Abstract
Researchers and practitioners continue to call for professional learning (PL) for multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) to promote implementation with fidelity. Different PL interventions and MTSS frameworks raise questions about what types of PL support educators to engage in key practices. Questions also remain regarding educators’ perspectives and experiences with PL for MTSS and factors that facilitate or hinder educators’ learning. In this paper, we report findings from a qualitative research synthesis on PL for MTSS in the United States. We found 46 studies that explored educators’ perspectives and experiences with PL. Findings illuminated educators’ positive experiences with ongoing, job-embedded PL, particularly PL communities and coaching. Studies also illustrated the importance of collaboration and trust within learning communities as well as leaders who empower and trust educators. We discuss the implications of these findings in K–12 school settings.
Current federal and state legislation allows schools to adopt a multi-tiered system of support (MTSS; Every Student Succeeds Act [ESSA], 2015; Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act [IDEIA], 2004). MTSS represents a public health approach that focuses on academic and behavior outcomes for students. MTSS is widely adopted across the nation and research supports positive outcomes for students (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). Although states and school districts provided policies and guidance on MTSS, doubts remain that educators can implement the practices with fidelity (Fuchs & Vaughn, 2012). Researchers argue that professional learning (PL) facilitates the implementation of MTSS, but more empirical support for this claim is needed (e.g., Albritton & Truscott, 2014; J. M. Castillo et al., 2018).
Multi-Tiered System of Supports
MTSS represents a framework in which educators organize their assessment, instruction, and intervention practices into three tiers that increase in intensity based on data (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). Tier 1 (primary prevention) includes evidence-based instruction and universal screening to identify students not meeting expectations and who would benefit from more intensive intervention and supports. Tier 2 (supplemental intervention) and Tier 3 (tertiary intervention) involve students engaging in more intensive interventions to address skill deficits as well as more frequent progress monitoring. MTSS represents a more recent conceptualization of multi-tiered approaches that evolved from Response to Intervention (RTI) and Positive Behavioral Intervention and Support (PBIS) frameworks (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). PBIS focuses on improving behavior outcomes for students (Horner & Sugai, 2015). RTI focuses on academic outcomes (Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009). Similarities in the approaches and practical challenges of implementing separate frameworks led to calls for an integrated MTSS.
Whether describing RTI, PBIS, or an integrated MTSS, scholars discuss the importance of implementing the critical elements of the framework with fidelity (i.e., implementing evidence-based practices as designed; McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). Unlike implementing individual evidence-based practices such as an intervention program, examining fidelity to the practices that comprise MTSS involves evaluating a wide array of practices and structures. All MTSS frameworks emphasize fidelity to assessment (administration of universal screening and progress monitoring protocols), multi-tiered instruction and intervention (content and instructional routines, intervention protocols), and data-based decision-making processes (e.g., problem-solving process). Some researchers also describe teaming as a critical element that should be evaluated (Eagle et al., 2015).
PL Theoretical Framework
Literature on MTSS often focuses on training and coaching as PL interventions, which have been associated with improved educator learning and implementation fidelity (J. M. Castillo et al., 2018, 2022; Eagle et al., 2015). However, others argue for a broader approach that includes more emphasis on communities of learners who collaborate together to support the practices that comprise MTSS models (Burns et al., 2016). As a result, we used Learning Forward’s (2011) theoretical framework to provide a broader organizational and interpretive lens through which to view and analyze the literature.
Learning Forward’s (2011) theoretical framework involves four main components: (a) evidence-based PL standards that lead to (b) increased educator capacity (e.g., knowledge), which in turn contributes to (c) increases in implementation and (d) improvements in outcomes for students. This framework is supported by research demonstrating that effective PL strategies (described below) relate to improvements in teacher instruction and outcomes for students (Garrett et al., 2021). For our inquiry, we focused on the first three components applied to MTSS: (a) PL interventions that focus on MTSS designed to (b) improve educator knowledge, skills, attitudes, and aspirations and (c) increase implementation fidelity of MTSS (see Figure 1).
Learning Forward’s (2011) theoretical framework adapted to include Killion’s (2008) KASAB evaluation framework and MTSS critical elements.
The first component of the theoretical framework involved seven standards for effective PL (Learning Forward, 2011). The seven standards include (a) learning communities, (b) leadership, (c) resource allocation, (d) data use, (e) learning designs, (f) implementation, and (g) outcomes. Effective PL involves organizing educators into learning communities who are collectively responsible for continuous improvement. Facilitating learning communities takes leadership from administrators committed to advocating for and developing capacity for PL. One key way leaders promote PL is through resource allocation. Leaders and educators use a variety of data sources (e.g., student data) to plan for and evaluate PL. The data collected inform learning designs derived from evidence-based approaches to human learning. Implementation of the learning design involves applying research on systems change to promote and sustain PL and implementation of practices. Finally, expected outcomes should be aligned with educator performance and student curriculum standards.
Within the second and third components of the theoretical framework, we utilized Killion’s (2008) framework for evaluating educator outcomes. Killion indicated that educators’ (a) knowledge, (b) attitudes, (c) skills, (d) aspirations, and (e) behaviors should be evaluated to plan for and understand the impact of PL. We sought to evaluate educators’ perspectives regarding how PL influenced their knowledge of MTSS-related concepts and practices, attitudes regarding their PL experiences and the MTSS framework, skills needed to implement practices with fidelity, and aspirations to implement MTSS (the second component of the conceptual framework). The third component of the framework, increases in implementation fidelity of MTSS, was informed through qualitative descriptions of educators’ behaviors. Behaviors involved engaging in assessment, instruction, intervention, or data-based decision-making at any tier of their MTSS.
Purpose and Research Questions
Recently, we conducted a mixed methods scoping review of studies focused on PL interventions for MTSS (J. M. Castillo et al., 2022). We found a variety of PL interventions evaluated through quantitative, qualitative, mixed-method, and single-case research designs. Researchers who employed quantitative and single-case designs tended to find that training and coaching had positive impacts on educators’ beliefs, educators’ knowledge and perceived skills, and fidelity of implementation. Moreover, 35 of the 79 included studies used qualitative methods to explore the process of PL for MTSS and how educators engaged with the PL, with many studies focused on PL Communities (PLCs). Although the scoping review provided an overview of the focus and types of qualitative studies, a qualitative synthesis is needed to provide a macro-level, nuanced understanding of PL for MTSS that accounts for the dynamic, social system in which it occurs.
The purpose of this qualitative research synthesis was (a) to understand educators’ perspectives and experiences with PL for MTSS and (b) to identify factors that facilitated or hindered educators’ PL. Through analyzing qualitative studies included in our larger mixed systematic review through the lens of Learning Forward’s (2011) theoretical framework, we aimed to inform models of PL for MTSS that are more inclusive of the perspectives and experiences of educators, and that consider the context and culture of schools. Exploring educators’ perspectives and experiences can yield insights into subjective and contextual factors that likely exert considerable influence on the impacts of MTSS PL on implementation with fidelity. Research clearly demonstrates that factors such as educator involvement in and commitment to implementing new practices, leadership, and school climate influence whether practices are implemented with fidelity (Forman & Crystal, 2015). Ultimately, a systematic review of qualitative sources will add nuance and depth to a model of change that is specific to learning for and implementation of MTSS. Specific research questions included:
Method
Design and Timeline
Our larger mixed method synthesis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for the Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocol guidelines (J. M. Castillo et al., 2018, 2022; Shamseer et al., 2015). For the qualitative synthesis, we conducted a descriptive-interpretive analysis of all qualitative sources (Lucas et al., 2007; Timulak, 2014).
Search Parameters
We searched for articles from 1997 to 2021 given when MTSS models began to appear in federal legislation (IDEA, 1997, 2004). We structured our empirical literature search under four categories for inclusion: population, PL intervention, research design, and outcomes evaluated. The study population included educators (e.g., teachers and content specialists) employed in traditional K–12 public schools in the U.S. PL interventions involved a variety of strategies focused on MTSS (e.g., trainings and PLCs). Qualitative research designs included phenomenology, grounded theory, and case studies, among others. Finally, educator learning outcomes involved: (a) knowledge of MTSS, (b) attitudes regarding MTSS, (c) skills (e.g., data-based decisions), (d) aspirations regarding MTSS, and (e) implementation (e.g., fidelity to MTSS processes).
Search Strategy
The primary research databases included PsycINFO, PubMed, CIHAHL, and ERIC. Our search parameters included intervention focus (MTSS framework), intervention type (PL strategy), population (educator roles), and research design. We used keywords commonly found in research on MTSS and PL and suggested by database thesauruses (see J. M. Castillo et al., 2018). We used the Institute for Educational Sciences and Office of Special Education Programs websites, ProQuest, Google Scholar, Science Watch, MSN, and the Google search engine to identify additional sources (e.g., technical reports). In addition, we searched proceedings of relevant conferences. Finally, we used references from extracted studies to contact authors for additional sources. To validate our search strategy, we conducted a hand search of the table of contents of five prominent journals that publish work focused on MTSS. We randomly sampled 10% of issues published between January 1997 and May 2018, which did not result in any additional studies consistent with previous systematic research reviews (Helmer et al., 2001).
Research Team and Positionality
Given the interpretive, iterative, and reflexive nature of our qualitative systematic review, it is important to acknowledge the influence of the research team’s beliefs and experiences on their interpretations (Darwin Holmes, 2020). The qualitative synthesis team consisted of three faculty members and two graduate students. Two faculty members had research expertise and practice experience relative to PL for MTSS. The two graduate students participated in the first author’s research lab focused on evaluating MTSS implementation and were students in a school psychology program that trained them on MTSS. The third faculty member served in the Educational Measurement and Research Program at their institution. They had expertise in and experience with conducting mixed systematic reviews, including expertise in qualitative research methods.
Two of the faculty members and two graduate students’ perspectives of MTSS were influenced by their PL focused on MTSS (both participating in and providing PL). Their experiences likely shaped their notions of how educators engage with PL for MTSS, factors that influence PL, and what ultimately facilitates or hinders effectiveness. Thus, the research team made a conscious effort to unpack any biases and interpretations of educators’ perspectives and experiences colored by our positive lens on MTSS and the role of PL when analyzing and interpreting findings. However, the faculty member from Educational Measurement and Research asked questions and provided alternative interpretations of findings considered by the group that included more critical perspectives of PL for MTSS.
Screening and Extraction Processes and Procedures
Screening included abstract and full-text phases. The research team for the larger study met bi-weekly (J. M. Castillo et al., 2022). References and abstracts were managed in a software program (DistillerSR®). Two team members independently reviewed each source to make a decision regarding whether the source should move to the next phase based on inclusion criteria. When the dyad members disagreed, they met to discuss their ratings to come to consensus. When conflicts could not be resolved between dyad members, two faculty members made the decision. For sources published through May 2018, we screened a total of 3,209 quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method abstracts, 236 of which met the criteria for full-text screening. Following the full-text screening, 45 qualitative sources met the criteria for extraction.
An extraction tool created by the research team was used to extract data. The extraction tool included basic study information (e.g., authors’ names), participants and setting (e.g., educators’ role), PL design, study design, outcome(s) of interest (e.g., knowledge), and study findings. Two reviewers independently extracted data and then met to resolve conflicts. Two faculty members made the final decisions when dyads could not resolve conflicts.
When the initial 45 qualitative extractions were completed, a subset of the larger team (two faculty members and three advanced graduate students) met to review each extraction for accuracy and consistency. When one or more individuals disagreed with any aspect of the initial extraction, they discussed the reason for the difference and whether to make changes to the component. This process resulted in nine additional sources being excluded due to insufficient detail on the PL or intended outcomes. Thus, a total of 36 sources from the initial search were included. We included an additional 10 qualitative sources from an updated search to identify studies published from 2018 to 2021, consistent with systematic review procedures (Rethfelsen et al., 2021). We followed the same screening and extraction procedures for the updated search used to identify relevant studies published up to 2018. Thus, a total of 46 qualitative studies met the inclusion criteria (see Figure 2 for the PRISMA diagram). See Table 1 for information on MTSS focus, PL interventions, participants, research designs, and quality ratings for each of the included studies.
PRISMA diagram.
Description of Included Qualitative Studies.
Note. MTSS = multi-tiered system of support; PL = professional learning; PBIS = Positive Behavioral Intervention and Support; RTI = Response to Intervention; PLC = professional learning community; JEC = job-embedded coaching; SLT = school leadership team; TA = technical assistance.
Quality Assessment
Quality evaluation involved the use of a structured checklist developed by Kmet and colleagues (2004). The checklist included 10 items for research question, design, sampling, data analysis, theoretical framework, and researcher reflexivity for qualitative studies. Two independent reviewers compared their ratings and disagreements were addressed consistent with the previously described extraction procedures. We summed the item ratings and divided by points possible to determine the percentage of points awarded for each study. Quality ratings ranged from 35% to 100% of points possible with an average of 82%. We used 70% or greater of points possible to determine a moderate- to high-quality study consistent with other systematic reviews and our scoping review (J. M. Castillo et al., 2022). We did not exclude studies below this criterion but rather weighed them less in our analysis to represent the full scope of the literature.
Data Analysis
We modified procedures articulated by Timulak (2014) and Lucas et al. (2007) to guide our descriptive-interpretive analyses of all qualitative studies. We used the qualitative software Dedoose to (a) develop a codebook whose final version included 16 a priori codes and 4 subcodes and 9 open codes and 4 subcodes and (b) apply codes to the articles. Our a priori codes came from our adaptation of Learning Forward’s (2011) theoretical framework, Killion’s (2008) KASAB model for evaluating PL outcomes, and the MTSS literature. They included codes such as “Educator Knowledge,” “Professional Development Resources,” and “Leadership.” Open codes were added as perspectives and experiences from educators, contextual issues, or other factors not included in the original codebook emerged. Examples of open codes include “Learning from Experience,” “School Culture,” and “Relationships.”
The faculty member with expertise in qualitative methods provided a training to the research team informed by a collaborative and consensual approach to thematic analysis (Richards & Hemphill, 2018). Training foci included developing and using the codebook, consensual coding processes, using analytic memos to document emerging interpretations and methodological observations, and coming to an agreement on codes and themes through consensual processes. Two qualitative research team members independently reviewed each study by coding text segments that described PL for MTSS, educators’ perspectives and experiences with the PL, and any factors described as facilitating or hindering PL. They also added analytic memos capturing insights and questions to be discussed with their partner and the larger group. After independently coding an article, the dyad members met to discuss the sources and analytic memos, to compare the codes applied, and to come to consensus for any discrepancies. Following dyad reviews, the larger qualitative research team met to review the dual-coded studies, to discuss their perspectives on the sources taking into consideration the sources’ quality ratings, and to come to consensus on emerging themes, which were recorded in a separate shared document. Emerging themes were informed by the frequency of codes applied within and across studies and by the extent to which they represented a salient issue relative to our theoretical framework. Finally, the team consolidated the themes under common dimensions related to our research questions and our theoretical framework, drafted written theme descriptions, and presented the descriptions to the research team for feedback before finalizing.
Findings and Discussion
A variety of educators participated in PL (e.g., teachers and curriculum specialists). Participants’ perspectives and experiences centered on the importance of job-embedded, ongoing PL that directly applied to their work. Educators voiced concerns and challenges when PL was limited in frequency and application to their contexts. Moreover, leadership and collaboration either facilitated or hindered educators’ PL and implementation of practices.
Learning Forward’s (2011) theoretical framework shaped our interpretation and organization of the findings. The themes that emerged were supported by the perspectives and experiences of educators and study authors’ findings, which illuminated how each of the seven standards was applied in PL for MTSS. Some studies showed positive applications that facilitated learning, while others showed how poor applications inhibited learning. We begin by describing the role that PLCs played in creating learning communities that facilitated data use within an MTSS, including relations to changes in implementation and outcomes for students. How leadership and collaboration facilitated or hindered the success of PLCs also is discussed. Then, we describe how job-embedded coaching reflected an effective learning design and the role of leadership in facilitating or hindering coaching. Finally, we describe the importance of learning designs that included ongoing PL and that include sufficient resource allocation to support learning.
PLCs Facilitated Educators’ Collaborative Learning and Implementation of MTSS
PLCs focused on data-based decision-making in several studies, most of which involved RTI (e.g., Averitt, 2017; Balmer, 2020; Ralston, 2012). In general, study authors and participants described how PLCs facilitated educator collaborative learning and implementation. PLCs provided designated time and space to solve practical problems related to implementation and student learning, and to enhance teachers’ knowledge and skills (Benjamin, 2011; Murphy, 2017; Stuart et al., 2011). One special education department chair in McLaughlin (2014) described the benefit of the PLC structure: I think it’s vital to have PLCs. I think structure needs to be in place and not just—I gave the example of spaghetti on the wall—but not just trying different things and thinking through the structure. “Ok, we’re going to do this for tier one and if that doesn’t work, where’s the next level going to happen?” (pp. 83–84).
PLCs resulted in deeper learning and more consistent application of practices according to authors of several studies (e.g., Dennis, 2012; Diakakis, 2014; Vineyard, 2010). Educators participating in PLCs tended to identify a more consistent vision and shared understanding that centered on data-based decisions, educator relationships, and improved knowledge and attitudes regarding RTI. For example, Diakakis (2014) reported that a teacher stated, “PLC collaboration and team data analysis helped with RTI integration for all disciplines . . . strategies are shared among teachers and struggling students are identified” (p. 174). When discussing the impact of collaborative inquiry in a PLC context for a particular teacher, Vineyard (2010) stated that “Collaborative inquiry as a means of assessing student response to instruction deepened the lead teachers’ awareness of the connection between changes they made in instructional practice and an improved student response” (p. 139). Moreover, when discussing educator learning regarding RTI, Dennis (2012) indicated, “the changing discourse of practitioners represents their learning about students, data, and literacy instruction while engaged in meaningful, job-embedded professional development” (p. 6).
Leadership Facilitated or Hindered Educators’ Learning Within PLCs
Consistent with Learning Forward’s (2011) theoretical framework, study authors and participating educators positioned leadership as a factor that facilitated or hindered PLC’s effective data use. Leaders who took a facilitative approach to PL and who trusted their staff to engage in collaborative inquiry contributed to learning communities that promoted changes in practice (Orosco & Klingner, 2010; Roberts, 2014). Moreover, leaders who gathered ongoing feedback, collaborated with team members, and made data-based decisions experienced implementation success (Rebolledo, 2019).
Leaders who supported PLCs facilitated an MTSS designed to promote outcomes for students. McLaughlin (2014) illustrated the importance of leadership when comparing how different leaders utilized PLCs to promote outcomes for students: Avenue District does not use PLCs and focus group participants believed the building principal to be ill-informed as to what was going on in the building. Bay and Canyon Districts, however, employ different variations of a PLC model but both groups of participants spoke of focusing on student achievement and having a vision (p. 109).
District and school leaders (e.g., area superintendents and principals) influenced staff support through communicating clear expectations and a vision (Balmer, 2020; Jenkins, 2013; McWilliams, 2010). “Teachers depend on leadership to provide the structure for systematic data collection and processing, meetings, targets, and grade level intervention time” (Jenkins, 2013, p. 101). Roberts (2014) noted that roles and allocations for all leadership team members needed to be clearly identified, and that principals attending and leading meetings and measuring fidelity to provide accountability contributes to staff understanding the importance of the PL. In short, “by establishing clear goals and a vision for [RTI], as well as clearly defined expectations, principals provide the foundation for a successful implementation” (Roberts, 2014, p. 112).
However, other studies illuminated how a more flexible approach can work. Educators articulated that a leader who balanced providing guidelines for PLCs and flexibility for educators to connect the PLC to their school practices improved collaboration and knowledge sharing (e.g., S. B. Castillo, 2017; Millhouse-Pettis, 2012). For example, when describing the implementation of the school improvement approach at their school (S. B. Castillo, 2017), the assistant principal stated: We have six professional learning teams (PLT’s) at my school. Each team displays different characteristics and because of this, I have found that I must change how I mentor and coach them through the RTI process (p. 26).
Administrators in some instances empowered teacher to lead ongoing PL and implementation efforts (e.g., data-based PLCs; Stuart et al., 2011). For example, Stuart et al. (2011) shared a general educators’ account of administrative support and teacher leadership in a PLC: I think the fact that everyone feels that they have the freedom to do what’s best for kids is so important. You know, I feel empowered; I feel that I can do this and can talk about that, but I don’t feel that I have to do what my principal tells me to do (p. 65).
Ironically, in times where leaders demonstrated a lack of support or tried to control all activities (Dennis, 2012; March et al., 2020; McLaughlin, 2014; Roberts, 2014), their actions were viewed as counterproductive and hindered implementation. Leaders with little trust in teachers to work together and make decisions were viewed as impeding implementation. Leaders who did not understand MTSS or who micro-managed PLCs hindered the development of a learning community for teachers. For instance, Dennis (2012) reported challenges with leaders who participated in PLCs for grade-level teams designed to facilitate RTI implementation: . . . discursive participation in PLCs was largely represented by the school’s leadership team . . . Neither classroom teachers nor pre-service teachers had much voice at this point in the PLC progression, and often those who attempted to question the process were met with defensive responses . . . In the first interview, a teacher stated, “We are told that the PLCs are important for us to learn how to best help our kids in RtI, but when we ask about the RtI process we are treated as though we don’t know our kids” (p. 4).
However, after leadership discontinued their participation, “the PLC discussions became focused on teachers’ learning about literacy data, matching appropriate interventions with the students who need them, and the teachers’ own professional development needs” (p. 5).
Ralston (2012) further illustrated tensions between being an actively involved leader and allowing collaboration to occur by referencing teachers’ commentary: You need to make sure that your teachers feel valued and not just telling them what to do every week. Make them feel like they have a voice. Because we do know what we need to improve on and what we need help with (p. 59).
In addition, leaders in PLCs who focused too much on procedures created situations in which educators viewed PLCs to be additional work rather than practices that promote improved outcomes for students (Paslay, 2017; Ralston, 2012; Vineyard, 2010). This leadership approach damaged initial support from educators regarding PLCs. For example, teachers in Paslay (2017) noted how the top-down leadership style impacted their collaborative learning: I feel that in our building, the principal gives us time to collaborate, but the opinions of the group are not listened to very well, especially if they differ from the principal’s views. It seems like the principal will do things the way she sees fit, no matter what the outcome of the collaboration (p. 83).
Communication and Collaboration Also Facilitated or Hindered Educators’ PL
Consistent with leadership, study authors and participating educators described how collaboration within PLCs could facilitate or hinder their effectiveness. According to Learning Forward’s (2011) theoretical framework, effectively functioning learning communities require communication and collaboration among educators to promote implementation and improved outcomes. Positive outcomes of collaboration included a common understanding of key components of an MTSS framework (e.g., data-driven decision-making), increased comfort with risk taking, sustained initiative implementation, and increased knowledge and skills as educators learned from and with each other (Diakakis, 2014; Epler-Brooks, 2011; Giurlando, 2019; Hecht, 2015; Jenkins, 2013; McLaughlin, 2014; Murphy, 2017; O’Grady, 2013; Ryan, 2011; Steele, 2013). The school counselor in Giurlando (2019), for example, noted that collaboration led to establishing a cohesive community: I think it [RTI] made ‘em [teachers] closer. I think they share; I think they share more. I think before RTI, some of ‘em were, like, little islands unto themselves. And I think with RTI, they are a collaborative group. They, you know, they collaborate about instruction, they share tools, one says, “I’ll do this. Oh, I’m gonna do that” (p. 235).
Teams appreciated learning from each member’s experiences and the experts at their school site, which made training relevant and sustainable (Ryan, 2011). Benedict (2014) described how collaboration promoted improved learning through “the ways in which teachers either pushed or supported their peers” (p. 158).
Trust and respect appeared central to effective collaboration in PLCs. According to the authors of several studies, educators’ perspectives regarding trust and respect related to positive changes in practices, which lead to successful adoption, implementation, and maintenance of MTSS practices (Diakakis, 2014; Hecht, 2015; Murphy, 2017; O’Grady, 2013; Ralston, 2012; Ryan, 2011). Educators often “turned to each other” for learning and support (Ryan, 2011, p. 86) and “trusted the people who were implementing the interventions along with them” (Ryan, 2011, p. 130). Educators on collaborative teams with trust and respect discussed accountability as shared among members, whereas when trust and respect were absent, team members viewed accountability as mandates inhibiting their work (Hecht, 2015; Vineyard, 2010).
A lack of trust and respect contributed to dysfunctional teaming. Dysfunctional teams impacted educators’ understanding of the purpose of the initiative and willingness to implement (e.g., Dennis, 2012; Shumway, 2017). They created tension among members and PLCs did not represent a time for teaming and relationship building (McLaughlin, 2014). For instance, Shumway (2017) asserted the following finding when describing teachers’ frustration with a lack of collaborative feedback from administration when implementing PBIS: Most often follow-up support was limited to structured observations that counted the number of positive vs. negative comments made or looked-for evidence that the PBIS approach was being utilized. The message that this gave teachers was that they needed to comply: they needed to be seen doing the program (pp. 154–155).
In one study, lack of opportunities for collaboration emerged as a theme (Steele, 2013). Teachers who received training only indicated a desire for more time to collaborate, learn, and plan with colleagues. For example, when discussing PBIS training, Steele indicated that teachers found it frustrating when they were not “able to see it in another’s teacher’s class being practiced or not having anyone observe them and give constructive feedback” (p. 75).
In summary, and consistent with Learning Forward’s (2011) theoretical framework, findings from studies of PLCs illustrated how developing learning communities can benefit educators and facilitate their implementation of MTSS practices. Educators’ perspectives of and experiences with PLCs for MTSS reflected the importance of on-the-job learning that occurs within schools and centers everyday practice issues, a critical element of effective learning designs (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017; Garrett et al., 2021). Despite the benefits of PLCs described in many studies included in our qualitative synthesis, it should be noted that few studies were from peer-reviewed sources (J. M. Castillo et al., 2022). Nor did the studies typically include quantitative evaluations of implementation fidelity to provide additional evidence of changes in practices. The peer-reviewed literature on MTSS tends to center training and coaching as PL interventions that facilitate implementation (e.g., Eagle et al., 2015). More peer-reviewed research on PLCs clearly is needed to develop a more robust understanding of how PLCs complement training and coaching learning designs, including how they relate to increases in the implementation of MTSS.
Although more research is needed, leadership and collaboration played critical roles in shaping educators’ perspectives and experiences regarding PLCs. Leadership that established a vision and expectations and empowered educators to use data to inform implementation promoted MTSS practices. Leaders who did not actively support PLCs or micro-managed the processes hindered change. In terms of collaboration, trust and respect facilitated educators’ working together within a learning community. Implementers of PL for MTSS should consider how collaborative teams can embrace PLC processes (Burns et al., 2016). Research should also explore how collaborative and trusting environments can promote the type of learning and enactment of MTSS processes that lead to improved outcomes for educators and students.
Job-Embedded Coaching Also Facilitated Learning and Implementation
Consistent with the learning design component of Learning Forward’s (2011) theoretical framework, some researchers focused on job-embedded coaching to facilitate implementation (e.g., Gibson, 2018; March et al., 2020; McWilliams, 2010; Stys, 2018). Job-embedded coaching helped to connect administrative mandates to teachers’ practices. Studies of job-embedded coaching focused on both RTI and PBIS.
According to the authors of a few studies, coaching for MTSS implementation facilitated higher levels of fidelity to critical elements of MTSS (Gibson, 2018; McWilliams, 2010; Stys, 2018). For example, when describing the role coaches played on PBIS implementation teams, McWilliams (2010) stated: The presence of a [PBIS] coach appeared to serve as a quality control measure and as a compass for the planning teams across most of the key components of [PBIS]; they kept the teams heading in the right direction in terms of logical, sequential implementation, and achieved higher quality overall implementation (p. 124).
This notion of PBIS coaches illustrated the dual role that coaches often navigated (March et al., 2020; McWilliams, 2010; Pope, 2016; Shumway, 2017). Specifically, many coaches walked the line between facilitators of PL and quality-control monitors looked to as accountability figures (March et al., 2020; Pope, 2016; Steele, 2013). Thus, coaches not only served as important parts of the learning design but also appeared to play important roles in using data to monitor implementation (Learning Forward, 2011).
Related to the leadership aspect of Learning Forward’s (2011) theoretical framework, how administrators positioned coaches appeared to play a role in their success. According to one teacher describing how their administration introduced PBIS, “Administration didn’t let us leave the faculty meeting and gripe among ourselves before unleashing the PBIS coach and her data on us to let us know how badly we needed this in our school” (Pope, 2016, p. 90). In this instance, administrators empowered the coach to share data specific to their school on student behavior and discipline outcomes, to discuss how PBIS can help, and to begin working directly with teachers to support their implementation of the critical elements. Findings from Pope (2016) also illustrated the role job-embedded coaching plays at the beginning stages of implementation during which educators are trying to make sense of mandates to implement the practices.
Research on systems change clearly indicates that the implementation of an innovation requires educators to understand the need and rationale for the practices (Forman & Crystal, 2015). Consistent with Learning Forward’s (2011) theoretical framework, educators’ experiences supported job-embedded coaching as a way to help them effectively navigate new practices in the initial stages as well as support ongoing learning. However, compared with PLCs, fewer studies explored educators’ perspectives and experiences with job-embedded coaching. Consistent with studies focused on PLCs, most studies did not undergo the peer-review process.
Opportunities for Ongoing PL
Regardless of the PL intervention, educators reinforced the importance of a learning design that included ongoing PL to promote continued implementation, which was consistent with Learning Forward’s (2011) theoretical framework. Several studies involved educators’ perspectives of and experiences with ongoing PL that contributed to their understanding and application (Gibson, 2018; Millhouse-Pettis, 2012). Ongoing training, for example, helped educators continue to make connections to students in their classrooms and to better apply information learned (Averitt, 2017; Benedict, 2014; Jenkins, 2013; Vineyard, 2010).
In fact, some educators voiced their desire for more “ongoing trainings” that “would be beneficial in supporting new and returning staff” (Millhouse-Pettis, 2012, p. 72). Some educators felt the allotted time for PL was not sufficient (e.g., Jackson, 2017). Jenkins (2013) described situations in which teachers found limited training unhelpful. One teacher shared trainings do not help “when we don’t have time to put things in place, we come back the next day and we hit the ground running with no time” (p. 78). Educators noted that limited trainings increased misconceptions of MTSS or that more training was needed to fully implement MTSS (Carter, 2019). Moreover, insufficient PL contributed to disconnects between PL and anticipated outcomes. For example, Ryan (2011) found that teachers “did not gather adequate information about RTI to implement with confidence. They had questions about what it meant and how to put it into practice” (p. 130). In these instances, the learning design for PL and resources allocated to support implementation did not appear to be effective in promoting ongoing, on-the-job learning for participants, thereby inhibiting the implementation of practices (Learning Forward, 2011).
Timing of trainings also influenced some educators’ perspectives. When trainings occurred in the middle of the year, some educators voiced struggles with the immediate application of the content (Jackson, 2017). For example, a fifth-grade teacher interviewed stated: I think it’s been the right content and it has probably helped me to wrap my head around all of this stuff . . . But it was kind of hard to hear it in the middle of the year. So, what am I supposed to do when I leave one of those trainings, you know? I can’t just change what I’ve been doing all year just because I went to PD (p. 112).
Teachers’ perspectives and experiences with trainings are consistent with research indicating one-shot training is inadequate for learning (e.g., Forman & Crystal, 2015). One-time trainings may bring new information to teachers, but typically have little impact on teachers’ practices in classrooms (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017). Consistent and intensive learning is required to sustain practices over time (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017), a critical element of learning designs in Learning Forward’s (2011) theoretical framework.
Implications for Research and Practice of Teacher Education in Special Education
Our findings on educators’ perspectives of and experiences with PL for MTSS, when lensed through Learning Forward’s (2011) theoretical framework, illuminate the importance of ongoing, job-embedded learning communities that facilitate peer and expert (coaching) sharing, feedback, and planning. They also show the importance of leadership that empowers educators to learn and make decisions and of collaboration and trust among learners. PLCs, in particular, represented a learning design that provided a structure for general and special educators to share information and ideas, plan, and provide collaborative reflection and feedback (Blanton & Perez, 2011). In fact, the importance of collaboration among educators represented one of the more salient themes among studies that investigated PLCs for MTSS. Although these findings are consistent with the larger literature on PL (Garrett et al., 2021; Learning Forward, 2011), our findings have implications for the research and practice of teacher education in special education.
Scholars should emphasize research on PLCs for MTSS given the lack of teacher education studies on the topic that exist in the current peer-reviewed literature (Burns et al., 2016; J. M. Castillo et al., 2022). Research on PL for MTSS often emphasizes training and job-embedded coaching (Eagle et al., 2015), two evidence-based learning designs (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017). We do not challenge the impact of these learning designs; however, the quantitative literature typically ignores PLCs and their impact on educator learning and MTSS implementation (J. M. Castillo et al., 2022). Researchers and practitioners should center PLCs more in their learning designs and use data to evaluate implementation and outcomes (Burns et al., 2016). Moreover, scholars and practitioners should evaluate how special educators make sense of and implement MTSS when participating in PLCs with general educators given that special educators can be isolated in some school contexts (Blanton & Perez, 2011).
Findings regarding how leadership and collaboration empower or hinder educators’ learning and implementation of MTSS also provide information for researchers and leaders of PL. Leadership that promoted educator learning balanced accountability for mandates requiring MTSS and educator professional autonomy. Educators voiced feeling empowered when leaders reinforced PLCs as structures for learning about and making decisions regarding MTSS but trusted their staff to collaborate to do the work. When leaders emphasized accountability and procedures, educators tended to view MTSS as another mandate and reported benefiting less. Although the literature on MTSS implementation clearly articulates the importance of leadership and collaborative teaming (e.g., Eagle et al., 2015), our findings illustrate ways in which leaders act to facilitate PL and implementation or to hinder those outcomes. Administrators using PLCs to promote MTSS should consider following guidelines for facilitating PLCs (e.g., Burns et al., 2016; DuFour & Fullan, 2013). Moreover, although the importance of leadership and collaboration is acknowledged in the literature on MTSS, our findings demonstrate the need for researchers to investigate how and why these factors facilitate or hinder educators, including special educators, from learning about and implementing MTSS collectively (Blanton & Perez, 2011).
PL that encompasses these considerations should promote educator knowledge, skills, attitudes, and aspirations, as well as increased implementation of MTSS consistent with Learning Forward’s (2011) theoretical framework. However, more robust and comprehensive evaluations should be pursued to evaluate this claim. Educators’ perspectives and experiences and the context in which they learn and implement should be centered in these evaluations. Moreover, how general and special educators navigate and negotiate their respective roles and responsibilities given the ways in which MTSS and special education services intersect (e.g., emphasis on using data to serve students in inclusive and effective environments, evaluations for special education eligibility, continuum of special education services) should also be centered (Leach & Helf, 2016; Taylor & Sailor, 2023). To be clear, we believe that evaluations that center quantitative methods and training and coaching as drivers of implementation fidelity remain relevant and important to facilitating MTSS implementation. However, despite the lack of peer-reviewed qualitative research on PL for MTSS, findings from our qualitative synthesis provide valuable information on other PL designs and qualitative methods that can inform how PL for MTSS works as well as what factors influence their effectiveness. Findings from our qualitative synthesis clearly illuminate that the research and practice of PL for MTSS would benefit from recognizing that general and special educators make sense of, enact, and evaluate MTSS implementation and their learning in a social learning context.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This project was funded, in part, by a University of South Florida College of Education mini-grant.
