Amy JacksonFollow




School of Education


Doctor of Education (EdD)


Frank Bailey


Academic Intervention. Behavioral Intervention, Multi-Tiered System of Support, Response to Intervention, Specific Learning Disability, Teacher Efficacy


Curriculum and Instruction | Education | Educational Administration and Supervision | Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Research | Educational Psychology | Elementary and Middle and Secondary Education Administration


The purpose of this transcendental phenomenological study was to gain a deeper understanding of novice elementary teachers’ perceived ability to implement the North Carolina Multi-Tiered System of Support (NC MTSS) model with fidelity in a suburban North Carolina school district. For the purposes of this research, fidelity was generally defined as the effective application of the tenets of NC MTSS according to evidence-based best practices as well as federal, state, and local policy (Hill, King, Lemons, & Partanen, 2012). Conducted under the leadership of Dr. Frank Bailey, this study sought to determine the extent to which a sample of 12 elementary teachers, each with three or fewer years of experience, feel able to fully and effectively implement NC MTSS in their suburban North Carolina schools. The theories that have guided this study are Bandura’s (1983) Social Cognitive Theory of Efficacy and Mitzel’s (1960) Theory of Teaching and Learning, as they establish a connection between educators’ self-efficacy and the likelihood of an initiative being implemented with fidelity. Thus, gaining a deeper understanding of teachers’ self-perceived ability to implement NC MTSS can improve implementation by informing teacher preparation, in-service professional development programming, and related support structures. Data was collected using unstructured and semi-structured interviews, as well as document analyses. Axial coding and conceptualization using Glaser and Strauss’s (1967) constant-comparative method were to identify and isolate emergent themes. Results showed that participants’ perceptions of self-efficacy are mixed. Half of participants conveyed moderate to high levels of self-efficacy, while half exhibited relatively low levels.