View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Teachers Reported Knowledge, Skills, and Usefulness of Professional Development on the Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Teachers Reported Knowledge, Skills, and Usefulness of Professional Development on the Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction
Language: English
Authors: Hunter A. Matusevich, Karrie A. Shogren, Sheida K. Raley, Kathleen Lynne Lane, Bruce B. Frey
Source: Inclusion. 2024 12(4):242-258.
Availability: American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. P.O. Box 1897, Lawrence, KS 66044-1897. Tel: 785-843-1235; Fax: 785-843-1274; e-mail: AJMR@allenpress.com; Web site: https://meridian.allenpress.com/inclusion
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 17
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Secondary Education
Descriptors: Faculty Development, Teacher Attitudes, Pedagogical Content Knowledge, Usability, Evidence Based Practice, Self Determination, Intervention, Inclusion, Secondary School Teachers, Secondary Education, Teaching Models
DOI: 10.1352/2326-6988-12.4.242
ISSN: 2326-6988
Abstract: Understanding the impacts of professional development (PD) on teachers' perceptions of their knowledge, skills, and usefulness (KSU) of evidence-based practices is important, particularly for self-determination interventions in inclusive, secondary classrooms. Limited research exists examining the impacts of self-determination intervention PD on teachers' learning outcomes. In this study, we analyzed the impacts of PD on the Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction (SDLMI) delivered during a 3-year research project on trained teachers' self-reported KSU of self-determination. Results suggested there were positive impacts on teachers' KSU of self-determination after PD. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1451981
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGeACs2v5Qx5VkmsmTa4HxRAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDBkTauHoA38X688t5gIBEICBmnlqfaUYO5tUTcfdUNYxXdRr03KbpCKiIapp9GEHtcj1-5GE2KN82YtV3hi-VicEb_l7TBQuiAkH_f5bouvXZvLLNi_v1gr8RGCF1nu9t3yL9SnyrACRw-THpKF-dcHfg_tXIrINO0oGhWwHEm6-L6VrLdtdE8YKTzYP9Drhl2mCr7bby2CEv7Uv0_JreDjPx4leZTHpPbzjUrM=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0180992329;[hcf6]01dec.24;2024Nov22.03:55;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0180992329-1">Teachers Reported Knowledge, Skills, and Usefulness of Professional Development on the Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction </title> <p>Understanding the impacts of professional development (PD) on teachers' perceptions of their knowledge, skills, and usefulness (KSU) of evidence-based practices is important, particularly for self-determination interventions in inclusive, secondary classrooms. Limited research exists examining the impacts of self-determination intervention PD on teachers' learning outcomes. In this study, we analyzed the impacts of PD on the Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction (SDLMI) delivered during a 3-year research project on trained teachers' self-reported KSU of self-determination. Results suggested there were positive impacts on teachers' KSU of self-determination after PD. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.</p> <p>Keywords: self-determination; professional development; Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction; general education; special education</p> <p>Self-determination has been researched in the disability field for over 25 years ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref1">29</reflink>]) and has been shown to impact a broad range of student-level outcomes (e.g., academic, behavior, transition; [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref2">16</reflink>]). Emerging research has provided evidence of the positive impacts of promoting self-determination for <emph>all</emph> students, with and without disabilities, in inclusive settings (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref3">20</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref4">28</reflink>]). Along with emerging research, there has been an increased focus on self-determination and associated abilities and skills (e.g., choice making, self-awareness) within state and federal policies ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref5">8</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref6">17</reflink>]) and educational learning standards ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref7">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref8">23</reflink>]). These efforts highlight the importance of ensuring all students, regardless of support needs, have opportunities to build self-determined actions before exiting K–12 education. Therefore, to support students in enhancing their self-determination, evidence-based practices (EBPs) need to be implemented effectively and with fidelity. To facilitate high-fidelity implementation, high-quality professional development [PD] for teachers and other professionals is essential.</p> <hd id="AN0180992329-2">Self-Determination</hd> <p>[<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref9">31</reflink>] developed a new theoretical framework to conceptualize self-determination, Causal Agency Theory, which defines self-determination as "... a dispositional characteristic manifested as acting as the causal agent in one's life" (p. 258). Self-determination develops over the life course as a person has experiences and opportunities to use abilities and skills associated with self-determination (e.g., problem solving; [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref10">27</reflink>]). Self-determined actions reflect 3 key characteristics: volitional action (DECIDE), agentic action (ACT), and action-control beliefs (BELIEVE). Volitional action (DECIDE) relates to making choices and decisions about one's goals that are aligned with one's preferences and interests, reflecting autonomy and self-initiation. Agentic action (ACT) involves engaging in actions that enable one to work towards their goals using self-regulation, self-direction, and pathways thinking. Action-control beliefs (BELIEVE) are the feelings of empowerment that one can achieve as they work toward their goals, which builds self-realization, control expectancy, agency beliefs, and causality beliefs ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref11">26</reflink>]). Promoting self-determination in secondary contexts enables teachers to center students as leaders in their lives and provide opportunities to draw on students' funds of knowledge and integrate culturally responsive and sustaining practices ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref12">28</reflink>]). Self-determined students lead goal-setting, action-planning, and self-evaluating activities as they work toward self-selected goals with self-identified supports from teachers, family, friends, and community members.</p> <hd id="AN0180992329-3">Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction</hd> <p>The Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction (SDLMI; [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref13">27</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref14">33</reflink>]) is a flexible teaching model that aligns with Causal Agency Theory and supports teachers to empower students to set and work toward goals they identify as meaningful. The SDLMI supports teachers to shift their teaching practices to promote students' self-direction while delivering instruction on abilities and skills associated with self-determination. Research consistently demonstrates positive impacts of the SDLMI on valued outcomes for students with and without disabilities, such as increased goal attainment and enhanced academic achievement (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref15">3</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref16">12</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref17">22</reflink>]).</p> <p>There are 3 core components of the SDLMI: Student Questions, Teacher Objectives, and Educational Supports. The 12 SDLMI Student Questions are divided across 3 phases, Phase 1—Set a Goal, Phase 2—Take Action, and Phase 3—Adjust Goal or Plan. Each of the 12 Student Questions are phrased in first-person language to position the student as the director of their own learning. These questions (4 per SDLMI phase) guide students through the process of answering an overall problem posed in each phase (i.e., Phase 1—What is my goal?, Phase 2—What is my plan?, Phase 3—What have I learned?). Teacher Objectives, linked to each Student Question, serve as a roadmap for the teacher and enables them to support students to answer the 12 Student Questions. To ensure students have the supports they need to engage in the SDLMI, there are also Educational Supports linked to each Teacher Objective. Educational Supports (e.g., problem-solving instruction) encompass a variety of instructional practices that can be intensified based on students' needs.</p> <p>During professional development, teachers learn to support students in several lessons before Phase 1 (Set a Goal) called Preliminary Conversations to establish a common language of key terms (e.g., goal, action plan) and the purpose of the SDLMI. Then, in Phase 1, teachers support students in identifying the goal they want to work on over the course of an academic semester. In this phase, students identify what they want to learn, what they do not know about their goal area, what must change for them to learn what they do not know, and specify their goal. After answering the 4 Phase 1 Student Questions, teachers support students to move into Phase 2 (Take Action). The 4 Phase 2 Student Questions guide students in creating an action plan to achieve the goal they set in Phase 1. In particular, and with support from trained teachers, students identify potential barriers and solutions, create a schedule for implementing their action plans, and begin tracking progress with a self-monitoring system (e.g., daily checklist). Finally, Phase 3 (Adjust Goal or Plan) focuses on empowering students to self-evaluate progress toward their goal and identify next steps (i.e., setting a new goal, continuing to work on the same goal, or adjusting their goal or action plan). This will guide students into the next cycle of the SDLMI, as it is designed to be used repeatedly ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref18">27</reflink>]).</p> <p>As a teaching model, the SDLMI is designed to shift teaching practices to increase opportunities for students to engage in self-determined actions. Further, teachers engage in problem solving to identify how the SDLMI best overlays onto their content area (e.g., mathematics, transition planning). To successfully integrate self-directed learning and goal setting into content area instruction, teachers must understand the SDLMI and its core components (i.e., Student Questions, Teacher Objectives, Educational Supports), described earlier ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref19">27</reflink>]), along with how to integrate it with practices and strategies they already use. Further, they must understand how to align SDLMI instruction with students' funds of knowledge and integrate culturally responsive and sustaining practices. When implemented in inclusive settings, there must also be collaboration across general and special educators to ensure <emph>all</emph> students have equitable opportunities to engage in self-determined actions. This can promote collaborative teaching practices, as general educators have strengths in academic content areas and special educators have strengths in differentiating instruction and individualizing supports.</p> <hd id="AN0180992329-4">SDLMI Professional Development in Practice</hd> <p>Effective, teacher-focused PD has been shown to have positive impacts on student outcomes (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref20">1</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref21">6</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref22">9</reflink>]). Yet, teachers in the United States often do not receive enough intensive PD and are often not satisfied with short, less intense learning opportunities ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref23">6</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref24">34</reflink>]). Further, PD often does not focus on practice-based application, but rather abstract, theoretical concepts ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref25">13</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref26">14</reflink>]). Effective PD must be intense, collaborative, sustained, and connected to practice ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref27">7</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref28">34</reflink>]). These opportunities must also be content-focused (e.g., connected to practice) and engage participants in active learning activities ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref29">6</reflink>]). Given the complexity of the SDLMI and its implementation (e.g., teaching model requiring a shift from teacher- to student-directed learning), effective PD is critical to enable implementation with fidelity to the core components of the SDLMI (i.e., Student Questions, Teacher Objectives, Educational Supports). To ensure general and special education teachers are equipped to implement the SDLMI in inclusive, general education classrooms, standardized SDLMI training protocols have been developed with key elements of effective PD embedded ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref30">2</reflink>]; see Table 1). However, limited research exists on the impacts of SDLMI PD on teacher knowledge, skills, and usefulness of self-determination.</p> <p>Table 1 Professional Development Quality Indicators and Implementation During Training</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR)</p> <hd id="AN0180992329-5">Purpose</hd> <p>There is a need to examine the impacts of the SDLMI PD on teachers' perceptions of their knowledge, skills, and the usefulness of self-determination before and after training as well as with ongoing PD and coaching support. This study builds on previous work ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref31">2</reflink>]) that examined professional outcomes immediately after a 2-day SDLMI PD during the first year (2018–2019) of a large, longitudinal study, where the SDLMI PD (described subsequently) was developed and initially tested. Specifically, researchers examined all trained professionals' perceptions of training materials; self-reported changes in knowledge, skills, and the usefulness of self-determination; and their view of the essential nature of self-determination abilities and skills in preparing students across multiple academic and transition areas (e.g., self-regulating skills, achieving postsecondary education goals, participation in general education). From their findings, authors suggested further research was needed examining the longitudinal impacts of this PD on teacher knowledge, skills, and usefulness of self-determination, particularly as teachers began implementing the SDLMI while receiving implementation supports (i.e., online or online+coaching) and participated in ongoing PD during the multi-year study.</p> <p>The current analyses address recommendations of [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref32">2</reflink>] by examining the impacts of the SDLMI PD on teachers trained in the SDLMI across the 3 years of the project. In the multi-year, longitudinal study, the first cohort of teachers implemented for up to 2½ years and received multiple PD opportunities. New cohorts were added each year, so there was a sample of new and returning teachers who attended training from each participating school to examine during each year of the project. Although, as described subsequently, the COVID-19 pandemic led to significant disruptions and barriers to retention. However, even with these barriers, the data provides a sample to extend findings from [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref33">2</reflink>]. The current analyses addressed the following research questions:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> To what degree did general and special education teachers who attended SDLMI PD report changes in their knowledge, skills, and usefulness of self-determination before and after training during Year 1, Year 2, and Year 3 of the project?</item> <p></p> <item> Were there differences in reported changes in knowledge, skills, and use of self-determination before and after training for new and returning teachers who attended the SDLMI PD during Year 2 and Year 3?</item> <p></p> <item> To what degree did general and special education teachers' perceptions of the essential nature of self-determination abilities and skills in preparing students across academic and transition areas change before and after SDLMI training during Year 1, Year 2, and Year 3 of the project?</item> <p></p> <item> Were there differences in perceptions of the essential nature of self-determination abilities and skills in preparing students across academic and transition areas before and after training for new and returning teachers who attended the SDLMI PD during Year 2 and Year 3?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0180992329-6">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0180992329-7">Participants and Setting</hd> <p>A total of 69 teachers from 14 schools from 3 Mid-Atlantic states participated in the SDLMI PD across 3 years; ultimately, not all teachers implemented the SDLMI, as 6 schools (42.9%) who supported teachers to participate in training ultimately decided not to implement as part of the project. However, given our interest in the impact of the SDLMI PD on teachers' perceptions of knowledge, skills, and usefulness of self-determination, we included data from all teachers, both general and special education, who attended the PD across project years, as the intent of these analyses was to determine the impact of the training on teachers' knowledge, skills, and usefulness of self-determination. The sample included 43 general education teachers, 23 special education teachers, and 3 dually certified teachers (see Table 2). We systematically and collaboratively taught all teachers to implement the SDLMI in inclusive, secondary, general education classrooms, with teachers phased into the project across the 2018–2019, 2019–2020, and 2020–2021 academic years (see Table 2 and 3). As such, a subset of teachers from the total sample (<emph>n</emph> = 27; 39%) participated in multiple PD opportunities (i.e., 2 years of training, 3 years of training), while others only engaged in 1 year of training.</p> <p>Table 2 Trained Teacher Demographics</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR)</p> <p>Table 3 Implementing School Characteristics</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR)</p> <hd id="AN0180992329-8">Multi-Year Longitudinal Project Set-Up</hd> <p>The overall project was a 3-year randomized control trial (RCT) with the goal of examining the impacts of varying intensities of teacher implementation supports (i.e., online vs. online+coaching) on the outcomes of students with and without disabilities in inclusive, secondary, academic classrooms (i.e., English/Language Arts, math, science). Originally, 15 schools agreed to participate through the project; however, 1 school withdrew before training and did not implement. Thus, the sample for the present analysis was the 14 schools who participated in training, with 43 general education teachers, 23 special education teachers, and 3 dually certified teachers (see Table 2). We randomized participating schools to receive one of 2 levels of implementation supports: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref34">1</reflink>) online only (<emph>n</emph> = 8 schools) or (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref35">2</reflink>) online+coaching (<emph>n</emph> = 7 schools; see Table 3). Online-only implementation supports included bi-weekly, online modules emailed to teachers to deepen their understanding and enhance implementation related to specific Student Questions and Educational Supports aligned with the SDLMI Whole Class implementation schedule ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref36">21</reflink>]). Online modules included interactive activities (e.g., sample case studies with comprehension questions), but teachers did not have direct interactions with project staff or trained SDLMI coaches. The online+coaching supports included bi-weekly, online modules with the addition of in-person, monthly coaching provided by a trained SDLMI coach. Teachers in both implementation support groups received the same PD to implement the SDLMI in secondary, inclusive, core content area classes (e.g., science, English Language Arts) in all years of the project.</p> <p>School recruitment and retention was challenging throughout the project given ongoing and dynamic demands in high schools associated with other school reform initiatives. Further, the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic during Spring 2020 led to substantial issues with sample attrition. Table 3 shows the 15 schools that agreed to participate, along with their randomly assigned implementation support condition, participation throughout the project, and number of teachers trained per year. During Year 1, we recruited 11 schools to participate. One school (9.1%) was randomized but unable to identify teachers to participate in the training and ultimately withdrew. Three additional schools (27.3%) supported teachers to participate in training but ultimately decided not to implement for a variety of reasons (i.e., demands of other school initiatives, changes in co-teaching models). An additional school deferred implementation until Year 2 due to teacher illnesses during training. Ultimately, 6 schools (54.5%) implemented during Year 1. During Year 2, 3 implementing schools returned from Year 1, 1 deferred school returned and implemented, and 3 implementing schools from Year 1 withdrew due to other demands. In addition to the schools from Year 1, 4 schools were recruited, but 3 withdrew after training due to similar reasons as Year 1, and 1 continued to implement after training. During Spring 2020 (Year 2), the COVID-19 pandemic significantly disrupted SDLMI implementation and associated data collection. Implementation ceased during Spring 2020 as schools navigated initial school shutdowns and planned for non-face-to-face instruction (e.g., virtual instruction). As the pandemic continued, the project team delivered virtual supports to schools that continued implementation. As expected, this led to a lower number of participating teachers in Year 3. Two schools withdrew from the project due to challenges presented by the pandemic, 2 schools deferred implementation until Spring 2021, and 1 school continued implementation during Fall 2020 and Spring 2021. No new schools were recruited during Year 3 due to pandemic-related barriers and demands. Despite barriers to recruitment, the project team supported ongoing implementation in 3 schools during Year 3 while problem-solving barriers, such as instructional delivery methods (i.e., in-person, virtual, hybrid), technology availability, and needs of students and staff. Data from each year of training were retained in these analyses, although the limitations of different training and implementation contexts must be acknowledged.</p> <hd id="AN0180992329-9">Training Procedures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0180992329-10">Year 1 (2018–2019) and Year 2 (2019–2020) Professional Development</hd> <p>Training procedures for Year 1 and 2 of the project were similar. During the first year, teachers, along with other school and district personnel, participated in an intensive, in-person, 2-day training developed to align with key indicators of quality PD (see Table 1). This training occurred in the late summer/early fall prior to teachers beginning SDLMI implementation. Throughout the training, SDLMI content experts led participants, including teachers, through content relevant to understanding self-determination, how to implement the SDLMI, and activities to promote engagement and understanding of SDLMI core components. For example, to ensure the PD was linked to the substantive quality indicator, content experts provided information related to Causal Agency Theory, which theoretically underpins self-determination, and provided examples of the SDLMI in practice, which highlighted the link between theory and practice. To address the active quality indicator, trainers and content experts integrated a variety of hands-on activities, such as role-playing, to promote implementation of SDLMI lessons. In addition to hands-on activities, the SDLMI PD provided opportunities for collaboration through problem solving and collective learning, which supported the collaborative quality indicator. During training, teachers, with the support of training staff, developed implementation schedules for their classrooms that incorporated district-specific initiatives and procedures. Schools and associated teachers randomized into the online+coaching group also planned for coaching visits during the development of their implementation schedule and other training activities.</p> <p>Year 2 SDLMI PD was expanded to a 3-day, in-person training to allow combined and differentiated instruction for new and returning teachers. Year 2 training was held the summer before SDLMI implementation began for the upcoming school year. Again, this training mirrored Year 1 procedures and activities while also addressing PD quality indicators (Table 1) in similar ways. We added additional activities to engage returning teachers in self-evaluation and reflection as well as expanded planning opportunities, including lessons-learned share-outs and tip-sharing opportunities to support new teachers. We also provided teachers with updated materials, strategies, and resources from SDLMI content experts and were able to engage with returning teachers from Year 1 who shared their experiences and advice (e.g., sustainable).</p> <hd id="AN0180992329-11">Year 3 Professional Development (2020–2021)</hd> <p>COVID-19 created ongoing impacts during Year 3, including with PD. The SDLMI PD needed to be redesigned to align with COVID-19 protocols. Therefore, Year 3 PD was provided virtually via Zoom across 3 days to stay consistent with the training procedures of previous years. Due to school deferments to Spring 2021 implementation, we offered 2 PDs, one before implementation began in Fall 2020 with 1 school and another in Winter 2020 before implementation began for the 2 schools who deferred until Spring 2021. Like Years 1 and 2 PD, Year 3 PD still addressed quality indicators (Table 1) in ways that used online modalities to promote engagement. The most substantial redesign was utilizing Talent Learning Management System (LMS) to support interactive learning (e.g., active). Using Talent LMS, teachers engaged in various independent learning activities, such as reviewing online modules and watching case study and sample implementation videos. To support implementation during COVID-19, we embedded SDLMI materials into 2 online learning platforms used by participating schools, Google Classroom and Schoology. In addition to training adjustments aligned with COVID-19 protocols, we also made adjustments to coaching and ongoing implementation. Coaching was implemented virtually via Zoom, and ongoing implementation adjustments were determined by teachers and school teams based on the instructional delivery format for their district (see Figure 1).</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 1 Year 3 SDLMI Implementation Timeline Note. School characteristic information can be seen in Table 3.</p> <hd id="AN0180992329-12">Measures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0180992329-13">Teacher Demographic Form</hd> <p>The Teacher Demographic Form (TDF) is a self-report measure used to document various demographic variables for professionals participating in the SDLMI PD. Specifically, the TDF collected information, such as gender, race, ethnicity, number of years teaching, teaching assignment, highest degree earned, experience with self-determination, etc. This survey was administered to training participants before the start of each PD.</p> <hd id="AN0180992329-14">Teacher Self-Determination Knowledge, Skills, and Use Survey</hd> <p>The Teacher Self-Determination Knowledge, Skills, and Use Survey (SD-KSU; [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref37">25</reflink>]) is a self-report measure adapted from Lane and colleagues' Knowledge, Confidence, and Use Survey. Cronbach's alpha has been reported to range from.94–.98 for the original tool (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref38">15</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref39">18</reflink>]). The SD-KSU was completed before and after each training to evaluate participants' perceptions of their knowledge (α =.93), skills (α =.91), and usefulness (α =.94) of self-determination. Specifically, respondents rate their perceptions of knowledge, skills, and usefulness of 7 constructs related to self-determination as defined by Causal Agency Theory ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref40">31</reflink>]; i.e., autonomy, self-initiation, pathways thinking, self-direction, control-expectancy, psychological empowerment, self-realization) on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (<emph>no knowledge/skills/usefulness</emph>) to 4 (<emph>substantial knowledge/skills/usefulness</emph>). In conjunction with knowledge, skills, and usefulness ratings, teachers also rated their perceptions of the essential nature of self-determination skills in preparing students across multiple academic and transition areas (α =.957; e.g., general education participation, developing social skills, achieving community living goals).</p> <hd id="AN0180992329-15">Data Analysis</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0180992329-16">Research Question 1 & 2: Perceived Knowledge, Skills, and Usefulness</hd> <p>To determine changes in teacher perceptions of their knowledge, skills, and usefulness of self-determination before and after PD, SD-KSU pre- and post-training scores were utilized for each year of the project. We replicated analyses procedures from [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref41">2</reflink>] for teacher reported SD-KSU data for the first year of the project and expanded into Years 2 and 3. Descriptive statistics for SD-KSU scales, including means and standard deviations, were calculated across each year of the project, then were broken down by first-year-attending teachers and returning teachers in Years 2 and 3. Dependent sample <emph>t</emph> tests were used to examine if there were statistically significant changes in teachers' perceptions of their knowledge, skills, and usefulness of self-determination pre- and post-training in Years 1, 2, and 3. We also examined if there were differences based on teacher training experience (i.e., first-time PD-attending teachers, returning PD-attending teachers) for Year 2 of the project. The original intent was to analyze data longitudinally, but due to barriers to retention and recruitment resulting in a low number of participating teachers, particularly during the second half of Year 2 and Year 3 because of COVID-19, the sample size was insufficient for additional analyses. Further, the training experiences for Year 3 teachers were substantially different than Year 1 and 2 teachers. Thus, we looked at descriptive statistics and dependent sample <emph>t</emph> tests.</p> <p>There were small amounts of missing data, primarily on the post-training survey across years of the project (7.5%). Potential reasons for missing data could be participants left the project or missed a day of training. As this meant teachers were not able to implement since they did not finish training, we chose to use listwise deletion to exclude these data from the analysis. IBM SPSS Statistics version 27 for Macintosh was used for all analyses.</p> <hd id="AN0180992329-17">Research Question 3 & 4: Perceptions of the Essential Nature of Self-Determination Skills</hd> <p>To better understand the degree to which teachers' perceptions of the essential nature of self-determination abilities and skills in preparing students across multiple academic and transition areas changed before and after PD, as well as across teacher training experience (i.e., first-time trained teachers, returning trained teachers), the subset of questions regarding the essential nature of self-determination from the SD-KSU were utilized for analyses. Specifically, pre- and post-training scores from this subset of questions for each teacher were utilized. Descriptive statistics, including means and standard deviations, were calculated for all trained teachers across each year of the project. Similar to data analysis methods for Research Question 1, dependent sample <emph>t</emph> tests were used to examine if there were statistically significant changes in teachers' perceptions of the essential nature of self-determination skills before and after PD. Again, we examined if there were differences based on teacher training experience (i.e., first-time trained teachers, returning trained teachers) for Year 2. The intent was to also analyze data longitudinally, including Year 3 data. Barriers to retention and recruitment resulted in a low number of participating teachers during Year 3 of the project; thus, only descriptive statistics were reported.</p> <hd id="AN0180992329-18">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0180992329-19">Perceived Knowledge, Skills, and Usefulness</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0180992329-20">Research Question 1: All Teachers Across Years</hd> <p>Pre-training SD-KSU results from trained teachers across all years of the project (i.e., Year 1, Year 2, Year 3) suggested <emph>some</emph> or <emph>more than average</emph> (e.g., mean scores ranging from 2–3) knowledge, skills, and usefulness related to self-determination instruction and opportunities in the classroom (Table 4). When looking at changes after training using SD-KSU results for all trained teachers during Year 1 of the project, Year 1 teachers reported statistically significant increases related to knowledge of (<emph>t</emph>[<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref42">23</reflink>] = −5.73, <emph>p</emph> <.0001) and skills related to self-determination (<emph>t</emph>[<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref43">23</reflink>] = −5.32, <emph>p</emph> <.0001). When examining ratings from all trained Year 2 teachers, similar results were found. Year 2 trained teachers reported statistically significant increases in knowledge of (<emph>t</emph>[<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref44">38</reflink>] = −5.91, <emph>p</emph> <.0001) and skills related to self-determination (<emph>t</emph>[<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref45">38</reflink>] = −5.05, <emph>p</emph> <.0001). When examining the impact of the SDLMI PD on usefulness of self-determination skills and abilities, trained teachers reported a statistically significant increase as well, (<emph>t</emph>[<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref46">38</reflink>] = −3.61, <emph>p</emph> <.001), which deviated from Year 1 findings.</p> <p>Table 4 Self-Determination Knowledge, Skills, and Use Survey Total Score Results by Teacher Training Experience</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR)</p> <hd id="AN0180992329-21">Research Question 2: New and Returning Teachers</hd> <p>Beginning with Year 2 data, teachers were divided into subsets of first-time trained teachers and returning teachers, and similar levels of knowledge, skills, and usefulness related to self-determination instruction and opportunities in the classroom were reported (Table 4). When Year 2 first-time trained teachers' outcomes were examined, statistically significant increases related to knowledge of self-determination (<emph>t</emph>[<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref47">16</reflink>] = −4.29, <emph>p</emph> <.001), skills related to self-determination (<emph>t</emph>[<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref48">16</reflink>] = −3.98, <emph>p</emph> <.001), and usefulness of self-determination skills, abilities, and attitudes (<emph>t</emph>[<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref49">16</reflink>] = −3.36, <emph>p</emph> <.005) were found before and after PD. Similarly, returning trained teachers during Year 2 of the project also reported <emph>some</emph> level of knowledge, skills, and usefulness related to self-determination instruction and opportunities in the classroom (Table 4). They also reported statistically significant increases related to knowledge of (<emph>t</emph>[<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref50">21</reflink>] = −4.20, <emph>p</emph> <.0001) and skills related to self-determination (<emph>t</emph>[<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref51">21</reflink>] = −3.82, <emph>p</emph> <.001); however, they did not report statistically significant increases in usefulness of self-determination skills, abilities, and attitudes (<emph>t</emph>[<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref52">21</reflink>] = −1.93, <emph>p</emph> <.07).</p> <p>Teachers who were trained during Year 3 of the project were impacted by COVID-19, thus training procedures changed and barriers to retention and recruitment were encountered. Year 3 teachers, both first-time and returning trained teachers, were trained virtually. Due to the barriers imposed by COVID-19 and the limited sample size in Year 3, the authors decided to only report descriptive statistics for all teachers, first-time trained teachers, and returning teachers (Table 4). Like Years 1 and 2 teachers, Year 3 teachers reported <emph>some</emph> levels of knowledge, skills, and usefulness related to self-determination instruction and opportunities in the classroom. The reported scores mirror pre- and post-training scores of previous project years.</p> <hd id="AN0180992329-22">Research Questions 3 & 4: Perceptions of the Essential Nature of Self-Determination Skill...</hd> <p>Teachers trained across Years 1, 2, and 3 of the project reported relatively high scores for perceptions of the essential nature of self-determination across all academic and transition areas (mean scores ranging from 4–5). Thus, teachers who attended PD, both first-time and returning, perceived self-determination skills, abilities, and attitudes as essential across academic and transition areas (i.e., participating in general education, developing social skills, achieving post-secondary goals). No statistically significant changes in perceptions of the essential nature of self-determination skills across academic and transition areas were reported. See Table 5 for mean scores and standard deviations.</p> <p>Table 5 Teacher Perceptions of the Essential Nature of Self-Determination Across Life Domains by Teacher Training Experience</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR)</p> <hd id="AN0180992329-23">Discussion</hd> <p>We conducted this study to expand the findings of [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref53">2</reflink>], exploring the impacts of a multi-year PD series on teachers' perceived knowledge, skills, and usefulness of self-determination over time. Specifically, the authors examined the impacts of PD on teachers' perceived knowledge, skills, and usefulness of self-determination for each year of a multi-year project and examined the impacts based on teacher training experience (i.e., new teachers, returning teachers).</p> <p>Overall, results suggest the SDLMI PD has a significant impact on teachers' perceptions of their knowledge, skills, and usefulness of self-determination. This study reported similar findings from [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref54">2</reflink>], further supporting the importance of training teachers to implement self-determination interventions to enhance student outcomes (e.g., goal attainment, academic achievement), although more research is needed directly linking teacher perceptions of their knowledge and skills with student outcomes. This project provides important information in planning for long-term training to promote sustainability of use of evidence-based practices (EBPs) as Tier 1 supports. For example, we found impacts on certain aspects of knowledge, skills, and usefulness of the SDLMI across cohorts and ongoing impacts with returning teachers who attended training. More specifically, there was a statistically significant impact on teachers' perceived knowledge and skills related to the SDLMI and self-determination before and after training. Further, returning teachers in Year 2 who received additional training reported ongoing impacts of the second training on knowledge and skills. Interestingly, while teachers who attended the PD for the first time in Year 1 did not report significant change in their perceived usefulness of self-determination after the SDLMI PD, Year 2 teachers did. One factor that could have impacted perceived usefulness of self-determination during Year 2 is the addition of returning teachers. As stated earlier, Year 1 teachers were all considered first-time trained teachers as they were the initial participants in the project. Thus, the Year 2 cohort included new teachers from returning schools and returning teachers from those schools, as well as new schools with new teachers. Returning teachers were invited to share their experience and lead activities during training. Thus, returning teachers' experiences implementing the SDLMI could have impacted the new teachers' perceptions of the usefulness of the SDLMI. In addition, teachers may not have seen how the SDLMI fit into their classroom and school culture prior to the SDLMI PD. Therefore, returning teachers in the project could have been change agents for how self-determination was viewed within the classroom and school culture. Additional research is needed to explore these findings as well as the most effective way to operationalize PD aligned with quality indicators of PD (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref55">6</reflink>]) and tenets of implementation science ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref56">10</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref57">11</reflink>]).</p> <p>Although the SDLMI PD had impacts on teachers' knowledge, skills, and usefulness related to self-determination during Years 1 and 2, when it was broken down by training experience (i.e., new teachers, returning teachers), the SDLMI PD did not have an impact on Year 2 returning teachers' perceived usefulness, but did on Year 2 new teachers' (i.e., first time attending training). This could be due to returning teachers who had already been trained and implemented during Year 1 of the project. Thus, they may have already seen the impact of the SDLMI on students' self-determination and found the intervention useful. Furthermore, teachers developed a community within their school as they implemented the SDLMI together. Current research has shown the community of support that comes from implementing the SDLMI alongside other teachers is critical and supports implementation overall ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref58">19</reflink>]). In addition to the potentially observed impacts of the SDLMI, teachers reported near the top of the scale pre- and post- training, thus there could be potential ceiling effects. Therefore, future research should examine how the perceived usefulness of interventions may need to be measured to avoid ceiling effects, as well as the impact of ongoing implementation experiences, particularly since there were ongoing impacts on their perceived knowledge and skills after Year 2 training. This could be due to their experience in implementing and identifying their own areas of growth related to SDLMI implementation and supporting their students throughout the process. They had an additional year to implement and modify the SDLMI to their own teaching style, their students' support needs, and their schools' climate and culture.</p> <p>Similar to the findings from [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref59">2</reflink>], teachers reported that self-determination is essential across various academic and transition areas across each year of the project before and after training. This may reflect that teachers who opted-in to participate in the research project already placed value on self-determination. Outside of a research project, ongoing research is needed to explore if different patterns of results are found. However, it may be that teachers understand the importance of these abilities and skills across various academic and transition areas but are unsure of how to support students to develop these abilities and skills in the context of academic content areas ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref60">2</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref61">4</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref62">32</reflink>]). Thus, SDLMI PD can support teachers in gaining knowledge and skills in supporting students to develop self-determination abilities and skills in the context of academic content areas.</p> <hd id="AN0180992329-24">Limitations</hd> <p>There are several limitations to this study. One key limitation was the attrition of schools and teachers. There were several reasons for attrition within this longitudinal project, including but not limited to, demands on teachers because of other school initiatives, lack of administrative support, and the COVID-19 pandemic. The lack of school and teacher retention and the ramifications of the pandemic impacted how we examined the SDLMI PD and prevented analyzing longitudinal impacts across all 3 years of the project. Fourteen out of 15 schools (93.3%) supported teachers to attend training; however, 7 schools (50.0%) withdrew from the project after attending training, and 3 schools (21.4%) withdrew from the project after Year 1 of implementation. Further, schools in Spring 2020 did not continue data collection due to the initial onset of COVID-19 restrictions and navigating barriers to academic content instruction. In addition to data collection disruptions, 2 schools withdrew (14.2%) from the project during Year 3 due to COVID-19 barriers, and 2 schools (14.2%) deferred implementation to Spring 2021 as they were still navigating instructional formats, such as virtual or hybrid (i.e., part-time online, part-time in-person). Thus, COVID-19 impacted the retention and recruitment of participating schools and teachers, resulting in lower participation in Year 3. Therefore, we were unable to conduct analyses to examine longitudinal impacts of the SDLMI PD. Relatedly, a second limitation was the shift in PD format. In Years 1 and 2, an in-person, multi-day PD structure was utilized. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the PD format was adjusted to accommodate virtual training protocols. Thus, comparing even descriptive data from Years 1 and 2 to Year 3 may not have shown the direct impacts of the SDLMI PD, but rather the impacts of format type (i.e., in-person, virtual).</p> <p>A third limitation was that we only examined impacts on inclusive, secondary teachers in academic content areas. Self-determination is an essential characteristic across multiple academic and transition areas ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref63">26</reflink>]), and ongoing research is needed to examine the impact of PD across content areas (e.g., transition planning, social emotional learning). A fourth limitation was that we only examined the impacts of training on teachers who were to serve as implementers. As noted, additional school and district team members (i.e., principals, special education directors, curriculum directors) participated in trainings or specific aspects of the trainings. Understanding the perspectives of these teachers, many of whom were champions in the school for participating in this project and advancing self-determination instruction, could further inform PD and supports for teachers. A fifth limitation was the fact that we did not explore how this training could be aligned with other trainings of initiatives (i.e., Common Core, multi-tiered systems of support, academic content curriculum). We asked teachers and other team members throughout training to think about how the SDLMI and self-determination aligned with other initiatives they had within their schools and classrooms, but we did not examine how the PD impacted their perceptions of the knowledge, skills, and usefulness of the SDLMI, self-determination, and other initiatives.</p> <hd id="AN0180992329-25">Future Directions for Research and Practice</hd> <p>Self-determination is a predictor of in-school and postschool success (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref64">26</reflink>]). Given this evidence, there has been a push for supporting students to develop abilities and skills associated with self-determination through various initiatives, such as college and career readiness and Common Core State Standards. With the focus on supporting students to be prepared for life after K–12 education, there are several areas future research, practice, and policy should explore and expand on.</p> <p>With increasing demands on teachers and schools, identifying ways to support teachers to develop the knowledge and skills to implement EBPs are critical, as it is known implementation fidelity impacts student-level outcomes (i.e., academic achievement, goal attainment, behavior; [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref65">24</reflink>]). Preliminary evidence of the positive impacts of a high-quality, systematic, in-person, multi-day PD—from this study and [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref66">2</reflink>]—supports the need for further exploration as to how high-quality, systematic PD can be delivered in other formats outside of face-to-face opportunities (i.e., asynchronous, virtual) and other structures (i.e., 1 day, shorter hours). Teachers and schools have a variety of demands, many of which are increasing, thus leaving little time to support the development of knowledge, skills, and implementation of EBPs. Therefore, future researchers should explore the impacts of various PD formats to ensure teachers have the knowledge and skills to implement EBPs which positively impact student-level outcomes (i.e., academic achievement, goal attainment, behavior).</p> <p>We only examined the impacts of the SDLMI PD on teachers who attended training regardless of implementation status. As previously stated, schools supported teachers to attend training to learn how to implement the SDLMI within their inclusive, secondary, academic content classrooms, but teachers from 7 schools attended training, never implemented, and ultimately withdrew from the project. Further research is needed to understand why teachers attended training and withdrew, along with what factors predict attrition over the course of a project. Understanding why teachers did not implement can support future practice to ensure the needs of teachers are met and appropriate teacher supports are provided so they are able to implement EBPs to enhance in- and postschool outcomes of students they serve. In addition to teacher attrition, future researchers should examine the impacts of the SDLMI PD on implementing teachers' fidelity and their perceptions of implementation. Understanding the SDLMI PD impacts on teachers who implemented the SDLMI with students could potentially provide evidence of linkages between systematic, high-quality PD, implementation fidelity, and student-level outcomes (i.e., self-determination, academic achievement, goal attainment).</p> <p>We only examined impacts on inclusive, secondary, academic content teachers; however, impacts on teachers in settings outside of academic content areas (i.e., career and technical education [CTE], music, art) should be explored. Students engage in a variety of activities and classes during their educational career, which can support the development of self-determination abilities and skills to enhance in- and postschool outcomes (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref67">16</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref68">22</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref69">26</reflink>]). Future research should explore the impacts of the SDLMI PD on teachers' knowledge, skills, and usefulness outside academic content areas (e.g., physical education, CTE, transition planning). In addition, the impacts of high-quality, systematic PD on other key stakeholders, such as coordinators, transition specialists, administrators, and families, should be explored. These stakeholders are critical team members in supporting the initial implementation of EBPs, scaling up implementation, and sustaining long-term use ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref70">10</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref71">11</reflink>]).</p> <p>Again, we only examined the impacts of the SDLMI PD on teachers' perceptions of their knowledge, skills, and usefulness of self-determination before and after training, but we did not explore how this training could be aligned with the training of other initiatives (i.e., Common Core, multi-tiered systems of support). This is critical, as self-determination as well as the associated abilities and skills are already embedded within many of these initiatives (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref72">23</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref73">30</reflink>]), although systematic PD and instructional practices have not yet been defined. Additionally, future researchers should examine sustainability, specifically thinking about how we sustain implementation and how we provide ongoing training and coaching, especially when data highlight the impacts of such interventions and training.</p> <hd id="AN0180992329-26">Conclusion</hd> <p>This study has provided additional evidence that the SDLMI PD has positive impacts on teachers' perceived knowledge, skills, and usefulness related to the SDLMI and self-determination. It has also provided additional evidence as to the impact of the SDLMI PD for newly trained and returning teachers. Overall, these findings suggest high-quality, systematic training is critical in developing teacher knowledge and skills with mixed impacts on perceived usefulness. Further research is needed to understand how this training can be delivered in different formats; impact other stakeholders' perceived knowledge, skills, and usefulness; and be aligned with other initiatives within schools.</p> <p> <emph>The research reported in this manuscript was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R324A170008 to University of Kansas. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education.</emph> <emph>Hunter A. Matusevich, Ph.D., was affiliated with the University of Kansas when the study was completed and is now affiliated with James Madison University. Sheida K. Raley, Ph.D., was affiliated with the University of Kansas when the study was completed and is now affiliated with the University of Arkansas</emph>.</p> <ref id="AN0180992329-27"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref20" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Blank, R., & de Las Alas, N. (2009). Effects of teacher professional development on gains in student achievement. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref30" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Bojanek, E. K., Raley, S. K., Shogren, K. A., & Lane, K. L. (2021). Examining the impact of professional development on the Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction for general and special educators. Inclusion, 9(2), 118–133. https://doi.org/10.1352/2326-6988-9.2.118</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref15" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Burke, K. M., Shogren, K. A., Antosh, A. A., LaPlante, T., & Masterson, L. H. (2020). Implementing the SDLMI with students with significant support needs during transition planning. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 43(2), 115–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143419887858</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref61" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Carter, E. W., Lane, K. L., Pierson, M. R., & Stang, K. K. (2008). Promoting self-determination for transition-age youth: Views of high school general and special educators. Exceptional Children, 75(1), 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290807500103</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref7" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. https://<ulink href="http://www.thecorestandards.org/assets/CCSSI%5fMath%20Standards.pdf">www.thecorestandards.org/assets/CCSSI%5fMath%20Standards.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref21" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref27" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession. Washington, DC: National Staff Development Council, 12.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref5" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Denney, S. C., & Daviso, A. W. (2012). Self-determination: A critical component of education. American Secondary Education, 43–51.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref22" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Dunst, C. J., Bruder, M. B., & Hamby, D. W. (2015). Metasynthesis of in-service professional development research: Features associated with positive educator and student outcomes. Educational Research and Reviews, 10(12), 1731–1744.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fixsen, D., Blase, K., Metz, A., & Van Dyke, M. (2013). Statewide implementation of evidence-based programs. Exceptional Children, 79(2), 213–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291307900206</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fixsen, D. L., Blase, K. A., Naoom, S. F., & Wallace, F. (2009). Core implementation components. Research on social work practice, 19(5), 531–540. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731509335549</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hagiwara, M., Shogren, K., & Leko, M. (2017). Reviewing research on the Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction: Mapping the terrain and charting a course to promote adoption and use. Advances in Neurodevelopmental Disorders, 1(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41252-017-0007-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hirsch, S. E., Randall, K. N., Common, E. A., & Lane, K. L. (2020). Results of practice-based professional development for supporting special educators in learning how to design functional assessment–based interventions. Teacher Education and Special Education, 43(4), 281–295.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Joyce, B. R., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development (Vol. 3). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Alexandria, VA.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lane, K. L., Oakes, W. P., Powers, L., Diebold, T., Germer, K., Common, E. A., & Brunsting, N. (2015). Improving teachers' knowledge of functional assessment-based interventions: Outcomes of a professional development series. Education and Treatment of Children, 93–120.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mazzotti, V. L., Rowe, D. A., Kwiatek, S., Voggt, A., Chang, W.-H., Fowler, C. H., Poppen, M., Sinclair, J., & Test, D. W. (2021). Secondary transition predictors of postschool success: An update to the research base. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 44(1), 47–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143420959793</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Research Council. (2012). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oakes, W. P., Schellman, L. E., Lane, K. L., Common, E. A., Powers, L., Diebold, T., & Gaskill, T. (2018). Improving educators' knowledge, confidence, and usefulness of functional assessment-based interventions: Outcomes of professional learning. Education and Treatment of Children, 41(4), 533–565.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Raley, S. K., Kutscher, E. L., Shogren, K. A., Kurth, J. A., & Matusevich, H. A. (2023). Finding common ground: Tips to promote self-determination in inclusive contexts for high school general and special educators. Inclusive Practices, 2(1), 22–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/27324745221144306</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Raley, S. K., Shogren, K. A., Brunson, L., Gragoudas, S., Thomas, K. R., & Pace, J. R. (2021). Examining the impact of implementation supports on goals set by students in inclusive, secondary classes. Exceptionality, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2021.1938056</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Raley, S. K., Shogren, K. A., & McDonald, A. (2018). How to implement the Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction in inclusive general education classrooms. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 51(1), 62–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059918790236</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rowe, D. A., Mazzotti, V. L., Fowler, C. H., Test, D. W., Mitchell, V. J., Clark, K. A., Holzberg, D., Owens, T. L., Rusher, D., Seaman-Tullis, R. L., Gushanas, C. M., Castle, H., Chang, W.-H., Voggt, A., Kwiatek, S., & Dean, C. (2021). Updating the secondary transition research base: Evidence- and research-based practices in functional skills. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 44(1), 28–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143420958674</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rowe, D. A., Mazzotti, V. L., & Sinclair, J. (2015). Strategies for teaching self-determination skills in conjunction with the common core. Intervention in School and Clinic, 50(3), 131–141.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shogren, K. A., Burke, K. M., Anderson, M. H., Antosh, A., LaPlante, T., & Hicks, T. (2020). Examining the relationship between teacher perceptions of implementation of the SDLMI and student self-determination outcomes. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 43(1), 53–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143419887855</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shogren, K. A., Lane, K. L., & Raley, S. K. (2018). Teacher Self-Determination Knowledge, Skills, and Use Survey. Kansas University Center on Developmental Disabilities.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shogren, K. A., & Raley, S. K. (2022). Self-determination and causal agency theory: Integrating research into practice. Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shogren, K. A., Raley, S. K., Burke, K. M., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2019). The Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction Teacher's Guide. Kansas University Center on Developmental Disabilities.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shogren, K. A., Scott, L. A., Hicks, T. A., Raley, S. K., Hagiwara, M., Pace, J. R., Gerasimova, D., Alsaeed, A., & Kiblen, J. C. (2021). Exploring self-determination outcomes of racially and ethnically marginalized students with disabilities in inclusive, general education classrooms. Inclusion, 9(3), 189–205. https://doi.org/10.1352/2326-6988-9.3.189</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shogren, K. A., Wehmeyer, M. L., & Burke, K. M. (2017). Self-determination. In Handbook of positive psychology in intellectual and developmental disabilities (pp. 49–64). Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shogren, K. A., Wehmeyer, M. L., & Lane, K. L. (2016). Embedding interventions to promote self-determination within multitiered systems of supports. Exceptionality, 24(4), 213–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2015.1064421</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shogren, K. A., Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, S. B., Forber-Pratt, A. J., Little, T. J., & Lopez, S. (2015). Causal Agency Theory: Reconceptualizing a functional model of self-determination. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 50(3), 251–263. https:/<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/24827508">www.jstor.org/stable/24827508</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stang, K. K., Carter, E. W., Lane, K. L., & Pierson, M. R. (2009). Perspectives of general and special educators on fostering self-determination in elementary and middle schools. The Journal of Special Education, 43(2), 94–106.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, S. B., Agran, M., Mithaug, D. E., & Martin, J. E. (2000). Promoting causal agency: The Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction. Exceptional Children, 66(4), 439–453. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290006600401</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., & Adamson, F. (2010). Professional development in the United States: Trends and challenges (Vol. 28). Dallas, TX. National Staff Development Council.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Hunter A. Matusevich; Karrie A. Shogren; Sheida K. Raley; Kathleen Lynne Lane and Bruce B. Frey</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref73"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1451981
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Teachers Reported Knowledge, Skills, and Usefulness of Professional Development on the Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hunter+A%2E+Matusevich%22">Hunter A. Matusevich</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Karrie+A%2E+Shogren%22">Karrie A. Shogren</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sheida+K%2E+Raley%22">Sheida K. Raley</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kathleen+Lynne+Lane%22">Kathleen Lynne Lane</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Bruce+B%2E+Frey%22">Bruce B. Frey</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Inclusion%22"><i>Inclusion</i></searchLink>. 2024 12(4):242-258.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. P.O. Box 1897, Lawrence, KS 66044-1897. Tel: 785-843-1235; Fax: 785-843-1274; e-mail: AJMR@allenpress.com; Web site: https://meridian.allenpress.com/inclusion
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 17
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Faculty+Development%22">Faculty Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Attitudes%22">Teacher Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Pedagogical+Content+Knowledge%22">Pedagogical Content Knowledge</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Usability%22">Usability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evidence+Based+Practice%22">Evidence Based Practice</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Determination%22">Self Determination</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intervention%22">Intervention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Inclusion%22">Inclusion</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Secondary+School+Teachers%22">Secondary School Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Models%22">Teaching Models</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1352/2326-6988-12.4.242
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 2326-6988
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Understanding the impacts of professional development (PD) on teachers' perceptions of their knowledge, skills, and usefulness (KSU) of evidence-based practices is important, particularly for self-determination interventions in inclusive, secondary classrooms. Limited research exists examining the impacts of self-determination intervention PD on teachers' learning outcomes. In this study, we analyzed the impacts of PD on the Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction (SDLMI) delivered during a 3-year research project on trained teachers' self-reported KSU of self-determination. Results suggested there were positive impacts on teachers' KSU of self-determination after PD. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1451981
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1451981
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1352/2326-6988-12.4.242
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 17
        StartPage: 242
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Faculty Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Pedagogical Content Knowledge
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Usability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Evidence Based Practice
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self Determination
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intervention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Inclusion
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Secondary School Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Secondary Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Models
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Teachers Reported Knowledge, Skills, and Usefulness of Professional Development on the Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Hunter A. Matusevich
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Karrie A. Shogren
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Sheida K. Raley
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kathleen Lynne Lane
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Bruce B. Frey
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 2326-6988
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 12
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Inclusion
              Type: main
ResultId 1