University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Access to standards-based curriculum for students with severe and multiple disabilities: an evaluation study

(USC Thesis Other)

Access to standards-based curriculum for students with severe and multiple disabilities: an evaluation study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

ACCESS TO STANDARDS-BASED CURRICULUM FOR STUDENTS WITH SEVERE
AND MULTIPLE DISABILITIES:
AN EVALUATION STUDY
by
Patricia Juarez

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

August 2020

Copyright 2020 Patricia Juarez
ii

DEDICATION
To Guillermo Robert and Julian. I know you would rather have a new Yamaha baritone
saxophone and your own YouTube channel, but you get the dedication in this dissertation
instead.
iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks to my family: Guillermo, Guillermo Robert, and Julian, mainly for taking my
“I’m working” looks, waving away, and general ignoring in stride. We did it! As if we needed
another excuse to buy a cake.
I am forever grateful to the special education team at the organization for its time and
commitment to supporting this work. Sincere thanks also go to the teachers of the organization.
Your honest perspectives helped build this work, and I stand in appreciation of your willingness
to contribute to this study. We educators of students with severe and multiple disabilities are
few, making your involvement even more important. I would also like to (anonymously) thank
M.T., S.E, E.M., and H.G. for your support and recruitment efforts. This truly would not be
possible without you. A special thank you also goes to classmate Luz Minaya for her help. Your
professional touch on the qualitative portion of the study was a true asset!
Many thanks and sincere appreciation also go to my committee: Dr. Ekaterina Moore, Dr.
Melanie Brady, Dr. Raquel Sanchez, and Dr. Anthony Maddox. Beyond assisting me through
this process and providing support, you have each served to inspire, as you each brought
invaluable perspective and expertise to my study.
This acknowledgment would not be complete without a thanks to the Microsoft
Corporation, Apple, Inc., Nintendo, and all the others that helped to rear the kids while this
dissertation was in progress. Another shoutout goes to all the YouTubers creating a constant
stream of content that kept my kids entertained. I imagine at some point another student’s
dissertation will focus on the effects of YouTube on children whose parents are working on a
dissertation.
Finally, to USC Cohort Nine, I couldn’t have asked to be part of a more inspirational group.
iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION ................................................................................................................................ ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... iii
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................................x
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... xi
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................1
Introduction to the Problem of Practice ...................................................................1
Organizational Context and Mission .......................................................................2
Mission .........................................................................................................2
Demographics ..............................................................................................3
Organizational Performance Goal ............................................................................5
Related Literature.....................................................................................................6
Importance of Access to Standards-Based Curriculum ...........................................8
Description of Stakeholder Groups ........................................................................10
Stakeholder Group of Focus ..................................................................................10
Stakeholder Performance Goals .............................................................................11
Purpose of the Project and Questions ....................................................................11
Methodological Framework ...................................................................................12
Definitions..............................................................................................................13
Organization of the Study ......................................................................................14
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ........................................................................15
Historical Perspectives ...........................................................................................15
Defining Severe and Multiple Disabilities .............................................................16
Needs Across Educational Placements ..................................................................17
Teacher Perspective and Perceptions .....................................................................18
Student Ability ...........................................................................................18
Teacher Preparation ...................................................................................19
Standards-Based Curriculum .....................................................................20
Defining Standards-Based Curriculum ......................................................20
Access to Standards-Based Curriculum .................................................................21
The Role of a Functional Curriculum ........................................................22
English Language Arts ..........................................................................23
Math.......................................................................................................24
Science...................................................................................................24
Music .....................................................................................................25
v

Curricular Modifications .......................................................................26
Clark and Estes’ (2008) Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences
Framework .............................................................................................................27
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences ....................28
Knowledge and Skills ................................................................................28
Motivation ..................................................................................................29
Instruction Using Adopted Curriculum .................................................30
Making Assignments Accessible to Students Using Modifications ......31
Correlation Between Common Core Standards and Alternate Achievement
Standards ....................................................................................................32
Motivation .............................................................................................33
Teacher Perceptions of Self-Efficacy ....................................................34
Internal and External Factors Affecting Teacher Attribution ...............35
Organization ...............................................................................................37
General Theory ..........................................................................................38
Stakeholder Specific Factors .................................................................38
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Knowledge, Motivation, and
Organization ...........................................................................................................42
Summary ................................................................................................................47
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................48
Introduction .............................................................................................................48
Sampling and Recruitment ......................................................................................49
Participating Stakeholders ........................................................................49
Survey Sampling Criteria and Rationale ...................................................49
Survey Sampling and Recruitment Strategy and Rationale ......................49
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale................................................50
Interview Sampling and Recruitment Strategy and Rationale ..................51
Quantitative Data Collection and Instrumentation ..................................................53
Surveys .......................................................................................................54
Survey Procedures ..................................................................................56
Qualitative Data Collection and Instrumentation ......................................57
Interviews ...............................................................................................57
Interview Procedures ..............................................................................58
Validity and Reliability ............................................................................................59
Credibility and Trustworthiness ..............................................................................60
Data Analysis ..........................................................................................................61
Ethics .......................................................................................................................62
Limitations and Delimitations ....................................................................64
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND FINDINGS .................................................................................66
Participating Stakeholders .....................................................................................67
Identification of Assets and Needs ........................................................................68
Survey Participants ....................................................................................68
Interview Participants ................................................................................71
Results and Findings ..............................................................................................72
vi

Research Question 1 ..................................................................................72
Knowledge .................................................................................................73
Influence 1 ..............................................................................................73
Influence 2 ..............................................................................................77
Influence 3 ..............................................................................................78
Research Question 2 ..................................................................................82
Motivation ..................................................................................................82
Self-efficacy Influence 1 ........................................................................82
Attribution Influence 2 ...........................................................................89
Research Question 3 ..................................................................................95
Organization ...............................................................................................95
Cultural Models .........................................................................................96
Influence 1 ..............................................................................................96
Influence 2 ..............................................................................................97
Cultural Settings.........................................................................................98
Influence 1 ..............................................................................................99
Influence 2 ..............................................................................................99
Summary of Validated Influences ...........................................................109
Knowledge ............................................................................................109
Motivation ............................................................................................109
Organization .........................................................................................110
Conclusion .........................................................................................................111
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................114
Discussion ............................................................................................................114
Determination of Influences as Validated............................................................116
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences ..............................116
Knowledge Recommendations ................................................................117
Introduction .........................................................................................117
Procedural Knowledge Solutions .......................................................119
Motivation Recommendations .................................................................122
Introduction .........................................................................................122
Self-efficacy: Teacher Confidence .....................................................125
Attribution: Focus on Effort and Offer Feedback ..............................126
Organization Recommendations ..............................................................126
Cultural Models ..................................................................................130
Cultural Settings .................................................................................130
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan ......................................131
Implementation and Evaluation Framework ...........................................131
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations .....................................132
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators .................................................133
Level 3: Behavior .....................................................................................135
Critical Behaviors ...............................................................................135
Required Drivers ................................................................................136
Organizational Support........................................................................138
Level 2: Learning ....................................................................................138
vii

Learning Goals ....................................................................................138
Program ...............................................................................................138
Evaluation of the Components of Learning ........................................140
Level 1: Reaction ....................................................................................140
Evaluation Tools ......................................................................................141
Data Analysis and Reporting ...................................................................142
Summary ..............................................................................................................145
Discussion ............................................................................................................145
Future Research ...................................................................................................146
Conclusion ...........................................................................................................148
References ....................................................................................................................................151
Appendices ...................................................................................................................................164
Appendix A Survey Instrument Questions ..........................................................164
Appendix B Interview Questions .........................................................................174
Appendix C Survey Recruitment Form ...............................................................179
Appendix D Consent for Interview Form ............................................................181
Appendix E Training Evaluation Form................................................................183
Appendix F Discussion Questions .......................................................................185
Appendix G Observation Checklist .....................................................................186

viii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Stakeholder Goal Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder, Performance
Goals ..................................................................................................................................11
Table 2 Knowledge Influences ......................................................................................................33
Table 3 Motivation Influences .......................................................................................................37
Table 4 Organizational Influences ................................................................................................41
Table 5 Interview Participants’ Demographic Information ...........................................................53
Table 6 Grade Levels Taught by Survey Participants ....................................................................69
Table 7 Credentials Held by Survey Participants ..........................................................................70
Table 8 Characteristics of Interview Participants ..........................................................................72
Table 9 Participants’ Years of Teaching Students with or without Disabilities ............................75
Table 10 Percentage of Teachers who Feel Comfortable or Very Comfortable, by Survey Item .83
Table 11 Teacher Reported Support and Guidance Related to Implementation of Standards ......99
Table 12 Teacher Reported Feelings on Levels of Training ........................................................106
Table 13 Knowledge Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data ..............................................109
Table 14 Motivation Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data ..............................................109
Table 15 Organization Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data ...........................................110
Table 16 Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations ........................................118
Table 17 Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations .........................................123
Table 18 Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations ......................................127
Table 19 Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes ........................134
Table 20 Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation ...............................135
Table 21 Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors ...........................................................137
Table 22 Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program ........................................140
ix

Table 23 Components to Measure Reactions to the Program ......................................................141

x

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Percentage of Disabilities in USD by Category ................................................................3
Figure 2 Placements for Students with Disabilities in USD ............................................................4
Figure 3 Factors Affecting the Urban School District: Conceptual Framework ...........................44
Figure 4 Teacher Years of Experience Working with Students with or without Disabilities, by
Number of Teachers ...........................................................................................................71
Figure 5 Percentage of Teachers Using the CCSS or Alternate Standards when Developing
Lesson Plans.......................................................................................................................74
Figure 6 What Standards Do You Access When Planning for Instruction in Your Classroom? ...80
Figure 7 Teachers Who Agree or Strongly Agree Their Credential Program Prepared Them to
Write Standards-Based Lessons, Disaggregated by Credential Type ................................85
Figure 8 Teachers Reporting How Often They Use a Lesson Plan They Created .........................86
Figure 9 I Feel Confident in My Ability to Create Accessible Lesson Plans ................................87
Figure 10 Teachers Reporting Importance of Student Access by Area .........................................90
Figure 11 Number of Professional Development Opportunities Offered by School District or
School ..............................................................................................................................101
Figure 12 Type of Coaching or Mentoring Available by Standard Type ....................................103
Figure 13 Sample Discussion Themes Grouped by Training Session .........................................143
Figure 14 Sample Evaluation Dashboard Including Open-Ended Questions Asked of
Participants .......................................................................................................................144
Figure 15 Sample Observation Dashboard Showing Attainment of the Stated Learning
Objectives ........................................................................................................................144

xi

Abstract
This dissertation evaluated the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences affecting
the Urban School District’s attainment of the stated goal of ensuring that 100% of students,
including those with severe and multiple disabilities, have access to rigorous, standards-based
instruction. The study sought to answer the following questions using a mixed-methods design
as guided by the Clark and Estes Framework (2008): 1. What is the teacher knowledge related to
providing access to standards-based curriculum and instructional modifications to students in
classrooms for students with severe and multiple disabilities? 2. What is the teacher motivation
related to providing access to standards-based curriculum and instructional modifications to
students in classrooms for students with severe and multiple disabilities? 3. How do the culture
and context of the Urban School District affect teacher ability to provide access to standards-
based curriculum and instructional modifications in classrooms for students with severe and
multiple disabilities? Data from 62 surveys and 4 interviews were collected from teachers of
students with severe and multiple disabilities. The study found assets and needs in the areas of
teacher procedural knowledge, attribution, and organizational influences. The recommendations
presented are rooted in the literature review, findings of the quantitative and qualitative portion
of the study, and the New World Kirkpatrick Model (2016).
Keywords: standards-based, access, severe disabilities, multiple disabilities, instruction,
curriculum

1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Introduction to the Problem of Practice
Access to standards-based curriculum for students with severe and multiple disabilities
(SMD) can be adversely affected by a misapplication or misunderstanding of the policies that are
set in place to prepare students to be “college and career ready” (Dukes & Darling, 2017, p. 144).
Standards-based curriculum is defined as standards-based instructional materials that same-age
peers are accessing, commonly referred to as the general education curriculum. Further, the
United States interprets the general education curriculum for students with disabilities to be “the
same curriculum as for nondisabled children” (United States Code of Federal Regulations
§300.320(a)(1)(i)). Carter and Kennedy (2006) cited teachers having difficulty creating or
locating standards-based, age-appropriate materials for students with disabilities as one barrier to
access. Shurr (2012) noted the gap between a student’s age and the student’s cognitive ability as
another barrier to accessing standards-based materials. Additionally, access to age-appropriate
material declines as students with disabilities advance in age (Browder et al., 2007).
The evidence highlights that students with disabilities are not receiving equal access to
standards-based curriculum as is mandated as part of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA) (United States Department of Education, 2016). This problem is documented in the
research and is observed in the Urban School District (USD), the organization of focus. This
problem is important to address, as all students are guaranteed access to a free and appropriate
public education, which includes access to grade-level content to the maximum extent possible
(United States Department of Education, 2015).
The stated problem of educational equity for students with SMD is rooted in fundamental
issues found in the educational and societal landscape during the undertaking of the study.
2

Furthermore, the study is grounded in the mission of the sponsoring institution, the Rossier
School of Education at the University of Southern California. The alignment of the university’s
mission to attain educational equity and improve outcomes for marginalized groups to the
current societal movements’ aim to further improvements for marginalized groups supports the
need for consequential solutions to the stated problem. Moreover, the ever-changing legislative
demands on educators also call for responsive, needs-based solutions.
Organizational Context and Mission
The organization selected for the research study is the Urban School District
(pseudonym), which is in the western United States. This school district serves students in
preschool, kindergarten through 12th grade, and adult students (District Facts, 2017
1
) and
provides services for students and families through a multitude of departments ranging from
English learner support to magnet and charter schools (District Offices, 2018). The district serves
a sizeable population of students with disabilities, with 13% of the total student population
identified as students with disabilities (State Department of Education, 2018
2
). The Urban
School District (USD) shall serve as the main organization, with classrooms serving students
with severe and multiple disabilities within the USD as the focus of the research study. From
here forward, students with severe and multiple disabilities shall be referred to as students with
SMD.
Mission
According to the mission statement posted on the USD website, the district’s aim is to
welcome and include diversity in educating the district’s students. Additionally, the district
department of special education has a mission statement, which aligns with the greater district

1
Retrieved from school district main website (URL not listed to protect site anonymity).
2
Retrieved from State Department of Education website (URL not listed to protect site anonymity).
3

mission of accepting and embracing diversity to create learning conditions conducive to
promoting student achievement (USD Special Education Mission Statement, 2018
3
). The
overarching goal of the district is to prepare students to become citizens equipped for success
and meaningful participation in diverse communities.
Demographics
Of the large population of students served in the USD, approximately 12.4% are
identified as students with disabilities (Special Education Facts, 2017, see Footnote 3). The
district serves students with a variety of disabilities, with students identified as having a specific
learning disability making up the largest portion of the student population with disabilities.
Figure 1 provides a graphic breakdown of students with disabilities by eligibility category. The
percentages shown are based on the total population of students identified as having a disability.
Figure 1
Percentage of Disabilities in USD by Category

Note. Information compiled from school district special education website (see Footnote 3).

3
Retrieved from school district special education website (URL not listed to protect site anonymity).
40%
19%
16%
11%
5%
2% 2%
1.7%
0.05% 0.01%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
SLD AUT SLI OHI ID OI ED HH VI TBI, DB
Percentage of Students
SLD: Specific Learning
Disability
AUT: Autism
SLI: Speech and
Language Impairment
OHI: Other Health
Impairment
ID: Intellectual
Disability
OI: Orthopedic
Impairment
ED: Emotional
Disturbance
HH: Hard of Hearing
VI: Visually Impaired
TBI/DB: Traumatic
Brain Injury, Deaf-
Blind

4

Students with disabilities are provided with special education services in a wide variety
of placements in the USD, with general education placement being the most common. In the
2017–18 school year, 50% of students with disabilities were provided services in general
education classrooms (Figure 2). Figure 2 details classroom placements for students with
disabilities by percentage and shows that 2% of students are placed in programs designated for
students with severe and multiple disabilities. The initialisms and acronyms that appear in the
tables are the class types. Students with severe and multiple disabilities (SMD) may be found in
any of the class types but are primarily placed into classes designated for students with more
severe or multiple disabilities. These class types are hosted on a variety of campuses, from
comprehensive, general education campuses to special education campuses to transition centers
for students ages 18–22. The transition centers focus on building career readiness and
independence skills for students with disabilities.
Figure 2
Placements for Students with Disabilities in USD

Note. Information compiled from school district special education website (see Footnote 3).
50%
23%
7%
6%
5%
4%
2%
0.7%
2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
GE SDC AUT PK ID NPS SMD DHH Other
Percentage of Students
GE: General
Education
SDC: Special Day
Class
AUT: Autism
PK: Preschool
ID: Intellectual
Disability
NPS: Nonpublic
School
SMD: Severe Multiple
Disabilities
DHH: Deaf and Hard
of Hearing
5

The organization is composed of certificated and classified employees along with
administrators, with salaries and benefits for these staff members totaling 38% of the total
general budget in the 2017–18 school year (see Footnote 1). Of these certificated staff members,
3% are teachers of students with moderate to severe disabilities (including students with multiple
disabilities) in K–12 classrooms. Teachers in the USD can serve under one of four
classifications: permanent, probationary, temporary, or substitute (see Footnote 2). Teachers
who have had either a preliminary or clear credential issued by the state teacher credentialing
authority will hold either probationary or permanent status. Teachers holding credentials
authorizing service to students with severe or multiple disabilities as determined by the USD will
be the focus of the study, as discussed in Chapter 3.
Organizational Performance Goal
The goal of the Urban School District is to ensure that 100% of students attain mastery of
the state standards through access to rigorous and differentiated instruction by June 2019
(District Strategic Plan, 2016
4
). The established goal pertains to all students, including students
with disabilities, with accommodations and modifications highlighted as part of the plan to
ensure access to success (see Footnote 4). Multiple measures will track the achievement of this
goal, from performance on developmental assessments in early education to performance on
state assessments in the elementary and middle grades (Smarter Balanced Assessments in
Reading and Mathematics) and high school years (GPA and SAT or ACT completion and
scores). The identified goal is one of the objectives set by the USD as part of its latest strategic
plan. Each objective is established to support the overall district plan to attain a 100%
graduation rate by 2019 (see Footnote 4).

4
Retrieved from school district goals website (URL not listed to protect site anonymity).
6

Access to rigorous, standards-based curriculum for all students from early education to
the last years of high school ensures that students will be on track to graduate. DePaoli, Balfanz,
Atwell, and Bridgeland (2018) stated that rigorous curriculum not only positions students to
graduate but also serves as a predictor for postsecondary success. For students with SMD, this
translates to access to standards-based instruction (alternate achievement standards and Common
Core State Standards) (Morningstar et al., 2017). Conducting an evaluation of the USD’s
attainment of the stated goal as it relates to all students, including those with severe and multiple
disabilities, will allow for the collection of data to evaluate whether the district is serving 100%
of students on the path to graduation and postsecondary success. For students with SMD, this
may mean promoting students along a path toward school completion where students are
prepared with the college and career readiness skills as identified by Kearns, Kleinert, Harrison,
Sheppard-Jones, Hall, and Jones (2010): (a) communication, (b) self-determination, and (c)
personal relevance in the material taught.
Related Literature
The following section contains an overview of related literature on the topics surrounding
access to standards-based curriculum for students with disabilities. The related literature
selected discusses students identified as falling into the general category of “students with
disabilities” to gain a perspective of the issues affecting teachers that influence access to
standards-based curriculum for students with disabilities. The literature, both historic and
current, uncovered themes, including barriers to accessing standards-based curriculum for
students with disabilities, low expectations of teachers, and an inconsistency in and lack of
supports for both students and teachers.
7

Federal policy has evolved to both ensure and protect the rights of students with
disabiliities with respect to access to the general curriculum and, by extension, standards-based
instruction. Hardman and Dawson (2008) noted, however, that the 105th Congress’s conlcusions
upon review of IDEA found a lack of access to “proven methods of teaching and learning” (p. 6).
A subsequent review by Congress in 2004 concluded with the recommendation to ensure access
to the general education curriculum in regular classrooms, which Hardman and Dawson (2008)
cited as a factor that can contribute to the academic success of students with disabilities.
The effect of perceived student potential on access to standards-based instruction has
been explored for students of historically marginalized groups, such as students from low-
income and minority groups (Harris, 2012). This sentiment among teachers is echoed among
those working with students with disabilities, as is explained in research conducted by Agran,
Alper, and Wehmeyer (2016) and Dymond, Renzaglia, and Chun (2008). Agran et al. (2016)
found that teacher respondents did not feel that students with severe disabilities should be held to
the same performance standards as same-age peers without disabilities. This highlights the
disparity in expectations between students with mild disabilities and those idenitifed as having
more severe disabilities. These results were reiterated in focus groups discussing the inclusion of
students with disabilities in high school service learning programs conducted by Dymond,
Renzaglia, and Chun (2008), where findings indicated that some participating schools had
overall low expectations for students with disabilities.
There is a noted gap in research related to content area supports specific to students with
severe and multiple disabilities across grade levels. Furthermore, no studies were found citing
best practices for the implementation of a standards-based instructional program across
educational placements for students with SMD (Browder et al., 2007). The review of research
8

uncovered issues related to access to instruction for students with disabilities in general.
Additionally, evidence presented by Roach et al., (2009) stated that special education teachers
cited difficulty in accessing instructional materials, thus restricting students’ access to the
general education curriculum.
In supporting the implementation of both the organizational and stakeholder goals, it is
critical to have a clear understanding of the stakeholder needs in the areas of knowledge and
motivation. Clark and Estes (2008) explained that the organizational influences must also be
addressed, as focusing on only one of the areas affecting performance will not lead to
systemwide solutions. The USD has committed to ensuring that 100% of students attain mastery
of the state standards through access to rigorous and differentiated instruction by June 2019 as
measured by developmental and state assessment data. To attain this goal, the USD must hold
the teacher stakeholder group accountable for implementing standards-based, age-appropriate
lessons daily with students with severe and multiple disabilities. Clark and Estes (2008)
highlighted the importance of appropriately identifying and supporting stakeholder needs, with
misdiagnosis of knowledge needs serving only to harm performance. Additionally, motivation
may be harmed by incorrectly categorizing stakeholders’ beliefs or making incorrect
assumptions about stakeholders’ motivations (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Importance of Access to Standards-Based Curriculum
Conducting an evaluation of the organizational progress made toward goal achievement
is critical to the stakeholder performance goal of ensuring access to standards-based instruction
for students with severe and multiple disabilities. Having access to standards-based curriculum
is correlated with positive outcomes for students with disabilities. Rydnak, Alper, Hughes, and
McDonnell (2012) concluded that students with disabilities who were afforded access to age-
9

appropriate, general education classroom situations were more likely to be employed in their
post-secondary years. Cushing, Clark, Carter, and Kennedy (2005) highlighted another
important reason to solve the problem of not having access to standards-based curriculum, where
it is noted that students who are placed in general education academic settings with nondisabled
peers demonstrate “acquisition and maintenance of academic skills” (p. 7). Equally important is
the need to provide the necessary support and training to teachers so that they can provide
effective instruction to students with moderate to severe disabilities, regardless of educational
placement. It is the provision of access to standards-based curriculum that accounts for the
improvement in outcomes for students with disabilities, as was highlighted in research by Harris
(2012).
The overarching need for evaluation is a commitment to positive outcomes for all
students, including students with severe and multiple disabilities. Alquraini and Gut (2012)
noted that although the inclusion of students with disabilities in general education classrooms to
the greatest extent possible is mandated by IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act,
2004), many educators still struggle with the reality of implementing accommodations and
modifications needed by students with SMD in the classroom. The reauthorization of IDEA as
written allows for the education of students with disabilities in separate classrooms or settings
(Alquraini & Gut, 2012); however, it does not absolve organizations of the responsibility to
provide these students with access to standards-based instruction. As such, the USD has an
obligation to provide access to standards-based instruction, as is outlined by the United States
Code of Federal Regulations (State responsibilities for developing challenging academic
standards, 2015), irrespective of the educational setting that students with severe and multiple
disabilities are placed in or the amount of time they spend with peers without disabilities.
10

Providing access to standards-based instruction would afford students with SMD the same
instructional opportunities as their non-disabled peers receive (Ballard & Dymond, 2017). The
following sections will describe the organizational stakeholders and stakeholder performance
goals.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
Although many stakeholder groups are affected and contribute to the achievement of the
organizational goal of preparing students to become citizens primed for success and meaningful
participation in diverse communities, school site administrators, teachers, and students are the
stakeholder groups central to the issue. School site administrators are tasked with overseeing the
operations of a given school site, including staffing, implementation of curriculum, support and
training of staff, and progress monitoring of student success, all of which contribute to the
achievement of the organization’s performance goal. Teachers are responsible for directly
carrying out the programs and strategies delivered in the administrator-sanctioned trainings and
are responsible for using progress monitoring for adjusting instruction to create instructional
programs that will best meet student needs. Students are essential to the achievement of the
organization’s goal, as their participation and success as stakeholders have a direct impact on
goal attainment.
Stakeholder Group of Focus
Each stakeholder group named (school site administrators, teachers, and students) is an
important player in the achievement of the organizational goal. For the purposes of this study,
teachers were identified as the focus stakeholder group. In considering the direct impact that
teachers have on student performance, teachers were selected as the focus stakeholder group.
The stakeholder goal is that all teachers of students with severe and multiple disabilities will
11

write and use standards-based, age-appropriate lessons on a daily basis. Attainment of the stated
goal will ensure access to standards-based curriculum for the target student group. The
stakeholder goal (Table 1) is directly related to the organizational goal of student achievement
and mastery of state standards, hence the importance of selecting this as the identified goal.
Stakeholder Performance Goals
Table 1
Stakeholder Goal
Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder, Performance Goals
Organizational Mission
To welcome and include diversity in educating the district’s students.
Organizational Performance Goal
The Urban School District will ensure that 100% of students attain mastery of the state standards
through access to rigorous and differentiated instruction by June 2019 as measured by
developmental and state assessment data.
Stakeholder Goal
By June 2019, teachers will write and use standards-based, age-appropriate lessons on a daily
basis with students with multiple/severe disabilities.

Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences affecting the Urban School District’s attainment the stated goal of ensuring that 100%
of students, including those with severe and multiple disabilities, have access to rigorous,
standards-based instruction. The stated goal was the latest goal available, as a new
organizational strategic plan has yet to be released. In evaluating the attainment of this goal, the
study focused on students identified as having SMD. The analysis began by generating a list of
12

possible or assumed interfering knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that were
examined systematically to focus on actual or validated interfering influences. Although a
complete evaluation would focus on all stakeholders, for practical purposes, the stakeholder
group focused on in this analysis was teachers of students with severe or multiple disabilities.
The questions that guided the evaluation were as follows:
1. What is the teacher knowledge related to providing access to standards-based curriculum
and instructional modifications to students in classrooms for students with severe and
multiple disabilities?
2. What is the teacher motivation related to providing access to standards-based curriculum
and instructional modifications to students in classrooms for students with severe and
multiple disabilities?
3. How do the culture and context of the Urban School District impact teacher ability to
provide access to standards-based curriculum and instructional modifications in
classrooms for students with severe and multiple disabilities?
Methodological Framework
The Clark and Estes Gap Analytical Framework was used to explore the possible
knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors affecting teacher performance within the
Urban School District. A mixed-methods, explanatory sequential design is the proposed
approach for the research study in order to gain a comprehensive understanding of the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences affecting the stakeholder group. Creswell
and Creswell (2018) explained that a mixed-methods design offers a means for better
understanding both research problems and questions. Furthermore, Creswell and Creswell
(2018) described that one of the ways a mixed-methods study can lend further understanding to a
13

study is by using qualitative data to explicate the quantitative results. For this reason, the mixed-
methods, explanatory sequential design is ideal for exploring the problem of teacher knowledge
and motivation as it relates to provision of access to standards-based curriculum for students with
severe and multiple disabilities, particularly in a large district such as the Urban School District
where a large population of teachers will be surveyed. Knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences will also be explored through interviews with the identified stakeholder
group.
Definitions
Alternate achievement standards: An alternate achievement standard sets an expectation of
performance that differs in complexity from a grade-level achievement standard and is aligned to
the general education content standards.
Common Core State Standards: Research- and evidence-based academic standards in
mathematics and English language arts (ELA), as adopted by 41 states.
General education curriculum: The curriculum accessed by students without disabilities.
Functional curriculum: Curricular approach focused on teaching of daily living personal-social
and occupational skills to students with disabilities.
Low-incidence disabilities: Hearing impairments, vision impairments, severe orthopedic
impairments, or any combination thereof.
Modifications: Changes to the instructional content or assignment that alter what a student is
expected to do.
14

Multiple Disabilities: A student with multiple disabilities is defined as having two or more areas
of significant impairment, one of which shall be an intellectual disability.
Standards-based: Instruction using educational standards, which define what students should
know in each subject and grade.
Organization of the Study
This study will be presented in five chapters. Chapter 1 has reviewed the problem of
practice, identified as a lack of access to standards-based curriculum for students with severe and
multiple disabilities, along with details on the stakeholders and organizational goal of focus, and
has provided an overview of the grounding literature to be further discussed in Chapter 2.
Chapter 1 also provided an overview of the methodology. Chapter 2 provides a review of the
literature related to the study as well as an overview of the Clark and Estes’ Framework, which is
a research-tested approach that supports the implementation of the organizational and
stakeholder goals. The methodology is covered in Chapter 3, with an overview of the study,
sampling and recruitment, data collection and procedures, and the plan for data analysis
discussed. Chapter 4 will present the data and the findings of the study, and Chapter 5 will
present recommendations on the basis of the findings.

15

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This literature review examines the root causes for gaps in access to standards-based
curriculum for students with moderate to severe disabilities beginning with a review of the
general research and federal policies exploring the effect of access to standards-based
curriculum for students across disability categories. Included in this review are both historical
and current perspectives, with historical research serving as a comparison when discussing
current attitudes and behaviors of the stakeholder group. Historical perspectives presented allow
for the building of the narrative when discussing teacher perspective in subsequent sections. The
general literature review concludes with research describing the contributory factors affecting
access to age-appropriate curriculum for students with moderate to severe disabilities. Finally,
an analysis of the issue as seen through the lens of the Clark and Estes Gap Analytical
Framework is undertaken, with a discussion on the effect of the knowledge, motivational, and
organizational influences on the identified stakeholder group.
Historical Perspectives
The education of students with SMD has evolved and continues to do so, as is evidenced
by historical and current research. Students with SMD have historically had less access to
rigorous educational experiences, including to academic instruction (Evmenova, Graff, &
Behrmann, 2017). Institutionalization of children with the most severe intellectual and
orthopedic disabilities was common in the 1930s and prior, with opportunities to interact with
peers or the community limited by the perception that these children were “mentally subnormal,”
as described by Evmenova, Graff, and Behrmann (2017). Students with disabilities have
historically been excluded from equitable educational experiences, with some states barring
students with disabilities from attending schools as late as the 1970s. The civil rights movement
16

paved the way for the inclusion of more students with disabilities in the school environment;
however, those individuals with the most severe disabilities continued to be excluded from
educational opportunities. The passage of IDEA created the expectation that students should not
be educated in segregated facilities, regardless of the severity of their disability (Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act, 2013).
The focus of debate in historical contexts was on the potential negative effects of
providing students with severe disabilities access to general education settings. Few studies shed
light on the need to explore the educational benefit of access to the general education classroom
for students with severe disabilities (Brinker & Thorpe, 1984). The following sections will focus
on the current perspectives and general and specific literature related to the problem of practice.
Defining Severe and Multiple Disabilities
Given the varying terms found in the literature to define students with severe and
multiple disabilities, it is important to clarify the meanings. Students with severe or multiple
disabilities may be referred to as students with low-incidence disabilities or those disabilities that
occur in low frequency (Schuster, Louise Hemmeter, & Jones Ault, 2001). Other studies
referred to students with SMD as students with significant disabilities, an all-encompassing term
for students with severe intellectual disabilities or multiple disabilities (Evmenova, Graff, &
Behrmann, 2017). Studies appear with the phrasing “severe” and “multiple disabilities,” the
federally recognized category including students with an intellectual disability, or describe SMD
as a disability of a severe nature. The federally recognized disability category is multiple
disabilities (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Sec. 300.8 (c) (7)).

17

Needs across Educational Placements
Gaps in the research include more specific research on instructional access for students
with SMD and guidelines for building comprehensive, standards-based instructional programs
across educational placements. The instructional practices in the classroom were noted to be the
most important factor in predicting successful access to curriculum, not placement. Inclusion,
though a best practice, is not the placement option for every student with severe or multiple
disabilities (Obiakor, Harris, Mutua, Rotatori, & Algozzine, 2012). Federal policy guarantees
access to general education but does not state that students must be placed in general education
classrooms for the entire school day (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2004).
Although policy guides schools to place students in the least restrictive environment (LRE),
Morningstar, Kurth, and Johnson (2017) found that students with significant disabilities
(intellectual and multiple disabilities) were placed in special education classrooms for most of
the school day, where most of the school day was defined as less than 40% of the day spent in
general education classrooms.
There is a noted need to adequately prepare teachers to implement standards linkage in
the classroom across educational placements. Ballard and Dymond (2017) also discussed the
conflict faced by stakeholders who are unsure of the appropriate way to integrate standards-
based teaching while meeting the functional needs of their students. Although the education of
students with SMD continues to evolve, a lack of research around access to standards-based
curriculum across educational placements and how to best support the educators tasked with
carrying out instruction still exists. This study will seek to evaluate the degree to which
educators of students with SMD are affording access to standards-based instruction in special
18

education classrooms, as much of the research has focused on access in inclusive (general
education) settings.
Teacher Perspectives and Perceptions
Teacher perspectives and perceptions are explored as part of the context of the problem
of access to standards-based curriculum for students with SMD. Teachers in inclusive and self-
contained or segregated classrooms can play an influential role in the level of instruction students
receive based on the attitudes that teachers hold. The literature revealed several themes aiding
and affecting access to standards-based curriculum. The following section discusses teacher
preparation and perceptions, standards-based curriculum, content area instruction, and curricular
modifications.
Student Ability
Negative teacher perceptions of student ability can adversely affect access to standards-
based curriculum and can influence the level to which students are held to high standards (Gwin
Smith, 2000). As Agran, Alper, and Wehmeyer, (2002) have explained, teacher attitudes
reflecting that access to general education or core content standards for students with significant
disabilities is not a high priority are common. Accountability for students with disabilities
remains low, with the perception among teachers being that students with disabilities should not
be held to the same standards as their non-disabled peers are (Agran et al., 2002). Gwin Smith
(2000) found that both special education and general education teachers’ acceptance of students
with disabilities declines as the severity of their disability increases. Teachers reported needing
an increase in support as the students’ level of severity of disability increased. In general,
secondary teachers’ views of the benefits of inclusion differed from that of elementary teachers,
regardless of severity of disability (Gwin Smith, 2000). Further exploration of teacher
19

perceptions is warranted if increased access to standards-based instruction for students with
SMD is to be achieved.
Teacher Preparation
The introduction of the Common Core State Standards, referred to in this study as
standards, has ushered in a new era of learning for teachers. There is now a demand for teachers
to incorporate the standards into their teaching along with accommodating for a variety of
student needs (Knight, Lloyd, Arbaugh, Edmondson, Mcdonald, Nolan, & Whitney, 2013).
Knight, et al. (2013) have discussed the complex tasks that teachers must be prepared to teach to
students, including depth of knowledge and higher order thinking, which may fall outside of the
current skill sets of many teachers. Polikoff (2013) generally has attributed successes in the
alignment of instruction to the content standards to years of experience.
Teacher preparation, both actual and perceived, can affect the level of access students
receive to standards-based instruction (Ruppar, Neeper, & Dalsen, 2016). Teachers self-report
being particularly less prepared to work with students with more significant disabilities.
Both teacher licensure type (i.e., special education versus general education) and overall
experience had a positive effect on teacher perception of preparedness to work with students with
severe disabilities (Ruppar et al., 2016). Additional research by Ruppar, Gaffney, and Dymond
(2015) discovered teacher perceptions about their ability to affect learning in their students
influence the actions they take in proactively planning lessons. The research by Ruppar et al.,
(2015) uncovered that teacher beliefs about the collective philosophies at their respective school
sites influence their thinking about their academic programs (i.e., whether they have an academic
versus functional program). The collective research serves to highlight the need to adequately
prepare teachers to work with SMD if access for all students is to be achieved.
20

Standards-Based Curriculum
Standards-based curriculum is the selected encompassing term for the purposes of this
dissertation, including content area instruction across educational settings. Educational settings
in the literature were found to range from inclusive general education classrooms to segregated
settings (Ballard & Dymond, 2017; Brinker, & Thorpe, 1984, McDonnell, McDonnell, Hardman,
& McCune, 1991). It was observed that students with SMD had limited access to same-age
peers without disabilities when in more segregated settings, such as when placed in a self-
contained special education classroom (Kleinert, et al., 2015). Research guiding the usage of
standards-based content-area instruction across educational settings was explored to determine
the extent to which students with SMD have access. The following sections will discuss: (a)
content area instruction, (b) language arts, (c) math, (d) science, (e) music, and (f) curricular
modifications.
Defining Standards-Based Curriculum
Research studies define standards-based curriculum for students with a range of
disabilities in a variety of ways, with curricular modifications recognized as a way to grant
access to students with SMD. The introduction of standards-based reform has allowed for access
to rigorous instruction across grade levels and regions. Harris (2012) described standards-based
curriculum and instruction as a metric for evaluating to what degree teachers have provided
access to the stated instructional objectives. In addition, standards-based curriculum and
instruction provides for equitable educational experiences for all students (Harris, 2012).
Affording students access to a standards-based curriculum requires linking instruction to
academic standards.
21

Teachers currently find the process of linking standards confusing and, in some cases, fail
to find relevance in providing access to students with more significant disabilities (Browder et
al., 2007). It is understood among the field of professionals that the content of the standards
must be modified to meet the needs of students with severe disabilities (Browder et al. , 2007).
However, defining what a standards-based curriculum looks like in practice remains an unknown
for many special educators (Dukes, Darling, Dukes, & Darling, 2017). Furthermore, the lack of
clarity in the term “access” both in policy and practice makes for implementation of access to
standards-based instruction an uncontrolled variable in schools (Timberlake, 2014).
Organizations must work to support educators in navigating policy and practice to effectively
serve students with SMD.
Access to Standards-Based Curriculum
Students with severe and multiple disabilities have historically had less access to
standards-based curriculum and rigorous instruction than their nondisabled peers have had due to
the perception that students with SMD could not benefit from academic instruction, as is noted
by Evmenova, Graff, and Behrmann (2017). There is currently no federal definition of a student
with a moderate to severe disability; however, a student with such a disability is typically a
student assigned to take an alternate achievement assessment, as described by the Every Student
Succeeds Act (ESSA) (Every Student Succeeds Act, 2015). Students with multiple disabilities
make up 0.3% of the population of students ages 3 to 21 under the IDEA as of the 2014–2015
school year (National Center for Education Statistics, 2017). Although this group of students is
statistically smaller than the total population of students with disabilities as noted by the NCES,
the effect of not serving their academic needs is great. As was noted by Carter, Austin, and
Trainer (2012), positive outcomes for students with multiple disabilities after high school
22

correlate with experiences during high school years, such as those promoting greater
independence and self-advocacy.
The Role of a Functional Curriculum
There has been a historical focus on teaching students with severe disabilities a functional
curriculum, or a curriculum focused on daily living and life skills (Wikham & Lederer, 2007). A
functional curriculum includes the promotion of skills needed to function in daily life such as
money skills or placing orders at a local restaurant (Wickham & Lederer, 2007). Ballard and
Dymond (2017) have contended that there remains much question in the field as to how or
whether to provide access to a functional curriculum to students with severe disabilities. A
review of studies conducted by Ballard and Dymond (2017) found that both professionals and
families stated that there should be a balance between standards-based instruction and access to a
functional curriculum. Though the comprehensive review of the studies found a common
sentiment regarding the importance of access to a standards-based curriculum, it was found that
those tasked with educating students with disabilities were more likely to focus on “development
and adaptive behavior” (Ballard & Dymond, 2017, p. 165).
Students with SMD receive varying access to content area instruction across educational
settings (Kleinert et al, 2015). Earlier research has posited that a functional curriculum and a
traditional (pre-standards-based) curriculum can be melded to create a complementary
curriculum (Clark, 1994). Such a complementary curriculum may best meet the needs of
students with complex disabilities, such as those with SMD. Research by Schuster, Louise
Hemmeter, and Jones Ault (2001) described how students with low-incidence disabilities
demonstrated gains in target IEP areas after receiving content area instruction in the general
education classroom for a portion of the day. Teachers were provided adequate training in using
23

instructional strategies prior to receiving the students with low-incidence disabilities (Schuster,
Louise Hemmeter, & Jones Ault, 2001). This further illustrates the importance of providing
support to teachers working with students with SMD.
English language arts. Various studies have offered suggestions for including and
increasing access to English language arts content for the student with severe disabilities
resulting in increased literacy (Browder, Wakeman, Spooner, Ahlgrim-Delzell, & Algozzinexya,
2006). Although suggestions encompass English language arts as a content area, Saunders,
Spooner, Browder, Wakeman, and Lee (2013) noted that much of the research in English
language arts and students with SMD has focused on the teaching and acquisition of sight words.
Saunders et al. (2013) highlighted the usage of multimedia resources such as YouTube and
various applications ready-made for tablet and computer devices in making English language arts
lessons accessible for students with SMD along with the usage of students’ alternative and
augmentative communication devices. The bulk of research on reading for students with severe
or significant disabilities focuses on sight word or functional reading and leans heavily on
elementary-age subjects (Browder, Wakeman, Spooner, Ahlgrim-Delzell, & Algozzinexya,
2006). Browder, et al. (2006) noted in their research that phonemic awareness instruction
continues to be a need in forming reading skills in students with severe disabilities.
A research review on students with severe reading disabilities, as presented by Cowden
(2010), discussed the importance of offering access to both the general education setting and
strategies for improving decoding and fluency through sight word practice. Cowden (2010)
focused on the role of teachers in student access to reading strategies, as teachers contribute to
the process through the mindset they bring regarding students’ ability to learn. Among the
24

strategies presented by Cowden (2010) were using pictures and symbols along with text to
support readers and engaging students in meaningful literacy activities.
Math. Mathematics instruction that provides access to grade-level content beyond skills
deemed to be functional has been found to improve outcomes in adulthood and increase
educational equity (Knight, Browder, Agnello, & Lee, 2010). Mathematics instruction for
students with severe disabilities still relies heavily on functional skills such as time and money
(Browder et al., 2012). Enriching math instruction should include the use of task analysis and
graphic organizers to introduce grade-level content skills to students with severe disabilities, as
such resources were shown to aid in improving math test scores (Browder et al., 2012).
Furthermore, providing access to technology such as calculators and manipulatives for counting
during grade-level aligned problems.
Providing access to mathematics should occur within meaningful activities, suggesting
the melding of a standards-based and functional curriculum, as discussed by Clark (1994).
Saunders (2013) expounded on the importance of using real-world problems in teaching
Common Core State Standards (CCSS) mathematics to students with moderate to severe
disabilities and further detailed that students can learn both basic numeracy skills and grade-
aligned content during math instruction. Knight, et al. (2010) further explained that the usage of
specific strategies and evidence-based practices such as systematic prompting and task analysis
during mathematics lessons may assist educators in closing the gap until focused research on
working with students in the area of mathematics is published.
Science. Science is one content area that is not as well studied as English language arts
and mathematics are in terms of accessibility, modifications, and access to standards-based
instruction for students with SMD (Smith, Spooner, Jimenez, & Browder, 2013). It is
25

acknowledged that a limited amount of research on the provision of science instruction for
students with severe disabilities exists (Smith et al., 2013). Suggested ways for students to best
access the science curriculum involve embedding functional and practical skills into science
content (Miller, 2012). It was found that systemic instruction can be used to teach science to
elementary students with severe disabilities (Smith et al., 2013). Smith et al. (2013) further
found that science instruction for students with severe disabilities has been delivered as daily
living or functional skills, such as exploration of first aid.
Music. Although supports for students in non-core content areas, such as music, are
difficult to identify given the lack of research (Gadberry, 2009), Darrow (2016) has noted that
with the passage of the ESSA, students with disabilities may now have greater access to music
courses. The review of the language in ESSA by Darrow (2016) detailed the emphasis on the
provision of access to arts and music as part of the educational experience. The language in
ESSA is not exclusionary, meaning that students with severe disabilities are to be afforded
opportunities to benefit from music instruction. Darrow (2016) has seen the passage of ESSA as
an avenue for funneling funding toward not only arts and music education but also to the adapted
instruments and materials that students may need to fully access the instruction in these courses.
Though there is promise in music instruction due to legislation supporting greater access
to the arts for all students, Darrow (1999) has remarked that teachers feel a lack of knowledge
about students with disabilities, which contributes to a lessened ability to work with students in
the music classroom setting. More current research in non-core content areas is needed to derive
current supports, although those provided resonate as still holding true, such as collaboration and
training on appropriate supports (Darrow, 1999). Gadberry (2009) stated that the limited
research has focused on the teacher perspective and not on arts standards, whereas research
26

settings have comprised the inclusive music classroom from a needs perspective, not a solutions
perspective.
Curricular modifications. Successful participation in standards-based instruction is
reliant on the quality of the curricular modifications provided to the student with SMD (Lee,
Wehmeyer, Soukup, & Palmer, 2010). Conderman, Liberty, and DeSpain (2017) explained that
when modifications are implemented, the content being presented is altered. Additionally, Lee et
al. (2010) explained that curriculum modifications increase positive student responses while
decreasing competing behaviors that may distract from learning. Furthermore, knowing how to
successfully implement curricular modifications is a core factor in whether students will have
access to these modifications; therefore, teachers must have knowledge of when to use curricular
modifications and with which students (Lee et al., 2010). Conderman, Liberty, and DeSpain
(2017) stated that teachers frequently experience trouble when using accommodations versus
modifications, where a principal difference discussed is that accommodations do not alter the
content being taught.
Accessing the core curriculum is successful when students are provided curricular
modifications. The use of both general strategies across lessons and specialized modifications
ensures successful access to lessons (Fisher, & Frey, 2001). Though there is general research on
the benefits of curricular modifications for students with disabilities, there is a noted deficit in
research-based supports in various content areas and in knowledge of curricular modifications to
create successful access to standards-based instruction for students identified as having severe
and multiple disabilities. The stated deficits must be addressed to ensure that students with SMD
receive access to standards-based instruction.
27

The literature review presented the current and historical research related to supporting
students with SMD and examined teacher factors that may be influence access to standards-
based instruction for the stated population of students. The knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences affecting teacher performance in the USD will be analyzed using the
Clark and Estes Gap Analytical Framework within the context of the relevant research conducted
on students with disabilities.
Clark and Estes’ (2008) Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
Framework
The Clark and Estes Gap Analytical Framework provides organizations with a research-
tested approach to organizational problems affecting overall performance (Clark & Estes, 2008).
In supporting the implementation of the organizational and stakeholder goals, it is critical to have
a clear understanding of the stakeholder needs in the areas of knowledge and motivation. Clark
and Estes (2008) highlighted the importance of appropriately identifying and supporting
stakeholder needs, with misdiagnosis of knowledge needs serving only to harm performance.
Additionally, motivation may be harmed by incorrectly categorizing stakeholders’ beliefs or
making incorrect assumptions about stakeholders’ motivations (Clark & Estes, 2008). A core
component of supporting successful acquisition of desired knowledge and skills is ensuring that
stakeholders are trained or offered knowledge in each of the four knowledge types. Anderson
and Krathwohl (2001) detailed the four types of knowledge necessary for successful attainment
of performance goals: factual knowledge, conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge, and
metacognitive knowledge. Similarly, motivation to participate in or complete tasks varies
greatly in individuals due to a variety of factors. The research by Eccles (2006) attributed this
variety, in part, to cultural norms and beliefs, self-perception, and the task at hand. Furthermore,
28

organizational influences can affect knowledge and motivation, as seen in the established and
evolving cultural settings and models of an organization that were Gallimore and Goldenberg
(2001) described.
The following sections will review the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences within the Urban School District affecting acquisition of the stated goal. Knowledge
and skills affecting organizational performance will be discussed, followed by a discussion of
motivational influences that may affect the attainment of the organizational goal. I will conclude
with organizational factors affecting performance. Chapter 3 will further explore the themes of
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences as they pertain to the methodology of the
study.
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences
Knowledge and Skills
A principal component of supporting successful acquisition of desired knowledge and
skills is ensuring that stakeholders are trained or offered knowledge in each of the four
knowledge types: (a) factual knowledge, (b) conceptual knowledge, (c) procedural knowledge,
and (d) metacognitive knowledge (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Anderson and Krathwohl
(2001) succinctly described the revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy, which details that the four types
of knowledge are necessary for successful attainment of performance goals.
Educators of students with severe and multiple disabilities in the USD face possible gaps
in procedural and conceptual knowledge, or knowledge on how to perform the expected tasks
and what the relationships are between the identified concepts. One barrier some teachers as
learners may have in accessing procedural knowledge, such as using curricular modifications
during instruction, is the lack of automaticity in retrieving information, as described by Clark and
29

Estes (2008). Another similar barrier is in applying conceptual knowledge, as teachers need to
understand the correlation between Common Core State Standards and alternate achievement
standards. A process of moving conceptual knowledge to procedural “reserves” exists that
makes recall of the crucial information efficient. Teachers lacking the procedural and conceptual
knowledge as mentioned above may further hinder students’ access to the curriculum if they
cannot instruct students using the adopted curriculum, which is cited as another procedural
barrier.
Upon my review of relevant research related to the knowledge and skill influences,
several themes emerged that highlight the knowledge and skills necessary for teachers to possess
for the organization to move forward in meeting the established goals. The research emphasizes
knowledge and skill deficits in the area of effective instructional practice, in which research by
Antoniou and Kyriakides (2013) revealed that teachers can improve instructional practices
through dedicated professional development and follow up, which results in improved student
outcomes. Additional shortfalls in knowledge and skills include increasing accessibility using
curricular modifications, which Lee, Wehmeyer, Soukup, and Palmer (2010) stated increased
positive student responses while decreasing competing behaviors that may distract from learning.
Finally, successfully linking core content standards to alternate achievement standards is
identified as a knowledge and skill area of need for teachers, as was noted by Browder et al.
(2007).
Motivation
In addition to identifying knowledge and skill influences, the research aided in
identifying possible motivational factors affecting teacher performance in the area of
instructional practices. Teachers may possess the knowledge and skills discussed above but may
30

be actively choosing to not engage in the task of providing rigorous instruction to students with
moderate to severe disabilities. Motivation to participate in or complete tasks varies greatly in
individuals due to a variety of factors. Eccles (2006) attributed differences in motivation, in part,
to cultural norms and beliefs, self-perception, and the task at hand. Eccles (2006) concluded that
one’s belief that he or she can complete a task can affect engagement in the task, as can the value
that has been assigned to the task. Teacher beliefs and self-perception expressed as low self-
efficacy are possible motivational influences, with Ruppar, Neeper, and Dalsen (2016) having
explored sources of teacher self-efficacy (both the lack and presence of) and providing insight
into how teacher perceptions affect preparedness to teach students with disabilities.
Furthermore, Clark and Estes (2008) explained a noted fact about knowledge and motivation
whereby one may hold the knowledge to complete a task but lack the motivation, thus making
motivation a necessary target for successful intervention.
The motivational influences identified may be occurring in tandem with the knowledge
and skill influences, as knowledge and motivation are often both gaps present when performance
is lacking in a stakeholder group in an organization. Another possible motivational influence
identified are attributions. When surveyed, teachers attributed much of the difficulty in
providing access to the general education curriculum to student behaviors and resistance from
general educators, (Agran, Alper, and Wehmeyer, 2002).
Instruction using adopted curriculum. Teachers in the USD currently work with
students with moderate to severe disabilities using a district adopted curriculum for instruction in
English language arts and mathematics. Successful implementation of the adopted curriculum
entails several components of knowledge and skills that enable teachers to grant students access
to the curriculum, such as how to effectively plan lessons that meet students’ needs and how to
31

incorporate individual students’ learning goals into each lesson. Research conducted by
Antoniou and Kyriakides (2013) revealed that teachers can improve instructional practices
through dedicated professional development and follow up, which results in improved student
outcomes. Furthermore, Antoniou and Kyriakides (2013) described specific skills within
professional development that can create more effective learning in teachers, such as modeling.
Expanding on the concept of modeling, Grossman and Salas (2011) discussed transfer of
learned skills to the work environment through a conversation on Bandura’s (2005) concept of
behavioral modeling. Grossman and Salas (2011) posited that the most effective use of
modeling in training arises when both positive and negative models are used. Further
information provided by Grossman and Salas revealed that trainees and superiors may benefit
from participating in the process of modeling and goal setting. For educators, this may take on
the form of peer modeling, with teachers observing both positive and negative models and
discussing goals and targets for behavior post-observation.
Making assignments accessible to students using modifications. Curricular
modifications are a necessary component of achieving the stakeholder goal of providing access
to standards-based lessons to students with severe and multiple disabilities. Research conducted
by Lee, Wehmeyer, Soukup, and Palmer (2010) stated that curriculum modifications increase
positive student responses while decreasing competing behaviors that may distract from learning.
Knowing how to successfully implement curricular modifications is a core factor in whether
students will have access to these modifications; thus, teachers must have the procedural
knowledge of when to use curricular modifications and with which students. Grossman and
Salas (2011) stated in their research that successful transfer of skill involves not only training but
also generalization and maintenance of skill. In the case of teachers applying curricular
32

modifications, this translates into knowing when and to what degree to use curricular
modifications to see maximum output from students, as described by Lee et al. (2010).
The research by Lee et al. (2010) provided further evidence of a knowledge gap related to
supporting the needs of teachers in the area of curricular modifications. Research by Grossman
and Salas (2011) expanded on the themes presented by Lee et al., as they discussed the need for
teachers to train in realistic settings for knowledge to transfer. Given the difficulty teachers have
with implementing curricular modifications and the challenges they have working with students
with the most significant disabilities, training in real-life settings bears importance. Grossman
and Salas (2011) presented the concept of error management as critical to the transfer process, as
trainees, in this case teachers, must be able to anticipate possible changes in scenarios to be able
to mediate challenges with innovative solutions as they arise.
Correlation between common core standards and alternate achievement standards.
Teachers of students with moderate to severe disabilities in the USD may have difficulty
with designing and delivering instruction that is aligned to the Common Core Standards. This
gap in knowledge may be attributable to the lack of clear guidance in linking instruction to
academic standards, as has been noted by Browder et al. (2007). Teachers not only must possess
pedagogical knowledge but also must be able to effectively plan to instruct students with the
most significant disabilities by linking core content standards to alternate achievement standards.
The difficulty teachers have in linking core content standards and alternate achievement
standards represents a gap in conceptual knowledge. Although teachers may have knowledge of
both core content standards and alternate achievement standards, they could lack knowledge in
how to bridge the two to make for meaningful instruction for students with moderate to severe
disabilities. Teachers must not only know the common core and alternate achievement standards
33

but also must know how to effectively plan lessons using the alternate achievement standards
and how these standards link to the core content standards for effective instruction to take place.
Table 2 lists the Organizational Mission, Organizational Global Goal, Stakeholder Goal.
Knowledge Influence, Knowledge Type, and Knowledge Influence Assessments considered
when writing this literature review.
Table 2
Knowledge Influences
Motivation
Motivation to participate in or complete tasks varies greatly in individuals due to a
variety of factors. Research by Eccles (2006) attributed this variety, in part, to cultural norms
and beliefs, self-perception, and the task at hand. Eccles (2006) concluded that one’s belief that
he or she can complete a task can affect engagement in the task, as can the value that has been
Organizational Mission
To welcome and include diversity in educating the district’s students.
Organizational Global Goal
The Urban School District will ensure that 100% of students attain mastery of the state
standards through access to rigorous and differentiated instruction by June 2019 as measured
by developmental and state assessment data.
Stakeholder Goal
By June 2019, teachers will write and use standards-based, age-appropriate lessons daily with
students with multiple/severe disabilities.
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type (i.e., declarative [factual or
conceptual], procedural, or metacognitive)
Teachers need knowledge in how to instruct
students using standards-based curriculum
Procedural
Teachers need knowledge of instructional
modifications to make assignments accessible
Procedural
Teachers need understanding of correlation
between Common Core State Standards and
alternate achievement standards
Factual (knowledge of standards)
Conceptual (correlation and application of
knowledge)

34

assigned to the task. Clark and Estes (2008) explained a noted fact about knowledge and
motivation whereby one may hold the knowledge to complete a task but lack the motivation, thus
making motivation a necessary target for successful intervention. The motivational influences
identified as potential barriers may occur in tandem with the aforementioned knowledge and skill
influences identified above. Knowledge and motivation are often both gaps present when
performance is lacking in a stakeholder group in an organization. Knowledge and motivation are
compared to the parts of a car, critical for effective organizational operation, as described by
Clark and Estes (2008). The role that motivation plays in teacher performance in the USD will
be discussed within the context of the research specific to the organizational problem, such as
that by Agran, Alper, and Wehmeyer (2002). The following sections will review teacher beliefs
and self-perception expressed as low self-efficacy and attributions affecting motivation.
Teacher perceptions of self-efficacy. Pajares (2006) explored the potential impact of
low self-efficacy on motivation in his summary of research on social cognitive theory and
discussed the effect these findings can have on teaching. The work in self-efficacy by Pajares
(2003) can be applied to the case of teachers working with students with moderate to severe
disabilities, as it relates to the content knowledge a teacher must possess to effectively teach
students. Teachers with positive self-efficacy apply knowledge of pedagogy in their classrooms
through lessons and management (Chacon, 2005; Woolfolk, Rosoff, & Hoy, 1990 as cited in Zee
& Koomen, 2016). Pajares (2003) explained that views of self-efficacy can be affected by what
one believes about his or her abilities. If teachers carry doubt in the knowledge or skills they
possess, their motivation to fulfill tasks related to teaching will be affected.
Ruppar, Neeper, and Dalsen (2016) explored sources of teacher self-efficacy, both the
lack and presence of, and provided insight concerning how teacher perceptions affect
35

preparedness to teach students with disabilities. In their study, Ruppar, Neeper, and Dalsen
(2016) detailed the survey of 104 teachers, with and without specific licensure to work with
students with disabilities, and reported findings of teachers being particularly less prepared to
work with students with more significant disabilities. Both teacher licensure type (i.e., special
education versus general education) and overall experience had a positive influence on teacher
perception of preparedness to work with students with severe disabilities, indicating a higher
perception of self-efficacy.
Internal and external factors affecting teacher attribution. Another noted factor
affecting teachers’ motivation is attribution, described by Anderman and Anderman (2006) as
one’s thinking about why events have certain outcomes. These outcomes, in turn, affect
motivation. Several types of attribution are affecting teachers in the USD, influencing
motivation and achievement of organizational goals. Per the research reviewed, attribution in
teachers may be due to several causes – either internal or external – and can have behavioral
impacts (Anderman & Anderman, 2006). Teachers may cease to perform if they believe that
their teaching efforts are due to a lack of ability or due to an external cause that they cannot
control.
A lack of motivation may be compounded by teachers attributing their own performance
and willingness to contribute to classroom efforts to their perceptions of student level of
disability and anticipated outcomes. Essentially, these teachers’ lack of providing access to
instruction is caused by the level of severity of disability in the student. Zhou and Urhahne
(2013) explored the effects of teacher attribution on student performance and found that teacher
expectations, though often based on accurate measures of student ability, served as “self-
fulfilling prophecies” (p. 276). Zhou and Urhahne (2013) cited the study by Brophy in which it
36

was observed that student performance was adversely affected by teacher attributions, which in
turn affected teacher expectations.
Further affecting teacher attributions are negative feelings about student “abilities,
progress, and outcomes” (Atkinson, as cited in Han & Yin, 2016, p. 8). Teacher attitudes that
assume that access to general education or core content standards for students with significant
disabilities is not a high priority are common (Agran, Alper, & Wehmeyer, 2002). The study by
Agran et al. (2002) surveyed teachers of students with moderate to severe disabilities and found
that although a high number of teachers reported that their students were integrated into classes
with general education peers, the teachers did not feel that the students should “be held
accountable to the same performance standards as non-disabled peers.” (p. 125). The study
revealed that 48% of teachers disagreed and that 40% strongly disagreed with the former
statement, indicating that the teachers felt that access is more important for students with mild
disabilities (Agran et al., 2002). These studies point to teacher attributions about student ability
affecting access to standards-based instruction.
The results of the research conducted by Agran et al. (2002) may provide further insight
into teacher attribution as a source of low motivation to provide access to academic instruction
and general education-aligned content. When surveyed, teachers attributed much of the
difficulty to providing access to the general education curriculum to student behaviors and
resistance from general educators, reported at 1.5 and 1.6, respectively, on a 5-point Likert scale,
where a rating of 1 indicated the statement was viewed as a “very important barrier,” and 5 was
“not at all a barrier” (Agran et al., 2002). The teachers did not view their ability to teach with as
high of a level of importance, rated 2.1 on the scale. The responses given by teachers indicate a
possible attribution of the impact of student qualities and general education teachers, or external
37

factors, on the stated problem of access to instruction discussed in the knowledge section. Han
and Yin (2016) further supported this statement, as they provided evidence that teacher
motivation is linked to teacher effectiveness.
Table 3 lists the Organizational Mission, Organizational Global Goal, Stakeholder Goal.
Motivational Indicators, Assumed Motivation Influences, and Motivational Influence
Assessments considered when writing this literature review.
Table 3
Motivation Influences
Organization
Organizations can affect goal attainment through the very way they set up expectations.
Clark and Estes (2008) further likened the organization to the road conditions that can either help
or hinder travel or the achievement of the organizational mission. It has been further noted that
Organizational Mission
To welcome and include diversity in educating the district’s students.
Organizational Global Goal
The Urban School District will ensure that 100% of students attain mastery of the state standards
through access to rigorous and differentiated instruction by June 2019 as measured by
developmental and state assessment data.
Stakeholder Goal
By June 2019, teachers will write and use standards-based, age-appropriate lessons daily with
students with multiple/severe disabilities.
Motivational Indicator(s)
Level of autonomy, external factors (stressors, outside life), working conditions
Assumed Motivation Influences
Self-efficacy:
Teachers need to feel capable of writing and using standards-based, age-appropriate lessons for
students with severe and multiple disabilities.

Attribution:
Teachers should feel that access to standards-based, age-appropriate lessons is reflective of their
own efforts and not of the level of disability of the student(s).
38

individuals and work teams may possess the knowledge, skills, and motivation to carry out the
necessary tasks for success, but organizational culture can be the barrier that comes between
individuals and success (Clark & Estes, 2008).
General Theory
Clark and Estes (2008) described organizational culture as a “work process” that aids in
dictating how work tasks are done within the organization. Cultural settings and models are
embedded parts of this process, as has been explained by Rueda (2011). Furthermore, cultural
settings are explained as those places, often organizations, where people engage in common
tasks for a common purpose (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001)
described cultural models as automated, shared ways of thinking among organizations. These
shared ways of thinking have been described by Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) as ones that
evolve slowly and are interwoven within an organization’s history. It is important to note that
although an organization’s historical context may influence cultural settings and models, these
may be in flux at any given moment. Rueda (2011) explained how settings and models are not
only related but also interact with each other and are affected by time and organizational factors
such as group beliefs. The concept of models and settings has been described by Schein (2017)
as the visible and invisible layers of an organization that display themselves as the organization’s
structures and beliefs (visible) and ideals and unconscious beliefs (invisible).
Stakeholder-specific factors. Rueda (2011) noted that culture is dynamic and that
cultural knowledge is often automated. The identification of specific cultural models and
settings at play in an organization is essential to gaining an understanding of the organization’s
workings (Rueda, 2011). In the Urban School District (USD), there are four identified cultural
setting and model problems that may be contributing to the organizational issue of access to
39

standards-based instruction for students with SMD: (a) the organization needs a culture of
writing and implementing standards-based, age-appropriate lessons, (b) the organization needs a
culture that reinforces daily instruction linked to general education (core curriculum) standards,
(c) The organization needs to provide teachers with the support needed to prepare and deliver
standards-based, age-appropriate lessons on a daily basis, and (d) the organization needs to
provide effective support to teachers using standards-based, age-appropriate curriculum and
modifications with students.
Writing and implementing standards-based lessons. The USD needs to foster group
environments that encourage and support the writing and implementing of standards-based
lessons. Schein (2017) identified the beliefs and actions undertaken by the group as reflecting
the leader’s beliefs and values. On a larger scale, Schneider, Brief, and Guzzo (1996) described
the organizational climate as being influenced by the behaviors undertaken by the members of
the organization. To that effect, behaviors holding standards-based lessons for students with
SMD as important can affect the organizational climate. School sites and teachers must hold the
belief that the use of standards-based lessons is important for every school site serving students
with SMD. The passage (and subsequent reauthorization) of IDEA grounds the belief that all
students with disabilities should have access to general education curriculum content instruction
(Browder et al., 2007). According to Rueda (2011), such policies are grounded in evolving
beliefs and can affect cultural settings.
Using standards-based curriculum and modifications. In addition to writing and using
standards-based lessons, the organization needs to view standards-based curriculum and
instructional modifications as important for students with SMD. How the organization allocates
rewards can convey the importance of instructional initiatives to stakeholders. As Schein (2017)
40

explained, an organization that values performance in one area must ensure that it is in fact
rewarding those values if the importance of the task is to be communicated to stakeholders.
Hansen, Smith, and Hansen (2002) cautioned against simply using rewards to attain desired
organizational behaviors. Hansen, et al. (2002) made the clear distinction between rewards and
recognition, with extrinsic motivation being driven by rewards and intrinsic motivation being
driven by recognition.
Daily instruction linked to general education standards. Rueda (2011) explored the
importance of cultural settings, specifically in schools, as the setting establishes the context
within which behaviors and beliefs occur. Teachers must work in settings that promote the
implementation of daily instruction linked to general education standards. Buckingham and
Coffman (1999) noted that managerial support is critical to the success of employees, as ensuring
access to these supports is one indicator of the integrity of the workplace. Rueda (2011)
simplified the description of a cultural setting as involving the “who, what, when, where, and
why” (p. 57), with schools being composed of the sites themselves, students, employees, and the
events surrounding them. Though the explication of a cultural setting is simplified, Rueda
(2011) further clarified that cultural settings of complex contexts such as classrooms often
present challenges given the dynamic nature of the contexts. The cultural settings present in the
Urban School District should support access to standards-based instruction for all students, as
students need not learn prerequisite functional skills before accessing academic skills (Courtade,
Browder, Spooner, & Jimenez, 2012).
Providing effective support. Providing effective training and support to teachers working
with students with SMD is a component of the goal for the USD. Supports such as
multicomponent training, defined by Brown, Stephenson, and Carter (2014) as a method of
41

training that incorporates a multifaceted approach of training, modeling, and ongoing feedback,
serve to provide teachers with positive, constructive advice and opportunities to master the skills
being presented. Antoniou and Kyriakides (2013) posited that teacher professional development
programs should include offerings on a variety of skills based on identified teacher needs along
with tailored training for groups of teachers rather than a single training for teams or schools.
Joo (2012, as cited in Berger, 2014) noted that learning organizations are those that, in part,
value two-way communication, such as is seen in cyclical feedback models.
Table 4 lists the Organizational Mission, Organizational Global Goal, Stakeholder Goal,
Organizational Influence, and Organizational Influence Assessments considered when writing
this literature review.
Table 4
Organizational Influences
Organizational Mission
To welcome and include diversity in educating the district’s students.
Organizational Global Goal
The Urban School District will ensure that 100% of students attain mastery of the state
standards through access to rigorous and differentiated instruction by June 2019 as measured
by developmental and state assessment data.
Stakeholder Goal
By June 2019, teachers will write and use standards-based, age-appropriate lessons daily
with students with multiple/severe disabilities.
Assumed Organizational Influences
Cultural Model Influence 1:
The organization needs a culture that reinforces instruction linked to general education (core
curriculum) standards and usage of curricular modifications.
Cultural Model Influence 2:
The organization needs to provide teachers of students with severe/multiple disabilities the
information on how to provide access to standards-based, age-appropriate lessons.
Cultural Setting Influence 1:
The organization needs to provide effective support to teachers to ensure implementation of
standards-based, age-appropriate curriculum and modifications.
42

Cultural Setting Influence 2:
The organization needs to provide effective support to teachers using standards-based, age-
appropriate curriculum and modifications with students.
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization
The conceptual framework serves as a tentative theoretical explication of the identified
problem, as was stated by Maxwell (2013). In the following descriptor of the problem of student
access to standards-based instruction, the conceptual framework shall serve to aid in building a
descriptor of beliefs and concepts as they relate to the literature on the problem. As Maxwell
(2013) further described, the identified problem is a component of the conceptual framework, as
the problem serves as justification for the study. The conceptual framework includes not only
the research problem and related literature but also the researcher’s view of these in relation to
the context and theories relative to the problem (Maxwell, 2013). Rocco and Plakhotnik (2009)
presented an additional viewpoint on the conceptual framework, describing it as a way to
combine theory and research to build a foundation of the works surrounding a topic.
Although the stakeholder knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences are
discussed in separate sections above, the influences interact and can affect organizational goal
attainment (Clark & Estes, 2008). Clark and Estes (2008) described behaviors such as task
avoidance and procrastination as motivational influences that may hinder achievement of a stated
goal or task. Task avoidance may take the form of teachers not using a standards-based
curriculum. Additionally, teachers may lack the knowledge and skills necessary to implement a
standards-based curriculum, which can lead to a negative effect on motivation. It is important to
study this potential lack of motivation, as teachers may ultimately actively avoid or delay
completing the task due to a belief that the task is “impossible or irrelevant” (Clark & Estes,
43

2008) as a result of not having the requisite knowledge and skills necessary to use standards-
based lesson plans.
Clark and Estes (2008) further explained that motivation is the cause of most
performance gaps. Teachers may be reluctant to implement strategies they do not feel they have
mastered, such as using curricular modifications. In this instance, motivation can affect
knowledge or the acquisition of knowledge. This explanation most closely aligns with goal
orientation theory, discussed by Yough and Anderman (2006) as being composed of two types of
goals: mastery and performance. Teachers who are not motivated to complete a task will not be
inclined to set either type of goal, with a mastery goal relying on the learning of new skills to
master the task (such as usage of curricular modifications). Similarly, a performance goal will
rely on the educator’s seeking to demonstrate skills learned (for example, to an administrator).
In the Urban School District, the organizational culture can affect both the knowledge
and motivation held by teachers and can further influence the overall achievement of the
organizational goals, a phenomenon described by Clark and Estes (2008). It is currently
observed that the organization needs to provide effective support for teachers if they are to use
standards-based curriculum and modifications with students with SMD. According to Clark and
Estes (2008), the organizational culture set by the district can affect performance and change
performance. It has been described that organizational culture can be changed “by changing the
beliefs and knowledge” of groups (Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 109). It has further been detailed that
acquisition of knowledge and skills is automated. This automaticity may be embedded within
the cultural models and settings of the organization, thus making the role of organizational
culture inevitably related to both knowledge and motivation. Clark and Estes highlighted the
44

importance of addressing organizational culture, knowledge needs, and motivational needs given
this often-interrelated relationship.
Figure 3
Factors Affecting the Urban School District: Conceptual Framework

45

The cultural framework presented (Figure 3) represents the interplay between the
identified knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences affecting the Urban School
District, identified stakeholders, and achievement of the stated organizational goal. To
successfully achieve the stated goal of having teachers write and use standards-based lessons
with students with SMD on a daily basis, the teachers must possess the necessary procedural and
conceptual knowledge and skills to carry out this task. Teachers must be able to successfully use
the adopted curriculum along with necessary modifications. Along with this, teachers must
believe that they are capable to effectively work with students and the curriculum. The
overarching issue affecting student access to standards-based curriculum is the organizational
culture, which includes issues of effective training and follow up and an organizational culture
that values access to standards-based curriculum for all students. Clark and Estes (2008)
explained that the organizational culture must align with the goals of the organization. In this
way, both organizational and stakeholder behaviors and beliefs are the key to successful
attainment of the goal, hence the movement from the district and teachers toward the goal.
In Figure 3, the teachers are presented inside of the green circle, within the district, as
their role as teachers does not exist outside the organization, nor do their issues of compliance
reside outside the greater organizational cultural issues. The teacher knowledge and
motivational issues are embedded within the identified organizational issues. These two
combined factors affect the stated organizational goal to the detriment of student achievement
and outcomes.
In reviewing the organizational influences affecting the Urban School District and their
relationship to the identified knowledge and motivation influences influencing stakeholder
performance, the study focuses on the following two organizational influences: (a) The
46

organization needs a culture of writing and implementing standards-based, age-appropriate
lessons, and (b) The organization needs to provide effective support for teachers if they are to
use standards-based curriculum and modifications with students. These influences that most
closely relate to and are believed to affect stakeholder knowledge and motivation are based on
the research reviewed. In addition, similarities exist between some of the identified influences,
wherein the two identified cultural models focused on standards-based curriculum and its usage
in the classroom, and the two identified cultural settings focused on access to said curriculum
whether via modifications or lessons. Provision of access to lessons was stated in the cultural
models.
The cultural framework serves as a visual representation of how the district can reach its
organizational goal. The nesting of the teachers within the district suggests the need for the
district cultural settings and models to nurture positive development of teacher knowledge, skills
and motivation to achieve the goal. Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) described that the
presence or absence of cultural settings, in teaching specifically, can affect outcomes (of
teaching and learning). When teachers have the necessary knowledge and skills, they in turn feel
capable of carrying out the work they are tasked with. Both the district and the teachers can
work together toward goal achievement when the cultural setting and models and teacher
knowledge, skills, and motivation are in alignment. Communication of and clarity in the
language of the goal can assist in successfully meeting the stated goal (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Teachers may feel more secure in their roles if they are aware of which skills and goals they are
working toward.

47

Summary
This chapter has covered the literature relevant to the attainment of the goal of access to
standards-based instruction for students with severe and multiple disabilities. Studies related to
teacher perceptions and preparation, content area instruction, and curriculum modifications
informed the study. The Clark and Estes’ (2008) Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational
Influences Framework served as the guide for the research related to the knowledge,
motivational, and organizational influences affecting teachers in the organization. The
knowledge influences include usage of the adopted curriculum, knowledge of instructional
modifications to make work student accessible, and an understanding of correlation between
Common Core State Standards and alternate achievement standards. The motivational
influences affecting the stakeholders include (a) self-efficacy related to working with students
with severe and multiple disabilities and (b) attribution regarding the ability of students with
disabilities. The conceptual framework provided a theoretical explication of the identified
problem (Maxwell, 2013). The conceptual framework model serves as a visual demonstrating
how the stated influences interact with each other and the stated organizational goal. Chapter 3
presents the methodological approach for the study.

48

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences affecting the Urban School District’s attainment of the stated goal of ensuring that
100% of students, including those with severe and multiple disabilities, have access to rigorous,
standards-based instruction. The questions that aided in guiding the purpose of the study are as
follows:
1. What is the teacher knowledge related to providing access to standards-based curriculum
and instructional modifications to students in classrooms for students with severe and
multiple disabilities?
2. What is the teacher motivation related to providing access to standards-based curriculum
and instructional modifications to students in classrooms for students with severe and
multiple disabilities?
3. How do the culture and context of the Urban School District impact teacher ability to
provide access to standards-based curriculum and instructional modifications in
classrooms for students with severe and multiple disabilities?
Surveys were conducted to gain a broad perspective of the problem affecting the
organization. Interviews with selected participants were conducted to gain a deeper
understanding of the responses provided in the surveys and to explore themes more suited to
qualitative exploration. The mixed-methods design of the study was implemented by first
administering a survey to a participant pool of 148 teachers of students with severe and multiple
disabilities. Data collection was conducted in two phases, with the first taking place over a 6-
week period and the second phase taking place over a 9-week period. The survey was
49

administered in two phases after the first phase yielded a low response rate. The use of both
quantitative and qualitative methods allowed for a deeper examination of the data, or an
explanatory sequential design, as explained by Creswell and Creswell (2018).
Sampling and Recruitment
Participating Stakeholders
As discussed in Chapter 1, the Urban School District serves students with disabilities in a
variety of classroom settings. For this study, only teachers serving students in classrooms
identified as serving students with multiple disabilities and severe multiple disabilities in grades
kindergarten through 12 (K–12) were included. For this study, grade 12 included students ages
18–22. In the USD, students ages 18–22 are still served by the school district and are identified
as being in grade 12. Based on data provided by the special education department, 148 teachers
were eligible for participation in the study.
Survey Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. All teachers of students in K–12 classrooms for students with multiple
disabilities and severe multiple disabilities in the USD.
Rationale: Inclusion of all teachers as outlined above, regardless of status, allowed for
the best representation of the population and helped garner information about the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences affecting teacher performance and access to standards-
based instruction for students with severe and multiple disabilities.
Survey Sampling and Recruitment Strategy and Rationale
The sample for the survey was the entire stated population, or a census sample, as a
census sample allowed for the representation of the entire population in the study. Johnson
(2014) described a census study as typically unfeasible unless the population size is manageable.
50

The stated population size of teachers working in K–12 classrooms for students with multiple
disabilities and severe multiple disabilities in the USD was 148, making a census sample a valid
and manageable choice for the administration of a survey to the entire population. Johnson
(2014) touted using the entire population, when possible, as a “best bet” in research studies.
Participants completed the quantitative portion of the study (survey) prior to participating in the
qualitative portion, although participation in the survey was not a prerequisite for participation in
the interview. Participants for the study were recruited via their district-issued email district
personnel distributed. Participants completed the online survey via Qualtrics.
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. All teachers working with students in elementary, middle, high school, and
transition centers teaching students with multiple disabilities and severe multiple disabilities in
the Urban School District were eligible to self-select for an interview.
Rationale: Selecting teachers with a range of experience working with students with
severe and multiple disabilities from varying grade levels allows for exploration of the stated
knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors for the organizational goal being evaluated.
Clark and Estes (2008) recommended speaking with two to three people for a group of 40. The
target sample size for this group was approximately three times the recommended size of the
group discussed by Clark and Estes, making the target sample size of eight to 12 an adequate
target for interviews. Clark and Estes (2008) further suggested recruiting individuals that are
representative of people working in similar contexts. In this case, the contexts are school age-
range types (elementary, middle school, high school, and transition center).

51

Interview Sampling and Recruitment Strategy and Rationale
Interviewing is used to collect various ideas from a group (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Given that there are a variety of teacher types (experience, backgrounds, knowledge of working
with standards), interviews were used to off greater insight into survey responses, with
purposeful sampling used to generate the sample for the interviews. Miles and Huberman (1994)
discussed the importance of selecting the appropriate sampling measure to aid in answering the
research questions. Purposeful sampling enables further gathering of information that allows for
exploration of the research questions, as explained by Maxwell (2013). Participants’ responses
to the survey questions related to participants’ familiarity with standards, the grade level being
taught, and years of experience teaching students with SMD assisted with the formulation of the
interview sample. For this study, a total of eight to 12 teachers with diverse experiences were
sought. The criteria for interview participants are as follows:
(1) Grade level taught (elementary, middle, high school, or transition)
(2) Years of experience teaching students with SMD
(3) Self-reported familiarity with standards (general education and/or alternate
achievement)
Participants self-selected as interview candidates by contacting the proxy researcher and
were selected for interviewing according to the interview participant criteria. Each potential
participant was asked to answer the following questions so a diverse interview sample would be
developed:
1) What age group(s) do you primarily work with? (Check all that apply.)
-Early elementary (Grades TK–2)
-Upper elementary (Grades 3–5)
-Middle school (Grades 6–8)
52

-High school (Grades 9–12)
-Transition (Ages 18–22)
2) Including this year, how many years have you been teaching students with severe and
multiple disabilities? (fill in)
3) I have a clear understanding of the correlation between the Common Core State
Standards and alternate achievement standards.
-Strongly agree
-Agree
-Neither agree nor disagree
-Disagree
-Strongly disagree
Although the interview participation questions were also asked on the survey, potential
participants were asked to send the responses to the questions listed above directly to the proxy
researcher to eliminate the need to enter personal information on the survey. This further
protected participant identities, as the principal researcher had no access to the personal identities
of potential interview participants.
Participants were selected via maximum variation sampling, which Johnson and
Christensen (2015) described as a method that can assure inclusion of a variety of “cases.” In
this study, the cases sought are familiarity with standards, the grade level taught, and years of
experience teaching students with SMD. Johnson and Christensen (2015) also noted that when
purposeful sampling is used, participants are solicited until the need is met. Although the target
of eight to 12 participants was not met, the four participants ultimately recruited were
representative of diverse teaching experiences. This diversity is important to highlight, as
emergent themes in the literature review indicated disparate views on the benefits of inclusion
based on grade level taught. Table 5 lists the participants’ responses to the interview screening
53

questions. The decision to include data drawn from interviews was made based on the strength
that adding qualitative data to the study can have. Creswell and Creswell (2018) highlighted the
positive impact that including qualitative data, such as interviews, can have on a study, such as
further explaining quantitative results, adding the views of participants, and creating a more
holistic view of recommendations and needed changes.
Table 5
Interview Participants’ Demographic Information
Participant Grade Level Taught Years of Experience Self-Reported
Familiarity with
Standards
A Ages 18–22 2 Agree
B TK–2 2 Neither agree nor
disagree
C 9–12 20 Agree
D TK–2 8 Neither agree nor
disagree

Quantitative Data Collection and Instrumentation
A survey was used to collect data once, or in cross-sectional fashion, as described by
Creswell and Creswell (2014). Given the research study timeline and the possible constraints on
access to potential participants, collecting survey data once was a reasonable goal, with follow-
up interviews to gather further input with select individuals to explicate quantitative findings
(Creswell & Creswell, 2014). The use of a survey aided in collecting data related to all the
research questions from a wide range of participants. As Creswell and Creswell (2014)
explained, the use of a quantitative tool such as a survey will yield general results. Given the
decision to use the entire population of teachers working in classrooms for students with severe
and multiple disabilities in the USD, the employment of a survey was the most feasible choice
54

given the constraints on the study. Creswell and Creswell (2018) outlined several advantages to
using surveys in data collection, such as their costs and efficiency. The use of a survey in
gathering data from teachers was the most time and cost-efficient method of gathering opinions
about the factors affecting teacher knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences in the
USD.
Surveys
The survey instrument distributed was an online survey hosted on the online platform
Qualtrics. The number of survey items was 26, with four questions being demographic questions
to gather information on the participants’ teaching background and experience, classroom type,
and grades taught. The final question of the survey asked participants about their interest in
participating in a follow-up interview, as discussed in the qualitative discussion below. The
remaining survey items sought to assess participant knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences affecting achievement of the organizational goal. The survey items selected were
adapted from the Early Childhood Educator Survey published by the Early Childhood Education
Research Alliance (ECEA) and the Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast & Islands (Irwin,
O’Dwyer & DeMeo Cook, 2014), whose intent was to use the surveys to collect data on the
usage of state standards by early childhood educators. The usage of an existing survey allowed
for collection of data related to the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
discussed except for one organizational influence related to cultural models. The following are
questions included on the survey instrument (Appendix A), as adapted for use for this research
study, along with the influence they were aligned to explore:
55

1. (Motivation – Self-efficacy) How familiar are you with the Common Core State
Standards pertaining to English language arts? (Very familiar, somewhat familiar,
not very familiar, not at all familiar, not applicable)
2. (Organization – Cultural Models) In the past year, how many professional
development offerings related to alternate achievement standards were provided by
your district or school? (None, 1, 2–4, 5+, Not sure)
3. (Knowledge – Factual) I have a clear understanding of the correlation between the
Common Core State Standards and alternate achievement standards. (Strongly
agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, strongly disagree)
The survey questions were composed of a mix of closed and open-ended questions, with
the bulk of questions using a closed question format. Response options for closed questions
include rating scales and multiple choice, as listed above. Most questions presented on the
survey were closed questions, as formatting questions in this way aids in increasing the
reliability of responses (Fink, 2013). The use of open-ended questions was reserved for items
requesting demographic information, as Fink (2013) cautioned against using open-ended
questions because they are difficult to code. Appendix A contains the survey instrument in its
entirety. Questions 1–4 on the survey collected demographic information and included the
following:
1. What state certifications/credentials do you hold? (None, Education Specialist –
Mild/Moderate disabilities, Education Specialist – Moderate/Severe Disabilities,
Other Education Specialist Credential (fill in), Multiple Subjects Credential,
Administrative Services Credential/Certificate, Other (fill in)
56

2. Including this year, how many years have you been teaching (students with or without
disabilities)? (Fill in)
Survey Procedures. The survey was administered to teachers working with students
identified as having severe or multiple disabilities in grades kindergarten through 12, including
transition-age students (ages 18–22). Specific criteria for participation in the survey is outlined
in the Survey Strategy and Rationale section as described above. Teachers were recruited for the
survey via their district-issued email, in which they received a recruitment letter with information
on the study. The target response rate for the survey was 85% or greater, which is the guideline
established by the National Center for Education Statistics (U.S. Department of Education as
cited in Pazzaglia, Stafford, & Rodriguez, 2016). Of the 148 teachers the survey was distributed
to, 70 teachers logged on to attempt the survey with 62 teachers completing the survey. This
amounted to a 42% response rate. Pazzaglia et al. (2016) recommend checking for nonresponse
bias when response rates fall below 85%. The check for nonresponse bias included reviewing
responses submitted at the start of the study as compared with those submitted at the end of the
study to observe for any differences. Additionally, participant demographics were compared
with those of the sample population. When compared with the sample population, participant
responses are representative of the percentage of teachers teaching in each grade level. Higher
percentages of respondents are seen for the elementary, middle school, and high school grades,
as teachers were able to select more than one grade level in their response, as discussed in
Chapter Four.
Robinson and Firth Leonard (2019) noted, however, that a low response rate on a survey
may not be an indicator of insufficient data or nonresponse bias. In anticipation of the response
rate falling below 85%, mitigating strategies were implemented to reduce any potential
57

nonresponse rate, as suggested by Robinson and Firth Leonard (2019). The use of an established
survey was one strategy employed to assist in the reduction of nonresponse, as was engaging
teachers not participating in the survey to review the survey for redundancies that might increase
the likelihood for survey fatigue. Following completion of the survey, teachers were invited to
participate in the interview portion of the study by being provided a brief statement about the
purpose and voluntary participation in the interview. Participants were provided with contact
information for the proxy researcher to protect confidentiality.
Qualitative Data Collection and Instrumentation
In addition to surveys, semi-structured interviews were conducted to expand on
participant opinions and views about the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
affecting participant achievement of the organizational goal. Weiss (1994) described the use of
interviews as useful for generating a deeper understanding of the experiences being explored.
The interviews aided in gathering further information about teachers’ perceptions as they relate
to the topics explored in the survey or to explain the data and trends found in the quantitative
portion of the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Interviews
The semi-structured interview protocol contained 15 questions related to the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences affecting teachers of students with severe and multiple
disabilities (Appendix B). The interview protocol includes a list of questions and probes to guide
the interviewer, although the interviewer was given flexibility to explore issues that arise as the
respondent speaks (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Questions included items to address the cultural
model influence not explored through the survey. Two interview questions focused on cultural
models to gain more perspective on participants’ views in this area. The interview questions
58

were designed to include a variety of questions and were formed using both guides from Corbin
and Strauss (1998) and Patton (2015). Questions probing for knowledge were structured to
either solicit interpretive or hypothetical information. Motivational questions drew from both
Corbin and Strauss (1998) and Patton (2015) to formulate items soliciting participants’ opinions
or asking participants to play the devil’s advocate. Questions aligned to organizational
influences also made use of the work of Patton (1998) by requesting opinions and experiences.
Interview Procedures. Interviews were conducted after survey responses were received
and demographic data collected, as is done in an explanatory sequential study (Creswell, 2014).
A target range of eight to 12 interviewees with a range of teaching backgrounds and experience
was set for the qualitative portion of the study. The determined goal for the participants of the
interviews was to have a range of teaching experience (from beginning to experienced) and to be
representative of each of the following grade levels: elementary, middle school, high school, and
transition. For the purposes of this research study, a proxy researcher was used to carry out the
interviews and, therefore, the use of semi-structured interviews ensured that data collected from
the interviews were consistent in terms of topics, themes, and wording but allowed for the
interviewer and respondents to explore “new ideas” as they arose during the interview (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016, p. 111).
Interviewees were invited to participate in one interview session each, which took place
via an online video meeting service (Zoom). In-person interviews were available if participants
were not able or willing to meet via the online platform; however, no participants elected this
option. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) pointed out the pros and cons of using online platforms for
conducting interview research, with convenience being the biggest pro and the unpredictability
of and lack of familiarity with technology being the largest cons. These are the reasons for
59

offering both in-person and online interview options. Each interview session lasted
approximately 30 minutes. All interviews were recorded, either through video and audio or
audio recording. Of the four interviewees, three participants used the online video conference
audio, and one participant used telephone audio. All interviews were recorded and auto
transcribed by features embedded in the online video conferencing platform. After the
interviews, the transcripts were reviewed, and identifying information was removed by the proxy
before being returned to the principal researcher.
Validity and Reliability
Ensuring the validity and reliability of the study instruments and results in the
quantitative portion of the study entails, at minimum, using instruments that measure what they
state to measure and that can guarantee consistency (Robinson & Firth Leonard, 2019). To
increase the validity of the selected instrument, a modified survey has been selected for use in
this study. Robinson and Firth Leonard (2019) explained that the adaptation of already available
instruments can prove advantageous. The questions used from the Early Childhood Educator
Survey are those from the section pertaining to standards-based instruction. Robinson and Firth
Leonard (2019) cautioned against using instruments when the participants differ, as this can
lower validity; however, the population for both the quantitative and qualitative portions of the
study are teachers. As the questions are being sourced from an available instrument that was
taken through a pretest phase, the survey has face and content validity (Irwin, O’Dwyer, &
DeMeo Cook, 2014). In ensuring face validity, the survey is established to assess what it claims
to assess (Robinson & Firth Leonard, 2019). Establishing content validity of the survey involved
enlisting content area experts to further attest to the ability of the instrument to measure a
representative sampling of concepts as established by the researcher (Salkind, 2014). Although
60

the use of an existing survey aided in establishing validity and reliability, the use of this tool
limited the exploration of cultural models as a possible attributing influence.
The Early Childhood Educator Survey has been field tested with a small number of
teachers and administrators (Irwin, O’Dwyer, & DeMeo Cook, 2014). These field tests
suggested that the results of the instrument would produce the anticipated responses, which
assists with reliability. Creswell and Creswell (2014) described this type of dependability in
responses as a measure of internal consistency. Furthermore, the survey was reviewed by
teachers of students with severe and multiple disabilities who would not be participating in the
study. Administration of the survey using an online platform that guides users through the
survey assisted with high internal consistency, assuring uniformity in administration. This type
of uniformity is another measure of reliability according to Creswell and Creswell (2014).
Credibility and Trustworthiness

Maxwell (2013) discussed the importance of credibility within the context of the study
and to defend one’s specific arguments posed. Given this, the strategies used during the
qualitative portion of this study are understanding reactivity, collecting rich data, and using
verbatim transcripts (Maxwell, 2013). Although Maxwell (2013) discussed threats to credibility
in terms of mitigating the threat after conducting the research, it is possible to control for
reactivity prior to and during the undertaking of the qualitative portion of the study. To do this,
an assistant, or proxy, researcher was used for the interviews. Though Maxwell (2013) noted
that the respondent will always be influenced by the researcher, using an outside researcher or
proxy assisted in reducing reactivity during interviews. It is possible that participants might
react during interviews given the former position of the researcher in the organization. The
researcher was previously employed in the organization and worked directly with teachers of
61

students with severe and multiple disabilities in a non-supervisory role. During the interviews,
collecting rich data allowed for increasing credibility. To establish this, Maxwell (2013) stated
that “verbatim transcripts’ versus note taking assures that all information is captured. Verbatim
transcripts were taken by the proxy researcher via transcription from the recorded video
interviews.
Data Analysis
The data analysis process involved collection and partial analysis of the quantitative data
followed by collection and analysis of the qualitative data. The initiating of analysis of
quantitative data allowed for informing of the qualitative process, as explained by Bogdan and
Biklen (2007). Information yielded from results on the quantitative surveys may serve to focus
the qualitative portion of the study and develop additional interview probes, as needed.
The quantitative data were reviewed and calculated to derive percentages and
frequencies, as the questions types allowed. Ordinal questions were reviewed and calculated for
percentages, frequencies, and mode and median as the questions dictate. Survey item data are
presented in both descriptive narrative and in graphic representations of the data. Data not coded
and analyzed in Qualtrics were entered into Excel for coding and analysis. Due to a low
response rate, items 20 and 24 (listed in Appendix A) were omitted from the survey. These
survey items were determined to not meet the criteria established for meaningful results
discussed in Chapter Four.
The recordings of qualitative data were transcribed and coded. The coded data were
reviewed for patterns and themes that emerged from participant responses. The process for
coding data began with reviewing the verbatim transcripts and creating broad themes for each set
of transcripts. Next, connections between transcripts were made based on the themes that
62

emerged from the initial review. After this, both expected codes and surprising codes were
developed. Expected codes are described as those that are anticipated to emerge based on what
has been written in the literature, and surprising codes are those that are not expected (Creswell
& Creswell, 2018). Predetermined codes developed using the stated influences were also used.
The predetermined, expected, and surprising codes were each logged into a qualitative codebook
that provided the codes developed, definitions, and samples of each.
Qualitative data analysis was conducted by first transcribing recordings and removing
identifying information from transcripts. The removal of identifying information was undertaken
by the proxy researcher to protect the identities of the participants. Next, uncovering themes
through open coding and a priori coding was completed to find the general patterns of code that
formed the themes of the data. The criteria for forming themes from the transcripts included the
frequency in which participants discussed broad concepts or topics. These themes informed the
later process of making assertions about the teachers’ responses.
Ethics
Researchers conducting studies involving human subjects must ensure to conduct
research using the ethical codes outlined by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the
university overseeing the research study (Glesne, 2011). Glesne (2011) outlined the five
principles that guide IRB reviews as it reviews proposals so that they adhere to the following:
1. Research subjects must have sufficient information about the study to make an
informed decision to participate.
2. Research subjects must have the ability to withdraw from the study at any point.
3. Research subjects must not be subjected to any unnecessary harm.
4. Research subjects must receive assurance that the benefits to them (and society) will
63

outweigh the risks.
5. Researchers should be qualified to carry out studies.
As was stated by Rubin and Rubin (2012), potential research subjects must have a
comprehensive understanding about the research study and its possible risks so that they are able
to make an informed decision about participation. As this research study involved both
quantitative (surveys) and qualitative (interviews) data collection, informed consent was
collected during each stage of data collection—as it could not be assumed that subjects who
participated in the quantitative portion of the study would automatically consent to the
qualitative portion. The quantitative data collection had confidentiality built in, as an online
service (Qualtrics) for collecting survey responses was used. The specific features ensured
participant confidentiality; these included survey response anonymization, which set up the
survey in a way that did not collect participant data, and HTTP Referer Verification, which
allowed for participants to take the survey from any location. In addition, any respondents who
indicated an interest in being interviewed made direct contact with the proxy researcher and were
not required to enter any identifying information into the survey platform. Confidentiality was
disclosed to subjects at the start of the survey with an option to exit and discontinue participation
in the survey at any time. Furthermore, consulting a resource such as the ethical guidelines
published by the Association of Internet Researchers as noted by Glesne (2011) was a step in the
qualitative data gathering process. As part of collecting consent to participate in the qualitative
portion study, participants were informed of plans to record (for interviews) as well as for storing
and securing data (Appendix D). Interviewing is discussed in further detail below.
To minimize the potential for any feeling of coercion or obligation to participate in
interviews, an outside researcher was used for the collection of qualitative data. In addition to
64

ensuring that subjects do not feel coerced to participate in the study, using an outside researcher
allowed for greater confidentiality, which has been described as important by both Glesne (2011)
and Rubin and Rubin (2012). The use of a proxy researcher also aided in mitigating the fact that
the researcher had held previous employment in the organization.
Limitations and Delimitations
Study limitations are those factors that can influence the results of the research (Ross, &
Bibler Zaidi, 2019). These factors are not under the researcher’s control. A clear presentation of
the limitations of a study can enhance transparency and aids in the interpretation of the study
results. Ross and Bibler Zaidi (2019) outlined a comprehensive approach to the explication of
limitations in a study as providing a discussion on the identified limitations and possible effects
and provided methods for resolving those effects. In this study, the limitations are the number of
respondents to both the survey and interview, the use of an existing survey, the focus on one
organization, and the discontinuation of data collection due to the global health crisis attributed
to the outbreak of the COVID-19. The number of responses for both the survey and interviews
limit the generalizability of the study. The results should be interpreted with caution, as the
findings may not be fully representative of groups outside of the study. The use of an existing
survey limited the collection of data to those influences linked to the survey questions. Not
every influence was represented by the survey. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) provided guidance for K–12 schools in the United States on the basis of the rapidly
evolving situation, at which time the USD made the decision to enforce a school closure (CDC,
2020). Data collection was in process when this decision was made. As such, data collection
was discontinued, and analysis was completed with the data already collected.
The delimitations of the study are those factors that are under the control of the
65

researcher. In this study, the identified delimitations include the study design, where the
population selected included only teachers of students with severe and multiple disabilities, the
employment of an online survey, and the usage of a proxy researcher to conduct the interviews.
The decision to use an online survey was made, in part, due to the access to technology the target
population had. Completion of an electronic survey was also one measure to assist in protecting
participant confidentiality, as the system used allowed for the application of anonymization tools
such as not collecting participant information. The electronic survey platform also permitted
participants to take the survey from any browser or location, which allowed participants to
complete the survey away from their work location. The choice to use a proxy researcher was
made to assist with confidentiality. The researcher also made the decision to use a proxy
researcher to reduce reactivity during the interviews.

66

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND FINDINGS
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences affecting the Urban School District’s attainment of the stated goal of ensuring that
100% of students, including those with severe and multiple disabilities, have access to rigorous,
standards-based instruction. Furthermore, this study sought to evaluate teacher perspectives
affecting student access to standards-based instruction. The study was carried out using the Gap
Analysis framework and implemented a mixed-methods design. This chapter will review the
assumed causes in the categories of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
influencing the stakeholder groups in relation to the following research questions:
1. What is the teacher knowledge related to providing access to standards-based curriculum
and instructional modifications to students in classrooms for students with severe and
multiple disabilities?
2. What is the teacher motivation related to providing access to standards-based curriculum
and instructional modifications to students in classrooms for students with severe and
multiple disabilities?
3. How do the culture and context of the Urban School District impact teacher ability to
provide access to standards-based curriculum and instructional modifications in
classrooms for students with severe and multiple disabilities?
Both quantitative and qualitative data were gathered to gain a deeper understanding of the
stated problem. Participants completed a 26-item online survey consisting of questions related to
their background, teaching experience, familiarity with teaching using both Common Core State
Standards (CCSS) and alternate achievement standards, and the support received in
implementing these standards. A total of 62 teachers completed the survey out of 148 teachers,
67

reflecting a 42% response rate. All teachers who participated in the survey were invited to
participate in the qualitative portion of the study.
The second part of the study involved the use of interviews conducted with participants from
the same participant pool that had completed the surveys. Interviews were conducted after
participants had completed the survey portion of the study, with participants self-selecting to
participate in the interview. A total of four interviews were conducted. The interviews were
approximately 30 minutes in duration, and all were conducted online as per the participants’
preference and were conducted by a proxy researcher to protect the identity of the participants.
The interview questions sought to further evaluate the themes of knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences and their impact on teacher choices and behavior in the classroom and
as they prepare to instruct students with SMD.
Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholder group of focus for this study was teachers working with students in
kindergarten through grade 12 with severe and multiple disabilities. All teachers currently
serving in specialized classrooms for students with severe and multiple disabilities were invited
to participate in the study, regardless of tenure, experience, or credential type. Both the
quantitative and qualitative portions of the study accounted for participants’ varying levels of
experience by asking for their background information. This information was important to
obtain, as teachers of varying experience levels serve students with severe and multiple
disabilities, and this was an area to evaluate as part of the study when considering possible
influences influencing goal attainment.

68

Identification of Assets and Needs
The assumed knowledge, motivation, and organization influences were evaluated and
identified as either an asset to the organization or as a need. After the researcher reviewed the
survey and interview data for each influence, the influence was determined to be positively
contributing to the organization or was determined to be an area of need. The discussion below
outlines the levels of significance for surveys. Additionally, levels of meaning are discussed for
interview items. Those items found to have significance and meaning within the context of this
study were deemed to contribute positively to the organization and thus labeled assets. Survey
items not meeting the levels of significance were determined to be areas of need. Similarly,
interview items lending meaning to areas of need were included. Each influence is discussed in
detail in this chapter.
Survey Participants
The quantitative survey was adapted from the Early Childhood Educator Survey
published by the Early Childhood Education Research Alliance (ECEA) and the Regional
Educational Laboratory Northeast & Islands (Irwin, O’Dwyer, & DeMeo Cook, 2014) and
administered online using Qualtrics. A total of 148 teachers of students with severe and multiple
disabilities received the survey link via email. A total of 62 teachers responded to and completed
the survey. For this study, a 60% response level has been established as significant. Survey
items receiving 60% or more of participant responses are deemed to have significance within the
context of this study. Table 6 shows the participant demographics and descriptive statistics for
the survey item. Some respondents reported teaching multiple grade levels, as the item allowed
for reporting multiple selections. These results are shown in the table as “Multiple grade levels”
and account for the total surpassing 100%.
69

Table 6
Grade Levels Taught by Survey Participants
Grade Levels Taught Percentage of Teachers Teaching at
Each Grade Level
Early Elementary (Grades TK–2) 23%
Upper Elementary (Grades 3–5) 21%
Middle School (Grades 6–8) 18%
High School (Grades 9–12) 29%
Transition (Ages 18–22) 44%
Multiple Grade Levels (participant
indicated more than one grade level
option)
29%

The survey participants reported holding various credentials, with most holding a
credential to serve students with moderate to severe disabilities, the credential authorizing
teaching students with severe and multiple disabilities. Teachers holding multiple credentials
accounts for the higher than 100% total. Of those teachers stating they hold other credentials,
participants stated they hold emergency credentials (1 participant), CLAD certification (2
participants), a secondary credential (1 participant), children’s center certificate or credential (1
participant), a psychology credential (1 participant), a master’s degree (1 participant), and
adapted physical education credentials (1 participant). In addition,, of note is the number of
teachers reporting they also hold a Multiple Subject credential (29%), the required credential to
teach elementary general education classes. Table 7 shows the percentage of credentials held by
survey participants by type.

70

Table 7
Credentials Held by Survey Participants
Credential Held Percentage of survey participants
holding credential
Education Specialist –
Mild/Moderate Disabilities
24%
Education Specialist –
Moderate/Severe Disabilities
82%
Other Education Specialist
Credential
10%
Multiple Subject Credential 29%
Administrative Services Credential 5%
Multiple Credentials 42%
Other 16%
None 8%

The survey participants also represented having a range of years of teaching experience.
As previously stated, teachers of all teaching levels were invited to participate in the study, and
the years teaching reflects this variety. Participants held a mean of 15 teaching years of
experience with a standard deviation of 10. The number of years each teacher participant has
spent teaching students with or without disabilities is shown in Figure 4 below.

71

Figure 4
Teacher Years of Experience Working with Students with or without Disabilities, by Number of
Teachers

Interview Participants
The proxy researcher conducted semi-structured interviews with four participants to
provide data to both supplement and support the quantitative findings. As described in Chapter
3, participants from the survey sample self-selected for inclusion in the interview portion of the
study by directly emailing the proxy researcher. Participants were sent screening questions to
ensure that a varied participant pool was gathered. The interview group was composed of four
teachers with a range of teaching experience and who teach a variety of grade levels, as shown in
Table 8. Interview transcripts were reviewed for common themes among responses. Interview
responses presenting with commonalities among three of four interviewees were deemed to have
meaning within the context of the study. Table 8 shows the composition of the interview group
by grade levels taught and by years of teaching experience.
9
7
6
9
11
14
6
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0-2 Years 3-5 Years 6-10 Years 11-15 Years 16-20 Years 21-29 Years 30-45 Years
Number of Teachers
Experience in Years
72

Table 8
Characteristics of Interview Participants
Participant Grade Levels Taught
Years of Teaching
Experience
A Transition (Ages 18–22) 2
B Early Elementary (Grades TK–2) 2
C High School (Grades 9–12) 20
D Upper Elementary (Grades 3–5) 8

Results and Findings
This section reports on the findings using the knowledge, motivation, and organization
categories and the assumed causes for each category as they relate to the research questions
guiding the study. Descriptive statistics were used to provide insight on the three research
questions posed through the lens of the respective KMO influence guiding the discussion of the
findings for each question. Quantitative data are presented using frequencies and measures of
central tendency. Qualitative data are presented and discussed by participant, contributing to the
themes developed as part of the analysis phase. As previously discussed, survey items receiving
60% or more of participant responses are deemed to have significance, and common themes
emerging from three of the four interviewees were deemed to have meaning within the context of
the study.
Research Question 1
What is the teacher knowledge related to providing access to standards-based curriculum and
instructional modifications to students in classrooms for students with severe and multiple
disabilities?
73

Knowledge
The study sought to evaluate whether educators of students with severe and multiple
disabilities in the USD are facing possible gaps in procedural and conceptual knowledge or
knowledge on how to perform the expected tasks and what the relationships are between the
identified concepts. The survey questions asked of participants sought to identify whether gaps
in conceptual knowledge influences affect goal attainment, whereas the interview questions
sought to identify procedural knowledge gaps and gather insight into teacher procedural
knowledge.
Influence 1. Teachers need knowledge in how to instruct students using a standards-
based curriculum.
Survey Results. Teachers were asked how often they refer to the Common Core State
Standards when developing lesson plans. The results of the survey are shown in Figure 5, with
13% of participants responding that they “always” refer to the Common Core State Standards
when developing lesson plans, whereas 18% of participants responded that they “almost always”
refer to the Common Core State Standards when developing lesson plans. The 31% of teachers
responding they “always” or “almost always” refer to the Common Core State Standards when
developing lesson plans does not meet the 60% established level for significance in survey
responses. By contrast, when asked about developing lesson plans using alternate achievement
standards, 39% of participants responded that they “always” develop lesson plans using alternate
achievement standards, and 26% of participants responded that they “almost always” develop
lesson plans using alternate achievement standards. The total number of participants (65%) who
always or almost always develop lesson plans using alternate achievement standards exceeds the
established level for significance in survey responses (60%). The results indicate that teachers
74

more frequently refer to the alternate achievement standards when developing lesson plans.
However, it should also be noted that participants were asked to report on the Common Core
State Standards and alternate achievement standards separately, and thus results represent
teachers who use both sets of standards as resources when developing lesson plans. When
analyzed by participant, the survey revealed that 29% of participants reported “always” or
“almost always” using both the Common Core State Standards and alternate achievement
standards. These percentages indicate that teachers in this sample self-report more commonly
referring to alternate achievement standards than to Common Core State Standards or a
combination of the two when developing lesson plans.
Figure 5
Percentage of Teachers Using the CCSS or Alternate Standards When Developing Lesson Plans

Note. Shown is the number of teachers who reported always or almost always using either the
CCSS or alternate standards when developing lesson plans, by percentage.
13%
39%
18%
26%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
CCSS
Alternate
Percentage of Teachers
Standard Type
Always Almost Always
75

The data on accessing standards when developing lesson plans were disaggregated by
years of experience teaching students with or without disabilities to determine whether the
number of years a teacher has been an educator had any impact on the reported level of accessing
the standards. Responses were also reviewed to determine whether more than 60% of teachers
replied using a given response selection. When viewed by teacher years of experience, the data
revealed that the percentage of teachers in this sample who report accessing either the CCSS or
alternate standards was not markedly different by years of experience. When broken down by
years of experience, there was not a greater number of teachers with more than 10 years of
experience as compared with those with less than 10 years of experience reporting they “always”
or “almost always” access either the CCSS or alternate standards when developing lesson plans.
Table 9 shows the percentage of participants reporting they “always” or “almost always” access
the CCSS or alternate standards when developing lesson plans by years of experience teaching
students with or without disabilities.
Table 9
Participants’ Years of Teaching Students with or without Disabilities

Years Teaching Students with or without Disabilities
0–2 3–9 10–20 21–30 31–45
Teachers reporting they
“always” or “almost
always” access CCSS or
alternate standards when
developing lesson plans
11% 22% 35% 28% 3%

Interviewee Perspectives. To further explore the theme of instructional modifications, as
posed in the research question, the proxy researcher asked teachers about the curriculum used in
their classrooms. The teachers interviewed shared the curricular programs they use by name and
76

described the alternate or alternative programs their students participate in. The teachers
interviewed were able to describe the standards-based components they incorporate in their
classrooms in terms of what they offer their students.
Participant A, the transition-level teacher, shared that the school site had recently
switched from using Unique Learning System (a standards-based curriculum) to using Pre-ETS
(Pre-Employment Transition Services, a work-readiness and self-advocacy curriculum).
Participant A explained that the curriculum was “brand new” and that the school was “trying it
out.” Participant B, the TK–second-grade teacher, described using Unique Learning System, a
“standards-based curriculum.” In addition to using this curriculum, Participant B shared the
following: “I do also collaborate with my general education teachers who do follow the state
standards.” Such collaboration serves to increase access to standards-based instruction for
students with SMD. Participant C, the high school teacher, similarly shared using Unique
Learning System in the classroom in addition to the Oxford Picture Dictionary. Participant D,
the third–fifth-grade teacher, did not state a specific curriculum used but rather discussed the
alternate curriculum accessed by students and described that the alternate curriculum is “really
based on the standards that are kind of alternate versions of the regular Common Core standards
and the state standards.” The participant responses highlight that teachers are informed with
respect to the curriculum in use in their programs. Participants were asked follow-up questions
to offer further insight.
When asked if they could describe the standards-based components of their programs, the
four teachers described both components of their programs and the ways in which their students
access standards via features of the curricular programs they implement or instructional
opportunities. Participant C tied standards-based components to curricular programs described
77

using general education workbooks with the students and implementing curriculum that employs
lessons that are already standards-aligned with the students (Unique Learning System). Teachers
who described standards-based components as ways in which their students access features of
the programs they use or opportunities they employ stated that they directly access the standards
(ELD standards) when planning (Participant A), collaborate with general education teachers and
“create, based off of the standards, will create worksheets that are like modified and
accommodated” (Participant B), and described the standards as being a part of “all the subjects
we teach” such as “language arts reading, writing, comprehension. It’s all, it’s math, science,
PE” (Participant D). Although the responses were varied, the participants were able to state the
components that are standards based in their programs.
Summary. In exploring whether teachers in this sample have the knowledge to instruct
their students using standards-based curriculum, both the survey and interview data provided
information to support the assertion that this area is a noted asset. The quantitative data show
that teachers self-report accessing the alternate standards as they develop lesson plans for their
students. Furthermore, the qualitative data supported the quantitative data, as teachers were able
to provide detailed examples of the resources they use, such as district-issued curricula and
programs and through collaborative opportunities with general education colleagues.
Influence 2. Teachers need knowledge of instructional modifications to make
assignments accessible.
Interviewee Perspectives. The interview participants were asked directly what
instructional modifications they make to their students’ work, if any. The teacher’s responses
pointed to offering students an array of accommodations rather than modifications. Each of the
participants were able to outline how they provide accommodations to the lessons and activities
78

they present but did not further elaborate as to how assignments are modified for students, except
for Participant D, who alluded to students completing work at their level and stated that they
“really don't know the difference between numbers and letters.” Participant D’s students are
high school students and would thus be expected to be accessing skills higher than letters and
numbers based on their chronological ages. Participant D’s response suggested that they modify
the work given that the students are unable to access high school content or numbers and letters.
The other three participants discussed offering their students fewer problems and questions or a
“decreased workload” as a means of modifying work. Participants also discussed how work is
made accessible for students via avenues such as large fonts (Participant C) and accessible
computer writing programs (Participant D). Although the participants were able to respond when
asked about the instructional modifications they provide to their students, three of the four
interviewees’ responses described instructional accommodations rather than modifications.
Summary. The responses the teachers provided during the interview illustrated each
respective participant’s knowledge of accommodated work. A central theme that emerged
through the analysis of this item was that of creating accessible assignments for students via
accommodations. The knowledge teachers bring surrounding using accommodations to make
work accessible is an asset; however, analysis of the teachers’ responses underscores a need for
fostering the acquisition of additional knowledge in this area to facilitate access to instructional
modifications based on student need. Addressing this gap in procedural knowledge may lead to
further access to the standards for students with SMD. This may also be an area for further
study, as this influence was only probed using interviews.
Influence 3. Teachers need an understanding of correlation between Common Core State
Standards and alternate achievement standards.
79

Survey Results. Contrary to expectations, the survey results may not point to a gap in
conceptual knowledge, as over 60% of participants responded that they agree or strongly agree
with the survey items presented related to conceptual knowledge. The results of the survey
questions seeking insight into themes of conceptual knowledge, as indicated by responses,
revealed that teachers in the USD are not experiencing a gap in conceptual knowledge.
Participant responses provided to questions inquiring about familiarity with the correlation
between the Common Core State Standards and alternate achievement standards, usage of
standards when planning instruction, and preparation for the implementation of standards in their
college credentialing program suggest that teachers feel they hold the knowledge in these areas,
as discussed below. When provided with the statement: “I have a clear understanding of the
correlation between the California Common Core State Standards and alternate achievement
standards,” 24% of participants responded, “strongly agree,” and 56% responded “agree,” which
shows that teachers perceive they have an understanding of this knowledge. This amounts to a
total of 80% of the teachers in this sample self-reporting that they have an understanding of the
correlation between the California Common Core State Standards and alternate achievement
standards.
Participants were also asked what standards they access when planning for instruction.
The survey results indicated that 37% of teachers access the Common Core Standards in ELA or
math, 30% of teachers access the ELD Standards, and 77% of teachers access alternate
achievement standards. Participants were also given the option of “other,” to which 19%
responded. Responses for standards indicated under the “other” option included Unique
Learning System, CAPA Level 1, NIOA Standards, and adapted physical education standards.
Although the established level for significance of 60% was not met for each individual standard
80

type, teachers report accessing alternate achievement standards at a high rate of 77%. Figure 6
outlines the responses participants gave on the survey.
Figure 6
What Standards Do You Access When Planning for Instruction in Your Classroom?

Interviewee Perspectives. To further probe teachers’ conceptual knowledge, the proxy
researcher asked interview participants how they would go about aligning a classroom
assignment to Common Core for a student. Participants were also asked to provide details on
any resources they would use, if any. Three of the participants spoke clearly about the resources
they would use or currently access to ensure that their lessons and activities are standards
aligned. Participant B, the TK–second-grade teacher, spoke of opportunities for accessing
aligned activities through participation in general education. When speaking about experiences
with a specific student, Participant B elaborated and stated that “she was getting direct
instruction at her level. however, still pairing it with the Common Core and general activities.”
Two teachers, Participant C and Participant D, described the resources they access when
37%
30%
77%
19%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
CCSS ELD Alternate Other
Percentage of Teachers
Standard Type
81

planning lessons that allow for alignment to the content standards. Both participants spoke of the
SEACO (Special Education Administrators of County Offices) Guide, which is an access guide
developed to assist educators with aligning goals and activities to the state standards.
Participant C described how the SEACO Guide offers levels and a means of access for
students and further stated that the guide presents the content area subjects “but to their
[students’] level, for example, basic addition and subtraction or something like that.” Participant
D also referenced accessing the SEACO Guide and explained cross-referencing the state
standards: “If they [SEACO Standards] don't really match up, I have to do the intermediate phase
of finding the state standards, and then those usually line up a little bit better.” The work of
“matching up” highlights the teacher’s ability to pull from multiple resources to build
assignments that are aligned and appropriate for the students. By contrast, Participant A
explained how instructional groupings are used in the classroom to manage students’ access to
standards rather than using standards or content guides:
I would take in their specific needs, like if they need a lot more like hand-over-hand
instruction or anything like that, kind of try to put them a little bit more together so that I
can better accommodate where my aides might be or where I'm going to be during
specific classes.
Although Participant A’s response did not specifically cite usage of standards or content
guide in the preparation of assignments, the response highlighted the strategies the participant
employed to assist with managing instructing students at different levels.
Summary. Although 56% of teachers in this sample agree that they have an
understanding of the correlation between the Common Core State Standards and alternate
achievement standards, a larger majority (77%) reported that they access alternate achievement
82

standards when planning for instruction. Teachers accessing alternate achievement standards to
plan lessons is a noted asset. Details of how teachers make use of alternate achievement
standards emerged in the qualitative portion of the study, with participants explaining how they
reference the SEACO Guide to prepare for content area instruction, to guide alignment of tasks,
and as a first point of reference before using the CCSS. The qualitative data, while restricted to
four teachers, provide information that also points to teachers having the procedural knowledge
that demonstrates an understanding between the correlation between the Common Core State
Standards and alternate achievement standards.
Research Question 2
What is the teacher motivation related to providing access to standards-based curriculum and
instructional modifications to students in classrooms for students with severe and multiple
disabilities?
Motivation
In exploring motivational influences, the study sought to identify whether self-efficacy
and attributions affect teachers’ ability to successfully implement standards-based instruction.
Survey items and interview questions explored teachers’ self-reported feelings of capability to
carry out tasks to explore self-efficacy influences. The potential impact of teacher attribution
was explored through survey and interview items related to teacher perceptions of their efforts.
The survey and interview findings related to motivation will be discussed in the sections that
follow.
Self-Efficacy Influence 1. Teachers need to feel capable of writing and using standards-
based, age-appropriate lessons for students with severe and multiple disabilities.
83

Survey Results. As discussed in the section on knowledge, teachers may possess the
procedural and conceptual knowledge needed to carry out the tasks necessary to instruct
students, but if their perceptions of self-efficacy are affected, they will be unable to effectively
implement standards-based lessons. When asked how comfortable they are navigating the
Common Core State Standards in ELA, 68% of teachers reported feeling “comfortable” or “very
comfortable,” and 68% of teachers reported feeling “comfortable” or “very comfortable”
navigating the Common Core State Standards in math. Comparatively, 77% of teachers reported
feeling “comfortable” or “very comfortable” navigating the English Language Development
Standards. These results indicate that teachers feel comfortable navigating standards as self-
reported on the survey and as measured by the 60% level of significance set by the study. Table
10 shows the percentages of teacher responses to questions about comfort navigating the CCSS.
Table 10
Percentage of Teachers Who Feel Comfortable or Very Comfortable, by Survey Item
Survey Item
Total Percentage of Teachers who Feel
Comfortable or Very Comfortable
How comfortable are you with navigating the
Common Core State Standards pertaining to
English language arts?
68%
How comfortable are you with navigating the
Common Core State Standards pertaining to
math?
68%
How comfortable are you with navigating the
standards pertaining to English language
development?
77%

The survey also asked participants to reflect on their preparation prior to becoming
teachers. They were asked whether they felt that their credential or credentials prepared them to
write and deliver standards-based lessons. In findings similar to those answering questions
related to usage of standards, 53% of participants responded that they agree or strongly agree that
84

their credential program prepared them to write and deliver standards-based lessons. When
disaggregated by credential type, the responses demonstrate that among those participants
holding a Moderate Severe Education Specialist credential (the most reported credential type),
73% of teachers reported that they “agree” or “strongly agree” that their credential prepared them
to write standards-based lessons, surpassing the established 60% level of significance established
for this study. Among participants holding a Multiple Subject credential, 78% reported they
either “agree” or “strongly agree” that their credential prepared them to write standards-based
lessons. Finally, among participants holding a Mild Moderate Educations Specialist credential,
60% reported they either “agree” or “strongly agree” that their credential prepared them to write
standards-based lessons. Of the six participants holding another type of education specialist
credential, 83% reported they either agree or strongly agree that their credential program
prepared them to write standards-based lessons. It should be noted that 42% of study
participants reported holding more than one credential. While data suggest that those holding a
Multiple Subject credential or other education specialist credential may feel better prepared to
write standards-based lessons, further study is warranted. When viewed by credential type,
teachers holding each type of credential are seen as feeling prepared to write standards-based
lessons by their respective credential programs as measured by the 60% level of significance set
for the study. Figure 7 shows the percentage of teachers who agree or strongly agree that their
credential program prepared them to write standards-based lessons.

85

Figure 7
Teachers Who Agree or Strongly Agree Their Credential Program Prepared Them to Write
Standards-Based Lessons, Disaggregated by Credential Type

College and graduate school preparation were also considered, as teachers were asked to
what extent this education prepared them to address content related to standards. The majority of
teachers responded that their related education addressed the standards, with 69% of teachers
responding “a lot” or “somewhat" when asked the extent to which their college, graduate school
coursework, or teacher preparation addressed content related to general education or alternate
achievement standards. Twenty-one percent of teachers in this sample felt their college,
graduate school coursework, or teacher preparation addressed standards “a little,” and 8% felt
their program did not address standards or were “not sure.” Given that 69% of the teachers
reported feeling prepared by their college or graduate schoolwork, it can be broadly stated that
many teachers in this sample began their teaching careers with the standards-specific information
needed to address content-area instruction.
73%
60%
78%
83%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Moderate Severe Mild Moderate Multiple Subjects Other Ed Specialist
Percentage of Teachers
Credential Type
86

To further address teacher perceptions of self-efficacy, teachers were asked how often
they use lesson plans they create. Although 71% of teachers indicated that they use a lesson plan
they created either daily or weekly, only 18% of teachers use a lesson plan they created monthly,
and 11% of teachers responded that they do not create lesson plans. This totals 29% of teachers
who report not using lesson plans they create with regular frequency or at all. Although the
percentage of teachers not using lesson plans on a regular basis is not comparatively high and
does not meet the 60% threshold for significance established, it still warrants a conversation
regarding what level of access to instruction students are receiving if lesson plans are not being
created regularly or at all. Figure 8 illustrates the results of this item.
Figure 8
Teachers Reporting How Often They Use a Lesson Plan They Created

As a follow up, teachers were asked whether they feel confident in their ability to create
accessible lesson plans. When asked whether they feel confident in their ability to create
accessible lesson plans, 89% of teachers surveyed either stated they “agree” or “strongly agree”.
44%
27%
18%
11%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
I do not create lesson plans
Percentage of Teachers
Survey Item Responses
87

In contrast, only 5% of teachers responded, “neither agree nor disagree,” and 6% stated
“disagree” when asked whether they feel confident in their ability to create accessible lesson
plans. The percentage of teachers stating they feel confident in their ability to create accessible
lesson plans (89%) exceeds the 60% significance level established for this study. The high
percentage of teachers self-reporting that they feel a high level of confidence in their ability to
create accessible lesson plans is a noted strength. Figure 9 illustrates the results of the survey
item.
Figure 9
I Feel Confident in My Ability to Create Accessible Lesson Plans

Interviewee Perspectives. Additional information on and insight into self-efficacy by
way of teacher preparation was gathered by explicitly asking the teachers whether they felt their
teacher training programs sufficiently prepared them for interacting with students with SMD.
The teachers all stated that they did feel their programs prepared them; they each offered more
details about what was needed or lacking in their program either unsolicited or when asked to
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor
Disagree
Disagree
Percentage of Teachers
Survey Item Responses
88

elaborate. Participant A explained that the teacher training program served as preparation but
perhaps not sufficiently. Participant A went on to say, “… I'm not as confident as I want to be
and I, of course I would like more.” To this effect, the participant described how additional
training in new programs being implemented would be of benefit. Participant A detailed the
types of training that would be helpful as those that would target student behavior and behavior
and classroom management. Participant B shared that student teaching experiences were
particularly beneficial given that these opportunities served as exposure to “a multitude of
settings” that assisted in properly integrating students. Participant C broke down the differences
between teacher training and teaching and related teacher training to an intake of information,
while teaching requires practice. The participant went on to identify shadowing as a need,
saying that after the opportunity, you can “incorporate some of the things that the teacher’s
doing.” While Participant D also noted that the teacher training program prepared them to work
with students with SMD, there were doubts in the efficacy of the material. Participant D noted
that there was crossover in the books used for credentialing programs designed to prepare
candidates earning a Moderate Severe Education Specialist credential and those earning a Mild
Moderate Education Specialist credential. These overlaps resulted in Participant D’s feeling that
materials such as books “…didn't really cover the whole spectrum” of information related to
students with SMD.
Summary. The quantitative data reveal that teachers reported they feel comfortable
navigating state standards and self-report that they feel their credential programs prepared them
to write lesson plans. Additionally, the survey information revealed that 71% of teachers report
using lesson plans they use either daily or weekly. Furthermore, 89% teachers report feeling
confident in their ability to create accessible lesson plans. The qualitative data further reveal that
89

although teachers overall feel their teacher training programs prepared them to instruct students
with SMD, teachers feel there are additional components they could benefit from such as
shadowing or peer observations and training on newly implemented programs and curricula. The
interview data help provide possible areas for tailored support. Overall, teachers in this sample
self-report having the confidence in their preparation and skills to provide access to standards-
based instruction to students with SMD.
Attribution Influence 2. Teachers should feel that access to standards-based, age-
appropriate lessons is reflective of their own efforts and not of the level of disability of the
student(s).
Survey Results. Teacher attributions can be linked to internal or external causes. In the
case of teachers working with students with disabilities, teacher attributions about student ability
may limit access to standards-based instruction. When asked whether it is important for students
with SMD to have access to grade level content, 34% of teachers in this sample responded they
“strongly agree,” 31% indicated they “agree,” 24% indicated they “neither agree nor disagree,”
9% indicated they “disagree,” and 2% stated they “strongly disagree.” These results amount to a
total of 65% of teachers in this sample who either “strongly agree” or “agree” with the statement.
The response from these teachers points to a general feeling that students should have access to
grade-level content, as reported by the respondents.
Participants were then asked about the importance of access to general education
standards for students with SMD, with 24% percent of teachers responding they “strongly
agree,” 27% indicating they “agree,” and 23% indicating they “neither agree nor disagree,” 19%
stated they “disagree,” and 6% stated they “strongly disagree.” The results highlight that
although 51% teachers “strongly agree” or “agree” that students with SMD should have access to
90

grade-level content, their opinions change when asked specifically whether students with SMD
should have access to grade-level standards. The 51% of teachers reporting they “strongly
agree” or “agree” that students with SMD should have access to grade-level content is also
below the 60% level of significance established for the study. A shift in opinion was seen in
those teachers who stated they disagree with either statement, with only 9% of teachers stating
they disagree when presented with the statement: “It is important for students with severe and
multiple disabilities to have access to grade-level content.” When asked to what degree they
agree or disagree with the statement: “Access to general education standards is important for
students with severe and multiple disabilities,” 19% of teachers stated they disagree. Figure 10
illustrates the results of the two survey items.
Figure 10
Teachers Reporting Importance of Student Access by Area

Interviewee Perspectives. The interviews further explored motivational influences
related to attribution and aided in further exploring some of the variation in opinion seen in the
34%
31%
24%
9%
1%
24%
27%
23%
19%
6%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Survey Item Responses
Access to Grade Level Content Access to Gen Ed Standards
91

quantitative data. When asked whether they feel that the level of severity of a student’s
disability has an impact on the effectiveness of their instruction, teachers provided varying
responses, with some validating attribution as an influence and others pointing to self-efficacy as
a potential root cause influencing the effectiveness of their instruction. Although two
participants did not feel that level of severity of a student’s disability at all influenced their
effectiveness, Participant A offered this explanation: “Um, yeah, I don't know if I'm being
effective enough and that I know enough to really like reach all of my students,” which is
reflective of the participant’s competence beliefs and self-efficacy. Rueda (2011) described
competence beliefs as a reflection of “one’s own beliefs about his or her own ability” and that
they are influenced by factors such as prior knowledge. Participant C expressed that the specific
type of disability, specifically a low-incidence disability, may influence their effectiveness.
Participant C went on to state that the level of severity of a student’s disability can also influence
the effectiveness of instruction: “Yes, like if they [have] visual impairment. And if I am doing
something with the overhead projector, but they don’t see, so I mean, they can hear it, and I'm
exposing them to the lesson…but they are visually impaired,” showing that it is not the severity
of a student’s disability that affects access to instruction but the nature of the disability. In this
case, a student with a low-incidence disability may be affecting a teacher’s ability to provide
access to instruction.
Teachers were asked additional questions to probe their feelings about students’ levels of
access and to further explore whether attributions play a role in influencing student access.
Teachers were asked whether they believe there are any barriers to granting students access to
standards-based instruction, to which teacher responses included a perceived lack of materials,
perceptions of self, and student factors as barriers. Both Participants B and D cited an inability
92

to access materials as a barrier, with Participant B stating that her students do not receive
sufficient materials. When asked about barriers to granting students access to standards-based
instruction, Participant D identified the Common Core State Standards as a barrier, saying “Just
that there’s like Common Core Standards are really don't have a modified or special, you know,
alternate modification of them for any educational skills that really start before kindergarten,”
describing how there are no modified standards or listing of skills that are below a kindergarten
level available as a resource. Participant D went on to further explain that the students are
functioning at “three years and below, or two years and below.” By contrast, the response
provided by Participant A attributed perceived barriers to qualities of self. When asked, “What
do you believe are barriers to granting students access to standards-based instruction, if any?”
Participant D named the following:
Me not knowing any better. I think of just like, OK, what, what would be the best thing to
do in this case I do have some students where I’m just like, I have not reached you yet.
And I don't know what’s gonna work.
Expanding on the theme of barriers to access, teachers were asked whether they feel any
factors affect their students’ access to the lessons they deliver. The teachers provided responses
pointing to both internal and external factors as those affecting students’ access. Participant A
offered both internal and external factors when asked the interview question. Participant A
offered needing more experience as a possible barrier to access and discussed student internal
states as another potential factor affecting student access. Participant A stated, “I mean, there’s
the factors of sometimes like their mood. What I don’t know what outside factors are affecting
them. And that’s where I kind of don’t know whether I should give them a little bit of a break.”
Participant B discussed how student behavior can affect access, as having to manage behaviors
93

can take them away from the class. Participant B went on to cite a lack of support in the form of
classroom aides as a barrier. Furthermore, when aides are supplied, Participant B said, “There’s
very little time to train them and how to properly provide the correct support in those settings to
make it beneficial for the students.” Participant C explained that barriers exist if and when
students are expected to work on standards-based assignments. Participant C stated a barrier
could be a student’s level of comprehension to the extent that materials need to be scaffolded to
“make sure you are meeting their needs.” Participant D cited students’ status as English learners
as a factor that can affect student’s access to lessons and described how the classroom aides and
basic knowledge of the students’ primary language is a means to providing access.
When asked to reflect on what they would say to people who would say that students
with disabilities do not need much access to standards-based instruction, the teachers took a
position of advocacy for their students, even while acknowledging that they are uncertain about
how much students are learning or retaining. Each teacher gave a statement in support of access
to standards-based instruction, with Participant A elaborating on the concept of the importance of
teaching self-advocacy, “How do I teach you to self-advocate and to say like to someone else,
like there's something wrong here . . . and I don't know, maybe some of my students do recall
some of that stuff or there will be a way for them to use it later on.” Similarly, Participant D
described students’ right to access and explained, “Like it’s a right to be exposed to grade-level
information, even if you don't know how much they’re understanding.” Participants B and C
explained the right to access in terms of the role they play as special education teachers.
Participant B felt it was important to delineate responsibilities to assist in the explication of the
right to access by saying of general education teachers the following:
94

And I always remind them that they’re not trained, and they don't have to be, that I'm
trained, and I can do that job in that part. So they don’t have to see the vision. Just be
accepting enough to let my students come in and try it and see what works and being
flexible.
Participant C also asserted students’ right to access standards-based instruction but explained that
students with SMD need to be provided with accommodations and modifications to access the
standards.
Summary. The survey data provided information about the teacher perspectives related to
teacher feelings of preparedness to write and implement lessons. Furthermore, the survey
explored whether teachers feel comfortable navigating standards as they prepare lessons. The
data indicated that teachers in this sample self-report that they feel both prepared and
comfortable as they prepare lessons and navigate standards. The survey also explored attribution
influences, specifically whether teachers feel their access is important for students with SMD.
When asked about access to content, teachers reported agreeing with the statements presented.
Teacher opinions shifted slightly when asked specifically whether students with SMD should
have access to general education standards, with 19% of teachers stating they disagreed with the
statement. The qualitative data assisted in further explaining the quantitative data related to
motivation in both the areas of self-efficacy and attribution. Although teachers feel confident in
their abilities to create lesson plans and self-reported that they felt prepared by their credentials,
interview data provided further insight from the perspective of the participants. The teachers
offered external factors as reasons for potential barriers to instruction, which may be a
contributing factor to impaired teacher motivation. Additionally, when asked about barriers and
effectiveness of their instruction, some of the teachers described additional variables related to
95

self-efficacy and competency not originally identified. Based on the survey and interview data,
attribution is noted as an area of need. The survey data indicated that teachers report holding
feelings of confidence and preparedness related to their abilities to prepare lessons, making self-
efficacy an asset. The results of the interview, however, indicated that teachers may doubt
whether they hold sufficient knowledge or are prepared to work with students given the external
factors they face. These results may point to teacher needs when there is a combination of
factors involved in more novel and unexpected situations, such as the execution of lessons when
students present with language needs or less common disabilities.
Research Question 3
How do the culture and context of the Urban School District impact teacher ability to provide
access to standards-based curriculum and instructional modifications in classrooms for students
with severe and multiple disabilities?
Organization
Clark and Estes (2008) discussed how organizational culture can affect stakeholders’
knowledge and motivation. The culture in the USD plays an important role in fostering teacher
development in both the areas of knowledge and motivation, as teachers self-report that they feel
equipped to carry out tasks involving conceptual knowledge related to teaching students with
SMD. Potential gaps were noted in procedural knowledge and in attribution. Although these
potential gaps have emerged as initial findings, Clark and Estes (2008) cautioned that there is
interconnectedness among performance gaps and organizational culture, and these must be
carefully considered when developing solutions. The survey and interview results related to the
identified organizational influences will be discussed in the section below.

96

Cultural Models
Influence 1. The organization needs a culture that reinforces instruction linked to general
education (core curriculum) standards and usage of curricular modifications.
Interviewee Perspectives. All four interview participants discussed ways in which the
district conveys a philosophy that reinforces teaching students with disabilities using a standards-
based curriculum; however, the alignment of their vision of this philosophy differed. The
teachers provided evidence of what each viewed to be fulfillment of the district conveying its
philosophy. Participant A stated, “We have to use them [standards],” and followed up with “I
think that’s their [the district’s], their stand on that. We need to be aligned to, to what students
that are not on the alternate curriculum are doing.” Participant B spoke about the district staff
members who visit their classroom and provide both feedback and critique of instructional
methods and materials as an example of the district philosophy in action. When asked the same
question, Participant C cited a specific training teachers had recently received on grading during
which the message was conveyed that all students are to be graded using a new program.
Finally, Participant D tied the district philosophy to the district performance goal, in which a
higher level of graduation is expected to be achieved. Participant D went on to state that the
graduation goal was for both students earning a high school diploma or a certificate of
completion but countered the statement by saying, “But really, from moderate severe it really, it
really depends on the level of, you know, severity of the disabilities. If it’s, you know, severe,
severe to profound.” The conversation on the district’s philosophy demonstrates the
organization’s efforts to include all students, as perceived by the teachers interviewed. Although
the teachers conveyed that the district philosophy ranges from messaging to new programs,
students with the most severe and profound disabilities may not be captured by such initiatives.
97

Summary. When questioned during the interview, teachers provided their perceptions of
the district philosophy. The participants’ general perception of the district philosophy was one
of receiving messaging from the organization in support of students with disabilities coupled
with an uncertainty as to when the philosophy is to be applied to students with SMD. The
teachers’ descriptions of these efforts reflect an array of interpretations of the organization’s
philosophy, with one participant’s statement about districtwide graduation goals mirroring the
goals in the strategic plan, as discussed in Chapter One. Schein (2017) noted that the broad
philosophical statements of an organization, while important, are not what should define the
organization’s culture. Attributes such as the systems, procedures, and structures should help
round out the view of an organization’s culture. As such, the responses provided by the teachers
help provide a look at the district’s philosophy in action, with themes of perceived directives,
inclusion of all students, and a requirement to meet the needs of students with the most
significant disabilities emerging.
Influence 2. The organization needs to provide teachers of students with severe and
multiple disabilities the information on how to provide access to standards-based, age-
appropriate lessons.
Interviewee Perspectives. Although the teachers’ responses were generally positive
when teachers were asked about their practices and the district’s philosophy, the teachers gave
differing responses when asked how well they felt the district was providing access to instruction
for students with severe and multiple disabilities. The initial statements from the teachers
included positive praise for the organization, but expansion of their responses revealed that there
may be more that needs to be done for students with SMD. Participant A stated that teachers are
“trying” now that a curriculum that is aligned to standards is provided by the district. When
98

asked what resources could help improve access to curriculum, Participant A suggested, “I
would like to see more examples of how other teachers are using what they’re doing.” Similarly,
Participant C cited guidance as a needed resource when listing needs: “kind of like a guideline or
something, and I just like the general ed have their timelines for testing and things like that.”
Participants B and D discussed resources as tangibles, with Participant D saying that needed
resources were “more hands-on material, the tactile items.” Though Participant B felt the district
is providing access to instruction for students with SMD, this participant also noted that a need is
“accessing certain grade-level standards. I feel like the district doesn’t really provide that. It’s
more on me asking my general and peers for that resource.” In this case, Participant B was
referencing access to integrated opportunities, as was explained:
So I feel like the school itself doesn't really factor in that I can use the state standards or I
can be integrated into inclusion with accommodations and modifications for my students,
so I just feel like the knowledge school wide is lacking.
Summary. Although teachers receive support specific to implementing alternate
achievement standards, the qualitative data reveal additional areas of need, as reported by
teachers. The teachers’ view of how the district provides access to standards-based lessons is
varied, with teachers reporting they still have unmet needs in this area. Furthermore, teachers
expressed a need for hands-on materials and resources that mirror what their general education
counterparts receive to help guide their instruction. Based on the interview data, this influence is
a noted area of need.
Cultural Settings
The culture of an organization plays a role in how work tasks are completed within the
organization (Clark & Estes, 2008). As noted by Rueda (2011), both cultural settings and
99

models are embedded parts of this process. The findings indicate that the cultural models present
in the USD may be affecting teachers’ ability to provide access to standards-based instruction to
students with SMD, as teachers reported inconsistent ways in which the district’s philosophy is
observed and also described the supports they need in addition to what supervisors provide. The
findings of the survey and interview items related to cultural settings are presented below.
Influence 1. The organization needs to provide effective support to teachers to ensure
implementation of standards-based, age-appropriate curriculum and modifications.
Survey Results. Participants were asked about the support they receive to ensure
implementation of standards-based, age-appropriate curriculum, and modifications. When asked
to what extent they are provided support related to standards or guidelines, teacher responses
varied, with 32% of teachers reporting they feel “a lot” supported, 40% of teachers reporting
they feel “somewhat” supported, 24% of teachers reporting they feel “a little” supported, and 3%
of teachers reporting they feel “not at all” supported. The use of a unipolar survey item
translates to 72% of teachers reporting a positive feeling about being provided support related to
guidance and implementation of standards. Table 11 illustrates these findings.
Table 11
Teacher Reported Support and Guidance Related to Implementation of Standards
Survey Item
Percentage of
Teachers
Responding A
Lot
Percentage
of Teachers
Responding
Somewhat
Percentage
of Teachers
Responding
A Little
Percentage
of Teachers
Responding
Not at All
To what extent are you
provided with additional
support or guidance
related to implementation of
standards or guidelines?
32% 40% 24% 3%

100

The survey also sought to discover whether participants have attended professional
development sessions. This question was limited to training offerings in the last year, and
teachers were asked regarding both the CCSS and alternate achievement standards in separate
items. When asked to report on the CCSS professional development opportunities they have
had, 29% of teachers reported they had had no professional development opportunities, 13%
reported having been offered one such opportunity, 21% of teachers stated they had been offered
two to four professional development opportunities, and 6% reported being offered five or more
opportunities for professional development. Teachers were also given the option to respond “not
sure,” to which 31% of teachers selected this response. By contrast, when asked about
professional development opportunities offered related to alternate achievement standards, only
6% of teachers responded that they were afforded no opportunities by the district or their
schools, 19% of teachers reported they were offered one opportunity, 32% of teachers stated they
were given two to four opportunities to participate in professional development opportunities,
and 27% of teachers reported being offered five or more professional development opportunities.
Only 15% of teachers were not sure whether they had been offered a professional development
opportunity related to alternate achievement standards.
The contrast in responses by standard type may highlight a targeted response to the needs
of teachers working with students with SMD by the district and schools or may be indicative of
teachers receiving targeted advertising for such professional development opportunities. A
review of the data reveals that teachers report receiving more opportunities to participate in
professional development opportunities related to alternate achievement standards. Furthermore,
a high percentage of teachers (29%) reported not having opportunities to attend professional
development opportunities related to the CCSS. Similarly, 31% of teachers were not sure of
101

whether they had been afforded opportunities to attend professional development opportunities
related to the CCSS. These figures represent teachers reporting having greater access to
professional development opportunities related to alternate achievement standards. These results
may reflect district outreach to teachers of students with SMD targeted to their needs or teachers
seeking out information on trainings offering information that pertains to subjects they teach.
Figure 11 shows the responses for the two questions, presented by standard type.
Figure 11
Number of Professional Development Opportunities Offered by School District or School

Lastly, participants were asked about specific coaching or mentoring they receive to
assist with the implementation of both the CCSS and alternate achievement standards into their
classrooms. Teachers were able to indicate more than one response, with the available response
options being as follows: direct coaching from a supervisor or administrator, meetings with a
supervisor or administrator to establish a teacher-driven professional development plan, mentor–
mentee partnerships between novice and expert teachers, coaching from outside professionals
29%
13%
21%
6%
31%
6%
19%
32%
27%
15%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
0 1 2-4 5+ Not sure
Percentage of Teacher Responses
Number of Training Offerings
CCSS Alternate
102

such as consultants and community partners, other, or none. When asked about coaching or
mentoring available to assist with implementation of the CCSS, teachers most frequently
indicated that they have mentor-mentee relationships available, followed by coaching with
consultants, which 26% of teachers indicated they have available to them. The next two most
frequently selected supports were having access to no coaching or mentoring (“none”), as 24%
of teachers selected this option, and meetings with a supervisor, which 23% of teachers selected.
Teachers also reported having access to direct coaching (18%) and other forms of coaching and
mentoring (15%).
When asked about specific coaching or mentoring they receive to assist with the
implementation of alternate achievement standards, teachers most frequently selected having a
mentor-mentee relationship available, as they did with the CCSS. However, the 45% of teachers
responding they have this support available specifically related to the implementation of alternate
achievement standards is starkly above the 29% who stated they have this same coaching or
mentoring available to support the implementation of the CCSS. Teachers cited meetings with a
supervisor, coaching with consultants, and direct coaching as the next most frequent types of
coaching and mentoring available to them at 42%, 32%, and 31%, respectively. Teachers citing
no or other supports related to alternate achievement standards also fell below those of the
CCSS, with 13% of teachers responding “none” and 10% of teachers responding “other.”
Although no single type of coaching or mentoring response received 60% or more of responses,
the teacher responses highlight the variety of supports available by standard type. Teachers
report having more opportunities for meeting with a mentor, meetings with a supervisor,
coaching with consultants, and direct coaching when related to alternate achievement standards
as compared with what was reported in regard to the CCSS. These results help illustrate that
103

teachers may have more access to in-person supports such as mentors, coaching, and meetings
with a supervisor when discussing implementation of alternate achievement standards versus the
CCSS. Teachers may also have this perception if they are receiving support tailored to the
subject or student population they teach. Figure 12 illustrates teacher responses about types of
coaching or mentoring available by type of standard.
Figure 12
Type of Coaching or Mentoring Available by Standard Type

Interviewee Perspectives. Teachers were also interviewed about their training using
standards-based curriculum and asked a series of follow-up questions to probe for information
related to organizational support at both the district and school site level. Three of the four
teachers discussed the training they had received as part of their credentialing programs, in
which standards-based curriculum was the focus of lesson planning activities. Participant A
stated, “So we had many classes where we went over . . . content-specific areas, and we used,
you know, formal lesson planning for classrooms.” Participant B also discussed how the
18%
23%
29%
26%
15%
24%
31%
42%
45%
32%
10%
13%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Direct Coaching
Meetings w/Supervisor
Mentor-mentee
Coaching w/Consultants
Other
None
Percentage of Teacher Responses
Type of Coaching or Mentoring
Alternate
CCSS
104

credential program emphasized the importance of “knowing and understanding” standards given
that the program is based on the inclusion model. Participant C stated that the experiences with
training on standards-based curriculum have occurred at the school site during established
professional development time. Participant D explained the process used in the credential
program as one of aligning standards, “. . . part of our lesson plans is we have to, you know, tie it
to an alternative curriculum standard.”
The teachers were also asked how the district and their administrators follow up on
training the teachers have received. They described varying ways in which the district and their
administrators follow up on training, ranging from offering incentives for attending training to
providing feedback through formal evaluations to engaging in collaboration with general
education colleagues. Each participant offered a different response when asked about the
district’s follow up, with Participant A stating that follow up is part of the credential internship
program, and Participant B said:
There is a record that the district has, and then they also provide extra incentives through
the district of attending, so I keep have personal record of hours that I have attended to
certain trainings, so I can reimburse those hours towards salary points.
The teachers described the way their site administrators follow up on training, including making
themselves available for questions, as Participant A explained. Participant B stated that the
administrator’s involvement after a training is not as intensive this way: “So she might check in
and ask how it went. But she doesn’t ask specifics.”
Participants C and D tied administrator follow up to involvement in department meetings,
with Participant C stating that special education teachers are assigned to meet with a general
education department by the administrator and Participant D explaining that the administrator is
105

involved in the weekly department meetings and will give teachers assignments. Participant D
stated:
Some of the things are online. So we have to submit things online, and it goes downtown.
So I don’t know exactly if it keeps track of all the paperwork, but it’s kind of, it’s kind of,
kind of ongoing and systematic, and it changes over time.
The online submission of assignments may reflect another component of district follow up or
monitoring, but Participant D did not elaborate. The instances of follow up as described by the
teachers are descriptive of engaging in evaluation experiences or school site-level planning and
collaboration rather than explicit follow up of trainings that teachers have attended. Streamlining
post-training follow up will increase organizational support available to teachers, whether it be
through the district or administrators.
Summary. Teachers generally self-reported having access to professional development
opportunities related to alternate achievement standards. Less access was regarding professional
development opportunities related to the CCSS, as 27% of teachers reported having access to
two or more professional development opportunities. When surveyed, teachers reported
receiving varying types of coaching and mentoring, with a greater range of support related to
alternate achievement standards being reported. The results of the qualitative portion of the
study indicate that teachers feel somewhat supported when it comes to receiving support related
to standards or guidelines. When respondents were probed further, it was revealed that teachers
are offered more opportunities for professional development related to alternate achievement
standards than they are to the CCSS. When interviewed, teachers attributed much of their
training and preparation to their credentialing programs and did not cite district- or school-
106

sponsored trainings in their responses. Furthermore, the teachers did not offer succinct
procedures for training follow up as followed by either the district or their administrators.
Influence 2. The organization needs to provide effective support to teachers using
standards-based, age-appropriate curriculum and modifications with students.
Survey Results. Participants were asked to identify whether they felt that their
organization offered sufficient training in the area of standards-based instruction for students
with SMD. Table 12 shows that 34% of teachers responded that they “strongly agree,” and 31%
responded that they “agree.” Although 65% of teachers report that there is sufficient training,
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) noted that the formulation of a plan to support participants
after a training is critical. Attention should also be given to the teachers who responded they
“neither agreed nor disagreed” and to those who “disagreed” that the organization offered
sufficient training, with 15% and 19% responding as such, respectively. Although these numbers
did not meet the established level for significance, it is important for organizations to consider
additional training needs that their teachers may have, particularly if teachers are self-reporting
not being offered sufficient training. Only 1% of teachers strongly disagreed with the statement.
Table 12
Teacher Reported Feelings on Levels of Training
Survey Item
Percentage
of Teachers
Who
Strongly
Agree
Percentage
of Teachers
Who Agree
Percentage
of Teachers
Who
Neither
Agree or
Disagree
Percentage
of Teachers
Who
Disagree
Percentage
of
Teachers
Who
Strongly
Disagree
I feel that my district
offers sufficient training
in the area of standards-
based instruction specific
to the needs of students
34% 31% 15% 19% 1%
107

with severe and multiple
disabilities.

Interviewee Perspectives. Based on the findings of the interview, it can be seen that
teachers feel that the district does support their efforts in using general education standards with
students with disabilities. Participant B felt this support was specific to curriculum
implementation in special day classes, however, had this to say: “. . . when it comes to inclusion-
based instruction, I feel like there is no model or answers.” Participant A felt that support for
using general education standards was evidenced given that “I have been taught with them,
they’re available, and I'm expected to use them.” When asked to cite ways in which the district
offers support, Participant A followed with, “Other than doing the evaluations where
administrators are looking at that stuff, but I'm not sure if it’s like, OK, actively consistently, like
where is this,” referring to administrators looking for evidence of implementation of standards
and how outside of an evaluation, there may be inconsistent support. Participant C viewed
district support as administrative support, wherein administrators dedicate time to disseminating
information and give opportunities to meet with colleagues. Finally, Participant D stated that the
district is “. . . to do everything possible, and they, they try to give the site administrators enough
leeway.” This again points to administrative support or direction with respect to implementation
of standards.
In addition to asking teachers about support in using general education standards,
teachers were asked whether they feel that the district supports them in using curricular
modifications with students with disabilities. Each teacher provided examples of ways in which
each feels the district offers support. Participant A discussed the importance of recognizing the
differences in student levels:
108

And there was always a big distinction when it came to students with mild to moderate
disabilities, where it's like you accommodate you don't modify but with our students with
moderate to severe there is that where we can modify the curriculum, a little bit and I feel
like giving you permission. It's okay to do that.
Participant C described how the district has dedicated personnel who are available to assist
teachers, specifically with the curriculum (Unique Learning System). Participant B also agreed
that the district provides support in implementing curricular modifications but did not cite
specific examples as to how the district goes about helping. Participant D felt that “it’s hard to
say” whether the district was providing support in using curricular modifications, as the
evaluation process introduces specific expectations that are not necessarily attainable given the
current resources and standards. Participant D explained:
It’s really hard to use them [standards] as far as like keeping your job as a special
education teacher if someone wants to see grade-level standards modified. It’s pretty
much you have to use mild to moderate type lesson plans and standards and kind of make
the students look like it’s appropriate . . .
Summary. The survey results may indicate that teachers receive sufficient training from
the organization in the area of standards-based instruction in support of students with SMD. The
quantitative data support this, with teachers reporting they receive support and training in various
forms. Insight into the perspectives of the teachers was gathered via the interview and showed
that these teachers have varying views on support, with their descriptions of support ranging
from an administrative presence to opportunities to work with colleagues. Furthermore, the
teachers discussed modifications, and while they feel that the district supports this effort, their
responses revealed inconsistencies in how this support is carried out. The quantitative and
109

qualitative data may indicate that there are inconsistencies in follow-up on training, coaching and
mentoring, and support in using instructional modifications.
Summary of Validated Influences
Based on the results of the quantitative and qualitative data, the assumed KMO influences
were determined to be validated as assets or needs. Tables 13, 14, and 15 show the knowledge,
motivation, and organization influences for this study and their determination as an asset or a
need based on the results of the quantitative and qualitative data.
Knowledge
Table 13
Knowledge Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data
Assumed Knowledge Influence Asset or Need
Factual: Teachers need understanding of
correlation between Common Core State
Standards and alternate achievement
standards.
Asset
Procedural: Teachers need knowledge in how
to instruct students using standards-based
curriculum.
Asset
Procedural: Teachers need knowledge of
instructional modifications to make
assignments accessible.
Need

Motivation
Table 14
Motivation Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data
Assumed Motivation Influence Asset or Need
110

Self-efficacy: Teachers need to feel capable of
writing and using standards-based, age-
appropriate lessons for students with severe
and multiple disabilities.
Asset
Attribution: Teachers should feel that access
to standards-based, age-appropriate lessons is
reflective of their own efforts and not of the
level of disability of the student(s).
Need

Organization
Table 15
Organization Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data
Assumed Organization Influence Asset or Need
Cultural Model: The organization needs a
culture that reinforces instruction linked to
general education (core curriculum) standards
and usage of curricular modifications.
Need
Cultural Model: The organization needs to
provide teachers of students with
severe/multiple disabilities the information on
how to provide access to standards-based,
age-appropriate lessons.
Need
Cultural Setting: The organization needs to
provide effective support to teachers to ensure
implementation of standards-based, age-
appropriate curriculum and modifications.
Need
Cultural Setting: The organization needs to
provide effective support to teachers using
standards-based, age-appropriate curriculum
and modifications with students.
Asset

111

Conclusion
This chapter presented the results and findings of the quantitative and qualitative research
conducted. The results were discussed in relation to the three research questions and assumed
influences in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organization.
Based on the quantitative and qualitative data probing knowledge and motivation
influences of teachers in the USD, it is evident that teachers possess conceptual knowledge, as
they self-report they understand the correlation between the CCSS and alternate achievement
standards and are accessing these standards when planning. Based on the results of both the
quantitative and qualitative data, it appears teachers may be experiencing gaps in procedural
knowledge and may also have needs in the area of attribution. The qualitative data also assisted
in uncovering possible gaps in self-efficacy, as teachers expanded on their feelings of self-doubt
as they work with students when asked about potential barriers to instruction. The identified
organizational influences also emerged as needs, with both cultural models and cultural settings
validated as needs.
Initial expectations were that teachers would self-report gaps in conceptual and
procedural knowledge; however, the findings uncovered assets that teachers bring to the USD.
Specific to procedural knowledge, the findings of the qualitative portion of the study uncovered
that teachers possess the necessary knowledge related to the CCSS and alternate achievement
standards to support standards-based instruction. Qualitatively, teachers provided details of the
resources they use to provide instruction to their students. The strategies teachers use when
planning involve pulling resources from both the CCSS and alternate achievement standards.
When interviewed, teachers were able to elaborate on how they plan for instruction when
working with students with SMD.
112

Although relative assets were determined to be in the area of procedural knowledge and
conceptual knowledge specific to using standards-based curriculum, the findings uncovered
needs in the areas of conceptual knowledge, specifically teachers’ need for knowledge of
instructional modifications. The qualitative data uncovered that teachers provide instructional
accommodations. As such, teachers need further knowledge in understanding and implementing
instructional modifications.
Motivational needs also emerged as a result of the study, with both self-efficacy and
attribution being validated. Teachers report being comfortable navigating both the CCSS and
alternate achievement standards. When disaggregated by the most-reported credential types, the
data revealed that teachers also reported feeling prepared to write standards-based lessons by
their credential programs. Although there was a slight discrepancy in the data regarding when
teachers were asked how often they use a lesson they prepare, the numbers for teachers stating
they use their lesson plans daily and weekly were still ample. The qualitative data revealed slight
differences from the quantitative data relative to teacher preparation. Although teachers reported
feeling prepared, they explained lingering needs post-completion of their credential programs.
These findings alone were not enough to report on self-efficacy as a need; however, a finding on
attribution revealed additional information related to this influence.
Attribution influences were validated, with teachers highlighting both internal and
external contributors to barriers to their instruction. When probed via the survey, teachers
reported on the importance of access to grade-level content for students with SMD, which is
inherently different from access to grade-level standards, wherein 19% of teachers disagreed
with statements affirming access to the standards for students with SMD. Teachers also
validated attribution as a contributing influence affecting access to instruction, with teachers
113

citing student type and level of disability, behavior, and status as English learners as potential
barriers to instruction. During the interviews, teachers also revealed doubts about their own
effectiveness, further stressing the potential of self-efficacy as a need.
The organizational cultural model and settings influences were validated through the
analysis of the quantitative and qualitative data. As Rueda (2011) explained, the interactional
nature between cultural models and settings and the models and settings themselves can affect
the attainment of organizational goals. Rueda (2011) explained that the overall organizational
culture can have such a great impact even when organizational members, such as teachers, “are
knowledgeable and motivated” (p. 59) to achieve the goals of the organization. Quantitatively,
there was greater variability in the responses given by teachers on items probing on themes of
support from the organization on professional development and coaching and mentoring.
Although teachers affirmed that they receive support for training, they were unable to elaborate
on ways their administrators follow up on training, a crucial component to assuring transfer of
learning according to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016).
Chapter 5 will present the recommendations for the results and findings and will provide
the answers to the research questions the study considered. The recommended interventions will
incorporate the identified assets, needs, and the cultural framework developed and described in
Chapter 2.

114

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Chapter 4 presented the descriptive statistics and interviewees’ perceptions as a method
for answering the three research questions related to the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational needs present in the USD. Chapter 5 presents recommendations to support the
identified needs and presents an implementation plan to aid in the execution and monitoring of
the recommendations.
Discussion
Federal education law sets up a structure that districts interpret and use to frame policies
and practices. Teachers are required to have the necessary knowledge and skills to carry out
instruction in an equitable way. In addition, teachers must possess the motivation to provide
access to students to standards-based instruction. Both knowledge and motivation must exist
within the context of organizational factors, which may affect teacher ability to provide access to
instruction. As stated by Browder et al. (2007), all students are expected to have access to
general education content that is delivered by highly qualified teachers. Teachers are typically
prepared and considered to be highly qualified as they enter the profession, but organizations
must share in the responsibility of providing new learning and improvement. The organization
must work to remove barriers if it expected that teachers would work toward the stated goals.
Teachers in the USD reported having an understanding of the standards and
comprehending the correlation between the CCSS and alternate achievement standards and
reported feeling prepared by their credential and teacher preparation programs. Based on the
established level of significance of 60% or greater, gaps do not appear to exist in the areas of
conceptual knowledge as self-reported by teachers. Gaps to appear to exist in the areas of
knowledge of instructional modifications. Teachers were found to have motivational gaps, as
115

they reported issues with both self-efficacy and attribution. Clark and Estes (2008) noted a lack
of clarity, specifically in goals and feedback, can have a negative influence on motivation. The
absence of structured follow-up noted when teachers were asked about how their district and
administrators follow up on training and how support is offered is indicative of an organizational
gap that may be contributing to a motivational gap, as teachers may not be receiving the
feedback they need to feel effective.
Teacher attributions also emerged as a need, with teachers attributing barriers to access to
external causes such as student behavior, level of disability, and students’ primary language.
Teachers may view these factors as outside of their locus on control or factors that Rueda (2011)
notes are more stable in nature. Teachers must be able to shift their beliefs about student abilities
if they are to overcome barriers to access. Teachers holding these beliefs reflect deficit thinking
or a deficit model, which can worsen opportunities for children, specifically children who are
part of marginalized groups (Adair, Colegrove, & McManus, 2017). Adair et al. (2017) stated
that building agency in students is the counter to deficit thinking. With agency, students are
involved in what they are learning. Engel (2011) further described this as students in charge of
their own learning. Colegrove and Adair (2014) advocated for equitable learning experiences for
students that they need not work to “earn.” Colegrove and Adair (2014) suggested targeting both
teacher pedagogical needs and teachers’ deficit thinking. Clark and Estes (2008) stated that
influencing people indirectly is a necessary approach to take to shift beliefs “about the personal
or group benefits of work.” If teachers can see the benefit their work provides to students, they
may be able to focus on their performance instead of perceived student shortcomings.

116

Determination of Influences as Validated
The identified influences were recognized as assumed assets or needs on the basis of the
responses provided to the quantitative and qualitative portions of the study. Each KMO
influence was identified as an asset or a need as determined by the criteria outlined in Chapter 4.
Survey items receiving higher than 60% were deemed to have significance within the context of
this study. Interview responses presenting with commonalities among three of four interviewees
were deemed to have meaning within the context of the study. Individual knowledge,
motivation, and organization influences were labeled as assets or needs in Chapter 4, which
helped guide the labeling of influences as “validated,” “high probability,” or “no.” The results
from this analysis were used to determine which influences were validated and for which
recommendations would be developed. Influences were identified as high probability if they did
not rise to the level of asset but warranted further exploration based on discrepancies in the
quantitative and qualitative findings. Influences were labeled as “no” if both quantitative and
qualitative data supported labeling the influence as an asset.
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences affecting the Urban School District’s attainment of the stated goal of ensuring that
100% of students, including those with severe and multiple disabilities, have access to rigorous,
standards-based instruction. In evaluating the attainment of this goal, the study focused on
students identified as having SMD. The analysis began by generating a list of assumed
interfering knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that were examined
systematically to focus on actual or validated interfering influences. Although a complete
evaluation would focus on all stakeholders, for practical purposes, the stakeholder group of focus
117

was teachers of students with severe or multiple disabilities. The questions that guided the
evaluation were as follows:
1. What is the teacher knowledge related to providing access to standards-based
curriculum and instructional modifications to students in classrooms for students with
severe and multiple disabilities?
2. What is the teacher motivation related to providing access to standards-based
curriculum and instructional modifications to students in classrooms for students with
severe and multiple disabilities?
3. How do the culture and context of the Urban School District impact teacher ability
to provide access to standards-based curriculum and instructional modifications in
classrooms for students with severe and multiple disabilities?
Knowledge Recommendations
Introduction. Clark and Estes (2008) delineated the situations in which one would need
further knowledge. They explained that people may not know how to do a task, or they may
engage in a task that requires “novel problem solving.” In the case of the USD, both situations
may be encountered, as teachers may have varying degrees of expertise and familiarity with a
given task. Solutions suggested by Clark and Estes (2008) can remedy knowledge issues that are
employed on the basis of the type of knowledge situation that is encountered: information, job
aids, training, and education. The recommended solutions for the USD will be discussed within
the context of the study findings.
The likely probability of the assumed knowledge influences being validated as a gap is
noted in Table 16, along with recommendations for validated influences. Of the three identified
influences, one was identified as a gap. The validated procedural knowledge gap was that
118

teachers need knowledge of instructional modifications to make assignments accessible. Clark
and Estes (2008) cited difficulties in applying prior knowledge to new learning situations and a
lack of automaticity in retrieving information, both of which may be present in the validated gap.
Table 16 lists recommendations for the influences deemed a priority. One of the three listed
influences were noted to be a priority for creating context-specific recommendations.
Table 16
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Knowledge Influence
Validated
Gap
Yes, High
Probabilit
y or No
(V, HP,
N)
Context-Specific Recommendation
Teachers need knowledge in how to instruct
students using standards-based curriculum
(P)
N
Per the study, teachers report having
the resources and training necessary
to instruct students using standards-
based curriculum. This influence is
not currently a priority.
Teachers need knowledge of instructional
modifications to make assignments
accessible (P)
V
Provide clear information and job
aids for teachers that include various
examples of modifications.

Provide training along with
opportunities to practice and apply
new information. Provide feedback
to teachers as they apply
information.
Teachers need understanding of correlation
between Common Core State Standards and
alternate achievement standards (D)
N
Per the study, teachers report feeling
comfortable with the correlation
between the Common Core State
Standards and alternate achievement
standards. This influence is not
currently a priority.

119

Procedural knowledge solutions. The data indicated that teachers need to expand their
procedural knowledge related to using instructional modifications to make assignments
accessible. The quantitative and qualitative data did not determine the conceptual and procedural
knowledge influences related to correlating standards and the use of standards-based curriculum
to be contributing factors to the procedural knowledge need; teachers reported having the
resources and training necessary to carry out these functions. Recommendations for the priority
influence are outlined in the sections that follow.
The results of the research indicate that teachers need a broader understanding of
instructional modifications to make assignments accessible. Clark and Estes (2008) stated that
people often have difficulty discerning when to apply past knowledge to new situations. They
further broke down conceptual knowledge by describing it as either automated “muscular”
knowledge or “decision-based” knowledge. These types of knowledge can further be described
by the types of tasks that are completed when engaging each—with “muscular” knowledge
involving hands-on tasks and “decision-based” knowledge involving mental or problem-solving
tasks. When planning to use instructional modifications, teachers should be employing
“decision-based” knowledge in an automatic fashion, converting facts to procedural knowledge.
In this case, teachers may have difficulty discerning between instructional accommodations and
instructional modifications and determining when to apply modifications to a situation. One
barrier the teacher as a learner may have in applying procedural knowledge, such as using
instructional modifications during planning and instruction, is the lack of automaticity in
retrieving information, as described by Clark and Estes (2008).
One recommendation to close the procedural knowledge gap is to provide clear
information and job aids for teachers that include various examples of modifications. Teachers
120

needing more intensive support should be provided with training along with opportunities to
practice and apply new information. Additionally, teachers should receive feedback as they
apply the information learned. This recommendation is supported by the research of Antoniou
and Kyriakides (2013), which states that dedicated professional development and follow up can
support teachers in improving student outcomes. Further, Antoniou and Kyriakides (2013) also
state that skills such as modeling can assist in the transfer of knowledge. According to Clark and
Estes (2008), building automaticity of knowledge recall is what allows experts to solve complex
problems. Clark and Estes (2008) further described that effective training involves not only
access to information and feedback but also practice that allows for knowledge to convert from
conscious to automated.
Procedural knowledge: Information and professional development. The first
recommendation to increase procedural knowledge is to provide teachers with the information
and professional development needed to carry out instructional modifications. Teachers must
have a clear channel from which to receive information, or if multiple streams are used to
disseminate information, there must be clarity in how teachers are to interpret these streams.
Professional development offerings must be tailored to the needs of teachers, in this case
centered on instructional modifications, and must involve opportunities for practice and
feedback, as discussed in the section below.
Teachers in need of support with implementing instructional modifications may present
with procedural knowledge gaps of varying types. Clark and Estes (2008) presented solutions
for the various types of knowledge and skill problems, with information being a solution for
those teachers who possess the content knowledge but need to apply this knowledge in their
current situation. Information coupled with a job aid is the recommended solution to assist with
121

the implementation of instructional modifications. Clark and Estes (2008) defined information
as simply telling someone the piece of information they need to know. Communicating
information on instructional modifications to teachers can take the form of verbal conversations
in which reminders are issued or print or electronic information is delivered via already available
communication streams. In addition to providing information to teachers, job aids will also
assist in providing the necessary information to teachers. The job aids will contain more detailed
information on instructional modifications such as a hierarchy of modifications, modifications to
employ by content area type, and modifications to use by material type. Simplifying the
information on the job aid will assist in the readability and usability, as Clark and Estes (2008)
cautioned that ineffective job aids may hinder efforts.
Procedural knowledge: Training, practice, and feedback. In the case of teachers who
require more thorough practice, training is recommended. It is important to target teachers who
need more than information and a job aid. The population of teachers requiring practice and
training may include both new and experienced teachers. The training sessions should include
information for teachers who do not possess strong background knowledge in instructional
modifications and would benefit from the cycle of receiving information, practice, and feedback.
Clark and Estes (2008) explained how practice during training can assist in the “transfer of
knowledge.” The training sessions could be in-person or virtual, as long as participants have
access to the materials they need. Some conversations may involve hardware, whereas others
may involve virtual tools that teachers could learn about during a web-based training session.
Clark and Estes (2008) also noted the importance of including unexpected situations in the
training, which assists in achieving success in the task. Training sessions should include topics
to help teachers differentiate between accommodations and modifications and the use of
122

instructional modifications in accordance with a tool such as the Hierarchy of Access (Browning
Wright, 2003) so as to promote student learning with the appropriate amount and type of
modifications to complete the task.
Motivation Recommendations
Introduction. Motivation to participate in or complete tasks varies greatly in individuals
due to a variety of factors. Research by Eccles (2006) attributed this variety, in part, to cultural
norms and beliefs, self-perception, and the task at hand. Although the quantitative and
qualitative data used by the researcher to evaluate teachers’ perceptions of self-efficacy did not
validate this as a gap, the qualitative items exploring attribution uncovered that teachers may
hold a lower belief in their own competence. Rueda (2011) listed factors that can influence
one’s competency beliefs, with prior knowledge, feedback received, and past success noted. The
study did not validate two of the knowledge influences, indicating that teachers do possess the
knowledge to use standards to plan and deliver instruction to their students with SMD. Teachers
did not report that they felt unsuccessful in their lesson delivery. The study findings revealed,
however, that district and administrator feedback is inconsistent, as are methods of coaching and
mentoring. Receiving inconsistent feedback may be affecting teachers’ competency beliefs.
When questioned on items related to attribution, teachers did not directly report
attributing barriers to instruction to external factors such as student ability, as they reported
students should have access to grade-level content and standards. When exploring attribution,
the theme of student attributes emerged as a perceived barrier to instruction. Teachers attributed
barriers to instruction to external qualities, not to their own performance. Rueda (2011) stated
that behavior is not affected by such attributions per se, which may account for teachers noting
student attributes as barriers but persisting in the task of providing instruction.
123

Both self-efficacy and attributions (or one’s thinking about why events occur) are noted as
influences. The assumed motivational influences being validated as a gap is noted in Table 17,
along with recommendations for the influences that are deemed a priority.
Table 17
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Motivation Influence

Validated
Gap
High
Probability,
No
(V, HP, N)
Context-Specific Recommendation
Self-efficacy:
Teachers need to feel capable of
writing and using standards-based,
age-appropriate lessons for students
with severe and multiple disabilities.
HP
Though questions specific to this
influence did not yield responses that
would indicate this is a priority,
responses given on questions exploring
attribution revealed doubts of self-
efficacy.

Work on teacher levels of confidence
through setting challenging but
achievable goals.
Attribution:
Teachers should feel that access to
standards based, age-appropriate
lessons is reflective of their own efforts
and not of the level of disability of the
student(s).
V
Attribute success or failures to effort
(Anderman &Anderman,
2009).

Focus on the preparation and planning
(e.g., effort) put into each lesson rather
than on perceived student deficits.

Provide timely feedback on teacher
efforts.

The results of the research indicate that teachers feel capable of writing and using
standards-based, age-appropriate lessons for students with severe and multiple disabilities.
Bandura (1997) noted that self-efficacy is increased as individuals succeed in a task. Teachers
with positive self-efficacy apply knowledge of pedagogy in their classrooms through lessons and
124

management (Chacon, 2005; Woolfolk, Rosoff, & Hoy, 1990 as cited in Zee & Koomen, 2016).
Although questions specific to the influence did not yield responses that would indicate self-
efficacy is a priority, responses given to questions exploring attribution revealed doubts of self-
efficacy. Using the established guideline for determining whether an influence is validated,
highly probability, or not, researchers found that self-efficacy is deemed highly probability on
the basis of having additional data that conflicts with the quantitative findings. Self-efficacy
may be a motivational influence that is affecting access to instruction for students with SMD.
Recommended solutions to improve perceptions of self-efficacy include working on teacher
levels of confidence through setting challenging but achievable goals. Clark and Estes (2008)
also discussed the importance of influencing beliefs to develop confidence. This should be
accomplished indirectly with the goal of influencing the teachers’ thinking.
The results of the research indicate that teachers are attributing access, or lack thereof, to
a variety of factors. The study found that teachers reported level of disability of the student, type
of disability, student behavior, and primary language as potential barriers to access. Anderman
and Anderman (2006) noted that attribution in teachers may be due to several causes – either
internal or external. Teachers may cease to perform if they believe that their teaching efforts are
due to a lack of ability or due to an external cause that they cannot control. In this case, the
teachers are attributing, at least in part, barriers to access to external causes. Though survey
respondents reported that they felt that access to grade-level content and general education
standards is important, interview participants reported student-specific barriers to access. Zhou
and Urhahne (2013) cited the study by Brophy wherein student performance was observed to be
adversely affected by teacher attributions which, in turn, affected teacher expectations. The
recommendation is to attribute success or failures to effort (Anderman & Anderman, 2009).
125

Furthermore, keeping a focus on the preparation and planning (e.g., effort) put into each lesson
rather than on perceived student deficits may assist in retraining focus on internal factors (teacher
self-efficacy). Additional recommendations include offering specific feedback to teachers on
their efforts after setting specific goals.
Zhou and Urhahne (2013) explored the effects of teacher attribution on student
performance and found that teacher expectations, though often based on accurate measures of
student ability, served as “self-fulfilling prophecies” (p. 276). Zhou and Urhahne (2013) cited
the study by Brophy wherein it was observed that student performance was adversely affected by
teacher attributions which, in turn, affected teacher expectations. Further affecting teacher
attributions are negative feelings about student “abilities, progress, and outcomes” (Atkinson, as
cited in Han & Yin, 2016, p. 8). Research highlighted in the literature review found that teacher
attitudes assuming that access to general education or core content standards for students with
significant disabilities is not a high priority (Agran et al., 2002). Teachers overwhelmingly
advocated for their students’ access to general education content and standards in both the
quantitative and qualitative portions of the study, which is a positive that should be capitalized
upon.
Self-efficacy: teacher confidence. In addition to providing teachers information and job
aids, they should be provided with clearly defined goals to work toward. Clark and Estes (2008)
stated that these goals should be challenging yet attainable. Additional research on teacher
confidence by Dierking and Fox (2013) related teacher confidence to teacher empowerment,
where teachers take ownership of their learning. Teachers should be active participants in the
planning of their course of professional development and goal setting. Of importance is the
creation of a plan to follow up on agreed-upon goals. Both the district and administrators play an
126

important role in offering feedback and recognition for accomplishment of goals. Teachers
reported being unsure of their performance, making feedback an essential component of the
recommendations. Feedback will also be discussed in relation to attribution and to the identified
organizational influences.
Attribution: focus on effort and offer feedback. Teachers attributed barriers to
instruction to external factors, such as student disability type and level, student behavior, and
student primary language. Given that these are external, stable factors, it is imperative that the
recommended solution focus on teacher efforts rather than on student attributions. In this way,
teachers may begin to view their instruction in terms of their efforts instead of student-centered
factors. Anderman and Anderman (2006) explained how attributions can be communicated to
learners via feedback. It is important for the district and administrators to offer specific and
timely feedback if teachers are to shift their attributional attitudes. Anderman and Anderman
(2006) also stated that using specific feedback can help learners more appropriately attribute
failures. Citing specific reasons for instructional successes or failures is more helpful than
leaving teachers to assume why a lesson was not effective.
Organization Recommendations
The likely probability of the assumed organizational influences being validated as a gap
is noted in Table 18, along with context-specific recommendations. Organizations can affect
goal attainment through the very way they set up expectations. Clark and Estes (2008) further
likened the organization to the road conditions that can either help or hinder travel or the
achievement of the organizational mission. It is further noted that individuals and work teams
may possess the knowledge, skills, and motivation to carry out the necessary tasks for success,
127

but organizational culture can be a barrier between individuals and success (Clark & Estes,
2008). Table 18 lists recommendations for the influences that are deemed a priority.
Table 18
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Organization Influence

Validated Gap
Yes, High
Probability,
No
(V, HP, N)
Context-Specific Recommendation
Cultural Model Influence 1:
The organization needs a culture that
reinforces instruction linked to general
education (core curriculum) standards
and usage of curricular modifications.
V
Help employees understand how
their jobs align with organizational
goals.

Focus on the right rewards and offer
the support needed by the members
of the organization.
Leader behavior must provide
reinforcement of desired behaviors.
Cultural Model Influence 2:
The organization needs to provide
teachers of students with severe/multiple
disabilities the information on how to
provide access to standards-based, age-
appropriate lessons.
V
Provide opportunities for honest
discussions
Evaluate organizational policies and
procedures that may be hindering
performance and progress
Provide information pertinent to
teachers of students with SMD after
evaluation of policies and
procedures
Cultural Setting Influence 1:
The organization needs to provide
effective support to teachers to ensure
implementation of standards-based, age-
appropriate curriculum and
modifications.
V
Provide opportunities to observe
peer teachers
Provide mentoring and coaching for
employees
Provide both formal and informal
training opportunities

128

Cultural Setting Influence 2:
The organization needs to provide
effective support to teachers using
standards-based, age-appropriate
curriculum and modifications with
students.
N
Per the results of the study, teachers
report having sufficient access to
training related to working with
students with SMD.

It is important to note that Rueda (2011) discussed how cultural models must be
considered as a first step and potential barrier to any proposed solutions. Cultural models are
high-priority influences, as the organizational culture overall must value instruction and
modifications enough to follow through on expectations set for teachers. The results of the
research indicate that the organization needs a culture that reinforces instruction linked to
standards and the usage of instructional modifications. Schneider, Brief, and Guzzo (1996)
noted that changing the climate of the organization is important to changing what an
organization’s members believe and what they believe their organization values.
Recommendations for assisting with creating a supportive organizational culture include helping
employees understand how their jobs align with organizational goals and focusing on the right
rewards. Leader behavior must also provide reinforcement of the desired behaviors the
organization promotes through its philosophy. Also of importance is offering the support needed
by the members of the organization. Support, such as training, mentoring, and coaching, is
further discussed under cultural settings.
Schein (2017) identified the beliefs and actions undertaken by the group as reflecting the
leader’s beliefs and values. On a larger scale, Schneider et al. (1996) described the
organizational climate as being influenced by the behaviors undertaken by the members of the
organization. To that effect, behaviors holding standards-based lessons for students with SMD
as important can affect the organizational climate. The organization, school site leaders, and
129

teachers must hold the belief that the usage of standards-based lessons is important for every
school site serving students with SMD. The passage (and subsequent reauthorization) of IDEA
grounds the belief that all students with disabilities should have access to general education
curriculum content instruction (Browder et al., 2007). This research highlights the importance of
providing supportive environments and modeling of desired behaviors.
The findings also indicate that the organization needs to provide effective support to
teachers to ensure implementation and usage of standards-based, age-appropriate curriculum and
modifications. For both implementation and usage, assessing which factors are affecting
organizational change can assist in creating plans for improvement. Callahan (2015) noted that
employee engagement is related to organizational outcomes. The recommendation is to provide
opportunities for teachers to observe peer teachers engaged in effective practice.
Teachers must also work in settings that promote the implementation of daily instruction
linked to general education standards. Buckingham and Coffman (1999) noted that managerial
support is critical to the success of employees, as ensuring access to these supports is one
indicator of the integrity of the workplace. Rueda (2011) simplified the description of a cultural
setting as involving the “who, what, when, where, and why” (p. 57), with schools being
composed of the sites themselves, students, employees, and the events surrounding them.
Though the explication of a cultural setting is simplified, Rueda (2011) further clarified that
cultural settings of complex contexts such as classrooms often present challenges given the
dynamic nature of the contexts. The cultural settings present in the Urban School District should
support access to standards-based instruction for all students, as students need not learn
prerequisite functional skills before accessing academic skills (Courtade, Browder, Spooner, &
Jimenez, 2012).
130

Cultural models. Inconsistencies in the conveyance of the organizational philosophy are
affecting how standards-based curriculum and instructional modifications are implemented with
students with SMD. Teachers need an understanding of the philosophy from a practical
standpoint and must receive the communication in accessible ways, as this method of informal
messaging is more effective (Schein, 2017). There should be clear alignment of teacher roles
and the organizational goals. This should involve making the organization’s philosophy and
mission general and applicable to the work teachers of students with SMD are doing. This
process of generalizing the mission helps better articulate the statement and further helps
teachers align their work to the newly translated goals (Schein, 2017).
In addition to providing teachers with the information they need to understand their job
within the context of the organization and its mission, focusing on the rewards and recognition
for teachers is an essential component of communicating the organization’s philosophy.
Engagement is a crucial reason for employing a system of formal and informal rewards, as is
noted in the Federal Employees Viewpoint Survey (United States Office of Personnel
Management, 2016). Teachers in the USD need to be recognized for their efforts in
implementing the knowledge gained from training sessions, employing instructional
modifications in their lessons, and providing accessible instruction to students. Recognition for
the behaviors that will lead the organization toward goal attainment will also help with teacher
attributions, as teachers will receive positive feedback on their efforts.
Cultural settings. Teachers described a need for seeing other teachers employing
strategies and curricula they are using. The recommendation is for the organization to provide
support and time for teachers to observe peer teachers engaged in implementing instructional
modifications and successfully using standards-based curriculum. Brown, Stephenson, and
131

Carter (2014) found that the usage of a multicomponent training that includes training, follow-
up, and peer coaching increased the implementation of training objectives to levels between 75%
to 90%. A multicomponent training approach provides teachers with positive, constructive
advice and opportunities to master the skills being presented. Hence, it is imperative that the
organization emphasize teacher support in the form of a complete, multicomponent training plan
that includes peer observation and coaching or mentoring. Kretlow, Cooke, and Wood (2012)
described the different forms of coaching that can take place, with supervisory and side-by-side
coaching being two forms of effective coaching that assist teachers in implementing target skills.
Kretlow et al. (2012) also found that teachers felt coaching to be more effective than other forms
of support such as feedback after a lesson or a one-on-one meeting.
Antoniou and Kyriakides (2013) posited that teacher professional development programs
should include offerings on a variety of skills based on identified teacher needs along with
tailored training for groups of teachers rather than a single training for teams or schools.
Targeting training based on teacher needs will assure that the appropriate resources reach the
target audience. It is recommended that both formal and informal training opportunities be made
available to teachers, with follow-up a part of the process, as described in the section on
knowledge.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
The implementation and evaluation plan was designed using the New World Kirkpatrick
Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), which is based on the original Kirkpatrick Four-Level
Model of Evaluation (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016)
cited the reasons for including evaluation as part of an effective training plan, including
132

establishing training value, bolstering program improvement, and increasing the transfer of
learning. Furthermore, Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) described the organization of the
New World Kirkpatrick Model’s Four Levels as a road map that will lead organizations to
successful monitoring and implementation of stated goals through a focus on results in Level 4.
The New World Kirkpatrick Model begins with planning the levels from Level 4 to 1,
with a focus on Levels 4 and 3 ensuring that behavior and results are also evaluated. Kirkpatrick
and Kirkpatrick (2016) clarified that the results outlined in Level 4 should incorporate or be
derived, in part, from the organizational mission. Level 3 focuses on those behaviors that are
deemed critical to the accomplishment of the results. Level 2 includes those skills that help
learners attain the targeted skills from the training. The final level that is planned for is Level 1,
where reaction is measured, or the extent to which learners were engaged and satisfied with the
training event. Planning for each of the four levels is presented below as a blueprint for aiding
the USD to meet the stated organizational goals.
Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations
The goal of the Urban School District is to ensure that 100% of students attain mastery of
state standards through access to rigorous and differentiated instruction by June 2019 (District
Strategic Plan, 2016[1]). The established goal pertains to all students, including students with
disabilities, with accommodations and modifications highlighted as part of the plan to ensure
access to success (District Strategic Plan, 2016). The stakeholder-specific goal targeted ensuring
that teachers write and use standards-based, age-appropriate lessons on a daily basis with
students with multiple and severe disabilities. This study sought to examine the knowledge,
motivational, and organizational barriers that affected the achievement of the stated stakeholder
and organizational goals. The proposed recommendations include targeted training,
133

opportunities for peer observation, the incorporation of positive feedback, the provision of the
tools and support needed by the stakeholders, and the use of leader behavior as a model and
reinforcement. The recommendations are intended to aid the organization achieve the stated
goals.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Execution of the implementation and evaluation plan will result in the USD’s acquisition
of internal and external outcomes. The internal and external outcomes will serve as further
evidence of the USD’s implementation of the suggested recommendations in support of teacher
and organizational improvement in the area of access for students with SMD. Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick (2016) identified internal outcomes as those desired results tied to the individuals,
teams, and departments in the organization. The identified internal outcomes include
opportunities for teachers to observe peer teachers implementing effective practices, evidence of
students accessing instructional modifications, and leaders actively engaged in rewarding and
recognizing desired teacher behavior. External outcomes are global in nature and will be
achieved as the internal outcomes are met. The stakeholders identified in the external outcomes
are akin to customers, clients, or markets, as described by Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016).
As teachers are afforded the opportunity to observe peer teachers, implement instructional
modifications, and are provided rewards and recognition from leaders, it is anticipated that 100%
of students with SMD will have access to standards-based lessons and that there will be an
increased number of students attaining mastery of state standards, as evidence by the metrics
listed in Table 19.
134

Table 19 shows the proposed Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators in the form of
outcomes, metrics, and methods for external and internal outcomes for the USD. It is anticipated
that achievement of internal outcomes will lead to achievement of stated external outcomes.
Table 19

Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes

External Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
1. 100% of students with
SMD accessing standards-
based lessons
Number of students in
classrooms where teachers are
delivering standards-based
lessons (reach)
Reports as needed/requested,
lesson plan samples
2. Increased number of
students attaining mastery
of state standards
Curriculum-based assessments,
State alternate assessment
Analyze curriculum-based
assessment data, state alternate
assessment scores
3. Evidence of students
accessing instructional
modifications
Lesson plans reflecting
implementation of modifications
Observation of lessons, review
of lesson plans for evidence of
inclusion of instructional
modifications, as appropriate
Internal Outcomes
1. Teachers given
opportunities to observe
peer teachers
implementing effective
practices
Number of teachers given
opportunity to observe peer
teachers, implementation of best
practices
Data on number of observation
opportunities, teacher interviews
2. Common understanding
of organizational
philosophy among
stakeholders and how it
applies to students with
SMD
Number of stakeholders
consistently communicating
philosophy and goals for
students with SMD
Data from interviews on goals
and outcomes for students with
SMD
3. Leaders actively
engaged in rewarding and
recognizing desired
teacher behavior
Alignment of rewards to desired
behavior
Data on types and instances of
rewards issued
135

4. Teachers provided
training, as needed, that
involves practice and
feedback
Number of training
opportunities that include
practice and feedback cycles
Training records and
observation of practice and
feedback sessions
5. Teachers provided
feedback on instructional
practices
Instances of feedback provided
to teachers
Observations conducted by
leaders, peers, as appropriate
Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) cited Level 3 as the most
important part of the training plan. It is during this level that participants have the opportunity to
apply their learning (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The critical behaviors necessary to
achieve the stated outcomes are writing and delivering standards-based lessons, increasing the
number of students accessing standards-based lessons, and fostering a culture that promotes
access to standards-based instruction for students with SMD. The behaviors, metrics, methods,
and timing are listed in Table 20.
Table 20 lists the desired outcome behaviors, metrics, methods, and timing for evaluation.

Table 20

Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
1. Teachers will
implement
instructional
modifications
during lessons and
activities as a
means of access as
determined by
student need
Lesson plans
reflecting inclusion of
instructional
modifications
Lesson plans include
instructional
modifications
Monthly
2. School site will
retain evidence of
peer observation
Number of teachers
collaborating and
participating in peer
observation sessions
Training attendance logs
Observation of
instruction
Quarterly
136

opportunities given
to teachers
3. Teachers will
provide accessible
lessons to students
with SMD daily
Lesson plan samples,
Number of students
accessing lessons
Lesson plans
Lesson observations
Rating scales
Teacher interviews
Quarterly
4. Organizational
culture will
promote access to
standards-based
instruction
Resources allocated to
students and
classroom as needed
Response to identified
needs
Interviews
Teachers identifying
needs
Usage and
implementation of
resources allocated
Quarterly
5. Leaders will
engage in giving
formal and
informal feedback
Feedback provided to
teachers
Teacher meetings
Formal recognition

As needed

Required drivers. For the organization to promote the performance of the critical
behaviors listed above, it must provide the required drivers for the behaviors to occur.
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) described required drivers as the reinforcing, rewarding, and
encouraging processes that allow for the execution of critical behaviors. Teachers working with
students with SMD require support from the organization in implementing instructional
modifications, as it is expected that students will receive access to rigorous instruction.
Similarly, it is essential for teachers to plan for and deliver accessible lessons to students,
regardless of perceptions of student ability. Furthermore, teachers require support in organizing
time for the structured observations of peer teachers to occur. These critical behaviors require
reinforcing, encouraging, and rewarding for the start-up and maintenance of the behaviors.
Table 21 outlines the recommended drivers to support acquisition of new behaviors in teachers
of students with SMD.

137

Table 21
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical Behaviors Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing
Provide the members of the
organization the tools they
need to complete the work.
Daily 1, 2, 3, 4
Provide immediate feedback
for simple tasks and delayed
feedback for complex
tasks (Borgogni et al., 2011)
As needed/observed 1, 2, 5
Opportunities for observation
of peer teachers
Monthly 1, 2, 3, 4
Opportunities for peer
teachers to collaborate and
debrief
Monthly 1, 2, 3, 4
Encouraging
Provide supportive and
concrete learning
environments
Daily 1, 2
Provide opportunities for peer
observation
Monthly 1, 2
Provide accurate feedback
that identifies the skills or
knowledge the learner lacks
As needed 1, 2, 5
Rewarding
Leader behavior must provide
reinforcement of desired
behaviors
Daily 1, 2, 3, 5
Reward and recognize teacher
efforts
As needed 1, 2, 4, 5
Monitoring
Set close, concrete and
challenging goals that allow
the learner to experience
success at the task (Pajares,
2006)
Quarterly 1, 2
Provide opportunities to check
in with leaders and peer
teachers
Quarterly or as needed 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
138

Organizational support. The plan for ensuring adherence to the recommendations listed
in Table 21 includes implementing specific timelines for monitoring, using leaders as models,
and relying on research-based reinforcing drivers, such as the provision of feedback, rewards,
and opportunities to interface with peers and leaders. Monitoring is a crucial component of the
plan that assists with maintenance of behaviors. As part of Level 3, monitoring serves to ensure
that application of learning is sustained (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). According to
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016), the anticipated sustained learning is what contributes to the
attainment of organizational goals.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. After implementation of the recommended solutions, teachers will be
able to:
1. Utilize knowledge of instructional modifications to make assignments accessible (P)
2. Reflect on teaching successes as a result of their efforts, not student ability or other
external factors (M-SE)
3. Identify ways in which administration provides explicit support (O)
4. Identify supports that will allow for effective implementation of standards-based lessons
(O-CM)
5. Practice and apply new learning gained from training sessions and provided feedback.
6. Identify effective strategies learned through peer observations
7. Successfully adjust practice reflective of strategies learned through peer observations (O-
CS)
Program. The successful achievement of the learning goals listed above will involve
employment of training and support offered to teachers of students with SMD. The training and
139

support will be offered to those individuals who need additional knowledge on the training
topics, with training taking the form of in-person or web-based virtual training with explicit
modeling and follow-up. The training will include feedback intended to create a supportive
environment likely to increase teacher usage of instructional modifications with students with
SMD. The anticipated time for completion is varied and dependent on the amount of training
and support each teacher is determined to need. Per teacher, support offered may range from 15
to 40 hours over the course of a school year.
In-person training sessions will involve either group or one-on-one training situations
designed to deliver content on planning for and delivering instructional modifications within
planned standards-based instruction. During these sessions, teachers will be provided with
explicit instructions on creating standards-based lessons. It is anticipated that teachers will have
opportunities for group training quarterly at a minimum. Mentoring will also be provided as an
extension of training opportunities. During mentoring sessions, teachers will be provided with
feedback that will reinforce the stated learning behaviors. During these sessions, teachers will
work with their mentor to set close, concrete, and challenging goals.
Job aids offered will include information on instructional modifications and will be
offered to teachers attending training and those solely needing this level of information. The job
aids designed to explain instructional modifications will list brief facts on students who may use
instructional modifications and when to use modifications and will show examples of
modifications teachers can use arranged by content area. Additional information on
modifications will include sample instructional activities with embedded modifications and
informational videos of teachers implementing modifications with students in a classroom
setting.
140

Evaluation of the components of learning.

Table 22
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Post-test/check out after training (can use non-
traditional format, group format)
After training/Use of Job Aids
Teach back (to whole or small group) Throughout training, after training
Direct application of knowledge on the job After training
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
Performance test of learned skills After training
Role play lessons, implementation of
instructional modifications
During training
Case studies During training
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Observation After training/During training
Discussion During training
Post-training evaluation After training
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Discussion During training/After training
Anonymous wall (participants post thoughts on
electronic or paper comment wall)
During training
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Get commitments through statements of
commitment “I commit to doing ____.”
During training/After training
Have teachers write down what they will do
moving forward, send to self via email, calendar
to self for a future check-in date
Immediately after training

Level 1: Reaction
Level 1 evaluation includes assessing for engagement, relevance, and satisfaction
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). In this level, both formative and summative evaluation
methods may be employed. The methods necessary to elicit the desired reactions are listed
141

below in Table 23. The participants will be monitored for those behaviors listed in Table 23 at
the time intervals listed under “Timing.”
Table 23
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Individual/Group Activities During training
Discussion During training
Evaluation After training
Knowledge check During training
Relevance
Check-in During training
Evaluation After training
Customer Satisfaction
Observation After training
Check-in/discussion During training
Evaluation After training
Interview After training

Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation. Following training, teachers will
complete an electronic evaluation form (Appendix E) to collect data on the relevance of the
material to their work and their satisfaction with the training and to gauge their engagement with
the material. In addition to the follow-up evaluation, teachers will participate in an informal
discussion during the training to check for both engagement and confidence in the material.
Sample discussion questions are listed in Appendix F. Additional questions may arise based on
training participants’ comments and questions. During this discussion, teachers will be asked
questions to informally assess their knowledge and skills as they navigate the training session.
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) stressed the importance of keeping evaluation of Level 1 as
142

efficient as possible. The informal discussion will serve as a formative evaluation during the
training that will also allow the trainer to adjust the session information as necessary based on
the feedback received.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. An observation tool
(Appendix G) will be used to measure participants’ overall achievement of the stated learning
objectives after teachers have attended training. The observation tool will include items that will
check for evidence of progress toward the stated outcomes, critical behaviors, access to required
drivers, and progress toward attainment of the learning goals. This tool will also assist leaders in
following up on training, conducting observations, and providing relevant feedback. The
observation checklist can also be completed by a peer during a scheduled observation.
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) stated that feedback must be solicited for the learner to be
receptive. The observation tool will cover items from the aforementioned categories to assess
the Four Levels of Training.
Data Analysis and Reporting
The leadership in the organization will be informed of the progress toward the stated
Level 4 outcomes through the reporting of evaluation results, observation results, and the
discussion findings. The timing of the receipt of each of these reports will vary depending on
when the data are collected for each. Discussion findings and evaluation results will be shared
following the training sessions, as both will be available immediately after a training session.
Observation results will be shared after a period has passed and participants have had the
opportunity to implement some of the new learning from the training and have scheduled
observation sessions with either a leader or peer. Results for the discussion will be shared as
themes, whereas evaluation results will be shared as a simple dashboard. Sample visual
143

representations of results are shown in Figures 13 and 14. Observation results will also be
shared as a dashboard. Sample visual representations of results are shown in Figure 15.
Figure 13
Sample Discussion Themes Grouped by Training Session

144

Figure 14
Sample Evaluation Dashboard Including Open-Ended Questions Asked of Participants

Figure 15
Sample Observation Dashboard Showing Attainment of the Stated Learning Objectives

145

Summary
The New World Kirkpatrick Model was used to plan the stated Level 4 outcomes, Level
3 critical behaviors, Level 2 learning and evaluation, and Level 1 evaluation of reaction. The
New World Kirkpatrick Model aided in the development of succinct steps to ensure learning and
results at each of the Four Levels. The training and support recommendations that were created
to assist in the attainment of the stated organizational goal were developed using this model.
Each level was targeted to meet the stakeholders’ identified needs in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational factors as based on the study findings. The New World
Kirkpatrick Model also incorporates data analysis as part of the process of training and
evaluation, which assists in identifying successful training components for replication
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The evaluation tools were designed to help the organization
track the success of the implementation of the plan at each level.
Discussion
Through a review of the research and federal policy, it is evident that access to standards-
based instruction for students with SMD is a continually evolving area of education. Though
students with SMD make up a small percentage of the overall student population, organizational
goals such as the one seen in the USD are further evidence of the educational field’s commitment
to serving all students. Still developing are the specific, in-practice strategies that will guide
teachers through working with and educating students with the most significant disabilities. This
study sought to contribute to the field by adding the perspectives of teachers working with
students with SMD in special education classrooms, as exploration of needs in this specific
setting was a noted gap. Though Gwin Smith (2000) found that teacher views of inclusion
146

varied based on the grade level taught by teachers, the data collected in this study revealed that
teachers of students with SMD regard student access to general education content as important.
The research by Browder et al. (2007) and Polikoff (2013) discussed teacher needs in the
context of relating knowledge to information relevant to their students and teacher experience.
The study found that teachers enter their classrooms feeling prepared by their college work and
teacher preparation programs and self-report understanding information related to the CCSS, or
general education standards, and how these standards link to alternate achievement standards.
The study also did not find that teacher experience, or years of experience, affected teacher
reports of preparedness. Teacher reports of preparedness extended to the implementation of the
CCSS and alternate achievement standards. This study expanded on the theme of inconsistencies
in application of instructional modifications because needs were uncovered in the area of
implementation of instructional modifications as teachers reflected on when and how they use
modifications. Lee et al. (2010) also stressed that knowledge of modifications is a predictor of
access for students, and thus teachers must know when and how to implement instructional
modifications. The usage of instructional modifications can incorporate general strategies, or
specialized modifications and planning for their usage may be a part of lesson preparation or
may call for adjustments during a lesson. The qualitative data revealed that teacher attributions
may affect student access, as there are factors out of a teacher’s locus of control that occur during
a lesson. Ongoing coaching, mentoring, and peer observations may assist teachers in preparing
for such situations.
Future Research
Although the study revealed that teachers enter their classroom careers with knowledge
about standards, standards-based lesson planning, and standards alignment, teachers still need
147

support from the organization, whether it be at a district level or a school site level. Teachers
look to leaders for feedback, and this study revealed that teachers are not receiving quality
feedback in support of their learning efforts. Further research should explore the extent to which
leader or administrator knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences are also affecting
student access to instruction. Many of the recommendations made as part of this study enlist
organizational leaders to serve as models and mentors for teachers, but they can only do so if
they themselves hold the necessary knowledge, skills, and motivation to carry out the tasks.
There is also a continued need for research that explores the needs of educators of
students with multiple disabilities as practitioners. Though research is expanding, this is a
relatively new frontier, as students with the most severe disabilities have historically been
excluded from rigorous educational experiences. Developing the field of evidenced-based
practices and strategies that educators can use with students with SMD in practice is of
importance if implementation of the IDEA is to take place. It is important to include teachers
and students in general education and special education settings, as the least restrictive
environment differs for every student. Targeted research on evidence-based practices and
strategies that are effective in each or both settings will help shape coaching experiences for
teachers. Also of note is the need for inclusion of strategies for teachers to use during distance or
remote learning models, as during this study, educators were affected by the global COVID-19
pandemic that introduced many to the need to implement instruction via electronic or remote
means. Further research should include, at a minimum, best practices to ensure access for
students with SMD when instruction must move to a distance or remote learning model. This
study focused on one organization, but similar organizations may apply the study to examine
their needs.
148

An additional topic for research includes that which this study was limited in exploring,
such as teacher views and perceptions on the organization’s philosophy. Additional information
on how the organization’s philosophy is carried out and interpreted by teachers of students with
SMD would serve to enrich the field of study. Carrying out quantitative data collection on the
perceptions of teachers as to how the organization supports students with SMD may assist the
organization in ensuring its messaging is inclusive and applicable to all student populations.
Gathering additional data through interviews would also assist in bolstering the field of study and
helping other organizations looking to further explore the perspectives of teachers related to how
instruction is provided to students with SMD. Interviewing to gain additional understanding
about events that teachers have experienced may be useful for creating “depth of understanding,”
should further study be undertaken (Maxwell, 2013, p. 104).
Conclusion
This study sought to identify the factors affecting teachers’ provision of a standards-
based curriculum to students with severe and multiple disabilities. Specifically, the study
employed the KMO framework to identify the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors
contributing to the identified problem. Furthermore, the study was driven by the conceptual
framework that was derived from the review of the literature and the tenets of the KMO
framework. The central theme of the study was equity for students with SMD, with the
organizational mission and goal serving as guides to inform the development of the parameters
of the study. On a grander scale, the information collected for and contained in the study is
viewed through the lens of the context in which it was collected. The heightened awareness of
matters of equity for marginalized groups during the course of this study only served to shed
light on and give greater importance to the issue of access to curriculum for students with SMD.
149

The study validated several of the identified influences while highlighting the knowledge
that teachers of students with SMD contribute to the organization. The needs revealed by the
study informed the development of the recommendations for the implementation of a training
and support plan for the organization, created following the New World Kirkpatrick Model. The
recommendations and strategies suggested are intended to support the organization’s
achievement of stated goals and to grant access to instruction to students with SMD in general.
The recommendations for the provision of information, training, feedback, rewards and
recognition, and leader behavior were formulated both with the collected data and in line with
the Kirkpatrick Model. The recommendations were made with the hope that teachers will
receive continued support in their journey to learn, grow, and support students they have
dedicated their careers to working with.
The results of the study suggested that teachers hold the knowledge to provide students
with SMD access to standards-based instruction, as most feel prepared by their credentialing
programs or teacher preparation programs. Teachers have additional needs related to their
knowledge of implementing instructional modifications and refining their practice as it relates to
implementing instruction in general. It is to be expected that educators are continually learning
and should be afforded these opportunities to learn if their students are to benefit from the latest
in educational strategies. The obligation is for both teachers and leaders in the organization to
commit to aligning the needs of students with SMD with the organizational goals and philosophy
through the allocation of appropriate information, training, and feedback. With further research
and a focus on teacher competence as suggested in the recommendations, it is hoped that those
working with students with SMD will receive greater support in the area of understanding their
150

students’ needs to assist in the elimination of external attributions and instead retrain their focus
on their capabilities as educators.

151

References
Adair, J. K., Colegrove, K. S., & McManus, M. E. (2017). How the word gap argument
negatively impacts young children of Latinx immigrants’ conceptualizations of learning.
Harvard Educational Review, 87(3), 309–334,452-453. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/1942146173?accountid=14749
Agran, M., Alper, S., & Wehmeyer, M. (2017). Access to the general curriculum for students
with significant disabilities : What it means to teachers. Education and Training in Men.
Agran, M., Alper, S., Wehmeyer, M. (2002). Access to the general curriculum for students with
significant disabiliites: What it means to teachers. Education and Training in Mental
Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37(2), 123-133.
Alper, S., Hughes, C., & McDonnell, J. (2012). Documenting impact of educational contexts on
long-term outcomes for students with significant disabilities. Education and Training in
Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 47(2), 127–138.
Alquraini, T., & Gut, D. (2012). Critical Components of Successful Inclusion of Students with
Severe Disabilities: Literature Review. International Journal of Special Education, 27(1),
42–59.
Anderman, E. & Anderman, L. (2006). Attributions. Retrieved from http://www.education.
com/reference/article/attribution-theory/.
Anderson, L. W. and Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching,
and assessing: A revision of bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Boston, MA:
Pearson Education Group.

152

Antoniou, P., & Kyriakides, L. (2013). A Dynamic Integrated Approach to teacher professional
development: Impact and sustainability of the effects on improving teacher behaviour and
student outcomes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 1–12.
Ballard, S. L. & Dymond, S. K. (2017). Addressing the general education
curriculum in general education settings with students with severe disabilities. Research
and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities. 42(3), 155–170. doi:
10.1177/1540796917698832
Bandura, A. (2005). The evolution of social cognitive theory. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt
(Eds.), Great Minds in Management (pp. 9–35). Oxford: Oxford University.
Berger, B. K. (2014). Read my lips: Leaders, supervisors, and culture
are the foundations of strategic employee communications. Research Journal of the
Institute for Public Relations, 1 (1).
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
Brinker, R., & Thorpe, M. (1984). Integration of severely handicapped students and the
proportion of IEP objectives achieved. Exceptional Children, 51(2), 168–75.
Browder, D., Wakeman, S. Y., Flowers, C., Rickelman, R. J., Pugalee, D., & Karvonen, M.
(2007). Creating access to the general curriculum with links to grade-level content for
students with significant cognitive disabilities: An explication of the concept. Journal of
Special Education, 41(1), 2–16.

153

Browder, D., Wakeman, S., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., & Algozzinexya, B. (2006).
Research on reading instruction for individuals with significant cognitive disabilities.
Exceptional Children, 72(4), 392–408. doi:10.1177/001440290607200401
Browder, D., Wood, L., Thompson, J., & Ribuffo, C. (2014). Evidence-based practices for
students with severe disabilities. CEEDAR Center, (Ic), 1–84. Retrieved from
http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/tools/innovation-configurations/
Brown, P., Stephenson, J., Carter, M. (2014). Multicomponent training of
teachers of students with severe disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 37
(4) 347–362.
Browning Wright, D. (2003). Hierarchy of access. Retrieved from
http://www.pent.ca.gov/acc/hierarchyofaccess.pdf
Buckingham, M. & Coffman, C. (1999). First break all the rules. New York: Simon and
Schuster, pp. 25–49, 53–67.
Carter, E. W., Austin, D., & Trainer, A. A. (2012). Predictors of postschool employment
outcomes for young adults with severe disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies
23(1) 50–63. doi: 10.1177/1044207311414680
Carter, E. W., & Kennedy, C. H. (2006). Promoting access to the general curriculum using peer
support strategies. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31(4), 284–
292. https://doi.org/10.1177/15407969060310040
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020). Interim Guidance for Administrators of US
K–12 Schools and Child Care Programs to Plan, Prepare, and Respond to Coronavirus
Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Retrieved from: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-
ncov/community/schools-childcare/guidance-for-schools-h.pdf
154

Clark, G. (1994). Is a functional curriculum approach compatible with an inclusive education
model? TEACHING Exceptional Children, 26(2), 36–39.
doi:10.1177/004005999402600210
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Colegrove, K. S.-S., & Adair, J. K. (2014). Countering deficit thinking: Agency, capabilities
and the early learning experiences of children of latina/o immigrants. Contemporary
Issues in Early Childhood, 15(2), 122–135. https://doi.org/10.2304/ciec.2014.15.2.122
Conderman, G., Liberty, L., & DeSpain, S. (2017) Understanding accommodations,
modifications, and interventions, Kappa Delta Pi Record, 53(2), 70–75,
doi:10.1080/00228958.2017.1299545
Courtade, G., Spooner, F., Browder, D., & Jimenez, B. (2012). Seven reasons to promote
standards-based instruction for students with severe disabilities: A reply to Ayres,
Lowrey, Douglas, & Sievers (2011). Education and Training in Autism and Development
Disabilities, 47(1), 3–13.
Cowden, P. (2010). Reading strategies for students with severe disabilities. Reading
Improvement, 47(3), 162–165.
Creswell, J. W., Creswell, J. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Cushing, L. S., Clark, N. M., Carter, E. W., & Kennedy, C. H. (2005). Access to the general
education curriculum for students with significant cognitive disabilities. TEACHING
Exceptional Children, 38(2), 6–13. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315517698

155

Darrow, A. (1999). Music educators’ perceptions regarding the inclusion of students with severe
disabilities in music classrooms. Journal of Music Therapy, 36(4), 254–273.
doi:10.1093/jmt/36.4.254
Darrow, A. (2016). The every student succeeds act (ESSA): What it means for students with
disabilities and music educators. General Music Today, 30(1), 41–44.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1048371316658327
De Bortoli, T., Balandin, S., Foreman, P., Arthur-Kelly, M., & Mathisen, B. (2012). Mainstream
teachers’ experiences of communicating with students with multiple and severe
disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities. 47(2).
236–252. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/23880103
DePaoli, J., Balfanz, R., Atwell, M. N., Bridgeland, J. (2018, June). Building a
grad nation: Progress and challenge in ending the high school dropout epidemic.
Retrieved from http://www.americaspromise.org/Our-Work/Grad-Nation
/Building-a-Grad-Nation.aspx
Dierking, R., & Fox, R. (2013). “Changing the Way I Teach”: Building Teacher Knowledge,
Confidence, and Autonomy. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(2), 129–144.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487112462893
Dukes, C., Darling, S. (2017). Common core state standards and students with severe disabilities:
An introduction to the special issue. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe
Disabilities, 42(3), 139–142. doi:10.1177/1540796917715408
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from
https://www.dropbox.com/home/EDUC%20627%20Student%20Documents_SHARED/
Missing%20Readings
156

Engel S. (2011). Children’s need to know: Curiosity in schools. Harvard Educational Review,
81(4):625-645. doi:10.17763/haer.81.4.h054131316473115
Every Student Succeeds Act. Title 1, Part A. Title 1, Part B. (2015).
Evmenova, A., Graff, H., & Behrmann, M. (2017). Providing access to academic content for
high-school students with significant intellectual disability through interactive videos.
Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 32(1), 18–30.
doi:10.1177/1088357615609307
Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide. (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2001). Access to the core curriculum: Critical ingredients for student
success. Remedial and Special Education, 22(3), 148–57.
doi:10.1177/074193250102200303
Gadberry, D. (2009). Research connections: Is inclusion working in the music classroom?
Kodaly Envoy, 35(4), 13–13. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1541325/?pq-origsite=primo
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist, 36,
45–56. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3601_5
Garvin, G. A., Edmonson, A. C., Gino, F. (2008). Is yours a learning organization? Harvard
Business Review, 86(3):109–16, 134.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Gwin Smith, M. (2000). Secondary teachers’ perceptions toward inclusion of students with
severe disabilities. NASSP Bulletin, 84(613), 54–60. doi:10.1177/019263650008461309
157

Han, J. & Yin, H. (2016). Teacher motivation: Definition, research
development and implications for teachers. Cogent Education, 3.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1217819
Hardman, M. & Dawson, S. (2008) The impact of federal public policy on curriculum and
instruction for students with disabilities in the general classroom. Preventing School
Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 52(2), 5–11, doi:
10.3200/PSFL.52.2.5-11
Harris, D. (2012). Varying teacher expectations and standards: Curriculum
differentiation in the age of standards-based reform. Education and Urban Society, 44(2),
128–150. doi:10.1177/0013124511431568.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Part B. §300.114. (2004).
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, History Of. (2013). Wiley. Retrieved from
http://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/wileyse/individuals_with_disabilities_edu
cation_act_history_of/0
Irwin, C. W., O’Dwyer, L., & DeMeo Cook, K. (2014). Early childhood educator and
administrator surveys on the use of assessments and standards in early childhood
settings. (REL 2014–019). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of
Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance,
Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast & Islands. Retrieved from
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2015). Educational research: Quantitative,
qualitative, and mixed approaches. (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

158

Kearns, J., Kleinert, H., Harrison, B., Sheppard-Jones, K., Hall, M., & Jones, M. (2010). What
does ‘college and career ready’ mean for students with significant cognitive disabilities?
Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Alexandria, VA: ATD Press.
Kleinert, H., Towles-Reeves, E., Quenemoen, R., Thurlow, M., Fluegge, L., Weseman, L., &
Kerbel, A. (2015). Where students with the most significant cognitive disabilities are
taught: Implications for general curriculum access. Exceptional Children, 81(3) 312–328.
Knight, V., Browder, D., Agnello, B., & Lee, A. (2010). Academic instruction for
students with severe disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 42(7), 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.17161/fec.v42i7.6905
Knight, S., Lloyd, G., Arbaugh, F., Edmondson, J., Mcdonald, S., Nolan, J., & Whitney, A.
(2013). Teacher learning and standards-based instruction. Journal of Teacher Education,
64(3), 200–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487113480461
Kretlow, A., Cooke, N., & Wood, C. (2012). Using in-service and coaching to increase
teachers’ accurate use of research-based strategies. Remedial and Special Education,
33(6), 348–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932510395397
Lee, S., Wehmeyer, M. L., Soukup, J. H., & Palmer, S. B. (2010). Impact of curriculum
modifications on access to the general education curriculum for students with disabilities.
Exceptional Children, 76(2), 213-233.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

159

McDonnell, A., McDonnell, J., Hardman, M., & McCune, G. (1991). Educating students with
severe disabilities in their neighborhood school: The Utah elementary integration model.
Remedial and Special Education, 12(6), 34–35.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA SAGE: Publications.
Miller, B. (2012). Ensuring meaningful access to the science curriculum for students with
significant cognitive disabilities. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 44(6), 16–25.
doi:10.1177/004005991204400602
Morningstar, M., Kurth, J., & Johnson, P. (2017). Examining national trends in educational
placements for students with significant disabilities. Remedial and Special Education,
38(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932516678327
Morningstar, M., Zagona, A., Uyanik, H., Xie, J., Mahal, S., Dukes, C., & Darling, S. (2017).
Implementing college and career readiness: Critical dimensions for youth with severe
disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 42(3), 187–204.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796917711439
Obiakor, F., Harris, M., Mutua, K., Rotatori, A., & Algozzine, R. (2012). Making inclusion work
in general education classrooms. Education and Treatment of Children, 35(3), 477–490.
doi:10.1353/etc.2012.0020
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/.

160

Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and
practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Chapter 7: Qualitative interviewing. Qualitative research & evaluation
methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Pazzaglia, A. M., Stafford, E. T., Rodriguez, S. M. (2016). Survey methods for educators:
Analysis and reporting of survey data (part 3 of 3). (REL 2015-164). Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory
Northeast & Islands.
Polikoff, M. (2013). Teacher education, experience, and the practice of aligned instruction.
Journal of Teacher Education. 64. 212–225. 10.1177/0022487112472908.
Roach, A. T., Chilungu, E. N., Lasalle, T. P., Talapatra, D., Vignieri, M. J., & Kurz, A. (2009).
Opportunities and options for facilitating and evaluating access to the general curriculum
for students with disabilities. Peabody Journal of Education, 84(4), 511–528.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01619560903240954
Robinson, S.B. & Firth Leonard, K. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. Los Angeles,
CA:SAGE.Rocco, T. S., & Plakhotnik, M. S. (2009). Literature reviews, conceptual frameworks,
and theoretical frameworks: Terms, functions, and distinctions. Human Resource
Development Review, 8(1), 120–130.
Ross, P. T., & Bibler Zaidi, N. L. (2019). Limited by our limitations. Perspectives on medical
education, 8(4), 261–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-019-00530-x
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
161

Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Ruppar, A. L., Gaffney, J., & Dymond, S. (2015). Influences on teachers’ decisions about
literacy for secondary students with severe disabilities. Exceptional Children, 81(2), 209–
226. doi:10.1177/0014402914551739
Ruppar, A. L., Neeper, L. S., & Dalsen, J. (2016). Special education teachers’ perceptions of
preparedness to teach students with severe disabilities. Research and Practice for
Persons with Severe Disabilities. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796916672843
Salkind, N. J. (2014). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics. (5th ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Saunders, A. (2013). Solving the common core equation: Teaching mathematics CCSS to
students with moderate and severe disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, (3).
doi:info:doi/
Saunders, A., Spooner, F., Browder, D., Wakeman, S., & Lee, A. (2013). Teaching the Common
Core in English language arts to students with severe disabilities. TEACHING
Exceptional Children, 46(2), 22–33. doi:10.1177/004005991304600203
Schafer, J. & Graham, J. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art.
Psychological Methods, 7(2), 147–177. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.2.147
Schein, E. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley.
Schneider, B., Brief, A., & Guzzo, R. (1996). Creating a culture and climate for sustainable
organizational change. Organizational Dynamics, 24(4), 7–19.

162

Schuster, J., Louise Hemmeter, M., & Jones Ault, M. (2001). Instruction of students with
moderate and severe disabilities in elementary classrooms. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 16(3), 329–341. doi:10.1016/S0885-2006(01)00112-0
Shurr, J. (2012). Increasing comprehension for middle school students with moderate intellectual
disability on age-appropriate texts. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental
Disabilities, 47(3), 359–372. https://doi.org/154.59.124.54
Smith, B., Spooner, F., Jimenez, B., & Browder, D. (2013). Using an early science curriculum to
teach science vocabulary and concepts to students with severe developmental disabilities.
Education and Treatment of Children, 36(1), 1–31. doi:10.1353/etc.2013.0002
State responsibilities for developing challenging academic standards, 34 C.F.R. § 200.1 (2015).
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Timberlake, M. (2014). Weighing costs and benefits: Teacher interpretation and implementation
of access to the general education curriculum. Research and Practice for Persons with
Severe Disabilities, 39(2), 83–99. doi:10.1177/1540796914544547
United States Code of Federal Regulations. Title 34. Chapter III. Part 300. Subpart D.
§300.320(a)(1)(i)).
United States Department of Education. (2015). Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services: Guidance on Free and Appropriate Education, 13563(3), 1–13.
United States Department of Education. (2016). IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational
Environments for School Year 2015–2016. Retrieved from
https://datainventory.ed.gov/Search?seriesID=1324&searchTerm=IDEA%20Section%20
618&searchType=Exact
163

United States Office of Personnel Management. (2016). Federal employee viewpoint survey.
Retrieved from
https://www.opm.gov/fevs/archive/2016FILES/2016_FEVS_Gwide_Final_Report.pdf
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Chapter 1: Introduction. In Learning from strangers: The art and method of
qualitative interview studies (pp. 1–14). New York, NY: The Free Press.
Wickham, D., & Lederer, L. (2007, December). Functional curriculum and academic standards-
based curriculum: Competing for your child’s time? Presentation at the annual meeting of
TASH, Seattle, WA.
Yough, M., & Anderman, E. (2006). Goal orientation theory. Retrieved from http://www.
education.com/reference/article/goal-orientation-theory/.
Zee, M. & Koomen, H. M. Y. (2016). Teacher self-efficacy and its effects on classroom
processes, student academic adjustment, and teacher well-being: A synthesis of 40 years
of research. Review of Educational Research. 86(4), 981–1015. doi:
10.3102/0034654315626801
Zhou, J & Urhahne, D. (2013). Teacher judgment, student motivation, and the mediating effect
of attributions. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28(2), 275–295.

164

Appendix A
Survey Instrument Questions
Research Questions:
1. What is the teacher knowledge related to providing access to standards-based curriculum
and instructional modifications to students in classrooms for students with severe and
multiple disabilities?
2. What is the teacher motivation related to providing access to standards-based curriculum
and instructional modifications to students in classrooms for students with severe and
multiple disabilities?
3. How do the culture and context of the Urban School District impact teacher ability to
provide access to standards-based curriculum and instructional modifications in
classrooms for students with severe and multiple disabilities?
Knowledge Influence
Assumed Motivation Influences
Assumed Organizational
Influences
Teachers need knowledge
in how to instruct students
using standards-based
curriculum
Self-efficacy:
Teachers need to feel capable of
writing and using standards based,
age-appropriate lessons for students
with severe and multiple disabilities.

Cultural Model Influence 1:
The organization needs a culture
of writing and implementing
standards-based curriculum for
students with severe and multiple
disabilities.

Teachers need knowledge
of instructional
modifications to make
assignments accessible
Cultural Model Influence 2:
The organization needs a culture
that reinforces instruction linked
to general education (core
curriculum) standards and usage
of curricular modifications.
Teachers need
understanding of
correlation between
Common Core State
Standards and alternate
achievement standards
Attribution:
Teachers should feel that access to
standards based, age-appropriate
lessons is reflective of their own
efforts and not of the level of
disability of the student(s).
Cultural Setting Influence 1:
The organization needs to
provide teachers of students with
severe/multiple disabilities the
information on how to provide
access to standards-based, age-
appropriate lessons.
Cultural Setting Influence 2:
The organization needs to
provide effective support to
teachers to ensure
implementation of standards-
based, age-appropriate
curriculum and modifications.
165

Table A1 KMO Influences
Research Question/
Data Type
KMO
Constr
uct
Survey Item (question and
response)
Scale of
Measure
ment
Potential
Analyses
Visual
Representa
tion
Demographic and General Questions
Demographics
NA 1. What state
certifications/credentials
do you hold?
-None
-Education Specialist –
Mild/Moderate disabilities
-Education Specialist –
Moderate/Severe
Disabilities
-Other Education
Specialist Credential (fill
in)
-Multiple Subjects
Credential
-Administrative Services
Credential/Certificate
-Other (fill in)
Nominal Percentage,
Frequency
Table, Pie
chart
Demographics
NA 2. Including this year, how
many years have you been
teaching (students with or
without disabilities)?
(fill in)
Ordinal Percentage,
Frequency,
Mode,
Median,
Range
Table,
Stacked
bar chart,
bar chart
Demographics
NA 3. Including this year, how
many years have you been
teaching students with
severe and multiple
disabilities?
(fill in)
Ordinal Percentage,
Frequency,
Mode,
Median,
Range
Table,
Stacked
bar chart,
bar chart
Demographics NA 4. What age group(s) do
you primarily work with?
(Check all that apply.)
-Early elementary (Grades
TK-2)
-Upper elementary
(Grades 3-5)
-Middle school (Grades 6-
8)
-High school (Grades 9-
12)
Nominal Percentage,
Frequency
Table, Pie
chart
166

Research Question/
Data Type
KMO
Constr
uct
Survey Item (question and
response)
Scale of
Measure
ment
Potential
Analyses
Visual
Representa
tion
-Transition (Ages 18-22)
Teachers need
understanding of
correlation between
Common Core State
Standards and
alternate achievement
standards
K-F 5. I have a clear
understanding of the
correlation between the
Common Core State
Standards and alternate
achievement standards.
-Strongly agree
-Agree
-Neither agree nor
disagree
-Disagree
-Strongly disagree
Ordinal Percentage,
Frequency,
Mode,
Median,
Range
Table,
Stacked
bar chart,
bar chart
Teachers need
understanding of
correlation between
Common Core State
Standards and
alternate achievement
standards
K-F 6. What standards do you
access when planning for
instruction in your
classroom? (Check all that
apply)
- Common Core State
Standards (in ELA, math)
-ELD Standards
-SEACO Guide (alternate
achievement standards)
-Other (fill in)
Nominal Percentage,
Frequency
Table, Pie
chart
Teachers need
understanding of
correlation between
Common Core State
Standards and
alternate achievement
standards
K-F 7. To what extent did your
college or graduate school
coursework (or teacher
preparation) address
content related to state
standards (alternate or
general education)?
-A lot
-Somewhat
-A little
-Not at all
-Not sure
-Not applicable
Ordinal Percentage,
Frequency,
Mode,
Median,
Range
Table,
Stacked
bar chart,
bar chart
Teachers need to feel
capable of writing and
using standards based,
age-appropriate
lessons for students
M-SE 8. I feel that my
credential(s) adequately
prepared me to write and
deliver standards-based
lessons.
-Strongly agree
Ordinal Percentage,
Frequency,
Mode,
Median,
Range
Table,
Stacked
bar chart,
bar chart
167

Research Question/
Data Type
KMO
Constr
uct
Survey Item (question and
response)
Scale of
Measure
ment
Potential
Analyses
Visual
Representa
tion
with severe and
multiple disabilities.

-Agree
-Neither agree nor
disagree
-Disagree
-Strongly disagree
Teachers need to feel
capable of writing and
using standards based,
age-appropriate
lessons for students
with severe and
multiple disabilities.

M-SE 9. How often do you use a
lesson plan you created?
-Daily
-Weekly
-Monthly
-I do not create lesson
plans
Ordinal Percentage,
Frequency,
Mode,
Median,
Range
Table,
Stacked
bar chart,
bar chart
Teachers need to feel
capable of writing and
using standards based,
age-appropriate
lessons for students
with severe and
multiple disabilities.

M-SE 10. I feel confident in my
ability to create accessible
lesson plans.
-Strongly agree
-Agree
-Neither agree nor
disagree
-Disagree
-Strongly disagree
Ordinal Percentage,
Frequency,
Mode,
Median,
Range
Table,
Stacked
bar chart,
bar chart
The organization
needs to provide
effective support to
teachers to ensure
implementation of
standards-based, age-
appropriate
curriculum and
modifications.
O-CS 11. To what extent are you
provided with additional
support or guidance
related to implementation
of standards or guidelines?
-A lot
-Somewhat
-A little
-Not at all
Ordinal Percentage,
Frequency,
Mode,
Median,
Range
Table,
Stacked
bar chart,
bar chart
The organization
needs to provide
teachers of students
with severe/multiple
disabilities the
information on how to
provide access to
standards-based, age-
appropriate lessons.
O-CS 12. I feel that my district
offers sufficient training in
the area of standards-
based instruction specific
to the needs of students
with severe and multiple
disabilities.
-Strongly agree
-Agree
-Neither agree nor
disagree
-Disagree
Ordinal Percentage,
Frequency,
Mode,
Median,
Range
Table,
Stacked
bar chart,
bar chart
168

Research Question/
Data Type
KMO
Constr
uct
Survey Item (question and
response)
Scale of
Measure
ment
Potential
Analyses
Visual
Representa
tion
-Strongly disagree
Teachers should feel
that access to
standards based, age-
appropriate lessons is
reflective of their own
efforts and not of the
level of disability of
the student(s).
M-A 13. It is important for
students with severe and
multiple disabilities to
have access to grade level
content.
-Strongly agree
-Agree
-Neither agree nor
disagree
-Disagree
-Strongly disagree
Ordinal Percentage,
Frequency,
Mode,
Median,
Range
Table,
Stacked
bar chart,
bar chart
Teachers should feel
that access to
standards based, age-
appropriate lessons is
reflective of their own
efforts and not of the
level of disability of
the student(s).
M-A 14. Access to general
education standards is
important for students
with severe and multiple
disabilities.
-Strongly agree
-Agree
-Neither agree nor
disagree
-Disagree
-Strongly disagree
Ordinal Percentage,
Frequency,
Mode,
Median,
Range
Table,
Stacked
bar chart,
bar chart
You will now be asked questions about your experience with the Common Core State Standards.
Teachers need to feel
capable of writing and
using standards based,
age-appropriate
lessons for students
with multiple/severe
disabilities.

M-SE 15. How comfortable are
you with navigating the
Common Core State
Standards pertaining to
English language arts?
-Very comfortable
-Somewhat comfortable
-Not very comfortable
-Not at all comfortable
-Not applicable
Ordinal Percentage,
Frequency,
Mode,
Median,
Range
Table,
Stacked
bar chart,
bar chart
Teachers need to feel
capable of writing and
using standards based,
age-appropriate
lessons for students
with multiple/severe
disabilities.

M-SE 16. How comfortable are
you with navigating the
Common Core State
Standards pertaining to
Mathematics?
-Very comfortable
-Somewhat comfortable
-Not very comfortable
-Not at all comfortable
Ordinal Percentage,
Frequency,
Mode,
Median,
Range
Table,
Stacked
bar chart,
bar chart
169

Research Question/
Data Type
KMO
Constr
uct
Survey Item (question and
response)
Scale of
Measure
ment
Potential
Analyses
Visual
Representa
tion
-Not applicable
Teachers need to feel
capable of writing and
using standards based,
age-appropriate
lessons for students
with multiple/severe
disabilities.

M-SE 17. How comfortable are
you with navigating the
English Language
Development Standards?
-Very comfortable
-Somewhat comfortable
-Not very comfortable
-Not at all comfortable
-Not applicable
Ordinal Percentage,
Frequency,
Mode,
Median,
Range
Table,
Stacked
bar chart,
bar chart
The organization
needs to provide
effective support to
teachers to ensure
implementation of
standards-based, age-
appropriate
curriculum and
modifications.
O-CS 18. In the past year, how
many professional
development offerings
related to the Common
Core State Standards were
provided by your district
or school?
-None
-1
-2-4
-5+
-Not sure
Ordinal Percentage,
Frequency,
Mode,
Median,
Range
Table,
Stacked
bar chart,
bar chart
Teachers need
knowledge in how to
instruct students using
standards-based
curriculum
K-P 19. How often do you
refer to the Common Core
State Standards when
developing lesson plans?
-Always
-Almost always
-Sometimes
-Rarely
-Never
-I do not create lesson
plans
Ordinal Percentage,
Frequency,
Mode,
Median,
Range
Table,
Stacked
bar chart,
bar chart
The organization
needs a culture that
reinforces instruction
linked to general
education (core
curriculum) standards
and usage of
curricular
modifications.
O-CM 20. In what ways do your
supervisors address ways
in which you can
incorporate the Common
Core State Standards into
your classroom? (Check
all that apply.)
- Provide example lesson
plans that include the
Nominal Percentage,
Frequency
Table, Pie
chart
170

Research Question/
Data Type
KMO
Constr
uct
Survey Item (question and
response)
Scale of
Measure
ment
Potential
Analyses
Visual
Representa
tion
Common Core State
Standards
- Provide example
assessments that map to
the Common Core State
Standards
- Provide example family
engagement activities that
incorporate the Common
Core State Standards
- Work with teachers to
develop lesson plans that
incorporate the Common
Core State Standards
- Work with teachers to
develop classroom
assessments that
incorporate the Common
Core State Standards
- Work with teachers to
develop family
engagement activities that
incorporate the Common
Core State Standards
-None of the above
-Other (fill in)
The organization
needs to provide
effective support to
teachers to ensure
implementation of
standards-based, age-
appropriate
curriculum and
modifications.
O-CS 21. What, if any, coaching
or mentoring is available
to you regarding
implementing the
Common Core State
Standards? (Check all that
apply.)
- Direct coaching from a
supervisor or
administrator
- Meetings with a
supervisor or
administrator to establish
a teacher-driven
professional development
plan
Nominal Percentage,
Frequency
Table, Pie
chart
171

Research Question/
Data Type
KMO
Constr
uct
Survey Item (question and
response)
Scale of
Measure
ment
Potential
Analyses
Visual
Representa
tion
- Mentor–mentee
partnerships between
novice and expert teachers
- Coaching from outside
professionals such as
consultants and
community partners
-Other (fill in)
-None
Next, you will be asked to answer questions about your experience with alternate achievement
standards.
The organization
needs to provide
effective support to
teachers to ensure
implementation of
standards-based, age-
appropriate
curriculum and
modifications.
O-CS 22. In the past year, how
many professional
development offerings
related to alternate
achievement standards
were provided by your
district or school?
-None
-1
-2-4
-5+
-Not sure
Ordinal Percentage,
Frequency,
Mode,
Median,
Range
Table,
Stacked
bar chart,
bar chart
Teachers need
knowledge in how to
instruct students using
standards-based
curriculum
K-P 23. How often do you
refer to alternate
achievement standards or
guidelines when
developing lesson plans?
-Always
-Almost always
-Sometimes
-Rarely
-Never
-I do not create lesson
plans
Ordinal Percentage,
Frequency,
Mode,
Median,
Range
Table,
Stacked
bar chart,
bar chart
The organization
needs a culture that
reinforces instruction
linked to general
education (core
curriculum) standards
and usage of
O-CM 24. In what ways do your
supervisors address ways
in which you can
incorporate alternate
achievement standards
into your classroom?
(Check all that apply.)
Nominal Percentage,
Frequency
Table, Pie
chart
172

Research Question/
Data Type
KMO
Constr
uct
Survey Item (question and
response)
Scale of
Measure
ment
Potential
Analyses
Visual
Representa
tion
curricular
modifications.
- Provide example lesson
plans that include the
alternate achievement
standards
- Provide example
assessments that map to
the alternate achievement
standards
- Provide example family
engagement activities that
incorporate the alternate
achievement standards
- Work with teachers to
develop lesson plans that
incorporate the alternate
achievement standards
- Work with teachers to
develop classroom
assessments that
incorporate the alternate
achievement standards
- Work with teachers to
develop family
engagement activities that
incorporate the alternate
achievement standards
-None of the above
-Other (fill in)
The organization
needs to provide
effective support to
teachers to ensure
implementation of
standards-based, age-
appropriate
curriculum and
modifications.
O-CS 25. What, if any, coaching
or mentoring is available
to you regarding
implementing alternate
achievement standards?
(Check all that apply.)
- Direct coaching from a
supervisor or
administrator
- Meetings with a
supervisor or
administrator to establish
a teacher-driven
professional development
plan
Nominal Percentage,
Frequency
Table, Pie
chart
173

Research Question/
Data Type
KMO
Constr
uct
Survey Item (question and
response)
Scale of
Measure
ment
Potential
Analyses
Visual
Representa
tion
- Mentor–mentee
partnerships between
novice and expert teachers
- Coaching from outside
professionals such as
consultants and
community partners
-Other (fill in)
-None
N/A 26. We value your input
on this topic. Would you
like to be contacted to
participate in the interview
portion of this study?
-Yes (provide contact
information)
-No

174

Appendix B
Interview Questions
Table B1
Knowledge Influences
Organizational Mission
To welcome and include diversity in educating the district’s students.
Organizational Global Goal
The Urban School District will ensure that 100% of students attain mastery of the state
standards through access to rigorous and differentiated instruction by June 2019 as measured
by developmental and state assessment data.
Stakeholder Goal
By June 2019, teachers will write and use standards-based, age-appropriate lessons daily with
students with multiple/severe disabilities.
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type
(i.e., declarative
(factual or
conceptual),
procedural, or
metacognitive)
Knowledge Influence
Assessment
Teachers need knowledge in how
to instruct students using
standards-based curriculum
Procedural Survey on teacher knowledge of
instructional best practices
surrounding standards-based
curriculum
Teachers need knowledge of
instructional modifications to make
assignments accessible
Procedural Interviews/survey with teachers
on their knowledge of using
instructional modifications and
accessibility
Teachers need understanding of
correlation between Common Core
State Standards and alternate
achievement standards
Factual (knowledge
of standards)
Conceptual
(correlation and
Interviews/survey with teachers
on their understanding of
standards – both common core
and alternate achievement
standards. Questions about how
175

Table B2
Motivation Influences
Table B3
Organizational Influences

Assumed Organizational Influences

Organization Influence Assessment
Cultural Model Influence 1:
The organization needs a culture of writing and
implementing standards-based curriculum for
students with severe and multiple disabilities.

Interview/survey about what barriers
exist to writing and implementing
standards-based, age-appropriate lessons
Cultural Model Influence 2: Interviews/survey about what barriers
exist to implementing daily instruction
application of
knowledge)
teachers use standards when
planning lessons.
Motivational Indicator(s)
Level of autonomy, external factors (stressors, outside life), working conditions
Assumed Motivation Influences Motivational Influence Assessment
Self-efficacy:
Teachers need to know they are capable of
writing and using standards based, age-
appropriate lessons for students with severe and
multiple disabilities.
Interviews/survey on self-perceptions of
efficacy in writing and using lessons
Attribution:
Teachers should feel that access to standards
based, age-appropriate lessons is reflective of
their own efforts and not of the level of disability
of the student(s).
Interviews/survey (rating scales) on
teacher beliefs on access to standards-
based lessons and their own efforts
176

The organization needs a culture that reinforces
instruction linked to general education (core
curriculum) standards and usage or curricular
modifications.
aligned to general education standards,
current district philosophies on access
Cultural Setting Influence 1:
The organization needs to provide teachers of
students with severe/multiple disabilities the
information on how to provide access to
standards-based, age-appropriate lessons.
Interviews/survey on current needs in the
area of training (training types)
Cultural Setting Influence 2:
The organization needs to provide effective
support to teachers to ensure implementation of
standards-based, age-appropriate curriculum and
modifications.
Interviews/survey about what
resources/support the organization is
providing in order to support students
with multiple/severe disabilities in the
area of standards-based instruction
(curricula, materials, other)

Interview Protocol
Sample introduction: Thank you for joining me today. I’d like to ask you some more questions
about your experiences in teaching students with severe disabilities in the district.
Lead in: Thank you for taking the time to meet with me today. I appreciate your input and
opinions about the topic. Do you have any questions before we begin?
First, I’d like to discuss supports offered by the district.
1. (K-P) (Strauss, Interpretive) Can you tell me about the curriculum you use to teach your
students?
a. Probe: Can you describe the standards-based components of your program?
2. (O-CS) (Patton, experience) Can you tell me about the training you have had in using
standards-based curriculum?
a. How does the district follow up on training you have attended, if at all?
177

b. How does your site administrator follow up with you about the training you have
received?
3. (O-CM) (Patton, experience) From your perspective, what is the district’s philosophy on
teaching students with disabilities using standards-based curriculum?
a. Can you give me some examples of how you have seen that philosophy play out
in the district/your school site?
4. (O-CS) (Strauss, ideal position) How well do you feel access to instruction for students
with severe and multiple disabilities is accomplished in the district?
a. What resources are needed, if any, to increase access to curriculum for these
students?
Transition: Let’s move on to talking about lesson planning.
5. (K-P) (Strauss, hypothetical) Suppose you had to align a classroom assignment to
Common Core for a student. How would you go about doing that?
a. Probe: Tell me about a time when you have done this kind of alignment in the
past. Can you describe the steps you would take?
6. (K-P) (Patton, knowledge) What resources would you use, if any?
7. (M-A) Do you feel that the level of severity of a student’s disability has an impact on the
effectiveness of your instruction?
8. (M-SE) Do you feel your teacher training program sufficiently prepared you for
instructing students with severe and multiple disabilities?
a. Probe: Is there any other training you feel you would benefit from?
9. (K-P) (Patton, knowledge) What instructional modifications, if any, do you make to your
students’ assignments?
178

10. (M-A) (Patton, opinion) What do you believe are barriers to granting students access to
standards-based instruction, if any?
11. (M-A) What factors, if any, do you feel affect your students’ access to the lessons you
deliver?
Transition: Now that you’ve told me a little about how you plan our lessons, let’s talk about your
district as a whole.
12. (O-CS) (Patton, opinion) Do you feel that the district supports you in using general
education standards with students with disabilities?
a. Probe: What are some ways the district gives you support?
13. (O-CS) (Patton, opinion) Do you feel that the district supports you in using curricular
modifications with students with disabilities?
a. What kind of supports are offered, if any? Can you give me a specific example of
how the district supported you in your effort to modify a lesson?
14. (O-CS) What are some barriers to providing access to the general education curriculum to
students with disabilities?
15. (M-A) (Strauss, Devil’s advocate) Some people would say that students with disabilities
do not need as much access to standards-based instruction. What would you tell them?

Do you have any questions for me?
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts. I appreciate your insight on the
topic.

179

Appendix C
Survey Recruitment Form
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Waite Phillips Hall
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089

INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

Access to Standards-Based Curriculum for Students with Severe and Multiple Disabilities
You are invited 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
This research study aims to study how teachers of students with severe and multiple disabilities
integrate standards into their instruction.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to complete an online survey consisting
of 26 questions. The survey is anticipated to take 10-15 minutes to complete. Responses are
required on every item of the survey, but you may elect to not provide a response to any item by
selecting “Prefer not to respond”.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not be compensated for your participation.

CONFIDENTIALITY
There will be no identifiable information obtained in connection with this study. Your name,
contact information or other identifiable information will not be collected unless you indicate an
interest to be interviewed. Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study
will remain confidential. Your responses will be coded with a false name (pseudonym) and
maintained separately.

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

180

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
Principal Investigator Patricia Juarez via email at juarezp@usc.edu or phone at (213) 840-8353 or
Faculty Advisor Dr. Ekaterina Moore ekaterim@usc.edu.

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board, 1640 Marengo Street, Suite 700,
Los Angeles, CA 90033-9269. Phone (323) 442-0114 or email irb@usc.edu.
181

Appendix D
Consent for Interview Form
You are being asked to take part in a research study on how teachers of students with severe and
multiple disabilities integrate standards into their instruction. You are being contacted because
you indicated an interest to participate on the survey you completed as part of this study. Please
read this form carefully and ask any questions you may have before agreeing to take part in the
study.
Purpose of the study: The purpose of this study is to learn more about how teachers of students
with severe and multiple disabilities use standards in their daily work and instruction. You must
be teaching in a class for students with severe or multiple disabilities to take part in this study.
What we will ask you to do: If you agree to be in this study, we will conduct an interview with
you. The interview will include questions about your experiences as a teacher, your lesson
planning routines, and your experiences with general education. The interview will take between
30 to 60 minutes to complete. With your consent, the interview will be tape-recorded.
Risks and benefits: There is the risk that you may find some of the questions about your job
conditions to be sensitive. There are no benefits to you. The hope is to learn more about the
needs of teachers working with students with severe and multiple disabilities.
Compensation: There is no compensation for participation in this study.
Your answers will be confidential. The records of this study will be kept private. Any report
made public will not include any information that will make it possible to identify you. Research
records will be kept in a locked file; only the researchers will have access to the records. If we
182

record the interview, we will destroy the recording after it has been transcribed, which we
anticipate will be at the conclusion of the analysis of the results of the study.
Participation is voluntary: Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. You may
decide to skip any questions that you do not want to answer. If you decide to take part, you are
free to withdraw at any time.
If you have questions: The researcher conducting this study is Patricia Juarez. Please ask any
questions you have now. If you have questions later, you may contact Patricia Juarez at
juarezp@usc.edu or at 213-840-8353. If you have any questions or concerns regarding your
rights as a subject in this study, you may contact the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at (323)
442-0114, via email at IRB@usc.edu or access their website at oprs.usc.edu/irb.
You will be given a copy of this form to keep for your records.
Statement of Consent: I have read the above information and have received answers to any
questions I asked. I consent to take part in the study.
Your Signature ___________________________________ Date ________________________
Your Name (printed) ____________________________________________________________
In addition to agreeing to participate, I also consent to having the interview recorded.
Your Signature ___________________________________ Date _________________________
Signature of person obtaining consent _________________________ Date _________________
Printed name of person obtaining consent ________________________ Date _______________

183

Appendix E
Training Evaluation Form
Please use this form to give us your feedback on the training session you attended.
• Required

1. Training Date *
________________________________
Example: January 7, 2019

2. Training Title: *
_________________________________________________________________________________

3. The information provided in the training was useful to me. •

Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly disagree Strongly agree

4. The content presented during the training was relevant to me. •

Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly disagree Strongly agree

5. I feel I can apply what I learned at the training in my current position. •

Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly disagree Strongly agree

184

6. After this training, I feel capable of using standards to plan my lessons. •

Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly disagree Strongly agree

7. In what ways will you use what you learned in today's training in your day to day
work? *
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

8. List some of the instructional modifications you will begin using after this training:
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

9. I would recommend this training to others: •

Mark only one oval.

Yes
No

10. How could this training be improved? •
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

185

Appendix F
Discussion Questions
At Start of Training
1. What do you see as the major reasons you were asked to take this training?
2. What is your level of experience with ______________ (training topic)?

During Training
1. How is the training going so far?
2. What comments do you have about what you just learned?

At End of Training
1. What parts of the training were most beneficial to you?
2. What skills will you be able to implement right away?
3. How do you plan to apply what you’ve learned?
4. What material did you find most relevant to your job?
5. What was a waste of time?
6. What do you need more support with?

186

Appendix G
Observation Checklist

1
Not evident
2
Little evidence
3
Developing
4
Some evidence
5
Highly evident

Learning Objective Level of Attainment Notes
Evidence of instruction using standards-based instruction
1. Lesson plans and objectives aligned to
standards
1 2 3 4 5

2. Evidence of teacher using strategies learned
in training session
1 2 3 4 5

Evidence of usage of instructional modifications
3. Teacher has received training in using
instructional modifications
1 2 3 4 5

4. Lesson plans reflect incorporation of
instructional modifications as necessary
1 2 3 4 5

5. Students have access to instructional
modifications as appropriate
1 2 3 4 5

6. Teacher employs modifications with
planning/adjusts instruction as needed
1 2 3 4 5

Evidence of implementation of strategies observed/shared during peer observation or
collaborative sessions
6. Lesson plans reflect incorporation of learned
strategies
1 2 3 4 5

7. Instruction reflects incorporation of learned
strategies
1 2 3 4 5

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This dissertation evaluated the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences affecting the Urban School District’s attainment of the stated goal of ensuring that 100% of students, including those with severe and multiple disabilities, have access to rigorous, standards-based instruction. The study sought to answer the following questions using a mixed-methods design as guided by the Clark and Estes Framework (2008): 1. What is the teacher knowledge related to providing access to standards-based curriculum and instructional modifications to students in classrooms for students with severe and multiple disabilities? 2. What is the teacher motivation related to providing access to standards-based curriculum and instructional modifications to students in classrooms for students with severe and multiple disabilities? 3. How do the culture and context of the Urban School District affect teacher ability to provide access to standards-based curriculum and instructional modifications in classrooms for students with severe and multiple disabilities? Data from 62 surveys and 4 interviews were collected from teachers of students with severe and multiple disabilities. The study found assets and needs in the areas of teacher procedural knowledge, attribution, and organizational influences. The recommendations presented are rooted in the literature review, findings of the quantitative and qualitative portion of the study, and the New World Kirkpatrick Model (2016).

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

Equitable schooling for African American students: an evaluation study

PDF

Meaningful access to the Common Core for high school students with significant cognitive disabilities

PDF

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

PDF

An evaluation study of... What do teachers know about gifted students?

PDF

Perception of alternative education teachers readiness to instruct English language learners: an evaluation study

PDF

Implementation of the International Baccalaureate Middle Years Program in an urban secondary school: an improvement practice to address closing the achievement gap

PDF

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

PDF

Knowledge sharing among student affairs professionals at a small faith-based higher education institution

PDF

Curriculum mapping initiative: an evaluation study

PDF

Critical factors impacting the exodus from teaching ranks: an evaluative study of an independent Christian school

PDF

The arc of students with disabilities in California Community College through the lens of the disabled student programs and services coordinators

PDF

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

PDF

The mentorship of instructors and its impact on computer science interest among middle school girls: an evaluation study

PDF

Developing standards-based Chinese curricula in international schools: a gap analysis for Eagle American School

PDF

Restoring justice in urban K-12 education systems: an evaluation study

PDF

Increasing family engagement at Lily Elementary School: An evaluation model

PDF

Sense of belonging in an online high school: looking to connect

PDF

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

PDF

A wellness paradigm to attenuate attrition

Asset Metadata

Creator Juarez, Patricia (author)

Core Title Access to standards-based curriculum for students with severe and multiple disabilities: an evaluation study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 07/21/2020

Defense Date 06/15/2020

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

Tag access,curriculum,instruction,multiple disabilities,OAI-PMH Harvest,severe disabilities,standards-based

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Moore, Ekaterina (committee chair), Maddox, Anthony B. (committee member), Sanchez, Raquel (committee member)

Creator Email juarezp@usc.edu,patsbusinessemail@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-333985

Unique identifier UC11665402

Identifier etd-JuarezPatr-8713.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-333985 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-JuarezPatr-8713.pdf

Dmrecord 333985

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Juarez, Patricia

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