. Thinking about your last answer, what are some of the positive results from the
collaboration you are involved in?
e. What, if any, are the negative results from this type of collaboration?
22. Describe how your site administrators supports collaboration among teachers on your
school site.

IV. Closing Question (Anything else to add):
I am wondering if there is anything that you would add to our conversation today, or
from our first conversation, that I might not have covered?

V. Closing:
Thank you very much for you sharing your thoughts with me today! I really appreciate
your time and willingness to share again. Everything that you have shared will be very helpful
for my study. As I mentioned at the beginning of our conversation today, I will be sending you
my initial analysis for your review and feedback. I will communicate with you via email with
this information.
Again, thank you for participating in my study.

KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

151
APPENDIX B
Information Sheet
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF A HYBRID ACADEMIC INTERVENTION PROTOCOL
DELIVERED TO UNDERACHCIEVING ELEMENTARY GRADES STUDENTS
ENROLLED IN K-12 PUBLIC SCHOOLS

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Daniel Sosa at the University of Southern
California. Please read through this form and ask any questions you might have before deciding whether
or not you want to participate.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This research study aims to understand how elementary intervention teachers implement a reading
intervention model that includes both direct and computer assisted instruction. I am particularly interested
in understanding the knowledge and motivation elementary intervention teachers believe they must possess
in order to implement the intervention model and any organizational structures they perceive may support
or inhibit achieving their goals.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to be interviewed up to two times for no more than
one hour each. The questions will be related to the knowledge, motivation and organizational influences
that impact elementary intervention teachers. You do not have to answer any questions you don’t want to.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
Participation in this study is voluntary and will be uncompensated.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential. At the
completion of the study, direct identifiers will be destroyed, the de-identified data will be kept in a password
protected storage drive and may be used for future research studies. If you do not want your data used in
future studies, you should not participate.

The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects Protection
Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights
and welfare of research subjects.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Daniel Sosa at
sosad@usc.edu or 951-488-2478.

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant or the research
in general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to talk to someone independent of
the research team, please contact the University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South
Flower Street #301, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.

KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

152
APPENDIX C
Documents Analyzed and included in Findings
Figure 2

Elementary Curriculum and Instruction
21
st
Century Education Plan Projects Committee

Page 1 of 1 –
Meeting Outcomes

1. Learn from current research on implementing MTSS at the elementary and
secondary levels
2. Identify resources, assessments and interventions for use within the various
tiers of MTSS
3. Provide planning time with colleagues for implementing MTSS at your school
site
4. Provide feedback to District team as to future trainings needed MTSS
committee

MTSS-A Committee
, 8:00 am – 3:00 pm
February 6, 2015
Guest Speaker:
School of Education

1. What are the “5 –ings” of MTSS?
2. What is our “current reality” and the “desired reality” for MTSS?
a. In the District
b. At your school site
3. What does the current research say about MTSS at your level that you did not
already know?
4. What information did you find vitally important that we must attend to within
our Pyramids of Intervention?
5. Did we achieve out meeting outcomes?

*Next meeting date: February 26, 2015
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

153
Documents Analyzed and included in Findings
Figure 3

Elementary Curriculum and Instruction
21
st
Century Education Plan Projects Committee

Page 1 of 1 –

Intervention Teacher Training &
MTSS-A Committee
Library – 8:00 – 3:00 pm
April 30, 2015

1. How can we better understand the Progress Monitoring process?
2. How can we use Microsoft Excel tools to chart data?
3. Which Tier 2 intervention systems does What Works Clearinghouse report on?
4. How can we narrow our options for Tier 2 intervention systems?
5. Did we achieve our meeting outcomes?

*Next meeting date: May 28, 2015
Meeting Outcomes

1. Progress Monitoring
a. Finish sections that were not completed at the last meeting.
b. Practice Progress Monitoring with participants and analyze results.
c. Debrief on the Progress Monitoring process.
d. Practice using Microsoft Excel tools to chart data.
2. Interventions (Tier 2)
a. Review What Works Clearinghouse for Tier 2 intervention systems.
b. Use criteria for reviewing systems.
c. Identify a few choices to review deeper.

KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

154
Documents Analyzed and included in Findings
Figure 4

Elementary Curriculum and Instruction
21
st
Century Education Plan Projects Committee

Page 1 of 1 –
Meeting Outcomes

1. Review of Tier Two materials for MTSS-A (2:00-2:45 pm)
2. Presentations on Universal Screening Tool options (3:00 – 4:30 pm)

Intervention Teacher Training &
MTSS-A Committee
2:00-4:45 PM
May 26, 2015

1. What are your recommendations for a viable Tier Two program for the future?

2. What is your recommendation for a Universal Screening Tools we can utilize for
2015-16

3. Did we achieve out meeting outcomes?

Next meeting date: September 10, 2015
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

155
Documents Analyzed and included in Findings
Figure 5

1

Chino Valley Unified School District
Elementary Curriculum and Instruction
21
st
Century Education Plan Projects Committee

MTSS-A Committee

Notes on Possible Tier 2 Resources

05/28/15

• Fast for word
Grades 3 and up
Fluency/Comp/Memory
• SRA Open Court (Imagine Learning)
• Sound Partners
• Guided Reading
• SRA Flex
• Rewards
Grade 4-6
• Diagnostic + Resources
Core Phonics Survey
• Train IT’s in Theory/Research
Communication
They use that to teach a program
• Lexia Reading
• PALS
• Project CRISS
• Head Sprout
• Earobics
KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

156
Documents Analyzed and included in Findings
Figure 6

Elementary Curriculum and Instruction

Page 1 of 2 –

Intervention Teacher Training/PLC
Library – 8:00 am – 12:00 pm
February 11, 2016
Today’s meeting outcomes:
1. Explore two (2) new Teacher Resources
2. Develop communication tool to use with teachers
3. Review Progress Monitoring with Learning
4. Discuss Tier 3 Core Replacement for 2016/17 & beyond
5. Review effective intervention plans with colleagues
6. Determine Bring Backs
8:00 – 8:20 am Explore two (2) new teacher resources
• What are these new resources?
• How can they be used with my students?

8:20 – 8:50 am Develop communication tool to use with teachers
• How can we better communicate our students’ results back to their
homeroom teachers?

8:50 – 10:00 am Review Progress Monitoring with Learning
• What does PM this look like in ?
• What is the process for PM-ing students in

10:00 – 10:15 am BREAK

10:15 – 10:45 am Discuss Tier 3 Core Replacement in 16/17 and beyond.
• What will Tier 3 look like in the future and why?

10:45 – 11:45 am Review effective intervention plans with colleagues
• What plans and/or strategies are working with my colleagues?

11:45 – 12:00 pm Determine Bring Backs & Questions
• Do we need to bring back additional information on a topic covered today?
• I have a question…

KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

157
Documents Analyzed and included in Findings
Figure 7

MTSS A
STEP Decision Making Flow Chart
Version 1.0 – June 2016

• Universal Access
• Common Flexible Grouping (PLC)
• Differentiation/SDAIE/Accommodations
• FASTBRIDGE – Universal Screening

Program Design
• Pull-out or Push-in: 30 min x 3 days
• Before/After School Intervention: 50 min x 3 days
• Study Skills/Target Intervention: 1 period x 5 days

Materials (District Provided)
• Lexia
• Fountas/Pinnell
• SIPPS
• IXL

Program Design
• Pull-out Intervention: 45 min x 5 days
• Before/After School
Intervention: 90 min x 5 days
Materials (District Provided)
• Read 180/Math 180
• Lexia
• Fountas/Pinnell
• SIPPS
Tier 1
High Risk Students –
Review the following:
FAST Score
Classroom Data
SBAC Scores
Benchmarks
Past Grades

Tier 2
Progress Monitoring

Monitoring tool for Tier 2 students
Aeries intervention record
Progress monitor every 2-4 weeks
Monitor @ least 1 cycle of Intervention
Monitor with MTSS/Grade Team
Cycle equals 6 PM data points

STEP Meeting
Tier 3
STEP Meeting – Modify Goal and/or
Intervention
Possible Special Education Referral
Meeting Goal =
Continue in Tier 2

Not Meeting Goal =
Proceed to STEP

Not Meeting Goal =
Continue to STEP

Move Directly to STEP on Case by Case Basis
Meeting Goal =
Continue in Tier 3

KMO OF HYBRID INTERVENTION

158
Documents Analyzed and included in Findings
Figure 8

Department: Curriculum & Instruction Director: Date: 2016-17

Goals/Objectives Committee /
Collaborating Partner
Projects Meeting Dates for
2016-2017
MTSS-A
• Continue training and support for
Intervention Teachers
• Support/train on new Tier 3 materials
• Support utilization of
• Make data-driven decisions for flexible
grouping in intervention involving the
classroom teachers
• Review intervention pieces of new
adoption*
• Review intervention pieces of ELA/ELD
Units of Study*
* Dependent on decision of Adoption Committee and
Executive Cabinet
Intervention Teacher
Training & Workshops /
Elementary School Sites

1. Continue training and support for
Intervention Teachers
2. Refine implementation of
Learning Tools for
Universal Screening and Progress
Monitoring

Full release days

• Sept. 29, 2016

• Feb. 7, 2017

• May 17, 2017

• Build/Support/Enhance Problem Solving
Culture on each school site

• Make data-driven decisions for flexible
grouping in intervention

• Train teams on the implementation of
STEP process
Site MTSS Teams /
Special Education,
Elementary School Sites

1. Support implementation of MTSS A
& B on sites
2. Implement STEP Process at all
elementary school sites ( to replace
SST)
3. Utilize Universal
Screening and Progress Monitoring
data

Full release days –
2 feeders each day

• Sept. 20 & 21, 2016

• Feb. 15 & 16, 2017

• Apr. 5 & 6, 2017

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The intersection of teacher knowledge and motivation with organizational culture on implementing positive psychology interventions through a character education curriculum

PDF

The knowledge, motivation and organizational influences that shape a special education teacher’s ability to provide effective specialized academic instruction

PDF

Building teacher competency to work with middle school long-term English language learners: an improvement model

PDF

The implementation of a multi-tiered system of support at Downtown Unified School District: an analysis of teacher needs

PDF

Implementing standards-based grading in the era of common standards: an evaluation study

PDF

Teachers’ knowledge of gifted students and their perceptions of gifted services in public elementary schooling

PDF

The implementation of response to intervention: an adapted gap analysis

PDF

Early literacy intervention

PDF

The use of differentiation in English medium instruction in Middle Eastern primary schools: a gap analysis

PDF

A case study on influences of mainstream teachers' instructional decisions and perceptions of English learners in Hawai'i public secondary education

PDF

Bridging the empathy gap: a mixed-method approach to evaluating teacher support in bullying prevention and intervention at an urban middle school in India

PDF

The implementation of a multi-tiered system of support in Downtown Unified School District: an analysis of site administrator needs

PDF

The knowledge, motivation, and organization influences affecting the frequency of empathetic teaching practice used in the classroom: an evaluation study

PDF

A qualitative examination of PBIS team members' perceptions of urban high school teachers' role in implementing tier 2 schoolwide positive behavior supports

PDF

Answering the call for shared leadership - the missing conditions for successful implementation of English language teacher leadership: an evaluation study

PDF

Teacher perception on positive behavior interventions and supports’ (PBIS) cultivation for positive teacher-student relationships in high schools: an evaluation study

PDF

The moderating role of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on employee turnover: A gap analysis

PDF

Positive behavior intervention support plan: a gap analysis

PDF

Understanding the reason for variation in high school graduation rates of Latino males

PDF

Elementary teachers’ perceptions of gender identity and sexuality and how they are revealed in their pedagogical and curricular choices: two case studies

Asset Metadata

Creator Sosa, Daniel Jefferson (author)

Core Title The interaction of teacher knowledge and motivation with organizational influences on the implementation of a hybrid reading intervention model taught in elementary grades

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 02/13/2019

Defense Date 12/19/2018

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Clark and Estes gap analysis framework,computer assisted instruction,decisive administrative leadership,direct instruction,early reading,elementary grades,elementary study,hybrid model,implementation of reading intervention,intervention,Isolation,KMO,KMO influences,knowledge, motivation, organizational influences,leadership,MTSS,multi-tiered systems of support,OAI-PMH Harvest,qualitative study,Reading,response to Intervention,RTI,teacher interviews,teacher perceptions,Teachers

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Samkian, Artineh (committee chair), Canny, Eric (committee member), Ott, Maria (committee member)

Creator Email danieljsosa@gmail.com,danieljsosa@icloud.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-118641

Unique identifier UC11675665

Identifier etd-SosaDaniel-7053.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-118641 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-SosaDaniel-7053.pdf

Dmrecord 118641

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Sosa, Daniel Jefferson

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA