University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 1

THE KNOWLEDGE, MOTIVATION AND ORGANIZATIONAL INFLUENCES THAT
SHAPE A SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER’S ABILITY TO PROVIDE EFFECTIVE
SPECIALIZED ACADEMIC INSTRUCTION

by
Janice Angela Carter

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

December 2019

Copyright 2019 Janice Angela Carter

TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 2
DEDICATION
I dedicate this dissertation to my family: my parents, my sisters, my son, and my husband
who gave me the time, space and encouragement that I needed to persevere. To my father Syl,
and my mother Jean who have always encouraged me, motivated me and supported me
throughout my life in all my academic and career endeavors and let me know from any early age
that I could achieve whatever I set my mind to. To my sisters Janet and Raquel, thanks for
putting up with me through all of the stages of my life and still loving me. To my beautiful son
Jordan, thank you for sharing me with this project and for understanding how important this was.
You now have my undivided attention! To my husband Sean, thank you for your encouragement
and perspective and for giving me life again during this last year.

TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 3
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals 21
Table 2: Knowledge Influences, Types, and Assessments for Knowledge Gap Analysis 37
Table 3: Motivational Influences and Assessments for Motivation Gap Analysis 44
Table 4: Organizational Influences and Assessments for Organizational Gap Analysis 47
Table 5: Pseudonyms of SETS, Special Education Setting, Grade Level and Years Taught 64

TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
There is something to be said about the human spirit which trusts in the power of the
unknown, unseen and unheard. It guides us to face the many challenges that life throws at us.
This unseen, unknown and unheard is what I consider to faith. Faith governed by the Almighty
guided me here and will continue to guide me throughout the rest of life’s journeys. To the
people who filled in the void between the unseen, unknown and unheard, this is where I thank
you. To Sean, you came back into my life at the end of my educational journey and you were
also there at the beginning. What a blessing you are to be here with me to celebrate the end of
this journey and the beginning of another - our life together! Thank you for cooking, cleaning,
taking care of me when I was too tired and distracted to do anything for us and for simply just
putting up with me. Thank you for your encouragement, perspective, for being so understanding,
and for giving me life again during this last year.
To my mother and father - Jean and Syl, who have always encouraged me, motivated me
and supported me throughout my life in all my academic and career endeavors and let me know
from any early age that I could achieve whatever I set my mind to: thank you for instilling a love
of learning and ambition in me. To my sisters Janet and Raquel, thank you for putting up with
me through all of the stages of my life and for accepting me as I am. To my beautiful son Jordan,
thank you for sharing me with this project and for understanding how important this was. You
now have my undivided attention! I hope you will use this as an example to pursue higher
education.
Special thanks to my dissertation chair, Dr. Artineh Samkian. Your unwavering patience,
understanding and unrelenting support really made the difference for me to persevere. Thank you
for the reminders, gentle and firm prodding and all of the feedback that may my study come to
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 5
life. I couldn’t have gotten this far without you! To my committee members Dr. Darline Robles
and Dr. Sarah Lillo whose feedback, encouragement and understanding made this process a lot
easier, thank you!
Finally, I want to celebrate USC Cohort 5 for their ongoing support, encouragement and
guidance throughout this program. A special thanks to my friend Jerrilyn Miles. Thank you for
catching me on up on everything in addition to your encouragement, talks, and laughs. I can’t
wait to celebrate with you. Fight On!

TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication 2
List of Tables 3
Acknowledgements 4
Abstract 8
Chapter One: Introduction 9
Background of The Problem 10
Organizational Context and Mission 12
Importance of Addressing the Problem 13
Related Literature 15
Organizational Performance Status and Goals 20
Stakeholder Groups 21
Goals of the Stakeholder Groups for the Study 22
Stakeholder Group for The Study and Goal 22
Purpose of the Project and Questions 23
Methodological Framework 24
Definitions 24
Organization of the Study 25
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 26
Specialized Academic Instruction 26
High-Leverage Practices 27
Explicit Instruction 28
Intensive Instruction 29
Targeted Interventions and SAI 30
Gap Analysis Framework 31
Stakeholder Knowledge, Skills, Motivational, and Organizational Influences 32
Knowledge and Skills 33
Motivation 38
Organizational Influences 44
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation and the
Organizational Context 48
Figure 1. Conceptual framework. 49
Conclusion 51
Chapter Three: Methods 52
Research Questions 52
Participating Stakeholders: Sampling and Recruitment 53
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale 53
Interview Sampling Recruitment Strategy and Rationale 54
Data Collection and Instrumentation 55
Data Analysis 57
Credibility and Trustworthiness 57
Ethics 58
Limitations and Delimitations 60
Chapter Four: Findings 63
Participants 63
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 7
Knowledge 64
Motivation 70
Cultural Settings 78
Cultural Models: Policies and Procedures for SAI 83
Cultural Models: More Support to Implement effective SAI 84
Chapter Five: Discussion 87
Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 89
Procedural Knowledge Solutions 89
Metacognitive Knowledge Solutions 90
Motivation Influences and Recommendations 91
Organizational Influences and Recommendations 93
Conclusion 94
References 97
Appendix A: Nested Structure of Specialized Academic Instruction 108
Appendix B: High-Leverage Practices 109
Appendix C: Principles and Elements of Effective Explicit Instruction 110
Appendix D: Interview Protocol 111
Appendix E: University of Southern California Information Sheet for Research 116
Appendix F: Recruitment Letter 118
Appendix G: Interview Analysis Plan With KMO Influences 119
Appendix H: Glossary of Terms and Related Resources 122

TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 8
ABSTRACT
The 1997 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act introduced
the concept of access to the general curriculum for students with disabilities by stating that the
education of these students could be made more effective by high expectations and ensuring their
access in the general curriculum. The intent was to raise expectations for the educational
performance of students with disabilities and to improve their educational outcomes. Students
with specific learning disabilities such as those with dyslexia, not only have the cognitive ability
to meet state academic standards but are legally entitled to special education services that allows
them to meet the standards. The problem of practice that was the focus of the study is low
achievement for students with specific learning disabilities based on their performance on district
and statewide assessments. This research study aimed to understand what factors contribute to
the delivery of effective specialized academic instruction by special education teachers and to
what extent or degree the organization had contributed to its implementation in order to facilitate
improved student outcomes for students with specific learning disabilities. The results indicated
that special education teachers have procedural knowledge of delivery of specialized academic
instruction, however, lacked specific training and administrative support in consistently
delivering this instruction to meet the unique needs of their students. Potential implications were
presented as well as explanations and recommendations for practice and future research.
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 9
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
This dissertation focused on the problem of practice regarding low achievement among
students identified with specific learning disabilities (SWSLD) who receive specialized academic
instruction (SAI). A specific learning disability is a disorder in one or more of the basic
psychological processes involved in understanding or using language, spoken or written, which
may manifest in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical
calculations (National Center for Learning Disabilities, 2018). SAI is described as adaptation of
instruction, content, or methodology, as appropriate, to meet the needs of children with a
disability to ensure their access to the general curriculum (Brownell, Sindelar, Kiely, &
Danielson, 2010; Code of Federal Regulations, Title 34, Section 300.39(b)(3); Riccomini,
Morano, & Hughes, 2017). The evidence suggests increased student outcomes in the special
education classroom are determined by the special education teacher’s ability to create an
instructional program to meet these students’ unique needs (Allinder, 1994).
This problem is important to address because studies show practices shown by scientific
research to increase student performance (i.e., high-leverage practices or HLPs) will improve
outcomes (Cook & Odom, 2013), including in the long term. For example, employment
outcomes for individuals with disabilities are significantly lower than for non-disabled
individuals. Studies by the Bureau of Labor Statistics found adults with disabilities participate in
the labor force at lower rates than adults without disabilities, with 27% of adults with disabilities
participating in the workforce compared to 77% of those without disabilities (National Center for
Education Statistics, 2018). Addressing academic outcomes can positively influence labor force
outcomes.
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 10
SWSLD, such as those with dyslexia, have the cognitive ability to meet state
academic standards and are legally entitled to special education services to allow them to
meet the standards (Thurlow et al., 2008). It is significant to note SWSLD fall in the largest
category of disabilities, with cognitive abilities ranging from low average to above average
(Hettleman, 2013). Approximately 2.3 million students are diagnosed with specific learning
disabilities and receive services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA). This represents 35% of all students receiving special education services (Hettleman,
2013; National Center for Education Statistics, 2018). The research shows a majority of
SWSLD can meet the same achievement standards as their general education peers if they
have access to the same content and are provided with SAI including accommodations,
modifications and related services when needed (Thurlow et al., 2008).
Background of The Problem
The 1997 reauthorization of IDEA introduced the concept of access to the general
curriculum by stating the education of students with disabilities could be made more effective by
“having high expectations for such children and ensuring their access in the general curriculum
to the maximum extent possible” (20 U.S.C. §1400(c)(5)(A)). The intent was to raise
expectations for the educational performance of students with disabilities and to improve their
educational outcomes (Karger, 2004).
There are approximately 6 million school-aged children in the United States of America
classified with physical, developmental and learning disabilities who receive special education
and related services, accounting for approximately 13% of the total school population (Aron and
Loprest, 2012). With the passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act in 1975,
students with special needs were afforded an opportunity to access a free and appropriate public
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 11
education that transformed their education. Students who had previously been taught in
segregated facilities or institutions were now legally entitled to a free, public education in the
least restrictive environment as appropriate to their needs. Forty years later, 95% of the 6 million
students with disabilities aged 6 to 21 are served in regular schools, and 61% of them spend a
majority of their day in regular classrooms (Aron and Loprest, 2012).
The current standard used to calculate special education student progress is “educational
benefit,” which means students demonstrate meaningful growth via individualized education
program (IEP) goals providing for 12 months’ academic growth in basic skills like reading and
writing (Hettleman, 2013). Currently, national data show minimal improvement in the academic
performance of students with disabilities as seen in results of the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) which tracks the progress made by selected student groups at the
national, state, and district levels.
The NAEP data show that, for students with disabilities, aggregate math scores decreased
in 2017, while aggregate reading scores in 2017 are not significantly different across student
groups. For grade 8 students, the aggregate math scores in 2017 are not significantly different
across student groups compared to 2015, while the aggregate reading scores increased in 2017
compared to 2015 (NAEP, 2017). In general, these data do not provide significant evidence of
improvement in the academic performance of students with disabilities.
On a national scale, the number of SWSLD scoring at proficiency on state tests is
30% to 40% lower than their non-disabled peers (Cortiella, 2011). Further, national data
show, on average, these students are three to four years behind their grade-level peers in
reading and math, and drop out of school at about twice the rate of their non-disabled peers
(Cortiella, 2011). Overall, the evidence suggests school districts apply lower standards for
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 12
special education student progress under IDEA and other federal laws compared to their
general education peers, which results in low SWSLD academic achievement (Hettleman,
2013). This, in turn, influences student outcomes. According to data from the National
Longitudinal Transition Study of 2012 for the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of
Education Sciences, 12% of special education secondary school students who were surveyed
nationwide reported they are half as likely as their peers to take college entrance tests such as
the SAT, half as likely to matriculate to college, less likely to have paid work experiences,
and less likely to live independently after high school (Hettleman, 2013).
Organizational Context and Mission
Joint Unified School District (pseudonym), or JUSD, is an urban district located in the
southwest United States. The district serves approximately 10,000 students in K-12 programs
and an additional 1,500 pre-school students. Of this number, 20% of the total student population
receive special education services, which is a total of 2300 students: 65% of this number are
SWSLD, total of 1,495 students. SWSLD are placed in either a special day class or general
education setting and receive related services, such as speech and language services, or
psychological and counseling services. While the district serves students from diverse ethnic
backgrounds, approximately 80% of the student population is identified as African American
(45%) and Hispanic/Latino (35%). These demographics are inclusive of SWSLD. The mission
of the district is to ensure all students are taught rigorous standards-based curriculum supported
by highly qualified staff in an effective and innovative educational system.
Within JUSD, the district-wide special education program (SEP) provides a wide
spectrum of programs and related services for students with a variety of disabilities, ages infant
through 22 Students who reside within the boundaries of the district are eligible to receive
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 13
special education and related services via a continuum of programs based on student needs. SEP
employs over 400 staff members, including 90 teachers, 200 para-professionals, and over 100
related service providers such as school nurses, speech and language pathologists, and school
psychologists to support these students’ learning and social-emotional needs.
Importance of Addressing the Problem
The problem of low achievement for SWSLD is important to solve for a variety of reasons.
First, teacher quality is considered a key element in improving primary and secondary education
in the United States. As it pertains to SWSLD, one of the primary goals of the No Child Left
Behind law was to have a “highly qualified teacher” in every classroom (Harris & Sass, 2011).
Second, research has shown extensive preparation in special education was associated with
improved achievement for students with disabilities. The authors were able to link gains in
student achievement to individual teachers; years of experience, certification status, as well as
the nature and extent of their preparation (Sindelar, Brownell & Billingsley, 2010). For the
district to fulfill its mission of ensuring all students are taught rigorous standards-based on
curriculum supported by highly qualified staff in an exemplary educational system, it is
imperative that SEP teachers demonstrate they are equipped to improve their students’ outcomes.
Historically, special education practices have varied among school districts
nationwide, thus impacting these students’ receiving appropriate special education services
and their outcomes (Thurlow et al., 2008). The evidence uncovers special education
practitioners reported using instructional practices shown by research to be ineffective with
similar or greater frequency than some research-based practices (Cook & Odom, 2013). This
occurs because there is a gap between research and practice in special education, despite
attempts to bridge the research-to-practice gap by identifying and implementing effective
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 14
practices. There is little evidence suggesting the gap has been meaningfully reduced (Cook &
Odom, 2013). This, in turn, influences student outcomes. As previously mentioned, 12% of
special education secondary school students surveyed nationwide reported they are half as
likely as their peers to take college entrance tests, half as likely to matriculate to college, less
likely to have paid work experiences, and less likely to live independently after high school
(Cook & Odom, 2013).
States are now required to increase all students’ achievement. In California for
example, the California Department of Education’s special education division is charged with
aligning new federal progress measures for students with disabilities with the state board’s
system of evaluation to gauge success under the state’s school finance system. This is the
basis of the Local Control Funding Formula, which directs additional funds to districts to
serve high-needs students, defined as low-income students, English learners and foster
children. In essence, federal and state governments each established systems to hold schools
accountable for student achievement. Schools are required to measure the academic
performance of all students in grades 2 through 11, regardless of disability status, using
standardized assessments based on state content standards (Ehlers, 2013). Additionally, each
accountability system establishes performance expectations both for overall school
performance and for the performance of specific student groups within the school, including
SWSLD (Ehlers, 2013). The local education agencies and schools which fail to meet
expectations for multiple years face increased monitoring and sanctions, which could result in
loss of funding and programs (Ehlers, 2013).
Notwithstanding steady progress in graduation rates among special education students, on
a national level, approximately 64% of these students graduate high school compared to the
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 15
national average of 83 % (NCES, 2015). Lower achievement for students with special needs
typically results in lower life outcomes, including an increased need for social services with
significant financial and societal impacts (Aragon, 2016).
Related Literature
The literature reviewed in this section focuses on factors which limiting SWSLD from
meeting their outcomes and making measurable progress as well as precursory interventions
from the Response to Intervention (RtI) framework incorporating SAI. These interventions
include High-leverage practices comprised of explicit instruction (EI) and intensive instruction
(II) used by both general education teachers and special education teachers (SETs) to address the
needs of SWSLD (Riccomini et al., 2017). High-leverage practices are professional practices
teachers should master and use to provide effective SAI (Riccomini et al., 2017; Hughes, Morris,
Therrien, & Benson, 2017). Explicit Instruction, a High-leverage practices, is a systematic,
direct, engaging and success-oriented approach to providing SAI (Riccomini et al., 2017).
Intensive Instruction, also a High-leverage practices, refers to intensity of instruction or
intervention (Riccomini et al., 2017). The influence of SETs knowledge and experience on
implementation of SAI and related interventions is also introduced.
Currently, there is no legislation guaranteeing successful academic or social-
emotional outcomes for SWSLD notwithstanding the substantial achievement gap between
these students and their general education peers (Harr-Robins et al., 2012). This gap
continues today despite numerous amendments to the laws and scholarly works by special
education researchers showing the gap persists. In essence, this factor limits SWSLD from
meeting their outcomes. Consequently, SWSLD continue to fall behind their peers in both
academic achievement and social-emotional indicators of success (Harr-Robins et al., 2012).
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 16
Comparative indicators, such as state-level assessments are essential because they represent
the focus of most state and district accountability systems. Since each state is allowed to
determine the standardized test it will use to meet federal reporting requirements, national
average scores for students taking state-level tests cannot be calculated. As a result, data
about students with disabilities and their peers are presented as a percentage of students
scoring at each proficiency level in each state. During school year 2010–11, less than 50%
of SWSLD in grades 3 through 12 scored proficient on the state grade-level reading
assessment in 44 states. Less than 50% of SWSLD in 40 states scored proficient on the state
grade-level mathematics assessment (U.S. Department of Education, 2011a).
SWSLD in JUSD comprise 65% of the total special education student population,
which represents 13% of the total general education student population. All SWSLD in the
district are assessed on the smarter balanced assessments, and the stakeholder performance
goal calls for 80% of special education students who participate on these statewide
assessments to demonstrate progress by meeting or exceeding growth targets. During the
2017–2018 school year, approximately 20% of SWSLD in grades 3 through 11 in the district
received a score of met or exceeds on the smarter balanced assessments compared to 50% of
their general education peers.
Furthermore, the expectations for SWSLD to graduate from high school versus achieving
their IEP goals varies by state, district, and school. There is currently no database or system
allowing these data to be compiled, analyzed and reported on a national or statewide scale. Thus,
SETs typically track the progress of students achieving their IEP goals on an individual basis.
This lack of consistency in data limits efforts to serve the students well.
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 17
Nonetheless, studies show SWSLD can make measurable progress and increase their
outcomes based on a variety of factors. Elmore (2002) cited knowledge of content, pedagogy,
curriculum, assessment, and instruction as well as teacher ability to provide high quality
instruction as factors shaping students’ measurable progress towards their individual goals. This
suggests that, for SWSLD to make measurable progress towards their individual goals, SETs
need access to the most effective resources to support these students’ individual instructional
needs (Browder, Wood, Thompson, & Ribuffo, 2014). SETs design SAI for SWSLD by
selecting specific instructional strategies, method, or delivery (Riccomini et al., 2017). The
research shows that, when implemented effectively, SAI meets the needs of SWSLD, as it
increases their access to the general curriculum while meeting goals and objectives outlined
within their IEPs (Riccomini et al., 2017). Thus, when delivered with fidelity, SAI is effective in
addressing the individual goals and objectives of SWSLD (Riccomini et al., 2017).
Using the RtI continuum, the provision of Tertiary Interventions (TIII) to students who
are later referred for special education services represents the most II a student can receive
within the general education setting (Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009). RtI provides a progressive
series of interventions in three tiers. Tier one provides a core instructional program for all
students, including assessments to detect and diagnose learning deficiencies among those not
making sufficient progress using HLPs (Hettleman, 2013; Riccomini et al., 2017). Tier two
provides additional instruction for students in small groups, either within the general education
classroom or in a pull-out setting incorporating EI (Hettleman, 2013; Riccomini et al., 2017).
Students still struggling after tier two interventions are then provided with TIII interventions,
which is II, incorporating such strategies as small group instruction and/or tutoring, increased
time on tasks, progress monitored weekly or biweekly, and a more specialized teacher such as a
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 18
SET or intervention teacher (Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009; Riccomini et al., 2017). In most school
districts, intensive TIII interventions precede a referral to special education, and most often
contribute to IEP services for students found eligible for special education after HLP and EI are
deemed unsuccessful (Hettleman, 2013).
The review of literature presents RtI models rely on the implementation of evidence-
based interventions incorporating HLP designed to remediate academic difficulties (Hettleman,
2013; Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009; Riccomini et al., 2017). Within HLP, the evidence suggests EI
is effective in both literacy and mathematics instruction for students with and without disabilities
(Kamil et al., 2008; Riccomini et al., 2017), and II is critical in addressing the needs of SWSLD
via varying the intensity of interventions to match the student need f or adequate academic or
behavioral progress (Riccomini et al., 2017). Successful RtI implementation requires greater
teaching expertise (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006; Gersten & Dimino, 2006) and better preparation for
the roles teachers will play at each tier.
Research on expert learners and teachers and on interventions for students with high-
incidence disabilities suggests SETs need domain knowledge in areas targeted for TIII
instruction as well as knowledge of HLP, EI and II interventions, technological adaptations, and
assessments for students with unique learning needs (Brownell et al., 2010; Riccomini et al.,
2017). Research conducted analyzing over 180 intervention studies for SWSLD over a 30- year
period suggest moderate to high effects of student outcomes for students in general education
classes (Lee Swanson and Hoskyn, 1999). Higher effects for outcomes were noted for SWSLD
who received interventions in resource room settings (Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009)
Further, implementing interventions with fidelity improves student outcomes (Kovaleski,
Gickling, Morrow, and Swank et. al., 1999). A case study on the impact of using interventions
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 19
with fidelity on student achievement outcomes as part of a model of instructional support found
low-performing students had significantly greater gains with respect to time on task, task
completion, and task comprehension (Kovaleski, Gickling, Morrow, and Swank et. al., 1999).
Another dimension of intensity in the taxonomy is complexity, which relates to the number of EI
elements included in the instructional program, and II in this domain would involve
strengthening or adding EI elements, such as the use of clear, concise, and consistent language
when modeling; ensuring students have prerequisite skills; systematic fading of supports
contingent upon correct responses; and providing distributed and cumulative review (Hughes et
al., 2017; Riccomini et al., 2017).
The researchers utilized a stratified sampling procedure to select instructional support
team (IST) schools and non-IST schools to secure individual participants who were students at
risk for failure. The participants included approximately 500 IST students and approximately 200
non-IST students. The hypothesis was that students’ degree of progress (time on task, task
completion, and task comprehension) would depend on the implementation (high or low) of the
essential program elements (Kovaleski et al., 1999).
The researchers uncovered low-performing students who had significantly greater gains
with respect to time on task, task completion, and task comprehension received higher levels of
implementation of program elements (Kovaleski et al., 1999). Thus, achievement outcomes for
students with low-level implementation of IST were in line with students from non-IST schools
(Kovaleski et al., 1999). However, other research suggests approximately 60% of teachers
implement instructional practices with fidelity, and only 50% of those maintain their use of the
practice over the entire school year (Cook & Odom, 2013). Nonetheless, studies show programs
and practices can be designed flexibly so they can be implemented with fidelity while still
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 20
meeting the needs of different students in varying educational contexts (Cook & Odom, 2013).
The implications from these findings are that, when SETs implement SAI with fidelity, this can
significantly increase student achievement.
Although there are still large gaps in performance between special education students and
their non-disabled peers, there is now a better understanding about these students, their
opportunities to learn, and what can be expected of them (Thurlow et al., 2008). The literature
presents what needs to change in their instruction to improve their achievement and how HLPs
incorporating EI and II can be used as a starting point for selecting, designing, and implementing
effective SAI (Riccomini et al., 2017; Thurlow et al., 2008).
Organizational Performance Status and Goals
The organizational performance problem at the root of this study is a lack of measurable
student progress for more than 80% of the total student population. Within the SEP at JUSD, the
number of special education students demonstrating measurable progress in one or more
performance areas during the 2016-2017 school year was less than 50% based on district
performance assessments.
Due to the disproportionate number of students identified as having special needs,
instructional practices enabling students with disabilities to achieve their goals must be
examined. District-wide student achievement data revealed, on average, a 30% increase in test
scores among all other subgroups. SWSLD demonstrated just under a 5% improvement in test
scores. This reveals disproportionate achievement for special education students and highlights
the performance gap in the district. This current performance status impacts the ability of the
district to achieve the organizational mission of providing all students with rigorous standards-
based curriculum supported by highly qualified staff in an exemplary educational system.
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 21
The related goal of the district is detailed in Table 1. It focuses on increasing measurable
student progress, as, currently, there is insufficient evidence of measurable student progress for
more than 80% of the student population. This is attributed to a lack of evidence of targeted
intervention for students in meeting their individualized goals.
Stakeholder Groups
School districts have diverse groups of stakeholders who are integral in contributing to
their mission, vision, values and goals. While the chief academic officer, program administrators
and human resources in the district indirectly influence student outcomes for both the general
and special education student population, the SEP has more direct influence on driving
achievement for special education students. Table 1 provides the organizational mission,
organizational performance goal, and stakeholder goals of the district (JUSD).
Table 1 Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational Mission
The mission of the JUSD is to ensure that all students are taught rigorous standards-based curriculum
supported by highly qualified staff in an exemplary educational system.
Organizational Performance Goal
By June 2019, JUSD will increase measurable student progress for at least 80% of the total student
population.
Chief Academic Officer
By June 2018, JUSD will develop
a strategic plan to address
program needs.
Administrator(s)
By December 2018, JUSD
administrator(s) will develop an
action plan to address program
and site needs pertaining to
student progress.
Special Education Program
Teachers
By June 2019, SETs will provide
effective specialized academic
instruction as evidenced by an
increase in measurable student
progress for at least 80% of
SWSLD.

TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 22
Goals of the Stakeholder Groups for the Study
The relationship between the organizational performance goal and the stakeholder groups
charged with meeting individual goals are illustrated in Table 1. Each stakeholder goal
contributes to the achievement of the organizational performance goal. The district is charged
with increasing measurable student progress for at least 80% of the total student population. The
chief academic officer is responsible for developing a strategic plan to address program needs.
The program administrators are responsible for developing an action plan to address program
and site needs pertaining to student progress. SETs are responsible for providing effective SAI
to improve student progress for at least 80% of SWSLD.
Stakeholder Group for The Study and Goal
While the joint efforts of all stakeholders contribute to the achievement of the overall
organizational goal of increasing measurable student progress for at least 80% of the total student
population, SETs are the catalyst for special education student achievement. Allinder (1994) and
Elmore (2002) stated teachers are directly responsible for managing the instructional program to
meet the needs of the students and influence their progress. Consequently, knowledge of
content, pedagogy, curriculum, assessment and instruction, and their ability to provide effective
instruction affects students’ ability to make measurable progress towards their goals (Elmore,
2002).
SETs, who comprise the SEP, are directly responsible for designing SAI, managing the
instructional program, implementing the adopted curriculum, and ensuring students receive
related services. Thus, SETs make up the stakeholder group of focus because they are directly
responsible for managing the instructional program and ensuring students receive related
services. In the district, SETs’ goal is to provide effective SAI, and they are charged with
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 23
increasing measurable student progress for at least 80% of the SWSLD student population. This
goal was established after collaborative meetings between the program director and program
administrators uncovered several key areas needing improvement. A major area identified was
vague student performance information pertaining to goal achievement via the students’ IEPs.
Data revealed goal attainment among special education students was reported using largely
undefined descriptors which did not provide robust data with supporting evidence to reflect
measurable gains for more than 80% of the students.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to conduct a modified gap analysis to examine factors
shaping the gap in outcomes for special education students in the program being studied. While
a complete gap analysis would focus on all stakeholders, for practical purposes the stakeholders
of focus in this analysis were SETs, since they directly provide SAI and are responsible for the
development and measurement of students’ IEPs. The analysis employed Clark and Estes’
(2008) gap analysis framework by examining the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences facilitating or impeding the organization from reaching its organizational performance
goal while examining assumed interfering elements. The questions guiding this study were as
follows:
1. What are special education teachers’ knowledge and motivation in relation to the
stakeholder goal of providing effective specialized academic instruction?
2. How do special education teachers’ knowledge and motivation interact with the special
education program’s culture and context to shape their ability to accomplish provision of
effective specialized academic instruction?
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 24
3. What are the recommended knowledge and skills, motivation of special education
teachers, and organizational solutions as it relates to the provision of effective specialized
academic instruction?
Methodological Framework
To examine SETs’ goal of providing effective SAI as evidenced by an increase in
measurable student progress for at least 80% of the total special education student population, I
conducted a gap analysis (Clark & Estes, 2008) to ascertain the SETs’ knowledge and skills and
motivation, as well as organizational culture, relevant to achieving the stakeholder goals. This
analysis helped identify the gaps in SETs’ knowledge and motivation, and the organizational
culture needed to achieve organizational goals.
I used a qualitative research design because this aligned well with the research questions.
Maxwell (2013) asserted researchers who select a qualitative approach should check the
compatibility of their reasons for doing so with the goals of the study, the research questions and
the activities involved in doing the study (p. 26). The interview protocol consisted of open-
ended questions allowing for the participants’ voices to be heard. I used this design because this
allowed me to better gauge and calibrate themes emerging from the data. Essentially, I wanted
the participants to self-report in ascertaining the extent of their knowledge, motivation, and
organization gaps using interviews to extract themes and elaborate on concepts. The knowledge
and motivation of SETs as well as the organization’s culture and context influence on SETs was
explored using interviews.
Definitions
Special Education: A specially designed instruction to addresses the unique needs of
children with disabilities at no cost to parents (IDEA, 2018)
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 25
Specialized Academic Instruction (SAI): Instructional adaptations of instruction, content,
or methodology, as appropriate, to meet the needs of children with a disability to ensure their
access to the general curriculum, so they can meet the educational standards within the
jurisdiction of the public agency which apply to all children (Code of Federal Regulations, Title
34, Section 300.39(b)(3).
Individualized Education Plan (IEP): An IEP is a written statement of the educational
program designed to meet a child’s individual needs. Every child who receives special education
services must have an IEP (Pretti-Frontczak & Bricker, 2000)
Organization of the Study
This study is organized in five chapters. This chapter provided information about the
organization’s problem of practice, related literature about the problem of practice, the
organization’s mission, goals and stakeholder goals. Chapter Two provides a review of current
literature surrounding the scope of the study as well as a gap analysis exploring SETs’
knowledge, skills, motivation and organizational influences pertaining to SAI, specialized
curricula, curriculum implementation and related training. Chapter Three details research
methods, including sampling and recruitment of participants, and data collection and analysis
plans. In Chapter Four, the data will be analyzed, and findings and results will be presented to
answer the research questions. Chapter Five provides solutions, based on data and literature, for
closing the perceived gaps, as well as recommendations for an implementation and evaluation
plan.

TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 26
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This chapter presents the background of SAI, followed by the scope of targeted
interventions within RtI related to the provision of SAI: High-Leverage Practices, Explicit
Instruction and Intensive Instruction, including their definitions, methods of delivery, and
effectiveness in the instruction of SWSLD within a three tiered system of support. It then
presents a general overview of these targeted interventions and how they align to the
development of appropriate SAI for SWSLD. Finally, possible causes for SETs performance
problem due to gaps in the areas of teacher knowledge and skills, motivation and organizational
influences (KMO; Clark & Estes, 2008) and the conceptual framework for the study will be
presented.
Specialized Academic Instruction
The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (Pub. L. 94-142) defined
special education as “specially designed instruction, at no cost to parents or guardians, to meet
the unique needs of a [child with a disability], including classroom instruction, instruction in
physical education, home instruction, and instruction in hospitals and institutions.” The
reauthorization of IDEA (2006) in 2000 and 2004 retained this definition with a change in
terminology of specially designed instruction referred to as SAI in some states. Current IDEA
regulations define SAI as
adapting, as appropriate to the needs of an eligible child under this part, the content,
methodology or delivery of instruction (i) to address the unique needs of the child that
result from the child’s disability; and (ii) to ensure access of the child to the general
curriculum, so that the child can meet the educational standards within the jurisdiction of
the public agency that apply to all children. (34 C.F.R. §300.39[b][3])
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 27
The intent of SAI is to support SWSLD access to the general education curriculum while
meeting the goals and objectives outlined IEPs (Riccomini et al., 2017). In essence, SAI results
from identifying the goals and objectives of intervention, is individualized, and will be different
for students with different strengths, needs, and abilities (Riccomini et al., 2017). Appendix A
illustrates High-Leverage Practices, Explicit Instruction and Intensive Instruction. SAI specifies
the type of instruction SWSLD should receive created by changing instructional content,
methods, or delivery to meet the student’s unique needs as a result of a disability (Riccomini et
al., 2017). As illustrated in Appendix A, High-Leverage Practices, Explicit Instruction and
Intensive Instruction are all aspects of SAI
High-Leverage Practices
High-Leverage Practices (HLPs) are “a set of practices that are fundamental to support
K–12 student learning, and that can be taught, learned, and implemented by those entering the
profession” (Windschitl, Thompson, Braaten, & Stroupe, 2012). High-Leverage Practices
address various aspects related to the delivery of special education: collaboration, assessment,
social-emotional-behavior supports, and instruction. Studies show the criteria for selecting HLPs
must focus directly on instructional practice, occur with high frequency in teaching in any
setting, be research-based and known to foster student engagement and learning, be broadly
applicable and usable in any content area or approach to teaching, and be fundamental to
effective teaching when executed skillfully (McLeskey et al., 2017). High-Leverage Practices
can be used as a starting point for selecting, designing, and implementing effective SAI
(Riccomini et al., 2017). For example, the High-Leverage Practices of Explicit Instruction may
be appropriate for a SWSLD identified as having attention and working-memory problems, as
this approach addresses both of these challenges (Archer & Hughes, 2011; Doabler et al., 2016).
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 28
Thus, High-Leverage Practices serve as foundational aspects to the delivery of effective
SAI (McLeskey et al., 2017; Riccomini et al., 2017). That is, these are features of instruction
which should be present across the majority of instruction delivered to students with disabilities
(McLeskey et al., 2017; Riccomini et al., 2017). Once instruction begins, data should inform
teachers’ decisions to change instruction by adjusting features of instructional intensity or
incorporating different High-Leverage Practices as needed to meet students’ unique needs
(McLeskey et al., 2017; Riccomini et al., 2017). The Council for Exceptional Children and the
Collaboration for Effective Educator, Development, Accountability, and Reform Center
published a collection of 22 High-Leverage Practices generated by a team of special education
researchers (McLeskey et al., 2017). They recommend these High-Leverage Practices as
professional practices taught in all SET preparation programs (Appendix B).
Explicit Instruction
Explicit Instruction or EI is an instructional approach identified as a High-Leverage
Practice (Archer & Hughes, 2011; Hughes et al., 2017; Riccomini et al., 2017). Explicit
Instruction is defined as a group of research-supported instructional behaviors used to design and
deliver instruction to provide needed supports for successful learning through clarity of language
and purpose, and reduction of cognitive load (Archer & Hughes, 2011; Hughes et al., 2017;
Riccomini et al., 2017). It promotes active student engagement by requiring frequent and varied
responses followed by appropriate affirmative and corrective feedback, and assists long-term
retention through use of purposeful practice strategies (Hughes et al., 2017, p. 4; Riccomini et
al., 2017).
The Explicit Instruction approach is guided by six principles and 16 elements (Appendix
C) derived and distilled from 40-plus years of research focused on effective instruction in general
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 29
and special education (Archer & Hughes, 2011; Hughes et al., 2017; Riccomini et al., 2017).
Explicit Instruction is taught in many SET preparation programs as a framework for designing
and delivering SAI lesson plans because the evidence suggests Explicit Instruction promotes
learning more effectively and efficiently than other approaches to instruction for students
experiencing difficulty learning academic skills (Riccomini et al., 2017). Recent reports
published by the National Mathematics Advisory Panel (2008) and the Institute for Education
Sciences used evidence of the effectiveness of Explicit Instruction as a basis to recommend its
use in both literacy and mathematics instruction for all students (Gersten et al., 2009; Kamil et
al., 2008; Riccomini et al., 2017).
Intensive Instruction
Intensive Instruction or II, also an High-Leverage Practice (McKleskey et al., 2017;
Riccomini et al., 2017), is a process by which the intensity of an intervention is increased to
match the severity of student need or lack of expected or adequate academic or behavioral
progress (McKleskey et al., 2017; Riccomini et al., 2017). The concept of Intensive Instruction
is critical for students who have not progressed even after the use of supplemental, research-
supported interventions (McKleskey et al., 2017; Riccomini et al., 2017). These are the students
who are typically referred for special education services to provide the intensity needed
(McKleskey t al., 2017; Riccomini et al., 2017). When and how to increase instructional
intensity are based on frequent progress-monitoring data which allows for individualized
instruction, a key aspect of SAI (McKleskey et al., 2017; Riccomini et al., 2017).
A number of evidence-based dimensions for evaluating and building intensity are
identified to increase the intensity of interventions (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Malone, 2013; Riccomini et
al., 2017). One dimension is decreasing the size of the instructional group and increasing the
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 30
amount of instructional time (i.e., duration and frequency of instructional sessions) also
described as “dosage” (Fuchs et al., 2013; Riccomini et al., 2017). Another example is
decreasing group size (or providing one-to-one instruction) and increasing instructional time,
which results in more opportunities to respond and to receive individual feedback, both shown to
improve learning (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Riccomini et al., 2017).
Targeted Interventions and SAI
As presented in the previous sections, schools can use the problem-solving model of RtI
to examine the achievement of all students and evaluate their needs to provide instruction and/or
intervention within three tiers of support using HLPs, EI, and II (Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009;
Riccomini et al., 2017). Within the third tier of support, students at risk for reading and
academic failure can receive evidence-based, intense levels of interventions: II (Riccomini et al.,
2017; Stecker et al., 2005). The level of II needed is determined by data and individual student
goals (Heward, 2003). Within this framework, SETs can select targeted interventions for their
students to develop appropriate IEP goals and the amount of II needed (Heward, 2003). SETs
can also use their pedagogical knowledge and teaching strategies/techniques to determine each
student’s current performance in the development of goals and objectives and related services.
Notwithstanding the gap in performance between special education students and their
non-disabled peers, there is now a better understanding about these students, their opportunities
to learn, and what can be expected of them (Thurlow et al., 2008). Studies have uncovered the
changes needed in their instruction, access to the curriculum, and in assessments to improve their
achievement and align this to inclusive assessments (Thurlow et al., 2008). Thus, the starting
point for knowledge of effective instructional practices for students with special needs lies in
timely, adequate interventions as learning challenges emerge, outlined by RtI (Hettleman, 2013).
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 31
The literature presents RtI models rely on the implementation of evidence-based interventions
designed to remediate academic difficulties for all students (Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009).
Furthermore, research conducted analyzing over 180 intervention studies for SWSLD over a 30–
year period (Lee Swanson, and Hoskyn, 1999). Definition x treatment interactions for students
with learning disabilities. School Psychology Review, 28(4).) suggest moderate to high effects
across studies and higher effect sizes for interventions conducted in resource room settings than
those in general education classes (Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009).
Gap Analysis Framework
This study examined SETs’ implementation of SAI to address students’ needs and their
related use of data to measure progress towards their goals. A modified gap analysis was
conducted to examine factors shaping the gap in outcomes for special education students in the
program being studied. The Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework which is a
systematic analytic approach to clarifying organizational and stakeholder performance goals as
well as identifying the gap between the current performance level and the performance goal was
utilized. After a performance gap is identified, the framework is used to examine stakeholder
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences which may impact performance gaps
(Clark & Estes, 2008). The analysis began by generating a list of possible or assumed influences
drawn from the review of literature and examined through inquiry. Three main questions guided
this study:
1. What are special education teachers’ knowledge and motivation in relation to the
stakeholder goal of providing effective specialized academic instruction?
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 32
2. How do special education teachers’ knowledge and motivation interact with the special
education program’s culture and context to shape their ability to accomplish provision of
effective specialized academic instruction?
3. What are the recommended knowledge and skills, motivation of special education
teachers, and organizational solutions as it relates to the provision of effective specialized
academic instruction?
Stakeholder Knowledge, Skills, Motivational, and Organizational Influences
The gap analysis (Clark & Estes, 2008) framework was used to examine SETs’
knowledge and motivation as well as organizational influences on meeting their performance
goal of providing effective SAI as evidenced by an increase in measurable student progress for at
least 80% of the special education student population. This section starts with a discussion of
assumed influences on the stakeholder performance goal in the context of knowledge and skills.
Next, assumed influences on the attainment of the stakeholder goal from the perspective of
motivation will be considered. Finally, assumed organizational influences on achievement of the
stakeholder goal is examined.
Krathwohl (2002) asserted knowledge and skills are divided into the four types of factual,
conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive, which are then used to ascertain if stakeholders know
how and have the skills to achieve a performance goal. Motivation influences include active
choice (to consider goal achievement), persistence (the drive to continue working towards the
goal), and the mental effort needed to accomplish the goal (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011).
Motivational principles which include self-efficacy, attributions, values and goals can be
examined when analyzing performance gap (Rueda, 2011). Finally, the organizational
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 33
influences on stakeholder performance which should be considered are work processes,
resources and workplace culture (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Knowledge and Skills
The research shows employees’ success in meeting performance goals is directly linked
to their gaining the pertinent knowledge and skills as well as the motivation to apply to their
work (Clark & Estes, 2008). Consequently, assessing employees’ knowledge and motivation is
essential for predicting their engagement level, work performance, and job satisfaction (Clark &
Estes, 2008). Employers must provide employees with training and resources to enable them to
fully engage in their role, such as the knowledge and skills required to perform one’s work tasks
(Grossman & Salas, 2011; Gruman & Saks, 2011).
Knowledge types. Research on learning plays a central role in explaining the concept of
knowledge (De Jong & Ferguson-Hessler, 1996). According to the research, an individual’s
knowledge base is comprised of different types of knowledge, with declarative (factual and
conceptual) and procedural knowledge being the most well-known examples. Four knowledge
types exist: factual knowledge, conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge, and metacognitive
knowledge (De Jong & Ferguson-Hessler, 1996; Krathwohl, 2002). In addition to knowledge
types, the research maintains the knowledge base is comprised of different qualities: depth (deep
or surface) of knowledge, generality of knowledge, atomization of knowledge, modality of
knowledge, and structure of knowledge (De Jong & Ferguson-Hessler, 1996).
First, factual knowledge, which is extrinsic information (details, elements) needed to
solve problems (Baartman & De Bruijn, 2011; Krathwohl, 2002), influences an employee’s work
performance in verifying and confirming basic information related to his or her duties for
example knowing what the work hours and rest periods are. Secondly, conceptual knowledge
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 34
refers to knowing how to glean information not extrinsically stated, or gauging the hidden
meaning. This knowledge type requires individuals make connections between two or more
pieces of information via the activation of prior knowledge (Krathwohl, 2002; Baartman & De
Bruijn, 2011). An example of this is employees knowing what their duties and responsibilities
are, their performance rating/ranking in each area, and recommendations on how to improve in
lower ranked areas. Thirdly, procedural knowledge refers to knowledge of the “how:” what is
needed to perform a task (Krathwohl, 2002; Baartman & De Bruijn, 2011). An example of this
is employees knowing the steps required to perform a specific job duty (such as a healthcare
teacher’s aide who has to G-tube feed, suction and change the diaper of their assigned student).
Lastly, metacognitive knowledge refers to reflecting on one’s own thinking and learning
(Krathwohl, 2002; Baartman & De Bruijn, 2011). Metacognition is what an individual uses to
reflect on what they know, how they know it, what they don’t know, how they learn and the
process they use to learn (Krathwohl, 2002; Baartman & De Bruijn, 2011).
Each knowledge type presented is equally important in considering the knowledge
influences required for the teachers in this study to achieve the organizational goal: an increase
in measurable student progress. This study focused primarily on two knowledge influences:
procedural knowledge influences and metacognitive knowledge influences. The focus was on
these two knowledge influences to uncover the extent to which SETs know how to design and
implement SAI to influence student achievement as evidenced by measurable student gains and
if and how SETs reflect on their areas of strength and needs in improving their instructional
practices to influence student achievement. These knowledge influences were used to analyze
the knowledge and skills of the SETs at the district linked to their ability to achieve the
stakeholder goal of providing effective SAI.
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 35
As mentioned in the previous section, teacher knowledge and how teachers learn to teach,
although important, are understudied areas in teacher education (Schumacher, 2011; Wideen,
Mayer-Smith & Moon, 1998). However current research has shown that when teachers are able
to link their instruction in foundational skills to core curriculum to support the implementation of
an intensive intervention, they can improve student learning. Teachers also need to be familiar
with evidence-based intervention programs and the role of such programs in a tiered intervention
system (McInerney, Zumeta., Gandhi, and Gersten, 2014). Similarly, a teacher’s use of direct
instruction is vital in student learning. This is described as the analysis of communications
between the teacher and student to develop the clarity of language by which the teacher presents
concepts in ways that allow students to make connections in their learning (Hughes, Morris,
Therrien, and Benson, 2017). I sought to explore the competencies required for SETs to develop
sound procedural and metacognitive knowledge in relation to their providing effective SAI to
positively influence student achievement.
Special education teachers ’ knowledge of how to implement SAI. SETs need to know
how to implement SAI to educate special education students with specific types of learning
needs. SAI is reasonably calculated intensive instruction to address special education students’
unique learning styles driven by research-based strategies combined with careful, frequent
monitoring of student progress (Hocutt, 1996). This entails modifying the general education
curriculum to align with special education students’ individual goals. This may include changing
the way the content is presented to the students and the format used to assess students, such as
presenting video in lieu of reading activities, providing songs instead of reading text, shortening
assignments, using observations as the basis for assessments (Hocutt, 1996).
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 36
According to Turnbull (1995), when SETs use effective research-based teaching
strategies, which may include implementation of a research-based curriculum, they reinforce
principles and values of the special education classroom. In this context, the key role of SETs is
to implement SAI to align with the goals of their students while utilizing both adopted and
supplementary curricula. The extent to which SETs implement SAI effectively determines their
ability to address their students’ unique learning needs (Hocutt, 1996).
In effect, schools must first invest in teacher knowledge and skills and restructure the
way work gets done, and the design of teacher training and development programs must address
the unique training needs of teachers using a pre-planning mechanism aligned to improved
student outcomes (Borate, Gopalkrishna, Shiva Prasad, & Borate, 2014; Elmore, 2002). This
would suggest SETs who work in schools led by principals or administrators who have education
and training in special education may have access to an organizational setting/ models which
enables them to effectively implement SAI.
Reflecting on instruction. SETs need to reflect on their areas of strength and needs in
improving their instructional practices in connection to the stakeholder goals. Reflection is
presented in the literature as a feasible tool to help teachers manage challenge in the instructional
program via theoretically justifying their actions through reflection in practice (Yost, 2006).
Emerging research suggests that, if teachers are trained to use reflection regularly, they will use
critical reflection as a problem-solving tool (Yost, 2006). Rodgers (2002) asserted that, when
teachers reflect on their areas of strength and needs, they are better equipped to address their
learning needs, enhance their strengths and meet their performance goals. Furthermore,
Grossman and Salas (2011) purported individuals who apply metacognitive knowledge to their
job duties and responsibilities improve their engagement and commitment levels which then has
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 37
a positive impact on their performance, and those who assess and modify the information
necessary to apply to their work perform better (Grossman & Salas, 2011). Also, those who
identify their skills related to their work performance recognize their strengths and needs and
apply these to their job duties (Grossman & Salas, 2011).
In a study conducted on the expertise of secondary SETs, the researchers explored
reflective thinking in participants’ decision making during instruction using Schon’s (1983)
theory of reflective practice (Bartelheim and Evans, 1993). This theory emphasizes decision
making consisting of three components teachers use to make real-time instructional decisions:
personal responsibility, problem setting, and testing. The researchers also used Kirby’s
indicators of reflective practice to inform their design and analysis to examine whether the three
components of reflective practice were present. This study asserted these teachers actively made
decisions regarding their classroom instruction using personal responsibility, problem setting,
and testing. Thus, SETs who regularly reflect on instruction are better able to align it with their
students’ goals of to meet their needs. Table 2 provides the knowledge influence types discussed
in the literature review.

Table 2 Knowledge Influences, Types, and Assessments for Knowledge Gap Analysis
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type
Special Education Teachers need to know how to implement
specialized academic instruction in alignment with their students’
IEPs.
Procedural
Special Education Teachers need to reflect on their instructional
practices by identifying their strengths and needs via use of the cycle
of inquiry.
Metacognitive

TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 38
Motivation
Motivation is an internal process that initiates, channels and sustains goal-oriented
behaviors and is described as the driving force which allows individuals to persist through tasks
until completion (Mayer, 2011). The research shows motivation comes from an individual’s
desire to achieve personal and/or organizational goals through active choice, persistence, and
mental effort (Clark & Estes, 2008; Grossman & Salas, 2011). This suggest that motivated
employees aim at performing to meet organizational goals. Gauging an understanding of
motivational influences related to performance problems is necessary to ascertain the needs of
the organization and next steps to address to performance problems (Rueda, 2011).
Motivation is the second factor in the triad of knowledge, motivation, and organizational
approach used to analyze performance problems (Clark & Estes, 2008). Motivational factors
affecting achievement, motivational needs, and issues are identified using the framework of
active choice, persistence, and mental effort (Clark & Estes, 2008). The authors describe this
framework as being comprised of three indexes or types of motivational goals for learning in
various contexts detailed as follows: active engagement or choice (learners actively starting to do
something they had formerly intended to do but had not started); persistence (learners continuing
to work towards a learning or performance goal in a focused way, despite distractions); and
mental effort (learners having the drive to apply one’s knowledge and skills).
The evidence uncovers an individual’s active engagement or choice, persistence and
mental effort in various contexts are increased by two factors: value and self-efficacy (Clark &
Estes, 2008). According to Eccles and Wigfield (2002), values are defined as a set of constant,
general beliefs about what is preferable or desirable and concluded these beliefs resulted from
societal norms and an individual’s basic psychological needs. Eccles and Wigfield presented
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 39
self-efficacy theory as expectancy beliefs distinguished by outcome expectations and efficacy
expectations. Outcome expectations are beliefs that specific behaviors will result in specific
outcomes, and efficacy expectations are beliefs about one’s ability to perform effectively and the
behaviors necessary for this (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). Individuals will choose to engage and
persist over time when they value what they are learning and can apply it. In the work setting,
these constructs are highlighted by an employee’s belief that they have the efficacy to learn and
apply what they are learning to their position (Clark & Estes, 2008). Notwithstanding the
various motivational theories and ideologies, this study focused on two specific motivational
theories specific to influences of the stakeholder group: utility value theory and self-efficacy
theory. These two motivational theories were used to examine teachers’ knowing the importance
and usefulness of using the adopted curriculum with fidelity, or utility value and teachers’ belief
in their ability to meet their students’ needs (self-efficacy).
Utility value theory. The theoretical framework for understanding the role of utility and
task values in achievement and motivation is the expectancy value model (Eccles & Wigfield,
2002). This purports perceived expectancies for success determine choices of achievement tasks,
as well as performance on these tasks and that people’s beliefs about how well they will perform
on an upcoming task define expectancies for success (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). The task value
construct is defined as perceived importance of the task and consists of three main components:
intrinsic value, utility value, and attainment value (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). Utility value is the
perceived usefulness or the degree of perceived usefulness of a current task to attain present and
future goals (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). Utility value is dependent upon how well a task
connects to current and future goals, such as career goals (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). Therefore,
the relevance of tasks to current or future goals determines utility value (Eccles & Wigfield,
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 40
2002). Furthermore, a task can have positive value to an individual because it fosters important
future goals, with or without interest in the task (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002).
Teachers know the usefulness of using SAI. Teacher utility value refers to teachers
knowing the importance and usefulness of using SAI to inform their instructional practices in
alignment with their students’ IEPs. Since utility value is determined by “how well a task relates
to current and future goals” (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002, p. 120), teachers will determine a task’s
utility value by placing a value on it for immediate or long-term rewards or goals, which is an
essential factor in teacher motivation (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). Thus, teachers often do tasks
they do not particularly enjoy but which they are required to do as a part of their job duties or
responsibilities, reflecting the extrinsic reasons for teacher engagement in tasks, such as lesson
planning, related to their internalized short and long-term goals (Hulleman, 2007). Most
significantly, the motivational research on teacher practices has identified inter-individual
differences in motivational orientations which reveal these differences are characterized by the
quality and persistence of behavior (Pintrich, 2003). Consequently, adaptive motivational
orientations such as utility value are essential for teaching success (Pintrich, 2003).
While the above is about teachers in general, utility value is equally as important to
examine as it relates to SETs. In this study, the evidence suggests SETs do not consider the use
of specific strategies within SAI to be useful in adjusting their instruction to meet their students’
goals. In a study of teacher effectiveness in SEPs, SETs who had perceived value in engaging in
a task were more effective (Sindelar, 1986). In this study, Sindelar (1986) used the two-stage
model proposed by Leinhardt, Zigmond, and Cooley (1981) to examine SET behavior as a
determinant to student behavior and student achievement. Their results support the notion that
SETs who are active and questioning has a perceived value in engaging in classroom tasks are
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 41
more effective in SEPs for SWSLD and intellectually disabled students (Sindelar et al., 1986).
The authors suggest that when SETs have a perceived value to engage in a task such as in
designing and implementing SAI, they are more effective in SEPs.
Thus, we can apply this concept using Eccles and Wigfield’s (2002) model to relate SETs
utility value via their expectation or intrinsic value to experience enjoyment while engaging in a
task (such as lesson planning or delivery) and their valuation of related tasks for immediate or
long-term external rewards or long-term goals.
Self-efficacy theory. Self-efficacy is the belief in one’s ability to perform and is based
on both a personal and social construct (Bandura, 2000; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Pajares, 2006).
An individual’s belief about his or her own capabilities as well as what they believe others think
about their abilities are shaped by these personal and social constructs (Pintrich, 2003).
Individuals develop self-efficacy and are motivated primarily through the evaluation of their
experiences and by observing the performance of others on similar tasks (Pajares, 2006). These
observations affect an individual’s positive or negative view of his or her ability, which then
either impedes or fosters his or her motivation to take action (Bandura, 2000). According to
Pajares, (2006) having a high self-efficacy can positively influence motivation. The research
presents self-efficacy helps individuals maintain their motivation and belief that their capabilities
enable them to successfully achieve goals (Clark & Estes, 2008; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002;
Rueda, 2011). Furthermore, learners develop positive expectancies for success when their
learning and motivation are enhanced (Pajares, 2006). Feedback, modeling, as well as success
on challenging tasks positively influences learners’ perceptions of competence (Pajares, 2006).
General teaching efficacy and personal efficacy. Research on teacher self-efficacy
revealed a composition of two factors: general teaching efficacy and personal efficacy (Allinder,
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 42
1994). General teaching efficacy refers to teachers’ beliefs that teaching influences student
learning, while personal teaching efficacy refers to teachers’ beliefs in their own ability to impact
student learning (Allinder, 1994). Thus, teachers’ thoughts and feelings, choice of activities,
effort, and persistence may be affected by their sense of teaching and personal efficacy (Allinder,
1994). Consequently, teachers with a low sense of teaching efficacy do not exert much effort or
persist for an extended period because they do not think students are learning or can learn
(Allinder, 1994). Furthermore, teachers who have a low sense of personal teaching efficacy may
believe that, although students can learn, they do not have the skills or resources to teach them
(Allinder, 1994). The research indicates teachers who have greater efficacy persist longer during
instruction, are more pragmatic about teaching, are more receptive to feedback and implementing
new practices and are more flexible in classroom management (Allinder, 1994).
Bandura (1977) posited human behavior is affected by the principle that certain behaviors
lead to certain outcomes. According to Bandura, self-efficacy is defined as a personal belief that,
to reach certain goals, one must perform in an appropriate and effective manner. Self-efficacy
has been identified as an essential characteristic of an effective teacher and is linked to teaching
success (Brouwers & Tomic, 2003). Some traits of teachers with high self-efficacy include more
conscientiousness in focusing on the success of low ability students, more innovation towards
new ideas, and less likelihood to experience burnout (Brouwers & Tomic, 2003; Ross & Bruce,
2007). The literature suggests teachers with high self-efficacy exhibit a passion for teaching and
are more likely to remain in the teaching profession (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk-Hoy, 2001).
In a study conducted by Hipp and Bredeson (1995) a strong direct link in relation to
teacher self-efficacy and the leadership style of administrators was uncovered. The researchers
concluded transformational leaders are more likely to create working conditions that promote
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 43
individual satisfaction which contributes to the development of teacher efficacy. This represents
an interaction between teacher motivation and the organization. In another study by Nir and
Kranot (2006), teacher efficacy was found to vary across leadership styles. This study suggested
positive job experiences promote teacher satisfaction which improved overall teacher efficacy.
These studies suggest it is essential to identify constructs to increase perceived self-efficacy (Nir
& Kranot, 2006).
In special education, there is limited research on the relationship between school
administrators and teacher self-efficacy. A study conducted by Coladarci and Breton (1997)
examined the relationship between supervision and teacher efficacy within the resource room.
They found resource teachers who perceived supervision to be helpful reported a higher sense of
teacher efficacy than those who perceived supervision as less positive. The general research in
general education teachers’ self-efficacy can be aligned to resource room SETs due to
similarities in their roles in terms of direct interactions with students about behavior or discipline
problems, direct instruction on academic task (Allinder, 1994). Thus, assumptions can be made
about the degree of efficacy for SETs in general given that both sense of efficacy and the use of
instructional variables strongly correlate to student achievement as cited in Allinder (1994).
Table 3 on the next page identifies the motivational influences for this study: utility value
and self-efficacy. These influences were examined using the lens of active choice, persistence,
and mental effort to identify the motivational factors that affect SETs’ ability to design SAI via
the implementation of the adopted curriculum to effect measurable student progress.

TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 44
Table 3 Motivational Influences and Assessments for Motivation Gap Analysis
Assumed Motivation Influence Motivation Type
Special education teachers need to find value in the use of SAI to
inform their instructional practices in alignment with their
students’ IEPs.
Utility Value
Special Education Teachers need to believe they are capable of
implementing SAI.
Self-Efficacy

Organizational Influences
General theory. Culture is a unique and dynamic mechanism. An organization’s culture
defines the potential of the life of the organization which includes the motivation of its
employees, their relationships, norms, values, beliefs, and principles (Kokina & Ostrovska,
2013). The cultural setting in an organization is comprised of the employees, their tasks, the
rationale for how and why tasks are completed, and the social context in which their work is
performed. The cultural practices, shared routines and mental schema within an organization
comprise the cultural models (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). An organization’s cultural
settings and cultural models determine how its culture is analyzed (Gallimore & Goldenberg,
2001).
While cultural models incorporate shared mental schemas, normative understandings of
how and why things operate the way they do, cultural setting describes the people in terms of
who they are and what their purpose is. Cultural models and settings are important because they
define an organization’s purpose and define the roles of employees to achieve the purpose. The
cultural model of focus here includes policies, procedures, related training, and professional
development. The cultural setting is administrative support for SETs in special education
department within a school district. I chose this model and setting because, in my current
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 45
position, I have influence and responsibilities in setting policies and procedures and for
providing professional development, and I am charged with administrative support for SETs.
Cultural settings. The research presents cultural setting within various learning
organizations such as schools, as being both progressive and unpredictable based on the student
population served (Adreon & Durocher, 2007). Examples of problematic cultural setting factors
in a school are teachers being highly impacted and overwhelmed by the number of tasks they are
required to do and teachers experiencing inconsistency in support from both administrative and
support staff (Adreon & Durocher, 2007). Feng and Sass (2013) uncovered SETs’ experience in
the profession and formal in-service professional development have more positive effects on
their attrition and productivity and positively influences achievement gains for special education
students. The underlying issues which may further compound these factors include no goals or
school plan visible and a lack of effective role models to offer coaching and feedback on
improving the instructional program.
Cultural setting influence. The organization needs to provide guidance and direction to
SETs on mission, vision, and goals. The literature presents that, to address cultural setting
problems, teachers need guidance and direction on mission, vision and goals from administration
(Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009; Borate et al., 2014). Administrative support has been shown to be
significant in teacher retention (Billingsley, 2004). According to Pugach (1992) the cultural
differences between general and special education and the isolation many special educators
experience create the need for collaborative learning environments. Furthermore, research
suggests collaborative environments benefit teachers by preventing burnout, fostering teachers’
sense of efficacy, and improving teachers’ knowledge base (Brownell, Yeager, Rennells, &
Riley, 1997). Most significantly, since administrative support is strongly related to teacher
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 46
attrition, it is important to examine what supportive administrators do and how they promote
positive school climates and working conditions in special education (Billingsley, 2004).
Cultural models. The cultural models in the school setting are similarly complex: while
these encompass the shared ideas, beliefs and practices of the school staff, they also give
meaning and structure to everyday activities and sets up guidelines for what is acceptable and
what is not (Fryberg & Rhys, 2007). The problematic cultural model factor in this study is the
requirement for SETs to design SAI aligned to address student goals. Underlying issues which
may further compound these factors include a general resistance by SETs in changing the
routines of their instructional program using these strategies. SETs may also be accepting of
complacency, and lack of accountability in maintaining a robust instructional program.
The literature presents a correlation between stronger administrative support and SET self-
efficacy (Thornton, Peltier, & Medina, 2007). The research shows principals are receiving little
education and training in laws and practices associated with special education (Davidson &
Algozzine, 2002; DiPaola & Walther-Thomas, 2003; Lasky & Karge, 2006; Militell et al., 2009).
This suggests these principals cannot support SETs in implementing SAI. Thus, to address these
cultural model problems in this context, administrators must set and re-set expectations with
teachers for their performance while utilizing a standards-based appraisal system (Grawitch,
Gottschalk, & Munz, 2006). Administrators must provide training and development activities in
work organizations as standard practices geared at providing learning strategies, technology
applications and other professional development to adequately prepare employees (Aguinis &
Kraiger, 2009; Clark & Estes, 2008; Grossman & Salas, 2011).
The literature suggests that , when employees have opportunities to apply the knowledge
and skills acquired during training and professional development, they reap the positive benefits
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 47
associated with growth and development (Grawitch et al., 2006). Thus, it is imperative that
learning organizations provide training and development programs to fully support their
employees’ needs (Borate et al., 2014). Professional development and training programs must be
scaffolded with the goal of improving individual, team, and organizational effectiveness
(Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009).
Furthermore, most studies excluded ecological approaches and did not consider the
influences of teacher preparation, school experiences and other situational variables. According
to a recent study examining the practices of beginning special educators, the path from
knowledge to classroom practice is not linear, and the personal attributes of teachers, preparation
experiences, and the school environment all contribute to appropriate teaching practice (Bishop
et al., 2010). Table 4 on the next page identifies the assumed organizational influences of
cultural models and cultural settings.
Table 4 Organizational Influences and Assessments for Organizational Gap Analysis

Assumed Organizational Influence Organizational Influence
Type
The organization needs to provide administrative support that provides
guidance and direction on vision, mission and goals.
Cultural Setting
The organization needs to incorporate the use of policies and procedures,
training and coaching that outline practices and routines to build a shared
schema for SETs.
Cultural Models

TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 48
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders ’ Knowledge and Motivation and
the Organizational Context
A conceptual framework is a theory which presents the ideas and beliefs held about a
phenomenon being studied (Maxwell, 2013). Furthermore, a conceptual framework is
constructed, subject to revision, iterative, a subset of concepts available for consideration, and
developed from empirical and theoretical literature, personal experiences and thought
experiments (Maxwell, 2013). Merriam and Tisdell (2016) explained the conceptual framework
in terms of a theoretical framework: an “underlying structure/scaffolding/frame of the study,
consisting of concepts and theories that inform the study” (p. 69).
This study focused on the factors which shape teaching and learning strategies of SETs in
providing effective SAI, evidenced by an increase in measurable student progress. While
potential influences in teachers’ knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational influences
are presented independently, they do not remain in isolation from each other. This section
presents the interaction between knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational influences
for the teachers in the context of a program which provides special education instruction and
related services. Figure 1 on the next page provides a visual representation of the conceptual
framework illustrating the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational influences
required to achieve the SETs’ performance goal. To answer the research questions, I referred to
the conceptual framework while presenting the literature on the overarching concepts examined
in the assumed knowledge, motivation and organizational influences on performance, and how
they interacted with each other.

TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 49
Figure 1. Conceptual framework.

The large blue circle represents the district, which provides the cultural setting and
model, since it is the organizational structure and leadership influencing SETs’ ability to meet
the stakeholder goal. The small inner circle represents the assumed influences on teachers’
performance: procedural and metacognitive knowledge and skills in relation to providing SAI,
and motivational influences of utility value and self-efficacy related to improving instruction.
These stakeholders’ assumed influences on performance, which are supported by the
organization’s cultural model and setting influences, then lead to (indicated by the arrow) the
achievement of the stakeholder goal detailed in the rectangle. To address how teachers’

Goal for Stakeholder
By June 2019, SEP Teachers will provide effective specialized
academic instruction as evidenced by an increase in measurable
student progress for at least 80% of the total student population.

Special Education Teachers
Knowledge and Motivation
Influences
(Procedural, metacognitive
knowledge and skills related to
specialized academic instruction and
value expectancy and self-efficacy in
relation to improving instruction).

Joint Unified School District
Cultural Settings and Cultural Models
Organizational structure and leadership: providing guidance and
direction on vision, mission. and goals, incorporating the use of
policies and procedures, systematic training/professional
development, role models/mentors to offer coaching and feedback

TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 50
knowledge and motivation interact with the SEPs’ culture and context, the organizational
influences on teacher performance need to be examined. These include work processes,
resources and workplace culture (Clark & Estes, 2008). Teachers’ knowledge and skills and
their ability to implement a new curriculum are influenced by experience as well as specific
training and development activities (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009; Borate et al., 2014; Clark & Estes,
2008; Grawitch et al., 2006; Grossman & Salas, 2011). Teacher motivation in connecting their
utility value and their providing effective instruction, which enables them to meet their
stakeholder and organizational goal, is influenced by the organization’s facilitating professional
learning opportunities (Grossman & Salas, 2011; Turnbull, 1995). This is where the knowledge
and organizational influences meet. This enables teachers to identify their strengths and needs
related to their work performance and emphasize on learning, mastery and individual
improvement (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002) which increases their self-efficacy. This suggests that,
when SETs identify their strengths and needs related to their implementation of SAI, they can
connect this to the learning required to implement SAI effectively.
The large outer concentric circle represents the assumed influence of cultural setting and
models on teacher performance, including the organization’s vision, mission, and goals,
performance expectations/goals of the stakeholder group monitored by accountability measures
incorporating policies and procedures to SETs expectations for performance goals, supported by
systematic training and professional development. This suggests the organization needs to
support SETs needs through its organizational structures, leadership, accountability and
systematic training and professional development. Thus, how the organization provides the
goals and/or the strategic plan to the teachers must be examined (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009;
Borate et al., 2014). Program administrators must provide guidance and direction on mission,
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 51
vision and goals which should inform performance goals and appraisal systems (Aguinis &
Kraiger, 2009; Borate et al., 2014).

Conclusion
Chapter Two presented a review of current literature surrounding SAI and targeted
interventions, methods of delivery and their effectiveness, factors that contribute to interventions
being implemented with fidelity, and the elements needed for effective progress monitoring. The
possible causes for SETs’ performance problems due to gaps in the areas of KMO (Clark &
Estes, 2008) was presented followed by the conceptual framework.
The literature presented SETs need to be well versed in the principles and values of the
special education classroom, which includes expertise in designing targeted interventions and
SAI. Teacher motivation related to utility value and self-efficacy were also identified as
influences of teacher performance. Additionally, administrators providing systematic
training/professional development to these teachers on curriculum implementation are essential
in addressing the problem of practice. Finally, the literature revealed administrators also need to
provide clearly defined goals and regular guidance and performance feedback to teachers in a
variety of forums to encourage regular reflection, development and support for areas needing
improvement. Chapter Three presents the study’s research methods including the sampling and
recruitment of participants from the stakeholder group, as well as plans for data collection and
analysis.

TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 52
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
This chapter presents the research questions, research design and rationale, and approach
for sampling and recruitment. This is followed by a discussion of the approach to data
collection, instrumentation, and data analysis. Last are sections pertaining to credibility,
trustworthiness, and ethical considerations as well as limitations and delimitations related to the
study’s factors and constraints.
Research Questions
As mentioned throughout this dissertation, this study sought to identify SETs’
perceptions regarding their implementation of SAI in addressing students’ individual needs. As
presented in Chapters One and Two, three questions guided this study:
1. What are special education teachers’ knowledge and motivation in relation to the
stakeholder goal of providing effective specialized academic instruction?
2. How do special education teachers’ knowledge and motivation interact with the special
education program’s culture and context to shape their ability to accomplish provision of
effective specialized academic instruction?
3. What are the recommended knowledge and skills, motivation of special education
teachers, and organizational solutions as it relates to the goal of provision of effective
specialized academic instruction?
First, to choose the appropriate research methods and approaches, each research question
was examined to identify an appropriate approach to gathering the required data or information.
The first question was designed to determine the extent of teachers’ knowledge and motivation
about curriculum implementation and SAI. The second question was meant to yield
understanding of the interaction between teachers’ knowledge and motivation with the SEP’s
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 53
culture and context. The third question was meant to uncover results and recommendations from
the findings pertaining to the required knowledge, skills, and motivation of SET, and the
organizational factors that influenced the provision of effective SAI. I used a qualitative
research approach to gather open-ended data from the stakeholder group of interest. The study
used an interview protocol with open-ended questions to gather data on teachers’ knowledge in
implementing SAI, if and why they are motivated to implement SAI, and their perspectives on
resources, policies and procedures, professional development and training to support their
fulfilling the organization’s mission.
Participating Stakeholders: Sampling and Recruitment
The stakeholder population of focus were SETs who are tasked with providing SAI to K–
12 SWSLD in JUSD in both self-contained special day classes and the general education setting
receiving resource specialist support. This study examined the teachers’ perceptions of the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences shaping these SETs’ ability to effectively
implement SAI. Of the total population of 70 SETs district-wide, approximately 50 teach
SWSLD in either a self-contained setting or general education setting. Of this number,
approximately 30 have tenure with the district for a year or more. I selected 10 teachers from
this group of 30 for interviews to examine their knowledge, motivation, and their perceptions of
organizational influences related to the research questions. The following section presents the
criteria and rationale for sampling participants for the interviews, followed by the sampling and
recruitment strategy.
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
The first criterion for participation in this study was that SETs should have a tenure of
one year or more with the district. The rationale for this criterion was to create a sub-group of
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 54
SETs who have history in the district and who may help to uncover organizational factors and
influences which may better inform the study. The second criterion was that teachers should
teach SWSLD in either a self-contained classroom or in a general education resource specialist
program. The third criterion was that these teachers should teach SWSLD who participate in the
state standardized assessments.
Of the 30 SETs who met this criterion, I recruited and selected 10 to interview. Although
this sample was small, I chose teachers who teach different grades to get maximum variation on
the population of interest. The rationale for this choice was that any 10 teachers who met the
above criteria could speak in more in depth ways to their knowledge and motivation to support
their students, as well as their thoughts on how the organization did or did not support them.
Interview Sampling Recruitment Strategy and Rationale
The interview sampling strategy was purposeful convenience sampling. Of the 30 SETs
who met the criteria of tenure in the district for at least a year and who taught SWSLD in a self-
contained class or general education setting, I selected to interview 10 based on the sampling
criteria. The selection process was based on those who volunteered first: a total of 16 teachers
were interested, 4 decided not to attend, which left 12 still interested. I chose 10 from this
number based on scheduling for convenience. Thus, I used purposeful sampling as well as
convenience sampling based on feasibility in scheduling. This sample of 10 accounts for 30% of
all teachers who met the sampling criteria and could provide useful in depth data to answer the
research questions.
The recruitment strategy was to present an overview of my study to SETs at a staff
meeting. The rationale for presenting my study in this venue was to introduce myself as a
researcher, provide an overview of the study, and allow potential participants an opportunity to
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 55
understand the capacity in which I presented myself. I followed up with a recruitment email to
the group of SETs who fit the sampling criteria with recipients blind copied to preserve
anonymity indicating they were recommended as potential participants for a study on SET
knowledge base of for SAI and perceptions regarding organizational supports which enable them
to provide effective SAI to their students. I then selected the 10 participants from the pool of
interested candidates who met the criteria to get a purposeful sample. I proceeded with a group
email invitation to the target group of 10 SETs followed by individual emails and telephone calls
to field any preliminary questions prior to scheduling the interviews.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
I used interviews to understand how the participants experience their work as SETs.
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) suggested conducting interviews allows the researcher to better
understand the experiences and perspectives of the participants. The protocol for the interviews
followed a semi-structured design which combined a predetermined set of open-ended questions
which prompted discussion and gave me an opportunity to explore responses pointing to themes
that could be further discussed (Maxwell, 2013). The interview protocol is included in Appendix
D.
I conducted the interviews to gather SETs’ insights and perspectives to answer the
research questions. Creswell (2014) stated interviews provide detailed, narrative, rich,
qualitative data. The conceptual framework for my study was used as a guide in the
development of the interview questions which align with the knowledge, motivational, and
organizational influences for the stakeholder group in the study (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Anticipating needing to ask probing and follow-up questions based on the responses of the
interviewees (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), I developed a set of probing questions within the
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 56
protocol. Following Merriam and Tisdell’s (2016) suggestions for interview protocols, my
interview protocol design included a mix of opinion and value questions, feeling questions,
knowledge questions.
Background and demographic questions were also added to the protocol to collect
information about variations among grade levels and class types to provide context and inform
the scope of the interview. The background and demographic questions were ascertained via a
preliminary questionnaire at the start of the interview which was then used to probe for
contextual differences for the duration of the interview. This allowed me to explore participants’
perspectives on their preparedness and ability to teach their students within their unique context
and confines of the organization. All interviews were conducted in English, and there was no
need for translation or translator services. I conducted these interviews formally in a single
session with each session adhering to the interview protocol. Rubin and Rubin (2012) suggested
this format maintains the integrity of the study. To uphold the individuality and safety of
participants, informed consent for participation was provided by all interviewees. Collecting and
securing the qualitative data followed the professional and ethical guidelines (Rubin & Rubin,
2012), further discussed in the following ethics section.
I conducted these interviews in person and used audio recording to capture participants’
perspectives. The participants were interviewed in a quiet space of their choosing, free from
potential distractions, as suggested by Rubin and Rubin (2012), at a convenient time for them for
approximately an hour each. This flexibility also demonstrated respect and values the different
preferences and schedules of the participants (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). I wrote analytic memos
after each interview to reflect on themes related to my conceptual framework and research
questions related to the data collected. I interviewed with the 10 participants for 9 hours and 30
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 57
minutes, as each interview ranged from 30 minutes to an hour. I used the REV transcription
service to transcribe the interviews. I checked the transcripts for accuracy by reviewing the them
and playing back the recordings in areas where the language and grammar did not seem to flow
prior to starting the coding process
Data Analysis
I transcribed the 10 interviews and coded them using Atlas.ti. In the first phase of
analysis, I employed open coding techniques by looking for empirical codes as well as applying
a priori codes from the conceptual framework. In the second phase, I aggregated empirical and a
priori codes into analytic/axial codes. In the final phase of analysis, I identified pattern codes
and themes aligned to the conceptual framework and research questions. Analytic memoing
helped me examine the thematic codes in the interview data related to the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences shaping participants’ ability to provide effective SAI.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Maxwell (2013) noted threats to the validity of qualitative research include how
observations/interviews are described, how they are interpreted, and how the data might be
manipulated either consciously or accidentally to fit a specific theory. Maxwell also noted
inherent reflexivity or researcher bias as well as the researcher’s presence (reactivity) can affect
what is observed. Thus, to start, the main tenet of credibility and trustworthiness of the study
was addressed via the instrumentation of a clear protocol for data collection (Maxwell, 2013).
These interviews were conducted in a formal manner which was outlined utilizing an open-ended
protocol to allow the participants’ voices to be heard and added to the credibility and
trustworthiness of the study. To guard against bias, peer review was utilized to acknowledge peer
feedback and perspectives which informed the research while assessing the validity, quality and
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 58
originality of content. Additionally, I recognized I needed to address my own assumptions and
biases as I went out into the field to engage in data collection, analysis, and reporting activities.
These biases result from my race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status and the fact that I am an
expert in my profession within the organization where I work. The fact that I am an African
American woman who is in a power position in my organization may influence my biases, so my
perceptions about my influence with the study participants as a researcher needed to be checked.
Also, since I have worked in special education for 17 years in the roles of teacher, coordinator,
principal and director, my own knowledge base, and my training and experiences in delivering
SAI and supervising SEPs was also something I had to reflect on to make sure I was approaching
my participants with neutrality as a researcher in the context of the interview.
Ethics
My responsibilities as a researcher with respect to involving human participants in my
study pertained to my obligation to ensure the investigation in my research was conducted in an
ethical manner. Thus, it was imperative that, in conducting my research, I followed the research
guidelines compiled by the institutional review board (IRB), mainly that researchers must ensure
informed consent to their research participants. The informed consent requirement is central to
ethics in research, as it entails full disclosure to participants of the nature of the study and of their
rights (Glesne, 2011; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The guidelines for ethical conduct originated
from intrusive research in the 1940s and defined the requirements for informed consent,
avoidance of harm, and confidentiality standards (Glesne, 2011; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Providing research participants with full disclosure ensures study participants are made aware (1)
that participation is voluntary, (2) of any aspects of the research that might affect their well-
being, and (3) that they may freely choose to stop participation at any point in the study (Glesne,
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 59
2011). Additionally, the researcher must inform the research subjects of his/her obligation to
maintain their anonymity and that they will maintain confidentiality as it relates to the
information gathered (Glesne, 2011).
As the researcher, I communicated my research plan to participants, which entailed
gaining permission to record, store and secure any data collected. Thus, my approach to
informed consent followed IRB guidelines and the deontological framework: actions of a
researcher are based on justice, respect and honesty and defines ethical practices in research.
Essentially, as a researcher, I was obligated to fully advise my research participants to enable
them to make informed decisions about participating in the study.
Furthermore, the interview protocol was designed to protect the identity of the
participants and the data (Glesne, 2011; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Providing informed consent
to participants was necessary to establish an ethical study. The data were stored in a password-
protected computer with copies of these files saved utilizing backup storage. The participants
were assigned pseudonyms to protect their individual identities, and descriptors which could be
used to identify participants were removed or otherwise masked, as suggested by Merriam and
Tisdell (2016). This ensured the researcher and participant could build a safe partnership,
upholding the ethical responsibilities of qualitative data collection pertaining to human subjects
(Glesne, 2011; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
As the chief program administrator of the SEP, a division at the site of the study, I am in
a position of power and needed to consider how my role would promote or thwart the study.
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) stated the credibility and trustworthiness of a study is dependent
upon the ethics of the investigator. I also needed to consider the study participants and how my
role influenced their participation and/or non-participation as well as their level of potential bias.
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 60
According to Lincoln (1995, as cited in Merriam and Tisdell, 2016) ethical considerations are
aligned with the researcher’s relationship with participants in determining validity. As it related
to my interest in this study, I wanted to fulfill my intellectual curiosity related to how processes
and systems can be improved to ensure viability and efficiency.
The potential confusion I anticipated from other members of the organization included
the following considerations/questions: Is this study allowable? Is this endorsed by the chief
academic officer, superintendent? Can SETs be forced to participate? Other considerations
included concerns regarding how this information would be used and if there would be any
liability to the organization. Additionally, members of the organization may have felt I was
using my position to advance my own educational and professional pursuits and might have been
confused by my dual roles of manager and researcher. I guarded against these concerns by
establishing conversational partnerships with participants which ensured they were not harmed,
no deceit or pressure involved, respectful treatment, and the keeping of promises made (Rubin &
Rubin, 2012). Additionally, I created a plan outlining ethical considerations borrowing from
Patton’s checklist (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) which explained my role as an
investigator/researcher.
In conclusion, although my ethical practices relied on my own values and ethics,
guidelines and regulations help the researcher to determine the gamut of ethical considerations.
Essentially, it is the individual investigator and researcher who must determine how to conduct
and disseminate a study in an ethical manner (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations occur in all types of research and are outside the researcher’s control. Given
practical constraints, such as time, funding, and access to populations of interest (Creswell,
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 61
Hanson, Clark Plano, and Morales, 2007). In conducting any study, it is imperative to
acknowledge and provide a rationale for limitations which could be encountered in the context of
a similar study (Creswell, Hanson, Clark Plano, and Morales, 2007). Because I focused on how
SETs work within the confines of the SEP of the school district to affect student outcomes, these
findings cannot be generalized as a representation of what would be uncovered at a district of a
similar size for several reasons. Primarily, districts are unique in their ability to respond to the
needs of their students based on a variety of factors. Thus, what may work for one district with a
similar size and demographic make-up may not work for another.
Also, although the interview questions were geared at eliciting insightful, robust and rich
data, they may not be accurately precise to ascertain the authentic responses reflecting the beliefs
and opinions of the participants. Additionally, there is always the risk of participants responding
to the interview questions in ways they think are favorable to the researcher based on their own
interests. Also, participants can also limit what and how much they are willing to share. The
intent of this study was to examine how participants’ knowledge, skills, and motivation are
supported or not supported by the organizational structures to achieve the outcomes. Given that
the study relied on self-reported data, the nature of the study might have affected how much
SETs wished to share.
Delimitations are factors defining the scope of the study. In essence, this refers to
intentional choices guiding the types of questions which can be asked and inferences which can
be drawn from the findings, and are based on intentional choices made during the design of the
study (Creswell, 2005). This study presented delimitations focused on how the organizational
structures influence the knowledge, skills, and motivation of SETs in providing SAI to effect
measurable student progress. The conceptual framework, then, was a delimitation of this study.
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 62
Also, while procedural knowledge is best and most directly examined through observational
methods, by only using interviews, a delimitation in this study was not fully examining
participants’ procedural knowledge.

TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 63
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
This chapter focuses on emergent themes from the interview data and the findings that
demonstrated the extent to which participants’ knowledge and motivation were affected by
organizational supports framed by the research questions. In this study, 10 special day class and
resource specialist SETS who taught preschool to grade 12 SWSLD participated in interviews to
provide their perspectives on how their knowledge, skills, and motivation were influenced by
organizational support to provide effective SAI to enable their students to meet grade-level
targets and IEP goals. The research questions were as follows:
1. What are SETs’ knowledge and motivation in relation to the stakeholder goal of
providing effective specialized academic instruction?
2. How do special education SETs’ knowledge and motivation interact with the special
education program’s culture and context to shape their ability to accomplish provision of
effective specialized academic instruction?
3. What are the recommended knowledge and skills, motivation of special education SETS,
and organizational solutions as it relates to the goal of provision of effective specialized
academic instruction?
Participants
Each participant was assigned a pseudonym to protect their identity. Table 5 provides an
overview of each participant. The interviewees represented 30% of the overall SET population
within the organization. Eight interviewees were female and two were male. In addition, every
grade level and special education setting was represented. All interviewees had taught in the
district for more than one year at the time of the study. Their demographic information revealed
maximum variation for teaching experience as follows: three had taught for more than 20 years,
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 64
three had taught between 11 and 19 years, two had taught between five and 10 years, and two
had taught for less than five years.
Table 5 Pseudonyms of SETS, Special Education Setting, Grade Level and Years Taught
SETS Special Education
Setting
Grade Level Range of teaching
experience
Years Taught
Raquel Resource Specialist
Program
K–2 5-10 Years 6
Ashley Special Day Class K–2 Less than 5 Years 4
Sandra Resource Specialist
Program
K–5 More than 20 Years 24
Janet Special Day Class 6–8 Less than 5 Years 3
Roxanne Resource Specialist
Program
6–9 11–19 Years 15
Mary Special Day Class 9–12 Years 11
Jordan Resource Specialist
Program
9–12 11–19 Years 10
Jean Special Day Class 3–5 More than 20 Years 22
Courtney Resource Specialist
Program
K–5 More than 20 Years 21
Nadia Special Day Class 2–4 11–19 Years 15

Knowledge
Participants’ perspectives of procedural and metacognitive knowledge of SAI gauged
during the interviews will be discussed in the following sections. In general, when considering
both procedural and metacognitive knowledge of SAI, the interviewees expressed a general
schema of the variety of ways to implement SAI according to their students’ IEP. They
understood SAI involves adjusting and adapting intensive interventions with a duration and
frequency carefully calculated to garner specific outcomes and had varying perspectives on
putting SAI in practice.
Procedural knowledge: SETS expressed a general understanding of what SAI is and
how to implement it. Consistent findings emerged across the participants that they possess
varying degrees of procedural knowledge, and they understand how to implement SAI in
alignment with their students’ IEPs. The first knowledge influence focused on participants’
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 65
knowing what SAI is and how to implement it in alignment with their students’ IEPs.
Throughout the interviews, the first finding in the context of this assumed knowledge influence
was that eight interviewees expressed general procedural knowledge of SAI. Their responses
reflected their understanding of SAI as presented by Riccomini et al. (2017) earlier in this
dissertation: specially designed instruction created by changing the content, methods, or delivery
to meet the student’s unique needs as a result of their disability. Janet’s response regarding how
individualized instruction was provided for her students using SAI illustrates this level of
procedural knowledge:
When I am planning for instruction, I make sure I have strategies that can be adapted to
all learners, like using video. Something somebody can see as well as hear. Also, I would
have some kind of activity for them to do with their hands so they become more engaged
in the lesson. Also, when I’m planning, I try to think about accommodations for the
students, like if we are doing note taking, because I do interactive notebooks. I would
highlight stuff for them. I think about highlighting and which part of the information do I
need them to learn more than the rest. I would think about, okay, I know some students
talking to a peer may be better for them rather than just keeping on listening to me, so I
would pair students up. Especially a student who is probably not as academically inclined
in certain ways, I would pair with another person who is more driven, so it will help them
want to do the work as well.
Here, Janet takes into account her student’s learning modalities in making instructional
decisions about what content to present and how to present it using differentiated strategies based
on her students’ unique needs and IEP goals. She articulated the varying modalities that
encompass HLPs, EI and II (visual, tactile, kinesthetic) for all learners while incorporating
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 66
adaptations and accommodations for SWSLD. She further demonstrated her procedural
knowledge of SAI through her teaching methodology of managing intrinsic load by segmenting
complex material into simpler parts and pre-teaching (Kirshner, Kirshner, & Paas, 2006). Janet
focused on her students’ individualized IEP goals and presented content unique to each student’s
learning modality connected to their prior knowledge, which enables them to store information
more quickly for accurate recall since it is elaborated with prior learning (Schraw & McCrudden,
2006).
Similar to Janet’s response about what SAI is and how to implement it, Courtney also
expressed a solid understanding of SAI and how to implement it focusing on the two service
delivery models of “push in,” and “pull out” as well as intensive instructional strategies
incorporating scaffolding and differentiation. Courtney explained,
I use two standard methods, which are the push in and pull out. In the push in model, I
assist them in the classroom with the assignment that the general education teacher has
given them, and I try to give them strategies, assist them in note taking, things that they
need to better clarify what they need in order to complete the assignment.
Courtney, like Janet, demonstrated his knowledge of the service delivery models unique to SAI
(procedural knowledge) by describing how he intensified instruction during small group “pull
out” by increasing the “dosage” or the duration and frequency of instructional sessions which
also gives students more opportunities to respond and to receive individual feedback (Fuchs et
al., 2013; Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Riccomini et al., 2017). He coupled this with frequent
progress monitoring, which is a key aspect of SAI (McKlesky et al., 2017; Riccomini et al.,
2017).
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 67
Furthermore, Courtney used learning theory to deliver instruction via his management of
intrinsic load by segmenting complex material into simpler parts and pre-teaching to enable his
students’ learning to be enhanced (Kirshner et al., 2006). While Courtney could articulate
effective SAI strategies, Jean provided an explanation of how to teach computing fractions using
sequencing which emphasizes teaching discrete skills via scaffolding, an SAI instructional
strategy. Jean explained,
One of the instructional standards that they need to meet [in math] is how to add,
subtract, and multiply fractions, and so, just based on that, we start off with how to
identify the parts of the fraction, and then knowing how to add like fractions with like
denominators, and then we move on to subtracting, and then we move on to
multiplication, so they can at least see there’s a difference when you’re using like
denominators that addition and subtraction are very similar to each other, but
multiplication is somewhat different.
This demonstrates Jean’s understanding of scaffolding instruction, an element of intensive
instruction which falls under the umbrella of EI, an HLP identified as SAI.
Overall, data gathered through these interviews led to the finding that participants possess
general knowledge regarding what SAI is but varying degrees of procedural knowledge on how
to implement it effectively. While this knowledge varied by teacher, the foundational knowledge
of SAI pedagogy is sufficient to start addressing SWSLD needs. In general, the interviewees
expressed they understood how to deliver SAI to meet the needs of SWSLD even though their
methodology did not always align with all of the tenets of HLP, EI and II. However, when
probed further regarding their successes and challenges implementing SAI, all discussed how
they worked around those challenges using some tenets of HLP, EI and II.
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 68
Metacognitive knowledge: SETS understood that reflecting on instruction impacts
students outcomes. The themes which emerged from the interviews pertaining to metacognitive
skills included participants’ using observations and student feedback to reflect on their
instruction to monitor, adjust, and differentiate instruction and the need for re-teaching.
Interviewees used reflection to improve their delivery of SAI, although they did not appear to
have regular opportunities to reflect collectively via regular collaboration. Five interviewees
described their process of reflection as occurring during and after instruction. Ashley summed
this up when she stated, “Depending on how they’re responding, and it’s sort of a ... it’s
throughout the process. It’s not that you only reflect on your instruction one time of the week or
anything like that.” She further emphasized this by stating,
At the end of the day, I’ll say to myself after I’ve done the lesson for the day, what
is it that I could ... where is the areas where I feel that I could have improved upon?
After I’ve even asked them a question earlier in the day, and I notice that they didn’t
get it now where can I ... what can I do to help them get it more? If that means I
need to print out more pictures, or does that mean I need to change the language
around. Does that mean I need to give scenarios that may be realistic to them, and
what they may experience?
Here, Ashley demonstrated her metacognitive knowledge by reflection after action
and assesses her ability to deliver instruction effectively to meet her students’ needs. This
demonstrates her use of metacognition about her learning and her ability to improve upon
her practices (Baker, 2006). Borgogni et al. (2011) stated that feedback and actual success
on challenging tasks positively influences people’s perceptions of competence, which is
important to consider as it is a tenet of metacognition. Similarly, other participants
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 69
described reflection occurring throughout the process of instruction which helped them to
determine the type and level of SAI appropriate for each student.
For example, Alexis stated, “I’ll adjust to meet the need of the student. If I see that
they’re not getting it through normal instruction. I’ll do something totally different.” This
demonstrates Alexis reflecting on her instruction by adjusting her practices based on
student feedback and performance. She recognized she needs to try a different approach to
meet the needs of students who may not respond to varying levels of intervention. Without
the act of reflection, it would not be possible for her to notice when students are not
understanding. Furthermore, when teachers reflect on their areas of strength and needs, they
are better equipped to address their learning needs, enhance their strengths and meet their
performance goals (Rodgers, 2002). Doing something “totally different” showed Alexis is
willing to move beyond her comfort zone and beyond her “normal” strengths.
Like Alexis, Courtney talked about using reflection during instruction when he
explained how he used student feedback to ascertain mastery. He attributes student
retention of concepts and their ability to apply prior learning to new concepts to his
instructional methodology:
I use feedback from the students to see if they’ve mastered the concept, if they
remember the concept, say, after a week or two, I would say it was effective,
because they have retention of it. But if they’re struggling with something I know
I’ve covered in depth, then I have to look at, how did I present it.
Courtney recognized that student feedback informed his instruction by helping him
to gauge his level of effectiveness. Courtney’s ability to reflect on his instruction by
applying metacognitive knowledge to identify, assess and modify skills related to
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 70
improving work performance assess and modify the information necessary to improve
performance enabled him recognize his strengths and needs.
Ashley also made a similar point when she talked about how she adjusts instruction
throughout and how she uses student feedback to inform changes in her practices: “That’s a
minute-by-minute adjustment, because once you get depending on just looking in the faces of the
students, I pretty much know those who are getting it versus those who are not.”
All interviewees expressed their use of ongoing assessments, both formative and
summative, to inform their instruction and utilized flexible groupings while remaining
versatile with their teaching techniques.
Motivation
When considering motivational factors, two main factors were probed in the first research
question: belief in the value of SAI and belief in their ability to implement effective SAI. Utility
value, which is an element of expectancy value theory, centers around whether an individual
finds value in doing a task (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Self-efficacy theory is based on
an individual’s belief in their ability to perform a given task (Clark & Estes, 2008). The main
finding present across the data was that participants believed there is value in implementing SAI
in order for SWSLD to meet their goals, and that they believed they are capable of providing
effective SAI.
Utility value: SETS believed effective SAI is necessary in increasing student
outcomes. The theme that emerged pertaining to the utility value of SAI was that participants
believed effective SAI is necessary to increase student outcomes. Specifically, eight interviewees
valued student/teacher interaction as a vehicle for collecting reliable data to inform SAI
implementation. All ten participants see value in implementing SAI because, without a
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 71
perceived value, they may not persist in meeting the organizational performance goal.
According to Rueda (2011), without a perceived value, employees may not persist in meeting the
organizational performance goal. This theme directly supports the assumed motivational
influence that SETs need to see the value that SAI provides for themselves and their students if
they are going to persist in implementing SAI. When asked about the necessity of SAI Alexis
stated simply,
If you’re in a specialized academic classroom, a lot of the times they’re smaller
classrooms so the student gets to have that one to one, or small group where they may
really need that, and that’s where they really excel. And at the end of the day that’s what
we want for all of our students is for them to excel, and by whatever means necessary.
Alexis expressed her value of the SAI delivery method of small group setting by emphasizing
that the small group is optimal for SWSLD to receive SAI, which is individual to their needs,
since the teacher is able to provide both one on instruction which is greater in in duration and
frequency. By saying “that’s where they excel,” she demonstrated her perception that making
sure instruction meets students’ needs is valuable, which is the aim of SAI. Alexis valued this
tenet of SAI delivery methods and was willing to engage in the task of designing and
implementing SAI, which is related to her valuation of related tasks for immediate or long-term
external rewards or long-term goals (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002).
Like Alexis, Raquel stated “No one person learns the same. We all need a little special
tender love and care, a little patience, a little differentiation.” Nadia expanded upon this by
stating, “To assume that all students can get the same instruction and excel and learn the
instruction and be able to do it without any problem is not fair.” The participants expressed
belief in the value of SAI. Raquel stated, “For the people who think that SAI isn’t necessary, I
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 72
just think that they need to spend a day in the classroom with a group of students with different
needs.” Raquel’s emphasis on “students with different needs” is significant here because this
relates to the intensive instruction required to meet the needs of students with learning
differences. While all students need good instruction, it is particularly important for students
with different needs to have a different curriculum.
Similarly, Jordan also captured this general feeling among the SET participants in their
utility value of SAI when he stated,
I think specialized academic instruction is so important for them. For one because, you
know. I mean I’m not talking about my group in particular, they need to learn coping
strategies that they don’t really learn in general ed. You won’t learn that in your
mainstream or your inclusion classes. I don’t ever go around and see a general education
teacher talking about how to deal with anger and frustration, and things that they…the
emotions that they’re feeling and they don’t know how to address. So, I think that it’s
important for that intensified one-to-one instruction where, again, a general education
teacher is not going to be able to give them one-to-one instruction.
Jordan emphasized the importance of students being emotionally ready to learn, which SAI
encompasses for SWSLD who need coping strategies in learning. He recognized that SAI is
useful in its design to address the capabilities of his students, which is often not possible in a
general education setting. Sindelar et al. (1986) emphasized that a special education teacher who
is active and questioning has a perceived value in engaging in classroom tasks and is more
effective in SEPs for SWSLD and intellectually disabled students.
Self-Efficacy: SETs were confident in their ability to provide effective SAI. The main
theme to emerged from the interviews pertaining to SETS’ self-efficacy revealed that, in general,
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 73
participants were motivated and confident about their abilities to provide effective SAI. Nine
participants expressed confidence in their ability to design and deliver SAI in alignment with
their students’ IEPs. They were motivated and committed to student success via setting high
expectations for them and recognized that student engagement is a primary catalyst for learning.
Additionally, they were also able to articulate their areas of strengths and growth areas.
The research on motivational theory in this context demonstrates that, if SETs do
not believe they can implement initiatives to meet organizational goals, they risk losing
motivation to do so, thus affecting their perceived ability to meet the organizational goals
(Pajares, 2006). The first finding in relation to the research question that asks about SETs’
motivation is that participants exhibited high self-efficacy about their ability to implement
SAI if required by the organization.
To this end, Courtney stated, “I’m confident that I can design a program specific for
students with their IEPs that’s effective and practical in terms of implementing it.” He also
said, “We can always use support and training for the new things that come up, and I think
we’re getting that now, whereas the true catalyst for our program is the student
achievement.” Courtney’s statement indicated his sense of high self-efficacy in his
conscientiousness of identifying ways that he could improve his program for SWSLD and
his focus on student achievement. The research on motivation uncovers that teachers who
are more innovated towards new ideas are more efficacious and less likely to experience
burnout (Brouwers & Tomic, 2003; Ross & Bruce, 2007). This connects to the tenet of
high self-efficacy positively influencing learning and motivation which are enhanced when
learners have positive expectancies for success (Pajares, 2006).
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 74
Sandra also expressed she can design an effective program for SWSLD using SAI
when she gave an example of how her belief in her student and confidence in her abilities
made the difference for one of her students:
I feel that I’m really good at it. The only thing that I get concerned about is the fact
that my students are behind in a certain area. For example, for math and the
expectations for their current grade level is so high. To me, I feel like I have to
supplement their needs in order to get them where they need to go. I find myself
doing a lot of, not extra, but I find myself doing a lot of additional work with the
students to make sure that they understand, even though that they may be a grade
level behind and they’re playing catch up and they’re learning, for instance,
multiplication and division at a basic level, but they’re in a fourth or fifth grade
class and they’re doing it in a long form division or they’re multiplying by two or
three digits, I find myself working with them, spending extra time other than the
service time to help them get the basics down so that they can get the assessments.
Sandra’s focus on teaching discrete skills before moving on to major concepts
demonstrated her high level of self-efficacy in her ability to persist longer during
instruction and in her pragmatic approach in teaching; Allinder (1994) cited this flexibility
and willingness to implement new practices in the classroom as being an important factor
of strong self-efficacy. Bandura (2000) posited that self-efficacious individuals have as a
personal belief that, to reach certain goals, one must perform in an appropriate and effective
manner.
Ashley was the only participant who rated her confidence level related to SAI by stating,
“I feel about 70% to 80%. I think I feel like there’s always room for improvement. You’ll never
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 75
be perfect.” However, she explained her feeling of success when she made a breakthrough with
one of her students:
A student in particular, when he came to me, he only knew how to read I think it was
like five words, first grade. It was like five sight words, and so I was working hard to
increase his literacy, and in that, like I said, I like to gamify a lot of things and get him
active and moving because he always is out of his seat. But it never seemed like he was
retaining it, or holding on to it. But I just kept consistent in my practices, and I just kept
consistent with finding new ways that I should try to deliver the information to him, as
far as reading sight words and also phonics. Finally, it was not until early beginning of
this year where he’s really reading, like he’s reading books and he’s starting to read
chapter books and that made me feel so successful.
Ashley’s experience in teaching her student to read can be linked directly to her knowledge of
SAI strategies and the continued development of her self-efficacy. Pajares (2006) presents the
growth of self-efficacy primarily through the evaluation of an individual’s own experiences and
by observing the performance of others on similar tasks. Like Ashley, there was a general
feeling of success among participants in their practices related to SAI based on the level of
student success that they each experienced.
Janet expressed the same sentiment by explaining that she feels confident with designing
SAI and developing IEPs appropriate to meet the needs of her students who are all unique and
learn differently. She utilized various resources that advised the use of SAI strategies. She noted
finding time to plan was challenging for her. She expressed this by stating,
I feel pretty much confident in designing specialized academic instruction with IEP. I
think the challenge is that each student is very individual and learn differently. The
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 76
challenge is really having that time to sit down and plan. But I feel pretty much confident
about which strategies to use and sometimes I would do online research. Probably even
check a video from another teacher. So according to the IEP goal, or whatever the student
is doing, I would go in there and check it out and try to tailor it to the needs of my
student. I feel pretty much confident about that.
Janet noted that time was a barrier for her in terms of researching and planning for instruction as
it related to designing SAI and developing individualized goals.
Nadia and Jean explained they felt confident about designing and providing SAI to meet
their students IEP goal while aligning them to state standards. Nadia explained this by saying,
I think I’m able to, with the material that I have, I had requested and had gotten,
instructional material for the kids to instruct them at their level. but also the trainings that
the general ed teachers receive is a training that I received. So I believe that I’m equipped
to design my instructions to align with the student’s IEP because their IEP goals are state
standards that I’m teaching.
Similarly, Mary and Jean explained this same phenomenon. Mary stated, “I feel confident about
my personal ability and what I do with my students, and aligning them with their IEP plan,”
while Jean sated, “I feel pretty adequate with it. A good example, now that it’s important to align
their IEPs with Common Core, I can look at Common Core standards and all and realize what I
can keep and what I might need to tweak a little bit in order to make them successful.”
Janet, Nadia, Mary and Jean’s responses indicate they understand how to align IEP goals
which inform SAI instructional strategies with Common Core standards. This evidence supports
the finding that the participants expressed their ability to provide effective SAI to meet the needs
of SWSLD.
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 77
From the evidence presented across the interviews, participants approached the
information from their students’ IEPs. All 10 interviewees had high levels of self-efficacy about
their ability to provide effective SAI; only one teacher rated herself at a 70% to 80% in her
ability to provide effective SAI.
Impact of Organizational Influences on Knowledge and Motivation
The main findings in this section highlight the organizational cultural setting and cultural
model influences that interviewees need to implement effective SAI. The second research
question sought to better understand the relationship between the organization’s culture and
context in shaping or influencing interviewees’ knowledge and motivation in delivering effective
SAI. What was uncovered about the organization’s cultural setting is that it influences
interviewees’ feeling supported in terms of being provided with relevant information and having
access to general training opportunities and professional development. With respect to this
question, while participants possessed general knowledge about delivery of SAI and were mostly
efficacious about their ability to deliver SAI or in learning new strategies to improve their
practices, they still needed clear communication about expectations for SAI via policies and
procedures and structured support via models, mentors or coaches within the organization to
keep up with research and promising practices related to successful delivery of effective SAI.
The main theme to emerge from the interviews pertaining to cultural settings was
participants’ wanting more support from the district in the form of clear goals for SWSLD
communicated from leadership defined by the organization’s mission and vision. Participants
articulated that the district’s high turnover in administrative leadership made it challenging for
them to get consistent messaging regarding organizational goals. Thus, participants wanted clear
communication from leadership on organizational mission, vision and goals related to SWSLD.
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 78
The main themes that emerged from the interviews pertaining to cultural models were a
lack of policies and procedures defining the delivery and implementation of SAI, a lack of
coaches/models for participants to support them in following the appropriate procedures for
implementing SAI, as well as dedicated time to collaborate regularly on policies and procedures
and SAI. There were no clear policies to define the delivery of SAI. Furthermore, it speared as
if there were very few teacher leaders to serve as coaches/models: persons considered experts or
leads for capacity building due to the high turnover of both administrative staff and their
designee leads. Six participants expressed a willingness to serve as mentors or coaches for newer
SETs. Perhaps most significantly, participants expressed a desire for regular collaboration to
foster their professional growth.
Cultural Settings
The questions posed around JUSD’s cultural setting revealed that, although interviewees
were all familiar with the organization’s mission for all students, the majority of the participants
stated that the district’s vision and goals were not clear for this student sub-group. Interviewees
articulated that the district values all students and want all students to achieve high outcomes;
however, they do not know “the how.” They stated that a clear vision and goals were not
communicated by district leadership or site administration specific to SWSLD.
Desire for a clear vision and goals communicated from the organization. This
perceived lack of vision and goals was reported as affecting the training provided to
interviewees. In particular, the training was said to be unrelated to their area of expertise and
were mostly optional as well as too general and not meeting their individual needs. The
consensus was that this perpetuated the lack of clear vision and goals for SWSLD because the
training did not align with what was expected of them, thus amounting to a lack of clear
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 79
messaging around the delivery of SAI. Interviewees also expressed they did not believe their site
administrators had a clear vision of what SWSLD need because many of them had not worked in
an environment where there were many SWSLD, and, although there were many opportunities
for goal setting for this student sub-group, goals needed to be more clearly defined for schools
administrator by district administration. They emphasized the lack of department goals and
inadequate professional development were mitigating factors for inadequate guidance around
SAI. Interviewees cited the high turnover in both district and special education administrator as
precipitating factors for lack of focus on progress for SWSLD. They also expressed wanting a
clear mission, vision and goal statement from administration with policies and procedures that
define SAI, and a specific plan for relevant professional development and training for SAI.
The first question asked of the participants was to gauge what the administration at the
school site or district had communicated about the organization’s vision and goals related to
SWSLD. Jean explained her administrator’s commitment to supporting SWSLD when she stated
“The administration at least has understanding to treat all students fairly. In terms of mission,
just equal access.” Here Jean articulated the administration’s commitment to all students and not
specifically to responding to the needs of SWSLD. The use of “all students” signals platitudes,
and, without specificity, it is difficult to communicate goals that have the potential of serving
specific students. Mary emphasized administration communicated a mission of equity for
SWSLD. Similarly, Roxanne supported this messaging regarding universal learning and access
for all students when she explained, “My school’s mantra or goal is universal learning and
greatness and achievement for all students. Administration does communicate this during our
Tuesday trainings, during assemblies, even daily announcements through the speaker.”
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 80
In contrast, the remaining seven participants largely expressed there was inconsistent and
unclear communication and expectations regarding this. For example, Sandra stated, “As far as
the district’s goals, I do believe there are some goals for our students with disabilities. I just think
that they need to be more clearly defined to the administrators of the schools.” This statement is
telling, as Sandra was aware of “some goals” but stated that they needed to be clearly defined.
Ashley’s transparency regarding her administration’s lack of guidance on vision and goals and
lack of priority for SWSLD and focusing more on general education students which she viewed
as a waste of her time was captured when she stated,
We don’t really talk about special education. When we get together on those professional
development days on Tuesdays, it’s about what’s happening in the general education, and
what should we tackle in the general education classroom. And often times I feel like it’s
just a waste of my time to be in the meeting. On some levels, because I do teach in alt
end, but I also in teaching general ed. I collaborate with a lot of the teachers on my off
time, and so either in the class ... I mean, on the teacher development day we’re talking
about, I don’t know. I can’t think of anything right now, but like ... I can’t think of what
we talk about, but I feel like it just doesn’t pertain to anything that I’m doing.
Ashley was not alone in her viewpoint that nothing had been communicated regarding a
vision for SWSLD and expectations around SAI. Janet added to the conversation by saying, “I
don’t believe she [principal] has a clear vision of what the students with disabilities need because
she hasn’t really worked in an environment with many special needs students.” For Janet, the
perceived lack of experience working with special needs students was the reason the
administration did not provide specific goals or the means to support SWSLDs.
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 81
Similarly, Nadia expressed frustration around not having access to teaching resources and
materials and attributed this to administrators not making the education of SWSLD a priority
when she stated,
Since I’ve been here in the district, there is…the district to me sees that the kids in special
ed are unteachable. And I say that because I have my material but most special ed
teachers within this district do not have material. When I first came into this district, I
was given, I had a K through third classroom. I was given kindergarten and first grade
books and said that’s all that my kids could do. Once I assessed my students and place
them in groups and talk to them at their level, I requested more books and it was a
struggle to get these books because I feel that within the district they believe that the kids
are unteachable. So if you believe that they are not able to be taught, then why waste
material on them. That’s how I see my district.
Here, Nadia articulates her perceptions of administrators not being focused or prioritizing the
provision of adequate and appropriate teaching materials for SWSLD. She does not believe the
value of the education of SWSLD because they do not believe they can learn. Ashley, Janet and
Nadia echo the need for administrative guidance and support in meeting their students ’
instructional needs. The literature uncovers that, to address cultural setting problems,
administration must provide teachers with guidance and direction on mission, vision and goals
(Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009; Borate et al., 2014).
Raquel expanded on this further when she shared that although administration
communicated that students are able to learn, including SWSLD, they haven’t communicated
any goals for them nor outlined any plan to address their needs.
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 82
Well, I think our vision is that all students are able to learn and that we’re gonna work
toward all students. I believe that’s our vision. I do believe it encompasses our students
with disabilities ’cause it says all. You know, when we go over the district data, I as a
teacher, don’t remember seeing any specific data regarding our students with disabilities.
Maybe the administrators, but as far as being a teacher, it’s normally just an overall view
of all the students, like the full population of students, but not necessarily specific to ours.
So I know that we want all kids to learn, but I’m just not sure if they are truly taking time
to think about our students with the learning disabilities and ways that we can implement
things to help them reach the curve. ’ Cause as a district, our test scores aren’t doing great
as a whole.”
Here Raquel emphasized that although administration communicated that students are
able to learn, including SWSLD, they haven’t communicated any goals for them nor outlined any
plan to address their needs.
Nadia delved more into the administrative level of support related to their communication
about vision and goals for SWSLD. According to Nadia, the level of administrative support in
alignment to their communication about mission, vision and goals for SWSLD is what makes the
difference.
We know the vision is that they are entitled to receive quality education, they are the
entitlement and we are supposed to provide that for the students. Yes, they tell us that.
But the level of support and what is the district doing to support that is the big question.
So many things are thrown at teachers but the level of support, especially in this time, the
district doesn’t have much money. It hampers what we do, right now we for example, am
good at, if I’m having an IEP meeting, I have copies for every member then to look as
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 83
I’m reading and explaining things are flowing but we’ve been told no more ink for you.
If you have to print go to the main office and pick up, print from your room then bring to
the main office. So, IEPS are not supposed to be exposed like that.
According to Nadia, the level of administrative support in alignment to their
communication about mission, vision and goals for SWSLD is what makes the difference.
Furthermore, when administration focus the work on the school’s vision this directly influences
improvements in student learning outcomes (Waters, Marzano & McNulty, 2003).
Cultural Models: Policies and Procedures for SAI
One of the main questions that examined cultural models asked about department policies
and procedures defining the delivery of SAI. All participants expressed there were no clear
policies and procedures in this regard. Megan explicitly responded, “No, I’m sorry. I’m not
aware of the policies from the district that define them.” Similarly, Jordan stated, “We don’t
really have any set policies that I can think of that I’m familiar with. I’m sure it might be but I’m
just not familiar with them.” Sandra further expounded on this when she stated, “I’m not aware
of any procedures for the delivery of SAI. I’m sure that there are. That doesn’t mean that there
are not procedures. The policies are defined typically for, from my knowledge is when we’re
developing our IEPs.” Here, Sandra demonstrated her lack of awareness of specific policies and
procedures for SAI, which indicates a need for a clear definition of SAI articulated not only in
the policies and procedures manual, via trainings and other professional development, but also
required to be demonstrated within the instructional program. Essentially, clearly stated policies
and procedures were either non-existent or not made available to interviewees. This also
suggests a lack of awareness among the participants. However, considering the fact that all
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 84
interviewees were tenured teachers, it is unlikely they would be unaware of any established
policies and procedures.
Cultural Models: More Support to Implement effective SAI
Additional administrative support via coaches/mentors and collaboration was identified
as the precursor for effective implementation of SAI. Interviewees expressed they needed
coaches, mentors and/or administrators to provide guidance and feedback on their instructional
practices as well as the ability to collaborate regularly with their peers, which they felt would
better equip them meet the needs of their students. Courtney expressed this simply when he said,
“I think that that’s an area [collaboration] that needs to be very much so focused, because it
affects the students, to me. It affects their instructional program, because they’re not getting the
maximum that we have to offer if we’re not doing those things consistently.” Roxanne went into
more details to explain she does not believe she can rely on advice she gets from veteran
teachers:
Currently, not much to be honest. I think, too, pretty much other teachers and stuff. To be
honest, sometime they might know about it, but they [other SETS] probably haven’t been
trained as well as new teachers, and so for them they probably don’t even understand best
how to do it. And so, as a result, it’s like them following up is not even, like they didn’t
even understand in the first place to actually follow up with, you know? So I wouldn’t
say I would like to follow up to talk about differentiation at this point to be honest. I
know the concept, it has been something has been around a while, but I think, you know
they change up things a little bit. And you’re currently like “I went to school there are
certain things I’m not going to be aware of.” Or in the forefront of your mind, you know?
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 85
Here, Roxanne discussed how she viewed collaboration by expressing her lack of confidence in
her peers’ ability to inform her on best practices. In contrast, Raquel explained how important
collaboration was for her as she learned the most about her instructional practices through her
interactions with her colleagues:
Yes. My team, my team. It has been amazing. Actually, it’s what has kept me going. It’s
what keeps me excited. Because my co-workers are very passionate about teaching our
population of students. They are ... I’ve been blessed to have a lot of new teachers. And I
love new teachers ’cause they come straight out of college and they have all these new
strategies and all these new things. And since we don’t receive that much training
through the district, it’s awesome to collaborate with them and here all the new stuff that
they learned in school. ’Cause I mean, I’ve been doing this for 12 years. So I’ve been out
of school for a while. But I love collaborating with my co-workers. I love my co-workers.
They are always trying to share things, share strategies, share what their students are
doing, what’s working with their students, always willing to help each other. Yeah. I do.
That’s been the most training, actually
Jean had a somewhat different view. She explained that, due to the high turnover rate of
teachers in the district, she had only collaborated with a few teachers and not consistently. She
also talked about her ability to observe other teachers to improve her practice, which also has
never been afforded to her:
In this district, they come and go. It’s a high turnover rate. The few of us that have been
around, we do reach out to each other and we do collaborate, but not on a consistent
basis. We don’t get to go and shadow or observe a teacher and I requested that a couple
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 86
of times during my time here or when I’m being evaluated, I’ll ask, but we don’t get to
that part. But I think that’s something that’s needed.
Jean’s statement supports the assertion that SETS wanted regular collaboration to improve their
professional practice. Marzano et al. (2005) highlight the need for schools to provide teachers
with tools and support when they are asked to make significant instructional changes. Without
the ability to continuously practice implementing new changes, in a structured and feedback-
oriented environment, SETS will not receive the support they need from the organization
(Marzano, Walters, and McNulty, 2005).
This chapter focused on emergent themes from the interview data and findings that
demonstrated the extent to which participants’ knowledge and motivation were affected by
organizational supports framed by the research questions. What was uncovered was that SETs’
knowledge and motivation of providing effective SAI interacted with the special education
program’s culture and context based on the level of professional learning opportunities and
support that the organization provided. Furthermore, the organizational solutions related to SETs
providing effective specialized academic instruction centered around the district providing
opportunities for the SETs to engage in professional learning where they are able to engage with
peers, coaches and administrators who are well versed in leading the work around best practices
in SAI.

TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 87
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
This study examined factors influencing SETs’ ability to provide effective SAI for
SWSLD. Using the tenets of HLPs, EI, and II, I examined how knowledge, motivation, and
organizational factors influenced participants to provide effective SAI to SWSLD. By
examining the findings related to their knowledge and motivation, we can infer whether and how
their practices align with their stakeholder goal and the organizational goal. Three questions
guided the study:
1. What are SETS’ knowledge and motivation in relation to the stakeholder goal of
providing effective specialized academic instruction?
2. How do special education SETS’ knowledge and motivation interact with the special
education program’s culture and context to shape their ability to accomplish provision
of effective specialized academic instruction?
3. What are the recommended knowledge and skills, motivation of SETS, and
organizational solutions as it relates to the goal of provision of effective specialized
academic instruction?
This chapter presents findings and implications for practice related to the
knowledge, motivation and organizational influences, followed by recommendations,
considerations for future research and a conclusion which includes possible solutions.
Findings and Implications for Practice
This study examined the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that
influenced participants’ ability to provide SAI to SWSLD. Findings were based on interview
responses from 10 SWSLD who represented about 30% of the total teacher population in the
district and are only relevant to the participants in this study. Thus, these findings do not
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 88
represent any influences that may affect SETs outside of the study. Consequently, these findings
may present a starting point for the district when offering support to SETs as well as an
opportunity to conduct a deeper dive into resources needed in the area of SAI.
The implications for district leadership pertains to how interviewees’ procedural and
metacognitive knowledge were believed to be affected by the lack of policies, procedures and
support in the form of coaches/mentors. A significant finding was that interviewees believed
that, if they were not able to get support from their organization, then it would be challenging for
them to implement practices effectively. The first finding dealt with interviewees’ procedural
and metacognitive knowledge: they had a general conceptual understanding of SAI and varying
levels of knowledge on how it can be implemented as well as how it can be adjusted to address
the unique needs of SWSLD. The second finding dealt with interviewees’ motivation and their
belief that they had the ability to provide effective SAI , which they valued as essential in
meeting the needs of SWSLD, but they needed assurance that what they considered to be
effective was truly that. A third finding that emphasized some gaps in cultural setting and
cultural models was the influence of the lack of goals for SWSLD defined by the organization’s
mission and vision, along with the lack of clear policies, procedures and support in the form of
coaches/mentors influenced on interviewees’ ability to provide effective SAI to SWSLD.
The first implication dealt with interviewees’ procedural knowledge of delivery models
for SAI (pull out or push in), implementation (small group instruction, one on one instruction, re-
teaching, pre-teaching, using visual aids, scaffolding) and metacognitive knowledge related to
how and when to adjust SAI to address the unique needs of SWSLD and the importance of
reflection in this process. The second implication centered around interviewees’ motivation in
their belief that they had the ability to provide SAI which they valued as being necessary in
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 89
meeting the needs of SWSLD. A common theme uncovered was their need for validation from
peers, coaches or administrators that what they considered to be effective was truly so. While
self-efficacy is essential in order for task completion, having procedural and metacognitive
knowledge enable teachers to achieve their goals (Clark & Estes, 2008; Eccles, 2006)).
Although the majority of interviewees expressed confidence in their ability to provide SAI, they
did not delve into details about specific SAI strategies nor were they able to use descriptors of
SAI as presented in the research: HLPs, EI or II. The high self-efficacy and utility value
exhibited by the SETS in their view of SAI provides a window of opportunity for the district
administration to provide training, structured professional development, coaching and regular
opportunities for collaboration and feedback to improve their practices. This segues into the
final implication, which focused on how gaps in cultural settings and cultural models related to
the lack of goals for SWSLD defined by the district’s mission and vision as well as a lack of
policies, procedures and support in the form of coaches/mentors influenced interviewees’ ability
to provide effective SAI to SWSLD.
Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Clark and Estes (2002) stated that primarily knowledge and skills, along with motivation and
organizational supports, enable teachers to achieve their goals. Procedural and metacognitive
knowledge that influence interviewees’ ability to meet their performance goals, related
theoretical principles, and context-specific recommendations follow in the next section.
Procedural Knowledge Solutions
As defined earlier in this paper, procedural knowledge is the “how” to do something:
what is needed to perform a task (Baartman & De Bruijn, 2011; Krathwohl, 2002). The findings
about participants’ procedural knowledge was that there are varying degrees of procedural
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 90
knowledge: knowing what SAI is and how to implement it in alignment with their students’
IEPs. To provide effective SAI to SWSLD, SETS need to know how to collect appropriate data
and how to use it to inform their delivery in alignment with their students ’ IEPs. Since
procedural knowledge involves managing intrinsic load by segmenting complex material into
simpler parts and pre-training which enables learning to be enhanced (Kirshner et al., 2006), to
develop mastery, individuals must acquire component skills, practice integrating them, and know
when to apply what they have learned (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006). This suggests that SETS
benefit from review and practice of work-related tasks, such as how to plan for instruction using
methodologies such as backwards planning and how to collect and analyze data to align to their
students ’ goals to better inform their instruction. Since, as stated above, participants only had a
general understanding and were not able to name specific strategies, job aids would help them
get to that next level of knowledge. The recommendation for the district is to provide SETs job
aids which would help them get to that next level of knowledge (Killoran et al., 2014; Schraw &
McCrudder, 2006). Furthermore, when SETs use effective research-based teaching strategies,
they reinforce principles and values of the special education classroom. In this context, the key
role of SETs is to design SAI to align with the goals of their students while utilizing both
adopted and supplementary curricula. The extent to which SETs are able to implement SAI
effectively determines their ability to address the exceptional learning needs of their students
(McInerney, Zumeta, Gandhi, & Gersten, 2014).
Metacognitive Knowledge Solutions
Metacognitive knowledge was described as combinations of information around three
knowledge variables: self, task, and strategies that are effective in achieving the goals of a task
(Baker, 2006). The findings about participants ’ metacognitive knowledge was they used
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 91
observations and student feedback to reflect regularly on their instruction, and they articulated
their areas of strengths and areas where growth was needed. However, they did not have regular
opportunities for collective reflection as there were not provided with opportunities for regular
collaboration.
The research shows metacognitive knowledge is centered around reflection; thus, regular
and meaningful reflection is necessary to assess instructional practices. Baker (2006) asserted
metacognitive strategies facilitate learning via the evaluation of one ’s status in completing a task,
as well as deciding whether or not to take action on a task. Although SETs in the district
regularly attend staff meetings, their engagement in the cycle of inquiry, a catalyst for reflection,
is infrequent. Broderick and Hong, (2011) cited the necessity in curriculum planning of the
cycle of inquiry, which includes observations, hypothesizing, questioning, planning, and
facilitating learning.. This suggests supporting a SETs ’ use of metacognition coupled with
feedback enables them to readily identify their strengths and weaknesses to improve their
instructional practices. The recommendation for the district is to provide SETs a safe
environment and opportunities to model their own metacognitive processes via offering regular
peer collaboration time.
Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Clark and Estes (2002) posited, that, along with the appropriate knowledge, skills, and
organizational supports, teachers also need motivation achieve their goals. The motivation
factors of self-efficacy and utility value that influence participants’ ability to meet their
performance goals, related theoretical principles, and context-specific recommendations follow
in the next section.
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 92
As presented earlier in this paper, Eccles and Wigfield (2002) posited an essential factor
in teachers’ motivation is determined by their ability to assess a task’s utility value by placing a
value on it for immediate or long-term rewards or goals. Pajares (2006) asserted learning and
motivation are enhanced when learners have positive expectancies for success, which defines
self-efficacy. The research shows learning and motivation are enhanced if the learner values the
task (Eccles, 2006) and has strong self-efficacy to positively influence motivation (Pajares,
2006).
The finding about participants’ utility value and self-efficacy was they believed effective
SAI was necessary in increasing student outcomes. In general, they believed student/teacher
interaction was the vehicle for informing SAI implementation, and they were motivated and
confident about their ability to design and deliver SAI in alignment with their students’ IEP
goals. However, what was mostly lacking from their shared perspectives were insights on how
data were used regularly and meaningfully. This suggests participants may not see the value of
using data to inform their delivery of SAI in alignment with their students’ IEPs and need more
exposure in making data-informed decisions, as student data needs to be the core of their
decision making as it pertains to SAI. Research shows offering rationale which includes a
discussion of the importance and utility value of the work or learning can help learners develop
positive values (Eccles, 2006; Pintrich, 2003). The recommendation is for the organization to
provide SETs real-world applications for using data to inform their SAI to address IEP goals.
This should entail the use of materials and activities that are relevant and useful to SETS,
connected to their interests, and based on real-world tasks.

TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 93
Organizational Influences and Recommendations
According to Clark and Estes (2002), along with the appropriate knowledge, skills, and
motivation, teachers also need organizational supports to achieve their goals. Organizational
factors that comprise of cultural setting and cultural models including policies and procedures
influence the ability of SETS to meet their performance goals.
The finding about cultural settings factors that influence participants’ ability to provide
effective SAI was the district does not provide guidance and direction on mission, vision and
goals for SWSLD using disaggregated data and related professional development opportunities
to inform their delivery of SAI. The research uncovers administrators must not only provide
guidance and direction on mission, vision and goal but also set and reset expectations with
teachers for their expected performance before, during and following training and professional
development (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009; Borate et al., 2014; Grawitch et al., 2006).
The recommendation is that the district’s leaders provide mission, vision and goals for
SWSLD. Focusing the work on the school’s vision is correlated with improvements in student
learning outcomes (Waters et al., 2003). Training and professional development aligned to
mission, vision and goals for SWSLD should be provided regularly and include standard
operating procedures that is practical for all SETS. The literature supports targeting training and
instruction between the individual’s independent performance level and their level of assisted
performance to promote optimal learning (Scott & Palincsar, 2013).
The finding about cultural model factors that influence participants’ ability to provide
effective SAI was that the district does not provide clearly articulated and written policies and
procedures that are communicated regularly. Participants expressed they needed coaches,
mentors and/or administrators to provide guidance and feedback related to policies and
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 94
procedures around their instructional practices. They also identified having very little
collaboration time with their peers to discuss best instructional practices, which they identified as
the precursor for effective implementation. Scott and Palincsar (2013) cited social interaction,
cooperative learning, and cognitive apprenticeships (such as reciprocal teaching) as facilitators of
the construction of new knowledge.
The recommendation is to provide the special education department’s policy and
procedures manual that includes the program’s mission, vision and goals around outcomes for
SWSLD and the expectations for the provision of effective SAI to all students. This guide
should also include an alignment to tools that facilitate learning and improved instruction in the
design of SAI and the development of IEPs. The literature supports the necessity of providing
and reviewing the organization’s policy and procedures aligned to the mission, vision and goals
during shared collaboration time for SETS (Waters et al., 2003).
Conclusion
This final chapter focused on emergent themes from the interview data and the findings
demonstrating the extent to which participants’ knowledge and motivation were affected by
organizational supports framed by the research questions. The evidence suggests a need for the
organization to provide clear articulation on the mission, vision and goal to improve outcomes
for SWSLD. There must be strategic planning around policies and procedures for SAI as the
foundation for special education programming and service delivery which should be aligned to a
robust professional development plan. Furthermore, policies and procedures need to be regularly
presented and reviewed with staff via regular in-service trainings. O’Connor (2017) emphasized
a clear and focused professional development plan, supported by coaches as necessary, for
individuals to fully understand the scope of content. Similarly, SETs need to actively engage in
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 95
training and professional development activities including protected collaboration time to fully
understand how SAI can be used in meeting their students’ unique goals. Additionally, it is
important that the district address the time considerations that SETs have regarding planning via
regular collaboration time. This consideration is a direct result of participants’ inconsistent
procedural and metacognitive knowledge and skills regarding SAI. All SETs need to understand
how SAI works within the scope of Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions, as well as best practices
related to these HLPs, EI and II and the use of data to drive instruction within their
subject/grade-level area.
By addressing best practices and ongoing professional development, coaching, and
support, the district can also increase effective delivery of SAI and increase outcomes of
SWSLD for all educators. These results create a framework that guides the recommendations for
a special education strategic plan related to implementing policies and procedures, professional
development, training and related supports needed for SETS to improve student outcomes with
suggestions for future research around this topic.
Considerations for Future Research
Drawing generalizable conclusions from this study was challenging due to the small
number of participants and the nature of data collection which relied heavily on teacher
perceptions. One generalization which can be made is the difficulty in creating an instructional
focus for teaching and learning with inconsistent leadership and limited personnel resources.
Resources such curriculum and materials, ongoing training, coaching and professional
development must be allocated to build instructional capacity in special education. Therefore,
further research is recommended in special education to examine how to improve training and
support to both seasoned and beginning SETs in planning and delivering effective SAI. Various
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 96
frameworks or methodologies for the measurement of effective SAI that have been used in the
field need to be examined. It is that educators continue to build their knowledge of what makes
an effective SET and what effective instruction looks like in a variety of special education
settings. Three research questions could be explored:
1. What does effective SAI look like and how can we best measure it?
2. What tools do SETS working with students with a wide range of disabilities need to
provide effective SAI that yields evidence for student growth and academic achievement?
3. How can inclusive practices such as co-teaching be used to improve teaching and
learning?

TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 97
REFERENCES
Adreon, D., & Durocher, J. S. (2007). Evaluating the college transition needs of individuals with
high-functioning autism spectrum disorders. Intervention in School and Clinic, 42(5),
271-279.
Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and
teams, organizations, and society. Annual Review of Psychology, 60(1), 451–474.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163505
Allinder, R. M. (1994). The relationship between efficacy and the instructional practices of
special education teachers and consultants. Teacher Education and Special Education,
17(2), 86–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/088840649401700203
Aragon, S. (2016). Teacher Shortages: What We Know. Teacher Shortage Series. Education
Commission of the States.
Archer, A. L., & Hughes, C. A. (2011). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching.
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Aron, L., & Loprest, P. (2012). Disability and the education system. The future of Children, 97-
122.
Baartman, L. K., & De Bruijn, E. (2011). Integrating knowledge, skills and attitudes:
Conceptualizing learning processes towards vocational competence. Educational
Research Review, 6(2), 125–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2011.03.001
Backer, T. E., Liberman, R. P., & Kuehnel, T. G. (1986). Dissemination and adoption of
innovative psychosocial interventions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
54(1), 111–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.54.1.111
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 98
Baker, L. (2006). Metacognition. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/metacognition/
Bartelheim, F. J., & Evans, S. (1993). The presence of reflective-practice indicators in special
education resource teachers' instructional decision making. The Journal of Special
Education, 27(3), 338-347.
Borate, N. S., Gopalkrishna, D., Shiva Prasad, H. C., & Borate, S. L. (2014). a case study
approach for evaluation of employee training effectiveness and development program.
Borgogni, L., Dello Russo, S., & Latham, G. P. (2011). The relationship of employee perceptions
of the immediate supervisor and top management with collective efficacy. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18(1), 5–13.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051810379799
Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2003). A test of the factorial validity of the teacher efficacy
scale. Research in Education, 69(1), 67-79.
Browder, D. M., Wood, L., Thompson, J., & Ribuffo, C. (2014). Evidence-based practices for
students withsevere disabilities. CEEDAR Document NO. IC-3. CEEDAR Center.
Retrieved on August, 31, 2015. What teacher educators and researchers should know.
Teacher Education and Special Education, 20(4), 340-359.
Brownell, M. T., Yeager, E., Rennells, M. S., & Riley, T. (1997). Teachers working together:
What teacher educators and researchers should know. Teacher Education and Special
Education, 20(4), 340–359.
https://doi.org/10.1177/088840649702000405
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 99
Brownell, M. T., Sindelar, P. T., Kiely, M. T., & Danielson, L. C. (2010). Special education
teacher quality and preparation: Exposing foundations, constructing a new
model. Exceptional Children, 76(3), 357-377.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Coladarci, T. (1992). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and commitment to teaching. Journal of
Experimental Education, 60(4), 323–337.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1992.9943869
Coladarci, Theodore, and William A. Breton. "Teacher efficacy, supervision, and the special
education resource-room teacher." The Journal of Educational Research 90, no. 4 (1997):
230-239.
Conger, J. A. (1991). Inspiring others: The language of leadership. The Academy of Management
Perspectives, 5(1), 31–45. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.1991.4274713
Cook, B. G., & Odom, S. L. (2013). Evidence-based practices and implementation science in
special education. Exceptional children, 79(2), 135-144.
Cortiella, C. (2011). The state of learning disabilities.
Creswell, J. W., Hanson, W. E., Clark Plano, V. L., & Morales, A. (2007). Qualitative research
designs: Selection and implementation. The counseling psychologist, 35(2), 236-264.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. SAGE publications.
De Jong, T., & Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. (1996). Types and qualities of knowledge. Educational
psychologist, 31(2), 105-113.
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 100
Dembo, M. H., & Gibson, S. (1985). Teachers’ sense of efficacy: An important factor in school
improvement. The Elementary School Journal, 86(2), 173–184.
https://doi.org/10.1086/461441
Denning, S. (2005). Transformational innovation: A journey by narrative. Strategy and
Leadership, 33(3), 11–16. https://doi.org/10.1108/10878570510700119
Dickie, R., Bauman, R., Belch, P., Lancaster, P., Lazor, R., Mulé, B., & Seman, M. (1991).
Special education teacher training: A noncategorical approach. Education & Treatment of
Children, 14(4), 299–315.
Doabler, C., Clarke, B., Stoolmiller, M., Kosty, D., Fien, H., Smolkowski, K., & Baker, S.
(2017). Explicit Instructional Interactions: Exploring the Black Box of a Tier 2
Mathematics Intervention. Remedial and Special Education, 38(2), 98–110.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932516654219
Durlak, J. A. (1998). Why program implementation is important. Journal of Prevention &
Intervention in the Community, 17(2), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1300/J005v17n02_02
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53(1), 109–132. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153
Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, Pub. L. 94-142, 89 Stat. 773, codified at
20 U.S.C. § 1400.
Ehlers, R. (2013). Overview of Special Education in California. Retrieved from
https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2013/edu/special-ed-primer/special-ed-primer-010313.pdf
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 101
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement. Washington, DC:
Albert Shanker Institute.
Elmore, R., (n.d.). The instructional core. Retrieved from
https://lmrtriads.wikispaces.com/Instructional+Core
Fletcher, J. M., & Vaughn, S. (2009). Response to intervention: Preventing and remediating
academic difficulties. Child development perspectives, 3(1), 30-37.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how
valid is it?. Reading research quarterly, 41(1), 93-99.
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., & Dimino, J. A. (2006). RTI (Response to Intervention): Rethinking special
education for students with reading difficulties (yet again). Reading Research
Quarterly, 41(1), 99-108.
Gilley, A., Gilley, J. W., & McMillan, H. S. (2009). Organizational change: Motivation,
communication, and leadership effectiveness. Performance Improvement Quarterly,
21(4), 75–94. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.20039
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction 4th ed. Cranbury, NJ.
Grawitch, M. J., Gottschalk, M., & Munz, D. C. (2006). The path to a healthy workplace: A
critical review linking healthy workplace practices, employee well-being, and
organizational improvements. Consulting Psychology Journal, 58(3), 129–147.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1065-9293.58.3.129
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 102
Gresham, F. M., Gansle, K. A., & Noell, G. H. (1993). Treatment integrity in applied behavior
analysis with children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26(2), 257–263.
https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1993.26-257
Grossman, R., & Salas, E. (2011). The transfer of training: What really matters. International
Journal of Training and Development, 15(2), 103–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
2419.2011.00373.x
Gruman, J. A., & Saks, A. M. (2011). Performance management and employee engagement.
Human Resource Management Review, 21(2), 123–136.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.09.004
Harr-Robins, J., Song, M., Hurlburt, S., Pruce, C., Danielson, L., Garet, M., & Taylor, J. (2012).
The inclusion of students with disabilities in school accountability systems. Interim
Report. (NCEE 2012-4056). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation
and Regional Assistance.
Harris, D. N., & Sass, T. R. (2011). Teacher training, teacher quality and student
achievement. Journal of public economics, 95(7-8), 798-812.
Hattaway, D., & Henson, J. (2013). It can be smart to dumb things down. Stanford Social
Innovation Review. Retrieved from http://ssir.org/articles/entry/it_can_be_smart_to_
dumb_things_down
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of educational
research, 77(1), 81-112.
Heward, W. L. (2003). Ten faulty notions about teaching and learning that hinder the
effectiveness of special education. The journal of special education, 36(4), 186-205.
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 103
Hipp, K. A., & Bredesqn, P. V. (1995). Exploring connections between teacher efficacy and
principals’ leadership behaviors. Journal of School Leadership, 5(2), 136-150.
Hocutt, A. M. (1996). Effectiveness of special education: Is placement the critical factor? The
Future of Children, 6(1), 77–102. https://doi.org/10.2307/1602495
Hughes, C. A. (2011). Effective instructional design and delivery for teaching task-specific
learning strategies to students with learning disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children,
44(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.17161/foec.v44i2.6689
Hughes, C. A., Morris, J. A., Therrien, W. J., & Benson, S. K. (2017). Explicit instruction:
Historical and contemporary contexts. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 32(3),
140–148.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12142
Hulleman, C. S. (2007). The Role of Utility Value in the Development of Interest and
Achievement. Online Submission.
Individuals with Disabilities Act (1997).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
Lee Swanson, H., & Hoskyn, M. (1999). Definition x treatment interactions for students with
Kamil, M. L., Borman, G. D., Dole, J., Kral, C. C., Salinger, T., & Torgesen, J. (2008).
Improving Adolescent Literacy: Effective Classroom and Intervention Practices. IES
Practice Guide. NCEE 2008-4027. National Center for Education Evaluation and
Regional Assistance.
Karger, J. (2004). Access to the general curriculum for students with disabilities: The role of the
IEP. Wakefield, MA: National Center On Accessing the General Curriculum.
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 104
Killoran, I., Woronko, D., & Zaretsky, H. (2014). Exploring preservice teachers’ attitudes
towards inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 18(4), 427–442.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2013.784367
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick ’s four levels of training evaluation.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Talent Development.
Kirschner, P., Kirschner, F., & Paas, F. (2006). Cognitive load theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/cognitive-load-theory/
Kokina, I., & Ostrovska, I. (2013). The analysis of organizational culture with the Denison
model. European Scientific Institute, ESI (publishing), 362.
Kovaleski, J. F., Gickling, E. E., Morrow, H., & Swank, P. R. (1999). High versus low
implementation of instructional support teams: A case for maintaining program
fidelity. Remedial and Special Education, 20(3), 170-183.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Lewis, L. K. (2011). Organizational change: Creating change through strategic communication
(Vol. 4). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444340372
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.’
Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (Vol. 41). Sage
publications
McClelland, D. C., Koestner, R., & Weinberger, J. (1989). How do self-attributed and implicit
motives differ? Psychological Review, 96(4), 690–702. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
295X.96.4.690
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 105
McInerney, M., Zumeta, R. O., Gandhi, A. G., & Gersten, R. (2014). Building and sustaining
complex systems: Addressing common challenges to implementing intensive
intervention. Teaching Exceptional Children, 46(4), 54-63.
McLeskey, J., Council for Exceptional Children, & Collaboration for Effective Educator
Development, Accountability and Reform. (2017). High-leverage practices in special
education. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
Moncher, F. J., & Prinz, R. J. (1991). Treatment fidelity in outcome studies. Clinical Psychology
Review, 11(3), 247–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-7358(91)90103-2
Nir, A. E., & Kranot, N. (2006). School Principal's Leadership Style and Teachers' Self
Efficacy. Planning and Changing, 37, 205-218.
National Assessment for Education Progress, 2017.
https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/
National Center for Learning Disabilities, 2018.
https://www.ncld.org/
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from http://www.education.com/reference/
article/self-efficacy-theory/
Pazzaglia, A. M., Stafford, E. T., & Rodriguez, S. M. (2016). Survey methods for educators:
Selecting samples and administering surveys (part 2 of 3) (REL 2016-160). Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Education.
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.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 106
Pretti-Frontczak, K., & Bricker, D. (2000). Enhancing the quality of individualized education
plan (IEP) goals and objectives. Journal of early intervention, 23(2), 92-105.
Riccomini, P. J., Morano, S., & Hughes, C. A. (2017). Big ideas in special education: Specially
designed instruction, high-leverage practices, explicit instruction, and intensive
instruction. Teaching Exceptional Children, 50(1), 20–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005
9917724412
Rodgers, C. (2002). Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and reflective thinking.
Teachers College Record, 104(4), 842–866. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9620.00181
Ross, J., & Bruce, C. (2007). Professional development effects on teacher efficacy: Results of
randomized field trial. The journal of educational research, 101(1), 50-60.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Sage.
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/information-processing-theory/
Scott, S., & Palincsar, A. (2013). Sociocultural theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/sociocultural-theory
Schumacher, D. (2011). Special education teacher education teacher preparation: An ecological
approach to professional knowledge of special education and teaching practices. University of
Kentucky.
Sindelar, P. T., Brownell, M. T., & Billingsley, B. (2010). Special education teacher education
research: Current status and future directions. Teacher Education and Special
Education, 33(1), 8-24.
Stainback, W., Stainback, S. (1992). Controversial issues confronting special education:
divergent perspectives. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Stecker, P. M., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2005). Using curriculum ‐based measurement to
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 107
improve student achievement: Review of research. Psychology in the Schools, 42(8), 795
819.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive
construct. Teaching and teacher education, 17(7), 783-805.
Turnbull, A. P. (1995). Exceptional lives: Special education in today ’s schools. London,
England: Pearson
Turnbull, H. R., III, Turnbull, A. P., Wehmeyer, M. L., & Park, J. (2003). A quality of life frame
-work for special education outcomes. Remedial and Special Education, 24(2), 67–74.
https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325030240020201
Thurlow, M. L., Quenemoen, R. F., Lazarus, S. S., Moen, R. E., Johnstone, C. J., Liu, K. K., &
Altman, J. (2008). A principled approach to accountability assessments for students with
disabilities. Synthesis Report, 70.
Waters, T., Marzano, R., and McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of
research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement (Working paper),
Denver, CO: Mid-Continent Regional Education Laboratory.
Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith. J., & Moon. B. (1998). A critical analysis of the research on learn-
ing to teach: Making the case for an ecological perspective on inquiry. Review of
Educatiotial Research, 68(2), 130-178.
Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., Braaten, M., & Stroupe, D. (2012). Proposing a core set of
instructional practices and tools for teachers of science. Science education, 96(5), 878
903.
Yost, D. S. (2006). Reflection and self-efficacy: Enhancing the retention of qualified teachers
from a teacher education perspective. Teacher Education Quarterly, 33(4), 59–76.
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 108
APPENDIX A
Nested Structure of Specialized Academic Instruction

Nested structure of special education. Reprinted from Big Ideas in Special Education: Specially Designed
Instruction, High-Leverage Practices, Explicit Instruction, and Intensive Instruction by Paul J.
Riccomini, Stephanie Morano, and Charles A. Hughes published in TEACHING Exceptional Children
201750:1, 20-27, September 20, 2017 retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00
40059917724412

TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 109
APPENDIX B
High-Leverage Practices
Collaboration
1. Collaborate with professionals to increase student success.
2. Organize and facilitate effective meetings with professionals and families.
3. Collaborate with families to support student learning and secure needed services.
Assessment
4. Use multiple sources of information to develop a comprehensive understanding of a student’s
strengths and needs.
5. Interpret and communicate assessment information with stakeholders to collaboratively design and
implement educational programs.
6.Use student assessment data, analyze instructional practices, and make necessary adjustments that
improve student outcomes.
Social/Emotional/Behavioral
7. Establish a consistent, organized and respectful learning environment.
8. Provide positive and constructive feedback to guide students learning and behavior
9. Teach social behaviors.
Instruction
10. Conduct functional behavioral assessment is to develop individual student behavior support plans.
11. Identify and prioritize long and short term learning goals.
12. Systematically designed instruction towards specific learning goals.
13. Adopt curriculum tasks and materials for specific learning goals.
14. Teach cognitive and metacognitive strategies to support learning and independence.
15. Provide scaffolding supports.
16. Use explicit instruction.
17. Use flexible grouping.
18. Use strategies to promote active student engagement.
19. Use assistive and instructional technologies.
20. Provide intensive instruction.
21. Teach students to maintain and generalize new learning across time and settings.
22. Provide positive and constructive feedback to guide students learning and behavior.

High-Leverage Practices. Reprinted from Big Ideas in Special Education: Specially Designed Instruction,
High-Leverage Practices, Explicit Instruction, and Intensive Instruction by Paul J. Riccomini, Stephanie
Morano, and Charles A. Hughes published in TEACHING Exceptional Children 201750:1, 20-27,
September 20, 2017 retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00 40059917724412

TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 110
APPENDIX C
Principles and Elements of Effective Explicit Instruction
Principles and Elements of Effective Explicit Instruction. Reprinted from Big Ideas in Special Education: Specially Designed
Instruction, High-Leverage Practices, Explicit Instruction, and Intensive Instruction by Paul J. Riccomini, Stephanie Morano,
and Charles A. Hughes published in TEACHING Exceptional Children 201750:1, 20-27, September 20, 2017 retrieved from
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00 40059917724412

Principles
1.Optimize engaged time or time on task.
The more time students are actively participating in instructional activities, the more they learn.
2. Promote high levels of success.
The more successful (i.e., correct or accurate) students are when they engage in an academic task, the more they achieve.
3.Increase content coverage.
The more academic content covered effectively and efficiently, the greater potential for student learning.
4.Have students spend more time in instructional groups.
The more time students participate in teacher led, skill level groups versus one to one teaching or seat work activities, the
more instruction the receipt, and the more they learn.
5. Scaffold instruction.
Providing support, structure, and guidance during instruction promotes academic success, and systematic fading of this
support encourages students to become more independent learners.
6. Address different forms of knowledge.
The ability to strategically use academic skills and knowledge often requires students to know different sorts of information
at different levels: the decorative level (what something is, factual information), the procedural level (how something is done
or performed), and the conditional level (when and where to use the skill).
Elements
1. Focus instruction on critical content.
2. Sequence skills logically.
3. Break down complex skills and strategies into smaller instructional units.
4. Design organized and focused lessons.
5. Begin lessons with a clear statement of the lesson goals and your expectations.
6. Review prior skills and knowledge before beginning instruction.
7. Provide step-by-step demonstrations.
8. Use clear and concise language.
9. Provide an adequate range of examples or non-examples.
10. Provide guided and supported practice.
11. Require frequent responses.
12. Monitor student performance closely.
13. Provide immediate affirmative and corrective feedback.
14. Deliver the lessons at a brisk pace.
15. Help students organize knowledge.
16. Provide distributive and cumulative practice.
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 111
APPENDIX D
Interview Protocol

Introduction

I want to thank you for agreeing to participate in my research study. I appreciate the time that
you have set aside to answer my questions. Before we get started, I want to provide you with
another overview of what we will be talking about today and answer any preliminary questions
that you might have. I will be interviewing a grade span of preschool to grade 12 special day
class and resource specialist teachers of students identified as having a specific learning
disability who participate in the general education curriculum and regular state testing. I would
like these teachers to share their thoughts, ideas, and opinions on how their knowledge and skills,
and motivation are influenced by what the organization provides to support them in providing
effective specialized academic instruction (SAI) to enable their students to meet grade level
targets and individualized education plan goals. I am a doctoral student at the University of
Southern California and I am conducting the study as part of my dissertation research project. I
am not serving in my capacity as a district employee but rather in the capacity of student
researcher.

I would like to review the logistics of the interview process. Today I will be engaging you in a
preliminary interview which may be followed up with a second interview. As I indicated during
the recruitment process, the interview will be tape recorded so that I can accurately capture what
you share. The recorder helps me focus on our conversation and not on taking notes. This initial
interview will last approximately and hour and a half. The second interview will be conducted to
ask clarifying questions about findings from the initial interview, and allows you to add
additional information or to omit any comments or responses from the study. The second
interview (if applicable) should last no more than an hour and can be conducted via the phone or
video-conference as an option if preferred. No one other than the research team will have access
to the audio recording(s) of the interviews. If at any time you would like to make comments
during the interview process “off the record” and wish the recording to stop, please indicate by
giving me a hand signal for “time out” and I will pause or end the recording. This is a reminder
that your participation in all aspects of data collection is completely voluntary.

I also want to assure you that everything said during the interviews is strictly confidential. When
I use an actual quote from a teacher, I will indicate that it is from a “teacher” or “participant “or
“interviewee”. No names will be associated with the findings. I also want to assure you that none
of the data I collect will be shared with any district employees.

If you have questions about your rights while taking part in this study, or you have concerns or
suggestions and you want to talk to someone other than the researcher about the study, please
call the OPRS at (213) 821-1154 or email oprs@usc.edu.

Do you have any questions so far? May I have your permission to record and get started?

TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 112

Questions

I will start the interview by asking some questions to gather some demographic
information.

1.Ethnic origin: Please specify your ethnicity.
a) White
b) Hispanic or Latino
c) Black or African American
d) Native American or American Indian
e) Asian / Pacific Islander
f) Other
2. Education: What is the highest degree or level of school you have completed?
a) Bachelor’s degree
b) Master’s degree
c) Doctorate degree
3.Marital Status: What is your marital status?
a) Single, never married
b) Married or domestic partnership
c) Widowed
d) Divorced
e) Separated
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 113
4. Please indicate your age group.
a. 21 – 30
b. 31- 40
b. 41 - 49
c. 50 - 60
d. Over 60

5. How many years have you been teaching?
Response Options
a. 1-5
b. 6-10
c. 11-20
d. Over 20

6. Which grade band are you currently teaching?
a. Infant - K
b. 1 - 5
c. 6 - 8
d. 9 – 12
e. Adult Transition

7. Which class setting do you teach?
a. Self-contained special day class
b. Special day class with inclusion
c. Resource Specialist program

8. How many students are on your caseload/in your class?
a. 1 - 10
b. 11- 16
c. 17 – 22
d. 22 – 28
e. More than 28

The next set of questions will focus on your current instructional practices.

TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 114
1.How do you provide individualized instruction for your students using SAI? Probes: Tell me
how you plan.

2.What is an example of a time when you used an instructional strategy aligned with
individualized instruction? What did instruction look like?

3.How do you assess students’ understanding? Please give me an example.

4.How is SAI developed in alignment with IEP goals? Probes: Tell me about a time when you
aligned SAI to an IEP goal.

5. What are the steps involved in collecting data to develop, implement and monitor IEP goals?
6. What are the steps involved in analyzing data to develop, implement and monitor IEP goals?
7. How do you adjust your teaching practices according to SAI, if at all?
Probes: tell me about a time when you did that well. What did you do exactly?

8.a. How do you determine if your lessons were effective?
b. Describe this process?

9. How identify your areas of strengths and needs?
10. What strategies do you use to you improve upon your instructional practices?
Probes: Tell me about a time when you did that well. What did you do exactly?

The next set of questions will focus on your experiences with Specialized Academic
Instruction (SAI).

11.How do you feel about your ability to design SAI in alignment with your students’ IEPs?

12.Tell me about how you determine what your instructional goals should be to address the
needs of students in your classroom and how these are linked to SAI.

13.What have been your greatest successes in implementing SAI? Probe: Please give me an
example of a time when you felt like you knew what you were doing as it related to
implementing SAI.
14.What have been your greatest challenges in implementing SAI? Probe: Please give me an
example of a time when you felt like you didn’t know what you were doing as it related to
implementing SAI.
15.Some people say that SAI isn’t necessary. What are your thoughts on this?
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 115
16.Some people say it’s not important for teachers to examine the data on their students’
performance. What would you say to them?
The next set of questions will focus on the supports that are provided in your
school/organization.
17.What does the administration at your school communicate about the organization’s vision
related to students with learning disabilities? How about the mission? What does the
administration communicate about the district’s goals as it relates to students with learning
disabilities?
18.Describe the training you have received for SAI. Probes: Who provided the training? What
was the structure of the training? What was your administrator’s role in you obtaining that
training, if anything?
19.What kind of follow-up/coaching support have you received regarding implementation of
SAI, if at all? Tell me about that experiences.
20. What has been your experience with respect to has been your experience with respect to
collaborating with other special education teachers?
21.How does your department’s policies define the delivery of SAI to your student population?
What are the procedures for delivery of SAI?
22.Who can you ask for support in improving your implementation of SAI

Closing & Follow-up

I appreciate you sharing your thoughts with me today. Thank you for your time and
willingness to share. Should I need to ask for clarification, do I have your permission to contact
you?

TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 116
APPENDIX E
University of Southern California Information Sheet for Research
You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Janice Carter in the Organizational Change
and Leadership Program 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 what factors contribute to the delivery of effective specialized
academic instruction by special education teachers and to what degree your organization has contributed
to its implementation in order to facilitate improved student outcomes.
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to participate in interviews by the researcher and
asked permission to record during the interview phase. Only participants who agree to be recorded will be
able to participate in the study. The purpose of recording the interview is to capture what you as the
participant is saying in your own words.

Interviews will be conducted outside of your work hours at a mutually agreed upon location and last
approximately an hour and a half. The first interview will consist of twenty-two (22) questions pertaining
to the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational influences as it relates to the delivery of
specialized academic instruction. As the researcher, I am particularly interested in understanding how
teachers use specialized academic instruction to improve the academic performances of the identified
student population. If necessary, the second interview should be less than an hour and focus on any
clarifying question you may have as a participant and any additional information you would like to
include or have removed from the study.

CONFIDENTIALITY
If data are anonymous:
There will be no identifiable information obtained in connection with this study. At the completion of the
study, the anonymous data may be used for future research studies. If you do not want your data used in
future studies, you should not participate.

If data are coded or identifiable:
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential. At the
completion of the study, direct identifiers will be destroyed and the de-identified data may be used for future
research studies. If you do not want your data used in future studies, you should not participate.

Required language for either condition:
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.

TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 117
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Janice Carter at (310)
508-2403, email janiceac@usc.edu.

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.

TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 118
APPENDIX F
Recruitment Letter

Hello,

You are invited to take part in a research study involving the views and opinions of special
education teachers’ pertaining to their ability to deliver effective Specialized Academic
Instruction (SAI).

You were selected for this study because you are a special education teacher of students
identified as having a specific learning disability (selected student group) who access the general
education curriculum in a self-contained or inclusion setting, who are eligible to participate in
the smarter balanced assessments. Your perspectives on the educational program of these
students is valuable to the study. If you choose to participate in this study, you will be asked to
participate in one or two one-on-one interviews. Your experience and input will benefit the
likelihood of improving the implementation of specialized academic instruction to increase the
outcomes of the selected student population.

Your participation in this study is voluntary. Your decision not to participate in this study will
be respected. If you choose to participate in this study, you will be provided with an information
sheet describing the study, and participate in interviews. The interview(s) will be conducted
outside of the work day and last no longer than 1 ½ hours. If a second interview is necessary, this
will last approximately one hour to clarify or add/omit any information given in the first
interview.
Thank you.
Janice A. Carter
Organizational Change & Leadership Ed.D Candidate
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Email: janiceac@usc.edu

TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 119
APPENDIX G
Interview Analysis Plan With KMO Influences
Research Question KMO
Influences

Interview questions
1. What are SETs’
knowledge and motivation in
relation to the stakeholder
goal of providing effective
specialized academic
instruction as evidenced by
an increase in measurable
student progress for at least
80% of the special education
population in JUSD?
Knowledge-
Procedural

Knowledge-
Procedural

Knowledge-
Procedural

Knowledge-
Procedural

Knowledge-
Procedural
Knowledge-
Procedural

Knowledge-
Metacognitive

Knowledge-
Metacognitive

Knowledge-
Metacognitive

1.How do you provide individualized instruction for
your students using SAI?
Probes: Tell me how you plan.

2.What is an example of a time when you used an
instructional strategy aligned with individualized
instruction? What did instruction look like?

3.How do you assess students’ understanding? Please
give me an example.

4.How is SAI developed in alignment with IEP goals?
Probes: Tell me about a time when you aligned
SAI to an IEP goal.

5. What are the steps involved in collecting data to
develop, implement and monitor IEP goals?
6. What are the steps involved in analyzing data to
develop, implement and monitor IEP goals?

7.How do you adjust your teaching practices according
to SAI, if at all?
Probes: tell me about a time when you did that well.
What did you do exactly?

8.a. How do you determine if your lessons were
effective?
b. Describe this process?

9. How identify your areas of strength and needs?
10. What strategies do you use to you improve upon
your instructional practices?
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 120
Knowledge-
Metacognitive

2. How do SETs’ knowledge
and motivation interact with
the special education
program’s culture and
context to shape their ability
to accomplish provision of
effective specialized
academic instruction as
evidenced by an increase in
measurable student progress
for at least 80% of special
education population in
JUSD?
Motivation-
Self Efficacy

Motivation-
Utility Value

Motivation-
Self Efficacy

Motivation-
Self Efficacy

Motivation-
Utility Value

Motivation-
Utility Value
11.How do you feel about your ability to design SAI in
alignment with your students’ IEPs?
12.Tell me about how you determine what your
instructional goals should be to address the needs of
students in your classroom and how these are linked to
SAI.
Probes: Tell me about a time when you did that well.
What did you do exactly?
13.What have been your greatest successes in
implementing SAI? Probe: Please give me an example
of a time when you felt like you knew what you were
doing as it related to implementing SAI.
14.What have been your greatest challenges in
implementing SAI?
Probe: Please give me an example of a time when you
felt like you didn’t know what you were doing as it
related to implementing SAI?
15.Some people say that SAI isn’t necessary. What are
your thoughts on this?
16.Some people say it’s not important for teachers to
examine the data on their students’ performance. What
would you say to them?
3.How do SETs’ knowledge
and motivation interact with
the special education
program’s culture and
context to shape their ability
to accomplish provision of
effective specialized
academic instruction as
Cultural
Settings

Cultural
Models
17.What does the administration at your school
communicate about the organization’s vision related to
students with learning disabilities? How about the
mission? What does the administration communicate
about the district’s goals as it relates to students with
learning disabilities?
18.Describe the training you have received for SAI.
Probes: Who provided the training? What was the
TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 121
evidenced by an increase in
measurable student progress
for at least 80% of special
education population in
JUSD?

Cultural
Models

Cultural
Models

Cultural
Settings

Cultural
Settings
structure of the training? What was your
administrator’s role in you obtaining that training, if
anything?
19.What kind of follow-up/coaching support have you
received regarding implementation of SAI, if at all?
Tell me about that experiences.
20. What has been your experience with respect to has
been your experience with respect to collaborating with
other special education teachers?
21.How does your department’s policies define the
delivery of SAI to your student population? What are
the procedures for delivery of SAI?
22.Who can you ask for support in improving your
implementation of SAI?

TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 122
APPENDIX H
Glossary of Terms and Related Resources
Term Definition Reference/Resource
Explicit Instruction (EI) A systematic, direct, engaging and success oriented
approach used to provide specialized academic
instruction
Riccomini et al., 2017.
High Leverage Practices
(HLP)
Essential dimensions of instruction that can be used to
leverage student learning across different content areas,
grade levels, and student abilities and disabilities
McLeskey, 2017.
Intensive Instruction (II) Refers to intensity of instruction or intervention Riccomini et al., 2017.
Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA)
Public Law No. 94-142: American legislation that
ensures students with a disability are provided with Free
Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) that is tailored to
their individual needs
https://en.wikipedia.org/w
iki
Individualized Education
Plan (IEP)
An Individualized Education Plan (IEP) is a written
statement of the educational program designed to meet a
child’s individual needs. Every child who receives
special education services must have an IEP
Pretti-Frontczak &
Bricker, 2000.
Joint Unified School
District (JUSD)
An urban district located in the southwest United States
– the site of study.

Local Education Agency
(LEA)
A public board of education or other public authority
legally constituted within a State for either
administrative control or direction of, or to perform a
service function for, public elementary schools or
secondary schools in a city, county, township, school
district, or other political subdivision of a State, or of or
for a combination of school districts or counties that is
recognized in a State as an administrative agency for its
public elementary schools or secondary schools
20 USCS § 7801(26)(A).
National Assessment of
Educational Progress
(NAEP)
The largest nationally representative and continuing
assessment of student academic achievement
https://nces.ed.gov
Response to Intervention
(RtI)
The implementation of evidence-based interventions
designed to remediate academic difficulties
Hettleman, 2013; Fletcher
& Vaughn, 2009;
Riccomini et al., 2017
Special Education A specially designed instruction that addresses the
unique needs of children with disabilities at no cost to
parents
IDEA, 2018
Special Education
Program (SEP)
The special education program examined in the study.
Specialized Academic
Instruction (SAI)
Instructional adaptations of instruction, content, or
methodology, as appropriate, to meet the needs of
children with a disability to ensure their access to the
general curriculum, so that they can meet the
educational standards within the jurisdiction of the
public agency that apply to all children.
Code of Federal
Regulations, Title 34,
Section 300.39(b)(3).
Students with specific
learning disabilities
(SWSLD)
Students classified as having a disorder in one or more
of the basic psychological processes involved in
understanding or using language, spoken or written, that
may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen,
think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical
calculations.
National Center for
Learning Disabilities,
2018.

TEACHER ABILITY TO PROVIDE SAI 123
Tertiary/Tier Three
Interventions (TIII):
Interventions that represent the most intensive level of
instruction that a student is able to receive within the
general education setting e.g. small group instruction
and/or tutoring, increased time on tasks, progress
monitored weekly or biweekly.
Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009;
Riccomini et al., 2017.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The 1997 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act introduced the concept of access to the general curriculum for students with disabilities by stating that the education of these students could be made more effective by high expectations and ensuring their access in the general curriculum. The intent was to raise expectations for the educational performance of students with disabilities and to improve their educational outcomes. Students with specific learning disabilities such as those with dyslexia, not only have the cognitive ability to meet state academic standards but are legally entitled to special education services that allows them to meet the standards. The problem of practice that was the focus of the study is low achievement for students with specific learning disabilities based on their performance on district and statewide assessments. This research study aimed to understand what factors contribute to the delivery of effective specialized academic instruction by special education teachers and to what extent or degree the organization had contributed to its implementation in order to facilitate improved student outcomes for students with specific learning disabilities. The results indicated that special education teachers have procedural knowledge of delivery of specialized academic instruction, however, lacked specific training and administrative support in consistently delivering this instruction to meet the unique needs of their students. Potential implications were presented as well as explanations and recommendations for practice and future research.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A case study about the implied and perceived messages sent by one teacher through instruction for academic and behavioral expectations of students

PDF

The disproportionality of African Americans in special education programs: an exploratory study

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Closing the achievement gap for students with disabilities: a focus on instructional differentiation - an evaluation study

PDF

Disability, race, and educational attainment - (re)leveling the playing field through best disability counseling practices in higher education: an executive dissertation

PDF

Teacher perceptions of English learners and the instructional strategies they choose to support academic achievement

PDF

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

PDF

A world of education: the influence of culture on instructional style and perceived teacher effectiveness

PDF

The role of student study team members in the special education referral process for English Learners

PDF

Effects of individualized professional development on the theoretical understandings and instructional practices of teachers

PDF

Instructional proficiency strategies for middle school English language learners

PDF

Success in the sticky: exploring the professional learning and instructional practices that are sticky for distinguished secondary STEM educators of students historically…

PDF

Which grain will grow? Case studies of the impact of teacher beliefs on classroom climate through caring and rigor

PDF

The special education dilemma: collaboration between teachers and special education service providers

PDF

Examining the relationship between knowledge, perception and principal leadership for standard English learners (SELs): a case study

PDF

The teacher evaluation: key components that positively impact teacher effectiveness and student achievement

PDF

Teacher role in reducing the achievement gap: an evaluation study

PDF

Examining the practices of teachers who teach historically marginalized students through an enactment of ideology, asset pedagogies, and funds of knowledge

PDF

A case study of technology-embedded instruction: a student-centered approach to enhance teaching and learning in a K-12 school

Asset Metadata

Creator Carter, Janice Angela (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 10/18/2019

Defense Date 10/18/2019

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

Tag explicit instruction,high leverage practices,individualized education plan,individuals with Disabilities Education Act,intensive instruction,OAI-PMH Harvest,response to Intervention,Special Education,specialized academic instruction,students with specific learning disabilities,tier three interventions

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Samkian, Artineh (committee chair), Lillo, Sarah (committee member), Robles, Darline (committee member)

Creator Email janiceac@usc.edu,jcniecey@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-225121

Unique identifier UC11673458

Identifier etd-CarterJani-7866.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-225121 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-CarterJani-7866.pdf

Dmrecord 225121

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Carter, Janice Angela

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