BC TEACHERS’ EXPERIENCES WITH THE LEARNER, ENVIRONMENT,
INSTRUCTION, CURRICULUM (LEIC) PLANNING TOOL : A MIXEDMETHODS STUDY
by
Meredith Keery
B.Ed., Simon Fraser University, 1988

THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF EDUCATION
IN
SPECIAL EDUCATION

UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA
December 2017
© Meredith Keery, 2017

ABSTRACT
The LEIC is a FASD planning tool, guided by a neurodevelopmental approach to
planning and endorsed by the Provincial Outreach Program for FASD. The research in
this study explores the lived experiences of six B.C. teachers as they have used the LEIC
in past practice and reflect on future use. This mixed-methods study also looks at data
gathered in a cross-sectional survey design where a further 27 teachers responded to
questions about the LEIC. The findings indicated that the teachers felt that the tool was a
useful document however, certain factors inhibited comprehensive and effective use in
some cases. The data suggested that frequency of use and bi-modal training methods
increased effective practice as well as depth-of-understanding in planning for a student
with FASD.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract
Table of Contents
List of Tables
List of Figures
Acknowledgments
Chapter 1 Introduction
Significance of the Research
Purpose of the Study and Central Research Question
Research Context
Theoretical Orientation
Chapter Summary
Chapter 2 Literature Review
Neurodevelopmental Theory and FASD
Planning Tools
Chapter Summary
Chapter 3 Methodology
Mixed-Methods Design
Ethical Concerns
Anonymity and Confidentiality
Research Procedures
Recruitment of Participants
Survey Participants
Interview Participants
Consent
Quantitiative Data Collection
Qualitative Data Collection
Data Analysis
Evaluation of the Study
Reflexive Journal
Chapter Summary
Chapter 4 Research Findings
Qualitative Results: Interview
Application
Intention
Inhibitor
Quantitative Results: Survey
Side-by-Side Comparison of Results
Chapter Summary
Chapter 5 Discussion of Findings
Major Findings
The Learner (top) Section
Neurodevelopmental (middle) Section
Accommodations (bottom) Section
Chapter Summary
iii

ii
iii
v
vii
viii
1
4
5
6
9
10
12
15
22
29
30
30
33
33
35
35
36
36
37
37
38
40
42
42
42
44
44
47
52
54
57
69
71
73
74
74
76
78
80

Chapter 6

Conclusion
Limitations of the Study
Implications for Practice - POPFASD
Implications for Further Resarch
Reflections

References
Appendix A LEIC Planning Tool
Appendix B LEIC Planning Tool: Guiding Questions
Appendix C Informed Consent - Survey
Appendix D Informed Consent - Interviews
Appendix E Notification in POPFASD Monthly Newsletter
Appendix F Recruitment Email to POPFASD District Partners
Appendix G Request for Permission – POPFASD and Response
Appendix H Seeking Consent for Research, School District #57 and Response
Appendix I Online Survey Questions
Appendix J Semi-Structured Interview Questions

iv

81
81
82
84
84
86
91
92
93
95
97
98
99
102
103
112

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1

Interview Participant Background Information including Participant
Identification, Teaching Role, Teaching Experience in Years,
Grade/Grouping, POPFASD Training Date, and Frequency of LEIC
Use

46

Table 2

Three Themes Emerging from Interview Data: Application,
Intention, and Inhibitor

48

Table 3

Interview Participant Frequency for Individual Codes: Time,
Experience, Collaboration, Format, Access, and Other Required
Tools and Total for Statements Themed as Inhibitor

55

Table 4

LEIC Tool Survey Results: Participants’ Teaching Role

58

Table 5

LEIC Tool Survey Results: Participants’ Grade or Grade Grouping

58

Table 6

LEIC Tool Survey Results: Participants’ Teaching Experience

59

Table 7

LEIC Tool Survey Results: POPFASD Training Method Survey
Respondent Completed

60

Table 8

LEIC Tool Survey Results: Reported Frequency of Use of the LEIC
Planning Tool

61

Table 9

LEIC Tool Survey Results: Close-ended Question Responses and
Measures of Central Tendency for Overall Close-ended, Likert Scale
Questions

61

Table 10

LEIC Tool Survey Results: Combined Close-ended Question
Responses and Measures of Central Tendency for Overal Closeended, Likert Scale Questions

62

Table 11

LEIC Tool Survey Results: Elementary and Secondary Enrolling and
Non-enrolling Teacher’s Response and Measures of Central
Tendency for Overall Close-ended, Likert Scale Questions

63

Table 12

LEIC Tool Survey Results: Years of Teaching Experience and
Measures of Central Tendency for Overall Close-ended, Likert Scale
Questions

63

Table 13

LEIC Tool Survey Results: POPFASD Professional Development
Method Accessed: Workshop or Online and Measures of Central
Tendency for Overall Close-ended, Likert Scale Questions

63

v

Table 14

LEIC Tool Survey Results: Additional Support Accessed to Enhance
Ability to Use the LEIC Tool and Measures of Central Tendency for
Overall Close-ended, Likert Scale Questions

65

Table 15

LEIC Tool Survey Results: Frequency of LEIC Tool Use per Year
and Measures of Central Tendency for Overall Close-ended, Likert
Scale Questions

65

Table 16

LEIC Tool Survey Results: Open-ended Survey Question Responses
Applied to Qualitative Themes: Application, Intention, and Inhibitor

68

Table 17

Side by Side Comparison of LEIC Tool Survey Results: Number of
Occurences of Three Themes Emerging from Quantitative Interview
Data: Application, Intention, and Inhibitor and Open-ended Survey
Question Responses Coded to Qualitative Themes: Inhibitor,
Application, and Intention

69

vi

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1

Convergent Design of the Mixed-Method Study of BC Teachers’ Use
of the LEIC Planning Tool

vii

31

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to say thank you to Dr. Andrew Kitchenham for his guidance and
support. He was thoughtful, kind, and patient. I appreciated his expertise and am
grateful for the way he pushed me when I needed to be pushed and guided me when I was
struggling or discouraged. He got the balance just right.
I would also like to acknowledge my husband Roy for his continual love and
encouragement. Alison and Margaret, my children, were also there to share and support
me in this process as was my Dad, my Mum, and my four sisters, particularly
Hilary Brown; she was a tremendous help “crunching” the quantitative data – she saved
me hours!
I would like to thank my POPFASD colleagues, as well as Kathy Hughes who
shared the history of POPFASD and the LEIC. Finally, I would like to thank my friends
and colleagues, Jodee Sayle, who walked with me through much of this process and
helped to keep me going, and Trina Chivilo who shared her wisdom and creative insight.

viii

Chapter 1
Introduction
There is a paradigm shift in education and British Columbia educators are
increasingly focusing on an inclusive education system that provides an environment in
which there are intellectual, personal, and social purposes for all students. All students
should include those with a diagnosis of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD).
FASD is a term used to describe a neurodevelopmental disorder that is the result of
prenatal exposure to alcohol. In BC, diagnosis of FASD includes a complex physical and
neurodevelopmental assessment by a multi-disciplinary team. Currently the waitlist for
an assessment is approximately 12-18 months. Time delays can be exacerbated by the
often-needed requirement of confirmation of prenatal exposure to alcohol. This disability
often includes stigma for the individual with the diagnosis as well as for the mother or the
family. Due to the complex neurodevelopmental and physical difficulties associated
with FASD, students with an FASD diagnosis often require additional supports in order
to maximize success.
The Provincial Outreach Program for FASD (POPFASD) was established by
British Columbia’s Ministry of Education in 2006 and has the mandate to increase
educator and district capacity to meet the learning needs of students with FASD. Current
research, ideas, strategies, training, and resources are primarily shared through online
training courses, face-to-face workshops, and webinars as well as on the POPFASD
website. Three teacher consultants share FASD information province-wide. They are
supported by District Partners who facilitate the dissemination of information. These
District Partners sometimes actively participate in the information sharing; for some this

1

is part of the regular roles and responsibilities and for others, they volunteer their time to
support POPFASD. There are currently 80 District Partners supporting the 63 public
school districts as well as the Catholic Independent Schools – Vancouver, Catholic
Independent Schools – Nelson, Society of Christian Schools in BC, and First Nations
Education Steering Committee (FNESC). The program is overseen by an eight-person
steering committee.
Curriculum-based evaluation (CBE) is a system in which educators gather
assessment data in a structured way and then use this information to inform teaching
practice. It is not a single test and it is not a tool used to inform eligibility for
categorization or labelling; rather, it is a process. One of the key resources developed by
POPFASD in 2006 was the LEIC planning tool (LEIC) (see Appendix A). LEIC stands
for: L - Learner, E – Environment, I – Instruction, and C – Curriculum. This tool was
adapted and then modified from the RIOT/ICEL matrix, a CBE conceptual framework.
This framework guides a thorough problem analysis, identifying strengths and needs of
the learner by systematically reviewing existing records (R), interviewing (I), observing
(O), and testing, informally and/or formally (T). Four domains are also considered,
instruction (I), curriculum (C), environment (E) and the learner (L) (Harlacher, Sakelaris,
& Kattelman, 2014).
POPFASD’s purpose for introducing and sharing the LEIC tool with educators is
to provide a systematic planning framework that can be used to create a snapshot of the
learners academic and personal strengths and needs, to identify the expectations placed
upon the learner, the requirements of the brain in order to achieve expectations, and the
possible primary disabilities that may impede the achievement of expectations as well as

2

the possible secondary characteristics that may be evident as a result of the “poor fit”
between expectations and disability. Primary disabilities are those disabilities that reflect
the underlying brain disability or neurodevelopmental damage and secondary disabilities
are challenges which can be reduced or ameliorated through appropriate interventions or
strategies that support the primary disability (Malbin, 2002; Streissguth, 199). Finally,
the planning tool guides the educators through the process of creating appropriate
accommodations with considerations for the environment, instruction, and curriculum.
Rather than having the LEIC be completed by one teacher, POPFASD encourages the
team supporting the student to complete the document together. The team may consist of
the classroom teacher, resource teacher, education assistant, school administrator, as well
as other professionals involved in a student’s education. Parents/guardians and the
student (if appropriate) are also important in the planning process.
The LEIC is divided into three sections, the first section examines the learner’s
strengths and needs using both formal and informal assessment (RIOT – Read, Interview,
Observe, and Test). The second section identifies the expectations of the learner within
the school setting, the expectations of a student’s brain, and then possible primary
disabilities are identified. A comparison is made between disability and expectation and
then secondary disabilities are listed along with information about the setting where these
occur. Finally, the third section identifies environmental, instructional, and curricular
strategies that will support the learner’s primary disabilities and thus reduce the
likelihood of secondary challenges occurring.
One of the strengths in the LEIC is that it identifies student’s strengths, it focuses
on neurodevelopmental reasons for why certain behaviours may be occurring, and it also

3

focuses attention on the instructional, curricular, and environmental elements that the
teacher is introducing into the learner’s education setting. Guiding questions are
available to support the completion of each of the elements of the LEIC (See Appendix
B).
Significance of the Research
POPFASD has been sharing and encouraging the use of the LEIC for
approximately 10 years with only informal data collection and collation to support its
perceived usefulness. Any systematically collected information is gathered in a survey
format; typically only one question relates to the LEIC. The survey uses a Likert scale.
There are also general short-answer questions where anecdotal information can be
gathered. These questions do not specifically address the LEIC and the surveys are given
as part of workshop or online course feedback. The information is then collated and
stored. Continued or long-term use of the LEIC as well as perceptions, benefits, and/or
experiences with the tool have not been systematically assessed in any way, either
formally or informally.
A cursory view of the data indicates only minor changes have been made to the
LEIC and those were primarily formatting. It is estimated that approximately 18 hours
per month is spent on the sharing of the LEIC tool, therefore, it is important that research
be undertaken to identify what educators’ experiences are with the LEIC, to see if it
achieves its purpose, and to identify any changes to the format, process, and sharing of
the LEIC that may be worth consideration. I focussed my research on understanding the
lived experiences educators have with the LEIC once they have left a POPFASD
workshop or completed an online course.

4

After extensive searches, there appeared to be no research on the use of the LEIC
planning tool or the RIOT/ICEL framework/matrix from which the LEIC evolved. It was
apparent there is a dearth of literature therefore this study was worth completing.
Purpose of the Study and Central Research Question
POPFASD spends approximately 18 hours each month sharing the LEIC planning
tool with BC educators; however, very little data exist as to the efficacy and use of this
tool—whether teachers use it, do not use it, why they do or do not use it, how they have
adapted it or changed it to suit their use, whether it is used by teams or individuals,
classroom teachers, or resource teachers. There is no research in the professional
literature on the LEIC tool. A convergent mixed-methods design was used and involved
the separate collection of quantitative and qualitative data with the merging of the results
to examine the extent to which the qualitative data were confirmed by the quantitative
data and vice versa. The purpose of this study was to understand the use of the LEIC
planning tool by BC teachers.
In this study, survey data were used to gather information from a larger
population than the data gathered through qualitative interviewing. Creswell (2015b)
states that survey designs are appropriate when looking for trends or beliefs of a
population. With the lack of professional research it was deemed important to gather
information on the attitudes, beliefs, and practices of BC teachers with the LEIC. Oneon-one interviews were conducted to explore the lived experiences of BC teachers with
the LEIC planning tool. Interviews provided more in-depth and detailed data (Creswell,
2015b).

5

The central research question was: What are the lived experiences of BC
educators with the LEIC planning tool? I used a semi-structured interview format to
guide the process of gathering information about the lived experiences of six BC
teachers. I looked for possible reasons for the use or lack of use of the LEIC. To direct
the survey data collection I asked questions such as:
1. Were there specific grades that used the LEIC more readily?
2. Did enrolling (classroom teachers) and non-enrolling (specialist) respond
differently to questions about the LEIC?
3. Did frequency of use impact response?
4. What aspects of the tool did teachers find more useful or less useful?
5. Did the type of training make a difference? Or multiple trainings?
I also asked a series of open-ended, Likert scale questions to gather information about the
various aspects of the tool including format-type questions, use questions, and
understanding questions.omplex learning needs, including an FASD.
Researcher Context
My interest in carrying out research on the LEIC planning tool stems back to my
work as a support teacher. In this role, I had to work with and coordinate school teams in
their planning for students with special needs. This often involved the use of a variety of
different planning tools, some which were Ministry of Education mandated, like the
Individual Education Plan (IEP) and some that came from the district I was working in.
This included forms and frameworks such as learning support plans, student profiles,
school-based team tools, and extended school-based planning forms, to name a few. In
some cases, schools and support teachers could decide which tools they wished to use or

6

adapt. The IEP is the only provincially mandated planning document and the format for
this document is decided at the district level. There was repetition in forms and a
common concern I heard special educators and classroom teachers share is that there is an
over-emphasis on what seemed to be bureaucratic forms and an under-emphasis on the
most important aspect of planning: understanding and developing the best educational
environment for the student.
In 2015, I took POPFASD’s six-week online course and was re-introduced to the
LEIC tool. I had, at the time, used the tool a few times as I had previously taken a
workshop hosted by POPFASD. The coursework for the six-week course included
background information on FASD, an introduction to effective strategies and
accommodations, and an introduction to the LEIC planning tool. We were required to
use this tool to either plan for a student we were working with or we could use a case
study that was provided. I chose to use the tool to plan for a student who was in my class
at the time. The student was struggling to cope with the daily expectations of the
classroom. He had no formalized assessments and no IEP as he had no special education
designation, although he did have a learning support plan to support his learning needs.
This reintroduction brought to light the value of the LEIC planning tool. Unlike many of
the planning tools and the IEP in particular, it focuses on understanding the learner first
and foremost, focuses on utilizing the learner’s strengths in planning, and emphasises a
neurodevelopmental approach to planning and teaching. The second section of the tool
highlights some of the expectations that are being placed on the learner and it then leads
the educator to consider the demands placed on the brain, as well as considering the
possible disabilities of the learner that may be affected by a neurodevelopmental

7

disability. It then identifies three critical areas to consider in developing
accommodations—environment, instruction, and curriculum. It acts as a good vehicle for
team discussion about a student and allows for a systematic review of assessment and of
functional domains, thus enabling a strategic, problem-solving approach. This tool
incorporates neurodevelopmental and strength-based teaching approaches as well as an
underlying principal supported by Ecological Systems Theory. It was immediately
apparent to me that the LEIC did a better job of planning for a student than the BCeSIS
IEP that was in place at the time. It was also a tool for planning unlike District #57’s
Learning Support Profile and the school-based learning support plan, both of which were
more about documentation than problem-solving.
In the fall of 2015, I changed my teaching position and became a full-time teacher
consultant with POPFASD. I began to wonder how and when the LEIC tool was being
used, what was working for educators, and what was not. Part of my role was to share
the LEIC tool, a tool I had only used a few times, with other educators. As a new teacher
consultant I spent approximately 10 hours a month sharing, focusing, explaining, or
preparing to work with the LEIC tool; as I have gained experience, this time has reduced
and it has since been estimated that the three POPFASD teachers collectively spend
approximately 18 hours a month preparing for LEIC workshops, giving instruction, and
evaluating LEIC assignments; this is a significant financial investment.
I have observed many support teachers, classroom teachers, and other educators
struggle with the many forms; not understanding their purpose, feeling overwhelmed by
the number that need to be completed, and feeling that all the forms were not helping the
student. I have seen many teachers fill them out “just for the sake of filling them out”.

8

In the brief nine-month period I have been a teacher consultant I have wondered how
many of the teachers I have shared the LEIC form with have set it aside. If they have,
what caused them to do this? Did they like the tool when they initially learned about it?
Did they keep using it? What parts of the tool did they find useful? What parts would
they like to see changed? Why did they keep using it?
Theoretical Orientation
This thesis draws on the theoretical perspective of Bronfenbrenner’s (2005)
Ecological Systems Theory which is a socioecological paradigm used to describe and
explain the reciprocal relationship between human beings and their environment over
their lifetimes. Critical to Bronfenbrenner’s theory is the dimension of time and the fact
that development involves outcomes at a particular point in time as well as characteristics
that develop over time. According to Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory the
ecological environment consists of five subsystems that include the microsystem,
mesosystem, exosystem, marocsystem, and chronosystem. In visual models the circles are
concentric and they progress outward from the microsystem. The microsystem is the
system “closest” to the individual and the properties of this system are the most
immediate to the individual which means that events in this system are likely to have the
most potent effect, particularly if the individual is present. The microsystem includes
properties such as the student’s gender, age, health, and education as well as family,
school, neighbourhood, peers, work, and church. The mesosytem represents the
relationship or connection between two or more microsystems for example the connection
between family and school, family and neighbourhood, or school and work with the
student becoming an active participant in these groups. The third system, the exosystem,

9

does not include the student directly; rather, it is the settings outside of his or her direct
sphere of influence; however, the properties of this system will interact with elements of
the student’s microsystem. For example, a parent’s workplace schedule will not require
direct involvement from the child; however, the child could be affected by these
schedules. The fourth system is the macrosystem, which includes elements such as
cultural mores and beliefs, laws, and societal values. This system may or may not affect
the student as strongly as the preceding three as it depends on larger, less tangible,
influences on the student’s life. Lastly, the chronosystem includes environmental events
over time and the cumulative effect of these events. Examples of events within this
system include, the birth of a sibling, divorce, parental job loss, puberty, or severe illness.
The effect of each of the systems can be positive or a negative.
This theory is important to the research since educators are part of a developing
child’s microsystem and through the process of creating an educational plan for a student,
the teacher is engaged in gathering information about the student from both the
immediate environment as well as other larger contexts. This process of gathering
information and developing education plans is undertaken at specific moments in time
but also across a span of time.
Chapter Summary
In this chapter, I have outlined my motivation to carry out this research. I have
described how exploring and developing an understanding of the experiences BC
teachers have had with the LEIC planning tool will add to the lack of literature on this
topic. It could, potentially, provide POPFASD with information to enhance the
professional development opportunities they provide to BC educators. I have also

10

identified and outlined Ecological Systems Theory as the theoretical framework or
foundation on which I am basing this study.
In Chapter 2, I will discuss literature on neurodevelopmental theory. FASD is a
neurodevelopmental disability and the LEIC tool identifies this factor as a key part of the
planning process. It includes a discussion of planning tools in the context of
neurodevelopmental theory and a description of the LEIC planning tool. There is a
scarcity of literature on the LEIC and on planning for students with FASD; therefore, the
literature review process is also shared.
Chapter 3 provides a rationale for using a mixed-methods design for this research,
an outline of the research procedures, including ethicial considerations, participant
recruitment, consent process, data collection methods, and how the study was evaluated.
Qualitatitive and quantitative findings are presented in Chapter 4.
Chapter 5 provides detailed analysis of the findings in Chapter 4. The analysis
includes how data from the survey supports the data from the interviews and vica versa.
My analysis will cross-reference the findings of Chapter 2. Finally, recognizing
Brofennbrenner’s theoretical orientation, it was important that the analysis gave weight to
the context in which educators spend their day; that consideration was given to the
environment, social, interactive and perceived notions of support and planning for
students with complex learning needs and also within the broader context of the school,
the education system and within the demands of being a teacher in British Columbia.
Chapter 6 concludes with a discussion of the limitiations, implications for future
research as well as for POPFASD, and finally my personal reflections are shared.

11

Chapter 2: Literature Review
Developing a student-centred, learning plan for individuals with FASD (Fetal
Alcohol Spectrum Disorder) requires a thoughtful and informed approach in order to
create a meaningful, individualized plan that will utilize and develop the strengths of the
learner (Carpenter, 2011; Carpenter et al., 2011; Clark, 2012; Clark et al., 2014; Kalberg
& Buckley, 2007; Millians, 2015; Pei, 2013; Petrenko, Tahir, Mahoney, & Chin, 2014).
POPFASD’s (Provincial Outreach Program for FASD) approach to supporting students
with FASD is grounded in neurodevelopmental theory and a strength-based approach to
learning.
As part of this support, POPFASD utilizes the LEIC planning tool. This studentcentred planning instrument identifies the neurodevelopmental dysfunction and
behaviours of the learner as well as identifies the environment that supports or negates
the learning. This tool is also grounded in neurodevelopmental theory. The LEIC has
three sections. The first section focuses on the learner and includes a review, interview,
observe, and test (RIOT) approach to profile the learner. The second section seeks to
identify the expectations of the learner, the possible brain domain impairments, and the
observable behaviours as well as considering the suitability of the match between the
educational expectations and the learner. The third section is the accommodations
portion in which appropriate accommodations are developed with full consideration
given to the environment, curriculum, and instruction.
For the purposes of this literature review the term planning tool will be used.
Other terms within this term include student information system, profile, education plan,

12

and matrix. The term neurodevelopmental will be adopted and will include other terms
such as neuroconstructivist, brain-based, and neurobehavioural.
A comprehensive search of the literature for information related to FASD was
undertaken. For the planning tools portion of the literature review, there were limited
search results. The search for planning tools that was undertaken used databases that
included ERIC (Education Resources Information Centre) an educational literature and
resource database, Academic Search Premier a multidisciplinary database, and
PsychINFO to cover the behavioural and psychological aspects of the literature. Search
terms included:
1. Planning and FASD fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, prenatal alcohol
exposure, and alcohol related fetal damage, which resulted in 67 references however all
of the results were for literature on profiling of domain impairment, models for support
outside of the education setting, broad case management issues, broad programming
strategies, discussions of interventions, or prevention planning rather than profiles for the
purposes of planning in a school setting. The search term school was added. Twentyfour references were identified however, similar results were achieved in terms of
literature topics.
2. Functional behaviour assessment and FASD, fetal alcohol spectrum disorder,
prenatal alcohol exposure, and alcohol related fetal damage, which resulted in no
references being identified.
3. Profile and FASD, fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, prenatal alcohol exposure,
and alcohol related fetal damage, which resulted in 169 references identified. Including
the term school narrowed the search. Sixty-nine references were identified however,

13

results did not conclude with literature specific to planning for classroom interventions
and support.
4. Education plan and FASD, fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, prenatal alcohol
exposure, and alcohol related fetal damage, which resulted in no references.
5. Matrix and FASD, fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, prenatal alcohol exposure,
and alcohol related fetal damage, which resulted in 31 references. The literature was
primarily concerned with biomarkers and no references led to literature on planning for
intervention and support in the school setting.
6. LEIC and FASD, fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, prenatal alcohol exposure,
and alcohol related fetal damage, which resulted in no references being identified.
Similar search terms were used with the broad term disabilities. While
information was not abundant, this search did provide some positive results.
The first section of this literature review provides information about
neurodevelopmental theory, particularly as applied to FASD. By understanding how the
brain, the environment, and development itself intertwine and exert change on human
development (Karmiloff-Smith, 1998), I will demonstrate how the LEIC planning tool is
also grounded in neurodevelopmental theory. In the second section, research into
planning tools for individuals with disability will be reviewed. The paucity of research
on planning tools and FASD will demonstrate the need for research into the potential of
the LEIC planning tool to create neurodevelopmental-based supports for students with
FASD. In short, I will demonstrate that the literature supports the need for research on a
comprehensive, student-centred planning tool conceived from a neurodevelopmental
perspective to support and enhance the learning for students with FASD.

14

Neurodevelopmental Theory and FASD
Cook et al. (2015), Mattson et al., (2013), and Streissguth’s (1997) research
showed that prenatal alcohol exposure can result in damage to the central nervous system,
which leads to cognitive and behavioural impairments in the affected individual. The
importance of identifying the neurocognitive traits of individuals with FASD has been
identified in the literature (Bredberg, 2011; Malbin, 2002; Mattson et al., 2013;
Streissguth, 1997; Streissguth et al., 2004). According to the Canadian Guidelines for
FASD, a critical element for a diagnosis is evidence of dysfunction in three or more areas
of the central nervous system (Cook et al., 2015) highlighting the fact that prenatal
alcohol exposure can result in functional brain damage (Cook et al., 2015; Malbin, 2002;
Mattson et al., 2013; Streissguth, 1997; Streissguth et al., 2004).
Knowledge from the fields of neuroscience, psychology, and education has led to
new paradigms in educational practice that establish links between brain function and
learning (Jensen, 2008; Karmiloff-Smith, 1998; Wilson, Conyers, & Rose, 2015).
Neurodevelopmental theory identifies a link or interaction between brain function, the
environment, and development across the lifespan (Jensen, 2008; Karmiloff-Smith, 1998)
as opposed to nature-based theory which stresses the biological nature of development or
nurture-based theory which stresses the environment within the context of development
(Karmiloff-Smith, 1998; Pressley & McCormick, 2007).
Mattson et al. (2013) completed a quantitative study, the purpose of which was to
build on an earlier neurobehavioural profile study (Mattson et al., 2010b) and improve
classification and diagnosis of individuals with alcohol exposure (AE). The researchers
indicated that there was strong evidence in the research for the importance of identifying

15

the neurobehavioural phenotype associated with AE for the reason that greater
clarification of a neurocognitive profile associated with AE would lead to improved
interventions, planning, and supports. Participants for this study were children between
the ages of eight and 17. Data were collected from six sites in the United States and
South Africa. The experimental group was made up of 209 subjects all of whom had
confirmed heavy exposure to alcohol and the control group was made up of 185 subjects.
The control group consisted of typically-developing children who did not meet criteria
for Fetal Alcohol Spectrum (FAS) or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)
and had histories of little or no prenatal alcohol exposure. Both groups were given
batteries of neuropsychological tests to identify which neurobehavioural deficits were
most common. The results of this study showed that there was a statistically-significant
difference between the alcohol-exposed group and the control group. This study
provided statistically-significant results indicating that 70% of children with heavy
prenatal alcohol exhibited an atypical neurobehavioural profile even in the absence of
FAS. The authors concluded that this information could be used to differentiate
individuals affected by prenatal alcohol exposure from a typically developing individual.
This study supports the argument that there is a neurodevelopmental profile for FASD.
Interestingly, Karmiloff-Smith (1998) stated that a neuropsychological model
might not fully explain the dynamics of developmental disorder, suggesting that while the
neural profile is relevant to development, so too is the environment and development
itself. The examples used to explain Karmiloff-Smith’s position on neurodevelopment
were based on studies of disabilities other than those associated with prenatal alcohol
exposure.

16

Kalberg and Buckley (2007) also characterized the neurobehavioural deficits
typically associated with FASD. They recognized that while individuals may have the
same diagnosis, the learning profile of each individual is unique. Kalberg and Buckley
described how neurobiological profiles should be used to inform school-based assessment
practice, planning, intervention, and support. However, the authors also highlighted the
importance of using a combination of tools and assessments to support learners, arguing
that neurocognitive and behavioural assessments, as well as an assessment of the learning
environment are necessary to determine what supports are needed. From Kalberg and
Buckley’s work, it can be determined that they support a neurodevelopmental theory of
learning, in which the environment and the developing learner’s brain are inextricably
linked in development.
Malbin (2002) outlined a neurodevelopmental approach to intervention and
support. She discussed how brain research has altered the understanding of behaviours
associated with FASD. Using knowledge of the neurodevelopmental profile typical of
FASD, Malbin described FASCETS (Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Consultation, Education,
and Training Services) neurobehavioural construct which links brain dysfunction and
behaviour, highlighting the importance of thinking about behaviours as symptoms of
brain disability rather than problem behaviour. Malbin argued the limitations of learning
theory and typical behavioural interventions stating that learning theory and typical
behavioural interventions do not recognize structural brain differences. Malbin’s
substantive argument was that knowing FASD is a neurodevelopmental disability
requires a paradigm shift, one that moves away from the learner who “won’t” to the
learner who “can’t”. She also described the importance of providing appropriate

17

environmental accommodations that support brain dysfunction arguing that caregivers,
including teachers, are a part of the “invisible” environment. According to Malbin when
an approach is not working the emphasis should be on the caregiver to find a different
way to support the learner.
Like Malbin, Jensen (2008) believed that it is essential that teachers recognize
they are a fundamental element within a student’s learning environment. Teachers create
microclimates within their classroom that can enhance or hinder student development.
Some elements of this environment are visible, such as classroom layout, organization,
teacher’s clothing and some elements are invisible, like respect, enthusiasm, and energy
(Jensen, 2008, Malbin, 2002). To highlight the importance of the teacher as part of the
environment, Jensen provided an explanation of the mirror neuron system of the brain,
which he stated is accessed through observation. This system allows humans to see the
world from another’s perspective; therefore it is likely to be the system that is responsible
for imitation, social learning, and emotional development (Jensen, 2008).
Streissguth (1996) was the first to identify primary and secondary disabilities
often associated with FASD. The primary disabilities highlight the behaviours that
reflect functional brain damage associated with FASD while the secondary disabilities
provide information as to the behavioural aspects often associated with the environmental
influences. Streissguth described the secondary disabilities as disabilities that are a result
of an individual’s brain dysfunction responding to environmental influences. She
identified six secondary disabilities which included: (a) mental health problems, (b)
disrupted school experiences, (c) trouble with the law, (d) confinement, (e) inappropriate
sexual behaviour, and (f) alcohol and drug problems. Malbin’s (2002) list of secondary

18

disabilities differ from those of Streissguth; however, both Malbin and Streissguth argued
that secondary disabilities are a result of environmental influences rather than strictly
brain dysfunction.
Streissguth et al. (2004) examined adverse life outcomes for individuals with
FASD and explored the impact environment had on the nature and intensity of those
outcomes. This qualitative study involved 415 individuals between the ages of six and 51
with an average age of 14. The authors identified five adverse outcomes some of which
were identified previously as secondary disabilities (Streissguth, 1997). Analysis of data
from the study demonstrated environmental factors that protect individuals from
developing secondary traits as well as environmental factors that enhance the risk of
negative outcomes. Streissguth et al., (2004) demonstrated that there is an interaction
among the brain, the environment and the developing learner, as well as observable,
behavioural responses to that interaction.
Kodituwakku (2010) summarized intervention studies on FASD and presented a
neurodevelopmental framework based on findings from clinical neuroscience,
developmental psychology, and neuropsychology. Some of the studies used animal
models and included neonatal handling, the provision of enriched environment, and
domain-specific training. All of these studies provided evidence of experience-induced
changes in neural functioning or neural plasticity. Kodituwakku also summarized
intervention with human subjects. These human studies focused on improving skills in a
variety of domain-specific areas, including: (a) social skills, (b) math skill, (c), literacy
skills, (d) safety skills, and (e) working memory. Kodituwakku also shared the results of
a study on a specific behavioural consultation program called Families Moving Forward,

19

the Alert Program which is a neurocognitive program aimed at self-regulation, a parentchild interaction therapy study, and a cognitive control therapy study stating that each of
these interventions provided evidence that behavioural interventions could improve
domain-specific functioning, however, some studies did not show generalization to other
areas.
Kodituwakku (2010) presented arguments as to why there has been limited
intervention research: (a) lack of consensus regarding core deficits in children affected by
prenatal exposure; (b) different methodologies used in animal vs human research,
resulting in difficulties translating research into human intervention; and (c) FASD not
being seen as a global health risk. The author stated that the lack of research-based
interventions has led to teachers creating interventions based on experience rather than
research data and that the studies presented provided evidence that behavioural
interventions were effective in improving both behaviour and cognition. While the
studies showed improvement in specific domains this improvement did not necessarily
generalize to other areas of the brain, as well, only some interventions were effective.
Kodituwakku also presented a neurodevelopmental framework for intervention,
stating that most of the human intervention studies utilized strategies that had been
successful with disorders such as autism, ADHD, or language delays. He argued that
while these disabilities may have had some similar characteristics to FASD, the full
benefits of intervention are only possible when the interventions are tailored to a specific
disability. In describing a framework with four guidelines to maximize intervention
possibilities: (a) attend to the individual’s cognitive-behavioural profile; (b) use strategies
with the zone of proximal development; (c) provide early self-regulation and attention

20

training; (d) provide an enriched environmental input; and (e) combine evidence-based
behavioural and pharmacological intervention, unless contraindicated, Kodituwakku
compared a modular view of the mind that focuses on damaged modules vs a view in
which neural and cognitive processes are context dependent. He described how
interventions have typically been aimed at specific cognitive domains that are impaired
focusing on the importance of training in attention and self-regulation because this type
of training is more comprehensive than domain-specific training. The studies identified
and discussed in Kodituwakku provided evidence to support a neurodevelopmental
theory. Of note, some of the studies used animal models and only a few studies were
undertaken in the classroom environment; the math study used a specific math program
and the literacy study was undertaken in 10 schools in a high-risk area of South Africa.
Millians (2015) described intervention studies that addressed deficits in learning
readiness, mathematics, social interactions, behaviour, attention, and executive processes.
The author identified that there is no research to address problems in reading, written
expression, social studies, or science. She also identified that teachers and school staff
need to be provided with training to understand and support learners with FASD.
Millians stated that interventions focus on changing thinking patterns; thus supporting a
neurodevelopmental approach.
Paley and O’Connor (2009) reviewed empirically tested treatments for individuals
with FASD, discussed case management considerations, and suggested future directions
research should take. Animal studies were reviewed and the authors stated that the
results of the studies were promising and remediation may be possible. The studies
reviewed supported a neurodevelopmental theory. The authors reviewed educational and

21

cognitive interventions stating that certain strategies might help support learning. Paley
and O’Connor refered to four of the educational and cognitive intervention studies found
in Kalberg and Buckley (2007), Kodituwakku (2010), Millians (2015), and Paley and
O’Connor (2009), highlighting the limitations on school specific, evidence-based
interventions. While the case management discussion focused on psychiatric issues,
substance abuse problems, legal and medical problems, and sexuality, Paley and
O’Conner described the importance of treatment decisions being informed by
neurocognitive impairments and behavioural deficits of the individual. There is an
absence in the recommendations and future directions that address educational
involvement, rather the report described the importance of educating health care
professionals and community providers, all of which are important but draw attention to
the lack of focus and research on the school environment.
Planning Tools
Thoughtful and thorough planning is important for students with an FASD
diagnosis (Carpenter, 2011; Kalberg, & Buckley, 2007; Millians, 2015; Poth, Pei, Job, &
Wyper, 2014). In a recent study, Poth, Pei, Job, and Wyper (2014) stated that
instructional planning should come from a variety of assessment sources, should consider
environmental influences, and should be a collaborative process (Bredberg, 2011;
Carpenter, 2011; Carpenter et al., 2011; Malbin, 2002; Paley & O’Conner, 2009; Poth,
Pei, Job, & Wyper, 2014; Streissguth, 1997). Carpenter et al. (2011) described a largescale study, undertaken in the United Kingdom. The Department of Education, U.K.
commissioned the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust to undertake an 18-month
action research project the purpose of which was to develop a learning resource

22

framework to enhance outcomes for students with Complex Learning Difficulties and
Disabilities (CLDD), including FASD. Included in this framework was the development
of resources that would create effective, individualized learning pathways. The authors
stated that students with complex learning needs were a unique group of learners and
there was a clear lack of guidance and training for teaching this group of students. The
participants in the Engagement for Learning study included educators, parents, students,
and multidisciplinary team members in 91 educational settings. There were 184 students
involved in the study. Students were selected to represent as wide a range as possible of
disability within the definition of CLDD that had been developed, prior to the study,
through a 12-month consultation process. The schools included special schools,
international schools, and mainstream schools. Resources were developed in special
schools in phase one of the project. These resources were then trialed in special and
international special schools during phase 2a. Additional trials took place in phase 2b.
The participant schools in this phase were all mainstream schools.
Included in the developed and trialed resources was The Engagement and Profile
Scale (EPS). The EPS was developed to enhance student-centered reflection and to
encourage educators to develop learning plans that centered on student strengths and
interests. Carpenter et al., (2011) described engagement as one of the single best
predictors of successful learning. Malbin (2002) and Streissguth (1997) also described
the importance of identifying strengths but did not directly describe motivation or
engagement as contributing factors to positive learning outcomes. Jensen (2008) also
identified engagement as one of the three elements central to neurodevelopmental
teaching, while neurodevelopmental theorists such as Karmiloff-Smith (1998) described

23

the importance of the learner and the environment she did not isolate engagement as a
critical factor in learning. Carpenter et al. (2011) concluded that the overall response to
the framework and resources was positive and constructive. The authors found that the
EPS led to increased engagement in learning for students with complex learning needs
and they stated that educators had indicated their professional practice improved.
Educators also observed improved learning and emotional regulation amongst students.
Clark (2012) and Clark et al. (2014) completed a mixed-methods study that
assessed the POPFASD program. The study was undertaken in one district in British
Columbia and participants included 12 elementary teachers from eight schools and 13
students. Students were blind to the intervention, however teachers were not. Student
behaviour and academic achievement were measured in both an intervention and an
untreated comparison group. The intervention group received teacher training on FASD
as well as mentorship (Clark 2012). All teachers were interviewed and transcripts were
analyzed thematically. Four main findings were highlighted and included: (a) teacher
satisfaction with the professional development, (b) no statistically significant change in
observed behaviours, (c) teachers identified more positive feelings toward student
behaviours, and (d) no statistically significance change in academic performance. The
authors stated that teachers felt the training program affected their teaching in a positive
way. Although the LEIC planning tool was not the main focus for this study teachers
described it as a useful planning tool and an important aspect of POPFASD’s training.
Millians (2015) systematically reviewed and summarized a number of studies and
reports on educational planning and interventions for students with FASD. She concluded
that (a) teachers found diagnostic reports complex and they did not provide specific ideas

24

for supporting learners, (b) different levels of teaching experience resulted in differing
levels of frustration with children with FASD, and (c) experienced teachers were better
able to modify programs. The author then presented an overview of factors necessary for
planning. Included in this overview was training on FASD and effective strategies and
comprehensive evaluation of student diagnosis, which she stated should include specific,
school-based interventions; level of functioning; strengths and needs; and careful selection
of program, placement, and instructional supports. Millians also described research on
interventions however, they were limited in scope and number and some required access to
funding that British Columbia schools do not typically have. This report provided further
evidence that there is a lack of research regarding specific interventions for students with
FASD in some academic areas, that cognitive deficits need to be considered, that the
approach to support students needs to be collaborative, and that a learning profile that
incorporates specific information about the learners strengths, needs, functional
capabilities, and cognitive impairments needs to be developed.
Hayes (2004) completed a case study in which a visual tool was used to review an
annual education plan of an elementary school student with moderate learning difficulties.
This student was transitioning to a secondary setting. The school was located in the United
Kingdom. The review tool was a four-quadrant tool and was based on a child-centered
approach. Each quadrant represented a different focus for the review. The foci included
strengths and difficulties at school, the strengths and difficulties at home, the agencies and
supports in place for the student, and the first steps to be taken within three days of the
review. The pre-meeting process included: (a) the student receiving a copy of the fourquadrant circle and a list of questions that would be asked, (b) the student identifying who

25

she would like at the meeting, (c) other participants being identified, (d) roles being
allocated, and (e) classmates providing positive feedback about the student. During the
meeting the steps were (a) the process was explained, (b) the four-quadrant visual tool was
overviewed, and (c) questions were asked and responses were sketched to complete the
four quadrants. The student was the central participant in the discussion however,
information was gathered from all participants with the exception of the graphic facilitator
who created graphic images of what was discussed. The final step in the process was a
round of words in which each participant gave one word about the review process. Hayes
concluded that the approach was, from all participants’ perspectives, a useful process and
tool for reviewing progress and preparing for transitions. She identified that students with
profound or multiple learning disabilities might find this process challenging. Hayes case
study, while limited due to the single evaluation, single participant, and a student with
moderate learning difficulties, has a similar emphasis on the collaborative, studentcentered approach noted in the study of Carpenter et al., (2011).
Giangreco, Whiteford, Whiteford, and Doyle (1998) described a case study in
which the Choosing Outcomes and Accommodations for Children (COACH) educational
planning tools was utilized with a four-year-old with Down syndrome. This student
attended a regular pre-school program. The COACH planning tool uses a validated,
problem-solving method and is guided by six principals, some of which include
collaboration and connecting learning outcomes to individually valued life outcomes
(Giangreco et al., 1998). The authors described a 10-step process for creating a student’s
education program. A critical factor in the COACH tool is explicitly linking assessments
to planning in a systematic manner that includes drawing upon the knowledge of family

26

and team members. They argued that this is different from developmental assessments
and behavioural checklists in that it provides a process for decision-making and not just
lists of functional behaviours or developmental outcomes. Giangreco et al. concluded
that the case study documented an effective use of COACH for developing a program and
supports for a preschool child with disabilities. While this study examined the
effectiveness of COACH within a case study methodology and not with an individual
with FASD, it is interesting to note the focus on collaboration and assessment to guide
planning, as well, the social environment was a key focus in planning.
Kalberg and Buckley (2007) presented information on the typical neurobehavioral
issues that occur in children who have prenatal alcohol exposure as well as discussing
how this information could be utilized to plan for interventions and supports. The
authors outlined the importance of understanding the specific learning challenges of each
student and the importance of gathering information from various sources to develop a
clear learning profile to aid the planning process. They described the importance of
identifying environmental influences and how these need to be considered in planning.
Kalberg and Buckley also described the need for a functional assessment of student
strengths and challenges to supplement information gleaned from neurodevelopmental
assessments. While Kalberg and Buckley did not describe a specific planning tool they
did indicate that Choosing Outcomes and Accommodations for Children (COACH) was a
useful planning tool.
Howell and Nolet (2000) described the fundamental principles of how to conduct
evaluations of learning. They described a collaborative, 10-step process to developing
effective programs. Steps two, three, and four are of particular interest (a) step two focuses

27

on clarifying what the student needed to know, (b) step three focuses on describing what
the student is doing and what is expected, and (c) step four focuses on analyzing what skill,
instruction, and knowledge deficits might be causing the problem. These four steps require
consideration of the learner and their environment.
Within the 10-step process is a six-step Curriculum-Based Evaluation (CBE)
process. Howell and Nolet (2000) described, in great detail, the steps in the process. They
emphasized the important of considering elements such as quality of instruction,
curriculum, and student’s prior knowledge. Step three includes a comprehensive
evaluation matrix. The matrix has four categories of assessment procedure, which include
review, interview, observe, and test, also known as RIOT. The four fields or domains of
assessment include, learner, environment, instruction, and curriculum, also known as
ICEL. They argued that assessment should not be limited to testing and domains of
assessment should not be limited to the learner. While Howell and Nolet provided a
planning process and not a planning tool, the CBE process supports a neurodevelopmental
approach to assessment in which the learner and the environment are important aspects of
consideration when planning for a student.
Alberta Education (2009) provide a strategy guide for supporting learners with
FASD. Within this guide, the authors included a multi-paged tool kit that includes an
interest inventory, parent survey, student inventory, individual support plan, parent tips,
emotional regulation tool, inventory to identify learning styles, meeting tips tool,
planning tool for meetings, resource lists, individual support plan, behaviour support
plan, parenting participation tips for behaviour support planning, tools to identify support
network, and daily report plans. While the number of tools presented is extensive this

28

resource clearly supports the need for a collaborative planning process that involves
assessment of the learner and their environment.
Chapter Summary
The literature recognizes that prenatal alcohol exposure can result in a
neurodevelopmental disability. For individuals with FASD, the neurodevelopmental
nature of the disability requires careful consideration of the neurobehavioural profile as
well as the environmental impacts that can augment or impede development. The literature
clearly indicates that there is a need for tailoring supports to meet the individual needs of
students with FASD; however, there is a distinct lack of research on tools that effectively
guide a collaborative planning process. Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that a
neurodevelopmental approach—one that considers the interdependence between the
learner, the behaviour, and the environment—should also be a critical part of any planning
tool or process.
It was my intention to describe the experiences of British Columbia educators’ uses
of POPFASD’s LEIC planning tool in the context of neurodevelopmental theory.
Qualitative findings reveal the three major themes of Application, Intention, and Inhibition.
These three themes are also identified in the quantitative results. The results of this study
suggest that teachers feel that the tool is a useful tool and they generally understand the
intent of the tool, however application and synthesis of the LEIC training is not always
accurate. Respondents determined a number of factors that could inhibit in-depth use of
the LEIC to produce the intented results.

29

Chapter 3: Methodology
Research can be divided into two broad paradigms: quantitative research or
qualitative research. When deciding which research approach to take, the researcher
should consider the problem, the question, and the literature review (Creswell, 2015a;
Creswell, 2015b). With these considerations, this study used a mixed-methods research
approach to investigate BC teachers’ experiences with the LEIC planning tool. Creswell
states that surveys provide data that helps to learn about a population rather than relating
variables or predicting outcomes.
A quantitative survey design was used to gain a breadth of descriptive knowledge
about teacher’s experience with the tool. The target population for this survey was BC
teachers who have completed, within the last 10 years, online or workshop training on the
LEIC planning tool. Using a qualitative, one-on-one interview design, and a smaller
sample, the aim was to delve deeply into the lived experiences of teachers with the LEIC.
The goal was to gain knowledge about current practices in order to further support
development of and training on the use of the LEIC planning tool.
Mixed-Methods Design
Mixed-methods research is a methodology often used in the fields of social,
behavioural, and health sciences and it draws on the strengths of both quantitative and
qualitative research by collecting and examining data using both approaches; therefore, it
is assumed that the result will be a superior understanding of the research problem.
Mixed-methods research is appropriate when one type of research has the potential to not
fully address a research problem. Mixed-methods design can verify information from
one database with another, deepen understanding, build on data source and provide

30

Figure 1. Convergent Design of the Mixed-Method Study of B.C. Teachers Use of the
LEIC Planning Tool something new, and help to explain one data source by examining
another data source (Creswell, 2015a; Creswell, 2015b). Using a convergent mixedmethods design, a design in which qualitative and quantitative data were simultaneously
collected, enabled me to offset the weaknesses of one data form with the strengths of the
other, resulting in a more rigorous understanding of the research question (see Figure 1).
Using the qualitative methodology of hermeneutic phenomenology, teachers’
lived experiences were examined with the LEIC tool in an attempt to better understand
the essence of their collective experiences. The lack of research on the LEIC indicates
that there is not enough knowledge of a particular theory or knowledge of existing
variables to control and examine therefore, a quantitative study was not be appropriate.
According to Creswell (2015a), qualitative research is appropriate when literature reveals
31

little research on a phenomenon, when variables are unknown, and when you need to
learn more from participants through inquiry. My role as a researcher was to understand
and interpret the experience of teachers regarding a particular phenomenon, in this case,
the LEIC tool. A qualitative approach was used to delve deeply into the experience
teachers have had with the LEIC tool. This included the experience of POPFASD’s
training, implementation and sharing of the tool with members of school teams,
understanding of the process, purpose, and format of the tool, the language of the tool,
collaborative experiences with other educators, parents, and students and how easily the
tool translated to other ministry, school, or district documentation, suggestions for
improvement, and how sustainable the use of the tool was.
The phenomenological approach to research seeks to understand and reconstruct
the everyday, lived experience, and knowledge of people. It is about describing the real
language of describing experience (Laverty, 2003, van Manen, 1997; Mayan, 2009). A
safe and trusting relationship was created with colleagues in which suppositions and
beliefs about the planning tool were shared as they were essential in the analysis and
interpretative process. In keeping with methods appropriate to phenomenology, it is
recognized that suppositions would likely not remain as they were, rather they would be
altered by that of the shared experiences of others (Laverty, 2003). As Mayan (2009)
stated, phenomenology is not about what is thought to be the experience of people, in my
case educators, but what actually the lived experience is. This makes for an interesting
methodological complication. As van Manen (1997) argued, reflection on lived
experience is always recollection of what has already passed because a person cannot
reflect while they are experiencing something.

32

Quantitative methodology, using a cross-sectional survey design, helped to gather
information on a larger population than the qualitative methodology thus providing
broader descriptive data regarding BC teachers’ opinions, behaviours, and attitudes
toward the LEIC tool. As stated in Creswell (2015b), quantitative survey research does
not allow for experimental manipulation of variables and therefore cause and effect
would not be examined; however, trends may be noted and further data might be
examined which would help to learn about BC teachers and their use of the LEIC
planning tool.
Ethical Concerns
Ethics is concerned with the prevention of harm and with protecting the rights of
individuals who are participating in research. Ethical guidelines outlined in the TriCouncil Policy Statement were strictly adhered to. This study was submitted to and
received approval from the University of Northern British Columbia’s Research Ethics
Board. It was anticipated that the possibility of harm to participants would be relatively
low but still needed to be a consideration.
Anonymity and confidentiality. Online survey participants remained
anonymous to the researcher except in the case of those participants who expressed an
interest in also participating in the one-on-one interview. Participants were also given the
opportunity to participate in a draw prize, which was used as an incentive to increase
survey response rates. Where the survey participants indicated an interest in either the
draw prize or the interview, they were made aware that they are giving up anonymity on
the survey when they provided a name and contact information. This was made apparent

33

to the survey participant directly on the survey where they provided their name and
contact information.
Interview participants were identified by a letter (participant A, B, C, to
participant F) so that the real identities were not evident. Information or combinations of
information (e.g., particular experiences in a particular role) were changed so a
participant’s identity would remain confidential.
Survey and interview participants were provided with informed consent
documents (Appendix C and Appendix D) which outlined the nature of the study, as well
as the benefits and risks involved. Participants were informed in an introductory
paragraph, that they can skip any question at any time. Interview participants were asked
to sign the letter, giving their consent to participate in the study. There was a statement
before participants began the survey informing survey participants that by clicking on the
start button they were agreeing to participate in the survey. Interview participants were
briefed on the research purpose, process, benefits, and risks before the actual interview
began. Throughout the interview I did not express opinions about teacher’s practice and
listened without judgement. Participants were given the opportunity to review and
comment on the transcription of the interview. They were given the opportunity to ask
questions or voice concerns at any time during or after the research. It was recognized
that in the interview there could be a potential emotional reaction to the LEIC tool itself,
the training, or a particular student; participants were informed in writing and before the
interview began that participation was voluntary and that they may withdraw at any time
without any consequences or explanation. Although no participants withdrew, they were
informed that should they have chosen to withdraw they would have been informed that

34

their responses would not be used in analysis and the data would be destroyed. Data
from the study will be kept for a period of five years in a locked filing cabinet and on
password-protected computers. Anonymity and confidentiality will be respected and no
information will be disclosed that will connect participants with their responses.
During the interview phase of the research, there was potential that interviewees
could talk to each other about the questions or their answers. Interviewees were
reminded that the questions and answers were to remain confidential and they should not
share with anyone who might be interviewed. It would be highly unlikely they would
talk to each other given the geographical disparity of the sample.
Research Procedures
Research procedures for mixed-methods design require both quantitative and
qualitative elements within the procedural process. As noted in Creswell, mixed-methods
research is not just the gathering of quantitative and qualitative data, it is also the
integration and scrutiny of the data so that the strength of each form of data is combined
and can result in a more thorough understanding of a research problem (See Figure 1).
Recruitment of participants. Three methods were used to recruit participants.
Direct emails were sent out to some of the teachers who had taken the online training
course to see if they would be willing to participate in the survey. Emails had been
recorded for teacher participants from online classes given from August 2016 to
December 2016. Email addresses were scarce for participants prior to this time. A total
of 102 emails were sent out, 43 emails “bounced back”. A second recruitment method
utilized POPFASD’s monthly newsletters. A notification was placed in the POPFASD
monthly general newsletter for January and February (See Appendix E). The newsletter

35

is available through the POPFASD website and is sent to anyone who subscribes to it. A
second “district partner” newsletter is sent out each month to district partners. District
partners are the liaison between POPFASD staff and educators in the province. A
notification was placed in January and February’s newsletter. Due to the limited
response a third recruitment method was employed; an email was sent directly to district
partners requesting that they forward the survey to teachers within their districts (See
Appendix F). Response rates were low and therefore a draw prize incentive was also
used as part of the recruitment methodology.
Survey participants. Non-probability, convenience sampling was used to recruit
participants for the online survey. Data from POPFASD estimated that approximately
2,000 BC teachers have taken POPFASD’s online course or workshop training that
includes the LEIC planning tool. It was known that teachers had participated in both of
these professional learning opportunities and in some cases teachers had taken the
training more than one time.

For this reason, it was difficult to ascertain the exact

number of people who had taken the training at least one time. Its aim was to survey
between 100 and 200 teachers. The survey was completed by of 31 teachers and one
education assistant. The education assistant’s responses were not used as this study was
directed at teachers. Three of the 31 surveys were incomplete and so the responses were
also not utilized.
Interview participants. For the qualitative interview confirming and
disconfirming, purposeful sampling was used. A final question on the survey was used as
an invitation to participate in the interview portion of this research. Participants provided
their name and contact information. There was a clear statement that accompanied this

36

question pointing out the fact that providing this information would result in the
participant giving up their identity on the survey. Six survey participants agreed to
participate in the interview process. All participants were teachers who had taken either
POPFASD’s online training or had attended a POPFASD workshop that included the
LEIC. All participants were from differing districts within the province of BC and they
were all support or resource teachers. None of the interview participants were enrolling
(classroom) teachers although some had had this role in the past. Four of the participants
were in the elementary setting and two were support teachers in the kindergarten to 12
environment.
Consent. The Supervising Administrator for POPFASD gave permission to
access the database of information as well as email addresses in order to contact the
potential participants for the survey portion of this study (See Appendix G). POPFASD
does not have contact information for teachers who had participated in face-to-face
workshops so I was also given permission by the Supervising Administrator to use a
notification in the general and district partner monthly newsletters as a vehicle for
recruitment (See Appendix E). This notification was placed in the January and February,
2017 newsletters. Also, as an employee of School District #57 I had been given consent
to undertake research in this district as there was the potential that some of my
participants may be from School District #57 (See Appendix H).
Quantitative Data Collection
For the quantitative data collection a cross-sectional survey design was used to
examine attitudes and practices. The survey included background information questions
as well as questions regarding experience with and opinions of the LEIC tool. A web-

37

based (UNBC’s Fluid Survey) survey with modified Likert-scale, as well as open- and
close-ended questions was used to gather information on possible variables including:
LEIC use; years of teaching experience; frequency of use; teaching role including job
title (e.g.: resource teacher, classroom teacher, counsellor); grade groupings (e.g., K-3, 47, and so forth); education setting (e.g. senior or junior secondary, intermediate or
primary); as well as whether the teacher was in the public or private-school sector;
whether training was online or through webcast and/or face-to-face workshop;
collaborative use of tool; and the linking of the tool to neurodevelopmental domain
impairments (See Appendix I).
Creswell (2015) recommended the use of close-ended questions because they
provide the ability to compare responses and provide the opportunity to code responses or
provide a numeric value. He further stated that open-ended questions afford more
flexibility for the respondent and provide more response possibilities for the researcher.
Open-ended questions have the potential to support or refute themes identified from the
qualitative data.
To facilitate the qualitative sampling procedure, at the end of the survey
participants were asked, “Would you be willing to take part in the interview?” Contact
information was requested and respondents were informed that a positive response to this
question would mean they would be giving up any anonymity.
Qualitative Data Collection
According to van Manen (2014), the purpose of a phenomenological interview is
to explore and gather experiential information which can, in turn, be used to develop a
richer understanding of a phenomenon. He also stated that it is important that the

38

interviewer maintain a constant awareness of the research question that is driving the
interview and to aim to gather pre-reflective experiential accounts. With this in mind, for
the qualitative data collection a script was prepared to introduce the interview and a oneon-one, semi-structured interview, with prepared, open-ended questions (See Appendix J)
was distributed to the interviewees beforehand; however, as van Manen stated it is
important to create a relaxed environment and to anticipate and remain attentive to
emerging stories; therefore additional questions were added or removed in each interview
according to the direction of the interview. Van Manen also asserted that it is often not
necessary to ask too many questions and to use patience and silence to allow for the story
to emerge. Further, he suggested that in order for the interviewer to get an account of an
experience rather than gather opinions, views, or interpretations of an experience,
consideration of the interview environment is important. He suggested that informal
environments are often a more conducive environment. Due to the geographical
constraints only two interviews were conducted face-to-face one in the POPFASD office
and the other in the participant’s office. Four interviews were conducted using Adobe
Connect and were based in my office. The participants had technical difficulties and so
we were only able to use the audio connection. All interviews will were held at a time
convenient to participants.
Again, the Supervising Administrator for POPFASD gave permission for the use
POPFASD’s Blackboard Collaborate interface to conduct these interviews (See
Appendix E). POPFASD experienced changes and Adobe Connect was adopted in
March replacing the Blackboard Collaborate interface. Interviews were recorded either
on a hand-held tape recorder and IPad or through the Adobe system’s internal recording

39

system. These interviews were then transcribed for analysis using my personal,
password-protected computer.
Within the framework of Ecological Theory, it was important that I identified and
gave weight to the context in which educators spend their day; that I considered the
environment, social, interactive, and perceived notions of support and planning for
students with complex learning needs and also that I considered those notions within the
broader context of the school, the education system and within the demands of being a
teacher in British Columbia. It was also important to note than van Manen identified that
it is necessary to stay close to a person’s experience with a phenomenon and therefore
some flexibility in interview questions would be required. As such, some of the
questions were based on the questions from individual participant’s survey responses for
example: “On question “x” you indicated… Can you tell me more about….” and others
may arise spontaneously out of the interview itself.
Data Analysis
Phenomenological hermeneutic studies are studies concerned with understanding
lived experiences and with identifying the themes common to those individuals who are
sharing their lived experiences with me (Laverty, 2003; van Manen, 1997). As described
by Laverty (2003), it is critical in a hermeneutical study to continually engage in the
process of self-reflection in order to constantly examine personal biases, experiences and
philosophical bases. Throughout the analysis my own experiences training educators on
the LEIC tool were scrutinized, as well as my experiences as I researched and recorded
the lived experiences of other educators. I continually examined my beliefs of the
Ecological and Neurodevelopmental Theory as well as in neurodevelopmental and

40

strengths-based teaching in which the LEIC tool is grounded. I used a combination of
awritten and recorded self-reflection process.
For the qualitative data, interviews were recorded and then transcribed. Initially
an open-ended analysis was adopted using a selective highlighting approach to identify
codes. As Saldaña (2016) stated, this initial coding allows for data to be broken down
into discrete parts which can then be considered and compared across transcripts and
scrutinized for developing themes. Saldaña recommended that once codes are identified
they be further examined and then grouped into major codes. In some cases one code
was adequate to describe other codes and therefore all other codes were incorporated into
the one code and themes emerged.
Creswell’s (2015a) steps were used for analyzing questionnaire data. These steps
included: identifying response rate and bias, analyzing the data to look for trends, and
describing the results. The quantitative data was numerical and textual. Measures of
central tendency were used to analyse the numerical components as well as completing
content-analysis on any open-ended text responses.
After analysis the qualitative and quantitative results separately, results were
compared. In a convergent design, data analysis is integrated (Creswell, 2015a) and
therefore, the qualitative and quantitative data were merged to describe how data from
one method supported or refuted the data from the other method, and vice versa. Results
were compared in a side-by-side discussion, merged and presented in a table which
compared the qualitative themes with the statistical results.

41

Evaluation of the Study
Reflexive journal. The theory that most closely aligns with a phenomenological
research method is a constructivist-interpretivist approach based on the fact that the
researcher believes in multiple realities. This research explores the multiple lived
experiences of BC educators with regards to the LEIC planning tool. It was important
that I recognized that I was a participant in my own research. I acknowledged and
maintained an awareness, through the use of reflective journaling, of myself and the
changing and possibly influential synergy that existed between myself and my
participants.
Chapter Summary
The research was guided by Ecological Systems Theory which draws on the
relationship between human beings and their environment across the lifespan. The LEIC
planning tool also identifies the learner as an essential element to successful planning.
Within the framework of the LEIC various aspects of the environment are identified and
considered as critical to successful planning. The tool is also best used in a collaborative
process, again drawing on influential elements or people in the learner’s environment.
Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder is a neurodevelopmental disability and
neurodevelopmental theory also identifies the link between the brain, the environment,
and development across the lifespan. Using a mixed-methods research design, I gained
access into BC educator’s experiences with the LEIC planning tool, a tool that draws on
knowledge about individual learners, their brain function, and the various aspects of their
environment.

42

Qualitatively, interviews were conducted on six non-enrolling teachers lived
experiences with the LEIC. These interviews were transcribed, coded, and analyzed for
themes. The themes were compared to the notes collected in the reflexive journal. The
qualitative results were also compared to quantitative results to look for similarities and
differences.

43

Chapter 4: Research Findings
A convergent mixed-methods design was used to conduct research into the lived
experiences of BC teachers with the LEIC planning tool. The qualitative data were
collected using a one-on-one, open-ended, semi-structured interview process and then
were transcribed, coded, and themed. Through this process of coding and recoding, it
became apparent that three themes were shared by all participants: Application,
Intention, and Inhibitor, however Application was the overarching theme.
Quantitative data were collected using a cross sectional, web-based survey
(UNBC’s Fluid Survey) to gather data on attitudes and practices of BC teachers with the
LEIC. The survey was comprised of close-ended, Likert-scale questions as well as three
open-ended questions. The information was analyzed using measures of central tendency
for the closed questions and thematic analysis for the open-ended questions. Quantitative
and qualitative data were merged for side-by-side comparison and analyzed for
convergence and/or divergence. In this chapter, qualitative interview results are
presented first, followed by the quantitative survey results. The open-ended survey
responses are then compared to the three themes identified in the qualitative results.
These findings are presented as evidence to support the discussion in Chapter 5.
Qualitative Results: Interview
Six BC educators participated in an interview in which they shared their
experiences with the LEIC tool. The participants were identified by a letter (A to F) to
protect their identities. Table 1 provides a summary of background information on the
interview participants. All participants were in support roles such as learning assistance,
support, resource, special education, and learning support coordinator; some of the

44

participants described themselves as having multiple roles within support. None of the
participants were classroom teachers. Four of the six participants were teaching in the
elementary setting. Two of the participants were supporting kindergarten to grade 12 and
one of these individuals was teaching in the distance education setting. The six
participants had taken some form of training within the last four years. Two participants
indicated that they had undertaken other forms of professional development apart from
workshops and online courses. One of the six participants had taken multiple trainings
and had also supported other educators using the LEIC. Since participating in
POPFASD’s professional development, participants’ response to a question regarding
LEIC tool use varied from “had not used it” to using it two to three times per year. It is
important to note that participant B reported, on the survey, that they had not used the
tool since training, however, in preparation for the interview they used the tool on two
separate occasions. Teaching experience varied from a response of zero to five years to
21 to 25 years. Four of the six participants had more than 16 years teaching experience.
One-on-one, open-ended, semi-structured interviews were conducted with the six
participants. Through the process of transcription, followed by reading and rereading
interviews, coupled with selectively highlighting words, phrases, and sentences and then
applying codes, it became increasingly clear the three themes of Application, Intention,
and Inhibitor were shared among the six participants (see Table 2). The theme
Application describes experiences teachers had completing the LEIC. Interviewees
described specific steps within the process, the format of the tool, supporting questions
that guided the process, collaborative activity, and how professional experience and
practice informed their ability to complete the planning process. Intention pertains to

45

Table 1
Interview Participant Background Information including Participant Identification (P),
Teaching Role (TR), Teaching Experience (TE) in Years, Grade/Grade Grouping
(G/GG), POPFASD Training/Date, and Frequency of LEIC Use.
P

TR

TE

A

LA, S, SE

6-10

B

R, S

C

G/GG

Training

LEIC Use

K to 6

WKa
2013

Two times
since 2013

0-5

K to 12
DL

Onlineb
2014

Not since
trainingc.

S

16-20

Elementary

Online
2015

Not since
training.

D

LSC

21-25

K-12

Online
2012,
WK “a long
time ago”
and 2016,
additional
FASD
trainingd.

More than
3x per
year

E

S

16-20

Elementary

Online
2014,
WK
2014

Once a
year but
not used
for last
two years

F

R, S

16-20

Elementary

Online
2016,
WK 2016
additional
FASD
training.

Two to
three
times a
year

Note. LA = Learning Assistance; S = Support; SE = Special Education; R = Resource; LSC = Learning Support Coordinator;
K=Kindergarten, WK = Workshop; DL = Distance Learning.
a
This participant took a 1.5 hour workshop. Typically workshops are three to five hours in length.
b
Online training = six sessions, 1.5 hours per session plus assignments.
c
This participant reported in the survey that they had not used it since training but they then used it twice before the interview.
d
Additional training beyond workshops or online courses. This training included training others.

46

descriptions participants gave of the purpose of the LEIC tool, including their knowledge
of the neurodevelopmental aspects of FASD, the importance of understanding the
learner’s strengths and needs, and how to create effective accommodations and strategies
while being cognizant of the learners’ strengths and possible domain impairments.
Application and Intention are closely connected; it is difficult to complete the LEIC
without an understanding of the learner specifically and FASD in general. They were
separated to reflect the variation in understanding and proficiency in the step-by-step
process of completing the form and awareness of the underlying intent of the form. The
theme of Inhibitor was chosen as it summarized participants’ remarks on various external
obstacles encountered with the LEIC. For the purposes of clarity, I will discuss the mostdominant theme to the least-dominant theme based on the total number of occurrences.
Application. The most-dominant theme was Application. This theme
contributed more than half of the overall occurrences (53%). Application was noted in
this context when participants described aspects such as the steps that they took to
complete the tool, the configuration, the shared experience with their colleagues, and how
repeat exposure enhanced their insight of how to complete the planning tool. All
participants described experiences relating to Application. Participant C stated that the
guiding questions for the top (learner) section “were very helpful [and] gave you ideas
[and] made you think in the right areas”. Participant D described how they supported a
collaborative process, and guided colleagues who had less understanding of FASD
stating, “[I was] really specific in how I asked the questions and directed the questions…
generating conversation like that helped”. Participant E also described the importance of
questioning to develop a plan, “pretty limited kinds of information [are generated] unless

47

Table 2
Three Themes Emerging from Interview Data: Application (n=415), Intention (n=259),
and Inhibitor (n=112).
Themes
Application

Number of
Occurrences

Sample Codes
Process
Experience
Viewpoint
Collaborating
Format

112
91
89
82
41

Quotation
Ok, let’s move
through this [tool]
in a methodical
kind of process and
see what we might
be missing and
look at it from a
different angle.
It’s been about two
years since I’ve
used the tool.

Intention

Purpose
Neurodevelopment
Experience

172
61
26

What do we have?
What do we want?
How are we going
to get there?
Sometimes it takes
expertise.

Inhibitor

Time
Experience
Collaborating
Format
Access

32
22
20
20
18

I find there is so
much and to
implement another
new thing, it kind
of gets put on the
side.
We don’t always
have our support
staff come which is
unfortunate.

we kind of get into it and really start to question a little bit deeper”. Participant A
commented on completing the bottom (accommodations) portion of the tool noting, “We
definitely did a lot of curricular stuff and instruction-wise, I know we talked about
48

proximity”. Participant B described the process of working through the various sections
of the tool saying,
I go from the middle section to the lower section a lot of times; the top
section tends to get filled out separately…. then we went to the
expectation of the learner in the environment, then with that looking at the
secondary disabilities, with that we looked at the accommodations.
More than one participant commented on experience as it related to completing
the tool. Participant B noted how practice made the process better saying, “The second
time around was better… it takes a little bit of time to learn how to use the tool… you
make mistakes learning how”. Participant E commented, “[it] requires quite a bit of
guiding from someone that might have a little bit more experience”. Participant A
stated, “I would feel more comfortable if I used it a few times though.” Participant F, in
particular, compared the process of completing this tool with the process created by the
Ministry of Education, Physical Disabilities/Chronic Health Impairments Instructional
Support Planning Process (ISPP), stating, “The LEIC is a lot more user-friendly”. They
continued on saying, “this is a useful tool as opposed to something I have to fill out in a
certain way”. They explained, “What I really like about it is being able to talk with the
teacher… they are usually interested in stuff that falls into secondary disabilities… with
the ISPP they just check off what seems to fit and give it back to me”.
Participants described obstacles they experienced filling out the LEIC.
Participant A’s comments were coded more frequently (33%) than other participants
about constraints that related to the theme Application conveying experiences such as,
“Maybe if we practiced with it or used it more frequently” and “Yeah, well we have used

49

it. It must have been twice. It must have been twice… We haven’t used it this year…
twice since 2013.” This participant had only utilized the LEIC twice since 2013. They
also stated, “[they] had a hard time getting teachers to buy in to it”. They noted, “I don’t
think teachers were prepared” and that there were unaware or had not used the guiding
questions that are available to facilitate the process stating, “I’m not sure why we didn’t
look at these then… maybe I just wasn’t as familiar with it.” Participant B commented
on the configuration saying, “The ‘other information’ box could be bigger”. Participant
B also described the collaborative experience of completing the form with parents and
noted that some of the language of the tool was difficult to explain saying, “with parents
it’s a bit full of jargon… parents were, ‘What do you want me to do here?... I had to come
up with something different to make those two boxes work for me with those parents”.
Difficulties that related to Application were also shared by Participant C when they
related their experiences collaborating with colleagues, “a lot of teachers [were] saying
why are you making us do this, we’ve never had to do this before”. Participant F
expressed concerns about the middle (neurodevelopmental) section and the education and
experience required to complete this section remarking, “I have, for a couple of students,
had the case where we are hypothesizing what the possible primary disabilities [are] as
opposed to already knowing and I find that a bit trickier because generally it’s frowned
upon but to start talking about ‘they seem to process slowly’ but we really don’t have a
lot of knowledge, putting possible primary disabilities without a lot of specific
information…” Participant D commented on difficulties associated with collaboration
and experience noting that struggles were more apparent with, “initial teachers, the initial

50

time they would go through it and that would be when we whould have to shift their
thinking.”
Interestingly, five of the six participants had never used the tool with a parent or
student, including Participant D who had the most experience and had used it two to three
times per year since around 2010. Participant B had used the LEIC twice since 2014 and
both of these were in the spring 2016. This participant collaborated with the parents on
both occasions; while not explicitly stated it was implied that students were also present.
While participant B described some difficulties families had with the LEIC the also
described positive experiences, “They really liked it; both sets of parents really liked the
document. Both sets of parents really liked the sensory thing, they said, ‘that’s really
good because that’s often not looked at, not talked about”.
Participants also described positive viewpoints as they related to the activity of
completing the tool. Participant B said, “I like the section about perceived developmental
levels. That was really good.” When asked if they found the guiding questions on the
back of the form helpful Participant D stated, “…extremely helpful, extremely helpful”.
Participant F also expressed positive experiences with the guiding questions saying, “I
love the second side with all the information on it and all the suggestions.” This same
participant also commented on the format of the tool stating, “Accommodations are
important and there are nice big boxes there to put things into… it shows the importance
of it”. Participant C also commented on the language, guiding questions, and format
stating, “it is clearly stated and having the information on the back is very helpful. I like
the way it is set up”. They added, “I like how it [is] on one sheet of paper and it includes
a lot of information”.

51

Intention. The second most-dominant theme was Intention. This theme
contributed 33% of the overall occurrences. Teachers’ experiences were themed as
Intention when they connected to the purpose of the tool: planning for a learner with
FASD while considering their strengths, their neurodevelopmental domain impairments,
and the expectations placed upon that learner. Further attributes of Intention included
using the information about the learner and their neurodevelopmental profile to plan
appropriate accommodations. The three sections of the LEIC are: the learner, the
neurodevelopmental domain focus, and the accommodations section. Descriptions that
focused on the objective of each of these three sections were also coded as Intention (see
Appendix A).
In some cases participants demonstrated a clear understanding of the planning
tool within the areas of learner, neurodevelopmental function, expectations, and strategy
creation. Participant F described the strengths-based nature of the tool saying, “the
learner profile [is] where the developmental levels are non-judgmental… very much the
level they are at as opposed to where they are struggling”. Participant C, in describing
the strengths of the tool stated, “I remember thinking it made you really think about the
learner, and aspects of the learner”. Participant D described the strengths and interests
portion of the learner section commenting,
I have a new little guy coming in May… I want to know what his interests
are…. I want to make sure that I have things that he’s interested in… if he
likes frogs or hate frogs and that’s going to set him off. I want to know
the interests are and his dislikes as opposed to what he’s strong in…. I
know that he can recognize the numbers one to 10 but he can’t match them

52

up he has no idea what the meaning of one to 10 is… Yes, I think the
difference between the strengths and interest is important and knowing
what they are.
Participants C described Intention stating, “this tool would assist with looking at the root
causes of the student’s needs and help you to provide better accommodations and
strategies to help them and their needs.” Participant A described the “whole” goal of the
LEIC explaining, “I think the whole goal should be with an understanding of who they
[the student] are”. “Participant B said, “I used it as a planning tool for our IEP meetings
and found it worked really well to kind of steer the conversations and really get to know
the student.” Participant E expressed Intention as it related to the accommodations
section stating,
It’s a good brainstorming section. It allows teachers to consider their
practice and their environment. As a result of considering the student…
they may develop some different ways of thinking about how they can
improve their relationship with kids and learning outcomes.
Participant D described the LEIC as a tool that,
is opening up the eyes of the teachers and the staff to look beyond what’s
happening and see why… helps them to focus on the brain activity…
strengths… and they actually come out seeing a brighter, better bulb than
they actually thought they had.
Participant D further described the three sections of the LEIC stating, “to me [they
are]: ‘What do we have? What do we want? How do we get there?’”.
Intriguingly, Participant E shared that they had used the tool not as a planning tool

53

but as a problem-solving tool stating, “I like to look at it not as a first-line tool in
terms of approaching planning for kids. I tend to use it as a problem-solving
tool.”
In describing experience with the tool some participants also shared thoughts that
demonstrated a disconnect from the intent of the LEIC. Participant A clearly stated that
they did not know enough about the tool saying, “I would [use it as part of IEP planning]
if I knew more about it”. They continued to describe how they would use the tool
explaining, “I would probably do it [pointing to the middle section] more myself and then
do it more of… instead of a discussion I would probably say, ‘do this’”. When asked if
they linked the strategies back to the expectations of the learner they stated, “We just
came up with a bunch of strategies”. Participant B described difficulties with
understanding the neurodevelopmental section and stated, “Ok, we’re just going to move
on to the next box and we are going to focus on goals after that.” They also stated, “and
then the accommodations, the first meeting I had time to get to it and the second meeting
I didn’t.”
Inhibitor. Inhibitor was the third most-dominant theme contributing 14% of the
overall occurrences. Table 3 provides details regarding the coding of all six participants’
statements that were themed as Inhibitor. Five of the six participants described time
constraints when completing the LEIC. This was the most dominant code (28%) under
Inhibitor. Participant A stated, “We don’t have a ton of time”. Participant B made the
most references to time constraints (39%) noting, “The document takes a long time to go
through if you are doing all the boxes.” This participant also stated, “[My meetings are]

54

Table 3
Interview Participant (P) Frequency for Individual Codes: Time (T), Experience (E),
Collaboration (C), Format (F), Access (A), and Other Required Tools (ORT) and Total
for Statements themed as Inhibitor (n=6).
P
A
B
C
D
E
F
Total

T
5
13
5
0
2
8
32

E

C

F

A

Total

6
3
2
1
10
0
22

6
2
6
4
1
1
20

4
9
5
1
1
0
20

2
6
2
4
1
3
18

23
33
20
10
15
12
113

an hour; I just can’t go any longer” and “I just ran out of time to really fill in the all the
boxes. I can make more meetings, I suppose, but I can’t afford to make more meetings”.
Participant C described the tool as beneficial but also stated, “I just find there is so
much to implement and another new thing, it kind of gets put on the side.” Participant F
also frequently referred to a mandatory tool their district. This was themed as “time”
because it was assumed that multiple mandatory tools (IEPs are mandatory) would
constrain planning time.
Descriptions of colleagues’ lack of experience, an outside influence that inhibited
the LEIC process, made up the second-most-frequent coding for Inhibitor (20%).
Participant E’s discourse particularly focused on lack of training and experience in
special education and FASD. This was reflected in statements such as, “Within my
current building I think there are very strong understanding of special needs in general
and certainly FASD in particular”. They further described the necessity for training or
background to use the tool effectively stating, “I think at the bare level you need some

55

kind of background, perhaps what FASD is and what it might look like within the
classroom”. When describing the middle section they stated, “I find that middle section
… primary disabilities, teachers may quickly jump to learning disabilities… requires a
vocabulary and understanding that often classroom teachers don’t easily or immediately
possess”. Participant F mentioned the difficulties colleagues had with the language of the
tool stating, “profile of a learner, I don’t think that is commonly used or understood”.
Participant A also expressed a similar sentiment saying, “teachers don’t know what you
mean by sensory issues”. Participant D shared that they had experienced older teachers
having more difficulty understanding the idea of changing environment sharing, “I find
the hardest section to get them to change is the environment… they are set and they want
these things like rows in the room”. Interestingly, Participant A described lack of
experience identified as an Inhibitor while also describing an understanding of the tools
Intention, “I need to use it more to go through it to guide [me] and help the teacher
understand”.
All participant’s expressed experiences in which collaboration obstructed LEIC
planning. Participant A stated, “I had a hard time getting teachers to buy into it”. As the
interview progressed Participant A also shared, “We don’t always have our support staff
come [to meetings] which is unfortunate… they have great things to share… it’s [the
meeting] not on their time… I wish I could get them to come”. Participant C shared,
“being new in the school I really had to build up a relationship and rapport… a lot of
teachers [said] why are you making us do this, we’ve never had to do this before.”
Participant C continued to describe collaboration, “there are teachers who really believe,
think, they should be able to do everything themselves and they don’t need outside

56

help… I’ve had others who say I’ve tried that and it won’t work or they are not open to
suggestions”.
Formatting and access to the LEIC hindered the use of the LEIC. All educators
indicated that they were unaware the LEIC was available online or that they had
downloaded older versions. Some participants described boxes as being either too small
or unnecessary. Participant B shared that they felt some information could be added
stating, “you could put something in there [expectations box] about goals, this will help”.
Some participants also described ways they could access further information to support
LEIC planning. Participant B suggested, “You could have a liaison if you can’t get out to
districts all the time.” Participant C suggested follow up emails. This particular
participant was unaware of POPFASD’s monthly newsletter.
Qualitative Results: Survey
The qualitative data was gathered using a cross-sectional survey. The survey
included thirteen Likert-scale questions, close-ended questions, as well as three openended questions. The questionnaire was available through UNBC’s Fluid Surveys. It
was available to teachers who had taken POPFASD’s online and/or workshop training.
They were informed of the survey through direct email for individuals where emails
existed and through POPFASD’s monthly newsletter. There were a total of 31
respondents. One respondent was an education assistant and therefore the data was not
used; three respondents did not complete the survey and these surveys were discarded.
For the purpose of framing the data, demographics are discussed. The majority of
the participants who completed the survey were non-enrolling teachers working in the
support or resource areas at the school level with a representation of 70% of the total

57

Table 4
LEIC Tool Survey Results: Participants’ Teaching Role (n=27).
Participant Teaching Role

Number of Participants

School-based resource or support
District resource or support
Classroom
Counsellor and classroom

19
4
3
1

Table 5
LEIC Tool Survey Results: Participants’ Grade or Grade Grouping (n=27).
Participant Grade or Grade Grouping

Number of Participants

Elementary
Secondary
Kindergarten to grade 12
Preschool to grade 12

13
9
4
1

participants. District level resource or support teachers represented 15% of respondents
and classroom teachers made up 11%. There was one respondent whose role was that of
counsellor and classroom teacher making up 4% of the total respondents (see Table 4).
Due to the over-representation of school-based resource or support teachers (n=19)
compared to district resource or support teachers (n=4), classroom teachers (n=3) and the
one counsellor/classroom teacher (n=1), differences were not examined in relation to
teaching role.
Participants were asked to respond to a question about the present grade level they
were teaching in. It was recognized that some respondents would be non-enrolling (not
classroom) teachers and therefore an additional question was posed asking them to
identify their grade grouping. The responses to these two questions were combined into
four categories (see Table 5). Middle school responses were placed into the “Secondary”
58

Table 6
LEIC Tool Survey Results: Participants’ Teaching Experience (Years) (n=27).
Experience

Number of Participants

0-5
6-10
11-15
16-20
21-25
More than 25

3
7
6
8
2
1

category. Elementary respondents made up slightly less than half of the overall
respondents (48%), while secondary accounted for 33%, kindergarten to Grade 12 for
15%, and preschool to Grade 12 added up to 3% of the overall respondents.
It was anticipated that there could be a relationship between years of teaching and
attitudes and experiences with the LEIC and therefore data was gathered on teaching
experience. Table 6 outlines the responses to the closed-question regarding years of
teaching experience. Teachers with 16 to 20 years of experience comprised 30% of
respondents, teachers reporting six to 10 years equaled 27%, 11 to 15 years made up 22%
of the overall population, teachers with 0 to 5 years made up 11%, and 21 to 25 years of
experience constituted seven percent. There was one teacher with more than 25 years of
experience.
In responding to a close-ended question regarding the training type undertaken
just under half (44%) of participants indicated that they had participated in POPFASD’s
six-session online training course, while 30% had taken a face-to-face workshop and
slightly less (26%) had taken both the online and workshop training (see Table 7).
Interestingly, 51% of participants indicated that they had sought from POPFASD,

59

Table 7
LEIC Tool Survey Results: POPFASD Training Method Survey Respondent Completed
(n=27).
Experience

Number of Participants

Workshop
Online
Workshop and online

8
12
7

additional support beyond online and workshop training, to enhance their ability to use
the LEIC planning tool. The survey did not allow for further clarification as to what that
additional support entailed.
Participants were given the opportunity to respond to a question about frequency
of use (see Table 8). Fifty-six percent of respondents indicated they used the tool once a
year compared to 28% who said they used it two to three times a year. Only one
respondent (4%) used the tool more than three times per year. Of note, of the overall
responses, 15% of participants indicated that they had not used the tool since
participating in the POPFASD training.
Survey participants were asked to respond to a series of seven close-ended
questions considering the use of the LEIC planning tool and six close-ended questions
considering the neurodevelopmental elements of the tool. The survey’s Likert-scale
ranged from 1=Strongly Disagree to 9=Strongly Agree. The accompanying statements
were worded in positive way i.e.: “I know how to complete the top section…”, or “I
consider the link…”, or “When planning accommodations or strategies I frequently…”.
Therefore, scores closer to one would indicate more difficulties with the tool and scores

60

closer to nine would indicate more ease at completing the tool as well as understanding
its neurodevelopmental aspects. An error occurred on the survey and the first set of
Table 8
LEIC Tool Survey Results: Reported Frequency of Use of the LEIC Planning Tool
(n=27).
Experience

Number of Participants

Not used
Once a year
Two to three times a year
More than three times a year

4
15
7
1

Table 9
LEIC Tool Survey Results: Close-ended Question Responses and Measures of Central
Tendency for Overall Close-ended, Likert Scale Questions 1=Strongly Disagree,
9=Strongly Agree (n=27).
Question

M

Mdn

Mo

A. User-friendly and supports planning for students

7.41
7.70
7.63
7.74
7.89
7.96
7.97
8.15
7.85
7.74
7.74
8.04

8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00

8.00
8.00
8.00
7.00
9.00
9.00
9.00
9.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
9.00

B. Layout of top/learner section is easy to follow
C. Layout of middle/”good fit-poor fit” section is easy to follow
D. Layout of the bottom/environment-instruction-curriculum section is easy to follow
E. I consider the link between primary disabilities and expectations
F. I consider the link between primary disabilities and secondary disabilities
G. I reflect on primary disabilities when planning accommodations
H. I reflect and include strategies that support student’s strengths and interests
I. I know how to complete the top/learner section
J. I know how to complete the middle/”good fit-poor fit” section
K. I know how to complete the bottom/environment-instruction-curriculum section
L. The guiding questions on the back of the LEIC help with completing the LEIC

seven questions repeated. All responses to the repeated questions were disregarded.
One question was deemed to be unnecessary as the objective of this question was
captured in another question; therefore, this question was not included in any of the
61

results. The results of the close-ended questions were examined for measures of central
tendency (see Table 9). Analysis of the questions showed that the overall responses to
Table 10
LEIC Tool Survey Results: Combined Close-ended Question Responses and Measures of
Central Tendency for Overall Close-ended, Likert Scale Questions 1=Strongly Disagree,
9=Strongly Agree (n=27).
Question
Combination of B, C, and D
Combination of E, F, G, and H
Combination of I, J, and K

M
7.69
7.99
7.75

question I were below the mode (Mo=8). Overall responses to four of the 12 questions
(E, F, G, H, and L) were above the mode. These four questions are questions that link
planning to the possible neurodevelopmental domain impairments. The overall median
score for all questions was the same (Mdn=8.00). Given the overall mean was 7.81 with
a standard deviation of 0.2 (SD=.2), responses to question A were below the mean (-2
SD, M=7.81)
In order to see if there were differences between close-ended questions, questions
were combined and further examined. Questions were grouped as follows: ease of
layout (B, C, and D); connecting the learner section, the possible primary disabilities, and
secondary challenges with planning (E, F, G, and H); and knowledge of how to complete
each of the three sections (I, J, and K) (see Table 10). In comparing the overall mean
(M=7.81) with the new mean of between question difference, the data showed that there
were no significant differences between the mean of the combined answers and the
overall mean. Due to the small sample size (n=27) a t-test was not warranted to see if
there were any statistically-significant differences.
62

Table 11
LEIC Tool Survey Results: Elementary and Secondary Enrolling and Non-enrolling
Teacher’s Response and Measures of Central Tendency for Overall Close-ended, Likert
Scale Questions 1=Strongly Disagree, 9=Strongly Agree (n=27).
Grade Level

M

Elementary
Secondary

7.79
7.79

Table 12
LEIC Tool Survey Results: Years of Teaching Experience and Measures of Central
Tendency for Overall Close-ended, Likert Scale Questions 1=Strongly Disagree,
9=Strongly Agree (n=27).
Years
0-5
6-10
11-15
16-20
21-25
More than 25 years

M
6.77
7.92
7.92
7.82
8.04
9.00

Table 13
LEIC Tool Survey Results: POPFASD Professional Development Method Accessed:
Workshop or Online and Measures of Central Tendency for Overall Close-ended, Likert
Scale Questions 1=Strongly Disagree, 9=Strongly Agree (n=27).
Method
Workshop
Online
Workshop and online

M
7.60
7.66
8.24

63

It was anticipated that relating overall responses to grade levels or grade
groupings could provide some interesting results. Given the small sample size and the
fact that elementary teachers made up 48% (n=13) of the respondents, secondary teachers
made up 33% (n=9), kindergarten to grade 12 made up 15% (n=4), and preschool to
grade 12 accounted for 4% (n=1); nine of the thirteen elementary respondents were
randomly selected and then the overall results of these nine participants were analyzed
for the mean. Kindergarten to grade 12 and preschool to grade 12 respondents were not
included due to the small sample sizes. Given the overall median scores for the entire
sample (M=7.81) with a standard deviation of 0.2 (SD=0.2), overall responses were the
same between elementary and secondary respondents (See Table 11).
Results of open-ended questions were compared to years of teaching experience.
The scores in Table 12 indicated that the majority of scores clustered around the overall
mean (7.1). The only significant score was attributed to the three teachers who had zero
to five years teaching experience, therefore, comparisons with the overall number of
participants (n=27) would not yield any meaningful results.
Data on professional training methods was gathered (See Table 13). Results show
that individuals who received workshop and online training were +2SD above the overall
mean for the entire sample (M=7.81, SD=0.2). This result is deemed to be significant.
In order to ascertain if respondents received any additional guidance or
information beyond online or workshop training, they were asked a simple “yes/no”
question, indicating if further support had been accessed. The additional support question
did not give specific examples of what “support” could mean beyond stating that District

64

Table 14
LEIC Tool Survey Results: Additional Support Accessed to Enhance Ability to Use the
LEIC Tool and Measures of Central Tendency for Overall Close-ended, Likert Scale
Questions 1=Strongly Disagree, 9=Strongly Agree (n=27).
Additional
Support

M

Yes
No

7.76
7.86

Table 15
LEIC Tool Survey Results: Frequency of LEIC Tool Use per Year and Measures of
Central Tendency for Overall Close-ended, Likert Scale Questions 1=Strongly Disagree,
9=Strongly Agree (n=27).
Frequency/Year
Not used
Once
Two to three

M
7.08
7.70
8.40

Partners could be part of this “support”. Of the 27 respondents, 51% indicated that they
received extra support. While this may have produced discernable results, and was
therefore considered worthy of analysis, Table 14 provides results of overall responses
and revealed no meaningful differences when compared with the overall mean (M=7.81,
SD=.20).
Table 15 examined results based on frequency of LEIC tool use compared with
the overall mean (M=7.81) score of respondents. Four respondents (15%) indicated that
they had not used the tool since training, 15 (55%) stated they used it once a year, seven
(26%) shared that they used it two to three times a year, and one (4%) said they used it
65

more than three times a year. Since sample sizes varied, four participants were randomly
selected from the two categories “used once a year” and “used it two to three times a
year”. Results from the one respondent who stated they used the LEIC more than three
times a year were not included in the frequency data. Mean scores of the four
respondents in each group were calculated for the “not used”, “once a year”, and “used
two to three times a year” and compared to the overall mean (M=7.81, SD=.20). The
overall mean score for the ‘not used” group was significant to three standard deviations
below the mean (-3 SD). The overall mean score for the “two to three times a year”
group was also consequential (+1 SD).
Respondents were asked two questions regarding collaborative use of the LEIC.
One question was a simple “yes/no” response to, “Did you use this tool collaboratively?”
and the other was, “If collaboratively, please note who is typically involved in the
collaborative process.” It is important to note that three people did not respond to this
survey question. Eighty-five percent indicated they had used the tool collaboratively and
15% had not. Of the 15% who reported their mean scores (M=7.23) were more than two
standard deviations (-2 SD) below the overall mean (M=7.81, SD=0.2). The responses to
the second question, “If collaboratively, please note who is typically involved in the
collaborative process.” were discarded because it was discovered that respondents were
only able to indicate one collaborative partner when they wished to indicate multiple
partners.
The LEIC survey included three open-ended questions. The first question stated,
“If you answered no to any of the three previous questions, please explain why you didn’t
use the LEIC.” The three previous questions had asked if they had used the LEIC for

66

planning for a student with FASD, with complex learning needs, or with any other
exceptionality. This question caused confusion and was, therefore, eliminated. The
second open-ended questions asked, “What are the strengths of the LEIC planning tool?”
and the third asked, “What are the weaknesses of the LEIC planning tool?” Of the 27
survey participants, 10% of people did not respond to any of these questions, 75%
responded to both of these questions and 15% only responded to the question about
strengths of the tool. Responses to the questions were coded using the three themes of
Inhibitor, Application, and Intention identified in the qualitative results. Table 16
provides results of this themed analysis. Inhibitor was the most dominant theme (44%).
Inhibitors are descriptions of experiences regarding outside influences that affect the
ability to develop or apply knowledge to the process and intention of the LEIC tool. Just
under half (46%) of the coded responses described time as a weakness in using the LEIC
tool. One survey respondent stated, “It’s quite time consuming to complete and
classroom teachers are too busy to devote the time needed.” Another respondent shared
experiences that related to time and collaboration as well as describing financial
constraints, “It requires a lot of time and is best done in collaboration which increases the
time needed and adds a financial factor if release time is required.” Other respondents
noted, “[It] needs to be electronic such that some boxes can be expanded.”, “[The] middle
section [is] not yet smooth to me”, and “It is only as good as the people filling it out”.
Application was the second most-dominant theme (39%). Application refers to
such things as the process of completing the planning tool with considerations to format,
the collaborative process, and opportunities to practice. Within the theme Application
survey participants primarily described experiences with the form itself as well as the

67

Table 16
LEIC Tool Survey Results: Open-ended Survey Question Responses Applied to
Qualitative Themes: Application (n=41), Intention (n=37), and Inhibitor (n=16).
Themes

Number of
Occurrences

Sample Codes

Quotation

Inhibitor

Time
Experience
Collaborating
Format
Access

19
8
6
6
2

It takes a while to
learn how to fill out
the form. Lots of
information to add.
Some sections
could be merged or
eliminated.

Application

Format
Process
Viewpoint
Collaborating
Experience

14
13
5
4
1

The step-by-step
process.

Purpose
Neurodevelopment

9
7

Helps me focus on
the primary
disability when
considering my
student.

Intention

Concise, clear,
quick to reference,
and helpful when
collaboratively
brainstorming re:
the student’s needs.

steps required to complete the form. One participant stated, “It was easy to use and
complete.” A second teacher stated, “[It is] clearly laid out with comprehensive
instructions for use.” Finally, a third participant shared, “It can be used by multiple
professionals for a number of reasons i.e.: TOC file, boxes help to contain materials,
primary disability and lack of good fit to the expectations can be clearly seen!!”
The theme Intention was the third most-dominant (17%). One respondent
described the strengths of the tool noting, “it helps the user focus concern—and… it
68

Table 17
Side by Side Comparison of LEIC Tool Survey Results: Number of Occurrences of Three
Themes Emerging from Quantitative (Q) Interview Data: Application, Intention, and
Inhibitor and Open-ended Survey Question Responses Coded to Qualitative (q) Themes:
Inhibitor, Application, and Intention.
Number of Occurrences
Theme

Q

q

Application

415

37

Intention

259

16

Inhibitor

112

41

helps the user apply knowledge of the child to helpful strategies for the child’s learning”.
A second teacher stated, “It helps to isolate key areas of focus for supporting students.”
Side-by-Side Comparison of Results
The quantitative results from the theming of the six interviews were merged for
side-by-side comparison with the results from theming the open-ended questions on the
qualitative survey (n=27) (See Table 17). Application was the leading theme in the
quantitative interviews (53%) and the second-most dominant theme in the qualitative
analysis (33%). Whereas, Inhibitor was the prevalent theme in qualitative responses
(44%) and the least dominant for quantitative theming (14%). Finally, Intention was the
second-most dominant theme for quantitative coding and the least reported theme in the
qualitative, open-ended questions.
In comparing the open-ended responses from the survey with the open-ended
responses we can see the similarities in the data. In the area of Application, one survey

69

respondent described the process stating, “It is well designed and includes lots of
necessary information for planning”; thoughts such as this were shared by interview
participants as well. Participant A shared, “I like the set up… guides your process.”
The responses from the survey primarily focused around the form, the guiding questions,
and were mostly restricted to broad statements about steps, whereas the interview
responses themed under Application went into more specific descriptions of collaboration
and understanding as well as providing detailing specific areas of the tool.
In the area of Intention, the data from the survey’s open-ended questions tended to
be more statements about the tool which demonstrated a broad understanding of the
purpose with statements such as, “[You] can work as a team to fill it out, consider all the
aspects that impede a student’s success, [and it] gives specific ideas to a classroom
teacher on how to support [a] student”. These types of statements were also shared by
interview participants. Participant B stated, “It tells me who this student is…it helps me
plan”. Again, while there were similarities between survey and interview responses,
interview participants provided more detailed and in-depth information regarding their
experiences through the lens of Intention.
Finally, under the theme Inhibitor both survey and interview respondents shared
statements about various things that inhibited the LEIC planning tool and process. For
both survey and interview data, time and experience were major inhibiting factors. For
example, Participant C stated, “It’s another time-consuming task for the teachers to do”
and a survey participant commented, ‘it isn’t used often because we MUST do the IEP”.
Experience was also referred to in both survey and interview data. Participant E stated,
“sometimes it takes expertise too if you are speaking and working with newer teachers”

70

and a survey respondent stated, “if teachers are unfamiliar with theory/programming for
students with special needs they may have difficulty with some sections (e.g. requirement
of leaner’s brain)”.
Chapter Summary
Six teachers shared their lived experiences through interviews. This qualitative
data was then examined for demographic information and was also coded, recoded
multiple times, and then themed. Demographic information was gathered through
questions such as, current teaching positions, training as it related to special education,
POPFASD training in particular, motivation for training, frequency of use. The
participants then responded to questions that afforded them the opportunity to share their
experiences with the various sections of the tool, their understanding of the tool as it
related to their learners, and to the neurodevelopmental nature of FASD. They were
asked questions to determine how much of the process was collaborative. In some
instances, interviewees were asked to elaborate on question responses from the survey.
While there was a prescribed list of questions, the interview was semi-structured and so
there was an organic aspect to the interview. This section presented the results from the
interviews. The three themes identified were: Application, Intention, and Inhibitor. All
participants’ experiences included data that was part of these themes. Application was
the most dominant theme (53%), followed by Intention (33%), and then Inhibitor (14%).
The qualitative findings were collected using a web-based survey. Questions
were primarily closed-ended and used a nine-point, Likert-scale, as well there were three
open-ended questions. The first of these questions was discarded prior to reporting
findings. The close-ended questions were used to establish demographic information as

71

well as basic information about LEIC use (who it was used for, how frequently it was
used, if it was used collaboratively, etc.). The majority of respondents were resource or
support teachers, this fits with the demographic of the interview participants where all of
the intereviewees were in some kind of support role. Specific close-ended questions were
asked about each of the three sections of the tool (learner, neurodevelopmental domain
impairments, and accommodation development). The purpose of these questions was to
develop an understanding of how well the user understood the neurodevelopmental
nature of FASD as it pertains to planning as well as to gather information about ease of
use. Finally, the open-ended questions allowed for participants to elaborate on what they
found to be strengths and weaknesses of the LEIC. These questions were coded using the
three themes identified in the quantitative interviews. It was found that all three themes
discerned from the quantitative data were readily applied to the qualitative, open-ended
responses, however dominance of results varied between the quantitative and qualitative
theming with the dominant quantitative theme being Application and the dominant
qualitative theme being Inhibitor. When data was analyzed using a variety of different
variables, there was an indication that frequency of LEIC use and dual-training (online
and workshop) had some degree of significance.

72

Chapter 5: Discussion of Findings
The purpose of this mixed-method study was to explore BC teachers’ experiences
with POPFASD’s LEIC planning tool. Through interview and survey data it was
revealed that essential themes regarding experiences with the LEIC were Application,
Intention, and Inhibitor. Two participants demonstrated a clear understanding of the
intention of the LEIC coupled with evidence to suggest they were able to consistently and
effectively use neurodevelopmental information to create an effective plan for students
however, four participants while being able to describe the intent of the tool,
demonstrated that they had on occasion, misapplied information leading to the conclusion
that they had either not understood all of the concepts shared or were not yet able to fully
analyze and synthesize the knowledge of neurodevelopmental domain impairment in
general and knowledge of their learner(s) specifically to create a fully comprehensive and
effective LEIC plan. All six respondents described experiences that inhibited their use
of the tool. These included aspects such as time, experience or practice, collaboration,
configuration of the tool, as well as access to the document.
Overall, teachers’ experiences suggest that the LEIC tool could be beneficial in
planning for a student with FASD. The qualitative survey data suggests that frequency of
use and dual-training methods may increase proficiency and depth of understanding when
planning using the LEIC; the qualitative findings are limited due to the small sample size
(n=31). In this chapter I will discuss the findings and compare them with the research
literature.

73

Major Findings
The questions posed during the interview were designed to serve three main
purposes; firstly, to gather background information; second, to ascertain what process
teachers went through when completing the tool, and finally, to investigate their
understanding of the intent of the LEIC tool, specifically as it related to the learner’s
profile, the neurodevelopmental nature of FASD, teacher expectations, and the
accommodations that were a result of these considerations. The tool is divided into these
three main sections – learner, the neurodevelopmental approach to planning, and the
accommodations section. The training provided by POPFASD in both the online course
and in the workshop, focuses on each of these three sections separately and then
concludes with information linking the three sections together using a strengths-based,
neurodevelopmental approach in order to create an effective plan. The accommodations
section is the culmination of the synthesis of information from the learner section, the
neurodevelopmental section (including expectations of the learner) through to a
consideration of secondary behaviours that arise when neurodevelopmental domain
deficits go unsupported. The accommodations are strategies that will support the
neurodevelopmental domain impairments in order for an individual to meet expectations.
I will use the framework of these three sections to discuss the findings as well as describe
findings as they relate to the ability to combine the information from the three sections to
create an effective plan using a neurodevelopmental approach.
The learner (top) section. The shared experiences of the interviewees suggest
that the top section of the tool is the section that is the most accessible and
comprehendible. Survey respondents also identified that they felt they knew how to

74

complete this section. It is important to note that survey questions only allowed for
educators to give an opinion – “I know how to complete the LEARNER section of the
LEIC planning tool. The layout of the LEARNER section is easy to follow”. There was
no process in the survey portion of my study to allow me to gather further information
and assess their “in practice” knowledge. All of the respondents in the interview iterated
that having an understanding of the learner’s profile, including strengths and
neurodevelopmental impairments were important aspects in successful planning. In
general, the results of this study conclude that respondents demonstrated an
understanding of how to complete the learner section of the tool as well as an
understanding of the intent of the learner section. Possibly, the ability to apply and
synthesize the knowledge gained through POPFASD’s training in completing the top
section more readily than other sections could be because many aspects of the top section
are similar to those found in documents such as the IEP – identifying strengths,
assessment information, background information, etc. - as well as in many school-basedteam discussion documents or other profiles of student learning and is therefore familiar
to users. The importance of developing a learner profile is discussed in the research.
Millians (2015) described factors necessary in planning for a student. Her research was
specific to FASD but not to any one tool. The key factors identified included such things
as evaluation of the learner, including strengths and needs, consideration of program, and
also instructional supports. The latter two considerations could fall under the
neurodevelopmental section, where expectations are considered, and under the
accommodations section. The importance of focusing on the learner was also identified
in the research conducted by Carpenter et al., (2011) in which they looked at The

75

Engagement and Profile Scale (EPS) which was developed to encourage educators to
develop learning plans that centered on student strengths and interests.
While understanding of the learner section seemed to exist for all interview
participants, each participant also shared some aspect of this section that inhibited
completion. Some described limited time to gather all of the relevant information
regarding “perceived developmental levels”, others described difficulties with the size of
the boxes, and still others described difficulties gathering information from colleagues.
For example, one respondent said that they felt teachers did not have time to think very
clearly about the profile of the learner. Another mentioned that the term “profile of a
learner” was uncommon and probably not understood. One respondent noted that the
document was outdated as it contained the term “Learning Style”. This respondent was
not aware that a more up-to-date version existed.
Neurodevelopmental (middle) section. The neurodevelopmental section of the
tool is what makes this tool powerful when planning for learners with a
neurodevelopmental disability such as FASD. This middle section considers the
expectations placed on the learner, what the brain may be required to do to meet those
expectations, and then considers the possible primary disabilities that the learner may
have. The importance of focusing on expectations is described by Howell and Nolet
(2000) in which they stated that their multi-step process for conducting evaluations
included identifying the expectations placed on the student. Kalberg and Buckley (2007)
discussed how information about neurobehavioural issues could be utilized to plan for
interventions and support. They describe the importance of understanding the specific
learning challenges of each student gleaned from neurodevelopmental assessments.

76

The neurodevelopmental section of the LEIC was the section that generated the
most discussion around difficulties with experience and understanding intent. This was
also the section where the most misapplication occurred. One respondent commented
that they would have like to have seen a needs category which is a category often found
on the IEP. This is important because the middle section of the LEIC is the “needs”
section – this is where the requirements of the brain are described in relation to an
expectation (what is needed from the brain) and also in relation to possible primary
disabilities (what needs support). Other respondents described how they skipped areas
that they did not understand and moved on to other areas or skipped areas that they did
not have time to complete. The middle section is the part of the LEIC where the
neurodevelopmental nature of FASD is highlighted and considered in planning.
What is particularly noteworthy were the views of an interview respondent who
described the need for theoretical knowledge to complete the LEIC, particularly in
relation to the middle section. This participant stated that even with training this section
was challenging. This interviewee also identified that more practice and more knowledge
made this section easier to work with. Millians (2015) systematically reviewed and
summarized a number of studies and reports on education planning and interventions for
students with FASD and she identified that teachers found diagnostic reports complex
and also that experienced teachers were better able to modify programs. Being able to
understand how a student’s primary disabilities could impact learning is critical in
completing the LEIC.
It is interesting to note that the respondents who were more comprehensive and
in-depth in their descriptive experiences of LEIC planning also described a richer

77

background knowledge and more experience that also suggested greater understanding
either of FASD specifically or special education in general. It is important to note that
the effect of teaching experience did not yield significant differences in survey
respondents’ beliefs about their practice in using the LEIC. However, self-reporting has
limitations in that opinions and beliefs about practice and knowledge are difficult to
confirm. The respondent who had the least difficulties with the LEIC and whose
descriptions demonstrated a more effective use of the tool also had the most training in
the area of FASD, including multiple trainings on using the LEIC. This respondent also
used the tool more frequently and had also taught others how to use it. From the survey
data, more frequent use of the tool and dual-method trainings in its use were identified as
being significant in respondent’s closed-ended, Likert scale responses, with those
respondent’s scores showing they felt greater affinity to the tool. Karmiloff-Smith (1998)
stated that a neurodevelopmental profile is relevant to the development of an individual;
it is therefore reasonable to conclude that considering the neurodevelopmental profile of
the learner is critical in educational planning for an individual with FASD.
Accommodations (bottom) section. Creating appropriate accommodations to
support a student is the ultimate goal of the LEIC. The respondents in this study
identified that developing accommodations was part of the planning process, however,
not all respondents in the interview were able to link the strategies back to an
understanding of the domain impairments and the learner’s current profile. Some
interview respondents shared that they did not even reach the accommodations portion of
the planning process or they skipped to the accommodations and filled in that section
when they were unsure of earlier sections. This demonstrates that some interviewees had

78

not made the link between the accommodations, the learner profile, and the
neurodevelopmental domain difficulties. Survey respondents data on questions about
linking primary disabilities and strengths to the accommodations suggests that they
“strong[ly] agree[d]” that they did this (Mo=9.00). Again, the survey methodology did
not give respondents the opportunity to elaborate and therefore their practice was not
confirmed. In Clark’s (2012) study of a POPFASD intervention program, she identified
that the LEIC planning tool was part of the intervention program. Clark stated that
teacher’s found the LEIC to be valuable in identifying accommodations as part of a
planning process. One of the major differences between Clark’s study and the present
study is that Clark’s participants were part of a longer-term intervention program in
which they had a two-day training in which the LEIC was a part, followed by other
trainings (not LEIC specific) and ongoing mentorship from a POPFASD teacher
consultant. Continued focus on the LEIC was a part of the mentorship support. It is
important to note that while the LEIC was part of Clark’s study, little data is given on the
specific use of the tool. The importance of the environment, an area in the
accommodations section is identified in the research of Karmiloff-Smith (1998) in which
it was stated that a neurodevelopmental profile is relevant to development but it is also
suggested that the environment and development itself were important factors. The LEIC
planning tool examines the learner, their neurodevelopmental profile but also looks at
factors in their microsystem (Bronfenbrenner, 2005) as well as other systems when
considering planning.

79

Chapter Summary
The quantitative and qualitative findings of the lived experiences of BC educators
who had used the LEIC were discussed in this chapter. The data shows that the
population of BC educators who participated in this study found the LEIC to be a useful
tool, however the data also indicates that it is complex and effective use can require an
understanding of the neurodevelopmental elements of FASD that a one-time workshop is
not likely to afford. The analysis of BC educators experience was cross-referenced with
the literature described in Chapter 2. Limitations and implications will be described in
Chapter 6, as well as my personal reflections.

80

Chapter 6: Conclusion
In Chapter 1, I introduced the purpose of this study, identified the significance of
the investigation, and provided my own context that brought me to focus on the LEIC in
my research. In Chapter 2, research literature was shared on neurodevelopmental theory
and FASD, as well as planning tools and FASD. Chapter 3 presented the detailed
methodology of this mixed-methodology study. In Chapter 4, I results of the qualitiative
interview and the quantiatitve survey were provided. Chapter 5, analyzed the data and
proposed interpretations of the results. This discussion was framed within the context of
the research literature as well as Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory. In this
final chapter, I will present the limitations, put forward implications for POPFASD, as
well as further research implications. Lastly, I will share personal reflections.
Limitations of the Study
This study has limitations. This study is qualitative and therefore my personal
bias and opinions had to be identified as I analyzed participant data, particularly the data
from interviews. I also had to be cognizant of my own experiences as I conducted the
interview. I also came to this process with expectation of outcomes and I needed to be
continually cognizant of that as I analyzed the data. Frequent conversations with my
supervisor, coupled with coding and repeatedly recoding the interview responses, and
also reflecting on my process through journaling helped me in this process. My
inexperience as a qualitative interviewer also needs to be acknowledged. Within my own
process I recognized that my interview skills improved with each interview. It is
important to also acknowledge the limitations caused by sample size for the survey.
Despite frequent attempts at attracting survey respondents, the number of respondents on

81

the survey was low. There were 31 respondents however only 27 of the respondents’
data was analyzed. This small sample size makes the results not generalizable to the
teaching population. It is also important to consider the demographics of both the survey
and interview populations. The population for the survey was made up primarily of nonenrolling teachers and the population for the interview was completely made up of
support teachers. Special educators are usually required to case manage and are typically
well-versed in planning tools. A final and significant limitation is that both the survey
and the interview are restricted due to the self-reported nature of the data.
Implications for Further Practice - POPFASD
One of the motivations for completing this study was the fact that POPFASD had
not undertaken any formal research on the use of the LEIC tool. The only data gathered
was data gathered right after a workshop or online course in the form of a feedback
question. As a part of small team and a teacher consultant for POPFASD, I wanted to
gather information on the long-term use of the tool so that the information could inform
future decisions about the tool itself and the training that accompanies it. What became
apparent in the study was the fact that teachers felt the LEIC was a useful tool, however,
teachers also shared inhibiting factors in its use.
One of the first recommendations for the LEIC would be to ensure that educators
had clear and easy access to the tool. All six participants shared experiences that related
to access – some participants had a version of the tool that they could type directly on to
but it was outdated, others had a version that was outdated but only had a “hard” copy.
None of the participants had both a current copy and a copy that they could enter
information directly on to.

82

A second recommendation would be for POPFASD to review its process for
sharing information regarding changes to the LEIC document as well as to the language
and approach that is part of the LEIC process. Some participants indicated that despite
the fact that they thought the tool was valuable, they tended to forget to use it and they
stated that they would like reminders about the LEIC, possibly in the form of an email.
It is interesting to note that the majority of participants were non-enrolling
teachers, given POPFASD’s limited resource pool (three teacher consultants) and the
number of teachers in the province, it may also be beneficial for POPFASD to focus their
training on support/resource/learning assistance teachers whose principle role is that of
case manager. It is likely that this group of teachers come to the planning table with
experience in planning and problem solving as well as experience in working with
students with FASD and other neurodevelopmental disabilities, and if they do not, their
role requires them to gain that knowledge in order to effectively support students, and by
extension the classroom teacher, in developing appropriate accommodations. It is also
the role of the case manager to bring the team together so that the planning is
collaborative and maximizes the knowledge and resources available. The research in this
study indicated that collaboration was also an inhibiting factor.
Neurodevelopmental disabilities are complex. The network that assesses
individuals for FASD is called, “The Complex Neurobehavioural Behaviour Network”.
Comprehensive and effective use of the LEIC requires training, experience, and practice
opportunities. It is questionable if a half-day, full-day, or six-part online session
adequately provides this. The data suggested that teachers who use the tool more
frequently and teachers who have had more than one training experience are more likely

83

to use the tool effectively. It is recommended that POPFASD explore dual-method
trainings with opportunities for repeat exposure or “check ins” as identified by some of
the respondents.
Implications for Further Research
Despite the inhibiting factors, all respondents reported that they felt the tool was a
useful tool for planning for individuals with FASD and other complex learning needs.
More than one respondent felt it was the best tool for really developing a comprehensive
plan. This is significant. At present there appears to be no other planning tool that goes
to the depth of the LEIC in developing supports for individuals with a
neurodevelopmental disability. Further research could explore, in greater depth, the
strengths of the tool as well as the limitations as it relates to the general population of
teachers. It would advantageous to conduct research that compared the LEIC planning
tool to the Individual Education Plan. It would also be interesting to conduct research
that compared one-time training with ongoing training on the LEIC as well as frequency
of use.
Reflections
Throughout the process of undertaking research I have reflected on the important
work of POPFASD, contemplated the practices of many caring and committed educators,
and framed this in the context of the ever-changing world of education. It is my belief
that education in British Columbia is at transition point. I feel hopeful that the education
system is, for the first time in many years, ready to grasp the concept of a truly inclusive
education environment. Critical to this is time for reflective practice, time for
professional conversation and training, and a time for truly thoughtful planning. I believe

84

that the LEIC planning tool can be a part of that reflection, collegial conversation, and
planning process. I have listened and re-listened to the experiences of six educators, all
of whom feel this tool can help to make a difference in planning for students with FASD.
It is my hope that the research undertaken here may spark further discussion about the
best way to train and support teachers so they can, in turn, support their learners.

85

References
Alberta Education. (2009). Re: Defining success: A team approach to supporting students
with FASD. Retrieved from https://education.alberta.ca/.../re-defining-successsupporting-students-with-fasd-2009
Bredberg, E. (2011). FASD and education policy: Issues and directions. In E. P. Riley,
S. Clarren, J. Weinberg, and E. Jonsson (Eds.), Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder:
Management and policy perspectives of FASD (pp. 317-326). Weinham,
Germany: Wiley-Blackwell.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005). Making human beings human: Biological perspectives on
human development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Carpenter, B. (2011). Pedagogically bereft! Improving learning outcomes for children
with Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders. British Journal of Special Education,
38(1), 37-43. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8578.2011.0495.x
Carpenter, B., Egerton, J., Brooks, T., Cockbill, B., Fotheringham, J., & Rawson, H.,
(2011). The complex learning difficulties and disabilities research project:
Developing meaningful pathways to personalized learning. Final Report. Schools
Network. Retrieved from website:
http://complexld.ssatrust.org.uk/uploads/CLDD%20research%20project%20(Fina
l)%20Exec%20sum.pdf
Clark, E. (2012). Assessment of a school-based intervention for elementary school
students diagnosed with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) (Doctoral
dissertation). Retrieved from
https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/24/items/1.0072756

86

Clark, E., George, M. A., Hardy, C., Hall, W. A., & MacMillan, P. D., Wakabayashi…
Hughes, K. (2014). Exploratory study of the effectiveness of a professional
development program on the academic achievement and classroom behavior of
students with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder in British Columbia, Canada.
International Journal of Alcohol and Drug Research, 3(1) 25-34. doi:
10.7895/ljadr.v3i1.119
Cook, J. L., Green, C. R., Lilley, C. M., Anderson, S. M., Baldwin, M. E., Chudley, A.,
… Rosale, T. (2016). Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder: A guideline for diagnosis
across the lifespan. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 188, 191-197. doi:
10.1503.cmaj.141593
Creswell, J.W. (2015a). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J.W. (2015b). Educational research. Planning, conducting, and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research. (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Education.
Giangreco, M. F., Whiteford, T., Whiteford, L., Doyle, M. B. (1998). Planning for
Andrew: The use of COACH and VISTA in an inclusive preschool program.
International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 45(4). doi:
10.1090/1034912980450402
Harlacher J. E., Sakelaris T. L., & Kattelman N. M. (2014). What is curriculum-based
evaluation?: Practitioner’s guide to curriculum-based evaluation in reading (pp
47-59). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-9360-0_4

87

Hayes, J. (2004). Visual annual reviews: How to include pupils with learning difficulties
in their educational reviews. Support for Learning, 19(4), 175-180.
doi: 10.1111/j.0268-2141.2004.00344.x
Howell, K. W., & Nolet, V. (2000). Curriculum-based evaluation. (3rd ed.). Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth Thomson Learning.
Jensen, E. (2008). Brain-based learning (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Kalberg, W. O., & Buckley, D. (2007). FASD: What types of intervention and
rehabilitation are useful? Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 31, 278-285.
doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2006.06.014
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1998). Development itself is the key to understanding
developmental disorders. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2(10), 389-398. doi:
10.1016/S1364-6613(98)01230-3
Kodituwakku, P. W. (2010). A neurodevelopmental framework for the development of
interventions for children with fetal alcohol spectrum disorders. Alcohol, 44,
717-728. doi: 10.1016/j.alcohol.2009.10.009.
Laverty, Susan M. (2003). Hermeneutic phenomenology and phenomenology: A
comparison of Historical and methodological considerations. International
Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2(3), 21-35 Doi: 10.1177/1609406903000200303
Malbin, D. (2002). Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder: Trying differently rather than
harder. (2nd ed.). Portland, OR: FASCETS.
Mattson, S. N., Roesch, S. C., Glass, L., Deweese, B. N., Coles, C. D., Kable, J. A., …
CIFASD. (2013). Further development of a neurobehavioral profile of Fetal

88

Alcohol Spectrum Disorders. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research,
37(3), 517-428. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-0277.2012.01952.x
Mayan, M.J. (2009). Essentials of qualitative inquiry. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast
Press.
Millians, M. N. (2015). Educational needs and care of children with FASD. Current
Developmental Disorders Reports, 2(3) 210-218. doi: 10.1007/s40474-015-0055-5.
Paley, B., & O’Conner, M. J. (2009). Intervention for individuals with fetal alcohol
spectrum disorders: Treatment approaches and case management. Developmental
Disabilities Research Reviews, 15, 258-267. doi: 10.1002/ddrr.67.
Pei, J., Job, J., Poth, C., O’Brien-Langer, A., & Atkinson, E. (2013). Assessment for
intervention of children with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders: Perspectives of
classroom teachers, administrators, caregivers, and allied professionals.
Psychology, 4(3A) 324-334.
Petrenko, C. L. M., Tahir, N., Mahoney, E. C., & Chin, N. P. (2014). Prevention of
secondary conditions in fetal alcohol spectrum disorders: Identification of
systems-level barriers. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 18, 1496-1505.
doi: 10.1007/210995-013-1390-y.
Poth, C., Pei, J., Job. J. M., & Wyper, K. (2014). Toward intentional, reflective, and
assimilative classroom practices with students with FASD. The Teacher Educator,
49(4), 247-264. doi: 10.1080/08878730.2014.933642
Pressley, M. & McCormick, C. B. (2007). Cognitive development: Stage theory. Child
and adolescent development for educators (pp. 61-91). New York, NY: The
Guilford Press.

89

Streissguth, A., (1997). Fetal Alcohol Syndrome: A guide for families and communities.
Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
Streissguth, A., Bookstein, F. L., Barr, H. M., Sampson, P. D., O’Malley, K., & Kogan,
J., (2004). Risk factors for adverse life outcomes in Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and
Fetal Alcohol Effects. Developmental and Behavioural Pediatrics, 25(4), 228238. doi: 1099996-206X/00/2504-0228
van Manen, M. (1997). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action
sensitive pedagogy. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
van Manen, M. (2014). Phenomenology of practice: Meaning-giving methods in
phenomenological research and writing. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Wilson, D. C., Conyers, M., & Rose, K. (2015). Rethinking learning potential.
Independent School, 75(1), 50-54.

90

Appendix A
LEIC Planning Tool

91

Appendix B
LEIC Planning Tool: Guiding Questions

92

Appendix C
Informed Consent – Survey
Researcher:
Student

Meredith Keery – UNBC Master of Education (Special Education)
250-981-0231 or keerym@unbc.ca

Supervisor:
Professor

Dr. Andrew Kitchenham – UNBC School of Education Chair and
250-960-6707 or andrew.kitchenham@unbc.ca

Thank you for agreeing to take part in this survey which is being conducted by
me, Meredith Keery, as part of a study entitled, BC Teachers’ Experiences with the LEIC
Planning Tool: A Mixed-Methods Study. This study is part of my Master of Education
(Special Education) at the University of Northern British Columbia.
As an educator and teacher consultant with the Provincial Outreach Program for
FASD (POPFASD) I am interested in gathering information from BC teachers who have
taken POPFASDs online or workshop training on the LEIC planning tool to understand
their experiences with this tool.
The survey should take approximately 15-20 minutes to complete. There are no
known or anticipated risks. The benefits associated with this study are several and
include: (a) assisting you in expressing views on the LEIC; (b) providing feedback on the
tool which might then be used by POPFASD to enhance or improve the tool (c)
participating research on the LEIC where no previous professional research exists.
Your participation in this research is completely voluntary. In terms of protecting
your anonymity, the survey does not require you to identify yourself or provide contact
information. If, however, you do agree to participate in the one-on-one interview, you
will be giving up any anonymity. Should you provide name or contact information on the
survey this information will not become part of my survey analysis and further
information regarding the interview process, as well as confidentiality will be provided
prior to the commencement of the interview process.
I will consult with my supervisor, Dr. Andrew Kitchenham, but he will only have access
to the anonymized data.
Your confidentiality and the confidentiality of the data will be protected in a
locked filing cabinet my home office and on my password-protected computer. The
results of this study will be shared as a thesis for my Master’s qualifications. It is also
anticipated that the aggregated results will be shared with POPFASD. Any individual
participant can also receive the thesis, upon written or spoken request.
This research may also lead to an invitation to present at scholarly meetings or be
published in scholarly journals. The data from this study will also be kept until for five
93

years following the completion of the project (anticipated date: May, 2017) and then will
be disposed of by shredding the paper copies, erasing electronic data, and destroying any
recordings.
As a researcher, I have sought a review of the ethics application of this study and
the UNBC Research Ethics Board has completed and indicated that I may conduct this
study. If you have any questions, you can contact me at 250-981-0231 (cell) or by email
at keerym@unbc.ca. For any concerns or complaints you might have about the research,
please contact the Office of Research at the University of Northern British Columbia
(250.960.6735) or via email at reb@unbc.ca.
By clicking on the survey link button you are agreeing to take this survey. If you
would like a printed version of the consent form, you can click on the link to create a .pdf
version for printing. Thank you for your interest and participation in this study. I
genuinely appreciate your time.

94

Appendix D
Informed Consent - Interviews
Researcher:
Student

Meredith Keery – UNBC Master of Education (Special Education)
250-981-0231 or keerym@unbc.ca

Supervisor:
Professor

Dr. Andrew Kitchenham – UNBC School of Education Chair and
250-960-6707 or andrew.kitchenham@unbc.ca

You are invited to participate in a study entitled, BC Teachers’ Experiences with
the LEIC Planning Tool: A Mixed-Methods Study, which is being conducted by me as
part of my Master of Education (Special Education) program at the University of
Northern British Columbia.
As an educator and teacher consultant with the Provincial Outreach Program for
FASD (POPFASD), I am interested in interviewing teachers who have taken
POPFASD’s online or workshop training on the LEIC planning tool to understand their
past and continued experiences with this tool. The interview will be audio-recorded,
transcribed, collated, and analyzed by me.
If you agree to participate in this research, you will have a series of questions
posed to you by me. The interview will be conducted in person, whenever possible;
otherwise the interview will be conducted using Blackboard Collaborate or by phone.
The questions will be about your experiences with the LEIC planning tool and you will
be (or have been) provided with the core questions in advance. You were chosen because
you responded to a survey in which you indicated a willingness to participate in a further
interview and because you have undertaken POPFASD’s online or workshop training on
the use of the LEIC planning tool.
The interview should take approximately NINETY minutes and will be conducted
at the best location for you. The sessions will be audio-taped. You will have the
opportunity to review and verify the transcribed interview. Participation in this study
may cause some inconvenience to you, including the time taken to read this consent form
to participate in the interview, and to review the interview transcription. There are no
known or anticipated risks to you by participating in this research but some questions or
statements could evoke an emotional response. If emotions are raised, I encourage you to
either let me know as it could be pertinent to my research or skip the question. Although
it is unlikely that you will interact with any other interviewees please remember not to
discuss the questions and or answers with other interviewees so as to maintain
anonymity.
The benefits associated with this study are several and include: (a) assisting you
in expressing views on the LEIC; (b) providing feedback on the tool which might then be

95

used by POPFASD to enhance or improve the tool; and (c) contributing to research on
the LEIC where no previous professional research exists.
Your participation in this research is completely voluntary. If you do agree to
participate, you may withdraw at any time without any consequences or any explanation.
If you do withdraw from the study, your data will not be used in the analysis and it will
be destroyed unless you expressly request that the information you have provided up to
the time of your withdrawal be retained in the study.
In terms of protecting your anonymity, I will use pseudonyms for participants so
that the real identities are not evident. I will also change information or combinations of
information (e.g., particular experiences in a particular role), so a participant’s identity
will be kept anonymous as much is possible. As mentioned, all interview responses will
be transcribed by me. I will consult with my supervisor, Dr. Andrew Kitchenham, but he
will only have access to the anonymized interview data.
Your confidentiality and the confidentiality of the data will be protected in a
locked filing cabinet my home office and on my password-protected computer. The
results of this study will be shared as a thesis for my Master’s qualifications. It is also
anticipated that the aggregated results will be shared with POPFASD. Any individual
participant can also receive the thesis, upon written or spoken request.
This research may also lead to an invitation to present at scholarly meetings or be
published in scholarly journals. The data from this study will also be kept for five years
following the completion of the project (anticipated date: May, 2017) and then will be
disposed of by shredding the paper copies, erasing electronic data, and destroying any
recordings.
As a researcher, I have sought a review of the ethics application of this study and
the UNBC Research Ethics Board has completed and indicated that I may conduct this
study. If you have any questions, you can contact me at 250-981-0231 (cell) or by email
at keerym@unbc.ca. For any concerns or complaints you might have about the research,
please contact the Office of Research at the University of Northern British Columbia
(250.960.6735) or via email at reb@unbc.ca.
Your signature below indicates that you understand the above conditions of participation
in this study and that you have had the opportunity to have your questions answered.
Thank you for your interest and participation in this study. I genuinely appreciate your
time.
__________________________
Signature
____________________________
Printed name
____________________________
Date

96

Appendix E
Notification in POPFASD Monthly Newsletter
Meredith Keery is looking for BC teachers to participate in an online survey. This survey
is part of a Master’s thesis entitled, BC Teachers’ Experiences with the LEIC Planning
Tool: A Mixed-Methods Study, which is being conducted by Meredith as part of her
Master of Education (Special Education) program at the University of Northern British
Columbia.
As an educator and teacher consultant with the Provincial Outreach Program for FASD
(POPFASD) Meredith is interested in surveying teachers who have taken POPFASDs
online or workshop training on the LEIC planning tool.
If you have taken POPFASDs online or workshop training on the LEIC planning tool in
the last ten years and are interested please click on the following link.
The survey takes approximately 15-20 minutes to complete. Thank you for your interest
and support.
Researcher:

Meredith Keery – UNBC Masters of Special Education Student
250-981-0231 or keerym@unbc.ca

Supervisor:

Dr. Andrew Kitchenham – UNBC
250-960-6707 or andrew.kitchenham@unbc.ca

97

Appendix F
Recruitment Email to POPFASD District Partners

98

Appendix G
Request for Permission – POPFASD and Response
Mr. C. Molcak,
Supervising Administrator for POPFASD
3400 Westwood Drive
Prince George, BC
V2N 1S1
Dear Mr. Molcak,
As part of my Master of Education (Special Education) program at the University
of Northern British Columbia, I am completing a study entitled, BC Teachers’
Experiences with the LEIC Planning Tool: A Mixed-Methods Study.
As an educator and teacher consultant with the Provincial Outreach Program for
FASD (POPFASD), I am interested in surveying as many teachers as possible who have
taken POPFASD’s online or workshop training on the LEIC planning tool to understand
their continued experiences with this tool. At the end of the survey, I will be asking
teachers if they would be willing to participate in an in-depth interview that will allow me
to probe deeper into their experiences with the LEIC. I plan to interview between four
and eight teachers. The interview will be audio-recorded, transcribed, collated, and
analyzed by me.
I am seeking POPFASD’s permission to:
1) Access POPFASD’s database for names and email addresses of teachers who
have participated in online training over the past ten years so that I may
contact them to ask them to participate in the online survey.
2) Use POPFASD’s monthly newsletter to seek the interest of teachers in
completing a survey as a second method for gathering survey participants.
Enclosure – suggested notification for newsletter.
3) Use POPFASD’s website to create a page where interested participants can
access the survey and also download and print a copy of the consent letter.
4) Finally, use POPFASD’s Blackboard Collaborate interface to conduct
interviews with teachers where I cannot conduct face-to-face interviews.
While the telephone will be presented as an option, I feel Blackboard
Collaborate will provide a more comfortable environment for participants and
allows for recording.
I anticipate posting information in POPFASD’s December and January
newsletters and providing a link to the survey and consent letter until the middle of
March.
Interview and survey participants will be provided with a consent letter that
outlines the purpose, benefits, and risks associated with this study. The benefits include:
99

(a) assisting teachers in expressing views on the LEIC; (b) providing feedback on the tool
which might then be used by POPFASD to enhance or improve the tool; and (c)
participating in research on the LEIC where no previous professional research exists.
There are no known or anticipated risks but participants will be told that it is recognized
that by participating in a survey or interview some questions or statements could evoke
an emotional response and if emotions are raised, they will be encouraged to either let me
know as it could be pertinent to my research or to skip the question.
The consent letters also provide information regarding issues of confidentiality
and an understanding that the UNBC Research Ethics Board application process will
have been completed and reviewed prior to commencing any research. No names will be
required to complete the survey. If, however, at the end of the survey, they agree to
participate in an interview then they will be giving up anonymity by providing a name
and contact information. This will be clearly identified at the end of the survey, prior to
providing contact information. Interview participants will be informed that they may
withdraw at any time without any consequences or any explanation. If they do withdraw
from the study, data will not be used in the analysis and it will be destroyed unless they
expressly request that the information they have provided up to the time of their
withdrawal can be retained in the study.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to hearing from you
soon.
Sincerely,

Meredith Keery
Enclosure
Researcher:

Meredith Keery – UNBC Masters of Special Education Student
250-981-0231 or keerym@unbc.ca

Supervisor:

Dr. Andrew Kitchenham – UNBC
250-960-6707 or andrew.kitchenham@unbc.ca

100

101

Appendix H
Seeking Consent for Research, School District #57 and Response

102

Appendix I
Online Survey Questions

LEIC Tool Survey
(A. Have you participated in POPFASD’s LEIC planning tool training?
Response

Chart

Percentage

Count

a. Face-to-face workshop

0.0%

0

b. Online training course

0.0%

0

c. Both workshop and online training

0.0%

0

d. No training then can’t go any further
but say “thanks”

0.0%

0

Total Responses

0

B. Have you participated in POPFASD’s online training more than one time?
Response

Chart

Percentage

Count

Yes

0.0%

0

No

0.0%

0

Total Responses

0

C. Have you participated in a POPFASD’s workshop that included the LEIC
training more than one time?
Response

Chart

Percentage

Count

Yes

0.0%

0

No

0.0%

0

Total Responses

0

103

D. In what year did you last participate in a POPFASD training that included
the LEIC planning tool? If you do not recall, write "unsure".
There are no responses to this question.

E. How many years have you been teaching?
Response

Chart

Percentage

Count

a. 0-5

0.0%

0

b. 6-10

0.0%

0

c. 11-15

0.0%

0

d. 16-20

0.0%

0

e. 21-25

0.0%

0

f. More than 25 years

0.0%

0

Total Responses

0

Percentage

Count

a. Resource or support

0.0%

0

b. Classroom

0.0%

0

c. Counsellor

0.0%

0

Other, please specify...

0.0%

0

Total Responses

0

F. What best describes your present teaching role?
Response

Chart

G. If you are a classroom teacher, what grade grouping best describes your
present teaching assignment?
Response

Chart

Percentage

Count

a. K to 3

0.0%

0

b. 4 to 7

0.0%

0

c. 8 to 10

0.0%

0

d. 11 to 12

0.0%

0

104

Total Responses

0

H. If you are a non-enrolling teacher what level of school do you teach in?
Response

Chart

Percentage

Count

a. Elementary

0.0%

0

b. Secondary

0.0%

0

Other, please specify...

0.0%

0

Total Responses

0

Percentage

Count

Public

0.0%

0

Private/Independent

0.0%

0

Total Responses

0

I. In what type of school are you employed?
Response

Chart

A. Have you used the LEIC planning tool to plan for a student or students with
FASD?
Response

Chart

Percentage

Count

Yes

0.0%

0

No

0.0%

0

Total Responses

0

B. Have you used the LEIC planning tool to plan for a student or students with
Complex Learning Needs (CLN)?
Response

Chart

Percentage

Count

Yes

0.0%

0

No

0.0%

0

Total Responses

0

105

C. Have you used the LEIC planning tool to plan for a student or students with
an exceptionality but not FASD or CLN?
Response

Chart

Percentage

Count

Yes

0.0%

0

No

0.0%

0

Total Responses

0

D. If you answered yes to any of the three previous questions, how frequently
do you use this tool?
Response

Chart

Percentage

Count

a. Once a year

0.0%

0

b. 2 – 3 times a year

0.0%

0

c. More than 3 times a year

0.0%

0

Total Responses

0

E. If you answered no to any of the three previous questions, please explain
why you didn't use the LEIC.
There are no responses to this question.

F. Do you use this tool on your own?
Response

Chart

Percentage

Count

Yes

0.0%

0

No

0.0%

0

Total Responses

0

Percentage

Count

0.0%

0

G. Do you use this tool collaboratively?
Response

Chart

Yes

106

No

0.0%

0

Total Responses

0

H. If collaboratively, please note who is typically involved in the collaborative
process?
Response

Chart

Percentage

Count

a. classroom teacher

0.0%

0

b. resource or support teacher

0.0%

0

c. education assistant

0.0%

0

d. counsellor

0.0%

0

e. youth care worker

0.0%

0

f. aboriginal education worker

0.0%

0

g. principal or vice-principal

0.0%

0

h. POPFASD District Partner

0.0%

0

i. school psychologist

0.0%

0

j. school speech and language
pathologist

0.0%

0

k. school occupational therapist

0.0%

0

l. parent

0.0%

0

m. student

0.0%

0

n. key worker

0.0%

0

Other, please specify...

0.0%

0

Total Responses

0

I. Have you ever sought from POPFASD, additional support, beyond online or
workshop training to enhance your ability to use this tool. This could include
your District Partner
Response

Chart

Yes

107

Percentage

Count

0.0%

0

No

0.0%

0

Total Responses

0

J. Consider the use of the LEIC Planning Tool and please indicate on a scale of
1-9 (1=strongly disagree, 9=strongly agree)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

The LEIC planning tool is user-friendly and
supports my ability to plan for students.

0
(0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

I know how to complete the top section or
LEARNER section of the LEIC planning tool.

0
(0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

The layout of the LEARNER section is easy to
follow.

0
(0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

I know how to complete the middle or
GOOD FIT/POOR FIT section of the LEIC
planning tool.

0
(0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

The layout of the middle or GOOD FIT/POOR
FIT section is easy to follow.

0
(0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

I know how to complete the bottom or
0
ENVIRONMENT/INSTRUCTION/CURRICULUM (0.0%)
section of the LEIC planning tool.

0 (0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

The layout of the bottom or
0
ENVIRONMENT/INSTRUCTION/CURRICULUM (0.0%)
section is easy to follow.

0 (0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

1
0
(100.0%) (0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

K. Consider the LEIC Planning Tool and please indicate on a scale of 1-9
(1=strongly disagree, 9=strongly agree)

The LEIC planning tool is user-friendly and
supports my ability to plan for students.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0

108

I know how to complete the top section or
LEARNER section of the LEIC planning tool.

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0

The layout of the LEARNER section is easy to
follow.

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0

I know how to complete the middle or
GOOD FIT/POOR FIT section of the LEIC
planning tool.

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0

The layout of the middle or GOOD FIT/POOR
FIT section is easy to follow.

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0

I know how to complete the bottom or
0
ENVIRONMENT/INSTRUCTION/CURRICULUM (0.0%)
section of the LEIC planning tool.

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0

The layout of the bottom or
0
ENVIRONMENT/INSTRUCTION/CURRICULUM (0.0%)
section is easy to follow.

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0

L. Consider the brain-based elements of the LEIC Planning Tool, please
indicate on a scale of 1-9 (1=strongly disagree, 9=strongly agree)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Total
Responses

The guiding
0
questions (on
(0.0%)
the back of the
LEIC) help with
determining how
to complete the
LEIC planning
tool.

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0

I consider the
link between the
possible primary
disability and
expectations
when

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0

0
(0.0%)

109

completing the
LEIC planning
tool.
I consider the
link between the
possible primary
disability and
secondary
disabilities when
completing the
LEIC planning
tool.

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0

Considering the
setting for
secondary
behaviours
(when, where,
how often) helps
with planning.

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0

When planning
0
accommodations (0.0%)
or strategies I
frequently
reflect on the
possible primary
disabilities.

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0

When planning
0
accommodations (0.0%)
or strategies I
frequently
reflect on and
include
strategies that
support student
strengths,
interests, and
learning styles.

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

0

110

M. What are the strengths of the LEIC planning tool?
There are no responses to this question.

N. What are the weaknesses of the LEIC planning tool?
There are no responses to this question.

Please provide your contact information if you are willing to take part in an
interview either in person, on the phone, or via Blackboard Collaborate.
Variable

Response

Name

There are no responses to this question.

Email

There are no responses to this question.

Phone Number

There are no responses to this question.

111

Appendix J
Semi-Structured Interview Questions
Pre-Interview Information
Date:
Face-to-Face:
Phone:
Blackboard Collaborate:
Participant Information
Pseudonym:
Teaching Role:
Teaching Experience (years):
Teaching Level or Grade Group:
I appreciate your willingness to be interviewed today. As I indicated earlier, I am
a Master of Education (Special Education) student at the University of Northern British
Columbia and I am completing a study entitled, BC Teachers’ Experiences with the LEIC
Planning Tool: A Mixed-Methods Study.
As an educator and teacher consultant with the Provincial Outreach Program for
FASD (POPFASD), I am interested in interviewing teachers who have taken
POPFASD’s online or workshop training on the LEIC planning tool to understand their
past and continued experiences with this tool. The interview should take approximately
NINETY minutes.
There are no known or anticipated risks to you by participating in this research
but some questions or statements could evoke an emotional response. If emotions are
raised, I encourage you to either let me know as it could be pertinent to my research or
skip the question.
The benefits associated with this study are several and include: (a) assisting you
in expressing views on the LEIC; (b) providing feedback on the tool which might then be
used by POPFASD to enhance or improve the tool; and (c) contributing to research on
the LEIC where no previous professional research exists.
Your participation in this research is completely voluntary. If you do agree to
participate, you may withdraw at any time without any consequences or any explanation.
If you do withdraw from the study, your data will not be used in the analysis and it will
be destroyed unless you expressly request that the information you have provided up to
the time of your withdrawal be retained in the study.
In terms of protecting your anonymity, I will use pseudonyms for participants so
that the real identities are not evident. I will also change information or combinations of
information (e.g., particular experiences in a particular role), so a participant’s identity
112

will be kept anonymous as much is possible. All interview responses will be transcribed
by me and you will have an opportunity to review the transcripts. I will consult with my
supervisor, Dr. Andrew Kitchenham, but he will only have access to the anonymized
interview data.
Your confidentiality and the confidentiality of the data will be protected in a
locked filing cabinet my home office and on my password-protected computer. The
results of this study will be shared as a thesis for my Master’s qualifications. It is also
anticipated that the aggregated results will be shared with POPFASD. Any individual
participant can also receive the thesis, upon written or spoken request.
You have been given and have signed a consent letter outlining this and other
elements of this research study. Before we begin the interview do you require time to
review the consent or do you have any questions?
1. Tell me about your teaching experience, the grade or grades you teach, the
subject, the role you have in your school?
2. Have you taken any POPFASD courses? If so, were they online or in person.
3. What made you decide to take POPFASD training?
4. Did you participate with colleagues? What colleagues?
5. Did the course include the LEIC planning tool?
6. Tell me about your experience using the LEIC planning tool since you took
POPFASD training. (Prompt: consider positives, negatives, advantages,
disadvantages).
7. Were colleagues involved in the planning process? Did it include anyone from
outside the school? The student? The parents? Tell me about the collaborative
process. (Prompt: consider positives, negatives, advantages, disadvantages).
8. How helpful did you find the layout of the LEIC?
9. Walk me through the process of filling out the three sections.
10. What were the challenges, if any, in completing the sections?
11. After you complete or completed the LEIC tell me what you did next.
12. In your experiences, tell me what you have used the LEIC planning tool for up
until now.
13. “On question “x” you indicated… Can you tell me more about….” and others
may arise spontaneously out of the interview itself.

113