University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Instructional differentiation and accommodations to support student achievement in SLD and ADHD secondary school populations: an evaluation study

(USC Thesis Other)

Instructional differentiation and accommodations to support student achievement in SLD and ADHD secondary school populations: an evaluation study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

1

Instructional Differentiation and Accommodations to Support Student Achievement in SLD
and ADHD Secondary School Populations: An Evaluation Study

by

Roger Wise

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 2018

Copyright 2018 Roger Wise
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thank you to the members of the OCL Ed.D. cohort 5 for supporting each other in
person, online, and through social media – we’ve got this! A special thank you to the members
of our study group – Debbie, Joe, Denis, Shawishi, Jay, Jonathan, Matt, and Jay - who banded
together to support each other in countless ways over the course of the program.
I would like to thank Dr. Douglas Lynch for liberating my thinking in three classes over
the course of the program and taking his foil-type role at USC and in the OCL program so
seriously. The adventures our small group of USC grad students had with you during the ASU +
GSU Conference in the spring of 2018 in San Diego was priceless. How often does one get to be
“in the room where it happens?”
To the members of my dissertation committee, Dr. Jen Crawford and Dr. Margo
Pensavalle, thank you for your support, encouragement, and insight regarding the ways in which
I could improve my study. I am very grateful to you both. Jen, I am particularly thankful to you
for starting off my USC OCL experience with such ebullience during the summer term of 2016 –
you were terrific as a first professor and set the bar very high for those that followed.
Finally, the largest and most heartfelt thank you goes to my dissertation chair and twice
over professor for Inquiry I and II, Dr. Artineh Samkian. Artineh, you worked tirelessly, often
flying solo without the aid of a dissertation assistant, to shepherd me, and the rest of your group
of nearly 30 advisees, through the lengthy process of drafting and revising my study, and more
importantly being available person to person – able to truly connect with us via the written word,
a phone conversation, or ever-so-valuable in-person meeting. You were always ready with
encouragement, advice, and amazing feedback on my work. I know that this role as dissertation
advisor impacted your time with your family and I appreciate how much you sacrificed over the
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

3
last year in order to uphold the highest standards of service that anyone in the OCL program, or
any entity or institution for that matter, could expect. I am deeply indebted to you and sing the
praises of the OCL program to anyone who will listen, largely because of your intelligence,
caring, and kindness. Thank you!

DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

4
DEDICATION
To my wife, Noël – without your “Wise Judgment,” continuous and unwavering support,
herculean efforts to run our “family business” solo in my nearly three-year absence, and
immeasurable love and kindness, none of this would have been possible. Noël, you are my
inspiration – seeking to do more with every day that passes for your family, your friends, your
community, your state, your country, and your planet. You are not content to sit by and let the
world tear itself apart without jumping into the fray and doing your best to mend what you can
and show compassion for what and whom you cannot change. I am grateful to be with you in so
many ways that no words can adequately express – you are my person…
To my daughters, Julia, Grace, and Annie – thank you for your patience in waiting for
your largely absentee father these past years – I am very much looking forward to making up for
lost time with the three of you as I watch you mature and grow into amazing women. Thank you
for giving me all of the pleasure that goes along with being your Dad!
Finally, to my father, aka “Pop,” thank you for teaching me not to be afraid to jump in
and try to fix things instead of discarding them and living your life helping to fix things for
others. In addition, thank you to my mother, though she died at the young age of 59 over 15
years ago, her belief that I could accomplish anything I truly set my mind to, and worked hard at,
has stayed with me throughout this journey. Thank you both for raising me to be an independent
and confident person, and most of all a loving husband and father.

DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
DEDICATION
LIST OF TABLES
ABSTRACT
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Introduction to the Problem of Practice
Organizational Context and Mission
Organizational Goal
Related Literature
Importance of Addressing the Problem
Description of Stakeholder Groups
Stakeholders’ Performance Goals
Stakeholder Group for the Study
Purpose of the Project and Questions

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
Knowledge and Skills
Motivation
Organization
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and
Motivation and the Organizational Context
Figure 1. Interactive Conceptual Framework
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
Participating Stakeholders
Observation Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Observation Sampling Strategy and Rationale
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Interview Sampling Strategy and Rationale
Data Collection and Instrumentation
Observation
Interviews
Data Analysis
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Ethics
Limitations and Delimitations

2
4
7
8
9
9
9
11
12
14
16
18
18
19

21
21
21
30
35

38
40
41
41
42
42
43
43
44
45
47
49
50
51
54

DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

6
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
Findings
RQ 1: Faculty Knowledge and Motivation Influences
Faculty Knowledge and Motivation Regarding Accommodations
Faculty Knowledge and Motivation Regarding Differentiated Instruction
RQ 2: Organizational Culture and Context
Organizational Influences
Synthesis

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
Implications for Practice
Recommendations for Practice
Knowledge Recommendations
Motivation Recommendations
Organizational Recommendations
Evaluation Tools
Data Analysis and Reporting
Future Research
Conclusion

References

Appendices
Appendix A: Observation Protocol
Appendix B: Interview Protocol
Appendix C: Information Sheet for Research
Appendix D: Survey Items for Post Implementation Evaluation
Appendix E: Blended Evaluation Tool

56
56
57
58
74
86
87
96

98
99
101
102
106
109
111
112
112
114

116

130
130
133
137
139
141

DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

7
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Table 2. Knowledge Influences

Table 3. Motivation Influences
18
30
34

DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

8
ABSTRACT
The challenge presented by the prevalence of the achievement gap for students with
Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD) or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)
impacts the majority of public and nonpublic high schools in the United States. This study uses
the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis model to evaluate the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences that promote or inhibit faculty use of differentiated instruction
integrated with appropriate accommodations in the inclusive secondary school classroom. This
study utilized qualitative research methods to conduct faculty observations and interviews at a
small suburban independent high school. The findings indicated that the faculty participants had
a limited working understanding of classroom accommodations and differentiated instruction, as
well as a lack of organizational support and professional development with which to remedy the
situation. Faculty participants were able to list various accommodations during interviews, but
exhibited minimal instances of implementation over multiple classroom observations. Regarding
differentiated instruction, faculty expressed a lack of general knowledge on the subject, but
acknowledged the value for their students and a desire to learn more about those teaching
practices. The study findings and recommendations promoted the need for additional
organizational support in the form of trainings to increase faculty conceptual and procedural
knowledge of differentiation and accommodations as well as their capacity for classroom
implementation of these teaching practices.

DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

9
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Introduction to the Problem of Practice
Public education institutions serving grades pre-K through 12 around the United States
face a wide array of student needs on a daily basis as they attempt to successfully impart
knowledge and skills to the nation’s 49.5 million students (NCES, 2014). Within these ranks, a
combined 8.7 million school aged children have been diagnosed with Specific Learning
Disabilities or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (SLD/ADHD) (Visser et al., 2014;
NCES, 2014). SLD and ADHD students do not typically suffer from cognitive deficits in
intellectual capacity (Giofrè & Cornoldi, 2015). Yet, there exists a significant achievement gap
between SLD and ADHD students and typically developing students as measured by lower
overall high school GPAs, lower math achievement (only 1.1% take Calculus), and the extremely
low 1.5% of students nationwide with IEPs and enrolled in at least one AP course (NCES, 2014;
OCR, 2012). These subpar outcomes occur despite efforts toward mainstream inclusion that
have resulted in 7 out of 10 SLD and ADHD learners spending 80% or more of the school day in
a regular classroom. Meanwhile, in 2013-14 high school graduation rates for SLD and ADHD
learners lagged 11.5% behind the national average (EDFacts Data Warehouse, 2014). When
mainstream and special education resource methodologies do not produce results sufficient to
decrease this differential, they leave many capable SLD and ADHD students struggling to reach
their potential in high school and thus are inadequately prepared for college and careers.
Organizational Context and Mission
Small independent schools not bound by the strict structural elements of public schools
have sought innovative ways to address this achievement gap and better serve the SLD and
ADHD student populations. Omega Academy (OA; pseudonym) is one such independent
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

10
secondary school serving students in grades 8 through 12. Parents of students who are falling
through the cracks at large impersonal middle or high schools learn of OA largely through word-
of-mouth referrals from other parents or support professionals (e.g. educational therapists,
psychologists, psychiatrists, academic coaches, etc.) in the community. Fearing that without
timely intervention it is unlikely that their students will be minimally eligible, and more
importantly suitably prepared, for college or career, parents introduce their children to the notion
of attending a small supportive independent school. After underachieving in other public or
private school settings, these students typically come to OA and learn the skills necessary to
achieve grades more indicative of their academic potential. Omega Academy’s mission is to
provide a safe diverse community that engages smart young people to be true to themselves,
while building moral character, academic intellect, and inspired creativity (“ABOUT”, n.d.).
Founded in the early 1980s, OA is located in a metropolitan area of California. Several
years later, the school moved to a suburban location nearby. As a fundamental part of the
school’s identified target demographic, OA openly welcomes learners with mild to moderate
ADHD, as well as students with mild to moderate SLDs including dyslexia, dysgraphia,
dyscalculia, auditory processing disorders, visual processing disorders, processing speed
disorders, nonverbal learning disorders, and pervasive developmental disorders not otherwise
specified (Omega Academy, 2017). Among OA students, the comorbidity rate for SLDs and
ADHD is high, mandating a support structure that works for both conditions. Additionally, OA
is well suited, via a low 8:1 student to teacher ratio and a community-wide culture of acceptance,
to support students with mild to moderate anxiety disorders or other social emotional issues such
as post-treatment placement from wilderness therapy and therapeutic boarding environments for
substance or behavioral issues (Omega Academy, 2017). Another population that fits the OA
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

11
support model is international English Language Learners (ELL) with moderate English
proficiency. Finally, OA is a member of a nationwide nonprofit program placing low socio-
economic inner city youth on scholarships into independent schools in an effort to increase their
chances of attending college, often as the first generation in their families to do so (Omega
Academy, 2017). The common thread necessary to facilitate high achievement in these diverse
student populations is the inclusion of support structures and programmatic customizations not
possible in a large impersonal educational setting.
As of March 2018, there are 74 students and 18 staff at Omega Academy. OA serves a
uniquely diverse student population consisting of 60% students with mild to moderate SLDs or
ADHD, 20% international students (primarily from China) who are classified as English
Language Learners (ELLs), 10% students with social emotional issues (e.g. anxiety disorders,
graduating from therapeutic treatment for behavioral issues or substance abuse, etc.), and 10%
scholarship students from inner city public schools looking to be the first generation in their
families to attend college. Students of color make up 43% of the student population and 36% are
female students; people of color account for 18% of all staff members and 56% are female
(Omega Academy, 2017). The Head of School leads OA with support from the Academic
Dean/Assistant Head of School and the Dean of Students/Learning Support Coordinator. The
Admissions Director, part-time Development Director, part-time International Student
Coordinator, and part-time College Counselor add further administrative support.
Organizational Goal
Schools such as Omega Academy are uniquely adaptable to the needs of an underserved
group such as SLD and ADHD students and act as a vehicle oriented towards the goal of
increased student outcomes. Omega Academy’s goal is that it will actualize 100%
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

12
personalization of academic programs through the implementation of instructional
differentiation, integrated with appropriate accommodations, to support increased achievement in
students with SLD and ADHD by December 2019. The Leadership Team established the goal
one year ago as an offshoot of the strategic planning process (Omega Academy, 2017).
Documentation of the supports necessary to achieve this goal occurs via student Learning Plans
detailing the accommodations needed to support the implementation of instructional
differentiation in the classroom. It is important to evaluate the organization’s performance in
relation to the performance goal of school-wide implementation of instructional differentiation
and accommodations for a variety of reasons. OA currently struggles to maintain stable
enrollment numbers as new charter, online, and one-on-one schools enter the race for attracting
and retaining atypical students and their families. As 60% of the student population of OA is
diagnosed with SLD or ADHD, it is imperative to develop and refine programmatic
customizations that will not only best serve the current student body, but also amplify the
institutional value to the community and solidify the school’s niche in a highly competitive
marketplace (Omega Academy, 2017). Evaluating the stakeholder’s performance in relation to
the organizational performance goal will enable OA to use data and feedback in the
create/prototype/evaluate iterative cycle and more rapidly produce the desired learning outcomes
for students.
Related Literature

The inclusivity of atypical students in general education classrooms with access to the
same general curriculum has been mandated by numerous directives in the past two decades
(Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEIA), 2004; No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), 2002; Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), 2015). It is important
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

13
to recognize that the push for inclusive classrooms versus separate special education classes or
resource room instruction is happening at both the state and national level (Fore, Hagan-Burke,
Burke, Boon, & Smith, 2008). Data from the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES,
2013) indicated that 66.7% of SLD students spend more than 80% of the school day in inclusive
general education classrooms. The foundation for this movement began with the Regular
Education Initiative debate in the mid 1980’s arguing for inclusive mainstream classrooms to
reduce the stigma of isolated special education settings (Danforth & Naraian, 2015). However,
the inclusion process falters when the accommodations mandated by students’ Individual
Education Plans (IEPs) do not connect with curriculum or steer instructional practice (Karger,
2004). As little research at the secondary school level has indicated that inclusive classrooms
increase achievement in SLD and ADHD students, determining the efficacy of various possible
models with respect to student learning holds the utmost importance (Fore et al., 2008). With the
inclusive classroom model, it is vital that teachers are skilled in customizing curricula to meet
student needs. Yet, much of the teacher’s ability to integrate differentiation as a modality of
instruction depends on their Professional Development (PD) (Dixon, Yssel, McConnell, &
Hardin, 2014). For example, highly successful New York City inclusion efforts adopted in the
mid-1990s incorporated individualized teacher PD lead by trained inclusion facilitators. In under
ten years the results of the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills showed an average 10% increase
in the skill levels of both special education and general education students working in the
inclusive classrooms (Weiner, 2003). The above research shows the need for organizational
support to help teachers differentiate instruction in the inclusive classroom in order to increase
student achievement.

DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

14
Importance of Addressing the Problem
The problem of determining and implementing appropriate educational processes for
instructional differentiation, integrated with appropriate accommodations, to support
achievement in students with SLD and ADHD is important to solve for a variety of reasons.
Specific Learning Disabilities includes reading, mathematical, and written expression disorders.
Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) is an outdated term used interchangeably with ADHD. SLD
and ADHD students do not typically suffer from cognitive deficits in intellectual capacity
(Giofrè & Cornoldi, 2015). However, significantly lower high school graduation rates for SLD
and ADHD populations indicate potential programmatic differences that point to the need for a
more in depth gap analysis. Success in core academic courses for secondary school students is
one measurable indicator of their potential for success in postsecondary settings (Williford,
2009).
There exists a significant achievement gap between SLD/ADHD students and typically
developing students as measured by high school GPA. This is an important metric as research
has shown high school GPA to be a strong indicator of the potential for success in post-
secondary institutions (Komarraju, Ramsey & Rinella, 2013). Comparison of the percentage of
students with a 2.0-2.9 GPA, a C average, (SLD=48.5%, ADD=43.8%, v. overall=32.6%)
indicates a greater number of SLD/ADHD students are entering college with a C average
(+15.9% for SLD and +11.3% for ADD learners) than their non-SLD and ADHD peers. Even
more alarming are the percentage comparisons for B to A average (3.0-4.0 GPA) students
(SLD=33.8%, ADD=44.9%, & overall=61.9%) showing a dramatic achievement gap of -28.1%
for SLD and -17% for ADD learners (NCES, 2014). Additionally, SLD and ADHD students
exhibit significantly lower math achievement (a mere 1.1% take Calculus), and a very low 1.5%
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

15
of students nationwide with IEPs and enrolled in at least one AP course (NCES, 2014; OCR,
2012). This achievement gap is significant to address because it affects a combined 8.7 million
school aged children that have Specific Learning Disabilities or ADHD (Visser et al., 2014;
NCES, 2014). The nation cannot downplay the large-scale significance of this problem of
practice – the fundamental tenant of education, its institutions, and practitioners, is to provide
equal opportunities for a brighter future to all learners. This problem is particularly significant to
OA, as approximately 60% of the learners in grades 8-12 at the site have diagnosed SLD or
ADHD.
The evaluation of the existing gaps in LD and ADHD services provided by the
organization, as evidenced by feedback from parents and students citing instances of the lack of
support in the classroom, is of primary importance as it relates to word-of-mouth enrollment
referrals which directly impacts the precarious enrollment status the school has faced for the past
3-5 years. Examining the perceived knowledge barriers that form the stakeholder’s sense of
reality, and control their overall performance, is critical to goal achievement (Clark & Estes,
2008). Faculty resistance to most attempts at professional development, as noted in the Omega
Academy 2011 WASC accreditation report’s recommendations for improvement, adds to the
importance of finding out if stakeholders know how to do the tasks required to achieve their
performance goals (Omega Academy, 2011). Utilizing a knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences (KMO) gap analysis approach to identify elements contributing to
performance gaps will assist in planning for organizational remediation (Clark & Estes, 2008).
The organizational responsibility for filling the faculty toolkit with relevant knowledge and skills
to better serve SLD and ADHD students is important to the market success of the school (Denler,
Wolters, & Benzon, 2009). Current public perception is ambiguous regarding the organizational
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

16
efficacy in serving this niche. Past alumni and alumni parents propagate mixed anecdotal
messaging regarding the implementation of appropriate accommodations in the classroom
environment thus fueling confusion as to the purpose of the organization.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
Students, administrators, and faculty comprise three stakeholder groups at OA. All of
these stakeholders contribute in significant ways to the organizational performance goal of 100%
implementation of differentiated instruction to support increased SLD and ADHD student
achievement. OA students are the impetus for taking on this problem of practice and their
feedback regarding the successes and failures of previous and current iterations of programming
for customized instruction is of primary importance to overall success. The benchmarking of
student progress via class and overall GPA may be one possible indicator of the success of the
implementation of differentiated instruction. Administration will contribute to goal success via
the overarching task of leading the collaborative creation of the plan for customizing instruction,
as well as overseeing the implementation of classroom changes, and providing feedback to the
faculty during the iterative process. The faculty of the school contributes the actual
implementation of instructional programming and will be integral in the planning stage as well.
Documentation of programmatic customization on a student-by-student basis, as noted by the
faculty on the student’s Learning Plan, would be the primary indicator of curricular
differentiation.
The student stakeholder group at OA (grades 8 - 12) is comprised of 60% diagnosed SLD
or ADHD learners, 20% are international students with English Language Learner (ELL) needs,
10% have social emotional issues (anxiety disorders, depression, etc.), and the remaining 10%
are inner city students from low socio-economic areas attending on scholarships. Students of
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

17
color at OA account for 43% and females 36% of the population. The students will contribute
to the organizational performance goal by constructing, with input from the Learning Support
Coordinator (LSC) and their advisor, at least one course-specific section of the Student Learning
Plan (SLP) that employs learning strategies and accommodations appropriate to their areas of
both strength and growth.
The administration at OA consists of the Head of School with support from the Academic
Dean/Assistant Head of School and the Dean of Students. The Admissions Director,
Development Director, International Student Coordinator, Adolescent Issues Counselor, and
College Counselor add administrative support. Within this group, 75% hold Masters degrees,
25% are persons of color, and 63% teach at least one class at OA. The administration will
contribute to the organizational performance goal by employing current neuroscience research
and brain-based learning to construct a comprehensive series of 5 in-house professional
development activities to empower faculty in the design, construction, and implementation of
fully customizable learning activities and outcomes to be incorporated into curriculum unit and
lesson planning.
OA employs 44% full-time faculty, 28% part-time faculty, and 28% administrators that
teach at least one class. Within the faculty, 56% have a Master's degree, 72% are female, and
28% are people of color. Regarding longevity, 17% of the faculty have been with the school 15
or more years, 22% for 5 to 15 years, 61% less than 5 years. The OA faculty will contribute to
the organizational performance goal by achieving 100% implementation of instructional
differentiation as measured by the classroom use of accommodations to support increased
student achievement in learners with SLD and ADHD.

DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

18
Stakeholders’ Performance Goals
Table 1.
Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational Mission
The mission of Omega Academy is to provide a safe diverse community that engages smart
young people to be true to themselves, while building moral character, academic intellect, and
inspired creativity.
Organizational Performance Goal
By December of 2019, Omega Academy will actualize 100% personalization of academic
programs through the implementation of instructional differentiation, integrated with appropriate
accommodations, to support increased achievement in students with SLD and ADHD.
Faculty Students Administrative Team
By June of 2019 100% of OA
faculty will implement
instructional differentiation,
integrated with appropriate
accommodations.
By December of 2018 100%
of OA SLD and ADHD
students will modify at least
one course-specific section of
their Student Learning Plan
(SLP) to include appropriate
learning strategies and
accommodations as measured
by completion of the SLP
checklist.
By August of 2018 the OA
Administrative Team will
construct 5 in-house
professional development
activities to produce faculty
understanding of SLD and
ADHD inclusive unit planning
as measured by the provided
PD rubric.

Stakeholder Group for the Study
While the contributions of all stakeholders will combine to achieve the overall
organizational goal of 100% personalization of academic programs through the implementation
of instructional differentiation integrated with appropriate accommodations to support increased
achievement in students with SLD and ADHD, it is important to the board of trustees as a step
towards solidifying the school’s niche market to evaluate the progress of OA faculty with regards
to their performance goal. Additionally, the faculty is the primary force for implementation of
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

19
the instructional differentiation and classroom accommodations. Thus, the focus group for
this study will be OA faculty. The stakeholders’ goal, supported by the Head of School, is 100%
of Omega Academy faculty will implement differentiated instruction integrated with appropriate
accommodations for SLD and ADHD students. Operationalization of the stakeholder goal will
include increasing faculty knowledge of standard accommodations such as peer note-takers or
notes provided, recorded lectures, extended time on assignments, limited distraction settings, use
of a reader or scribe, oral exams, and assistive technology. Additionally, increasing faculty
knowledge regarding methods of differentiating instruction including variations by level in
classroom content and tasks (e.g., addressing multiple intelligences, anchor activities, and
supplementary materials), processes (e.g., tiered lessons, small-group instruction, and group
investigations), and products (e.g., varied questioning strategies, interest groups, and varied
homework) is the first step in this process. Enhancing faculty motivation to implement these
strategies through recognition of their utility value is another vital step towards goal
achievement. Supporting the operationalization of these elements through directed
organizational leadership, effective training, and comprehensive unit planning will dramatically
increase the chances for success in this endeavor. The lack of faculty knowledge, motivation,
and organizational support for implementation of differentiated instruction with integrated
accommodations will adversely affect OA’s ability to reach the overall goal of 100%
programmatic customization and implementation in an effort to close the SLD and ADHD
achievement gap and maintain OA’s niche in a highly competitive independent school market.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to examine the factors that shaped whether and how
Omega Academy was achieving its stakeholder goal of 100% implementation of instructional
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

20
differentiation integrated with appropriate accommodations for students with SLD and
ADHD. This analysis focused on the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that
facilitated or impeded Omega Academy from reaching its organizational goals. While a
complete evaluation would focus on all OA stakeholders, for practical purposes the stakeholders
of focus in this analysis were all OA faculty.
As such, the questions that guided this evaluation study were the following:
1. What is the OA faculty knowledge of differentiation, integrated with appropriate
accommodations, and their motivation related to achieving this organizational goal?
2. What is the interaction between the OA organizational culture and context and faculty
knowledge and motivation related to differentiation integrated with appropriate
accommodations?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources?

DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

21
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE
This chapter reviews the relevant literature regarding the use of accommodations and
differentiated instruction in the school setting. The research establishes links between
programmatic efficacy and assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors. This
chapter is divided into two sections. The first section examines the influences on the
implementation of differentiated instruction and accommodations in the context of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational factors. The second section details the conceptual framework
used to represent the ways that knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences interact
within the context of my organization.
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
Knowledge and Skills
This review of literature examines the knowledge-related influences pertinent to the
achievement of the school’s stakeholder goal of 100% implementation of differentiated
instruction with integrated accommodations within all classes. Faculty knowledge and skills in
this area will enhance the fluidity with which they integrate and implement SLD and ADHD
strategies for student success in the classroom (Pajares, 2006).
Knowledge influences. This section will analyze knowledge-related literature that is
relevant to the school’s faculty and faculty goal of differentiated instruction incorporating the use
of appropriate accommodations for all classes. Krathwohl (2002) classified knowledge into
factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive types. Independent content elements form the
basis of factual knowledge, whereas complex organized schemas form the backbone of
conceptual knowledge (Krathwohl, 2002). Describing how to accomplish a particular task or
achieve a desired outcome is a procedural knowledge type. Metacognition is the self-awareness
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

22
of and knowledge about one’s individual cognition (Krathwohl, 2002). It is helpful to use the
four knowledge types to categorize the knowledge influences noted in this section.
Faculty needs to know the methods of implementing accommodations for SLD and
ADHD students. The acquisition of organized foundational knowledge of appropriate
accommodations and implementation strategies is a necessary step in a comprehensive plan to
increase student performance outcomes by increasing faculty performance capabilities. The
conceptual declarative knowledge type serves as the best categorization of these cognitive skills.
As a component of teaching methodologies, accommodations best serve students with disabilities
by removing barriers not relevant to the assessment of the skill or construct (Thompson, Blount,
& Thurlow, 2002).
Scanlon and Baker (2012) found it is necessary for the faculty to develop skills in
preparation, provisioning, and evaluation of accommodations appropriate to a given situation.
Preparation includes the collaborative construction (by parents, students, and teachers) of an
agreed upon list of accommodations with definitions and examples of implementation. This step
involves examining the disability for factors contributing to the barriers observed by the teacher
as preventing learning (Scanlon & Baker, 2012). Provisioning begins by the teacher and learning
specialist creating opportunities for students to develop expanded cognitive and organizational
capacity to understand and self-advocate for accommodations. The support team also provides a
living document, such as a chart, for recording teacher notes and monitoring student progress on
activities and assessments implemented with accommodations (Scanlon & Baker, 2012). During
the provisioning phase, typical classroom implementation of instructional and assessment
accommodations include: dictation of responses to a scribe or via assistive technology
(MacArthur & Cavalier, 2004); adjusted workload; calculator use (Maccini & Gagnon, 2006);
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

23
individual or small group administration of tests and quizzes; large print textbooks,
worksheets, and assessment instruments; extended time on tests and quizzes; interpretation of
instructions by the teacher or teacher aid; read/reread/simplify/clarify directions; computer and
assistive technology use; read material aloud; preferential seating; and breaks in activities or
testing (Thompson, Lazarus, Thurlow, & Clapper, 2005; Thurlow & Bolt, 2001). Finally, the
evaluation phase notes and records the efficacy of accommodations on student outcomes along
with progress towards student self-advocacy. This is a recursive activity as the evaluation guides
future classroom implementation of accommodations (Scanlon & Baker, 2012).
Faculty understanding of the reading level, as measured by the lexical complexity
(vocabulary and sentence length) and density (total number of words in a passage versus the
number of unique words used only once), of assignments is another important element in
determining the efficacy of accommodations while evaluating student work (Abedi et al., 2012).
Accommodations have a similar impact on student outcomes for ELLs as well as SLD and
ADHD students. These elements show a need for the many crossover possibilities that well-
designed instruction integrated with accommodations can provide (Cho & Reich, 2008; Doubet,
2012).
With respect to implementation, appropriate accommodations have the primary purpose
of removing barriers to participation experienced by SLD and ADHD learners (Thompson et al.,
2002). Extended time is the most common accommodation and is subject to broad interpretation
as it takes the form of time to complete assignments, tests or quizzes, projects, homework, and
wait time for oral questions. Scribing is another generalized accommodation comprised of
writing for the student verbatim (dictation), providing copies of class notes, allowing computer
use, or allowing another student to scribe (Thompson et al., 2005; Thurlow & Bolt, 2001).
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

24
Another frequently ambiguous accommodation is preferential seating. This can mean near the
faculty member, in the front of the room, removed from distractions, near the board, facing the
board or visuals, in a deliberately chosen location based on disability and task, or even on a
specific type of seating (Byrnes, 2008). Research shows that implementation of
accommodations in the inclusive classroom includes the adaptation of long-range plans, room
configurations, teaching and resource materials, and grading criteria (Schumm & Vaughn, 1991).
These changes to regular instruction necessitate both curricular and environmental adaptations
and encounter resistance on the part of the mainstreamed classroom faculty due to their
perceptions of limitations on the feasibility of implementation (Hollenbeck, Tindall, & Almond,
1998; Schumm & Vaughn, 1991).
Individualized assessment incorporating appropriate accommodations is another area of
faculty knowledge growth. Skills in the appropriate application of extended time, notes
provided, large print text, and frequent breaks during the administration of formative evaluation
instruments are necessary for faculty to include in the construction of instructional plans
incorporating accommodations (Hollenbeck et al., 1998; Thurlow, 2014). This shifts the
paradigm from the mass market content driven model of instruction to a hybrid content, process,
and product model that provides many individualized assessment opportunities for students
(Elmore, 2002). Faculty knowledge of types of accommodations as well as their implementation
into classroom instruction is a foundational element in efforts to increase learning outcomes for
SLD and ADHD students.
Faculty needs to know how to integrate strategies of differentiation into classroom
instruction. The goal of providing a structure conducive to comprehensive instructional
differentiation by faculty with forethought given to the needs of a diverse group of learners lends
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

25
itself well to this procedural knowledge type. Within this structure, accommodations are the
building blocks while differentiation is the blueprint showing the proper order and placement of
those foundational pieces necessary to construct the whole of increased student outcomes.
Carol Ann Tomlinson (2003) defined differentiated instructions as, “a philosophy of
teaching purporting that students learn best when their teachers effectively address variance in
students’ readiness levels, interests, and learning profile preferences.” The core tenets of
differentiated instruction seek to create: (1) safe and challenging learning environments for every
student; (2) teaching that incorporates whole class, small group, and individual learning; (3) a
focus on clear goals to gain knowledge and skills in a topic area; (4) continuous formative
assessment with iterative impact on instructional plans; (5) a flexible use of strategies, materials,
time, and space to address various student needs; and (6) learning communities with shared
responsibility for respect and growth between teacher and student (Tomlinson, 2005).
Differentiation is critical in today’s mixed-ability classrooms. The 2004 Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) clearly states a school’s responsibility is to educate SLD and
ADHD students in the least restrictive environment, while other learners in the same class may
be identified as gifted requiring a challenging and rigorous academic program (Dixon et al.,
2014; IDEA, 2004). This mandate for inclusion creates varied and diverse grouping of student
levels and abilities where differentiated instruction is the primary teaching methodology that is
both appropriate and effective towards increasing student outcomes for all learners.
With respect to the historical underpinnings of differentiated instruction, in December of
1953 the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) published an entire
issue of Educational Leadership titled “The Challenge of Individual Difference” and dedicated to
meeting the needs of learner in mixed ability classrooms. The table of contents of this
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

26
publication contained a comprehensive and forward thinking list of articles with the following
titles: “Teaching the Individual Adolescent” (Brundage, 1953); “The Challenge of the Slow
Learning Child” (Engel, 1953); “The Challenge of the Gifted Child” (Freese, 1953); “How
Johnny Learned to Join His Group” (Stelzig, 1953); “Ways of Providing for Individual
Differences” (Parker & Russell, 1953); “A Faculty Meets the Needs of Pupils” (Brooks, 1953);
“Matching Ten Reading Levels in One Classroom” (Parker, King, & Holt, 1953); and the lead
article, “Adjusting the Program to the Child” (Washburne, 1953). Washburne (1953) detailed an
abbreviated history of differentiation up to that time and went on to present a solution in the form
of mastery learning based upon a “common core” of skills accomplished individually meshed
with social and situational opportunities for the learner to expand their knowledge beyond this
cognitive foundation. A bellwether of arguments to come for the next six decades of pedagogy,
Washburne writes:
Is it harder to individualize this part of the curriculum than to teach it the traditional way?
Let me ask: Is it harder to do the possible than the impossible? It is impossible for any
teacher, treating a class of children as if they were all ready for the same lesson at the
same time, to get any uniformity of results. His efforts to do so frustrate both teacher and
child – and at the end of the year he is faced with the unsolved problem of promotion
(Washburne, 1953, p. 146).
Washburne’s article paved the way for educational researchers such as Renzulli and Reis (1997)
to define five dimensions of differentiation as content, process, product, classroom, and teacher.
Followed by Carol Ann Tomlinson (1999) characterizing differentiation of instruction as a
teacher’s response to the learner’s needs guided by general principles of differentiation such as
appropriate tasks, flexible grouping, and ongoing formative assessment leading to adjustment of
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

27
tasks and implemented via differentiated content, process, and product produced according to
the student’s readiness, interests, and learning profile. This is accomplished through a wide
variety of instructional and management strategies such as addressing multiple intelligences,
varying organizers, varying supplementary materials, use of tiered lessons and products, small-
group instruction, varied questioning strategies, interest groups, and varied homework
(Tomlinson, 1999).
Nordlund (2003) focused on a tri-level approach to differentiated content: challenged
learners focusing on mastery of three crucial points and key concepts; average learners capable
of taking on all facets of the topic; and gifted learners ready for in-depth study of the subject
matter. Beyond groupings, teachers must ensure that curriculum, tasks, and objectives align with
learning goals and instruction is concept focused and principle driven (Pettig, 2000). Tomlinson
and McTighe (2006) break lesson planning for differentiated instruction into three parts: identify
desired results, determine acceptable evidence of mastery, and plan instruction and experiential
learning. Pretesting can assist teachers in designing appropriate content based on student
readiness and prior knowledge (Gregory, 2007; Pettig, 2000). Content differentiation occurs
when using various types of text such as electronic, printed, basic, or advanced levels (Gregory,
2007). Instructional differentiation occurs by way of direct teacher-lead instruction, practice via
worksheets, the use of real world examples, and complex activities that facilitate deeper learning
(Blaz, 2013; Gregory, 2007; Langa & Yost, 2007; Tomlinson, 2003). These methods of
differentiated instruction mandate that teachers shift their mindset regarding meeting student’s
needs and the instruction required to do so (Ernest, Thompson, Heckaman, Hull, & Yates, 2011).
This required shift in thinking causes some teachers to indicate a reluctance to initiate or even
continue differentiated instruction without ongoing support (Pettig, 2000; Westberg &
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

28
Archambault, 1997).
Along similar lines, faculty incorporating the concept of Universal Design for Learning
(UDL) in unit and lesson construction seeks to gain needed differentiation skills as they take a
proactive learner-centric stance on instruction (Spencer, 2011). Whereas teachers placed in
inclusive classrooms frequently attempt to use accommodations to adapt existing lessons to meet
the needs of diverse learners, UDL starts from the ground up with the notion that there are many
ways to facilitate student concept attainment as well as assess learning (Tomlinson & McTighe,
2006). Differentiating instruction utilizing UDL relies on planning incorporating three core
principles: representation – making the presented content accessible in a variety of modalities;
expression – options for student output incorporating their individual talents to produce evidence
of learning; and engagement – motivating learners to do their best work via student choice,
anxiety reduction, and rewards for effort as well as accuracy (Kurtts, Matthews, & Smallwood,
2009; Spencer, 2011). UDL, as a method of differentiation, incorporates evidence-based
instructional practices along with current research in brain-based learning to give faculty an
effective tool for inclusive classroom instruction (Kurtts et al., 2009; Baldiris Navarro, Zervas,
Fabregat Gesa, & Sampson, 2016). As a value added proposition, research says that inclusive
unit planning with integrated differentiation strategies is a way to increase learning outcomes in
students with and without SLDs or ADHD (Beecher & Sweeny, 2008; Young & Luttenegger,
2014). Faculty knowledge regarding both “how” and “when” to use differentiation strategies
will likely result in increased teaching efficacy in the elevation of academic outcomes for SLD
and ADHD learners.

DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

29
Faculty needs to know how to self-evaluate their efficacy in the implementation of
differentiated instruction integrated with appropriate accommodations in the classroom.
Facilitation of faculty growth in metacognitive knowledge type processes, as they relate to
benchmarking the planning and implementation of differentiation and accommodations into
teaching practices, is of primary importance to increased performance outcomes (Dixon et al.,
2014).
Enhancing metacognitive self-evaluation skills through observational opportunities with a
similar functional model of high credibility will best develop faculty capacity for growth through
reflection (Baker, 2006; Pajares, 2006). Further along the growth spectrum, promoting frequent
faculty self-evaluation is a more effective way to encourage follow-up on specific and
measurable goal setting practices (Dembo & Eaton, 2000; Clark & Estes, 2008). Utilization of
practical methods of self-reflection, such as video examination of teaching practice, shows
promise in enhancing faculty knowledge of effective accommodation implementation (Gutierez,
2015; Reitano & Sim, 2010). Similarly, faculty development opportunities incorporating
balanced feedback regarding knowledge and skills in reflective teaching practice serve to
facilitate growth (Borgogni, Russo, & Latham, 2011). The importance of each member of the
faculty developing an ongoing knowledge of their practice, in this case the evaluation of efficacy
in providing classroom accommodations, is a primary factor in determining organizational
progress toward the stakeholder goal (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006; Shulman, 1987). Through
the lens of self-assessment, Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, and Hoy (1998) defined teacher efficacy as
beliefs regarding the effort invested in teaching, goals set, persistence, and resilience when faced
with challenges. Faculty metacognition of their efficacy or lack thereof is predictive of success
in implementing differentiation (Dixon et al., 2014). The iterative process of faculty self-
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

30
assessment with respect to efficacious implementation of instructional differentiation is a
necessary step towards increasing educational outcomes for SLD and ADHD learners.
Table 2 shows the primary knowledge influences pertaining to the stakeholder goal of 100%
implementation of differentiated instruction with integrated accommodations by faculty within
the organization.
Table 2.
Knowledge Influences
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type (i.e., declarative (factual or
conceptual), procedural, or metacognitive)
Faculty needs to know the methods of
implementing accommodations for SLD or
ADHD students.
Declarative (conceptual)
Faculty needs to know how to integrate
strategies of differentiation into classroom
instruction.
Procedural
Faculty needs to know how to self-evaluate
their knowledge of the implementation of
differentiated instruction integrated with
appropriate accommodations in the classroom.
Metacognitive

Motivation
This section will examine motivation-related literature relevant to the school’s faculty
and faculty goal of construction of SLD and ADHD inclusive unit plans for all classes. Clark
and Estes (2008) identified motivation as the process that gets an individual started on a task,
keeps them moving forward, and incentivizes the expenditure of mental effort to achieve set
goals. Mayer (2011) went further and described motivation as an “internal state that initiates and
maintains goal directed behavior” (p. 39). The processes of active choice, persistence, and
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

31
mental effort present the most important facets of motivation in a work or school environment
(Clark & Estes, 2008). Initiation of active choice occurs upon an individual’s pursuit of a goal,
regardless of whether the individual originally chose the goal. Persistence is the ability to avoid
distractions caused by competing goals. Finally, heavily influencing mental effort is the
investment of mental energy on the task and the level of confidence an individual possesses
related to the task (Clark & Estes, 2008). This section will discuss the Expectancy Value Theory
(EVT) and Attribution Theory of motivation as they apply to the stakeholder goal of
differentiated instruction integrated with appropriate accommodations for all classes.
Expectancy value theory. Eccles (2006) distilled expectancy value theory down to two
main questions, “Can I do this task?” and “Do I want to do this task?” The first question reflects
the individual’s expectancy regarding their capability of achieving the task and presents the
initial roadblock to engagement. Within the second question lies a subset of values that can help
an individual to determine their willingness to engage in the task. The first of these, intrinsic
value, refers to the enjoyment the individual feels or expects to feel while engaging in the task.
Attainment value balances personal needs, values, and interests potentially fulfilled by the task
engagement. Utility value features the perceived fit between an individual’s goals and plans,
while taking into account basic psychological needs. The theory discusses perceived cost as the
final value. The participatory cost of the activity may be perceived as potential anxiety, loss of
self-worth, social consequences of success or failure, discrimination, or loss of time (Eccles,
2006).
Faculty expectancy value. In a school setting, Abrami (2004) found that teacher
expectations of success in the implementation of innovative programs were a precursor to risk-
taking behaviors in the initiation of or perseverance in continuing the task. Similarly, de Jesus
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

32
and Lens (2005) identified a cascading series of value determining steps leading to teacher
engagement beginning with both internal and external efficacy expectancy influences,
progressing through expectancy of control, success expectancy, and intrinsic motivation fueled
by efficacy expectations. Finally, teacher goal value driven by intrinsic motivation and based
upon success expectancy leads to positive teacher engagement (de Jesus & Lens, 2005).
Richardson and Watt (2015) used the expectancy-value framework to construct the “FIT-
Choice” (Factors Influencing Teaching Choice) model to study motivation of individuals to
become teachers. Intrinsic value and perceived teaching ability along with social utility value
and positive prior learning experiences most influenced this career path. Their study found a
positive relationship between the motivating influences experienced by preservice teachers and
ongoing career engagement and professional development choices (Richardson & Watt, 2015).
While representing longstanding developments in teaching methodology, differentiated
instruction and the use of accommodations in the inclusive secondary school classroom has been
the focus of very little if any empirical research. The nearest parallels can be drawn from
research studies involving college students indicating that perceptions of the utility value of
incorporating choices in academic programming are of primary importance to the achievement of
the student goals (Hulleman, Godes, Hendricks, & Harackiewicz, 2010). Additionally, the
expectation of success is another necessary component to instill in college students a greater
sense of utility value in problem solving and achievement processes (Durik, Shechter, Noh,
Rozek, & Harackiewicz, 2014).
Attribution theory. Beliefs strongly factor into an individual’s perceptions of, and
causal explanations for, events in their lives. Attribution theory examines both environmental
and personal factors, as key elements in the formation of personal beliefs regarding perceived
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

33
cause. Additional causal impacts stem from perceptions regarding internal or external locus of
control, the stability of time or situation, and the individual’s control over the event (Weiner,
1972). Success attributed to level of effort and use of strategies increases motivation in learners.
Similarly, feelings of pride and self-esteem relate to positive internal locus event associations.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, attribution to lack of stability may result in emotional
dysregulation and feelings of hopelessness (Anderman & Anderman, 2006).
Faculty attribution. Research shows that the majority of secondary school and higher
education faculty attribution for lack of student achievement comes in the form of student
deficiencies due to ability, environmental, or motivational factors (Weiner, 1972; Jager &
Denessen, 2015; Wieman & Welsh, 2016). More specifically, Weiner (1972) described a
“teacher-observer conflict” when teachers believe they are more responsible for increased
student achievement in math as a group of observers state that the teacher is more responsible for
decreasing student performance. He wrote, “ego-enhancing and ego-defensive attributions are
likely to be made when one is directly involved with the success and failure of others” (Weiner,
1972, p. 213). Jager and Denessen (2015) found in their study of 64 secondary school teachers
that student-related causal attributions were predominant in accounting for low student
achievement. They concluded that teachers were not apt to ascribe “instructional quality” as
causal for low student achievement in order to preserve a positive self-image (Jager & Denessen,
2015). Wieman and Welsh (2016) examined survey responses from 180 math and science
instructors at a large public North American research university and found that the majority of
answers to an optional open-ended question regarding the largest barrier to student learning in
their classes fell into categories of “internal student deficiencies (poor preparation, work ethic, or
lack of intellectual interest or ability), limited time and extensive demands on instructors, lack of
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

34
resources, and classes too large.” As this data originated from one of the most selective public
universities in North America, the researchers posit that student deficiencies as the most
prevalent barrier to student learning is an “example of the fundamental attribution error of
psychology” (Wieman & Welsh, 2016).
Raising secondary and higher education faculty awareness of personal accountability for
student outcomes is crucial to increased student achievement. Teachers need to understand their
attributional motivation in explaining lack of student achievement by faulting the students’
internal characteristics while ignoring their role in the external factors, such as quality of
instruction (Wieman & Welsh, 2016; Jager & Denessen, 2015). Faculty need to be aware that
attribution of low achievement to student ability may be indicative of teachers’ lower priority
efforts to educate those children (Anderman & Anderman, 2009; Jager & Denessen, 2015). It is
necessary for faculty to internalize causal attribution for student success to their efforts towards
implementing successful strategies for learning (Anderman & Anderman, 2009; Pintrich, 2003).
Table 3 shows the assumed motivational influences affecting the stakeholder goal
implementation of differentiated instruction with integrated accommodations by 100% of faculty
within the organization.
Table 3.
Motivational Influences
Assumed Motivation Influences
Utility Value – Faculty needs to see the value in differentiating instruction for students with
Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD) or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).
Attributions – Faculty should feel that low content knowledge proficiency is due in part to
their own lack of efficacy at differentiated instruction rather than largely attributed to
students’ lack of ability.

DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

35
Organization
General theory. The definition of culture as it applies to an individual or organization is
evasive. Complex anthropological models refer to a wide range of events and actions used over
time to describe this concept. These include: observed behavioral regularities when people
interact; group norms; espoused values; formal philosophy; rules of the game; embedded skills;
climate; habits of thinking, mental models, and linguistic paradigms; shared meanings; root
metaphors, or integrating symbols; and formal rituals and celebrations (Schein, 2010). Analysis
of organizational culture involves the study of the dynamic, contextualized traits and practices
that create shared mental schema and normative understandings of how the organization
functions, or ought to function (Rueda, 2011). These constructs form cultural models that can be
useful in describing organizations and individuals (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Cultural
settings are the specific contexts that make up the how, when, where, and why of daily life.
Many cultural settings make up the ever-changing landscape of work, school, or social
environments (Rueda, 2011). Within these cultural settings are factors such as work processes or
material resources that serve to support or impede the achievement of organizational goals.
Availability of manufacturing materials, efficient processes for equipment use, human resources,
training, and information technology are examples of organizational influences on overall output
(Clark & Estes, 2002).
Cultural Model Influences. To utilize concepts such as cultural models to address
educational performance problems, the organization must question its beliefs, attitudes, and
implicit or explicit way of thinking and understanding (Rueda, 2011). Cultural models are the
overarching invisible thoughts and beliefs embedded within organizations and individuals.
Additionally, the mental schemas framing individual or group perceptions of environments and
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

36
situations are key elements making up cultural models (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001).
Individual resistance to change efforts is frequently anchored in habit and inertia, awareness of
skill deficits, and fear of losing institutional status (Agocs, 1997). An assumed cultural model
influence studied is whether OA faculty believe the benefits of differentiated instruction with
respect to student outcomes will outweigh the workload costs over and above the traditional one-
level lesson modality of content delivery and assessment. Research shows that perceptions of
increased workload may have negative impact on faculty who view the situation in an inclusive
classroom as unmanageable due to inadequate support and resources (Boyle, Topping, & Jindal-
Snape, 2013). Bruno, Ashby, and Manzo (2012), in a survey of 983 public school teachers in the
United States, determined the average work time per week (including weekends) to be 58 hours.
Holzberger, Philipp, and Kunter (2013) found that over 30% of teacher work time was already
spent on lesson planning and subsequent increases in job stress showed a negative correlation to
taking on additional tasks beyond the established baseline teaching duties.
Cultural Setting Influences. Visible and tangible evidence of an organization’s cultural
models weaves the fabric of the cultural setting (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). This study
examined the assumed cultural setting influences of training and professional development on
the implementation of differentiated instruction in the inclusive classrooms at OA. Leadership
and management of effective organizations require providing all employees with the opportunity
to acquire the tools and skills for success (Hendry, 1996). Furthermore, foundational to the
success of the change movement are exemplary communication processes with key personnel
and appropriate allocation of resources (Moran & Brightman, 2000). Of equal importance,
professional development that increases faculty collaboration results in a positive impact on the
quality of instruction (Elmore, 2002; Morgan, 2016). Antithetically, reliance on the antiquated
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

37
industrial one-size-fits-all model of education to train new faculty and facilitate existing
faculty development is problematic from a growth perspective (Elmore, 2002; Scanlon & Baker,
2012). On a positive note, peer feedback through interactions with colleagues in professional
learning groups provides faculty with the opportunity to self-evaluate their efficacy in
implementing newly learned strategies (Pintrich, 2003; Yough & Anderman, 2006). Finally,
organizational leadership’s integrated role in professional development increases employee
perception of the value of training (Schneider, Brief, & Guzzo, 1996).
Another potential gap in the achievement of the stakeholder goal is the degree to which
leadership fully adopts the prioritization of comprehensive faculty training in this field and a
clearly articulated process for determining appropriate accommodations for SLD and ADHD
learners is in place within the organizational setting. Sole reliance on a leadership mandate to
effectuate a behavioral change is unlikely to meet with success unless supported by thoughtful
and well-structured procedures (Schneider et al., 1996). Stressing the importance of alignment
between goals and the core elements of work processes, Moran and Brightman (2000) promoted
management’s involvement in this facet as crucial to the development of successful
organizational procedures. Krosgaard, Brodt, and Whitener (2002) identified well-delineated
procedures as a vital element in the evolution of stakeholder behavior in support of the
organizational goal. Responsibility for all developmental phases as well as implementation
processes for these procedures are the direct responsibility of the manager in charge of change
facilitation (Morrison & Milliken, 2000). SLD and ADHD students in need of accommodations
comprise a majority of the OA population. It follows that placing an emphasis on development
of procedures to support these learners should occur. Any lack of stakeholder engagement with
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

38
key components of the organizational mission makes growth difficult (Berbarry & Malinchak,
2011).
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation and
the Organizational Context
The purpose of a conceptual framework is to outline the ideas, concepts, and models
incorporated into the study. Working from the literature, the researcher determines what they
know, do not know, and have yet to find out in order to focus on the study (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). In the above sections, presentation of the potential influences occurs independently.
However, it is important to recognize that these elements of the study do not exist in isolation
from each other. This conceptual framework demonstrates the way I believe these knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences interact with one another at OA.
The stakeholder goal of school-wide OA faculty implementation of instructional
differentiation integrated with appropriate accommodations is a key element in fulfilling the
organizational goal of increasing student achievement. At the organizational level, the cultural
model of faculty belief that the benefits of differentiated instruction with respect to student
outcomes will outweigh the workload costs over and above the traditional one-level lesson
modality of content delivery and assessment, must be examined during this study under the
broad umbrella of market accountability to the students and families. In a related area of
research, studying the extent to which the school promotes a cultural setting where the leadership
fully adopts the prioritization of comprehensive faculty training in this field and clearly
articulates procedures for the application of accommodations when appropriate and necessary to
support student outcomes is of primary importance.
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

39
The concentric circles contained within Figure 1 represent the overarching
organizational responsibility of the school to wrap around the needs of faculty stakeholders.
Capacity building must come before an expectation of a capacity increase; providing faculty with
the opportunity to acquire the knowledge and skills necessary for appropriate interventions must
occur before the organizational leadership places implementation expectations upon them.
Within this organization, the faculty stakeholders need to have or acquire the factual/conceptual
knowledge of teaching methodologies most impactful on SLD and ADHD student outcomes.
Faculty knowledge of appropriate accommodation strategies is an important factor as a way to
create opportunities for equity in the learning environment. Faculty also needs the procedural
skills to integrate differentiated instruction into the classroom pedagogy. On the metacognitive
level, OA faculty must be able to self-evaluate the implementation of accommodations as it
applies to improving the learning outcomes of SLD and ADHD students. Building upon this
metacognitive self-awareness regarding their role in the instructional process, the faculty
attribution of academic failure to the student’s lack of efforts needs redefinition as a possible
lack of effective teacher intervention in support of struggling students. Increased metacognition
will allow faculty to internalize a fundamental change in attribution, and acceptance of their
significant responsibility, for positive or negative student outcomes. Once the organizational
structures of training and professional development, as well as clear accommodations processes
articulation are in place to support the faculty stakeholders, the programmatic efficacy will
follow the path of the arrow pointing descriptively down to the resulting achievement of the
stakeholder goal.
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

40

Figure 1. Interactive Conceptual Framework.

2

100% of OA faculty will
implement instructional
differentiation integrated with
appropriate accommodations for
students with SLD and ADHD
Faculty
Factual/conceptual knowledge of accommodations,
procedural knowledge of implementation of
instructional differentiation, and metacognitive
knowledge and skills related to strategies for self-
evaluation of efficacy in implementing differentiated
instruction with accommodations: Motivation resulting
from awareness of the value of
accommodations/differentiation in elevating student
outcomes, and attributional clarity regarding potential
root causes of student deficits in content acquisition

1
Omega Academy
Cultural Settings: Leadership committed to the requisite faculty
training for implementation of differentiated instruction; clearly
articulated process for determining appropriate accommodations
in the inclusive classroom
Cultural Models: Faculty belief in the benefits of differentiated
instruction as outweighing the workload cost over and above
standard single-level classroom practice
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

41
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
This study examined the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that add to or
detract from a faculty member’s ability to differentiate classroom instruction while incorporating
appropriate accommodations for students with SLD and ADHD. As noted earlier, the
achievement gap for youth with SLD and ADHD leads to many negative consequences in the
realm of college and career readiness if not remediated at the secondary school level. This study
focused on the organizational performance goal of 100% implementation by OA faculty of
differentiated instruction integrated with appropriate accommodations for SLD and ADHD
learners. The research questions for this study were the following:
1. What is the OA faculty knowledge of differentiation, integrated with appropriate
accommodations, and their motivation related to achieving this organizational goal?
2. What is the interaction between the OA organizational culture and context and faculty
knowledge and motivation related to differentiation integrated with appropriate
accommodations?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources?
This chapter gives an overview of the participating stakeholders, sampling methods, data
collection, data analysis, credibility and trustworthiness, ethics, and limitations and delimitations
for this study.
Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholder group of focus for this evaluation study was the faculty at Omega
Academy. At OA, the faculty was divided into three Professional Learning Groups (PLGs) each
supervised by one of the three members of the OA Leadership Team (the Head of School, the
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

42
Academic Dean, and the Dean of Students). The PLG structure allowed the administrator to
interact in a management capacity with a subset of the OA faculty in a regular and meaningful
way. To avoid conflicts associated with the study of faculty under my direct supervision (as the
Academic Dean), I drew the sample for this research from the PLGs of the Head of School and
Dean of Students. This study included only full-time faculty at OA. Full-time faculty were
required to participate in all OA meetings and organizational structures, whereas part-time
faculty were often excused from the majority of management meetings due to the time
limitations of their position.
Observation Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. Classroom practice that was supposed to utilize integrated differentiation
techniques. This criterion established the local and natural setting to explore the faculty
behaviors that facilitate or inhibit the phenomenon relevant to the broader issue of classroom
methodology conducive to increased student outcomes that are included in the study.
Criterion 2. Classroom practice that was supposed to integrate accommodations
appropriate for SLD and ADHD learners within differentiated instruction. This criterion
narrowed the focus to the observation of the frequency and fluidity with which faculty members
integrated accommodations into their classroom teaching.
Observation Sampling Strategy and Rationale
This study involved typical purposeful sampling using non-probability selection. The
school employed 14 faculty members with nine teaching full-time (5 to 6 classes). Seven of the
nine full-time OA faculty were members of the Head’s and Dean of Student’s PLGs and not
under my direct supervision during the period of the study. The nonrandom sample consisted of
three faculty members meeting the three criteria and representing a cross-section of the academic
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

43
(English, math, social science, and science) areas of instruction at OA. Through the
Leadership Team, a request for access to observe the PLG members of both the Head of School
and the Dean of Students preceded the scheduling of the meeting to explain the study process to
the sample participants. I recruited the interview sample participants simultaneously for the
observation component to maintain continuity and data consistency. The collaborative
relationship established throughout the observation and interview processes allowed the
researcher, acting as the instrument of data collection, to negotiate ethical access to gain the
information needed to answer research questions included in the study (Maxwell, 2013).
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. Faculty that were teaching at Omega Academy during the spring months of
2018. This criterion delineated the timeframe of employment as occurring during the study
research period.
Criterion 2. Full-time OA faculty. This criterion eliminated the part-time faculty
members not required to participate in 100% of the meetings, retreats, and professional
development activities.
Criterion 3. Membership in the PLGs of the Head of School and Dean of Students. This
criterion worked to select a subset of OA faculty that is not under my direct supervision.
Interview Sampling Strategy and Rationale
The interview recruitment strategy was to get clearance from the Head of School to
conduct the study and hand out to the seven eligible faculty members an information sheet on the
study and an invitation for voluntary participation. The interviews gathered data from the typical
faculty members at OA. I prioritized representation from different core academic areas in the
selection of the three participants from the pool of affirmative respondents. The recruitment pool
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

44
consisted of one math teacher, one English teacher, one English/World Languages teacher,
one social science teacher, one fine arts teacher, and two science teachers. Ideally, the intention
was that the volunteers would represent a cross section of the available curricular areas.
I based the rationale for this sample on the diversity of knowledge and skills, motivation,
and organizational elements found in the demographic variety represented by OA faculty.
Representation within the sample ranged from veteran faculty of nearly 30 years to second year
teachers.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
I used a qualitative approach for data collection and analysis. The combination of a
series of classroom observations followed by an interview with each study participant allowed
access to both observed classroom behaviors and participant viewpoints and interpretations of
events. The evaluation of factors influencing faculty use of differentiated instruction and
accommodations in the classroom relied on observation of behaviors and interactions in the
learning space and followed by faculty interviews to get first-hand information pertinent to my
research questions. It is not easy to quantify these humanistic pieces of evidence with data such
as numbers and statistics, benefiting instead by description through rich narratives as found in
qualitative research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Merriam and Tisdell (2016) promoted the use of
systematic processes to record observed events firsthand by way of field notes transcribed as
soon after as possible. Diagrams add to the raw data captured during the observations (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016). OA is a small independent high school with 9 full-time faculty members, 7 of
which were not under my direct supervision at the time of the study. Observations and
interviews occurred with a recruited sample from this group of teachers. The interview format
allowed the researcher to gather rich data, as well as gain access to participant beliefs, attitudes,
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

45
and knowledge, areas where observational data falls short (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
McEwan and McEwan (2003) noted that interviews aided in gathering a nuanced understanding
of behaviors. After receiving clearance from the Head of School and confirming the participants,
I scheduled a series of periodic observations of each faculty member’s classes spanning
approximately three weeks (to be described in further detail below). The following week I
conducted an interview with the faculty members observed to gather data stemming from the
research questions and coming from their perspective. Extensive use of protocols for both
observation and interviews were made and voluminous notes taken to increase the chances of
obtaining rich data during this research data collection phase. I recorded the three interviews
after getting a verbal agreement from the participants. The raw observational data combined
with more direct and detailed follow up questions during the interview process helped provide
evidence to analyze the data and answer the two primary research questions: 1) what is the OA
faculty knowledge of differentiation integrated with appropriate accommodations, and 2) what is
the interaction between the OA organizational culture and context and faculty knowledge and
motivation related to differentiation integrated with appropriate accommodations?
Observation
Observations conducted in the complete observer role allow the researcher to gain
firsthand experience, record information in real-time, and gather data to better inform the
interview line of questioning (Creswell, 2014; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The natural setting
where the behavior of interest for this study occurs was in the classrooms of teachers who are the
key stakeholders. I conducted one 45-minute regular class period observation and an 80-minute
block-period classroom observation each week during the three-week duration of the study. I
repeated this regimen for each of the three study participants. I observed each participant for a
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

46
total of 375 minutes of classroom interactions with students. Bogdan and Biklen (2007)
recommend laying the groundwork for positive rapport with those you are observing in order to
have them feel they are an integral part of your research. The small setting of the school created
this opportunity on a regular basis – the opportunities for dialogue regarding the circumstances
surrounding my research were numerous and commonplace. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) noted
that observing the routines of participants to establish context is a primary reason for undertaking
this research methodology. Observation of the faculty interaction with the same group of
students over this three week-long timeframe provided a deeper understanding of the
interpersonal dynamics encountered as differentiation and accommodations were implemented,
attempted, or not present. Although I observed the same class period, I varied the day of the
week to provide insight into any procedural differences encountered during 80-minute block
periods versus the 45-minute regular class length. Over the course of the study, I scheduled three
block and three non-block periods for observation in each classroom. I chose the class periods
based on the lessons published on the LMS each Monday morning in an effort to provide the
widest variety of teaching content in which to observe evidence of differentiated instruction and
the use of accommodations. The data gathered through the 375 minutes of observation per
participant multiplied by three faculty members created 18.75 total hours of observation that
sought to identify faculty knowledge regarding differentiation integrated with accommodations
as practiced in the classroom. I used a classroom observational protocol during this study
(Appendix A). I took notes by hand with the integrated use of observer comments. I gave
priority to the focal point of evidence of accommodations in use and differentiated instruction
observed. Making a record of the details that occurred around these primary factors provided
richness to the data. The conceptual framework was linked to the need for direct connection to
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

47
observable instances of OA faculty exhibiting the knowledge and skills, motivation, and
organizational elements necessary to implement differentiated instruction with the incorporation
of accommodations as was appropriate. The multitude of data gathered during the classroom
observations helped provide evidence to formulate answers to the two primary research
questions: 1) what is the OA faculty knowledge of differentiation integrated with appropriate
accommodations, and 2) what is the interaction between the OA organizational culture and
context and faculty knowledge and motivation related to differentiation integrated with
appropriate accommodations?
Interviews
Each of the three members in the study sample participated in a scheduled one-time 60-
minute formal interview within a week following their last classroom observation. This provided
structure early in the meeting followed by the latitude to allow the participant information to
flow freely on a wider variety of topics (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). It is important to provide a
quiet, confidential, minimal distraction location for the interviews (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). As
such, the interviewing took place at the small conference table in my office with the front office
attendant ensuring an interruption free block of time. This was a comfortable setting removed
from the traffic of students and other faculty members transiting around the school. The faculty
member’s classroom was an alternate choice if the space was not in use by one of the travelling
teachers during the scheduled time of the interview. The familiarity of their classroom may have
made the faculty member more at ease during the interview. I offered this location to them if the
space was available. However, none of the participants chose this option and all three interviews
were conducted in my office. I conducted the interview during the first available block period
following the third and final week of classroom observation. This timing was chosen to allow
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

48
follow up in a timely manner while the events that occurred during the observations were still
fresh in the minds of both the teacher and myself.
I used a semi-structured interviewing protocol (Appendix B) to allow for appropriate
probes and subsequent lines of questioning that were responsive to the answers received and the
direction the interview took. This format took into account the assumption that the respondents
each had a unique worldview that may be explored through more open-ended questions
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). As Merriam and Tisdell (2016) suggested, I collected the specific
information desired through a more structured section of the interview after completing the less
structured list of questions explored without strict adherence to order or exact wording. The
types of interview questions asked fell into Patton’s (2002) six kinds of questions that can be
asked on any given topic: experience and behavior; opinion and values; feelings; knowledge;
sensory; and background/demographic questions. I posed questions regarding sequencing,
clarity of responses, neutrality, presuppositions, and probes (follow-up questions). I also made
frequent use of Bogdan and Biklen’s (2007) examples of probes such as, “what do you mean?”
and “Tell me more about that.” I connected the interview questions to the conceptual framework
by asking OA faculty direct questions pertaining to the knowledge and skills, motivation, and
organizational factors that influenced the implementation of appropriate accommodations
integrated into differentiated instruction. For example, “Would you please describe each of the
typical accommodations that come to mind when you think of supporting SLD and ADHD
learners?” Finally, following the advice of Patton (2002), I tracked the flow of the interview,
gauging the respondent’s reaction to questions, and provided feedback appropriate and helpful to
maintaining that flow.

DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

49
Data Analysis
For the series of observations and interviews, my data analysis began during data
collection. The writing of analytic memos after each observation and each interview was
standard practice. I frequently and consistently documented my thoughts, concerns, and initial
conclusions about the data in relation to my research questions and conceptual framework. Once
the observations and interviews had ended, I transcribed and coded the interviews from the
recordings. In the initial phase of analysis, I used open coding, looked for empirical codes and
applied a priori codes from the conceptual framework. Examples of a prior codes included a set
noting accommodations such as “A: Extended Time” and “A: Preferential Seating”. While
another example noted the knowledge components encountered such as “K: +/- Fact/Concpt
Accomms”. Additional codes were used to denote organizational influences and specified either
cultural settings or cultural models such as “OCS: Org Support”. Examples of empirical codes
included “IM: Discussion” referencing the instructional modality, “E: Classroom Management”
indicating the environmental issues observed, and “S: Off-Task Behavior” noting the setting and
associated actions that took place. The secondary analytical phase aggregated empirical and a
prior codes into analytic/axial codes such as “K: Accomms” which encompassed overall
knowledge of accommodations and “K: Diff” which compiled the codes for all manner of
differentiated instruction observed or discussed in the interviews. The final phase of data
analysis looked for pattern codes and themes that stood out in relation to the conceptual
framework and research questions. This phase revealed the three themes that evolved from the
pattern codes: a deficit in faculty knowledge of accommodations, a similar deficit of faculty
knowledge of differentiated instruction, and a lack of organizational support to fill these
knowledge gaps. To facilitate efficient data compilation, I used the ATLAS.ti qualitative
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

50
analysis software to mark quoted text from the observations and interviews and assign codes
as appropriate. The software also allowed me to group the codes into the equivalent of
analytic/axial codes and pattern codes that created an intuitive and streamlined system for data
analysis.
Credibility and Trustworthiness

Recognizing the inherent familiarity of situation and intimacy of relationships found in
doing data collection in a small organization I had been a part of for nearly ten years, I
incorporated Merriam and Tisdell’s (2016) suggestions on promoting validity and reliability and
strove to use a reasonable body of evidence obtained through observations and interviews to
establish congruency and validate my findings. For each participant faculty member, the series
of 6 observations took place during the same class period and spaced at weekly intervals to
reduce the chance of single event occurrences skewing the resultant data interpretation.
Referencing validity threats from Maxwell (2013), I kept the issue of my own researcher bias
front and center; reflecting regularly in my researcher’s journal on the possibility that
preconceived notions of what data I expected to see impacted selective recording of events.
Maxwell (2013) suggested that reactivity is also a validity threat. This was particularly
important to consider because reactivity, related to my position as a high level administrator at
the site I was studying, was likely to occur. I monitored this through extensive use of observer
comments along with verbatim low-inference field notes including the description of my
understanding of the influence my presence had on observational situations and interview
responses. Credibility and trustworthiness can be strengthened through the incorporation of the
triangulation, member checking, and peer review into the qualitative study (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Within my research, I used triangulation to gather information via observations and
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

51
interviews from a wide demographic range of faculty including curricular areas and teaching
experience. I used member checking and took my preliminary findings back to the participants
to verify the plausibility of my interpretations. Additionally, peer review via my dissertation
adviser increased the likelihood of alignment between the data gathered, my findings, and their
subsequent interpretations. Overall, I placed a high value on transparency within my
organization and recognized the absolute necessity of maintaining a highly open and ethical
stance as this study came to fruition. Upon reflection, the issue of reactivity did come up during
the study, but not with the faculty participants as anticipated. Rather, one faculty participant
reported that the students in the observed class period were far better behaved with an
administrator in the room than they would have been otherwise. This change in the natural
setting did not impact the observation of implemented accommodations or differentiated
instruction by the faculty participant.
Ethics
Qualitative inquiry involving human participants mandates three core ethical tenets.
The first is to do no harm to those individuals in the study. The second is to respect each
individual’s right to privacy and confidentiality. The third is to conduct research having
obtained clear and direct informed consent from the participants (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016;
Glesne, 2011). It is the responsibility of the researcher to adhere to these three foundational
elements of ethical research throughout the course of their study. With respect to my study, the
participants received both verbal and written descriptions of the research goals, identified
stakeholders, and behaviors evaluated before giving or withholding their consent. Assurance
was given that participation was completely voluntary and would in no way impact their
employment or standing with the school. Though impossible to guarantee in such a small setting
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

52
as OA, maintaining confidentiality throughout the study process via pseudonyms, lack of
specificity regarding descriptions of participants, and withholding of location or actions that may
lead the reader to identify an individual was of primary importance. The written description of
the research, rights of the participants, and my ethical responsibilities as the researcher included
a request for permission to record the interview portions of the study. Secure data storage is an
essential ethical consideration in any study (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). The research participant
information document further detailed the method of secure data storage used throughout my
study.
As the Academic Dean and Assistant Head of School and one of the three primary
administrators, my relationship with all potential participants in the study was one of overarching
directional leadership coupled with many logistical and operational tasks I oversaw. The
administrators divided the OA teaching faculty into three Professional Learning Groups (PLGs)
of approximately equal numbers. The administrator assumed a supervisory role for the members
of their PLG and was responsible for goal setting, formative and summative evaluations, and
tracking growth via professional development. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) emphasized the need
to establish the foundational elements of trust and transparency between the researcher and the
participants during the course of a study. At the time of the study, I had been an administrator at
this level for the over three years at the school and to maintain the trust of my colleagues and
credibility as a leader was transparent about the purpose of my study as I obtained their informed
consent during the initial informational meeting. My PLG at the time of the study consisted of
three full-time and two part-time faculty members from across the academic and artistic
disciplines of the school. I eliminated these faculty members from the potential participant pool
due to the conflict in doing research involving a supervisor’s direct reports. With the remaining
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

53
pool of participants, I negotiated my position of authority through a candid conversation
regarding the nature of the study as an inquiry process leading to growth and improvement rather
than criticism and finding fault. As an additional precaution and in alignment with the fact
finding nature of this evaluation study, I made sure the participants understood that it was
perfectly acceptable to admit that they did not know much about a concept and wanted to know
more. As I strongly believed in the future development of the niche market serving SLD and
ADHD learners to stabilize enrollment and ensure viability, I had a vested interest in evaluating
the faculty stakeholder knowledge, skills, and motivation surrounding the differentiation of
instruction and appropriate use of accommodations to support these atypical students. Similarly,
I was concerned with the multitude of ways in which OA, at the organizational level, facilitates
and inhibits the use of differentiation and accommodations in the classroom. However, as I
limited the potential participants in my study to those in the PLGs not under my direct
supervision, I addressed and clarified the clear delineation between my administrative role at the
school and my researcher role for this study. Glesne (2011) characterized the hybrid role of the
qualitative researcher as part reformer, advocate, and friend. Identifying organizational growth
as the focus of my evaluation study, I framed the findings as areas of growth and skill
development for the school as a whole and all faculty members by assuming the hybrid role of
reformer, advocate, and friend rather than critic. To avoid any sense of coercion to participate, I
drew the study sample of three participants from those wishing to volunteer out of the seven full-
time faculty members of the remaining two PLGs not under my direct supervision. I took extra
caution to remove identifying actions or characteristics of the participants from the published
data to maintain their confidentiality and decrease the possibility of recognition by their PLG
leaders.
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

54
As the researcher and primary instrument of the study, I would have been remiss to
ignore my assumptions and biases. As a career educator never having been satisfied with the
status quo, I recognized my bias towards progressive educational pedagogy. I assumed that this
progressive bent would eventually be widely recognized for its merits and find its way into all
the classrooms around the country including those in the school. I also assumed that I would be
able to maintain impartiality towards the individuals participating in the study and not allow any
historical knowledge of past performance to obscure my view of the situation occurring during
the research period. I accomplished this through the accurate documentation of actions observed
rather than inferring intent based on my knowledge of the individual. Rubin and Rubin (2012)
maintained that researcher awareness, openness, and acknowledgement regarding their inherent
assumptions and biases allow them to establish and maintain a high ethical standard during their
study. It is through the acknowledgement of these biases and assumptions, as well as my
actions, behaviors, and attitudes during the course of the study that I was able to show the full
measure of respect I owed to my study participants as I strove to maintain an ethical stance in the
research.
Limitations and Delimitations
The unique nature of the school including small overall size (under 100 students), low 8:1
student to teacher ratio, and extremely small sample size for this study (three faculty participants
out of a pool of seven possibilities) limits the generalizability of the findings beyond the
localized context. The recommendations formed from the review of literature and this limited
sample is limited to this scope and context. The demographics of the study participants are not
representative of the population of teachers as a whole in our community, the state, or nation-
wide. As a voluntary sample, it was impossible to know if the attitudes, beliefs, and experiences
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

55
of the faculty members were indicative of all of the teachers at the school. Similarly, it was
important to understand that the small size of the school coupled with the observation and
interview format depended on the faculty member’s comfort level with the research structure to
promote honesty. Also, general participant belief in the growth-oriented nature of the study and
findings was dependent on their acceptance that the school culture was one of inquiry and
improvement as opposed to critique and consequence. While I employed a problem-solving
approach that did not necessitate a generalizable study, but one that examined my local context
in an in-depth way, these are still important caveats to mention.
Delimitations for this study include limiting the sample population to high school faculty
members. Another delimitation is limiting the observations and interviews to three teachers.
Logistical constraints owing to the small overall size of the study site and ethical limitations due
to the supervisory structure of the school prohibited a larger sample of teachers from being
included in the research. A final delimitation exists in my use of the conceptual framework and
the concepts of differentiation, as well as classroom accommodations.

DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

56
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
The purpose of this study was to examine the factors that promote or inhibit OA faculty
members from implementing differentiated instruction, integrated with appropriate
accommodations, to support SLD and ADHD learners in the classroom. The following research
questions were used to guide this inquiry:
1. What is the OA faculty knowledge of differentiation, integrated with appropriate
accommodations, and their motivation related to achieving this organizational goal?
2. What is the interaction between the OA organizational culture and context, and faculty
knowledge and motivation, related to differentiation integrated with appropriate
accommodations?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources?
To address these research questions, qualitative data collection efforts included the use of
classroom observations followed by semi-structured participant interviews with OA faculty
meeting the stated sampling criteria (see Chapter 3). This chapter presents the findings based on
analysis of this data and addresses the first two research questions. The third research question is
addressed in Chapter Five.
Findings
This section details the findings of the study organized by research question and theme as
viewed through the lens of the conceptual framework. Theme development resulted from data
collection and analysis of classroom observations followed by interviews with OA faculty. The
themes coalesced into three findings: faculty members would benefit from the development of a
working understanding of accommodations, faculty members would benefit from the
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

57
development of a working understanding of differentiated instruction, and faculty would
benefit from a significant increase in support and professional development to improve their
working understanding accommodations and differentiated instruction. While I noted the
motivational influence of utility value in the participant interviews, the lack of knowledge on the
part of the faculty members made this component less germane to the overall findings. In
essence, they did not know what they were valuing in their teaching practice. The motivational
influence of faculty attribution of student success or failure to their instructional efficacy at
differentiation lacked confirmation by the data. The emergent themes from data analysis linked
the need for a common faculty understanding of the components of accommodations and
differentiated instruction to the need for organizational structure accompanied by an over-
reliance on self-directed professional development. In this section, I will present the findings
related to the first research question regarding the faculty knowledge of differentiation,
integrated with appropriate accommodations, as well as their motivation to achieve that goal.
Then I will move on to discuss the findings related to the second research question that examined
the interaction between the OA organizational culture and context, and faculty knowledge and
motivation, related to differentiation integrated with appropriate accommodations.
RQ 1: Faculty Knowledge and Motivation Influences
This section will discuss the findings that relate to the first research question: What is the
OA faculty knowledge of differentiation, integrated with appropriate accommodations, and their
motivation related to achieving this organizational goal? The evidence gathered through
classroom observations and semi-structured interviews indicated that at the time of this study the
OA faculty had yet to fully acquire a requisite body of knowledge regarding differentiation and
accommodations in support of SLD and ADHD students. Two themes emerged during data
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

58
analysis as relevant to this research question - the potential for significant growth in the
development of a working understanding of accommodations and the same for a working
understanding of differentiated instruction by OA faculty.
Faculty knowledge and motivation regarding accommodations
During the course of the study, the faculty exhibited the ability to list a number of the
commonly used accommodations for SLD and ADHD learners, but showed the need for
additional knowledge of definitions. Classroom observations indicated much room for growth in
the implementation for nearly all accommodations listed during the interview sessions. As
outlined in the conceptual framework for this study, faculty conceptual knowledge of
accommodations holds a foundational place in the achievement of the stakeholder goal.
Knowledge of this teaching methodology is important to the achievement of the organizational
goal as accommodations best serve to remove barriers not relevant to assessment of the skills or
constructs for students with learning disabilities (Thompson et al., 2002).
Defining accommodations. Harrison, Bunford, Evans, and Owens (2013) constructed a
clear working definition as, “Accommodations are changes to practices in schools that hold a
student to the same standard as students without disabilities (i.e., grade-level academic content
standard) but provide a differential boost (i.e., more benefit to those with a disability than those
without) to mediate the impact of the disability on access to the general education curriculum
(i.e., level the playing field)” (p. 556). For faculty working at a school serving a majority
population of SLD and ADHD students, a working knowledge of the definition of
accommodations is often taken for granted as a core facet of their teaching practice. In
attempting to ascertain faculty knowledge of this key element, one of the questions in this
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

59
study’s interview protocol (Appendix B) stated, “How do you define accommodations as they
pertain to SLD and ADHD students?”
A common thread that ran through the faculty’s answers to this question was the
vagueness in their attempt to produce a definition. Sebastien, the OA sophomore and senior
English teacher, stated, “when I apply accommodations or the philosophy that I try and walk into
accommodations with is I want to create a system inside my classroom that helps my students to
succeed in the ways that they can most effectively do so.” He continued by saying:
You are going to have students, whether it's dyslexia or dysgraphia, . . . or ADHD or
ADD, that are going to really, really struggle with some complex abstract things that we
bring up like Shakespeare. . . . So when you incorporate things like dyslexia or various
other -- ADD and things like that, it can become a task that is just completely -- not only
is it going to cause the student to drown from a grade perspective and it's going to cause a
whole lot of social anxiety and anxiety about their own minds and whether they think
they actually have the capability of being intelligent, but it's also going to get them to
really, really start to develop a disdain for the subject.
Here Sebastien named several disabilities but was vague in his attempt to define
accommodations. He passively avoided the interview question by describing his assumptions
regarding how students felt about his subject matter. Sebastien’s lack of facility regarding this
key area of knowledge in working with a majority SLD and ADHD population was problematic
as the school continued to market expertise in teaching this niche population. Christina, a second
year math teacher at OA, incorporated a similar descriptive element in attempting to verbalize
her understanding of accommodations:
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

60
Often students come in with IEPs so they have learning plans that they have developed
from before they came to our school. And in those plans, they request certain
accommodations like extra test time or specific types of tests, oral exams, reading -- or
watching material instead of reading material and things like that. In my classroom, I try
to accommodate both the recorded IEPs and also ways that I've seen that the students
learn better. So, some students don't have a written IEP, but I've noticed that when they
take written tests, they get super anxious. But, if they are able to stand up and present at
the board, they do a great job. So I've tried to -- one, I want to read what the paperwork
says about these students and see how we can best accommodate their learning styles.
In much the same manner as Sebastien, Christina mentioned specific accommodations such as,
“extra test time,” without showing a general understanding of the conceptual component by
providing a working definition. It was important to have identified this knowledge gap in a
relatively inexperienced faculty member in order to provide appropriate training and professional
development in the future. As noted by Scanlon and Baker (2012) faculty knowledge of
accommodations appropriate for a given situation is necessary for the preparation phase of
inclusive lesson development. Julie, an experienced freshman and sophomore science teacher at
OA, simply stated, “I would just say it's what the kid needs. It's a need. It's not a want. It's not a
desire. It's a need. They need this to be successful; therefore, I give it to them so they can be
successful.” Julie’s response was similarly vague regarding any attempt at a working definition
and showed typicality with the other two respondents in this area. This indicated a potential
need for growth in the area of conceptual knowledge regarding accommodations that was likely
to produce low efficacy in working with a majority SLD and ADHD student population.
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

61
From these responses, despite the descriptive element regarding a student’s social
emotional status or potential grade ramifications, there existed evidence of the need for a
working knowledge of the actual definition of accommodations. The three faculty members
interviewed were able to name various accommodations; however, they all showed the need for
growth relative to the full utilization of the interventions to increase student outcomes. The
respondents were vague with respect to key elements of the working definition of
accommodations which Harrison et al. (2013) described as changes in practice that hold SLD
and ADHD students to the same standard as students without disabilities, but provides a
differential boost to mediate the impact of the disability on student outcomes. The typical
faculty response across experience levels and curricula revealed a growth area with respect to
their depth of understanding through their hesitation to go beyond reciting lists of
accommodations. Thus, it is more likely that this knowledge gap inhibits their ability to fully
implement accommodations in the classroom. Shulman (1987) stated that the knowledge base of
highly efficacious teachers must include both content knowledge of the subject taught and
pedagogical knowledge of techniques and methodologies for impactful instruction, student
comprehension, appropriate assessment, and reflection upon one’s own performance. In context,
OA faculty exhibited exemplary content knowledge of their subject matter while showing a need
for growth regarding depth of pedagogical knowledge as it pertains to the underlying
foundational concept of accommodations as a means to level the playing field for SLD and
ADHD students.
Implementation of accommodations. Beyond the ability to provide a working
definition of accommodations, this inquiry sought evidence of faculty knowledge of typical
accommodations actually used in the classroom. During the interviews, I asked faculty members
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

62
to describe an example of a typical accommodation that came to mind when thinking of SLD
and ADHD student support. The interview responses produced several examples and anecdotes
that were on point with respect to appropriate implementation of accommodations. Sebastien
described pertinent examples of assistive technology accommodations, “When you've got
dyslexia and dysgraphia, a lot of the accommodations and things you will use will be more on
the technical side of things.” He explained, “So you have to move on to things like typing versus
writing. And then depending on the severity, even possibly moving on to Dragon Dictation or
another program or a tool like that to help them.” Sebastien continued his response to this
question with another on point accommodation for providing class notes using a student scribe
and shared via an electronic medium, “Making sure that the students have notes if they struggle
to keep notes.” He elaborated by saying, “Grab one of your visual learning students and have
them take [notes] -- now what you can have is basically public notes on Google Docs and share
them with your classroom.” Sebastien went on to detail an extended time scenario typical of
many classrooms and faculty at OA, “Basically, remove deadlines for those students.”
Sebastien’s accurate description of several examples of classroom implementation showed that
he possessed a procedural knowledge of accommodations.
Similarly, Christina’s response began with an example that detailed a large print
accommodation for one of her math students, “I take all of the work[sheets] that I print out in
class . . . I blow them up 200 percent to make it easier to see with the eyes.” She continued with
an appropriate assessment accommodation, “When it's time for evaluations, I also read the
material to the student so that the student doesn't have to rely solely on what is seen; they can
also hear it at the same time.” Description of these instances indicated that Christina also had a
working procedural knowledge of accommodations.
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

63
Likewise, Julie gave several pertinent examples of classroom accommodations, “I've
read tests to kids. . . I've supplied them with my notes. . . I've enlarged things.” Julie’s
reference to several widely accepted accommodations provided evidence of good teaching
practices with respect to actual usage of these interventions in the classroom. Cumulatively,
these examples indicated that the three study participants had identified and implemented
appropriate accommodations in support of SLD and ADHD learners.
The classroom observations also provided evidence of accommodations being used. The
field notes from this study detailed the use of assistive technology in the form of electronic text
by three of the six students in Sebastien’s English class as an alternative to a physical novel. The
following observation vignette documented that type of accommodation:
S[tudent]1, S2, & S3 reading print copy [of Hamlet] while S4-S6 use laptops to follow
the story. S5 uses the zoom feature on laptop to enlarge text while reading his part. S5
also uses browser “lookup” feature to find the definition of a word used in the play. For
example, the teacher said, “What’s the difference between a soliloquy and a monologue?”
As S4 is answering S6 does a web search for “soliloquy” (observation, March 18, 2018).
The observed assistive technology features included the ability for the student to highlight text
and produce a definition for unknown words and the cross referencing of content with other web-
based resources as Socratic discussions progressed. My observer comment associated with this
vignette stated, “appears to be organic v. planned use of AT [assistive technology]” (observation,
March 18, 2018). This example showed the general lack of planning and forethought regarding
the implementation of accommodations. Faculty intuition and experience may have played a
role in that situation. However, it was more likely that the ubiquitous nature of technology in a
Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) setting manifested itself in the students knowing the best uses
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

64
of their tech tools to assist themselves rather than the faculty member needing to develop this
knowledge base.
Christina combined assistive technology with class notes provided accommodations as
the following observation vignette noted in her math class:
Preview of upcoming quiz format – similarities/differences from study packet – written
by teacher on whiteboard. T[eacher] says, “Please take out your phones and take a
picture of the board to put in your math Google Docs.” Students comply and ask several
follow up questions regarding quiz (observation, March 19, 2018).
The combination of technology via a student’s Google Drive folders and mobile phones to
photograph notes on the whiteboard and store them online showed an innovative use of
accommodations by Christina in support of her students.
Many SLD and ADHD students at OA struggled with organizational skills. In this
observation vignette, Julie used a combination of the school’s LMS and Google Docs to
accommodate this deficit:
T[eacher] turned on LCD projector and displayed her course page. She said, “Alright
people, let’s take a look at Converge [LMS] for this week’s agenda. At the bottom please
click on the link to open the read-only Google Doc with today’s outline, then use the
‘make a copy’ feature to copy it to your [Google] Drive.” Students successfully complete
task as teacher uses proximity control to monitor progress. Students begin to fill in
outline as lecture/discussion moves forward (observation, March 19, 2018).
Julie revealed procedural knowledge regarding the implementation of accommodations in the
area of providing notes for students and in compensating for their organizational deficits. The
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

65
classroom observations for all three participants noted a strong tendency to incorporate
technology into the accommodations with a high level of efficacy.
Conversely, some of the situations described by the respondents during the interviews
were not actually accommodations, but inadvertent crossovers into psychosocial, ratio-based, or
relationship-oriented interventions that make sense when working with the whole child.
Similarly, several instances of crossover between the concepts of differentiated instruction and
accommodations took place. Sebastien began with this empathic, but obtuse thought:
I think that we're dealing with a lot of students who are dealing with anxiety-related
issues. Anxiety, some depression, some things like that. And for students like that, I find
that usually it's not a clarification or an analysis issue that they have. It's not that they
don't have the scholastic aptitude to excel on these things. It's that there's so much other
stuff going on in their life. Their life has become so chaotic, so hectic, so distressing for
them that they can't focus and apply themselves fully to what they are doing. And I think
that that requires a lot of work.
This response to the interview question seeking faculty knowledge of the definition of
accommodations highlighted the blurred lines between teachers fully understanding typically
documented specific assessment and assignment interventions for SLD and ADHD students and
the more general stress reduction, emotional connection, and caring relationships that mediate
the anxiety disorders also present in a portion of OA learners. Sebastien closed this line of
thought with a telling example of his flexible mental schema regarding support in his classroom
accompanied by the relationship component inextricably linked to the small school environment:
A lot of I guess what I do that I don't know if I would call it an accommodation, but it's
something that I think is only really possible to the degree that I do it here at schools like
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

66
OA, which is the relationship that I have with my students is so much closer and so
much more time is available to me to spend on them, that pretty much anything that my
students need they know they can ask for, and they know that if there's a good reason for
them to have it, they will get it. So accommodations that have been asked for over time
really run the gamut and you know, I'm happy giving them everything because I think
that self-advocacy is another really important thing that we do here, and I'm really
impressed with the students' abilities to ask for what they think they need.
In this statement, Sebastien indicated a reliance on the social emotional aspects of the
environment (e.g., the relationships built with the students and the amount of time available to
interact directly with them) in lieu of developing a working understanding of the plethora of
accommodations available to classroom teachers. Additionally, while his appreciation for
student self-advocacy was evident, not every accommodation is appropriate for every student
and this blanket assumption may have put certain students at risk of lack of skill development for
future settings. Only through a full working understanding of the appropriate implementation of
accommodations would the faculty member have been able to discern the applicability of certain
interventions.
In a similarly blended fashion, Christina’s response incorporated aspects of
differentiation rather than the implementation of accommodations. She mixed the concepts of
varied supplementary activities and groupings, common in differentiated instruction, with the
notion of assistive technology accommodations. Christina showed her innovative streak as she
stated:
My students get really bored of doing worksheets all day so I took a class over the
summer about using technology in the classroom, and I found there's a lot of resources
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

67
out there already that allow students to explore these mathematical concepts using
technology. So they can get on to the computer and there's web sites that they can go to
that they can play with different variables or with different equations and really get a
feeling for how the math works. And they think it's games and so it's really fun for them,
but I can watch their process as they go. I can watch their progress. And if they are
making mistakes, I can go and talk to them individually. So they can work independently
so they can go at their own speed. And then the students who need extra help or who
aren't really grasping the concept, I can go up and work with them individually to make
sure that they get what they need out of the assignment.
Christina’s example confuses accommodations with differentiated instruction. Her use of
technology to vary the pacing and introduce student choice into the lesson fits more readily into
the methodology of differentiation. Tomlinson (1999) stated that instructional differentiation can
be accomplished through student interest centers constructed in accordance with their learning
profile. This intermixing of concepts was a recurring theme during the interviews. Christina
also mixed in the differentiation technique of varied group sizes at the end of her response when
she said, “they can work independently so they can go at their own speed.”
Julie also combined relationships and differentiation in her example of accommodation
implementation:
I've taken time out of my schedule to meet with them personally one on one, which I
think is probably one of the best accommodations that you could possibly give a kid is
just being one on one and tutoring them. . . I've adjusted my classroom so that it was
friendlier, less triggering for anxiety. I've let kids leave my classroom to go to the
bathroom. I've met with kids -- like, I actually had one kid who never even came into
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

68
class, and I used to meet with him privately because he just couldn't make it in. And I
was, like, that's okay. As long as they stayed on track, I didn't mind. And if they didn't
stay on track, it's, like, as long as we could figure out a plan to at least keep them I guess
functioning in a way.
Julie’s response to the example of accommodations question referred instead to the differentiated
instruction technique of varied grouping as she met with students “personally one on one.” This
confusing of concepts typified a lack of working understanding of accommodations versus
differentiation. Her response blended these two very different concepts and was typical of the
knowledge base variability experienced during these faculty interviews. This lack of clarity was
present in the literature regarding the confusing overlap in the conceptualization of
accommodations, modifications, and interventions as they apply to special needs students
(Harrison et al., (2013).
The interview data showed that OA faculty members had partial knowledge of
accommodations and were able to apply the portion they know to classroom situations. The
mixing in of differentiated instruction methodologies stemmed from the faculty’s need for a clear
working understanding of the definition of accommodations as a core tenet of their teaching
practice.
Self-evaluation. This study also sought to gather information on faculty self-perception
of their knowledge regarding accommodations. Metacognition plays an important role in
developing a working understanding of accommodations as misconceptions or lack of awareness
of knowledge gaps may decrease motivation to improve the situation. Analysis of the interview
data found that two out of the three participants were cognizant of their need for knowledge
growth regarding a working definition of accommodations, while the third expressed satisfaction
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

69
with her base level of knowledge, but wanted to know more. Sebastien presented a general
awareness of his needs in this area, he said:
So before I came to OA, I would say very, very little. . . . But when I came here, a lot of
it I kind of -- I learned while I was here. And it was a population that I wanted to help
and I wanted to work with so luckily there's a host of fantastic teachers and fantastic
administrators here that, you know, we discuss frequently accommodations, how to help
these kids. And the other teachers will talk to you about various things that they have
done. We have teachers here who have been here for 20 years plus and who have been
working with this stuff for a long time. So just kind of -- I think that I really still see
myself as an apprentice at OA, kind of learning from a lot of the teachers, the
administrators who have been working in education doing this stuff for a longer period of
time than I have. . . . But in terms of kind of the need to bring in accommodations and
the way to work on different tactics for approaching students is something that I hope I
always feel like I'm learning, but especially kind of now I definitely feel like an
apprentice working with a lot of people who have been doing it for a long time.
Sebastien showed metacognitive knowledge of his growth process when he referred to knowing,
“very, very little” before coming to the school. His reference to feeling, “like an apprentice
working with a lot of people who have been doing it for a long time” was reflective and
admirably deferential to the long-time faculty at OA. However, his assumption that the veteran
faculty’s teaching practices were exemplary with respect to personalizing learning for each
student was based solely on longevity with the school, rather than any actual peer-to-peer
observations or mentoring work. This assumption was not born out by the data gathered from
the veteran teacher in the study sample. Primary reliance on this apprenticeship model limited
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

70
the potential for new knowledge gains by this young teacher. Sebastien’s accurate self-
evaluation of his need for additional knowledge regarding accommodations and the subsequent
motivation to learn more was somewhat tempered by his faith that working with long-term OA
faculty would provide germane learning opportunities.
Similarly, Christina demonstrated a general awareness of her need for knowledge
regarding implementing accommodations. In only her first full year of teaching regular classes,
she admitted:
I'm not super knowledgeable. I don't have a degree in it. What I've learned is mostly
practical from experience working with students. I've done some education through -- as
an employee at this school. So we do talk about it a lot. I've done some reading. I've
worked with students who have had attention and learning challenges as a tutor for a long
time because those are the kids that really seek out extra support. So I have practical
experience but no formal training.
Christina showed an awareness of her need for deeper understanding when she stated, “I'm not
super knowledgeable. I don't have a degree in it. What I've learned is mostly practical from
experience working with students.” Christina’s intuitive tutor-like approach to teaching in
general and specific support of SLD and ADHD learners in many ways compensated for her lack
of knowledge. Unlike more experienced teachers trained to deliver content, Christina exhibited a
problem-solving approach to achievement of student outcomes that was well suited to working
with the SLD and ADHD student population at the school.
With a slightly different perspective, Julie expressed confidence accompanied by the
desire to expand her knowledge of ways to support SLD and ADHD learners:
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

71
I'm pretty good, but I know there's always more to learn. There's always different
methods to use. And I know I've been out of the classroom for a while so it could be
interesting to see what the new ones are, new types of accommodations for children. But,
I mean, the fact that I share -- every single bit of information that I use I share with my
students because I don't think that they should be without.
Julie acknowledged the need to continue learning and evolving her teaching practice. However,
her final statement was telling as it implied that she believed most all was being done that could
be done with respect to providing perceived accommodations to her students. This viewpoint
may decrease faculty motivation to actively seek out new learning and truly embody a growth
mindset. It was evident that the OA faculty that participated in this study were somewhat aware
of their existing knowledge gaps regarding accommodations in the classroom and expressed a
desire to learn more. Faculty metacognition with respect to their growth area via of a working
understanding of differentiated instruction played an important role in setting the stage for future
professional development in that area. Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick (2006) stated that self-
reflection on actions and processes can aid individuals in obtaining data used in future functional
and knowledge improvements.
Value. The data analysis revealed that all three of the OA faculty interviewed believed
there was value in the use of accommodations to increase student outcomes even if they needed
to develop a working understanding of them. This was important as Abrami (2004) found that
teacher expectations of success in the implementation of new programming were a precursor to
initiation of and perseverance in continuing the task. To illustrate this point, when asked to
describe the value of implementing accommodations for SLD and ADHD students, Sebastien
replied:
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

72
I think that the benefits, the positive aspects that come from this is that it's necessary.
You know, if you don't do it, you are literally leaving children behind. There are children
that need it. And as a teacher, if you are not supplying your students with what they
need, you are not really doing your job. It's not about you. It's not -- in my opinion, it
isn't even really about the administration or the mission or anything else. . . . I think that
it's important because if you don't give them accommodations you are not just going to
not help these kids and not help them develop and not give them the things and tools that
they need later on in life. You are going to actively discourage them from doing that. . . .
When Sebastien referred to a teacher’s failure to implement accommodations as, “if you don't do
it, you are literally leaving children behind” he showed an understanding of the value of this
equalizing feature in the education of SLD and ADHD students. He continued to expand on the
long-term value with respect to future educational opportunities for students:
And if you have students who the way you are teaching or the curriculum you are
teaching or the lack of accommodations that you are teaching with causes them to feel
helpless or hopeless or it's just not something that they are good at, that they are
inherently bad at it, you are going to make it so they don't want to do it. And, you know,
it makes it so that it actually takes you the complete opposite direction of developing
them. It doesn't just stagnate them. It makes it so that the next person who tried to teach
them about that thing is going to be met with more reticence on their part because they've
already had the mistaste of poor academics and poor education in their mouth.
Sebastien placed a social emotion value on accommodations as having a created, or failed to
create, a learning environment upon which a student could build their own sense of self-efficacy
and ultimately lead to future successes or failures.
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

73
Similarly, Christina saw the value in the form of increased student confidence via the
application of appropriate accommodations when she said:
I think having accommodations for different styles of learning, whether documented or
not, allows every student the opportunity to learn in their best way possible. A lot of
these kids come to our school thinking that they are stupid because they've never had the
opportunity to show what they are capable of because they have these challenges. And
giving them the accommodations, allowing them to have a little extra time, giving them
the support that they need gives them a chance to really start feeling confident in their
own abilities and realize that they can be successful in spite of any differences that they
have from neurotypical [students], which doesn't really exist anyway.
Christina’s answer initially drifted into the mislabeled notion of catering to varying learning
styles as an accommodation, but then circled back to on-point methodology as a step that added
value towards student success.
Julie also recognized the community value of both students and parents feeling supported
by the process and ultimately leading to greater success. She said,
I think they feel supported. One, they feel supported. Two, you are giving them exactly
what they need to be successful. And then three, it's kind of a collaboration between all
the support systems that they have that appears in the classroom because it comes from
their psychologist. And then from that piece, then their parents know what their
accommodations are. So then being able to use the accommodations in the classrooms
and show that it's actually working to the parents, it makes them feel -- it makes them feel
supported. Then it definitely makes the kid feel supported because they know that when
they walk in they are going to have that little step up.
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

74
Julie showed an understanding of the value of stakeholder buy in regarding the work that the
school promoted in support of SLD and ADHD learners. This was especially relevant as the
school struggled to solidify its niche market amidst much independent school competition.
Faculty belief that accommodations are a necessary component in the success of their
students increases the likelihood of increased efficacy of implementation subsequent to
additional training to span the knowledge gap. A study by de Jesus and Lens (2005) found that
teacher goal value fueled by intrinsic motivation and success expectancy leads to positive teacher
engagement. The OA faculty interviewed expressed a sense of value with respect to the use of
accommodations in the classroom and a positive outlook on the prospect of expanding their
teaching practice in this area.
The above data suggested that faculty do not have a working understanding of
accommodations used to support SLD and ADHD students. Partial ability to define and sporadic
implementation of specific accommodations had allowed OA faculty to get by and generally
created an environment where students were successful. Indication of strong faculty motivation
by way of on target self-evaluation regarding knowledge of accommodations and
acknowledgement of the value that they provided sets the backdrop for later examination of the
organizational influences that promoted or inhibited this important stakeholder group’s goal
achievement.
Faculty knowledge and motivation regarding differentiated instruction
The interview data revealed that one out of the three participants produced a relatively
accurate definition of differentiated instruction. All three-faculty members mentioned learning
styles in their responses to the interview questions regarding knowledge of differentiated
instruction and two respondents placed the focus on learning styles as the primary methodology
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

75
of differentiation. Classroom observations found a few examples of differentiation and those
observed instances were not planned as mindful implementations of this methodology, but rather
occurred organically as a result of student needs at that time. Faculty knowledge of
differentiated instruction formed another foundational element of stakeholder goal achievement
as presented in the conceptual framework for this study. Ziegler (2017) described
personalization as the school having a primary locus of control over the educational programing
experienced by students. Given the market pressures on small independent schools and the
organizational goal of instructional personalization to set OA apart from the competition, the
faculty’s knowledge of differentiated instruction methodologies stood out as vitally important.
Defining differentiated instruction. Goddard and Kim (2018) defined differentiated
instruction as tailoring classroom instruction based on “use of assessments, student choice,
flexible grouping, and assignment selection based on students’ interests, needs, and skills” (p. 6).
In much the same manner as the findings showed the need for an increase in faculty working
knowledge of accommodations, the interview and observation data identified a similar need for
increased understanding with respect to differentiated instruction. When asked to define
differentiated instruction, Sebastien responded, “The first thing that comes to mind when I think
of differentiated instruction is the pedagogical standpoint of kind of different modalities as far as
visual learners, auditory learners, haptic learners and those things.” Sebastien then continued
into areas of student interest and developing relationships:
That they are going to learn, they are going to process things differently than you do.
And that may be that they process something visually differently than you do. It may be
that they process something more through orally. It may be that they process things that
they have to have their hands on and do all that type of stuff. But more importantly, it
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

76
could be any number of other things. And one of the things that I really like doing
with my students is I like to find out first and foremost who they are. . . . What do they
like? Because there are so many ways that we can relate our subjects to interests that
they have, that things are specifically about them and their identity. And I think that
when you play it like that, when you are able to kind of go to the kids' arena, go to their
home field and talk to them about things, I think that's what kids really, really like. I
think it demonstrates a rapport.
While Sebastien recognized multiple intelligences, student interest, and student choice as
relevant to the notion of differentiated instruction, his further expansion into teacher-student
relationships strayed from the definition and methodology of differentiation and indicated only a
partial knowledge of the subject. Sebastien summarized his feelings about the importance of
individualization:
And I think that knowing if your student is a visual learner or an auditory learner or a
haptic learner or any of these things is very, very important. But that is -- that's the
superficial surface of something that we've just gotten to. And even though there's a lot
of people that don't even pay attention to that and just want to teach everything on one-
size-fits-all type of mentality, I think that the modalities with the senses is right
underneath that kind of one size fits all, but I think that as a teacher I try to go much,
much deeper than that. You know, I don't want to teach one student as a visual learner. I
want to teach that student the way that individual student learns.
Sebastien emphasized meeting the student’s needs as an individual through a subtle dismissal of
the classroom practices associated with a deeper knowledge of differentiated instruction. His
responses indicated a tendency to rely on his perceived positive affective relationship with
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

77
students rather than engage in an inquiry into the specific teaching practices that would further
increase student outcomes.
Other participants also had similar surface level definitions of differentiation. Christina
simply stated, “Differentiated instruction is teaching one class at different levels at the same
time.” This peripherally described an aspect of differentiated instruction, but revealed the need
for a deeper understanding of this teaching practice. Also demonstrating the need for a more
precise knowledge regarding the definition of differentiation, Julie responded by saying:
I define it in a way of modifying lessons, modifying homework assignments, modifying
tests, assessments so that the child is able to -- that the child is able to produce and
produce to their full potential. So, yeah, like, being able to -- if I have to dictate a test, if
I have to blow something up, if I have to modify my tests and make it so it's only five
problems on the page instead of the 10 that are there. It's all about basically making that
child's individual academic experience better.
Julie once again blended the very different constructs of modifications and accommodations in
an attempt to describe the concept, but showed the need for expansion of her definition of
differentiated instruction. In much the same vein as their partial functional knowledge of
accommodations, two out of three faculty responses included some elements of differentiated
instruction, but showed the need for comprehensive working knowledge of the full
underpinnings of this teaching methodology. Additionally, the conceptual mixing of
accommodations, modifications, social emotional learning, and differentiation indicated a
piecemeal understanding of this topic. Fluency with both pedagogy and content are essential to
impactful teaching practices (Schulman, 1987). Pedagogy, in the case of this study was a
working understanding of the definition of differentiated instruction. Considering the partial
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

78
understanding of this teaching methodology, it is more likely that this needed area of
knowledge growth inhibited the OA faculty’s ability to fully, confidently, and creatively
implement differentiated instruction in their classrooms.
Implementation of differentiated instruction. Krathwohl (2002) said that procedural
knowledge shifts from knowing “about” to knowing “how,” referring to the ability to apply skills
situationally. This study sought to identify examples of classroom implementation of
differentiated instruction through observations and interviews. Data analysis of over 36 hours of
observations revealed only a few instances of differentiated instruction using varied grouping,
varied supplementary materials, and work with multiple intelligences. In addition to the
observation data, the results of the analysis of interview data ran the gamut from descriptions of
working with multiple intelligences and tiered lessons to misplaced references to
accommodations. Sebastien discussed addressing multiple intelligences using both visual and
auditory inputs:
With kids that both have kind of visual versus auditory learning styles and dyslexia
versus dysgraphia and things like that -- which brings Shakespeare back up to kind of a
salient point -- is that we'll read it first. And we read it in class so you still have kind of
the auditory processing and seeing what's on the page. . . . So making sure that they have
various kinds of channels to process it through, whether it's seeing the actors on the
screen, whether it's hearing and seeing their friends recite it, or whether it's reading
through the text itself. It's just kind of multiple ways the students can digest the stuff.
Sebastien showed some knowledge of implementation involving differentiating the class content
through multiple modality instruction. An observation vignette from Christina’s algebra class
showed one instance of differentiation. In this instance, the teacher handed a student a set of
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

79
blue tiles and gave verbal directions on building the equation. The teacher checked for correct
construction then directed the student to the whiteboard to complete the square (observation,
March 22, 2018). These observation field notes recorded during Christina’s Algebra class
described one instance of the use of plastic algebra tiles, in a one-on-one situation with a student,
as an appropriate differentiation example of varied supplementary materials and varied
groupings. In her interview, Christina gave the following example of differentiation:
So I'm teaching about slopes and lines in one of my classes, and I really want them to
understand how the slope goes through, how they can find the slope and use a point, use
these formulas and create a formula for a line. . . . So I teach it from a conceptual level
and I try and explain, like, this is how you use these. . . . And then the students who
understand that can go on on their own. And then the students who don't understand it, I
bring it down a level. These are the equations that you have to use and this is how you
use the material. And maybe you are not going to grasp the concepts right now, but I'm
going to show you how to use these tools that you have so that you can still solve the
problems and you can still see where they come from.
Christina described a tiered lesson from the mechanical to conceptual level and allowed students
showing mastery to move forward. This data was consistent with that observed in the classroom
and verified her knowledge of those differentiation methodologies.
An observation vignette from Julie’s science class noted another instance of
differentiation through formative assessment and varied grouping.
The teacher used Kahoot, an online quiz application, to give a formative assessment. A
student used a laptop to answer; scoring 50%. Four other students scored 85% or above.
The teacher directed them to work on presentations. She said, “Work independently or
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

80
in pairs on your human population presentations in Google Slides while I work with
REDACTED.” The teacher worked 1:1 with the first student to remediate and retest
(observation, March 22, 2018).
This evidence showed Julie’s functional knowledge of differentiation when the formative
assessment indicated that one out of the five students needed additional reinforcement of the
subject matter. She then exhibited another differentiated instruction technique through varied
grouping via one-on-one instruction with a student in tutorial fashion to further clarify the topic.
Julie’s interview response regarding examples of differentiated instruction vacillated between
descriptions of accommodations mixed with differentiation techniques. She said:
I was getting some crazy answers from a student that didn't make any sense so I pulled
them aside and I was, like, "Okay. What we're going to do is we're going to verbally do
this assignment." And I read the questions and then they answered it. And then I did
some guiding, not too much, but we did it verbally. And as they were answering the
questions, I was writing them down, writing down their answers. And then at the end of
it I was, like, "Okay. So this is actually what you answered." And they were blown away
by the fact that their answer was a lot longer than they usually do. And I was, like, "If
this is how -- if this is how we have to do your assignments, then this is how we do it." I
asked them if maybe their parent might be willing to scribe for them at home. You know,
because if writing is an issue, then there is ways we can get around it.
Julie also broached the subject of multiple intelligences during her interview, but referenced the
accommodations of oral testing and the use of a scribe in the same context. This indicated at
least some confusion regarding the similarities and differences between examples of
accommodations and differentiated instruction.
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

81
Tomlinson (1999) stated that it is common, sans directed training and follow up
support, to find a lack of teacher competence regarding the implementation of differentiated
instruction in a mixed-level classroom. Given the limited scope of pertinent responses,
occasional injection of an accommodation, and the omission of more detailed examples of
content, process, and product differentiation, it was surmised that OA faculty showed the need
for growth with respect to a comprehensive working understanding of implementation
methodology for differentiated instruction. At the organizational level, faculty competence in
the implementation of differentiated instruction formed an important component of the school’s
strategy in solidifying the niche market to serve SLD and ADHD students.
Self-evaluation. Rodgers (2002) stated that faculty need to go beyond notation and
evaluation of students’ classroom behaviors and spend time reflecting on their instructional
efficacy. Sebastien reflected on the level of his knowledge of differentiated instruction by
saying, “Much less than I'd like to know. I'd like to know much, much more about it. I would
say the bulk of my professional development while I've been here has been based around the fact
that I'm the REDACTED teacher, so I go to REDACTED conferences.” Sebastien’s focus on
curriculum content over instructional methodology specifically geared towards SLD and ADHD
learners was indicative of his experience with the content prevalent priorities of school
leadership.
Christina evaluated her abilities in the area of tiered instruction noting the difficulties
encountered when working with advanced learners. She said:
I feel like I'm pretty good at differentiating my instruction to help students who are
slower, and so I can differentiate down pretty well. Where I am challenged is when I
have a student who is grasping concepts very quickly and is excelling. I struggle to find a
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

82
way to differentiate up to them and to challenge them while still trying to help these
kids catch up at the bottom.
Christina’s recognition of the difficulty she experienced in trying to compensate for three or
more levels of learners showed her self-awareness of the need for future training. As a new
teacher, Christina actively reflected on her areas of growth and strength to direct the
development of her teaching practice.
Julie detailed the benefits of her experience as a tutor as she reflected on her knowledge
of differentiated instruction. Julie explained:
I would say when I started I really didn't know much. I mean, what I did, like, what I
learned in school -- because in New York the education program is part of the undergrad.
I learned about it, but to actually practice it and put it into practice was a much better
experience for me. I think tutoring math definitely has helped me. Tutoring and teaching
math has definitely helped me with looking at the different levels of differentiation and
being able to hit each student as best as possible. Because I want them to be challenged,
but I also don't want them to be overwhelmed.
Julie expressed awareness of her learning progression over the course of her career. She placed a
high cognitive value on tutoring as a means for her as an educator to learn about individualizing
content around student needs. The importance of each member of the faculty developing an
ongoing knowledge of their practice, in this case the evaluation of efficacy in providing
differentiated instruction, is a major factor in determining organizational progress toward
achievement of the stakeholder goals (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006; Shulman, 1987). OA
faculty recognized the need to deepen their knowledge of both the concepts and implementation
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

83
of differentiated instruction. Interview responses were limited in this context by the scope of
the faculty’s current working knowledge of differentiated instruction methodologies.
Value. Eccles (2006) broke down gauging the value associated with the expectation of
success by assessing an individual’s capacity for task completion and their willingness to engage
in that task. It was difficult to assess the OA faculty’s capacity for implementation of
differentiated instruction due to a lack of data available via the classroom observations and
interviews. However, the interview data clearly indicated the willingness to engage in
differentiation as the faculty members perceived the value in any teaching practice that added to
the potential for student success. During the interviews, I asked the three faculty members to
describe the value of differentiated instruction in supporting SLD and ADHD students.
Sebastien was vague in his response:
I think that sometimes we think that differentiated instruction is the end game. Like,
yeah, we're doing differentiated instruction. This is what it is. And there are sections of
differentiated instruction, whether you are teaching a student who has ADD, whether you
are teaching a student who has dyslexia, whether you are teaching a student who is
primarily a haptic learner or a visual learner or an auditory learner. But those are all just
kind of singular variables in the equation of how a kid best learns. And as a teacher, you
need to find out the values of all of the variables in their equation and you should be
addressing all of those all the time, and that should be your end game.
Sebastien briefly mentioned the value of assessing the various interventions in relation to student
outcomes, but minimized the relativistic role of differentiation in working with a special needs
population. This indicated a perceived lack of value he associated with differentiated instruction.
Sebastien explained:
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

84
Finding out not just that the student is dyslexic and they need help with reading or they
need help with having things said out loud to them or notes being given to them, but also
find out what their interests are, if there are other things they struggle with, if there was a
section or a course they had before that really discouraged their desire to learn what they
are doing. You have to learn everything that you can about your kids because every
single piece of information, everything that they open up to you is something that you
will be able to use to develop a rapport and make it so that you are somebody they feel
trust in and that you are somebody that they can see being a role model.
Sebastien added that individualization of learning is about much more than tiered instruction or
variable grouping, it depends on interpersonal connections. His responses indicated that the
value he saw came from the ability to form relationships enhanced by the low student to teacher
ratio rather than from specific teaching methodologies. Similarly, Christina recognized the value
in the positive self-perception of students regarding their capabilities as learners. She answered:
Well, everyone learns at a different speed. And like I said earlier, I think having a
differentiated instruction with all the students in the same classroom is really helping
with their confidence level and making them believe that they can learn what everybody
else is saying or what everyone else is learning at the same time.
Christina saw the value of differentiated instruction through the lens of increased student
confidence in their capacity to learn in an open and inclusive environment. The perceived value
acted as a motivating factor for Christina to engage in further efforts toward differentiation in her
classroom and professional development. Julie had a similar value response:
Well, it helps tap into their talents. Like, it really does help to I guess eliminate the
stressors that would trigger them, as well as to help them be the best student they could
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

85
possibly be. Because, I mean, that's the whole point of education is helping kids
blossom into learners. And if it means that they get a little extra help, then they get a
little extra help. This is what they need.
Julie highlighted the value of reduced stress as a means to empower students to succeed to their
potential. OA faculty clearly placed a high value on any practice or structure that increased
student outcomes and overall success. Eccles (2006) further described the final value of a task as
the participatory cost of the activity which may be perceived as potential anxiety, loss of self-
worth, social consequences of success or failure, discrimination, or loss of time. The need for
growth regarding the full working understanding of the methodologies behind implementation of
differentiated instruction created a situation where the relatively high participatory costs may
have caused the faculty responses to focus on the more familiar topics, such as the benefits of
teaching in a low student to teacher ratio environment and developing deep and lasting
relationship with students. Even though OA faculty were aware of the limitations of their
knowledge base, they saw the potential for differentiated instruction to be of value to their
teaching practice.
The analysis of data gathered via observations and interviews failed to validate the
assumed motivation influence of faculty attribution of low student outcomes to low faculty
efficacy in differentiated instruction. The limited number of instances of implemented
differentiated instruction observed in the classroom made determination of its impact on student
outcomes a moot point. Similarly, the faculty’s response to the attribution interview question
varied widely as they had minimal differentiated instruction experience to form the basis for
evaluating its impact on student outcomes.
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

86
The knowledge and motivation influences discussed thus far in relation to the first
research question had a direct interaction with the broader organizational context. Faculty
showed significant strength in the area of authentic care for their students. The challenge lay in
maintaining critical care with high expectations for all students. The data has shown that OA
faculty members would benefit from the development of a working understanding of
accommodations or differentiated instruction. However, they exhibited self-awareness that they
needed more knowledge in these areas, and that they primarily used low student to teacher ratios
and strong relationships to bolster student outcomes.
RQ 2: Organizational Culture and Context
This section will discuss the findings that relate to the second research question: What is
the interaction between the OA organizational culture and context, and faculty knowledge and
motivation, related to differentiation integrated with appropriate accommodations? The evidence
gathered through this inquiry process indicated that OA faculty members would benefit from a
significant increase in organizational support and professional development to improve their
knowledge of differentiation and accommodations and thus had not yet developed the ability to
consistently implement these concepts into their teaching practice. An additional theme was
found from data analysis as important to answer this research question; minimal organizational
support and professional development was an inhibiting factor in the improvement of faculty’s
working understanding of accommodations and differentiated instruction. This was an important
finding as identification of the potential root causes of the faculty knowledge gaps will help to
inform the direction of future actions taken by the school leadership toward achievement of the
organization and stakeholder goals. Krosgaard et al. (2002) presented thoughtfully designed
procedures as a key element in the evolution of stakeholder behavior in support of the
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

87
organizational goal. Further development of organizational procedures to promote faculty
knowledge and use of accommodations and differentiated instruction will be marked as a high
priority for OA.
Organizational influences
Although the OA faculty described a school culture that clearly accepted the niche of
capable students needing supports to facilitate achievement, the interview data characterized the
role of administration as only passively supportive of faculty and the niche population. Hendry
(1996) stated that leadership and management of effective organizations requires providing all
employees with the opportunity to acquire the tools and skills for success. The evidence pointed
to the administration’s reliance on faculty self-direction to initiate and accomplish the bulk of
professional development. Periodic faculty collaboration attempted to fill some of the gaps.
However, lack of consistency and continuity of this structure limited its usefulness. The study
data showed the need for a change in the school culture to stimulate a growth mindset in faculty
and feature active promotion by administration of appropriate teaching practices, such as UDL or
Multi-tiered System of Support (MTSS), geared towards increasing outcomes in SLD and
ADHD learners. These strategies and interventions focus on student needs rather than deficits
and can lead to a shared understanding indicating the need for cultural change within the school.
In this section, I will discuss the findings related to the contextual influence of the school culture,
leadership support, and collaborative organizational support on the faculty implementation of
differentiated instruction and accommodations. First, the analysis will show obvious faculty and
student acceptance of the niche population at the school, then the section will provide evidence
of leadership support needing to provide the additional training and resources necessary to
accomplish the organizational and stakeholder goals.
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

88
School culture. Examination of the OA cultural models and settings formed an
important backdrop for me to understand the faculty motivation to expand their knowledge and
ultimately seek training to fully implement accommodations and differentiated instruction in the
classroom. Rueda (2011) described cultural models as organizational beliefs, attitudes, and ways
of thinking, whereas cultural settings are the specific contexts that comprise the changeable
environments of daily life. Data gathered indicated faculty perception of a strong sense of
acceptance of the SLD and ADHD niche. When asked about the school culture as it related to
support of SLD and ADHD students, Sebastien replied:
One of my favorite things about OA is that I've heard numerous of our students refer to
us as kind of the land for misfit toys. . . . But at the same time, one of the things that I
love about it is that's kind of an edgy promontory from what you really see at OA, which
is so many of our students here have little eccentricities that to ridicule somebody for
their eccentricity is, in a bizarre way, actually going against the mainstream here.
Sebastien characterized the school culture as one of acceptance and safety for students who
“have little eccentricities” and learn differently. Of interest was the use of “misfit” as a
descriptor that carried with it the connotation of lack of acceptance due to a lack of conformity
running opposed to the expressed cultural setting. Sebastien continued:
The great thing is it's [the adoption of the niche market] not even something that OA
intends -- actively plans to do. We don't talk about it at faculty meetings, we don't talk
about it at all-school meetings, really, about how we're going to make it happen. The
kids here just really are kind to each other because I think that they understand that they
are all driving vehicles that have -- you know, may be missing a pedal, may be -- you
know, isn't configured exactly the way they want it to be, but they are all kind to each
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

89
other, they are all compassionate with one another. They can all empathize with each
other. The students here don't need sympathy because they are all in the same boat, and
it's very real for them. And I think that that is what OA does the absolute best, which is
unfortunate that it's the kids doing it.
Sebastien expanded on the lack of organizational intentionality regarding the full adoption of the
niche population. This added to the evidence of a need for additional leadership directionality
with respect to support of SLD and ADHD learners and the development of the niche market that
sustained the school.
Christina described the cultural setting as one where accommodations are the norm. She
commented:
I think accommodations are so mainstream at this school that it's not even really noticed.
People have extra time or people do written exams or they go to a different room for a
quiet space to take a test or they get extra support on written assignments. I mean, it's
just interwoven into the school culture. It's not something separate.
Christina identified the ubiquitous nature of accommodations in the cultural milieu of the school.
This provided additional evidence of a cultural setting that had already adopted accommodations
as a regular part of school operations. Similarly, Julie described the school culture as it applied
to support of SLD and ADHD students as:
Kids are pretty accepting because they know, like -- they are pretty aware that they know
that even though we're a small school, they know that we have students who either are on
the spectrum or have some severe dysgraphia or dyslexia. And everybody is pretty
accepting of it. I'd say every single kid at some point gets to the point where they know
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

90
that it's okay. They know it's okay to be different because everybody around them is
just as different as they are.
Julie’s response highlighted the student’s journey from recognition to acceptance of differences.
This further established the cultural norm among the stakeholders as having fully embraced the
SLD and ADHD population. Faculty acceptance of the market forces at work within the
changing student demographic was of primary importance in establishing the presence of a
motivating force for school leadership to support the faculty in teaching this niche population.
With data validation of faculty and student acceptance of the niche population at the school, the
study now looked for evidence of leadership support having provided the training and resources
necessary to accomplish the organizational and stakeholder goals. In this context, leadership
support took on great relevance as Agocs (1997) stated that resistance to change is frequently
anchored in habit and inertia, awareness of skill deficits, and fear of losing institutional status.
Having established faculty acceptance of change, self-awareness of skill deficits, and comfort
with the organizational status as a niche school, the study next focused on the influence that
school leadership had in promoting or inhibiting implementation of differentiated instruction
with integrated accommodations.
Leadership support. Moran and Brightman (2000) stressed the importance of alignment
between goals and the core elements of work processes, and promoted leadership’s involvement
as crucial to the development of successful organizational procedures. Interview data gathered
during this study indicated that faculty believed there was administrative support for the niche
demography. However, descriptions of administrative actions, or lack thereof, showed the need
for a more active leadership role in development of faculty excellence in teaching practices
specific to this student population. This indicated a need for greater alignment between the
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

91
organizational goals and work processes as demonstrated by the absence of leadership actions.
Sebastien described the transactional support for faculty through an administrative willingness to
pay for PD if a faculty member sought it out:
OA leadership has always been 100 percent supportive in any of the teachers going out
and seeking any type of learning with differentiation and those types of things. I've never
ever felt at this school that if I found something that was interesting or would be a good
conference or something for LD learners, that I wasn't prompted to go do it. EdRev, a lot
of the educational fairs and stuff, the administration has always done a good job of
pointing out to us that they exist and that they are fun and we should go and we have a
great time and they've done it before and that all that stuff exists.
Sebastien praised school leadership for a willingness to fund professional development if a
teacher asked for it. However, providing information on available learning opportunities differed
greatly from a leadership model that ensured, through equitable accountability measures,
continued professional growth in all stakeholders. Similarly, Christina described largely passive
OA leadership support as:
So I think the leadership's role with respect to support is to help the teachers implement
the different accommodations in the classroom, to provide resources for the teachers and
for the students, and to educate them on how to use the material that's available like when
the kids need to learn how to use their computer to type for them, for instance. Or to
provide educational opportunities for the teachers or professional development and stuff
like that.
Christina characterized a generally holistic approach to leadership support. She mentioned
assistance with implementation of accommodations and dissemination of opportunities for
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

92
teacher development. When asked to provide specific examples of administrative support,
Christina said:
Well, for computer things, we use technology a lot to help supplement for students who
need -- who have, like, dysgraphia issues and have trouble writing or have dyslexia issues
and have trouble reading. So they use technology to either type for them or to help them
write or to help them read. So it reads to them instead of having to read the material.
And so one of the leadership team is the person who helps the students learn how to use
that material.
In this instance, Christina discussed provisioning of resources and training for students rather
than faculty supports. These administrative actions had minimal impact and substantial room for
growth with respect to the betterment of faculty knowledge or skills with assistive technology.
Julie responded with the following characterization of current on-call administrative
support for parent meetings coupled with a historic reference to high-touch leadership
interactions with faculty that ceased nearly a decade ago. She said:
Well, I love the PDs that admin provides. I love the fact that if I need to call a meeting
with a parent and ask an admin there, they are more than willing to come in and
accommodate and take time out of their schedule. . . . And since we met every day . . .
we were able to talk about every single student and every single issue that came through
the door. So we knew a lot more of everybody's specific need and we sat with each
other. I mean, that's how we did progress reports. So when we sat all around the table
and we were just writing things on the progress report, you would look and be, like, "Oh,
my God! That happened with me in my classroom." Like, "What did you do?" So being
able to collaborate with co-workers and admin I think is always extremely helpful when it
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

93
comes to dealing with LD, other learning differences, because you don't know
everything, but somebody might have that secret gem.
Julie mixed leadership support for direct interaction with parents that occurred at the time of the
study with a nostalgic reference to long absent practices of daily staff meetings and hand-written
progress reports. The lack of observable evidence in the form of qualitative data gathered in this
study indicated that passive leadership support for faculty attainment of a working understanding
of accommodations and differentiation was not sufficient to increase teacher skills or behaviors
in implementing these critical teaching practices. Promoting active leadership, Harris (2002)
stated, “effective leadership was about capacity building in others and investing in the social
capital of the school” (p. 21).
Collaborative organizational support. Despite a partial reliance on peer collaboration
for professional growth, data from the interviews with OA faculty showed minimal structural
support for grade level/professional learning groups (PLG) and the need for additional time and
resources to make the concept function in a highly efficacious manner. When asked about recent
conversations that occurred in the professional learning groups, Sebastien said, “Well, we haven't
had much of that this year. I think that the professional learning group, I think we've met maybe
for a couple of quick sessions, possibly.” He continued, “I don't remember it really being the
focal point of anything that we've done specifically this year.” When asked about his perception
of the efficacy of the PLG, Sebastien commented, “I think that the PLG format is something that
was well intended and I think could be done successfully.” His use of the word “could” is
indicative of his position that it has not been done as successfully as is possible. Sebastien
continued by saying:
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

94
I would do the same thing, which is focus on the moving pieces that have a lot to do
with the school's long-time longevity and kind of let the faculty hold the course. And I
think that when you do that, taking up time with the administrators and facilitating PLG
groups is something that I think may have gone to the wayside as we're kind of dealing
with the storm of everything else.
Sebastien clarified his position on the lack of PLG interaction by indicating his understanding of
the administration’s need to prioritize. However, this data affirmed that leadership goals needed
increased focus on the mission critical area of support for faculty professional development.
This lack of prioritization was apparent when Christina, confused by the unfamiliar
nomenclature of PLGs asked for clarification on the interview question, “Like, during a staff
meeting or something? I don't know what you mean by Professional Learning Group. What's
the definition of Professional Learning Group?” After describing the concept to her, Christina
responded:
I mean, we talk about it [accommodations and differentiated instruction] a lot during
grade-level groups during staff meetings. Every week we break up and we talk. The
teachers who have the same kids all talk together about ways to support the kids or who
is having troubles and what they need from an advisor point of view and from a teacher
point of view, and then we can bring in the administration if we need their help as well.
And we often talk about learning challenges.
Christina described collaborative discussion of “ways to support the kids” as a feature of regular
weekly grade-level meetings. She also mentioned the availability of administrators for support if
needed. However, neither specifically and intentionally supports the faculty in their ability to
implement accommodations and to differentiate instruction.
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

95
Julie characterized the interactions of her PLG as motivational in the sense that the
flow of ideas between faculty members was inspirational and invigorating. She said:
It keeps me exposed to different strategies. It helps remind me of, you know, some
strategies that I have either been exposed to or forgotten. And it helps remind me that,
yeah, hello, I can't keep doing the same old thing every single day. I do have to mix it up
because there are different kids in my classroom and there's different learners. And I
have to remember that I need to cater to every single one. So being exposed to the PLGs
for me was just -- it's, like, a nice constant reminder of you got to be more on your toes,
you got to make sure that you switch it up, you gotta make sure that you are approaching
it from this angle and that angle and then bring it together. So for me, I like the
reminders. They act like reminders for me.
Julie commented on the role of the PLG and grade level groups as a “constant reminder of you
got to be more on your toes” as a motivating factor in refining her teaching practice. While
motivation forms an important facet of the collaborative process, the primary function of the
PLG should be to formulate actionable scenarios to support increased student outcomes. The
collaborative work of the faculty had partially offset the need for increased prioritization of
structured professional development by OA leadership. However, the sporadic meeting schedule
and open-ended framework constituted more consultative interaction on day-to-day occurrences
in the classroom than long-term professional development and faculty growth. Morrison and
Milliken (2000) stated that direct responsibility for all developmental and implementation phases
of change implementation lies solely on the management in charge of the process. In the case of
OA, the need for more proactive professional development and the relegation of direct
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

96
administrative involvement to periodic group discussions indicated a substantial need for
leadership to adequately facilitate the growth and change process at the school.
Additionally, this study sought to examine both the cultural model influence of faculty
belief that the benefits of implementing differentiated instruction outweighed the associated costs
of planning and implementing new teaching practices and the cultural setting influence of the
need for a clear administrative process for determining and communicating appropriate
accommodations for individual students to faculty members. With respect to both influences,
interview questions established that the faculty perceived a working knowledge and current
implementation regimen regarding accommodations and differentiated instruction that did not
actually exist. This need for a working knowledge of many aspects of these interventions and
teaching methodologies, very few observable instances of implementation in their teaching
practice, and vague interview responses combined to create a lack of data to validate these
influences. Further discussion will be included in the recommendations section of Chapter Five.
Synthesis
Clark and Estes (2008) stated that organizational culture plays a significant role in
ensuring that stakeholder knowledge and motivation influences remains at the forefront when
working towards achievement of the organizational goal. This study shed light on the many
factors unique to a small school setting such as: reliance on relationships and low student to
teacher ratios; gestalt versus data, and on-the-fly intuition versus structured delivery of lessons;
faculty independence from administrative oversight until issues arose; and the impact of directed
leadership or lack thereof. These factors added significant organizational relevance to faculty
knowledge and motivation around instructional methodology and support strategies making up
the faculty toolkit. The largely transactional nature of OA leadership had kept the organization
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

97
functioning in a relatively smooth fashion on a daily basis while leaving teachers on their own
to facilitate professional growth with uncertain benefits for success and minimal consequences if
they did not participate. However, interview responses indicated that faculty members were
ready to learn the requisite skills to increase the efficacy of their teaching practice. The findings
of this study indicated that the need for increased support and professional development provided
by school leadership was a primary factor in the inconsistent and partially effective attempts to
effectuate the organizational and stakeholder goals.

DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

98
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
This chapter discusses the third research question regarding the recommendations for
organizational practice in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources. The
majority of recommendations focus on providing training to increase faculty knowledge of
accommodations and differentiation and to improve faculty’s ability to self-evaluate the efficacy
of implementation. Similarly, there are recommendations for training that seek to increase
faculty motivation to incorporate differentiated instruction by providing benchmarking
information for similar schools that utilize differentiation to serve a population similar to that of
OA. At the organizational level, there are recommendations for administration to develop the
appropriate training to increase faculty capacity for implementation of differentiated instruction,
to develop a process to evaluate a student’s accommodation needs, and to accurately and
regularly communicate that information to faculty members.
The purpose of this project was to examine the factors that shaped whether and how
Omega Academy was achieving its stakeholder goal of 100% implementation of instructional
differentiation, integrated with appropriate accommodations, for students with SLD and
ADHD. This analysis focused on the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that
facilitated or impeded OA from reaching its organizational goals. While a complete evaluation
would focus on all OA stakeholders, for practical purposes the stakeholders of focus in this
analysis were all OA faculty.
As such, the questions that guided this evaluation study were the following:
1. What is the OA faculty knowledge of differentiation, integrated with appropriate
accommodations, and their motivation related to achieving this organizational goal?
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

99
2. What is the interaction between the OA organizational culture and context and faculty
knowledge and motivation related to differentiation integrated with appropriate
accommodations?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources?
This chapter divides into four sections that address the Implications for Practice,
Recommendations for Practice, Future Research, and Conclusion.
Implications for Practice
The efficacy of one-size-fits-all pedagogy is highly questionable in many learning
environments. Within one classroom teachers often have developing, average, and accelerated
learners, as well as those with learning disabilities, social emotional disorders, and unstable
living conditions. This creates a scenario where the goal of personalized learning stops being
something that would be nice to have, and starts taking the form of a necessity to achieve
equitable student outcomes. The development of teacher skills in the area of differentiated
instruction integrated with appropriate accommodations is a step in the right direction towards
the personalization of learning for all students. The results of this study have implications for
potential positive change in the field of education on the individual level, organizational level,
and at the societal level.
At the individual level, the results of this study may improve the knowledge and efficacy
of inclusive classroom teachers. Educators who serve diverse populations in inclusive
classrooms need to understand how to level the playing field for atypical learners as well as
design, from the ground up, lessons and activities that meet the needs of a wide range of
students. Accurate conceptual knowledge of what constitutes an accommodation lays the
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

100
foundation for equalizing the ways that SLD and ADHD students can reach their potential on
assignments and assessments. Procedural knowledge of implementation methodology for
classroom accommodations becomes a necessary item in an educator’s toolkit. Similarly,
conceptual knowledge regarding the components of differentiated instruction accompanied by
procedural knowledge of its implementation methodologies are vital in order for today’s
educators to construct lessons and activities that support the wide variety of learners in the
inclusive classroom. The results of this study indicate that a faculty knowledge gap regarding
accommodations and differentiated instruction on the part of the inclusive classroom teacher is
an inhibiting factor in solving the problem of an achievement gap for SLD and ADHD students.
At the organizational level, the results of this study have implications for positive school
change in the area of improving educational practice. Organizational support for teachers in the
inclusive classroom takes the shape of proactive direction by leadership, well-constructed
training, and scheduled periodic follow up meetings. The structures form additional critical
elements for sites seeking to personalize learning. This study took place at a setting primed for
all of these supports, yet achieving very few, if any of them. The faculty members felt generally
supported by site leadership, and yet were not incentivized nor held accountable in any
significant way for developing their teaching practices with respect to the use of differentiation
and accommodations with this niche population. Most significantly, the lack of organizational
support in the form of directed training in the use of accommodations, and the planning and
implementation of differentiated instruction, led the faculty to often inaccurately create their own
meaning out of their on-the-job experiences teaching this population. That incorrect meaning
resulted in those faculty members having faulty conceptual understandings of these important
features of the inclusive classroom. These misconceptions manifest themselves in a comfort
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

101
level with current practices that belied the need for additional knowledge and training in the
areas of differentiation and accommodations. In effect, these teachers did not know what they
did not know, and organizational leadership had no vehicle for ascertaining the existence of this
faculty knowledge deficit. The results of this study indicate that gaps in leadership support via
organizational direction, faculty training, and appropriate follow up regarding the
implementation of differentiated instruction integrated with appropriate accommodations, are
likely inhibiting factors in solving the problem of an achievement gap for SLD and ADHD
learners.
The results of this study may also have implications at the societal level. The research
and literature review for this study pointed out the inherent difficulties in the often-attempted
adaptation of existing content-based pedagogy to process-based methodologies such as
differentiated instruction. The most efficacious use of these teaching practices comes from a
ground-up new construction of lessons, activities, and assessments using concepts such as
Universal Design for Learning. The societal impact of this finding may be that our existing
educational structures may not benefit from incremental changes to practice and product, but
instead need a new start with an entirely different mindset of educators who will seek not to
teach content but to teach students.
Recommendations for Practice
This study found that two declarative conceptual knowledge gaps did exist for the faculty
being studied; faculty lacked a working understanding of both accommodations and
differentiated instruction. Exploration of faculty procedural knowledge gaps took place through
classroom observations that indicated a lack of understanding regarding the implementation of
accommodations and differentiated instruction. Similarly, in-depth interviews examined the
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

102
metacognitive knowledge gap with respect to faculty self-evaluation of their knowledge of
differentiation integrated with accommodations. Findings supported the existence in the faculty
studied for one out of the two motivational influence gaps: namely, faculty utility value was high
for the likelihood that accommodations and differentiation would increase student outcomes.
The other, faculty attribution of low student outcomes to low faculty efficacy in teaching via
differentiated instruction was not validated due to the lack of observable instances of
differentiated instruction and the lack of faculty knowledge of the underlying concepts.
Similarly, findings supported the existence in the faculty studied for one out of the three
organizational influences during this study. The gap occurred in the cultural setting of directed
actions by leadership to adopt a training structure in the concepts and implementation of
differentiated instruction integrated with appropriate accommodations. The cultural model of
faculty belief that the benefits of differentiated instruction outweighed the costs of ground up
construction of new unit plans incorporating these concepts was not supported due to a lack of
conceptual understanding on the part of faculty regarding differentiated instructional
methodology making that comparison inaccurate. Similarly, the study failed to confirm the
cultural setting influence of the lack of a clear process for determining accommodations for
students, due to a shortage of data regarding the faculty knowledge of appropriate
accommodations for SLD and ADHD learners.
Knowledge Recommendations
Introduction. This study used Krathwohl’s (2002) Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy to
organize the knowledge influences into three distinct categories: declarative knowledge that
mediates faculty understanding of accommodations and differentiated instruction, the procedural
knowledge that manages a faculty member’s ability to design and implement lessons
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

103
incorporating accommodations and differentiated instruction, and the metacognitive
knowledge that faculty must have to reflect upon and improve their teaching
practice. Assessment of faculty member’s conceptual declarative knowledge regarding
implementation methods for SLD and ADHD accommodations occurred through classroom
observations and interviews. Giving priority to this knowledge base was appropriate, as the
faculty in a predominantly SLD and ADHD school must exhibit accountability for meeting the
assessment needs for this specialized population. Giving faculty procedural knowledge of the
methods of integration of differentiated instruction priority was important due to the differential
in needs of learners at the developing, typical, and advanced levels found within every class.
Similarly, it is important to prioritize the metacognitive need for faculty to know how to reflect
upon their instructional implementation methodology and adjust their teaching practice
accordingly. Baker (2006) found that exercising regular metacognitive practice increases
learning. Regular reflective practice is likely to assist teachers in self-monitoring and self-
assessment of instructional strategies.
Declarative knowledge solutions. Declarative knowledge combines an understanding of
both the facts and the concepts pertaining to an event, project, or program. Aguinis and Kraiger
(2009) described personal facility with basic facts accompanied by understanding of direct and
ancillary benefits as knowing the “what” that comprises declarative knowledge. Clark and Estes
(2008) found that educational experiences instill in the individual knowledge that empowers
them to take on unanticipated issues and unique situations. My study findings suggested that
providing faculty with training activities in which they would evaluate a series of
accommodation implementation scenarios would support breadth in knowledge acquisition. In
this instance, the OA administration should provide training for the faculty involving several
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

104
classroom case studies for evaluation of appropriate accommodations, and should provide
collaborative feedback on the efficacy of their choices. With the failure to implement training
gaps in declarative knowledge will likely continue.
Scanlon and Baker (2012) presented a suite of skills necessary to evaluate and implement
accommodations in a given situation - preparation, provisioning, and evaluation. Schools
catering to the niche of atypical learners have a foundational need for their faculty to possess
these skills. In both the preparation and provisioning phases, educators must utilize knowledge
of implementation methods to plan and operationalize appropriate accommodations thereby
removing barriers to relevant skill assessment in SLD and ADHD students (Scanlon & Baker,
2012; Thompson et al., 2002).
Procedural knowledge solutions. Krathwohl (2002) defined procedural knowledge as
knowing “how” to get things done via specific skills, methods, and procedures. Based on
interview data, it was evident that OA faculty needs to know how to integrate strategies of
differentiation into classroom instruction in order to facilitate elevated student outcomes. Clark
and Estes (2008) found that training could be effective when students receive clear examples,
guided practice, and timely feedback to improve their performance outcomes. This suggested
that providing faculty with relevant training in small groups, led by experienced administrators,
and receiving peer review of the proposed integration methods would enhance procedural
expertise with respect to integrating differentiation into classroom instruction. To that end, OA
administration should incorporate pertinent elements of differentiated instruction methodology
into training that instructs faculty about the procedures used in designing differentiated lessons.
Breaking knowledge influences into components organized by the individual into
schemas relevant to specific situations promotes learning (Schraw & McCrudden,
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

105
2006). Several key elements make up a teacher’s “how to” knowledge of differentiated
instruction. Tomlinson (2003) outlined creating lessons that result in a learning environment
addressing the spectrum of cognitive readiness found in every classroom while leveraging
student preferences and interests to increase engagement. Addressing another element, Spencer
(2011) promoted the use of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) in the construction of student-
centric differentiated lessons. UDL constructs learning experiences via a multitude of concept
attainment and assessment methods applicable to learners at all levels (Tomlinson & McTighe,
2006). Training faculty in designing differentiated instruction based on learner variance and
UDL practice provides an effective tool for increasing student outcomes in the inclusive
classroom (Kurtts et al., 2009; Baldiris Navarro et al., 2016). This recommendation should help
increase germane cognitive load via schema construction, as well as manage intrinsic load, by
segmenting training on complex topics into digestible parts that enhance learning (Kirschner,
Kirschner & Paas, 2006).
Metacognitive knowledge solutions. Krathwohl (2002) defined metacognitive
knowledge as self-awareness of cognitive tasks. Data gathered through in-depth interviews
indicates that OA faculty needs to know how to self-evaluate their knowledge of the
implementation of differentiated instruction integrated with appropriate accommodations in the
classroom. Baker (2006) found gains in metacognition occurred when providing learners with
experiential opportunities to participate in guided self-assessment and monitoring. This
suggested that providing faculty members with training to self-evaluate their efficacy in
implementation of differentiated instruction over the course of the semester would increase
metacognitive outcomes. OA administration should conduct training to guide faculty in the self-
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

106
evaluation of their incorporation of the elements of UDL in the design of differentiated
instruction.
It is important to conduct training that facilitates individual growth through opportunities
for frequent self reflection, examination of personal practice, and promotion of measurable goal
setting (Dembo & Eaton, 2000; Clark & Estes, 2008). Schools often assume that one-size-fits-all
training carried out lecture-style on a large scale will be efficacious in faculty skill development
rather than using appropriate job aids and personalized feedback. Valli (1990) highlighted the
importance of teacher training on critical reflection to examine professional growth with respect
to ethical criteria such as equality of opportunity. Borgogni et al. (2011) suggested that balanced
feedback regarding faculty reflective practice skills lead to significant professional
growth. Additionally, Dixon et al. (2014) found teacher fluency with respect to metacognitive
processes predictive of success in implementing differentiated instruction. Therefore, faculty
may benefit from training in combination with relevant feedback in order to become more self-
reflective regarding their knowledge of implementation of differentiated instruction in the
classroom.
Motivation Recommendations
Introduction. During this study, the examination of motivation influences featured data
collected during classroom observations and faculty interviews. Support for these methods
comes from the literature review and motivation theory. Clark and Estes (2008) suggested that
individuals face three indices of motivation when performing a task: active choice, persistence,
and mental effort. The basis for the assumed motivational influences detailed in this study are
the motivational constructs of utility value and attribution. Despite the study’s support for only
one influence point to the need for the faculty to see the value in differentiated instruction for
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

107
SLD and ADHD students, it is important to give priority to both the value and attribution
influences as they work together to establish the usefulness of differentiation while motivating
the educator to take responsibility for student outcomes.
Utility value. OA faculty needs to see the value in differentiating instruction for students
with SLD or ADHD. Eccles (2006) found that the enhancement of learning and motivation took
place if the learner values the task. This suggests that providing faculty with credible and
successful models of differentiated instruction would foster a sense of positive value for the
task. The recommendation is for the school administrators to provide training that highlights
success stories of faculty at similar school settings providing engaging differentiated lessons,
which highlight the rationale for utilizing this teaching methodology.
Clark and Estes (2008) stated that perceived value of a task is a major contributory factor
that impacts motivation as shown by one’s choice to act, persistence towards completion, and
mental effort expended in the activity. More specifically, de Jesus and Lens (2005) posited that
teachers make value determinations based on expectations of internal and external efficacy,
control expectancy, and success expectancy that contribute to intrinsic motivation. Providing
training that models successful practices increases faculty capacity to make positive value
determinations based on observed student need. Similarly, Abrami (2004) found that elevated
expectations of programmatic success formed a precursor to the initiation of risk-taking
behaviors and persistence in task completion among educators. Theoretically, then, increasing
faculty perception of the utility value of differentiated instruction via modeling of successful
practices would increase the implementation of this methodology in their classrooms.
Attributions. Faculty should feel that low content knowledge proficiency is due in part
to their own lack of efficacy at differentiated instruction rather than largely attributed to students’
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

108
lack of ability. Anderman and Anderman (2009) found that enhancing learning and
motivation took place when individuals attribute success or failures to effort rather than ability.
This would suggest that inquiry into faculty beliefs regarding the reasons for student
performance would increase awareness of attribution-related factors in the determination of
educational outcomes. Despite the lack of verification during the study, this recommendation is
for the school administration to provide opportunities for faculty identification of root causes for
student success and failure, paying specific attention to effort, ability, luck, or bias, and
reflecting on the faculty’s role in facilitating these outcomes.
Jager and Denessen (2015) studied secondary school teacher attribution of low student
achievement. In a sample of 64 faculty members, they found student-related causal attributions
predominant in the teacher’s accounting for subpar student outcomes. Their findings pointed to
the teacher’s need to preserve a positive self-image as contributory to the lack of ascription of
“instructional quality” as casual for low student achievement. Wieman and Welsh (2016)
studied survey responses from 180-math and science faculty at a large research university and
found that the educators attributed “internal student deficiencies” as the major barrier to student
learning. Given that the data originated from one of the most selective public universities in
North America, Wieman and Welsh (2016) view citing student deficiencies as the greatest
barrier to learning as an “example of the fundamental attribution error of psychology” (Wieman
& Welsh, 2016). These findings suggested that possible attribution error on the part of faculty
contributes to the low levels of motivation to examine the need for pedagogical changes to
increase student outcomes. Thus, it is likely that increasing faculty awareness of the causal
attribution of the impact teaching practices have on low student achievement would increase
faculty motivation to evaluate the efficacy of the methodology employed.
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

109

Organization Recommendations
Introduction. Critical factors that create barriers to change may be endemic in the
structure of an organization. Possible obstacles may include inadequate resources or unclear
procedures (Clark & Estes, 2008). Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) identified two categories
of organizational influences on stakeholder performance - cultural models and cultural
settings. This framework details the influences of intangible belief systems as they interact with
the more tangible resource structures found within an organization. A combination of individual
beliefs, perceptions, and goals as applied through the interfacing of culture models and settings
have a major impact on organizational learning and performance (Gallimore & Goldenberg,
2001). Classroom observations and faculty interviews supported the need for additional resource
allocations in the form of trainings to build teacher capacity to differentiate instruction and
lacked sufficient data for verification of the need for the administration to develop a structured
process for evaluating and communicating appropriate accommodations on a student-by-student
basis.
Cultural settings. School administrators have not provided adequate professional
development that the faculty needs to appropriately implement differentiated instruction in their
classrooms. Waters, Marzano, and McNulty (2003) stated that school leadership is an important
factor in building capacity and student achievement. This suggests that school administrators
must ensure, through training and other professional development opportunities, that faculty
members have the capacity and skills required to implement differentiated instruction in the
classroom. Based on this information, this study recommends school administration develop and
conduct a series of trainings as suggested by Tomlinson (1999) on the use of instructional and
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

110
management strategies such as addressing multiple intelligences, varying organizers, varying
supplementary materials, use of tiered lessons and products, small-group instruction, varied
questioning strategies, interest groups, and varied homework, all designed to increase faculty
capacity to implement differentiated instruction into their inclusive classrooms.
Hendry (1996) stated that effective leadership and management of organizations
mandates the provisioning of employees with the requisite opportunity to learn the skills and
tools for success. This furthers the notion that OA faculty can benefit from additional training
that increases their ability to research and implement appropriate methods of differentiated
instruction. The research supports the recommendation for additional training to increase
faculty’s capacity to implement differentiated instruction in their classrooms.
Cultural settings. Faculty interviews and observations failed to validate the lack of a
school-wide clearly articulated process for determining appropriate accommodations for SLD
and ADHD learners as an organizational influence. Nevertheless, this gap in the resources
provided to faculty indicated a future need for this structure. Clark and Estes (2008) stated that
organizational processes and structures must be aligned with or supportive of the goals and
values of the site. To meet the organizational goal of increased student outcomes, OA should
clearly articulate a student’s necessary learning accommodations to faculty via documentation in
the student’s individualized learning plan and discussed during a meeting with the Learning
Support Coordinator before the beginning of each school year.
For the school to elevate student outcomes through the appropriate implementation of
classroom accommodations for SLD and ADHD learners, organizational structures must be in
place to support faculty in accomplishing this task. Krosgaard et al. (2002) stated that well-
defined procedures are a vital element in changing stakeholder behavior to effectuate an
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

111
organizational goal. Additionally, reliance on leadership mandates alone to promote change
is unlikely to be successful unless shored up by well-structured procedures (Schneider et al.,
1996). Finally, the responsibility for development and implementation of change management
processes lies directly with the organizational leadership (Morrison & Milliken, 2000). These
studies indicate that systematizing the management and implementation processes surrounding
the implementation of SLD and ADHD learner accommodations should positively influence
student outcomes at the school. The research literature supports the recommendation for clear
articulation and documentation of necessary student accommodations in a way that is accessible
to faculty members.
Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation. School administration should
consider the utilization of training evaluation surveys for gathering data in the areas of
engagement, relevance, and teacher satisfaction. Faculty would complete a brief survey
(Appendix D) regarding the usefulness of the newly acquired skills and learning in their teaching
context, their capacity to implement the knowledge and skills in the classroom, and their overall
feelings about the training. Post program collection of engagement, relevance, and teacher
satisfaction data would continue with review of administrative observations of faculty during
training and content analysis of case study and unit plan drafts.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. At approximately three, six,
and nine-month intervals after the training program implementation, a Blended Evaluation
survey (Appendix E) should be given to all faculty. This survey would assess faculty satisfaction
with the training experience, faculty-indicated achievement of learning goals, evidence of the
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

112
application of learning regarding the classroom implementation of accommodations and
differentiated instruction, and faculty-indicated evidence of commitment to goal achievement.
Data Analysis and Reporting
The goals of increased faculty implementation of accommodations to support SLD and
ADHD learners and inclusion of differentiated instruction methodologies in a greater number of
unit plans should be tracked by administration on a monthly basis. Administrators would
monitor the observed instances of implementation through faculty self-reporting, periodic pop-in
observations, and twice yearly structured observations. Additionally, administrators would
review faculty unit plans on a monthly basis keeping an eye out for evidence of integrated
accommodations and differentiated instruction. A tracking system would consist of a Google
Sheet (shared with the administrative team and faculty member) listing the critical behaviors and
learning goals and recording the dates, class, observer/recorder (administrator or faculty) and
implementation notes for each faculty member. This would provide visual data regarding
month-to-month trends using the chart function and will assist both faculty and administration in
tracking growth or lack thereof. Administration would maintain a master Google Sheet shared
with the leadership team and note each faculty member’s progress on their critical behaviors and
learning goals.
Future Research
Closing the high school achievement gap for SLD and ADHD learners is a problem of
practice on an enormous scale. This study’s examination of the specific issues facing the small
number of faculty members attempting to differentiate instruction and implement
accommodations at OA does not diminish the need for future research. The limitations
associated with conducting research of such narrow focus at a small niche school increases the
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

113
likelihood of the sample producing incomplete, insufficient, or conflicting data as well as the
possibility of ambiguous results. Extending the sample data to include faculty at a broad range
of public and private high schools of varying sizes across the United States that incorporate
differentiated instruction in an inclusive classroom environment would lead to a more
generalizable result. The application of recommendations from such a study could influence
many schools seeking to increase their efficacy in the implementation of differentiated
instruction and accommodations into their high school programs.
Another avenue for research rests within the gap that exists between theory and practice
connecting faculty knowledge of interventions and strategies to their motivation to invest in
change. A combined examination of those influences plus the impact of organizational culture
and the sociopolitical context and power aimed towards implementation of equitable and
effective teaching practices connected to UDL and/or MTSS would likely shed light on the
complex relationships that seemingly stand in the way of change. Once identified, those
connections between the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences could then be
used to facilitate more impactful professional development for educators.
An additional recommendation for future research would be to incorporate the impact of
student to teacher ratios on the efficacy of implementation of differentiated instruction and
accommodations to support SLD and ADHD learners. This factor is the primary differentiator
that already exists between public schools with an approximate ratio of 35-40 to one, parochial
schools at 25-35 to one, and private schools at approximately a 10 to one student to teacher ratio.
As noted in my study, the low 8 to one ratio of my site added to the likelihood of increased
student outcomes with or without appropriate implementation of accommodations and
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

114
differentiation. Future study could isolate this variable and seek to determine if ratios alone
could bridge the majority of the achievement gap for SLD and ADHD students.
Finally, while the comorbidity rate is often very high, future research could separate the
interventions used to support students diagnosed with processing-based Specific Learning
Disabilities versus those support structures deemed suitable for the attention-based issues
associated with ADHD. The study could look for common threads among the elements of
classroom pedagogy, interventions, and accommodations to see if a research oriented hybrid
support model existed.
Conclusion
Omega Academy’s mission is to provide a safe diverse community that engages smart
young people to be true to themselves, while building moral character, academic intellect, and
inspired creativity (“ABOUT”, n.d.). OA’s organizational goal is to achieve 100%
personalization of academic programs through the implementation of differentiated instruction
integrated with appropriate accommodations to support increased achievement in students with
SLD and ADHD by December 2019. At the time fo the study, OA struggled to stay competitive
in attracting and retaining the niche students and their families. As a diagnosis of SLD and
ADHD describes a majority of the student population, it is of critical importance to develop and
refine programmatic customizations that will best serve the current student body (Omega
Academy, 2017). This study examined the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors
that promote or inhibit OA faculty in the implementation of instructional differentiation,
integrated with appropriate accommodations, to increase educational outcomes in students with
SLD and ADHD. Faculty stakeholders are the primary drivers behind student success and serve
a critical role in the educational achievement of learners in support of the OA mission. The
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

115
proposed recommendations anticipate increased faculty capacity to identify appropriate
accommodations, construct unit plans integrating differentiated instruction, and implement the
same in their classrooms. Follow through on the proposed recommendations are likely to bring
about the desired faculty results.
This study represents one step on a long journey towards closing the achievement gap for
SLD and ADHD learners. Use of the findings and recommendations from this study may be
relevant as a model for other organizations to conduct more extensive and generalizable research
in this much-needed area of inquiry. I am hopeful that as the diversity of learners continues to
grow in schools across the country, the methodologies detailed in this study that seek to create
equity among students of differing abilities find a more widespread acceptance and utilization at
the high school level.

DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

116
REFERENCES
Abedi, J., Bayley, R., Ewers, N., Mundhenk, K., Leon, S., Kao, J., & Herman, J. (2012).
Accessible reading assessments for students with disabilities. International Journal of
Disability, Development and Education, 59(1), 81-95.
ABOUT US: MISSION. (n.d.). Retrieved October 04, 2016, from school website: URL not
provided to preserve anonymity of site.
Abrami, P. (2004). Teacher motivation to implement an educational innovation: Factors
differentiating users and non-users of cooperative learning. Educational
Psychology,24(2), 201.
Agocs, C. (1997). Institutionalized resistance to organizational change: Denial, inaction, and
repression. Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 917-931.
Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and
teams, organizations, and society. Annual review of psychology, 60, 451-474.
Anderman, E., & Anderman, L. (2006). Attributions. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/attribution-theory/.
Baker, L. (2006). Metacognition. Retrieved from http://www.education.com/reference/article/
metacognition/.
Baldiris Navarro, S., Zervas, P., Fabregat Gesa, R., & Sampson, D. G. (2016). Developing
Teachers’ Competences for Designing Inclusive Learning Experiences. Educational
Technology & Society, 19(1), 17–27.
Beecher, M., & Sweeny, S. M. (2008). Closing the achievement gap with curriculum enrichment
and differentiation: One school's story. Journal of Advanced Academics, 19(3), 502-530,
551, 554.
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

117
Berbarry, D., & Malinchak, A. (2011). Connected and engaged: The value of government
learning. The Public Manager, Fall, 55-59.
Birnie, B. F. (2015). Making the case for differentiation. The Clearing House: A Journal of
Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 88(2), 62-65.
Blaz, D. (2013). Differentiated instruction: A guide for foreign language teachers. Routledge.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Borgogni, L., Russo S. D., & Latham, G. P. (2011). The relationship of employee perceptions of
the immediate supervisor and top management with collective efficacy. Journal of
Leadership and Organizational Studies, 18, 5–13. doi:10.1177/1548051810379799.
Boyle, C., Topping, K., & Jindal-Snape, D. (2013). Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion in high
schools. Teachers and Teaching, 19(5), 527-542.
Brooks, F. (1953). A faculty meets the needs of pupils. Educational leadership, 11(3), 174-178.
Brundage, E. (1953). Teaching the individual adolescent. Educational leadership, 11(3), 147-
151.
Bruno, R., Ashby, S., & Manzo, F. (2012). Beyond the classroom: An analysis of a Chicago
Public School teacher’s actual workday. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
April, 9.
Byrnes, M. (2008). Educators' interpretations of ambiguous accommodations. Remedial and
Special Education, 29(5), 306-315.
Cho, S., & Reich, G. A. (2008). New immigrants, new challenges: High school social studies
teachers and English language learner instruction. The Social Studies, 99(6), 235-242.
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

118
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Chapter 8: Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (pp. 151-161). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Danforth, S. s., & Naraian, S. (2015). This New Field of Inclusive Education: Beginning a
Dialogue on Conceptual Foundations. Intellectual & Developmental Disabilities, 53(1),
70-85. doi:10.1352/1934-9556-53.1.70.
de Jesus, S. N., & Lens, W. (2005). An integrated model for the study of teacher
motivation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54(1), 119-134.
Dembo, M., & Eaton, M. J. (2000). Self-regulation of academic learning in middle-level schools.
The Elementary School Journal, 100, 473–490.
Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2006). Social cognitive theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/social-cognitive-theory/.
Dixon, F. A., Yssel, N., McConnell, J. M., & Hardin, T. (2014). Differentiated Instruction,
Professional Development, and Teacher Efficacy. Journal For The Education Of The
Gifted, 37(2), 111-127.
Doubet, K. d. (2012). Formative assessment jump-starts a middle grades differentiation
initiative. Middle School Journal, 43(3), 32-38.
Durik, A. M., Shechter, O. G., Noh, M., Rozek, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2015). What if I
can’t? Success expectancies moderate the effects of utility value information on
situational interest and performance. Motivation and Emotion, 39, 104–118.
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/.
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

119
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement, Washington,
DC: Albert Shanker Institute. Retrieved July 12, 2003, from
http://www.shankerinstitute.org/resource/bridging-gap-between-standards-and-
achievement.
Engel, A. M. (1953). The challenge of the slow learning child. Educational leadership, 11(3),
151-155.
Ernest, J. M., Thompson, S. E., Heckaman, K. A., Hull, K., & Yates, J. (2011). Effects and social
validity of differentiated instruction on student outcomes for special educators. The
Journal of the International Association of Special Education, 33.
Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, Pub. L. 114-95, §§ 2244.
Fore, C., III, Hagan-Burke, S., Burke, M., Boon, R.T., & Smith, S. (2008). Academic
achievement and class placement in high school: Do students with learning disabilities
achieve more in one class placement than another? Education & Treatment of Children,
31(1), 55-72.
Freese, T. (1953). The challenge of the gifted child. Educational leadership, 11(3), 156-159.
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. N. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational
Psychologist, 36(1), 45-56.
Giofrè, D. d., & Cornoldi, C. (2015). The structure of intelligence in children with specific
learning disabilities is different as compared to typically development children.
Intelligence, 5236-43. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2015.07.002.
Glesne, C. (2011). Chapter 6: But is it ethical? Considering what is “right.” In Becoming
qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.) (pp. 162-183). Boston, MA: Pearson.
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

120
Goddard, Y. L., & Minjung, K. (2018). Examining Connections Between Teacher
Perceptions of Collaboration, Differentiated Instruction, and Teacher Efficacy. Teachers
College Record, 120(1), 90-103.
Gregory, G. H., & Chapman, C. (2002). Differentiated instructional strategies: One size doesn't
fit all. Corwin press.
Gutierez, S. B. (2015). Teachers' Reflective Practice in Lesson Study: A Tool for Improving
Instructional Practice. Alberta Journal Of Educational Research, 61(3), 314-328.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Tibbetts, Y, Canning, E. A., & Hyde, J. S. (2014). Harnessing values to
promote motivation in education. In S. Karabenick & T. Urden (Eds.), Motivational
interventions, advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 18, pp. 71–105). Bingley,
United Kingdom: Emerald Group Publishing.
Harris, A. (2002). Effective leadership in schools facing challenging contexts. School Leadership
& Management, 22(1), 15.
Harrison, J. R., Bunford, N., Evans, S. W., & Owens, J. S. (2013). Educational accommodations
for students with behavioral challenges: A systematic review of the literature. Review of
Educational Research, 83(4), 551-597.
Hendry, C. (1996). Understanding and creating whole organizational change through learning
theory. Human Relations, 49(5), 621-641.
Hollenbeck, K. L., Tindal, G., & Almond, P. (1998). Teachers' knowledge of accommodations as
a validity issue in high-stakes testing. Journal Of Special Education, 32(3), 175-183.
doi:10.1177/002246699803200304.
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

121
Holzberger, D., Philipp, A., & Kunter, M. (2013). How teachers’ self-efficacy is related to
instructional quality: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3),
774.
Hulleman, C. S., Godes, O., Hendricks, B. L., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2010). Enhancing interest
and performance with a utility value intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology,
102, 880–895.
Husman, J., Derryberry, W., Crowson, H., & Lomax, R. (2004). Instrumentality, task value, and
intrinsic motivation: Making sense of their independent interdependence. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 29, 63–76.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).
Jager, L., & Denessen, E. (2015). Within-teacher variation of causal attributions of low
achieving students. Social Psychology of Education : An International Journal, 18(3),
517-530.
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. Retrieved
from http://aem.cast.org/binaries/content/assets/common/publications/aem/ncac-
curriculum-access-role-iep-2004.docx.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Alexandria, VA: ATD Press.
Kirschner, P., Kirschner, F., & Paas, F. (2006). Cognitive load theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/cognitive-load-theory/.
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

122
Komarraju, M., Ramsey, A., & Rinella, V. (2013). Cognitive and non-cognitive predictors of
college readiness and performance: Role of academic discipline. Learning and Individual
Differences, 24, 103-109.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into
practice, 41(4), 212-218.
Krosgaard, M. A., Brodt, S. E., & Whitener, E. M. (2002). Trust in the face of conflict: The role
of managerial trustworthy behavior and organizational context. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87(2), 312.
Kurtts, S. A., Matthews, C. E., & Smallwood, T. (2009). (Dis)solving the
differences. Intervention in School and Clinic, 44(3), 151-159.
Langa, M. A., & Yost, J. L. (2006). Curriculum mapping for differentiated instruction, K-8.
Corwin Press.
Lawrence-Brown, D. (2004). Differentiated instruction: Inclusive strategies for standards-based
learning that benefit the whole class. American secondary education, 34-62.
MacArthur, C. A., & Cavalier, A. R. (2004). Dictation and speech recognition technology as test
accommodations. Exceptional Children, 71(1), 43.
Maccini, P., & Gagnon, J. C. (2006). Mathematics instructional practices and assessment
accommodations by secondary special and general educators. Exceptional
Children, 72(2), 217.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

123
McEwan, E. K., & McEwan, P. J. (2003). Making sense of research: What's good, what's
not, and how to tell the difference. Corwin Press.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Moran, J., & Brightman, B. (2000). Leading organizational change, Journal of Workplace
Learning: Employee Counseling Today, 12(2), 66-74.
Morgan, J. L. (2016). Reshaping the role of a special educator into a collaborative learning
specialist. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 12(1), 40-60.
Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and
development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management review, 25(4), 706-725.
National Center for Education Statistics (2013). Retrieved January 3, 2017, from
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=59.
Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A
model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education,
31(2), 199-218.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. PL 107-110 (2001). Retrieved December 7, 2016, from
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html.
Nordlund, M. (2003). Differentiated instruction: Meeting the needs of all students in your
classroom. R&L Education.
Omega Academy History. (n.d.). Retrieved October 04, 2016, from school website: URL not
provided to preserve anonymity of site.
Omega Academy. (2011). WASC Focus on Learning Self-Study Report 2010-2011.
Omega Academy. (2017). WASC Focus on Learning Self-Study Report 2016-2017.
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

124
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/.
Parker, D. H., King, R., & Holt, R. A. (1953). Matching ten reading levels in one
classroom. Educational leadership, 11(3), 178-184.
Parker, J. C., & Russell, D. H. (1953). Ways of providing for individual differences. Educational
leadership, 11(3), 168-174.
Pas, E. T., Bradshaw, C. P., & Hershfeldt, P. A. (2012). Teacher- and school-level predictors of
teacher efficacy and burnout: Identifying potential areas for support. Journal of School
Psychology, 50(1), 129-145.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications.
Pettig, K. L. (2000). On the road to differentiated practice. Educational leadership, 58(1), 14-18.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667–686.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667.
Reitano, P., & Sim, C. (2010). The value of video in professional development to promote
teacher reflective practices. International Journal Of Multiple Research
Approaches, 4(3), 214-224. doi:10.5172/mra.2010.4.3.214.
Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1997). The schoolwide enrichment model: A how-to guide for
educational excellence. Creative Learning Press, Inc., PO Box 320, Mansfield, CT
06250.
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

125
Richardson, P. W., & Watt, H. M. (2010). Current and future directions in teacher motivation
research. In The decade ahead: Applications and contexts of motivation and
achievement (pp. 139-173). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Rieck, W. A., & Wadsworth, D. D. (2005). Assessment Accommodations: Helping Students
With Exceptional Learning Needs. Intervention In School & Clinic, 41(2), 105-109.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Chapter 6: Conversational partnerships. In Qualitative
interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.) (pp. 85-92). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Scanlon, D., & Baker, D. (2012). An accommodations model for the secondary inclusive
classroom. Learning Disability Quarterly, 35(4), 212-224.
Schein, E.H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schneider, B., Brief, A. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1996). Creating a climate and culture for sustainable
organizational change. Organizational dynamics, 24(4), 7-19.Schraw, G., & McCrudden,
M. (2006). Information processing theory. Retrieved from http://
www.education.com/reference/article/information-processing-theory/.
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory. Retrieved from http://
www.education.com/reference/article/information-processing-theory/.
Schumm, J. S., & Vaughn, S. (1991). Making adaptations for mainstreamed students: General
classroom teachers' perspectives. Remedial and Special Education (RASE), 12(4), 18-27.
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
educational review, 57(1), 1-23.
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

126
Spencer, S. s. (2011). Universal Design for Learning: Assistance for Teachers in Today's
Inclusive Classrooms. Interdisciplinary Journal Of Teaching & Learning, 1(1), 10-22.
Stelzig, M. (1953). How johnny learned to join his group. Educational leadership, 11(3), 160-
167.
Thompson, S., Blount, A., & Thurlow, M. (2002). A summary of research on the effects of test
accommodations: 1999 through 2001 (Technical Report 34). Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Thompson, S. J., Lazarus, S. S., Thurlow, M. L., & Clapper, A. T. (2005). The role of
accommodations in educational accountability systems. topical review eight. Educational
Policy Reform Research Institute. 1308 Benjamin Building, University of Maryland,
College Park, MD 20742.
Thurlow, M. t. (2014). Accommodation for Challenge, Diversity and Variance in Human
Characteristics. Journal Of Negro Education, 83(4), 442-464.
Thurlow, M., & Bolt, S. (2001). Empirical support for accommodations most often allowed in
state policy. synthesis report. National Center on Educational Outcomes, Univ. of
Minnesota, 350 Elliott Hall, 75 East River Rd., Minneapolis, MN 55455.
Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). Mapping a route toward differentiated instruction. Educational
Leadership, 57, 12–16.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2003). Deciding to teach them all. Educational Leadership, 61(2), 6-11.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2005). Grading and differentiation: paradox or good practice?. Theory into
practice, 44(3), 262-269.
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

127
Tomlinson, C. A., & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating differentiated instruction and
understanding by design: Connecting content and kids. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and
measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202-248.
U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse. (2014). IDEA Part B Child Count and
Educational Environments Collection (OMB #1875-0240). Retrieved May 7, 2016, from
https://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/2016/parts-b-c/38th-arc-for-idea.pdf.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). 2011-12
Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study, First Follow-up (BPS:12/14),
NCES 2016-062.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). Public High
School Four-Year OnTime Graduation Rates and Event Dropout Rates: School Years
2010– 11 and 2011–12, 2014, NCES 2014-391.
U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (2012). Civil Rights Data Collection,
2011-12. Retrieved May 7, 2016, from http://ocrdata.ed.gov.
Valli, L. (1997). Listening to other voices: A description of teacher reflection in the united
states. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(1), 67-88.
Vasquez, O. o. (2006). A Pedagogy of the Future. Pedagogies, 1(1), 43-48.
doi:10.1207/s15544818ped0101_7.
Visser, S. s., Danielson, M. L., Bitsko, R. H., Holbrook, J. R., Kogan, M. D., Ghandour, R. M.,
& ... Blumberg, S. J. (2014). Trends in the Parent-Report of Health Care Provider-
Diagnosed and Medicated Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: United States, 2003-
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

128
2011. Journal Of The American Academy Of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 53(1),
34-46.
Washburne, C. W. (1953). Adjusting the program to the child. Educational leadership, 11(3),
138-147.
Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of
research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Aurora, CO: Mid-
continent Research for Education and Learning.Weiner, B. (1972). Attribution theory,
achievement motivation, and the educational process. Review of educational
research, 42(2), 203-215.
Weiner, H. M. (2003). Effective inclusion: Professional development in the context of the
classroom. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(6), 12-18.
Westberg, K., & Archambault, F. (1997). A Multi-Site Case Study of Successful Classroom
Practices for High Ability Students. The Gifted Child Newsletter., 41(1), 42.
Wieman, C. c., & Welsh, A. (2016). The Connection Between Teaching Methods and Attribution
Errors. Educational Psychology Review, 28(3), 645-648.
Williford, A. M. (2009). Secondary school course grades and success in college. College and
University, 85(1), 22-33.
Wu, E. H. (2013). The path leading to differentiation: An interview with Carol
Tomlinson. Journal of Advanced Academics, 24(2), 125-133.
Yough, M., & Anderman, E. (2006). Goal orientation theory. Retrieved from http://www.
education.com/reference/article/goal-orientation-theory/.
Young, K., & Luttenegger, K. (2014). Planning "lessons for everybody" in secondary
classrooms. American Secondary Education, 43(1), 25-32.
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

129
Ziegler, S. (2017). Personalization and competition in elite schools in buenos aires: School
strategies for the production and legitimization of dominant groups. Journal of Education
and Work, 30(2), 145-155.

DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

130

TIME

APPENDIX A
Observation Protocol

Dissertation Research Observation No.______
Omega Academy
Classroom Observation Protocol
(TO BE COMPLETED DURING OBSERVATION)

Teacher Name ____________________________
School ____________________________
Grade Level ____________________________
Observer ____________________________
Date ____________________________

In a narrative, describe the activities taking place in the classroom. Focus on teacher to student(s),
and student reactions as well as activities of individual students. A narrative requires that you
directly quote the teacher as he/she asks questions, models learning strategies, presents material, and
works with students in small group, large group, or individually. Additionally, document any
evidence of extended time allowed for assignments/assessments, the use of a scribe, notes provide,
preferential seating, oral responses/assessments, etc. Finally, document student engagement in
response to the teacher, as well as individual or group work and non-work activities.
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________

DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

131

TIME

TIME

__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________

DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

132
(TO BE COMPLETED POST-OBSERVATION)

Accommodations Observed:

1. ______________________________________________________________________________

2. ______________________________________________________________________________

3. ______________________________________________________________________________
4. ______________________________________________________________________________
5. ______________________________________________________________________________

Differentiation Activity Description (if any):

1. Time spent on the activity: Start End ___Total Minutes:______________

2. Activity and materials: ___________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
3. Were accommodations incorporated into the activity? Yes No
4. Was the activity appropriately represented on the LMS? Yes No
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

133
APPENDIX B
Interview Protocol

I. Introduction (Appreciation, Purpose, Line of Inquiry, Plan, Confidentiality, Reciprocity,
Consent to Participate, Permission to Record):

Thank you for agreeing to participate in my study. I appreciate the time that you have set aside
to answer some of my questions. The interview should take about an hour, does that work for
you?

Before we get started, I want to provide you with an overview of my study and answer any
questions you might have about participating in this interview. I am a doctoral student in the
Organizational Change and Leadership program at the USC Rossier School of Education and
conducting a study on the use of accommodations and differentiated instruction in the classroom.
I am particularly interested in understanding how to better support these two structures in our
school environment. I am observing multiple classrooms and talking to multiple teachers to
learn more about this.

I want to assure you that I am strictly wearing the hat of researcher today. What this means is
that the nature of my questions (and observations) are not evaluative. I will not be making any
judgments on how you are performing as a teacher. This interview is also confidential. What
that means is that I will not share your name and the perspectives you provide with anyone
outside of my USC research team. I will not share them with other teachers or the Head of
School.

I will compile the data for this study into a report and while I do plan to use some of what you
say as direct quotes, I will not directly attribute this data to you. I will use a pseudonym to
protect your confidentiality and will try my best to de-identify any of the data I gather from you.
I am happy to provide you with a copy of my final paper if you are interested.

As stated in the Study Information Sheet I shared with you, I will keep the data in a password-
protected computer and I will destroy all data after 3 years.

Do you have any questions about the study before we get started? If you do not have any (more)
questions, I would like to have your permission to begin the interview. I have brought a digital
voice recorder with me today so that I can accurately capture what you share with me. The
recording is solely for my purposes to best capture your perspectives and I will not share the files
with anyone outside the research team. May I also have your permission to record our
conversation?

DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

134
II. Setting the Stage (Developing Rapport and Priming the Mind, Demographic items
of interest (e.g. position, role, etc.))

I’d like to start by asking you some background questions about you.

• First, could you tell me about your background in education?
o How did you become interested in the field of education?
o How long have you worked in the field?
o What roles or positions have you held?
• How did you become involved with SLD and ADHD students?
o Tell me about your role at OA.
o Can you provide a specific example that best demonstrates your role in the
school?
• What are your thoughts about the direction OA has taken with a focus on SLD and
ADHD learners?
o What do you think are strengths of this focus?
o What do you think are areas for improvement for this focus?

III. Heart of the Interview (Interview Questions are directly tied to Research Questions):

Now I’d like to ask you some questions about how SLD and ADHD learners are supported
through the use of accommodations at our school.

1. How do you define accommodations as they pertain to SLD and ADHD students?
2. Would you please describe each of the typical accommodations that come to mind when
you think of supporting SLD and ADHD learners?
3. Would you please describe a recent example of each of these accommodations that took
place in your classes?
4. [Probe] During my observations over the past few weeks, I noticed your use of
__________________ type of classroom accommodation. Please tell me more about this
method of equalizing assignments/assessments with your students.
5. In your opinion, how knowledgeable do you perceive yourself to be about classroom
accommodations to be used in support of SLD and ADHD learners?In your opinion, what
is the value, if any, of implementing appropriate accommodations for SLD and ADHD
learners?
6. In your opinion, what factors are detrimental, if any, with respect to the implementation
of appropriate accommodations for SLD and ADHD learners?
7. Would you please describe the factors, if any, to which you most attribute the academic
success of SLD and ADHD learners?
8. Would you please describe the school culture as it applies to the use of accommodations
in the classroom?

Now I’d like to ask you some questions about how SLD and ADHD learners are supported
through the use of differentiated instruction at our school.

9. How do you define differentiated instruction?
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

135
10. What features of differentiated instruction enable SLD and ADHD students to
succeed academically?
11. In your opinion, how knowledgeable do you perceive yourself to be about differentiated
classroom instruction?
12. Would you please describe a recent example of differentiated instruction you
implemented in a particular class?
13. [Probe] During my observations over the past few weeks, I noticed your use of
__________________ differentiation methods. Please tell me more about this interaction
with your students.
14. In your opinion, what is the value, if any, of differentiating instruction for SLD and
ADHD students?
15. Would you please describe the factors, if any, to which you attribute your success or
failure in implementing differentiated instruction in the classroom?
16. Please describe a typical day when you supported your SLD and ADHD students in your
classes.
17. Please describe the role of OA leadership with respect to support of SLD and ADHD
students.
18. Please describe examples of the ways in which your organization’s leadership supports
these learners.
19. What do you think is your organization leadership’s position on differentiated
instruction?
20. [Probe] How, if at all, have they communicated that to you?
21. How, if at all, does the school leadership support you in implementing differentiated
instruction in your classes?

Now we’re going to switch gears and talk about the larger school environment

22. Tell me about a recent conversation you had in your PLG about the SLD and ADHD
learners in your classes, if one occurred at all.
23. What role does your Professional Learning Group (PLG) play in support of your work
with SLD and ADHD learners, if any?
a. Can you provide an example that demonstrates how the PLG played that role?
24. Some people might say the changing demographics at the school are making it harder for
us to work. What would you say to that?
25. What would you say are your strengths in regards to supporting SLD and ADHD
students?
26. Provide an example that demonstrates this strength from a recent class session?
27. What would you say are your areas of growth in regards to supporting SLD and ADHD
students?
28. Provide an example that demonstrates these growth areas from a recent class session?
29. How could the school assist you in developing your areas of professional growth with
respect to supporting students with SLD and ADHD?
30. In an ideal world, how would the PLG support your work with SLD and ADHD students?

DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

136
IV. Closing Question (Anything else to add)

I am wondering if there is anything that you would add to our conversation today that I might not
have covered?

V. Closing (thank you and follow-up option):

Thank you so much for you sharing your thoughts with me today! I really appreciate your time
and willingness to share. Everything that you have shared is helpful for my study. If I find
myself with a follow-up question, I am wondering if I might be able to meet with you at a later
date? Again, thank you for participating in my study.

VI. Post interview summary and reflection

[ADD shortly after each interview]

DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

137
APPENDIX C
Information Sheet for Research
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089

INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

Instructional Differentiation and Accommodations to Support Student Achievement in
SLD and ADHD Secondary School Populations: An Evaluation Study

I would like to invite you to participate in a research study. Research studies include only people
who voluntarily choose to take part. This document explains information about this study. You
should ask questions about anything that is unclear to you.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to identify the factors related to knowledge, motivation, or
organizational influences which shape your ability to implement differentiated instruction
integrated with appropriate accommodations for SLD and ADHD learners in typical classroom
situations.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to participate in the study, I will ask you to allow me to observe six classroom
periods over a timeframe of three weeks. I will then ask you to participate in an interview lasting
approximately 1 hour. I will ask guided questions but the interview will be conversational and I
may ask follow-up questions as well. The interview will be audio recorded with your
permission. You do not have to answer any questions you do not want to.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
I will provide no payment for participation.

ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
Your alternative is to not participate. Your relationship with your employer will not be affected
whether you participate or not in this study.

CONFIDENTIALITY
I will not ask you to identify yourself in the interview. I will facilitate the interview. You have
the right to review and edit the audio recordings or transcripts. Only I will have access to the
audio recordings. I will destroy the audio recording once they have been transcribed. The
DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

138
transcripts will be stored on a password-protected computer in a secure office by the lead
researcher.

The members of the research team, the funding agency, 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.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
Principal Investigator
Roger Wise
Tel: (510) 414-1268
Email: roger.wise@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 researcher, or if you want to talk to someone
independent of the researcher, 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.

DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

139
APPENDIX D
Survey Items for Post Implementation Evaluation
Immediately following the program implementation.
The following questions address your experience with today’s faculty training.
1. The training held my interest.
| Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree |

2. What I learned from this training is relevant to my work.
| Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree |

3. My knowledge of typical SLD and ADHD accommodations.
a. Before the training.
| None | Very Low | Low | Moderate | Moderately High | Very High

b. After the training.
| None | Very Low | Low | Moderate | Moderately High | Very High

4. My knowledge of differentiated instruction methodology.
a. Before the training.
| None | Very Low | Low | Moderate | Moderately High | Very High

b. After the training.
| None | Very Low | Low | Moderate | Moderately High | Very High

5. What are the major concepts that you learned during this training session?
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________

6. I believe it will be worthwhile for me to apply what I learned to my classroom practice.
| Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree |

7. I anticipate that I will receive the necessary support to apply what I learned.
| Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree |

8. I am committed to apply what I learned to my classroom practice.
| Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree |

9. I believe I will see a positive impact on student outcomes if I consistently apply what I
learned.
| Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree |

DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

140
10. How could this training session be improved?
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________

DIFFERENTIATION TO SUPPORT SLD AND ADHD STUDENTS

141
APPENDIX E
Blended Evaluation Tool

1. Participating in the training was a good use of my time.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

2. I know the typical classroom accommodations used with SLD and ADHD students.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

3. I know the methodology used in differentiating classroom instruction.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

4. In the past three months I have successfully constructed a unit plan incorporating
differentiated classroom instruction.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

4. In the past three months I have successfully implemented a unit plan incorporating
differentiated classroom instruction.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

5. I am committed to the continued use of differentiated instruction integrated with appropriate
accommodations in my classroom.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

Teacher role in reducing the achievement gap: an evaluation study

PDF

Practices for assigning academic accommodations for students with specific learning disabilities

PDF

Quality literacy instruction in juvenile court schools: an evaluation study

PDF

Leveraging social-emotional learning to improve school climate, mental health, and student achievement in K-12 student populations

PDF

The issue of remediation as it relates to high attrition rates among Latino students in higher education: an evaluation study

PDF

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

PDF

Advising strategies to support high graduation rates of transfer students

PDF

Collaborative instructional practice for student achievement: an evaluation study

PDF

Line staff and their influence on youth in expanded learning programs: an evaluation model

PDF

Equitable schooling for African American students: an evaluation study

PDF

First-generation college students and persistence to a degree: an evaluation study

PDF

Graduation rates in college of students with disabilities: an innovation study

PDF

Explicit instruction’s impact on the student achievement gap in K-12 English language learners

PDF

The transference of continuous intergroup dialogue skills to the classroom by participating faculty: an evaluation study

PDF

Maximizing English learners' success in higher education with differentiated instruction

PDF

Developmental education pathway success: a study on the intersection of adjunct faculty and teaching metacognition

PDF

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

PDF

Social work faculty practices in writing instruction: an exploratory study

PDF

The importance of technological training among public school teachers integrating one-to-one computing: an evaluation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Wise, Roger (author)

Core Title Instructional differentiation and accommodations to support student achievement in SLD and ADHD secondary school populations: an evaluation study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 10/15/2018

Defense Date 09/05/2018

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

Tag accommodations,ADHD,differentiation,independent school,learning disabilities,OAI-PMH Harvest,Secondary School

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Samkian, Artineh (committee chair), Crawford, Jenifer (committee member), Pensavalle, Margo (committee member)

Creator Email roger.wise@gmail.com,roger.wise@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-78925

Unique identifier UC11669406

Identifier etd-WiseRoger-6832.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-78925 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-WiseRoger-6832.pdf

Dmrecord 78925

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Wise, Roger

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