View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

'He Understands How I Work and How I Function': Math Teacher Actions That Promote Autonomy among Students with LDs and/or EBDs

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: 'He Understands How I Work and How I Function': Math Teacher Actions That Promote Autonomy among Students with LDs and/or EBDs
Language: English
Authors: Rebecca Louick (ORCID 0000-0003-2579-5551), Alyssa Emery
Source: Learning Disabilities Research & Practice. 2024 39(2):70-86.
Availability: SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 17
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: High Schools
Secondary Education
Descriptors: Mathematics Instruction, Mathematics Teachers, Teacher Role, Personal Autonomy, Students with Disabilities, Learning Disabilities, Behavior Disorders, Emotional Disturbances, High School Teachers, High School Students, Self Determination
DOI: 10.1177/09388982231225736
ISSN: 0938-8982
1540-5826
Abstract: Guided by Self-Determination Theory, we conducted a case study of a high school math teacher nominated by students with disabilities as one who enhanced their learning. Using a combination of interviews and classroom observations, we explored the specific strategies that the teacher used to promote perceived autonomy among students with learning disabilities (LDs) and emotional-behavioral disorders (EBDs). The literature offers extensive evidence for the benefits of autonomy-supportive teacher practice, but much of the work was conducted without explicit inclusion of students with LDs and/or EBDs. Our analyses demonstrated that many of the practices captured in this research also worked to support the psychological needs of students with LDs and/or EBDs who participated in this study. Additionally, our case study teacher engaged in two additional strategies that are not currently represented in that body of evidence. As such, we discuss implications for practice and future directions for research.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1449519
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEAeq7HFTvQ1RxgK1CdYXgQAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDAK3GKi8EGmTqpV5hQIBEICBmmocnVoqQPhc3a_uaaZajIrKbPWjk2YIW2_NvcwYym58NsHl211tSgdRuFUoo0rUjiri6Ig_syq9jlzGXvJcns5Ndkw5WEvga1_5aWElrKba5ApbTRfkEDpwl1UCcNLc4PQgh5kJ_zxZ9eGZpAuibiHouUOW6D2ehxgu3Xn0SKnGc3QLOhctlQdoSWGY3V1s6-Nc5DIc9jB6T3I=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0176496853;z2z01may.24;2025Jan14.13:24;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0176496853-1">"He understands how I work and how I function": Math teacher actions that promote autonomy among students with LDs and/or EBDs </title> <p>Guided by Self-Determination Theory, we conducted a case study of a high school math teacher nominated by students with disabilities as one who enhanced their learning. Using a combination of interviews and classroom observations, we explored the specific strategies that the teacher used to promote perceived autonomy among students with learning disabilities (LDs) and emotional-behavioral disorders (EBDs). The literature offers extensive evidence for the benefits of autonomy-supportive teacher practice, but much of the work was conducted without explicit inclusion of students with LDs and/or EBDs. Our analyses demonstrated that many of the practices captured in this research also worked to support the psychological needs of students with LDs and/or EBDs who participated in this study. Additionally, our case study teacher engaged in two additional strategies that are not currently represented in that body of evidence. As such, we discuss implications for practice and future directions for research.</p> <p>Keywords: learning disabilities; self-determination; motivation; autonomy support</p> <p>Students with disabilities (SWDs), including those with specific learning disabilities (LDs) and with emotional/behavioral disabilities (EBDs), generally fare worse than their typically developing peers in terms of academic outcomes ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref1">46</reflink>]). Their struggle in compulsory schooling has long-term ramifications, as these students are more likely to drop out of high school, less likely to attend college, and less likely to acquire employment ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref2">44</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref3">45</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref4">46</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref5">47</reflink>]). This gap persists despite federal mandates to provide students with the support needed to attain an appropriate education ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref6">19</reflink>]). At the same time, however, the evidence is clear that many students with LDs and/or EBDs can learn and achieve with the right supports (eg, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref7">39</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref8">41</reflink>]).</p> <p>Though significant attention has been paid to understanding how and why these disparate outcomes exist between SWDs and their nondisabled peers (see [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref9">18</reflink>], for a recent meta-analysis), less attention has been paid to SWDs who are finding success. As in previous literature documenting exemplary teachers' work as a model for others (eg, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref10">4</reflink>]), the teachers whom students find most effective can provide information about how to support classroom autonomy/independence and instructional support for students with LDs and/or EBDs. For this reason, we conducted a case study of a math teacher nominated by students with LDs and/or EBDs as one who enhanced their learning, supported their motivation, and contributed to their overall positive functioning. Our intention was to explore the ways in which the nominated math teacher provided an autonomy-supportive learning environment for students with LDs and EBDs. We used the Self-Determination Theory (SDT) framework (eg, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref11">34</reflink>]) to operationalize the term "self-determination," as described in the literature review. As have others when discussing their approach to marginalized groups (eg, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref12">24</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref13">43</reflink>]), we used an asset-based perspective on disability (eg, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref14">12</reflink>]); that is, we highlight and value students for their contributions to the classroom environment, instead of defining them by their areas of weakness.</p> <hd id="AN0176496853-2">Literature review</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0176496853-3">Self-determination</hd> <p>A great deal of literature has examined students' feelings of self-determination. However, depending on the theoretical framework used, the term "self-determination" may mean different things. Two important theoretical frameworks for understanding self-determination are SDT, as promulgated by Ryan, Deci, and their colleagues (eg, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref15">15</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref16">34</reflink>]), and Causal Agency Theory (CAT), as promulgated by Shogren, Wehmeyer, and their colleagues (eg, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref17">50</reflink>]). Most special education research on self-determination takes a CAT approach; however, in the current case, we decided SDT was more appropriate. In the following, we briefly explain key differences between the two theories and why we chose to use SDT in this study.</p> <hd id="AN0176496853-4">Self-determination as defined in causal agency theory</hd> <p>In special education contexts, researchers often use an operationalization of self-determination based in CAT. Under the CAT framework, self-determination is understood to be an individual's agency to achieve a desired quality of life. Thus, the term reflects a set of dispositions that individuals have about their ability to control their outcomes. Importantly, from a CAT perspective, students' beliefs about their ability to control their own outcomes are carried from one task and/or environment to the next ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref18">49</reflink>]). This suggests that researchers can measure students' level of self-determination and expect it to be relatively stable across similar settings. By contrast, SDT theorists find that self-determination is task- and domain-specific (eg, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref19">2</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0176496853-5">Self-Determination as defined in self-determination theory</hd> <p>In educational psychology contexts, a substantial amount of research is also devoted to self-determination, but here it is defined according to SDT. Thus, theorists working from an SDT model contend that self-determination develops when individuals have experiences in which key psychological needs (for feelings of autonomy, competence, and relatedness) are being met. For example, students in a classroom feel a sense of self-determination when their teacher "displays patience to allow for self-paced learning" ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref20">30</reflink>], p. 160); as such, this is one way the teacher can promote students' feeling of autonomy. In addition, the teacher has to ensure their actions are promoting feelings of competence (eg, providing students with the background information and materials necessary to be successful; [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref21">48</reflink>]) and relatedness (eg, enabling students to feel "supported by their peers and teacher"; [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref22">14</reflink>], p. 3) among students. Using this understanding of self-determination, theorists posit that students feel more or less self-determination depending on the circumstances of their learning environment. In other words, high school students might feel that their autonomy is being supported during the first period in one class but undermined during the second period in another class.</p> <p>For the current study, we chose to use the SDT operationalization because we wanted to explore the impact of a particular teacher on students' feelings of autonomy. Specifically, we were interested in the actions that teacher took to promote or thwart students' feelings of autonomy and their opinions and feelings about those actions.</p> <hd id="AN0176496853-6">Relevant subtheories</hd> <p>SDT includes five subtheories that work to explain distinct motivation phenomena, ranging from individuals' behavior, goals, and cognitive evaluations of their environments (see [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref23">33</reflink>], for an overview). It is important to understand the extent to which individuals' psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness are met in a given environment because, as noted, individuals' perceptions of the degree to which their psychological needs have been met is central to understanding their motivation for initiating and completing tasks. SDT researchers distinguish between intrinsic motivation—the behaviors we engage in without external prompting, simply for the sake of joy, interest, or satisfaction—and extrinsic motivation—behaviors that are motivated by something external to the individual. Intrinsic motivation is often associated with tasks that individuals initiate, sustain, and finish without external prompting. However, extrinsic motivation can also be internally regulated; stated differently, individuals may act of their own volition, even for extrinsic reasons.</p> <p>Another subtheory of SDT explains whether someone who is extrinsically motivated begins and finishes a task without prompting and why; an overview of this is presented in Figure 1. For example, students may be <emph>totally externally regulated</emph>, in that they act solely to receive a reward or avoid a consequence or they may experience <emph>introjected regulation</emph>, acting out of a sense of duty or obligation to someone important to them. They may also experience <emph>identified regulation</emph>, having internalized a reason to value a given task. That is, perhaps they do not engage in a given task for pleasure, but neither do they need to be prompted by anyone to begin or finish because they understand why it is important. Though individuals' motivation for given tasks varies by context and is informed by prior experience, developmental stage, and so on, much of what we do in life requires extrinsic motivation.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Internal regulation by motivation type.</p> <hd id="AN0176496853-7">Autonomy-supportive teacher practices</hd> <p>Many studies of the relation between students' motivation and their schooling experiences have focused on the autonomy component of SDT; for example, the extent to which students experience a teacher's actions as autonomy-supportive or autonomy-thwarting (eg, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref24">3</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref25">2</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref26">29</reflink>]). Research has shown that students feel more autonomous when teachers allow them opportunities to describe their point of view, based on their own life experiences or choose the means through which they will study a topic or complete an assignment. Conversely, autonomy-thwarting practices have a negative impact on students, such as dictating how students will engage with materials in the classroom or how they will pace their learning ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref27">16</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0176496853-8">Autonomy-supportive practices for students with LDs and/or EBDs</hd> <p>Fewer studies have looked at the effect of autonomy-supportive teacher practices on students with LDs and/or EBDs specifically. When reviewing the literature, we found more research exploring SDT for students with LDs. For example, in a study of how teachers and students used an online platform designed to support struggling readers' autonomous use, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref28">25</reflink>] found that teachers demonstrated a range of teaching practices, from autonomy-supportive to autonomy-thwarting behaviors, over the course of several months of engaging with the platform. In other studies, when given the opportunity to voice their beliefs about the kinds of adults who supported them well, students with LDs reported a stronger sense of self-determination when high school teachers actively involved them in educational planning activities such as making course schedule choices and building individualized education programs (IEPs; [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref29">10</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref30">11</reflink>]). Cavendish and colleagues' findings align with those of [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref31">27</reflink>] discourse analysis of classroom interactions between a high school student with LDs and EBDs and his English language arts (ELA) teacher. In that study, the teacher created opportunities for the student to feel autonomous, but nevertheless situated himself as a source of targeted support that the student could call on whenever needed; the teacher's interactional choices often took the form of statements or questions that functioned as set-ups for the student to make specific support requests.</p> <p>Preparing special education teachers to use teacher-centered academic interventions for students with LDs and/or EBDs in autonomy-supportive classrooms is a complicated endeavor. For example, in their seminal work on explicit instruction, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref32">1</reflink>] discussed the importance of scaffolds. Acknowledging that "initial practice is carried out with high levels of teacher involvement" (p. 3), they went on to explain that as students achieve success, those scaffolds should be withdrawn to promote students' autonomous strategy use. In another related study, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref33">17</reflink>] pointed out that middle and high school teachers of students with LDs must adapt their actions in such a way as to enable students to make big academic gains in a relatively short time period. To do so, these teachers must have "a good understanding of the exact instructional conditions and levels of intensity that must be in place to achieve optimal outcomes" (p. 71).</p> <p>In other words, being able to pinpoint when and how to provide teacher-centered direct instruction for individual students, and when to step aside, is a critical skill for high school special education teachers to develop. To avoid creating feelings of learned helplessness among students, these teachers must learn how to deftly provide and remove scaffolding in autonomy-supportive ways. This is a skill that does not come easily to all educators ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref34">2</reflink>]) and sometimes exists inconsistently even within an individual teacher's use of materials designed specifically to promote feelings of autonomy among students with LDs, who may employ autonomy-supportive practices in one part of an activity and autonomy-thwarting practices in another ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref35">25</reflink>]). Thus, special education teachers tasked with providing this kind of targeted support to their students with LDs and/or EBDs might inadvertently engage in practices that thwart those students' sense of themselves as autonomous learners.</p> <p>Of interest, then, are efforts to document the work of exemplary teachers who find a balance between promoting student autonomy and delivering targeted instruction. With the intention of highlighting teacher actions that lead to the development of an autonomy-supportive learning environment for SWDs (using [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref36">32</reflink>] conception of the term), we conducted a case study of a high school math teacher who had been nominated by his students as being a high-quality teacher. Our intention was to observe and explore the ways that this teacher balanced his students' needs for autonomy and academic support. Our research question was: How does a high school teacher support the autonomy needs of students with LDs and/or EBDs in the math classroom?</p> <hd id="AN0176496853-9">Methods</hd> <p>The study, a case study of a teacher named Matthew (pseudonym) with five embedded analysis units, took place as part of a larger research project regarding student learning experiences in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) classes at the Alcott School (described in the Participants section).</p> <hd id="AN0176496853-10">Epistemology and the researchers' positionality</hd> <p>In keeping with best practices in qualitative special education research (eg, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref37">22</reflink>]), we explain our positionalities and the epistemological stance we bring to this study. Guided by constructivism, we approached the study informed by extant literature on SDT, with the goal of comparing our findings to this established body of evidence. Constructivism suggests that knowledge is constructed by scholarly communities with the goal of modeling the world as it actually is. To adequately represent a given phenomenon—for example, autonomy-supportive teaching practice—researchers must aim to capture the full variation of human experiences of it.</p> <p>We approached this project with three goals informed by our constructivist paradigm. First, we wanted to learn about how the students described their experiences of the math classroom: specifically, the degree to which they felt that their teacher supported their autonomous learning. This required interviewing the students. Second, we wanted to know the degree to which the actions, behaviors, and relationships that the students said were especially autonomy-supportive (or -thwarting) were evident to others. For this reason, we interviewed their teacher and also recorded classes so that we could see the interactions themselves. Third, we aimed to compare our data and analyses to the extant literature on autonomy-supportive teaching practice. As such, our interview protocols and a priori coding schemes were derived from established measures in the SDT research community.</p> <p>Simultaneously, our research questions and data analyses were informed by our own experiences in the classroom and with the academic literature. A special education professor at a public university in the Midwest United States, the first author is a White, cisgender, monolingual woman with no disabilities. She had eight years' experience as a teacher in middle and high school settings for students with LDs. Author 1 had worked in coordination with administrators and teachers at the participating school for the previous five years, providing professional development and engaging in mutually beneficial research projects. Author 2 is a White-appearing, cisgender, monolingual woman without disabilities. Before her appointment as a professor of learning sciences at a research-intensive university in the Midwest, Author 2 earned a doctorate in educational psychology (specializing in classroom motivation). Before that, she was a special education teacher in a large urban district in the southwest United States where she supported SWDs who were fully included in general education classrooms.</p> <p>Both authors reject the medical model of disability (eg, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref38">37</reflink>]), instead recognizing the ways that systems and institutions fail to provide full consideration of people with disabilities. We further recognize the additional burden of people with disabilities who are also marginalized by society in other ways (eg, by gender, racial/ethnic group, and/or other marginalized identities). We recognize that our own experiences (and unconscious beliefs about what "should" or "will" happen) would influence the way we coded and interpreted data. As a result, we aimed to partner with a school explicitly designed with the comprehensive needs of its students in mind, and used an asset-based framework to guide our research questions, data collection methods, and analyses. We looked for counterexamples among our data corpus and made a specific and concerted effort to ensure we could justify the decisions we made in light of the extant literature guiding our a priori codes.</p> <hd id="AN0176496853-11">Participants</hd> <p>The study was conducted at Alcott School (a pseudonym), an independent college preparatory high school that provides comprehensive, therapeutic supports to students with specific LDs and emotional support needs. At Alcott, classes are small and clinical services are integrated into students' regular school day. Since it is an independent school, most students are parentally placed; however, some receive public funding to support their enrollment at Alcott.</p> <p>In a pilot study at Alcott the previous year, students were asked questions about the emotions they felt in STEM classes; nearly all of the students who had Matthew as a teacher cited him as someone who created a safe and encouraging classroom environment. In fact, the students' responses were so overwhelmingly positive in describing Matthew that the researchers felt compelled to learn more about his teaching style and approach.</p> <p>Matthew began his career as a history teacher at another school, then shifted to working in adult education, as well as tutoring K-12 students in math privately. Later, he became a math teacher at Alcott after the school was recommended to him by one of his tutoring students.</p> <p>Two of Matthew's classes were selected for participation, based on the overlap between several students' math and science teachers (this overlap was necessary for the purposes of a larger project, although not needed in the current study). Among the students in Matthew's selected classes, two were not approached as potential participants at the request of Alcott administration, as they were new to the school and administration did not want to disrupt their adjustment to the Alcott environment. Four declined to participate, leaving five students who agreed (and received parental consent) to participate: Irving, Justin, Katherine, Lydia, and Mark (all names are pseudonyms). Irving, Justin, and Katherine were in an intermediate-level math class (Group A); Lydia and Mark were in an advanced-level math class (Group B). Students' demographic information appears in Table 1.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 1. Student demographic information.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">Student pseudonym</th><th align="left">Sex</th><th align="left">Race</th><th align="left">Age</th><th align="left">Grade</th><th align="left">Math class</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Irving</td><td>Male</td><td>White</td><td>15</td><td>9</td><td>Group A</td></tr><tr><td>Justin</td><td>Male</td><td>Not listed</td><td>15</td><td>9</td><td>Group A</td></tr><tr><td>Katherine</td><td>Female</td><td>White</td><td>14</td><td>8</td><td>Group A</td></tr><tr><td>Lydia</td><td>Female</td><td>White</td><td>16</td><td>10</td><td>Group B</td></tr><tr><td>Mark</td><td>Male</td><td>White</td><td>17</td><td>11</td><td>Group B</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0176496853-12">Case study design</hd> <p>For the purposes of addressing the underlying research question, we conducted a case study of Matthew, with embedded units of analysis for each of the five students who agreed to participate ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref39">53</reflink>]). Small sample sizes are common practice in this type of qualitative research, as they allow for the collection of the time-consuming and detailed data needed to support meaningful case studies of unique populations ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref40">8</reflink>]). Case studies in special education allow scholars to trace and document the effects of specific teaching techniques for SWDs, promoting future constructive outcomes ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref41">9</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref42">22</reflink>]). Utilizing case study methodology to examine the ways that Matthew supported or thwarted each of his students' psychological needs for autonomy enabled us to gain the necessary level of specificity of findings. Having embedded units of analysis for each participating student allowed us to better illustrate how Matthew functioned in relation to students with various learning needs ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref43">53</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0176496853-13">Data collection</hd> <p>Data were collected in the spring of 2022. Sources included the Learning Climate Questionnaire ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref44">52</reflink>]); transcripts from interviews of both students and teacher; and video data and transcripts from recordings of five meetings per group (10 class meetings total). Using multiple sources allows for data triangulation, supporting construct validity and ensuring the trustworthiness of qualitative findings ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref45">13</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref46">53</reflink>]). The data for the study were gathered as part of a larger research project on the emotions that students felt while engaging in STEM learning.</p> <hd id="AN0176496853-14">Learning Climate Questionnaire</hd> <p>The Learning Climate Questionnaire ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref47">52</reflink>]) is a research-validated survey of individuals' feelings about the extent to which their teacher supports their autonomous decision-making. Participating students completed this questionnaire as part of their cognitive interview (see Student interviews section).</p> <hd id="AN0176496853-15">Interviews</hd> <p>Participating students and their teachers were interviewed remotely (in a virtual meeting room) by one of the two authors. All interviews were audio-recorded and then transcribed.</p> <hd id="AN0176496853-16">Student Interviews</hd> <p>All student participants engaged in the first two interviews. Following best practices in semistructured interview protocol development ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref48">28</reflink>]), questions were based on (and, in some cases, directly carried over from) a pilot study. The first interview involved asking the student participants about the emotions they felt during STEM classes (see Appendix A). Given our asset-based view of the students, we regarded them as experts on their own learning, and thus the most important resource from which to learn about their feelings related to epistemic emotions and self-determination (or lack thereof). Some of the questions in Interview 1 were designed to encourage students to explicitly consider the role their teacher did, or did not, play in the emotions they experienced during STEM learning.</p> <p>The second interview consisted of a discussion of the emotions that students anticipated feeling during hypothetical learning scenarios (see Appendix B). The purpose of these learning scenarios was to present situations in which the student might experience challenges (and/or supports) to their sense of themselves as autonomous learners. Again, our asset-based view of the student participants led us to seek their expert descriptions of the emotions that they might feel in learning scenarios.</p> <p>The third interview was a cognitive interview with emergent probes ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref49">7</reflink>]), in which students answered questions from the Learning Climate Questionnaire ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref50">52</reflink>]), along with follow-up questions occasioned by student responses. Cognitive interviewing is a process wherein the researcher asks participants to explain their answer choices as they complete a survey. Use of this format is appropriate when researchers want to better understand how participants interpreted the survey questions and/or are looking for additional elaborations about the research topic that are related to the survey questions ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref51">7</reflink>]). Consistent with other qualitative studies of this student population (eg, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref52">26</reflink>]), we recognized the tendency of students with LDs to interpret language prompts differently than people without disabilities; cognitive interviews thus served as a means of mitigating potential issues of students and researchers having different perceptions of the meaning of survey questions and/or terminology. Following the cognitive interview process outlined by [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref53">20</reflink>], we prompted participants to explain why the answer they chose for each survey question was the right one for them, then used follow-up probes to gather more detailed information as necessary.</p> <p>Mark, Lydia, and Justin participated in the third interview. The study was conducted across the last month of the academic year and, due to scheduling conflicts, Katherine and Irving did not complete the Learning Climate Questionnaire.</p> <hd id="AN0176496853-17">Teacher interviews</hd> <p>Matthew participated in one 60-min virtual interview about his work with the students who were participating in the study. A semistructured set of interview questions was used (see Appendix C). After a brief section about his educational experience and teaching background, Matthew answered a series of questions about each participating student. Since the intention was to gain the teacher's perspective on the same topics that the students discussed, these questions were variations on those that the students had been asked during one of their interviews (see Appendix A). For example, where the students answered questions about their epistemic emotions ("Irving, when was the last time you felt bored in a class related to STEM?"), Matthew shared his perceptions as the student's teacher ("Has Irving ever seemed like he was bored with a learning task?"). The researcher reinforced to Matthew that there were likely some areas where he wouldn't have clear insight into something a student was feeling and that he should not feel pressured to respond to every question; as such, when Matthew didn't feel qualified to answer a question about a student, he declined. Our probing questions for Matthew's interview asked him to detail the specific practices, conversations, or planning he engaged in related to his understanding of each student's motivation and emotions. We asked him to consider the students one at a time, rather than as a group or within the larger context of his entire classroom.</p> <hd id="AN0176496853-18">Class meetings</hd> <p>An Alcott teacher (who was not a participant in the actual study, but was one of the people coordinating the research efforts as part of the school–university partnership) video-recorded five meetings apiece for each of the two math groups that included participating students. The desks in Matthew's classroom were arranged in a U shape (ie, a rectangle, but with the top line cut off). All students were able to see both their peers and the whiteboard. There were clear aisles around the entire horseshoe. In the center of the classroom were supplies that students could access as needed. Class size ranged from 5 to 10 students, depending on both the level of students' math learning needs and on who was in the counseling center (which the students could access at any time they felt it was necessary).</p> <p>We collected five videos for each of the two groups. Matthew's students were working on a final project related to architectural drawing: they used mathematical concepts they had learned throughout the year to design either a dream room (students with intermediate math proficiency) or a dream floor of a building (students with advanced math proficiency). The students in the intermediate class worked on this project for all five recorded class periods. The advanced class spent two days finishing up a trigonometry unit, and then moved on to their architecture project for the remaining three class periods. All recordings were transcribed in preparation for data analysis.</p> <hd id="AN0176496853-19">Data analysis</hd> <p>Given the robust literature regarding teachers' autonomy-supportive practices, and our goal to compare Matthew's practices with students with LDs and/or EBDs to that literature, our initial approach to coding was deductive. Following the protocol for elaborative coding (eg, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref54">35</reflink>]), we developed a set of a priori codes based on the lists of autonomy-supportive (eg, "Rely on non-controlling and informational language") and autonomy-thwarting (eg, "Rely on pressure-inducing language") teacher practices presented by [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref55">30</reflink>], Table 1, p. 160) and by [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref56">31</reflink>], Table 1, p. 211). These a priori codes, and exemplars of our coding application, appear in Table 2.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 2. Examples of coded excerpts for each code used.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="left" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">Code</th><th align="left">Transcript excerpt</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Communicate perspective-taking statements</td><td>Matthew: So what we want to do is, this is great for the initial planning phase, and I would include this in my project, but let's re—let's get a new page.Justin: Yeah.Matthew: I know it seems frustrating, but set your scale so then you can use your boxes.</td></tr><tr><td>Promote self-paced learning</td><td>Lydia: [Matthew] Making sure I still get all of my work done, but on my own schedule, which doesn't fluctuate all the time, but if there is a day where I'm just not feeling good.</td></tr><tr><td>Rely on noncontrolling and informational language</td><td>Matthew: But really at the end of the day, it's about the math, right? It's about showing that your scale is right, looking at your furniture, making it fit in the room, and so Justin and I were just working through what would we make each of these boxes equal to? And what Justin came up with was eight inches, right?</td></tr><tr><td>Support students' motivational development and capacity for self-regulation</td><td>Justin: I think that like, the way that my, um, teacher like, brings up the, uh, brings up the topics, um, like, going from like, the building blocks of it to, um, to like, the larger stuff so it all connects</td></tr><tr><td>Welcome students' thoughts, feelings, actions</td><td>Mark: I think that he allows us to speak our minds, and I think that there's no judgment.</td></tr><tr><td>Acknowledge and accept expressions of negative affect</td><td>Matthew: [Lydia] did at one point say to me [laughs] and it was, it was a good thing. It was like, "We gotta, we gotta switch this up, Speaker 2. Like we need to do something else." Like, and, and, you know, and then I was like, "All right."</td></tr><tr><td>Nurture inner motivational resources</td><td>Matthew: Your homework is to think about furniture things, and push yourselves—you don't have to recreate what you have. Dream big.</td></tr><tr><td>Offer encouragements</td><td>Justin: I guess he's very encouraging. That's probably the best way I can think to say it or phrase it; that he's very encouraging and, yeah, I work to actually... I try to do well in the course, and I think that he notices, so yeah.</td></tr><tr><td>Offer hints</td><td>Katherine: All the other kids are like, "Oh, what's this and this and this equals this X this, this." I wouldn't know, but then my math teacher would break it down and help me work through the steps in smaller portions or larger portions, depending on the thing. And, it helps a lot.</td></tr><tr><td>Praise as informational feedback</td><td>Matthew: That's beautiful.Katherine: These are the windows.Matthew: I love how the windows are symmetrical too. That is so nice.</td></tr><tr><td>Provide explanatory rationales</td><td>Matthew: So just give me your attention, Kat, so we make sure we're on the same page.</td></tr><tr><td>Utter directives or commands</td><td>Matthew: Erase that, and I'll show you how to set it up. So, you just (decided) the tangent. So, write tan.</td></tr><tr><td>Utter solutions or answers</td><td>Matthew: Well so you do this—this length times this length. This would give you the area.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note.</emph> See [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref57">30</reflink>]) and [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref58">31</reflink>] for more information about the codes.</p> <p>For our initial coding, we began by reviewing the interview transcripts to capture all relevant units of meaning (eg, any instance of a student or Matthew speaking about an experience related to the need for autonomy as defined within SDT). This included responses to questions from our protocol designed to explore need for autonomy, as well as responses to other questions in which a participant described making meaningful choices about learning or interacting in the learning environment. From these, we independently applied our a priori codes by unit of meaning, meeting regularly to norm our coding and reach consensus.</p> <p>We noticed that some data remained uncoded; that is, data we initially tagged as being related to the need for autonomy, but to which we had not applied one of our established a priori codes. Therefore, we engaged in focused concept coding ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref59">35</reflink>]) to determine and refine the distinctive characteristics of these instances, taking care to look for counterexamples or alternative explanations. From this work, we generated two new teacher action codes: self-disclosures and responding to nonverbal cues. Having established these codes, we reviewed the units of meaning to which we originally applied our a priori codes to determine if adding or replacing those codes with the new ones was appropriate, though we did not make any changes.</p> <p>Next, we reviewed the classroom video data. We independently watched the footage and reviewed the transcripts to identify instances of Matthew taking the actions outlined in our established codes, as well as the two new codes, meeting to reach consensus.</p> <p>Once all of the data had been coded, the coded interview excerpts were sorted into categories by code using NVivo software. The coded video excerpts were entered into a spreadsheet that included each excerpt's code and time stamp. The first author then returned to the video and noted the specific behaviors Matthew was visibly engaged in during each coded excerpt (eg, "counting off on his fingers as he lists the steps"; "gets marker, draws on whiteboard"; "leans over Justin's desk and points"). These specific behaviors were added to the spreadsheet so that the researchers could more easily map both the verbal and nonverbal messages that Matthew directed to his students. This data analytical process also allowed us to triangulate between (a) the ways that students described autonomy-supportive and -thwarting teacher actions in Matthew's classroom; (b) the ways Matthew described the actions he took with regard to student autonomy; and (c) the degree to which Matthew's in-class interactions with his students aligned with the elements of an autonomy-supportive classroom.</p> <p>Finally, we engaged in a fourth round of coding, in which we specifically reviewed our coded excerpts to look for counterexamples or alternative explanations.</p> <hd id="AN0176496853-20">Study trustworthiness</hd> <p>Guided by the work of [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref60">53</reflink>] and [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref61">5</reflink>], we investigated several types of rival explanations and/or potential investigator bias (the concern that researchers saw what they wanted to see, based on their own beliefs) by keeping a clear, annotated data system; both researchers reviewing their own statements of positionality throughout the data analysis process; purposefully seeking and recording instances of autonomy-thwarting teaching practices in the data; and purposefully including interview questions that offered specific opportunities for participants to talk about things the researchers might not be expecting (eg, challenges to the notion that student-teacher relatedness is important to STEM learning). One out of several examples of opportunities to respond in a way that challenged such a notion was when we asked the students, "Can you tell me about a time when you've felt really capable in your math/science class, you really felt like you could do the work?" with the follow-up question "What kinds of things did you do to be successful?"</p> <p>We followed [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref62">5</reflink>] guidance on validity to determine which threats had to be addressed. Potential instrumentation threats, such as data sources that were unreliable or not varied enough, were addressed by collecting data from multiple sources; following best practices in interviewing and observation; and basing the third interview on a previously-validated internal motivation inventory. Potential selection threats (concerns that the participants were from a particular group, predisposed to a specific response) were addressed by clearly defining participant characteristics and making these characteristics transparent in the final report. Potential power relations threats (concerns that the participants were uncomfortable sharing some of their beliefs about their teachers) were addressed by making the following promises in consent/assent letters: (a) anonymized data and (b) written assurances that any decisions to participate, not participate, or stop participating part-way through would not impact their standing at Alcott (and, in students' case, their grades) in any way.</p> <hd id="AN0176496853-21">Findings</hd> <p>Autonomy-supportive teaching prompts students to internalize their regulation, such that they will begin, sustain, and complete a given task without prompting even if they do not find personal interest or joy in the task (eg, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref63">30</reflink>]). Over the course of the 10 recorded class periods, we found eight instances in which Matthew engaged in autonomy-thwarting behaviors and 227 instances of autonomy-supportive behavior (as defined by [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref64">30</reflink>]) and [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref65">31</reflink>]), unless noted). Matthew stated in his interview that he believed that he knew specifically how to support the motivation of each student participant as an individual, and we observed many of the actions he described in the video recordings.</p> <p>Situating the classroom furniture and materials as Matthew did (see Class meetings section) is consistent with autonomy-supportive practice, which includes "creating seating arrangements to encourage students' initiative and conversation" ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref66">31</reflink>], p. 210). Matthew began the project by asking for a student volunteer to read the project description aloud. Once the student finished, Matthew clarified what was expected at the outset of the project.</p> <p>"So what we're going to do today is we're just gonna brainstorm—we're gonna decide the room that we would like to pick for the final project, and I know there's a lot of bullet points there. We're gonna go over those all in depth as the project develops ... when I thought of this project I wanted to inspire us and allow us to apply mathematics to real life. So just give me your attention, Kat, so we make sure we're on the same page. So, what I'm going to do next is I am going to pass out graph paper. This is by no means the final thing that you're going to do. Understand that this is just the brainstorming planning phase. So remember, how many rooms do you need to design?"</p> <p>Several students: "One."</p> <p>"One room from a home. It can be any room, and it doesn't have to be your traditional thing. It can be a game room. It can be a workout room. It can be whatever you want it to be. Think big and have fun. So I'm gonna pass out just a simple grid paper and sort of start to sketch. Now I'll also have some art materials that I'll just pass around."</p> <p>In this excerpt, Matthew supported his students' capacity for self-regulation ("It can be any room ... it can be whatever you want it to be ... I'm gonna pass out just a simple grid paper ... I'll also have some art materials that I'll just pass around"). Simultaneously, he communicated that he was taking the students' perspective by adding reassurances to address any anxieties the students may have had about the volume of work before them ("I know there's a lot of bullet points there. We're gonna go over those all in depth as the project develops"; "This is by no means the final thing that you're going to do. Understand that this is just the brainstorming planning phase"). When Katherine seemed to be veering off task (doodling on the whiteboard), Matthew turned slightly in her direction and redirected her with nonthwarting and informational language, providing a rationale for his request and situating the work as something shared between them ("So just give me your attention, Kat, so we make sure we're on the same page"). Then he quickly turned back and continued speaking to the group.</p> <p>Not only did Matthew pepper the introduction of the project with autonomy-supportive statements, he continued engaging in autonomy-supportive practices in his on-the-spot teaching, making quick decisions about if, when, and how to intervene.</p> <hd id="AN0176496853-22">Matthew's actions to promote student volition</hd> <p>Among the 227 instances of autonomy-supportive behavior, 185 were directed at individual students; the remaining 42 were statements or questions directed at the entire class (see Tables 3 and 4). A list of the autonomy-supportive behaviors that Matthew engaged in at least 10 times may be found in Table 5.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 3. Matthew's autonomy-supportive comments/exchanges.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="left" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">Receiver</th><th align="left">Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Whole class Total</td><td>42</td></tr><tr><td> Group A</td><td>22</td></tr><tr><td> Group B</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>Individual students</td><td /></tr><tr><td> Irving (Group A)</td><td>92</td></tr><tr><td> Justin (Group A)</td><td>60</td></tr><tr><td> Katherine (Group A)</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td> Group A Total</td><td>169</td></tr><tr><td> Lydia (Group B)</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td> Mark (Group B)</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td> Group B Total</td><td>16</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 4. Total Autonomy-supportive comments/exchanges directed to student.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">Student</th><th align="left">Individual</th><th align="left">As part of class</th><th align="left">Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Irving</td><td>92</td><td>22</td><td>114</td></tr><tr><td>Justin</td><td>60</td><td>22</td><td>82</td></tr><tr><td>Katherine</td><td>17</td><td>22</td><td>39</td></tr><tr><td>Lydia</td><td>11</td><td>20</td><td>31</td></tr><tr><td>Mark</td><td>5</td><td>20</td><td>25</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 5. Matthew's most frequent autonomy-supportive actions, by intended audience (at least 10 incidences).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">Matthew action</th><th align="left">Total</th><th align="left">To all Class A</th><th align="left">Irving</th><th align="left">Justin</th><th align="left">Katherine</th><th align="left">To all Class B</th><th align="left">Lydia</th><th align="left">Mark</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Being responsive to student-generated questions</td><td>74</td><td>0</td><td>34</td><td>33</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>6</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Providing rationales</td><td>65</td><td>10</td><td>29</td><td>11</td><td>4</td><td>6</td><td>2</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Offering hints</td><td>63</td><td>3</td><td>37</td><td>7</td><td>7</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Praise as informational feedback</td><td>59</td><td>5</td><td>16</td><td>5</td><td>11</td><td>6</td><td>7</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Promoting self-paced learning</td><td>43</td><td>2</td><td>21</td><td>4</td><td>11</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Communicating perspective-taking statements</td><td>34</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>21</td><td>4</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Supporting students' motivational development and capacity for self-regulation</td><td>22</td><td>3</td><td>6</td><td>5</td><td>7</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Relying on noncontrolling and informational language</td><td>20</td><td>7</td><td>5</td><td>4</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Welcoming students' thoughts, feelings, actions</td><td>20</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>5</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Offering encouragements</td><td>20</td><td>0</td><td>9</td><td>3</td><td>6</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>0</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0176496853-23">Students' experiences of external regulation</hd> <p>We noted Matthew's use of external regulation with the whole class ("When I sense that they're getting frustrated or it's kind of just, we fall into the doldrums of worksheets, I will throw something fun. And it's usually around food") as well as with one student in particular: Katherine, who was highly motivated by the opportunity to purchase snacks from the classroom canteen. Matthew said, "When she's had a really good day, I will let her get a canteen product during class ... so I can use that to my advantage." Similarly, Katherine reflected that Matthew "has, um, like, a canteen and I love getting food from there ... It helps support the school. So, it's a bonus for me, honestly." In his interview, Matthew had discussed the canteen and recognized it as a source of motivation for Katherine in particular: "I will routinely say, like, 'I need to see the fifth problem. We've modeled two. I need you to do these three and then you can buy a snack or whatever.'" Across our video observations, Katherine only asked to access the canteen once. We did not observe additional instances of Matthew using this type of external approach to regulating other students.</p> <hd id="AN0176496853-24">Students' experiences of introjected regulation</hd> <p>When students act of their own volition out of a sense of duty or obligation to others, SDT researchers categorize that experience of extrinsic motivation as introjected regulation. We found evidence that students did experience introjected regulation; for example, Katherine noted, "... I like Student of the Week awards because my mom gets super hype." Katherine expressed no other reason to strive for Student of the Week except that it would make her mother proud. Across our data corpus, however, we found few instances of students clearly describing experiences of introjected regulation compared to their experiences of extrinsic and identified regulations.</p> <p>From Matthew's perspective, one student, Justin, was "very interested in pleasing his mother" and seemed to work for praise. He noted that Justin likely "feels ... really celebrated for all of his work" and reflected on his interactions with Justin by saying, "I'm pretty liberal with the compliments, but he has certainly earned them." Separately, we asked Matthew for examples of times when Justin completed a task because he was asked to, compared to times when Justin completed a task because he enjoyed it. Matthew responded, "I don't think in his mental universe he makes that distinction." This echoed a statement that Justin made in his own interview:Researcher:Are there any assignments or activities in your math class that you do only because you have to? If you had a choice, you definitely would not do them.Justin:Um, I mean, kind of—kind—kind of math class in general ... the fact that it's not a struggle makes it like, kind of, um, like, um, kind of enjoyable in a way. Like, in—in the sense that like, relative to what school is in general.</p> <p>In our observations, this was evident on the first day of recording: Justin worked diligently on the task he was given even though he doubted that it was important to learn. Speaking to a classmate, he said: "I mean, to be honest I can't see how it can really help. I mean, does this really count as math?" A few minutes later, he followed up with Matthew:Justin:Does this relate to—oh yeah how does this relate to the, um, math?Matthew:[smiles] So we're gonna—we're gonna learn about the coordinate points, we're gonna learn about area perimeter and volume, and we're gonna look at learning measurements, and Irving—Irving just brought a new layer in, like the metric versus imperial conversion. We could also talk about that too.Justin:Oh. Ok.</p> <p>In these two excerpts, Justin was doubting the relevance of an assignment toward increasing his mathematical proficiency. Nevertheless, we saw he had been working on the task studiously for the entire period; he continued this work quietly and without complaint both before and after asking his question, having received an explanatory rationale from Matthew.</p> <p>Though Matthew was clear about Justin's introjected regulation in math class, he described Justin as "inquisitive" in other areas of his life, which is more aligned with identified regulation or intrinsic motivation. For example, he noted that Justin had a strong desire to learn Spanish because of his Latino heritage. Matthew described Justin's approach to learning Spanish as "learning for learning's sake," indicating that he understood that experience to be different for Justin than in his math class.</p> <p>When talking to the whole class (as opposed to just one student at a time), Matthew occasionally used language that may have induced introjected regulation. Such statements mostly had to do with Matthew expressing gratitude to those who had quieted down or were working independently and were meant as a signal to those who were speaking or acting out of turn. For example, his directions at the beginning of Group B's first recorded meeting were, "So if you please take this out from yesterday. Thank you some of you already have. Appreciate it, thank you." Similarly, when walking around the classroom during Group B's third recorded meeting, Matthew said "I see a lot of people working, I appreciate it."</p> <hd id="AN0176496853-25">Students' experiences of identified regulation</hd> <p>We examined the videos for Matthew's behaviors as related to each individual student (see Tables 4 and 5). Irving received the most autonomy-supportive messages, with 92 total; Mark received the fewest. Although Matthew was consistent in offering praise as informational feedback to each one of his students (at least five times to each of the five students), some behaviors occurred more or less frequently from student to student. When working with Justin, for example, Matthew's most frequent autonomy-supportive behavior was being responsive to student-generated questions; when working with Katherine, Lydia, and Mark, his most frequent autonomy-supportive behavior was providing praise as informational feedback.</p> <p>Hallmarks of autonomy support include offering students meaningful choices and acknowledging their negative affect, which Matthew often paired together. For example, when speaking about Lydia, he reflected:</p> <p>"... she's also good at saying, '[Matthew] I'm just, you know, lots going on. I'm just feeling like I can't.' I'm like, 'Okay. What do you think you <emph>can</emph> do?' She's like, 'I think I could do this.' Then by the end, she's done more than she said she thought she could do. But I think that she did it because she was given the freedom to choose rather than, 'Well ... that's great that you're feeling that way, but I still need you to do this.'"</p> <p>Matthew's supportive prompt ("What do you think you <emph>can</emph> do?") sets an implied expectation that Lydia must do something, but also sends the message that she is in control of what gets done. As such, once Lydia initiates a task of her own volition, rather than for more externally controlling reasons, she sustains her momentum.</p> <p>When working with Irving, Matthew's most frequent autonomy-supportive behaviors were offering hints. An example of how this and other autonomy-supportive behaviors looked in practice may be found in the following exchange, occasioned by Irving overhearing another student's discussion with Matthew about planning their rooms to account for a door swing:Irving:A door swing? What does that mean?Matthew:Well where the door—like in the room, right? Because remember, when you open a door in a room it's gonna take up space. Like look at this closet look. [Walks to a different part of the room]Irving:[gets up and follows Matthew] Oh, I ...Matthew:You see how, like, you need to—like I need to make sure this door can open. I couldn't put a piece of furniture here cause then look. [Puts chair in door's way, tries to open door]Irving:Yeah.Matthew:So on the floor plan, you usually draw an arc to show a door.Irving:Ah. [Taps head] I thought it meant like a door that was also a Swing.Matthew:But you could also put in your plan a pocket door that goes into the wall.Irving:Oh yeah.</p> <p>Here we see some of the classic traits of autonomy-supportive teaching, as described in the SDT literature. Matthew responded to Irving's question in an autonomy-supportive way, directly answering the question and providing him with a hands-on experience to help him understand why it is necessary to consider the arc of a door opening and closing when creating an architectural drawing. Irving responded by acknowledging his overly literal initial understanding of the term ("I thought it meant like a door that was also a swing"), as happens often for students with LDs (see [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref67">42</reflink>], for a relevant literature review, which is specifically about students with LDs but also includes studies of students with EBDs). However, Matthew normalized Irving's misinterpretation by offering hints that also served as options about how Irving's mix-up could be included in his assignment in an interesting way ("But you could also put in your plan a pocket door that goes into the wall"). Matthew thus kept the focus on Irving as an autonomous learner, despite confusions that likely resulted from his disability.</p> <p>Another in-class example of a situation in which Matthew engaged in multiple autonomy-supportive teaching practices was in the context of helping Justin to determine and use a consistent scale for his architectural drawing. When he saw that Justin had made an error and needed to redraft, Matthew positioned this error as a common occurrence for professional architects:Matthew:So it looks like this is gonna be three boxes plus—so let's see, so that's like eighteen—actually it's gonna be smaller than this. It's gonna be three boxes and a sliver. So maybe what you do is with the one I gave you, think about re-purposing that. Now one of the things is cutting the furniture out and moving it around. That might be a good way to do it. That's something that um, that [Student] did, which is a great idea.Justin:Yeah. So ...Matthew:So, what you wanna do is, you wanna take these real-life measurements and convert them to scale cause you're gonna see that things are gonna change. Like all of a sudden now your bureau is smaller and you wanna think about, well, how big is the room? Is the room this many boxes?Justin:Probably not.Matthew:So that's [unintelligible] but this is all on purpose with what you're doing. You're doing great. So think about the scale. This might be—like a mock up phase, and save this as evidence. You can use this on your board. Designers and planners always have a mock up phase and then they actually get to brass tacks ...</p> <p>Here we saw Matthew offering hints ("So maybe what you do is with the one I gave you, think about re-purposing that"); providing praise as informational feedback ("This is all on purpose with what you're doing. You're doing great"); and communicating perspective-taking statements ("Save this as evidence. You can use this on your board"). He positioned errors and revisions as a normal part of the learning process, even for people who are especially skilled at their trade ("Designers and planners always have a mock up phase and then they actually get down to brass tacks"). These kinds of teacher actions are critical to the development of an autonomy-supportive learning environment.</p> <p>Such findings resonated with the way the students described their own experiences in Matthew's classroom. With the exception of "praise as informational feedback" (which only came up on one occasion across the student interview dataset), students spoke about all of the autonomy-supportive practices demonstrated in the videos. Specifically, they described Matthew as someone who was responsive to their questions in ways that supported their growth as math learners (eg, Justin explained, "I'm able to be open about anything I don't understand. Even if it's something that I feel like I should know, I'm still able to be open and tell him what I don't know"). They also felt that Matthew took their individual perspectives as math learners into consideration (eg, Mark explained, "I just think that he is able to understand what people are going through and when people have challenges"; Lydia reported, "He understands how I work and how I function"). The students further characterized Matthew's teaching as promoting self-paced learning; as Lydia noted, Matthew was always "... making sure I still get all of my work done, but on my own schedule."</p> <p>Consistent with the autonomy-supportive (and -thwarting) behaviors summarized in the extant literature, we found that Matthew engaged in a number of actions designed to promote internalized regulation. We summarize exemplars in Figure 2.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 2. Exemplars of internal regulation by extrinsic motivation type.</p> <hd id="AN0176496853-26">New contributions to SDT regarding students with LDs and/or EBDs</hd> <p>Our findings are well aligned with the extant literature on how teachers successfully promote student autonomy in the classroom (from an SDT perspective). We found, however, two autonomy-supportive practices that were not adequately captured with our a priori codes. First, Matthew used disclosure of his own disability and subsequent struggle with learning mathematics as a tool to support students when they were feeling frustrated or overwhelmed by a learning task. Matthew deployed this information carefully, to achieve different goals at different times for different students. For example, in Justin's case, Matthew told how he emphasized his own learning experiences in an effort to normalize Justin's needing assistance:</p> <p>"... he's also emergent in terms of asking for help and he's gotten better. And so this time he was like, 'I just need you to teach me it again.' And I was like, 'Oh my goodness. Absolutely. Like, that's totally understandable. I needed to be taught it three times.'"</p> <p>Matthew promoted student autonomy by encouraging Justin to be an active participant in class, voicing a lack of understanding that would otherwise have kept him from getting to a correct answer independently.</p> <p>In the case of another student, Katherine, the issue Matthew addressed through disclosure was resistance to engagement in class activities. Describing his initial experiences working with Katherine, Matthew explained:</p> <p>"... she used to say, 'Well, I have a math disability.' I'm like, 'I think we all do in certain ways. So I got you. I wanna help you work through it. I can tell you the things that I do to work through my math ... disability, like, you know, this, that and the other.'"</p> <p>Here, Matthew met Katherine's self-deprecation by linking her experience to others', including his own ("I think we all do in certain ways") before reinforcing his constant support ("I got you"). All the while, he maintained that even though he was going to help in certain ways, it was Katherine's job to do the actual task ("I wanna help <emph>you</emph> work through it" [emphasis added]). He set himself up as a model of someone who was interested and capable in math even though he had a disability. This disclosure was deeply resonant for Katherine. In her student interviews, she cited it multiple times as a connection she had with Matthew, one that enabled him to help her figure out how to fully grasp challenging math concepts.</p> <p>"We both have, um, a math disability thing that just doesn't allow our brains to click. My teacher has that and I have that. So, a funny thing about that is, is if the way he is teaching it does not click for me, then there will be another series of different ways to teach the subject that helped him learn, that also helps me learn."</p> <p>Katherine described an instance in which Matthew moved beyond just normalizing disability: He used it as a reason to encourage cognitive flexibility in problem solving (an ability that supports students' feelings of autonomy as learners; eg, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref68">31</reflink>]).</p> <p>Another area that we could not fully capture with our a priori autonomy-supportive practice codes was teacher actions that were responsive to indirect or nonverbal student cues. In addition to being responsive to students' verbalized questions (an established example of autonomy-supportive practice), Matthew was responsive to learning needs that were expressed in different ways for each child, which he called "tells."</p> <p>In his interview, Matthew described an experience common to many teachers: determining whether a student was willfully choosing not to participate, or was disengaged for other reasons. Because of his responsiveness to students' nonverbal cues, he could often tell the difference, saying of Mark, "So what happens is like, if I'm helping others, he wants my attention ... he'll start doodling and drawing." This points to the individualized knowledge that Matthew needed about each individual student if he was to achieve a truly autonomy-supportive classroom; the way he described his own knowledge of the students (eg, "that's his tell") is similar to the language used by teachers in the literature of "teacher wisdom" (eg, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref69">21</reflink>]). Another example of this happened when Matthew was asked how he decides when to provide academic support to Irving.</p> <p>"If I notice him doing a lot of the other fidgety things that he does, like destroying his sock or eating his mask ... I would know that that's, that's a nonverbal cue for me to go over and be like, 'Hey, what's going on? Like, do you need a break or this or that or the other?' ... Usually though it's because the task is wrong and he can't do it and I need to scaffold it."</p> <p>In this instance, although Irving had not actually provided a student-generated question; Matthew recognized a student-demonstrated need and made adjustments to his teaching so that Irving could continue feeling fully supported.</p> <hd id="AN0176496853-27">Discussion</hd> <p>This case study, of a special education teacher who had been nominated by his students as one who supported and enhanced their learning, involved looking at that teacher's actions and statements through the lens of SDT ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref70">32</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref71">34</reflink>]). SDT lists three psychological needs (autonomy, competence, and relatedness) that can be supported or undermined by the teacher and other aspects of the learning environment. Indeed, SDT is a helpful framework when thinking about the classroom as a learning environment: one that can either hinder or support students' perceptions of autonomy in-the-moment. In other words, students might feel autonomy-supported during one task in class, but autonomy-thwarted during a different task, largely depending upon how the teacher shapes the learning environment via their communication and behavior (eg, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref72">30</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref73">31</reflink>]).</p> <p>Using SDT enabled us to tap into existing research on autonomy-supportive and -thwarting practices among typically developing students (eg, "acknowledging and accepting expressions of negative affect" and "providing explanatory rationales"; [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref74">30</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref75">31</reflink>]). Tracking teacher comments and actions, both those that Matthew had planned ahead and those he made on the spot, gave us greater insights into what an autonomy-supportive learning environment might look like for students with LDs and/or EBDs.</p> <p>We found regular examples of Matthew using the autonomy-supportive practices established by data collected from typically developing students. Much like the teachers [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref76">30</reflink>] and [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref77">31</reflink>] described, we observed (and heard from participants about) Matthew taking actions such as welcoming his students' thoughts, feelings, and actions; providing explanatory rationales; and relying on noncontrolling and informational language, among many other established autonomy-supportive actions. Students indicated that Matthew communicated perspective-taking statements and promoted self-paced learning. In our observations, we found that Matthew nurtured inner motivational resources. Matthew himself described his approach to supporting the motivational development and capacity for self-regulation of specific students.</p> <p>In addition, careful consideration of the teacher's actions led us to note an autonomy-supportive practice used by this particular educator that does not appear in the educational psychology literature but nevertheless deserves greater attention: disclosing his own disability status. When our focus teacher did so (eg, explaining how, because of his own math disability, he sometimes needed to hear a math concept described multiple times to understand it), he encouraged his students with LDs and/or EBDs to maintain feelings of competence, and to ask the kinds of questions that would enable future autonomy. This kind of disclosure extends beyond "communicating perspective-taking statements" ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref78">31</reflink>], p. 211) because of the personal, yet relevant, nature of Matthew's action, normalizing difference in a tangible way. Such efforts are particularly meaningful for students with LDs and/or EBDs, who often demonstrate lower feelings of academic competence ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref79">40</reflink>]) in comparison to typically developing peers.</p> <p>In their study considering the relation between autonomy-supportive teaching practice and task completion among students with EBDs, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref80">36</reflink>] found that teachers' autonomy support was associated with students' valuing of the tasks assigned and also with their perceived competence of the instructor. This reflects long-standing work by Bandura (eg, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref81">6</reflink>]) and other researchers rooted in Social Cognitive Theory, who have found that effective models are those that the learners perceive to be (among other attributes) competent in performing the tasks they are modeling. In our study, however, we found that Matthew's self-disclosure of his own disability was central to supporting his students' psychological needs. As part of a repertoire of autonomy-supportive strategies, Matthew's disclosures varied in purpose and were targeted to the individuals he was supporting at the time. Many teachers are adept at empathizing with students by relaying their own experiences learning similar content. Matthew, however, shared his present-day identification as a person with a disability, rather than solely how he overcame past challenges.</p> <p>We observed another dimension of Matthew's autonomy-supportive practice that is also not well captured in the current literature. Matthew regularly made choices about when and how to engage students by attending to nonverbal and indirect cues, which he referred to in his interviews as "tells." In his efforts to attend to students' learning needs, Matthew consistently relied not just on what students explicitly told him, but also on what they showed him, either through indirect comments or through their body language or off-topic actions. This enabled him to know when and where to be autonomy-supportive without letting any student reach a point of unproductive frustration.</p> <p>The current body of evidence for teacher autonomy support focuses primarily on teachers' verbal exchanges with students (eg, praise as informational feedback, acknowledging negative affect, providing rationales) and management of the physical space (eg, seating arrangements). Perhaps reflecting typical approaches to rigorous design for classroom-based studies, these practices are observable and relatively straightforward for research teams to measure interrater reliability. Our study design, however, allowed us to capture the subtleties that informed Matthew's practice so that he could demonstrate how to be autonomy-supportive while still providing "just-in-time" academic assistance to students with LDs and/or EBDs ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref82">51</reflink>]). Because of our multiple rounds of highly detailed data collection, it was possible to pick up on Matthew's use of nonverbal or indirect "tells" during teacher interview analysis; then, go back through our classroom videos to look for Matthew's "tells" in action; and finally, triangulate by reading student interviews (which gave us a better sense of the degree to which Matthew implicitly understood what students needed). Such detailed qualitative research practices (in both data collection and data analysis) are critical to discussions of when, where, and how special education teachers balance their adolescent students' simultaneous needs for academic aid and an autonomy-supportive classroom.</p> <hd id="AN0176496853-28">Distinctive affordances of qualitative research</hd> <p>In a way not dissimilar to Matthew's approach to his students, we entered this study with an asset-based frame of mind: an assumption that the students and Matthew were experts on their own lived experiences, and that research explicitly examining the motivational experiences of students with LDs and/or EBDs is essential to better understanding the concepts of autonomy-supportive practice. The focus of our research was not on students' academic achievement, struggles in learning, or deficits and auxiliary support needs compared to those of typically developing students. Instead, our focus was on what worked for this group of participants, from their perspective. Though our case study approach limits generalizable claims, comparing our participants' experiences to the established literature allows the scholarly community to consider transferability to other learning contexts (eg, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref83">23</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref84">38</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0176496853-29">Implications for practice</hd> <p>Though significant research conducted by educational, developmental, and social psychologists have cultivated an empirical base for autonomy-supportive practice, much of this work was conducted without the specific inclusion of SWDs. As such, prominent lists of autonomy-supportive strategies that teachers can incorporate into their repertoires do not account for any distinct needs of these learners. Greater knowledge of what SWDs perceive to be particularly effective autonomy support will inform teachers looking to individualize supports needed by specific learners with unique learning characteristics ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref85">11</reflink>]).</p> <p>As noted, Matthew was nominated by his students as a teacher they felt enhanced their learning, and it is clear from our analyses that we found him to be an effective teacher. If a greater number of special education teachers were able to demonstrate the behaviors that Matthew did during this study, then more students with LDs and/or EBDs would likely feel seen and heard in ways that led to greater autonomous learning. The field of special education stands to grow and develop if special education teachers with different approaches have the time and opportunity to prioritize the establishment of autonomy-supportive environments.</p> <p>Though not every special education teacher has a disability, strategic self-disclosure for those who do may work to acknowledge students' identities, promote their perceived competence, and increase a sense of relatedness in the classroom. And, given our own classroom experiences and extensive partnerships with practicing educators, we are certain that many teachers can, like Matthew, name the "tells" of many of their own students. Matthew's distinctive asset-based thinking about his students ("this student needs support right now" vs "this student is willfully disengaged") communicated respect for students' autonomy in a way that facilitated their initiation and completion of classroom tasks—even students like Justin who did not find the content to be relevant or interesting.</p> <hd id="AN0176496853-30">Limitations</hd> <p>Though our study offers promising areas for future research, there are some limitations worth noting. Alcott School is both independent and distinctive in its services; virtually no public schools in the United States offer students multiple, daily meetings with mental health and academic support services beyond their classroom teachers. Though many of the strategies that Matthew described and we observed can be transferable to other classrooms, the larger learning environment of Alcott School likely facilitated Matthew's approach to instruction and motivation. Similarly, given Alcott's college preparatory programming and aforementioned comprehensive supports, the students in our study had substantial practice reflecting on and talking about their classroom experiences. However, the use of an asset-based framework reinforces that SWDs in more traditional schools are still experts on their own experiences. Another limitation was missing data (Learning Climate Questionnaire for Katherine and Irving).</p> <hd id="AN0176496853-31">Future directions for theory and research</hd> <p>Though the work advanced by scholars using CAT has been enormously influential in understanding the agentic experiences of SWDs, this study demonstrates the potential for advancing research in this area by additionally drawing upon another theoretical framework. SDT as conceptualized by [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref86">33</reflink>] and others (eg, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref87">31</reflink>]) offers language to describe when and why students act of their own volition to begin, sustain, and complete learning tasks. Additionally, for those working with teachers to improve students' learning outcomes, SDT offers a robust body of empirical evidence for the specific strategies we have described. As such, future work analyzing the motivation of SWDs may benefit from drawing upon one or more SDT mini-theories.</p> <p>Future studies should investigate the experiences of SWDs in more typical school settings, without the extensive wraparound services provided by Alcott. In those schools, students are likely to be even more reliant on the relationships they have with their teachers to support their motivation for learning tasks, which makes it essential to analyze the autonomy-supporting or -thwarting practices those teachers may be using. Our case study indicated two potential additions to autonomy-supported practices that may be particularly salient for SWDs; namely, teachers' self-disclosure of disability and teachers' responsiveness to nonverbal cues. Additional qualitative work could probe students' explicit noticing of these teacher actions, and quantitative work validating these constructs (via surveys, for example) could also be helpful. Relatedly, researchers with extant data corpora that include classroom observations could revisit those data to explore whether teachers engage in self-disclosure and responsiveness to nonverbal cues that we found.</p> <hd id="AN0176496853-32">Conclusion</hd> <p>As indicated in this case study, looking at "self-determination" from an SDT-informed approach provides opportunities to understand the intricacies of special education teacher choices regarding autonomy-supportive practice. Not only did our focus teacher use many of the autonomy-supportive behaviors outlined in the literature on educational psychology, but he also used disclosure of his own disability and a process of seeking indirect or nonverbal "tells" from his students to know when, why, and how to make in-the-moment changes to instruction and/or conversational adjustments that supported students' sense of themselves as autonomous learners. Continuing to investigate "self-determination" from an SDT perspective in multiple kinds of learning environments designed to include students with LDs and/or EBDs would complement the CAT-based literature that currently predominates the field.</p> <ref id="AN0176496853-33"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref32" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Archer A. L., Hughes C. A. (2011). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. The Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref19" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Assor A., Kaplan H., Kanat-Maymon Y., Roth G. (2005). Directly controlling teacher behaviors as predictors of poor motivation and engagement in girls and boys: The role of anger and anxiety. Learning and Instruction, 15(5), 397–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.07.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref24" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Assor A., Kaplan H., Roth G. (2002). Choice is good, but relevance is excellent: Autonomy-enhancing and suppressing teacher behaviours predicting students' engagement in schoolwork. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 261–278. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709902158883</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref10" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Baker M. (2019). Playing, talking, co-constructing: Exemplary teaching for young dual language learners across program types. Early Childhood Education Journal, 47, 115–130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-018-0903-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref61" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Baldwin L. (2018). Research concepts for the practitioner of educational leadership. Brill.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref81" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bandura A. (ed.) (2017). Psychological modeling: Conflicting theories. Transaction Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref49" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Beatty P. C., Willis G. B. (2007). Research synthesis: The practice of cognitive interviewing. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71(2), 287–311. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfm006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref40" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Boddy C. R. (2016). Sample size for qualitative research. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 19(4), 426–432. https://doi.org/10.1108/QMR-06-2016-0053</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref41" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Brantlinger E., Jimenez R., Klingner J., Pugach M., Richardson V. (2005). Qualitative studies in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 195–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100205</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cavendish W. (2017). The role of gender, race/ethnicity, and disability status on the relationship between student perceptions of school and family support and self-determination. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 40(2), 113–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143416629359</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cavendish W., Connor D. J., Perez D. (2020). Choice, support, opportunity: Profiles of self-determination in high school students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 25(2), 16–27. https://doi.org/10.18666/LDMJ-2020-V25-I2-10312</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Connor D. J., Gabel S. L. (2010). Welcoming the unwelcome: Disability as diversity. In Chapman T. K., Hobbel N. (Eds.), Social justice pedagogy across the curriculum: The practice of freedom (pp. 201–220). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Creswell J. W., Miller D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Into Practice, 39(3), 124–130. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davis W. S. (2022). Autonomy, competence, relatedness, and beneficence: Exploring the interdependence of basic needs satisfaction in postsecondary world language education. Journal for the Psychology of Language Learning, 4(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.52598/jpll/4/1/2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deci E. L., Ryan R. M. (1985). Conceptualizations of intrinsic motivation and self-determination. In Deci E. L., Ryan R. M. (Eds.), Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior (pp. 11–40). Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Meyer J., Tallir I. B., Soenens B., Vansteenkiste M., Aelterman N., Van den Berghe L., Haerens L. (2014). Does observed controlling teaching behavior relate to students' motivation in physical education? Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(2), 541–554. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034399</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Faggella-Luby M. N., Deshler D. D. (2008). Reading comprehension in adolescents with LD: What we know; what we need to learn. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23(2), 70–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2008.00265.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gilmour A. F., Fuchs D., Wehby J. H. (2019). Are students with disabilities accessing the curriculum? A meta-analysis of the reading achievement gap between students with and without disabilities. Exceptional Children, 85(3), 329–346. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402918795830</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400. (2004).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Karabenick S. A., Woolley M. E., Friedel J. M., Ammon B. V., Blazevski J., Rhee Bonney C., De Groot E., Gilbert M. C., Musu L., Kempler T. M., Kelly K. L. (2007). Cognitive processes of self-report items in educational research: Do they think what we mean? Educational Psychologist, 42(3), 139–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701416231</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Labbo L. D., Leu D. J. Jr. Kinzer C., Teale W. H., Carmack D., Kara-Soteriou J., Sanny R. (2003). Teacher wisdom stories: Cautions and recommendations for using computer-related technologies for literacy instruction. The Reading Teacher, 57(3), 300–304.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lauterbach A. A., Bettini E., Morris Mathews H., Rossetti Z., Hughes O. E. (2022). Beyond exploratory: How varied qualitative methodologies can inform and advance the field of special education. In Farmer T. W., Talbott E., McMaster K., Lee D., Aceves T. C. (Eds.), Handbook of special education research, volume 1: Theory, methods and developmental processes (pp. 171–186). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003156857-15</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lincoln Y. S., Guba E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lopez S. J., Louis M. C. (2009). The principles of strengths-based education. Journal of College & Character, 10(4), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.2202/1940-1639.1041</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Louick R., Daley S., Robinson K. (2019). Using an autonomy-oriented learning environment for struggling readers: Variations in teacher sense-making and instructional approach. Elementary School Journal, 120(1), 176–196. https://doi.org/10.1086/704251</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Louick R., Scanlon D. (2021). Sustained feelings of success and agency: Keys to literacy motivation among adolescents with learning disabilities. Exceptionality, 29(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2019.1639184</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Louick R., Wang M. (2021). Classroom discourse and disability: Interactional opportunities for development of self-determination beliefs. Journal of Educational Research, 114(1), 52–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2021.1872475</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miles M. B., Huberman A. M., Saldaña J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Patall E. A., Steingut R. R., Vasquez A. C., Trimble S. S., Pituch K. A., Freeman J. L. (2017). Daily autonomy supporting or thwarting and students' motivation and engagement in the high school science classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(2), 269–288. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000214</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reeve J. (2009). Why teachers adopt a controlling motivating style toward students and how they can become more autonomy supportive. Educational Psychologist, 44(3), 159–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520903028990</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reeve J., Jang H. (2006). What teachers say and do to support students' autonomy during a learning activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 209–218. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.209</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryan R. M., Deci E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryan R. M., Deci E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryan R. M., Deci E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saldaña J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Savard A., Joussemet M., Emond Pelletier J., Mageau G. A. (2013). The benefits of autonomy support for adolescents with severe emotional and behavioral problems. Motivation and Emotion, 37, 688–700. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-013-9351-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smart J. F. (2009). The power of models of disability. Journal of Rehabilitation, 75(2), 3.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stahl N. A., King J. R. (2020). Expanding approaches for research: Understanding and using trustworthiness in qualitative research. Journal of Developmental Education, 44(1), 26–28.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Swanson H. L., Deshler D. (2003). Instructing adolescents with learning disabilities: Converting a meta-analysis to practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36(2), 124–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940303600205</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Terras M. M., Thompson L. C., Minnis H. (2009). Dyslexia and psycho-social functioning: An exploratory study of the role of self-esteem and understanding. Dyslexia, 15(4), 304–327. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.386</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Troia G. A., Graham S., Harris K. R. (2017). Writing and students with language and learning disabilities. In Kauffman J. M., Hallahan D. P., & Pullen P. C. (Eds.), Handbook of special education ((2nd ed., pp. 537–557). Taylor & Francis.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Troia G. A., Hennenfent L., Shen M. (2023). Pragmatic skills in school-age children with primary language impairment and language-learning disabilities: A scoping review of research from 1990 to 2022. Topics in Language Disorders, 43(3), 210–250. https://doi.org/10.1097/TLD.0000000000000317</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Urbani J. M., Collado C., Manalo A., Gonzalez N. (2022). Building the on-ramp to inclusion: Developing critical consciousness in future early-childhood educators. Issues in Teacher Education, 31(2), 91–121.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> U.S. Department of Education. (2017). Beginning postsecondary students: 2012/2017 (BPS). Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/datalab/powerstats/71-beginning-postsecondary-students-2012-2017/percentage-distribution</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> U.S. Department of Education. (2020). Common core data of America's public schools. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/tables/ACGR_RE_and_characteristics_2019-20.asp</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> U.S. Department of Education. (2022). National assessment of educational progress (NAEP), 2022 reading assessment. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://nationsreportcard.gov/ndecore/NDE</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> U.S. Department of Labor (2023, February 23). Persons with a disability: Labor force characteristics – 2022 [Press release]. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/disabl.pdf">www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/disabl.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van den Broeck A., Vansteenkiste M., De Witte H., Soenens B., Lens W. (2010). Capturing autonomy, competence, and relatedness at work: Construction and initial validation of the work-related basic need satisfaction scale. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 981–1002. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317909X481382</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wehmeyer M. L. (2019). Introduction to the special topic issue on self-determination and neurodevelopmental disabilities. Advances in Neurodevelopmental Disorders, 3, 95–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41252-019-00115-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wehmeyer M. L., Shogren K. A. (2020). Self-determination and autonomous motivation: Implications for students with intellectual, development, and specific learning disabilities. In Martin A. J., Sperling R. A., Newton K. J. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology and students with special needs (pp. 262–291). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilcox K. A., Murakami-Ramalho E., Urik A. (2013). Just-in-time pedagogy: Teachers' perspectives on the response-to-intervention framework. Journal of Research in Reading, 36(1), 75–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2011.01494.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Williams G. C., Deci E. L. (1996). Internalizations of biophysical values by medical students: A test of self-determination theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(4), 767–779. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.70.4.767</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yin R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Sage.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0176496853-34"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rebecca Louick https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2579-5551</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Rebecca Louick and Alyssa Emery</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref84"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1449519
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: 'He Understands How I Work and How I Function': Math Teacher Actions That Promote Autonomy among Students with LDs and/or EBDs
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Rebecca+Louick%22">Rebecca Louick</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2579-5551">0000-0003-2579-5551</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Alyssa+Emery%22">Alyssa Emery</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Learning+Disabilities+Research+%26+Practice%22"><i>Learning Disabilities Research & Practice</i></searchLink>. 2024 39(2):70-86.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com
– 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="%22High+Schools%22">High Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mathematics+Instruction%22">Mathematics Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mathematics+Teachers%22">Mathematics Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Role%22">Teacher Role</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Personal+Autonomy%22">Personal Autonomy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Students+with+Disabilities%22">Students with Disabilities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learning+Disabilities%22">Learning Disabilities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Behavior+Disorders%22">Behavior Disorders</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Emotional+Disturbances%22">Emotional Disturbances</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22High+School+Teachers%22">High School Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22High+School+Students%22">High School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Determination%22">Self Determination</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1177/09388982231225736
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0938-8982<br />1540-5826
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Guided by Self-Determination Theory, we conducted a case study of a high school math teacher nominated by students with disabilities as one who enhanced their learning. Using a combination of interviews and classroom observations, we explored the specific strategies that the teacher used to promote perceived autonomy among students with learning disabilities (LDs) and emotional-behavioral disorders (EBDs). The literature offers extensive evidence for the benefits of autonomy-supportive teacher practice, but much of the work was conducted without explicit inclusion of students with LDs and/or EBDs. Our analyses demonstrated that many of the practices captured in this research also worked to support the psychological needs of students with LDs and/or EBDs who participated in this study. Additionally, our case study teacher engaged in two additional strategies that are not currently represented in that body of evidence. As such, we discuss implications for practice and future directions for research.
– 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: EJ1449519
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1449519
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1177/09388982231225736
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 17
        StartPage: 70
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Mathematics Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mathematics Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Role
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Personal Autonomy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Students with Disabilities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learning Disabilities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Behavior Disorders
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Emotional Disturbances
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: High School Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: High School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self Determination
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: 'He Understands How I Work and How I Function': Math Teacher Actions That Promote Autonomy among Students with LDs and/or EBDs
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Rebecca Louick
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Alyssa Emery
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 05
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0938-8982
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1540-5826
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 39
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Learning Disabilities Research & Practice
              Type: main
ResultId 1