Examining Teacher Perceptions of SDLMI Implementation and Student Self-Determination Outcomes.

This study explored teacher perceptions of their ability to implement the Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction (SDLMI) with fidelity and the impact of these perceptions on student self-determination outcomes on the Self-Determination Inventory: Student Report (SDI:SR). Using a piece-wise growth model, we found stability in teacher perceptions of their implementation over a two-year period even with the introduction of a second transition-focused intervention to a subset of the sample. Using a mediation model we then found a complex relationship between teacher perceptions of fidelity and student outcomes on the SDI:SR. We found that teacher-perceived fidelity over the course of the year was influenced by students’ beginning of the year self-determination status, and that teacher-perceived fidelity then impacted students’ end of the year self-determination status. The findings suggest an interactive relationship between teacher perceptions of implementation and student outcomes. Implications for research and practice are discussed. TEACHER SDLMI IMPLEMENTATION 3 Examining Teacher Perceptions of SDLMI Implementation and Student SelfDetermination Outcomes Establishing the efficacy of instructional practices alone is insufficient to address the research-to-practice gap (Fixsen, Blase, Duda, Naoom, & Van Dyke, 2010). Implementation science has emerged in response to this need and is defined as “the scientific study of methods to promote the systematic uptake of research findings and other evidence-based practices into routine practices” (Eccles & Mittman, 2006, p. 1). To study implementation, it is necessary to analyze the factors that enable the sustained use of an EBP given that implementation of a practice is different than choosing or establishing the evidence for a practice (Fixsen et al., 2010). One factor that influences the impact and sustainability of an adopted intervention on outcomes is the degree to which interventionists are able to implement the practice with fidelity (Cook & Odom, 2013). The assessment of fidelity is often, particularly in research studies, completed by external observers to document that degree to which interventions are implemented as intended. However, implementers self-perceptions of their implementation derived from selfmonitoring data provide another perspective that has been, in a limited body of research, shown to be correlated with changes in implementation and outcomes (Rispoli et al., 2017). As such more work is needed to examine the degree to which implementers perceive themselves as capable of implementing complex interventions, the factors that influence self-perceptions, and the association of these perceptions with student outcomes as this could have implications for training and coaching supports for implementers. Fidelity of implementation is generally understood to be comprised of multiple dimensions, including adherence, exposure, quality, participant responsiveness, and program differentiation and information (Dane & Schneider, 1998; Durlak & DuPre, 2008; Dusenbury, TEACHER SDLMI IMPLEMENTATION 4 Brannigan, Falco, & Hansen, 2003). A variety of means to promote fidelity have been described in the literature, including high quality training on implementation procedures, a clear implementation manual, self-monitoring of implementation, and instructional coaching (Sanetti & Collier-Meek, 2015). While evaluating the impact of training and instructional coaching on fidelity has received significant attention, the role of teacher self-monitoring of their own fidelity of implementation has received less attention, particularly in regards to the association of teacher perceptions with student outcomes, despite research suggesting that self-monitoring can positively effect implementation (Rispoli et al., 2017). In the context of transition education, the Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction (SDLMI; Shogren, Raley, Burke, & Wehmeyer, 2018) has been identified as an evidence-based practice (National Technical Assistance Center on Transition, 2016) to enhance in-school and post-school outcomes for students with a range of disability labels (Hagiwara, Shogren, & Leko, 2017). However, questions about implementation and scaling-up of the SDLMI remain, particularly in terms of supports needed by teachers to sustain the SDLMI as a part of ongoing instruction over time and as other interventions are introduced. Researchers have begun to define and examine the impact of an SDLMI coaching model (Hagiwara, Shogren, Lane, Raley, & Smith, in press; Shogren et al., in press) as well as online supports or online plus coaching supports for implementation of the SDLMI (Shogren, Wehmeyer, Lane, & Quirk, 2017) to explore the impact of these factors on adoption. While research has generally suggested adequate fidelity of implementation in large scale studies (Burke, Shogren, Antosh, LaPlante, & Masterson, 2019; Shogren, Raley, et al., 2018) less is known about how teachers perceive their ability to implement the SDLMI with fidelity, and the degree to which these perceptions are stable over time and/or shaped by the introduction of other intervention and instructional TEACHER SDLMI IMPLEMENTATION 5 demands. Further, the relation between teacher perceptions of implementation of the SDLMI and student outcomes has never been explored. Exploring teacher perceptions of their fidelity of implementation may be particularly important for the SDLMI given that it is a complex intervention that is designed to be a model of instruction, not a curriculum. Using the SDLMI framework, teachers are trained to integrate a focus on student-directed learning into their instruction. Teachers must identify ways to overlay the SDLMI on their existing instructional activities, requiring that they plan and problem solve for how to individualize the SDLMI to their specific instructional area and focus (Burke et al., 2019; Shogren, Raley, et al., 2018). As such, it is central to the ongoing development and evaluation of implementation supports to understand how teachers perceive their ability to implement the SDLMI and the association of these perceptions with outcomes, particularly given research in other fields suggesting a potential impact of self-monitoring on fidelity of implementation (Rispoli et al., 2017). The purpose of this paper, which is part of a line of work focused on scaling-up the use of the SDLMI by special education teachers working with transition-age youth with intellectual disability in the state of RI (Burke et al., 2019; Shogren, Burke, et al., 2018; Shogren et al., in press), was to explore teacher perceptions of their ability to implement the SDLMI, the changes in these perceptions over time and with changing instructional demands, and the degree to which teacher perceptions of their fidelity mediate growth in student self-determination outcomes. We first examined teacher reports of their implementation of the SDLMI over a two-year period, exploring if there was stability or change over time and if the introduction of a second transitionfocused intervention to a subset of the sample (more fully described in the Method section) had an impact on their perceived fidelity of implementation. Second, we explored the degree to TEACHER SDLMI IMPLEMENTATION 6 which teacher self-reported fidelity over the two-year period mediated student growth in selfdetermination. 1. Over two years of implementation of the SDLMI, did teacher perceptions of their fidelity of implementation remain stable or change? Was this influenced by the introduction of an additional transition-focused intervention for a subset of the sample in 2016-17 that was introduced to the entire sample in 2017-18? 2. Did teacher perceptions of their fidelity of implementation of the SDLMI mediate the relationship between self-determination scores at the beginning and end of the school year for students with intellectual disability? Method Study Context The sample and data utilized for this study are part of a multi-year project in the state of Rhode Island (RI; initiated in 2015 and ongoing) focused on enhancing school-based transition services to promote greater post-school integrated employment outcomes for students with intellectual disability. The project emerged after the state of RI entered into a Consent Decree with the U.S. Department of Justice (USDOJ) resulting from violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as interpreted in Olmstead v. L.C. (1999). The Olmstead decision emphasized that supports and services must be provided in the “most integrated setting feasible” (527 U.S. 581). In Rhode Island, the USDOJ found that the state had an “unnecessary and over-reliance upon segregated sheltered workshops and facility-based day programs” which violated the focus on the “most integrated setting feasible. ” The Consent Decree identified transition-age youth with intellectual disability as a target population. It was assumed that the overreliance on segregated options did not simply emerge in adulthood and was shaped during TEACHER SDLMI IMPLEMENTATION 7 the transition planning process, particularly given existing beliefs that segregated sheltered workshops and facility-based day programs were the primary postschool option for students with intellectual disability. The Consent Decree named the Paul V. Sherlock Center on Disabilities at Rhode Island College (RIC) as the “Conversion Institute”, and the Sherlock Center identified enhancing the capacity of secondary special education teachers to promote self-determination as a change strategy, given the established relationship between enhanced self-determination and postschool employment outcomes (Shogren & Shaw, 2016; Shogren, Wehmeyer, Palmer, Rifenbark, & Little, 2015; Wehmeyer & Palmer, 2003; Wehmeyer & Schwartz, 1997). In 2015-16, targeted teachers of students with intellectual disability in the state of RI engaged in training and coaching (desc