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.
ArcherA. L.HughesC. A. (2011). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. The Guilford Press.
2.
AssorA.KaplanH.Kanat-MaymonY.RothG. (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
3.
AssorA.KaplanH.RothG. (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
4.
BakerM. (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
5.
BaldwinL. (2018). Research concepts for the practitioner of educational leadership. Brill.
BeattyP. C.WillisG. B. (2007). Research synthesis: The practice of cognitive interviewing. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71(2), 287–311. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfm006
8.
BoddyC. 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
9.
BrantlingerE.JimenezR.KlingnerJ.PugachM.RichardsonV. (2005). Qualitative studies in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 195–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100205
10.
CavendishW. (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
11.
CavendishW.ConnorD. J.PerezD. (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
12.
ConnorD. J.GabelS. L. (2010). Welcoming the unwelcome: Disability as diversity. In ChapmanT. K.HobbelN. (Eds.), Social justice pedagogy across the curriculum: The practice of freedom (pp. 201–220). Routledge.
DavisW. 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
15.
DeciE. L.RyanR. M. (1985). Conceptualizations of intrinsic motivation and self-determination. In DeciE. L.RyanR. M. (Eds.), Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior (pp. 11–40). Springer.
16.
De MeyerJ.TallirI. B.SoenensB.VansteenkisteM.AeltermanN.Van den BergheL.HaerensL. (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
17.
Faggella-LubyM. N.DeshlerD. 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
18.
GilmourA. F.FuchsD.WehbyJ. 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
19.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).
20.
KarabenickS. A.WoolleyM. E.FriedelJ. M.AmmonB. V.BlazevskiJ.Rhee BonneyC.De GrootE.GilbertM. C.MusuL.KemplerT. M.KellyK. 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
21.
LabboL. D.LeuD. J.Jr.KinzerC.TealeW. H.CarmackD.Kara-SoteriouJ.SannyR. (2003). Teacher wisdom stories: Cautions and recommendations for using computer-related technologies for literacy instruction. The Reading Teacher, 57(3), 300–304.
22.
LauterbachA. A.BettiniE.Morris MathewsH.RossettiZ.HughesO. E. (2022). Beyond exploratory: How varied qualitative methodologies can inform and advance the field of special education. In FarmerT. W.TalbottE.McMasterK.LeeD.AcevesT. 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
23.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
24.
LopezS. J.LouisM. C. (2009). The principles of strengths-based education. Journal of College & Character, 10(4), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.2202/1940-1639.1041
25.
LouickR.DaleyS.RobinsonK. (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
26.
LouickR.ScanlonD. (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
27.
LouickR.WangM. (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
28.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M.SaldañaJ. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Sage.
29.
PatallE. A.SteingutR. R.VasquezA. C.TrimbleS. S.PituchK. A.FreemanJ. 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
30.
ReeveJ. (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
31.
ReeveJ.JangH. (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
32.
RyanR. M.DeciE. 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
33.
RyanR. M.DeciE. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Publications.
34.
RyanR. M.DeciE. 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
35.
SaldañaJ. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Sage.
36.
SavardA.JoussemetM.Emond PelletierJ.MageauG. 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
37.
SmartJ. F. (2009). The power of models of disability. Journal of Rehabilitation, 75(2), 3.
38.
StahlN. A.KingJ. R. (2020). Expanding approaches for research: Understanding and using trustworthiness in qualitative research. Journal of Developmental Education, 44(1), 26–28.
39.
SwansonH. L.DeshlerD. (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
40.
TerrasM. M.ThompsonL. C.MinnisH. (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
41.
TroiaG. A.GrahamS.HarrisK. R. (2017). Writing and students with language and learning disabilities. In KauffmanJ. M.HallahanD. P.,, & PullenP. C. (Eds.), Handbook of special education ((2nd ed., pp. 537–557). Taylor & Francis.
42.
TroiaG. A.HennenfentL.ShenM. (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
43.
UrbaniJ. M.ColladoC.ManaloA.GonzalezN. (2022). Building the on-ramp to inclusion: Developing critical consciousness in future early-childhood educators. Issues in Teacher Education, 31(2), 91–121.
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 fromhttps://nationsreportcard.gov/ndecore/NDE
Van den BroeckA.VansteenkisteM.De WitteH.SoenensB.LensW. (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
49.
WehmeyerM. 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
50.
WehmeyerM. L.ShogrenK. A. (2020). Self-determination and autonomous motivation: Implications for students with intellectual, development, and specific learning disabilities. In MartinA. J.SperlingR. A.NewtonK. J. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology and students with special needs (pp. 262–291). Routledge.
51.
WilcoxK. A.Murakami-RamalhoE.UrikA. (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
52.
WilliamsG. C.DeciE. 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
53.
YinR. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Sage.
