Curriculum Decision-Making for Students with Severe Intellectual Disabilities or Profound and Multiple Learning Difficulties

Figures & data

Table 1. Search strategy using the SPIDER tool.

SPIDER tool^
S - Sample	(Teacher) OR (special education teacher) OR (special needs teacher) AND (PMLD OR ‘profound and multiple’) OR (complex OR intellectual OR profound OR severe) OR (ESN or ‘extensive support needs’), within three words of (disab*) (n/3)
PoI – Phenomenon of Interest	(Decision-making) OR (Decision-making process)
D - Design	(questionnaire*) OR (survey*) OR (interview*) OR (focus group*) OR (case stud*) OR (observ*)
E - Evaluation	(attitude*) OR (belie*) OR (feel*) OR (understand*) OR (identit*) OR (role)
R – Research type	(qualitative) OR (quantitative) OR (mixed methods)

^[S AND P of I] AND [(D OR E) AND R]

Figure 1. Article selection process.

Table 2. Included article features.

Citation	Country	Design	Sample	Themes (codes)
Bon and Bigbee (2011)	USA	Qualitative: exploratory; focus group (semi-structured interviews)	12 participants; all special education leaders, one school system in Virginia	Teacher as Guardian (Attunement; Personal Ethics; Power) Teacher as Educator (Student first; Curriculum and resources; Confidence) Teacher as Employee (Policy expectations; School-level leadership)
Feiler and Watson (2011)	UK	Qualitative: 1:1 Interviews (semi-structured); classroom and home visits; group interviews (semi-structured)	2 schools, 11 children (cases), 3 school administrators, 3 Speech Therapists, 4 teachers	Teacher as Guardian (Attunement) Teacher as Educator (Student first; Curriculum and resources) Teacher as Employee (Policy expectations) Teacher as (non)Academic (Applicability)
Greenway et al. (2013)	USA	Qualitative: interviews (1:1)	9 teachers; elementary level (K-year 5); 4 school districts	Teacher as Guardian (Attunement; Personal Ethics; Power) Teacher as Educator (Student first; Curriculum and resources; Confidence) Teacher as Employee (Policy expectations; School-level leadership) Teacher as (non)Academic (Applicability; Scepticism; How could you know?)
Hopkins and Dymond (2020)	USA	Qualitative: interviews (1:1)	13 classroom teachers, 5 counties in mid-west (USA)	Teacher as Guardian (Attunement; Personal Ethics; Power) Teacher as Educator (Student first; Curriculum and resources; Confidence) Teacher as Employee (Policy expectations; School-level leadership)
Knight et al. (2018)	USA	Mixed method: survey	535 teachers, single state in the USA	Teacher as Guardian (Attunement; Personal Ethics); Teacher as Educator (Student first; Curriculum and resources; Confidence) Teacher as Employee (Policy expectations) Teacher as (non)Academic (Applicability; How could you know?)
Lawson and Jones (2018)	USA and UK	Qualitative: classroom observations; interviews (semi-structured)	4 schools for specific Purposes − 2 USA, 2 UK; 9 teachers	Teacher as Guardian (Attunement; Personal Ethics; Power) Teacher as Educator (Student first; Curriculum and resources; Confidence) Teacher as Employee (Policy expectations; Health and medical management; School-level leadership) Teacher as (non)Academic (Applicability)
Quinn & Serna (2017)	USA	Qualitative: focus groups	24 participants (teachers, teacher assistants, allied health); single state (USA)	Teacher as Guardian (Attunement; Personal Ethics) Teacher as Educator (Student first; Curriculum and resources; Confidence) Teacher as Employee (Policy expectations; Health and medical management)
Ruppar et al. (2011)	USA	Mixed method: survey	69 participants; Illinois USA	Teacher as Guardian (Attunement; Personal Ethics; Power) Teacher as Educator (Student first; Curriculum and resources) Teacher as Employee (School-level leadership) Teacher as (non)Academic (Applicability)
Ruppar et al. (2015)	USA	Qualitative: multiple case studies; grounded theory; interviews and videotaped observations	4 teachers; Illinois USA	Teacher as Guardian (Attunement; Personal Ethics; Power) Teacher as Educator (Student first; Curriculum and resources; Confidence) Teacher as Employee (Policy expectations; School-level leadership)
Shipton and O’Nions (2019)	UK	Mixed method: survey; selected interviews	99 participants (survey); 4 schools, ’teacher’s, allied health, other teaching staff; 7 Teachers interviewed	Teacher as Guardian (Attunement; Personal Ethics; Power) Teacher as Educator (Student first; Curriculum and resources; Confidence) Teacher as Employee (Health and medical management) Teacher as (non)Academic (Applicability)
Timberlake (2016)	USA	Qualitative: interviews (phone)	33 special education teachers; northeast USA	Teacher as Guardian (Attunement; Personal Ethics; Power) Teacher as Educator (Student first; Curriculum and resources; Confidence) Teacher as Employee (Policy expectations; School-level leadership)

Figure 2. Key themes, sub-themes and level of influence.

Bon, S., & Bigbee, A. (2011). Special education leadership: Integrating professional and personal codes of ethics to serve the best interests of the child. Journal of School Leadership, 21(3), 324–359. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268461102100302

 Google Scholar

Feiler, A., & Watson, D. (2011). Involving children with learning and communication difficulties: The perspectives of teachers, speech and language therapists and teaching assistants. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(2), 113–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-3156.2010.00626

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Greenway, R., McCollow, M., Hudson, R., Peck, C., & Davis, C. (2013). Autonomy and accountability: Teacher perspectives on evidence-based practice and decision-making for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 48, 456–468. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24232503

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hopkins, S., & Dymond, S. K. (2020). Factors influencing teachers’ decisions about their use of community-based instruction. Intellectual Developmental Disabilities, 58(5), 432–446. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-58.5.432

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Knight, V., Huber, H., Kuntz, E., Carter, E., & Juarez, A. (2018). Instructional practices, priorities, and preparedness for educating students with autism and intellectual disability. Focus on Autism & Other Developmental Disabilities, 34(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357618755694

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lawson, H., & Jones, P. (2018). Teachers’ pedagogical decision-making and influences on this when teaching students with severe intellectual disabilities. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 18(3), 196–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12405

 Google Scholar

Quinn, B., & Serna, R. W. (2017). Challenges and barriers to identifying pain in the special education classroom: A review. Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 4, 328–338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40489-017-0117-1

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ruppar, A. L., Dymond, S. K., & Gaffney, J. S. (2011). Teachers’ perspectives on literacy instruction for students with severe disabilities who use augmentative communication. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 36(3), 100–111. https://doi.org/10.2511/027494811800824435

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ruppar, A. L., Gaffney, J. S., & Dymond, S. K. (2015). Influences on teachers’ decisions about literacy for secondary students with severe disabilities. Exceptional children, 81(2), 209–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402914551739

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Shipton, C., & O’Nions, C. (2019). An exploration of the attitudes that surround and embody those working with children and young people with PMLD. Support for Learning, 34(3), 277–289. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9604.12265

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Timberlake, M. T. (2016). The path to academic access for students with significant cognitive disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 49(4), 199–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466914554296

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar