Drawing on focus groups with 55 students taught by five special education teachers rated as highly effective by school and district leaders, we used interpretative phenomenological analysis (Smith & Nizza, 2022) to explore how elementary school students make sense of special education teaching quality. Findings revealed three interlaced domains of special education teaching quality: (1) Fostering strong relationships, (2) Constructing responsive learning environments, and (3) Engaging students in challenging learning. Within each domain, we identified and elaborated on practices students identified as important for their learning and development. Students highlighted how these practices resulted in two affective outcomes: a sense of belonging and self-efficacy. We discuss implications for special education research, policy, and practice, as well as the preparation and development of all teachers in support of inclusive schools.
AcevesT. C.KennedyM. J. (Eds.). (2024). High-leverage practices for students with disabilities. Council for Exceptional Children.
2.
AnnammaS. A.ConnorD.FerriB. (2013). Dis/ability critical race studies (DisCrit): Theorizing at the intersections of race and dis/ability. Race, Ethnicity, and Education, 16(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2012.730511
3.
BenedictA.LauterbachA.BrownellM.ParkY.KoziarskiG. (2024). The dynamic relationship between students’ talk about their learning and teachers’ reading instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 46, 176–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325241240062
4.
BettiniE.MeyerK. M.StarkK. (2023). Gendered discourse about special education teaching as care work: Implications for improving inequitable working conditions. In McCrayE. D.BettiniE.BrownellM. T.McLeskeyJ.SindelarP. T. (Eds.), Handbook of research on special education teacher preparation (pp. 412–439). Routledge.
5.
BlantonL. P.SindelarP. T.CorreaV. I. (2006). Models and measures of beginning teacher quality. The Journal of Special Education, 40(2), 115–127. https://10.1177/00224669060400020201
6.
BovedaM.AnnammaS. A. (2023). Beyond making a statement: An intersectional framing of the power and possibilities of positioning. Educational Researcher, 52(5), 306–314. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X231167149
7.
BrownellM. T.BenedictA. E.LekoM. M.PeytonD.PuaD.Richards-TutorC. (2019). A continuum of pedagogies for preparing teachers to use high-leverage practices. Remedial and Special Education, 40(6), 338–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518824990
8.
ByrnesL. J.RickardsF. W. (2011). Listening to the voices of students with disabilities: Can such voices inform practice?Australasian Journal of Special and Inclusive Education, 35(1), 25. https://doi.org/10.1375/ajse.35.1.25
9.
ChettyR.FriedmanJ.RockoffJ. (2014). Discussion of the American Statistical Association’s Statement (2014) on using value-added models for educational assessment. Statistics and Public Policy, 1(1), 111–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/2330443X.2014.955227
10.
ConnorD. J. (2006). Michael’s story: “I get into so much trouble just by walking”: Narrative knowing and life at the intersections of learning disability, race, and class. Equity & Excellence in Education, 39(2), 154–165. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/10665680500533942
Dedoose Version 9.2.22. (2023). Cloud application for managing, analyzing, and presenting qualitative and mixed method research data. SocioCultural Research Consultants, LLC. www.dedoose.com
13.
GlynnM. A.WatkissL. (2020). Of organizing and sensemaking: From action to meaning and back again in a half-century of Weick’s theorizing. Journal of Management Studies, 57(7), 1331–1354. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12613
14.
GoldhaberD.QuinceV.TheobaldR. (2019). Teacher quality gaps in US public schools: Trends, sources, and implications. Phi Delta Kappan, 100(8), 14–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721719846883
15.
GrossmanP.ComptonC.IgraD.RonfeldtM.ShahanE.WilliamsonP. (2009). Teaching practice: A cross-professional perspective. Teachers College Record, 111, 2055–2100. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810911100905
16.
HennessyE.HearyC. (2005). Exploring children’s views through focus groups. In HoganD.GreeneS. (Eds.), Researching children’s experience: Approaches and methods (pp. 236–252). Sage.
17.
HillM.LaybournA.BorlandM. (1996). Engaging with primary-aged children about their emotions and well-being: Methodological considerations. Children & Society, 10(2), 129–144. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1099-0860.1996.tb00463.x
18.
HirschS. E.GriffithC. A.KelleyM. H.CarlsonA.McKownG. (2023). Increasing preservice teachers’ knowledge and skills using a mixed-reality simulator: The tale of two studies. Teacher Education and Special Education, 46(3), 204–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/08884064231154028
19.
KaneT. J.McCaffreyD. F.MillerT.StaigerD. O. (2013). Have we identified effective teachers? Validating measures of effective teaching using random assignment. Measures of Effective Teaching Project, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
20.
KaneT. J.StaigerD. O. (2012). Gathering feedback for teaching: Combining high-quality observations with student surveys and achievement gains [Research Paper, MET Project]. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
21.
KimB. (2001). Social constructivism. In OreyM. (Ed.), Emerging Perspectives on Learning, Teaching, and Technology (pp. 55–61). Jacobs Foundation.
22.
KraftM. A. (2019). Teacher effects on complex cognitive skills and social-emotional competencies. Journal of Human Resources, 54(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.54.1.0916.8265R3
23.
KuhfeldM. (2017). When students grade their teachers: A validity analysis of the Tripod student survey. Educational Assessment, 22(4), 253–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2017.1381555
24.
LambertR. (2019). Political, relational, and complexly embodied; experiencing disability in the mathematics classroom. ZDM, 51(2), 279–289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01031-1
25.
LevineI. S.ZimmermanJ. D. (1996). Using qualitative data to inform public policy: Evaluating “Choose to De-Fuse.”American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 66(3), 363–377. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0080187
26.
LewisA.PorterJ. (2004). Interviewing children and young people with learning disabilities: Guidelines for researchers and multi-professional practice. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32(4), 191–197. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-3156.2004.00313.x
27.
LoveB.VetereA.DavisP. (2020). Should interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) be used with focus groups? Navigating the bumpy road of “iterative loops,” idiographic journeys, and “phenomenological bridges.”International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1609406920921600. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920921600
28.
MachadoE.BenekeM. R.LoveH. R. (2024). “So that I may hope to honor you”: Centering wholeness, agency, and brilliance in qualitative research with multiply marginalized young children. Educational Researcher, 53(4), 245–251. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X241237533
29.
MathewsH. M.StarkK.JonesN. D.BellC. (2024). Surfacing principals’ beliefs about instruction for students with disabilities: A qualitative analysis. Exceptional Children, 90(3), 274–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029231220311
30.
MilnerI. V. H. R. (2007). Race, culture, and researcher positionality: Working through dangers seen, unseen, and unforeseen. Educational Researcher, 36(7), 388–400. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X07309471
31.
MitraD. L. (2004). The significance of students: Can increasing “student voice” in schools lead to gains in youth development?Teachers College Record, 106(4), 651–688. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2004.00354.x
32.
MorganM.GibbsS.MaxwellK.BrittenN. (2002). Hearing children’s voices: Methodological issues in conducting focus groups with children aged 7 – 11 years. Qualitative Research, 2(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794102002001636
33.
Morris-MathewsH.StarkK. R.JonesN. D.BrownellM. T.BellC. A. (2021). Danielson’s framework for teaching: Convergence and divergence with conceptions of effectiveness in special education. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 54(1), 66–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219420941804
34.
PazeyB. L. (2020). Incorporating the voices and insights of students with disabilities: Let’s consider our approach. International Journal of Student Voice, 8(1).
35.
PhillipsS. F.FergusonR. F.RowleyJ. F. (2021). Do they see what I see? Toward a better understanding of the 7Cs framework of teaching effectiveness. Educational Assessment, 26(2), 69–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2020.1858784
36.
PiantaR. C.HamreB. K.MintzS. (2012). Classroom assessment scoring system (CLASS) upper elementary manual. Teachstone. (Original work published 2008).
37.
PorterE. J.CohenM. Z. (2013). Phenomenology. In TrainorA. A.GraueE. (Eds.), Reviewing Qualitative Research in the Social Sciences (pp. 180–196). Routledge.
38.
QR Collective*, BanksJ.GonzálezT.MuellerC.PachecoM.ScottL. A.TrainorA. A. (2023). Reflexive quality criteria: Questions and indicators for purpose-driven special education qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 89(4), 449–466. https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029231168106
39.
RaudenbushS. W.JeanM. (2015). To what extent do student perceptions of classroom quality predict teacher value added. In KerrK.PiantaR.KaneT. (Eds.), Designing teacher evaluation systems: New guidance from the measures of effective teaching project (pp. 170–202). Wiley. (Original work published 2014).
40.
RodgersW. J.Morris-MathewsH.RomigJ. E.BettiniE. (2022). Observation studies in special education: A synthesis of validity evidence for observation systems. Review of Educational Research, 92(1), 3–45. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543211042419
41.
RosatiS. A.RossettiZ.GianiM. V. (2025). Speaking with, not for: Methods for centering student voice in special education research [Manuscript Under Review].
42.
RupparA. L.RobertsC. A.OlsonA. J. (2018). Is it all about loving the kids? Perceptions about expertise in special education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 71, 319–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.02.001
43.
ShogrenK. A.GrossJ. M.Forber-PrattA. J.FrancisG. L.SatterA. L.Blue-BanningM.HillC. (2015). The perspectives of students with and without disabilities on inclusive schools. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 40(4), 243–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796915583493
SmithJ. A.NizzaI. E. (2022). Essentials of interpretive phenomenological analysis. American Psychological Association.
46.
TeferaA. (2019). Listening to and learning from the perspectives and experiences of Black and Latinx students with disabilities: Examining the challenges and contradictions of high-stakes testing policies. The Urban Review, 51(3), 457–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-019-00496-4
47.
UrbachJ.MooreB. A.KlingnerJ. K.GalmanS.HaagerD.BrownellM. T.DingleM. (2015). “That’s my job” comparing the beliefs of more and less accomplished special educators related to their roles and responsibilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 38(4), 323–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406415591220
48.
VannestK. J.Hagan-BurkeS. (2009). Teacher Time Use in Special Education. Remedial and Special Education, 31(2), 126–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932508327459
49.
WallaceT. L.KelceyB.RuzekE. (2016). What can student perception surveys tell us about teaching? Empirically testing the underlying structure of the Tripod student perception survey. American Education Research Journal, 53(6), 1834–1868. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216671864
50.
WeickK. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations (Vol. 3, No. 10.1002). Sage.
51.
WilliamsonP.HoppeyD.McLeskeyJ.BergmannE.MooreH. (2020). Trends in LRE placement rates over the past 25 years. The Journal of Special Education, 53(4), 236244. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466919855052
52.
WitmerS.SchmittH.ClintonM.MathesN. (2018). Accommodation use during content area instruction for students with reading difficulties: Teacher and student perspectives. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 34(2), 174–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2017.1382407
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
