Exploring Teachers’ Perceptions of Identity, Empathy, and Ethics in a Mandated ELA Curriculum by Jemma Phillips A project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF EDUCATION with an emphasis in CURRICULUM & INSTRUCTION WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY Ogden, Utah April 10, 2026 Approved Christy Call, Ph.D. Stephanie Speicher, Ph.D. Penée W. Stewart, Ph.D. 2 Abstract This qualitative study examines how junior high English Language Arts (ELA) teachers perceive the effectiveness of a district-mandated literature curriculum in fostering students’ identity development, ethical reasoning, and engagement with diverse perspectives. Grounded in research that positions literature as a critical tool for cultivating empathy, social awareness, and what Maxine Greene terms the “social imagination,” this study responds to concerns that contemporary instructional practices often reduce literary study to skills-based tasks, limiting opportunities for deeper meaning-making. Conducted during the pilot implementation of the Savvas myPerspectives curriculum in grades 7–9, this study employs a basic interpretive qualitative design. Data were collected through questionnaires, teacher reflection logs, and semistructured interviews to capture teachers’ lived experiences with the curriculum. Findings indicate that while teachers strongly believe ELA should support identity exploration, empathy, and ethical reflection, they perceive the prescribed curriculum as offering inconsistent and largely surface-level opportunities to achieve these goals. Structural constraints, including pacing demands, text complexity, limited scaffolding for discussion, and skills-focused assessments, often restricted deeper engagement with literature. Additionally, district expectations, shifting implementation guidelines, and community pressures contributed to reduced teacher autonomy and, in some cases, self-censorship around sensitive topics. In response, teachers actively mediated the curriculum by supplementing texts, adapting instructional strategies, and creating space for meaningful dialogue. Overall, the study highlights a tension between standardized curriculum structures and the relational, reflective aims of literary education. Findings suggest the need for more flexible, inclusive curricular designs that better support teachers in facilitating critical, student-centered 3 engagement with literature. Such shifts are essential to realizing the potential of literary study as a vehicle for adolescent identity development, ethical understanding, and social awareness. 4 Contents Problem Statement...................................................................................................................................... 5 Literature Review ....................................................................................................................................... 8 Literature and Adolescent Identity and Ethics .......................................................................................... 9 Critical Literacy and Inclusive Practices................................................................................................. 14 Systemic Constraints: Policy, Climate, and Trust .................................................................................. 17 Implications and Need for Further Research .......................................................................................... 21 Methodology .............................................................................................................................................. 22 Research Design...................................................................................................................................... 22 Research Setting...................................................................................................................................... 23 Participants .............................................................................................................................................. 24 Data Collection ....................................................................................................................................... 26 Data Analysis .......................................................................................................................................... 30 Ethical Considerations ............................................................................................................................ 33 Findings...................................................................................................................................................... 35 Beliefs and Contexts Shaping Curriculum Implementation .................................................................... 38 Opportunities and Challenges Within the Curriculum ............................................................................ 44 Teachers Adapted and Mediated ............................................................................................................. 50 Discussion .................................................................................................................................................. 54 Summary of Findings .............................................................................................................................. 62 Implications............................................................................................................................................. 63 Limitations of Study................................................................................................................................ 70 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 72 Appendices ................................................................................................................................................. 75 Appendix A. Recruitment Email ............................................................................................................. 75 Appendix B. Informed Consent Form ..................................................................................................... 76 Appendix C. Demographic Survey ......................................................................................................... 79 Appendix D. Interview Protocol ............................................................................................................. 81 Appendic E. Interview Questions ........................................................................................................... 85 Appendix F. Reflexive Interview Notes Templates ................................................................................ 88 Appendix G. Reflexive Interview Notes Templates ............................................................................... 89 Reference List ............................................................................................................................................ 90 5 Problem Statement Literary texts can be leveraged to support adolescents during a critical period of identity formation and social awareness (Branje et al., 2021). Literature offers an analytical window into the complex relationships that are inherent in an interconnected world (Verhoeven et al., 2018). The dynamic of literary texts allows for constructive engagements and relational confrontations at safe yet critical distances. Literature not only opens a space for greater self-discovery but also for consideration of relationality and ethics (Bal & Veltkamp, 2013). Thus, English teachers seem uniquely positioned to foster forms of cultural literacy and ethical understanding through engagement with literary texts (Verhoeven et al., 2018). Using these texts as a foundation for meaningful discussions and deeper contextual learning can expand students’ engagement with the complexities of human experiences. It can position them to critically examine ethical dilemmas that emerge forcefully in an increasingly interconnected world. Philosopher Maxine Green (2000) describes how reading cultivates a “social imagination” (p. 5) that allows students to envision alternative perspectives and possibilities for a more just society. Through engagement with literature, students can develop greater awareness of diverse lived experiences and strengthen their capacity to contribute to a culture rooted in fairness and mutual respect (Mirra, 2018). An educational approach that leverages the power of literature to foster identity formation and social awareness benefits students, teachers, and the community in distinct yet interconnected ways. Engaging with diverse narratives strengthens students' ability to understand their emotions and appreciate different worldviews (Franzese, 2017). Research also indicates that this exposure enhances social awareness, promotes prosocial behaviors, and improves peer relationships (Gleichgerrcht & Decety, 2013). Bringing students’ diverse identities into their 6 learning experiences helps them find relevance in what they read, enhancing engagement and meaningful connections to their learning (James, 2019; Zhou, 2022). Literature equips teachers with a powerful tool to facilitate constructive discussions about ethics, identity, and social responsibility. Educators can guide students in engaging with complex moral dilemmas, analyzing individual and collective forms of human speech and behavior, and considering the influence of historical and social forces that shape perspectives (Bishop, 1990; Hattan & Lupo, 2020). Beyond the classroom, schools and communities prioritizing literary engagement and critical discourse create environments where mutual respect, intellectual openness, and nuanced thinking are valued. This helps break down ideological isolation, disrupt patterns of bias-based harm, and foster a more informed and civilly engaged society (Hattan & Lupo, 2020; Spilka, 2022). Yet despite all these advantages, the current educational landscape limits the full utilization (Johnson et al., 2016). Rather than using literature to engage students with discussions about identity and human interactions, instruction is often limited to basic comprehension tasks, such as summarizing plot points or answering recall-based questions. Assignments tend to prioritize formulaic responses over open-ended inquiry, thereby limiting opportunities for students to make meaningful connections to their lived experiences or to develop nuanced and complex interpretations of texts (Dixon & Oakhill, 2024). As a result, students perceive literary study as one-dimensional, focusing solely on understanding a text in isolation rather than exploring its broader implications (Levine et al., 2021). Efforts to use literature to foster identity exploration and social awareness are complicated by institutional constraints. State, district, and school directives, as well as a broader climate of apprehension surrounding discussions of systemic issues and nuanced perspectives, 7 have contributed to an environment where both external mandates and internalized caution shape the instructional decisions teachers make. Teachers often experience pressure to avoid texts or conversations perceived as ideologically charged, leading to explicit censorship and selfcensorship (White & Ali-Khan, 2020). The narrowing of literary instruction poses significant implications. Students are denied vital opportunities to develop critical consciousness when literature is stripped of its power to illuminate ethical dilemmas, engage with diverse lived experiences, and prompt reflection on social realities. Instruction that is disconnected from students’ identities, questions, and experiences can lead to disengagement and a diminished sense of relevance. Moreover, the absence of diverse voices, especially those historically marginalized or underrepresented, risks reinforcing exclusionary narratives. Such limitations diminish literature’s role in helping adolescents explore who they are and want to become, at a time in their development when such exploration is most vital. In March 2025, Davis School District’s ELA curriculum adoption committee announced its recommendation of Savvas Learning and the accompanying textbook, myPerspectives, as the primary instructional materials for grades 7–12. While this adoption provides consistency across the district, it also raises important questions about how standardized literature curricula serve the diverse and developmental needs of adolescent learners. Given the critical role literature can play in supporting identity development, empathy, and ethical reflection, it is essential to understand how teachers experience and implement these materials. This project will explore how junior high ELA teachers (grades 7–9) perceive the effectiveness of a prescribed literature curriculum in fostering meaningful student engagement with complex ideas and diverse perspectives. Specifically, it will investigate the following research questions: 8 1. How do junior high ELA teachers perceive a district-mandated literature program’s ability to support students’ identity development, ethical reflection, and engagement with diverse perspectives? 2. What opportunities and challenges do teachers encounter when implementing a districtadopted literature curriculum to meet these goals? Through qualitative data collection methods such as interviews and surveys, this study aims to provide insight into how curriculum design and instructional realities intersect, and how teacher perceptions can inform a more responsive, inclusive, and impactful use of literature in secondary classrooms. Literature Review The adolescent years are transformative in developing an individual’s identity, social awareness, and ethical reasoning (Branje et al., 2021). As students, adolescents are ideally positioned to explore who they are, how they relate to others, and the world around them, and to develop a foundational understanding of how to thoughtfully consider complex moral and cultural questions (Verhoeven et al., 2018). English Language Arts (ELA) classes can be leveraged to aid in this process of critical developmental work through the typical primary mode of instruction in the ELA discipline: engagement with literature (Mirra, 2018). Engaging with literature in a variety of ways provides students with a protected and supported space to engage with ethical dilemmas, diverse perspectives, and to imagine alternative social realities, rather than grappling with such cognitively demanding ideas in isolation (Coleman, 2021; Levine et al., 2021; Mirra, 2018; Nikolajeva, 2014). As schools and districts increasingly adopt standardized ELA curricula, important questions arise about how these programs shape the potential that teachers and literary study hold to foster identity development, moral questioning, and empathy 9 development during these adolescent years Grecu, 2022; Nadelson et al., 2024; Smith & Banack, 2024). This literature review is integrative, drawing on research findings from both theoretical and empirical studies. These findings incorporate information from conceptual frameworks, practitioner reflections, and both qualitative and quantitative approaches to synthesize what is currently known about how engagement with literature can support adolescent identity and ethical exploration, as well as how teacher expertise and agency emerge and operate during a time of increased curricular mandates that may or may not prioritize the value of utilizing literature in a manner that promotes critical capacities in identity formation and ethical reasoning within students. The review aims to create an introductory understanding of the potential and constraints of literary instruction in secondary ELA classrooms. The findings are categorized according to recurring themes found throughout the research: • Literature and Adolescent Identity and Ethics • Critical Literacy and Inclusive Practices • Systemic Constraints: Policy, Climate, and Trust This review provides the foundation for examining two central questions: (1) How do junior high ELA teachers perceive a district-mandated literature program’s ability to support students’ identity and ethical development? Moreover, (2) What opportunities and challenges do teachers encounter when implementing such a curriculum to achieve these goals? Literature and Adolescent Identity and Ethics Research suggests that engagement with literature can play a crucial role in adolescent identity development, the cultivation of empathy, and the promotion of ethical reasoning (Bishop, 1990; Mirra, 2018; Nikolajeva, 2014). Understanding the foundational role of literature 10 in an ELA class is essential for exploring how teachers perceive the capacity of a standardized curriculum to engage with literature to reach these positive developmental outcomes. This section first examines how literary study positively supports identity formation in adolescents and then explores how it can sharpen empathy and ethical reflection, encouraging students to be in a productive struggle with complex social and moral ideas and questions. Identity Development Scholars have long recognized that literature can be used as a dynamic space for students to explore their own identities and those of others in meaningful and complex ways. From a developmental perspective, Branje et al. (2021) synthesized findings on adolescent identity formation. They concluded that identity formation is not a direct progression, but instead is a cyclical process involving exploration, typically triggered by relational feedback from others. As teens are sensitive to social feedback and exposed to a high frequency of new experiences and environments, identity exploration involves the capacity to revisit and revise one’s identity over time. An important element for teens to understand their developing identity is through personal narrative. As their sense of self continually changes, adolescents attempt to create a narrative about their past, present, and future selves, thereby maintaining a sense of continuity while allowing the self to evolve in a way that makes sense. Building on the broad idea of adolescent identity development, Verhoeven et al. (2018) synthesized research on how secondary schools contribute to this identity development cycle. The goal of this review was to identify the specific roles of curriculum, teacher-student relationships, and school structures in supporting, or possibly hindering, teen identity exploration. The authors claim that identity exploration in schools is best supported when students experience some independence in their learning, receive meaningful feedback, and have 11 healthy relationships with peers and adults at school. The review also emphasizes that daily interactions, through discussions or engagement with teachers, can powerfully shape a student’s perception of themselves. Furthermore, the healthiest development of self was achieved when a student’s identity was affirmed, respected, and included in some way within the school environment. The work of Nikolajeva (2014) helps establish a connection between the development of personal narratives and literary narratives. The author explains that young adult (YA) fiction provides adolescents with a structured and emotionally safe space to explore complex ideas about selfhood. Fiction offers both cognitive and affective support during the cyclical process of identity formation, which the author describes as “cognitive and emotional scaffolding for identity formation in adolescent readers” (pp. 2-3). The author describes fiction as a means of preparing readers to develop their identities, allowing them to observe how fictional characters' identities are shaped, which in turn prompts students to reflect on their own experiences. The analysis concluded that literary narratives do not merely depict identity, but also engage readers in the process of identity creation, prompting them to reflect on their process. Bishop (1990) created an analogy for the dialogue between reader and text, suggesting that literature can take three roles: a mirror, which allows for self-recognition; a window, providing a view into another’s life; and a sliding glass door, representing an imaginative entry into a new perspective. Similarly, Marlatt (2018) focused their study on how thoughtfully selected global and multicultural literature can serve as important mirrors and windows to students, reflecting their lived experiences or broadening their perspective beyond these experiences to include other ways of knowing and being. Marlatt argues that the power of such texts lies in inviting students to consider the dominant cultural narratives surrounding them and 12 how these narratives impact their sense of self. Thomas and Stornaiuolo (2016) support this idea through the concept of “restorying” (p. 315), which describes how young people today use literature and digital media to actively create narratives in dynamic ways that push against a single story about who they are and consequently, develop a more complex way of understanding, rather than simply being consumers. Empathy and Ethics Beyond being an important part of how adolescents understand themselves, literature can also play a crucial role in fostering empathy and promoting ethical reasoning. Literary engagement simultaneously invites young readers to explore who they are, as well as the questions of “Who are others?” and “How should we relate to one another?” This added dimension extends the work of identity formation into the realm of how teens see their role in social responsibility and prepares them to grapple with cognitively challenging perspectives and issues. By investigating how literary study cultivates questions of empathy, ethics, and diverse lived experiences, a more precise understanding will begin to emerge about the opportunities and challenges teachers may face in using literature to foster students’ critical engagement. Research consistently highlights that empathy is not a byproduct of studying literature, but rather a core outcome deeply intertwined with ethical thinking. To lay a basis for literary study and empathy, it is first important to understand that empathy can be taught and strengthened. Riess and Neporent (2018) reviewed empirical studies and findings from neuroscience, psychology, and empathy training research to explore how empathy is neurologically and psychologically developed and applied across various settings. They confirmed that empathy is learned and can be developed through role modeling, storytelling, and even formal training. The review also highlighted that in-group bias is neurologically ingrained 13 and can limit empathy unless perspective-taking is actively developed. Furthermore, the studies recognized that adolescents are neurologically primed for social connection, which is a key component in perspective-taking. Zhou (2022) supports the idea that empathy is a teachable capacity, explicitly stating that empathy can and should be modeled, taught, and scaffolded in various school contexts. Franzese (2016) extends this further by saying that guiding students towards cultivating empathy “lies at the heart of effective teaching” (p 701) as it creates student trust, engagement, a sense of belonging, and helps “humanize” (p. 701) the classroom so it becomes a place of deeper dialogue and shared questioning. Specific to literary engagement, Bal and Veltkamp (2013) sought to understand whether reading influences empathy and whether these influences are immediate or delayed. While empathy is difficult to measure, the researchers used self-report questionnaires to assess participants, utilizing the Interpersonal Reactivity Index, a commonly used assessment that measures perspective-taking and empathetic concern. The studies found that when a reader felt “emotionally transported” (p.6) into a fictional narrative, a measurable increase in empathy was observed after one week of reading. Levine et al. (2021) add to these findings by arguing that students’ emotional reactions to literature are a primary driving force in peer discussions and ethical exploration. This indicates that empathy can prompt deeper, more critical thinking. Additional studies make an important distinction: literary study is not simply about learning surface-level kindness but is about entering into realms where students can question power, equity, and justice. Mirra (2018) advocates for “critical civic empathy,” which she defines as encouraging students to examine common assumptions, challenge what is considered “normal,” and apply their empathetic skills to a broader understanding of fairness and social justice. Similarly, Nikolajeva (2014) uses the term “emotional memory” to describe how readers 14 can connect their feelings with imagined pasts and rehearse moral possibilities for the future, in ways that shape their sense of ethical goodness (p. 5). Critical Literacy and Inclusive Practices While research shows that the ELA classroom offers important opportunities for identity exploration and ethical reflection, it also indicates that these outcomes are enhanced when combined with critical literacy practices (Mirra, 2018). Strategies for teaching and learning critical literacy go beyond simple reading or recall, encouraging students to think deeply about texts by engaging with them, questioning dominant narratives, analyzing power structures within texts, and considering whose voices are represented (Germán, 2021; Marlatt, 2018). While much of the literature emphasizes the potential of critical literacy, scholars also highlight significant challenges and gaps that complicate the objective of fostering justice, empathy, and critical thinking. Debates persist over how to balance canonical and global texts in fostering critical inquiry (Marlatt, 2018), as well as over the degree to which critical literacy is consistently realized across varied political and institutional contexts (Germán, 2021; Mirra, 2018). Taken together, the research indicates that critical literacy enhances ELA learning through two interconnected aspects (Germán, 2021; Marlatt, 2018; Mirra, 2018). The first focuses on having a clear purpose for reading and analyzing texts, which many scholars agree should be to use textual study to promote social justice. This aspect stresses the importance of intentionally framing literary studies around students examining texts and their roles in society, questioning power structures, and developing ethical, civic, and justice-oriented thinking (Germán, 2021; Mirra, 2018; Thomas & Stornaiuolo, 2016). The second highlights standard practices of critical literacy that frequently appear throughout scholarly conversations on this topic. These strategies aim to promote counter-narratives by demonstrating methods and 15 materials used by teachers, such as selecting diverse texts, centering marginalized voices, and designing curriculum and classroom environments that support this approach (Germán, 2021; Marlatt, 2018; Thomas & Stornaiuolo, 2016). The following sections will explore each of these aspects in more detail. The Purpose: Fostering Ethical and Critical Capacities Scholars argue that when literature instruction is intentionally framed to promote social justice, critical literacy helps students develop the skills needed to analyze texts and the broader societal structures they reflect (Germán, 2021; Mirra, 2018). This approach fosters ethical awareness and civic responsibility, enhancing students’ ability to effectively question and challenge system of power and inequality (Thomas & Stornaiuolo, 2016; Marlatt, 2018). Mirra (2018) and Germán (2021) convey information but also encourage students to engage thoughtfully with issues of justice in their communities. Appleman (2024) and Coleman (2021) demonstrate that examining texts from different perspectives and paying attention to emotional responses are not goals in themselves, but are crucial for helping students recognize and question the socio-political structures that shape their lives, thereby reinforcing critical literacy’s broader purpose as a tool for justice. James (2019) and White and Ali-Khan (2020) also argue that engaging with literature offers intentional and safe ways to discuss marginalized or “taboo” topics, such as sexuality and LGBTQIA+ identities. These scholars also emphasize that grappling with these complex issues is crucial in helping students recognize and address societal silences and exclusions. Overall, these perspectives underscore that the primary goal of critical literacy extends beyond merely understanding texts. Instead, it should prepare students with the ethical, civic, and analytical skills needed to navigate and challenge inequalities that dehumanize. 16 Research on the purpose of literary study also highlights how purposeful literary study creates opportunities for other thinking skills. Zohrabi and Zarei (2025) emphasize that experiencing diverse characters and moral conflicts through literature not only fosters empathy and perspective-taking but also encourages deeper moral reasoning and critical reflection. The same research also notes that when literature instruction shifts from simple plot recall to other similar low-level thinking activities that focus on creative and evaluative thinking, it opens the richness of texts as tools for exploring complex societal and personal questions. These added insights affirm that the purpose of critical literacy extends beyond social critique to include students’ need to develop emotional dispositions to navigate the world around them. The Practices: Inclusive Pedagogies for Critical Engagement Scholars emphasize that achieving these ethical and cognitive goals relies heavily on teaching methods that actively encourage deeper engagement with literature. Reader response strategies, such as journals, peer discussions, and emotional dialogue, have been shown not only to expand students’ interpretations but also to enhance their critical thinking by linking personal insights with textual analysis (Iskhak et al., 2020; Levine et al., 2021; Suarez & Diva, 2022; ). Similarly, the work of Coleman (2021) and Nikolajeva (2014) focuses on students’ emotional responses, which they argue help build moral reasoning and create space for marginalized perspectives to reshape interpretations. Thomas and Stornaiuolo (2016) extend this idea into digital spaces, showing how platforms that allow students to interact with texts actively enable them to “restory" (p. 314). dominant narratives. This “restorying” (p.314) offers students opportunities to develop or identify counter-narratives that oppose exclusion and foster new social realities. Throughout these studies, it is clear that intentional practices must be employed to fulfill the larger purpose of studying literature. 17 Implementation Challenges Although many scholars advocate for the powerful potential of literature instruction to develop ethical, civic, and critical skills, the literature also acknowledges debates and limitations that complicate achieving these goals in various educational settings. Marlatt (2018) highlights one of these tensions: the ongoing struggle between teaching canonical texts and including more global and multicultural literature. Marlatt warns that the current overreliance on traditional works is weakening efforts to focus on diverse perspectives. Similarly, Germán (2021) and Mirra (2018) note that, despite many educators' efforts to adopt equity-focused practices and curricula, the larger political and institutional structures often limit the full implementation of critical literacy in ELA classrooms. These tensions suggest that, although the literature strongly suggests the use of textual studies to foster students’ ethical and civic awareness, questions remain about the practical challenges of achieving these goals across diverse educational contexts. These challenges will be explored further in the following sections. Systemic Constraints: Policy, Climate, and Trust While scholars agree that critical literacy and inclusive literacy practices can promote adolescent identity and ethical growth (Germán, 2021; Marlatt, 2018; Mirra, 2018), they also acknowledge that this potential heavily relies on the structural constraints and contextual pressures teachers often face. The outcomes of critical literary study are therefore not guaranteed but depend on how much these pedagogical goals are supported by the school’s framework and the contextual factors teachers regularly encounter. As Marlatt (2018) points out, even selecting and teaching texts is never a neutral act; instead, they are deeply connected to a community’s view of social justice and equity. Therefore, when educators work within strict curricular 18 structures or under pressures that limit their professional freedom, opportunities to use literature as a meaningful tool can be significantly constrained. Numerous studies demonstrate that structural constraints frequently limit teachers’ autonomy in using literature to meet students’ developmental needs. Key factors include standardized curricula, adoption policies, and scripted mandates (Smith & Banack, 2024; Nadelson et al., 2024), which can restrict students' opportunities to explore their identities or cultural backgrounds. In a study of 293 teachers, Nadelson et al. (2024) found that when teachers strictly followed scripted curricula, students had fewer chances to reflect on their identities or cultural backgrounds. Some teachers saw the scripted curriculum as helpful guides or starting points. However, most needed to supplement their materials with additional resources to make the content more culturally relevant and to keep students engaged. Smith and Banack (2024), in reflective case studies, also observed that although many teachers aimed to include justiceoriented topics or activities, standardized programs often limited their flexibility. Furthermore, the authors notes that external pressures often lead teachers to practice self-censorship and restrict literary exploration, out of concern that instructional barriers might hinder genuine instruction. These pressures extend beyond curricular scripts. Broader political climates and community dynamics heavily influence what teachers feel comfortable addressing (White & AliKhan, 2020; Minor & Alexander, 2020). White and Ali-Khan (2020) support this by stating that even within these structural constraints, teachers often preemptively limit their instruction and avoid critical and inclusive themes, anticipating backlash from parents or local stakeholders. Minor and Alexander (2020) further describe this tension between fidelity to institutional systems and fidelity to students. They argue that schools are environments where compliance is 19 rewarded, even among educators, at the expense of creativity and responsiveness to students’ needs. They observed that teachers who focused on students’ needs often had to take deliberate and sometimes risky stands to resist the school community’s norms. These structural and political pressures intersect with school culture, further shaping what teachers see as possible in their classrooms. Beyond formal policies and community influence, teachers' ability to use literature in transformative ways is also shaped by the local school culture and the trust placed in their professional judgment. Johnson et al. (2016) argue that the quality of literacy instruction depends more on what teachers know and the strategies they use than on following a scripted curriculum or program. They emphasize that teacher knowledge directly affects instructional decisions and responds to students’ needs. However, Dixon and Oakhill (2024) found, through survey and interview data, that teachers’ actual instructional practices and the strategies they most frequently used were more strongly shaped by school culture and expectations than by the knowledge gained during formal teacher training. This study shows that even well-prepared teachers may struggle to apply their expertise when environmental pressures favor compliance over pedagogical judgment. Recent research also shows that these pressures stem not only from isolated, internal school norms but increasingly mirror the broader political and social environment. Researchers have documented a rising level of political scrutiny over teacher texts and curriculum choices, with teachers reporting that their instructional decisions are heavily influenced by concerns about potential backlash (Barker, 2023; Koss & Paciga, 2025). In many cases, teachers describe using “self-censorship” to avoid conflict, indicating that changes in school culture are closely linked to increased public awareness and the current sociopolitical climate surrounding ELA curriculum. 20 Research on the role of schools in adolescents’ identity shows that, while the school environment can be vital for adolescent identity development, these outcomes largely depend on a school’s ability and willingness to foster supportive climates and promote exploration (Verhoeven et al., 2018). Priestly et al. (2015) similarly find that, through their study, teacher capacity alone does not enable teachers to fully exercise their expertise; instead, trust, professional discretion, and supportive school cultures are essential for teachers to exercise agency. However, a school or district’s willingness to support this kind of exploration is increasingly influenced by external factors. As curricular restrictions become tighter and debates about “diverse topics” and book challenges intensify, many schools adopt more risk-averse stances that unintentionally limit opportunities for teachers and students to engage with ethically complex and identity-affirming literature (Barker, 2023). These studies suggest that the broader political climate surrounding schools erodes institutional trust and limits teachers’ professional discretion, even in schools and districts where leaders may not typically enforce such restrictions. Taken together, these findings show that positive outcomes in literary study are not solely dependent on curriculum content. Instead, they largely depend on how teachers are positioned within their school environment. Current research suggests that the school environment is increasingly influenced by the broader sociopolitical climate, which affects the expectations and autonomy afforded to teachers (Koss & Paciga, 2025; Barker, 2023). More studies are needed to understand how political conditions intersect with school culture to influence teachers’ instructional agency. Without systemic support for teacher agency in using literature effectively, the ability to foster empathy and support identity exploration will remain mostly unrealized. 21 Implications and Need for Further Research Research clearly shows that critical literacy and inclusive classroom practices can support adolescent identity development and ethical reasoning. However, these outcomes depend heavily on structural factors. Even when teachers are resolute and well-prepared, local school cultures, expectations, and levels of trust in teachers often influence how effectively literary studies can be used to address students’ developmental needs around the domains of identity and ethical or moral reasoning. Scholarship remains limited in understanding how teachers navigate this complex confluence of pressures and dynamics, especially when teachers are asked to implement mandated, standardized curricula within an increasingly politicized and risk-averse educational climate. This gap in scholarship is significant given the increasing adoption of standardized programs, such as Davis School District’s recent adoption of the ELA program, My Perspectives. While existing studies have documented both the potential of literary study to positively impact students’ identity, ethical, and empathy growth, and how the political climate shapes instructional decisions, little is known about how teachers navigate and reconcile these daily realities when working within a mandated ELA curriculum or how they choose to align these programs with the developmental and ethical aims of literary study. This project intervenes by examining practicing teachers’ perceptions of how effectively they can foster students’ identity development, ethical thinking, and empathy through literature, while considering the constraints imposed by mandated curricula. The study aims to survey teachers to better understand the pressures they face as they balance their pedagogical commitments, professional judgments, and the instructional possibilities allowed within standardized curricular programs. Teacher perception is a vital first step in determining whether 22 mandated and standardized curricula support or hinder the developmental goals that literature uniquely offers. In doing so, this research responds to a growing need in education for studies that center teachers’ voices and highlight the daily realities that influence curriculum implementation. This work will inform future curricular design and professional development by clarifying where alignment or tension currently exists. Methodology Research Design The purpose of this study was to explore how junior high English Language Arts (ELA) teachers perceive the effectiveness of a district-mandated literature program in promoting students’ ethical reasoning, identity development, and growth in empathy. A qualitative research approach was employed to gain deeper insights into teachers’ perceptions of the curriculum in these areas. A basic interpretive qualitative design was selected for this study because it aims to understand how multiple teachers perceive a shared experience (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Merriam & Grenier, 2019), specifically the implementation of a district-mandated curriculum. Data were collected through a preliminary open-ended questionnaire, teacher reflection logs, semi-structured interviews, and research reflexive notes to capture multiple perspectives and experiences related to the curriculum. A basic interpretive qualitative design enabled the researcher to understand how participants interpret and describe their experiences with the curriculum’s impact on student identity, empathy, and ethical reasoning, as well as the affective reader experience. Unlike methodologies that primarily focus on a single person or case study, this design facilitates the collection of perspectives from several teachers to identify core patterns across participants. Since the goal of this study was to develop an initial understanding of how 23 teachers interpret their experiences rather than to produce theory or conduct a detailed program evaluation, a basic interpretive qualitative design was the most appropriate for this study. For context, research design decisions were based on the constructs of identity development, empathy, ethical reasoning, and teachers' perceptions of how literature influences students' emotional and cognitive engagement, as detailed in the literature review. Identity development is understood in this project as a cyclical process of exploration and commitment (Erikson, 1968; Marcia, 1980), while empathy is understood as both cognitive perspective-taking and affective emotional response (Davis, 1983). Ethical reasoning is understood as the process through which individuals consider moral dilemmas, fairness, justice, and responsibility toward others (Kohlberg, 1981). These constructs informed the development of interview questions, teacher reflection logs, and data analysis procedures. Research Setting The study took place at a public junior high school in Utah serving grades 7–9. Approximately 1,090 students are enrolled at the school, with a student–teacher ratio of roughly 26:1 (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2024). The student population is predominantly White, with approximately 85% of students identifying as White. Hispanic/Latinx students make up about 9% of the student population, while the remaining 3% identify with two or more races (NCES, 2024). Around 11% of students qualify for free or reduced lunch (U.S. News & World Report, 2024). Providing this contextual information allows readers to determine the transferability of the findings to similar educational settings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). 24 Participants Recruitment The participants in the study were invited to take part via a direct email (see Appendix A). The email included a brief overview of the study's purpose, the estimated time commitment, assurances of confidentiality, and a statement that participation was voluntary. The teachers who showed interest in participating were given an informed consent form (see Appendix B), which described the study’s procedures, how data would be collected, their rights as study participants, and that no incentive for participating would be provided. After teachers reviewed and signed the consent form, interviews were scheduled at times that best suited their schedules. Participants were given the option to conduct interviews on-site at the teachers’ school or through a video conferencing platform. Sampling Method Participants were selected using purposeful sampling because the study sought teachers with direct experience implementing the myPerspectives curriculum who could provide detailed insights into that experience (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Purposeful sampling is appropriate in qualitative research when participants are selected based on their ability to provide rich, relevant information related to the research question rather than to represent a large population (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Participant Characteristics Five junior high English Language Arts teachers from the same department at the study site were invited to participate in this study. Participation was voluntary, and four teachers agreed to participate and completed all components of the study. This sample size is consistent with qualitative research, which prioritizes depth of understanding and rich description over 25 large sample sizes (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Each participant had, to varying degrees, used the myPerspectives curriculum as part of the district pilot program and had received at least one formal district training introducing the curriculum. Given the training and time spent implementing the mandated curriculum, participants shared a common professional context and were able to discuss their perceptions of how the curriculum affected student learning, particularly in relation to ethical reasoning, identity development, and empathy. Participants completed an initial survey, submitted reflection logs over a three-week period, and participated in one semi-structured interview. Since the researcher is also a teacher within the same school and department, care was taken to ensure that participation was voluntary and that responses remained confidential. Each participant was informed that their choice to participate or not participate would not affect their collegial relationship or professional standing. Participants were assigned pseudonyms (Teacher A, Teacher C, Teacher D, and Teacher E) to protect their identities. Table 1 provides demographic information for each participant. 26 As shown in Table 1, participants had varying levels of teaching experience, ranging from 1–3 years to 4–6 years teaching English Language Arts. Participants taught a range of grade levels, including 7th-, 8th-, and 9th-grade English, with some teaching co-taught or special education English courses. Participants also reported varying levels of implementation of the myPerspectives curriculum, with some teachers fully implementing it as written and others partially implementing it and supplementing it with additional materials. All participants reported supplementing the curriculum at least occasionally. Participants also reported varying levels of comfort facilitating discussions on ethical and social issues in literature, ranging from somewhat comfortable to very comfortable. Participants’ professional development experiences included culturally responsive teaching, multicultural literature, social-emotional learning, and curriculum design, while one participant reported no relevant professional development related to these areas. Data Collection Data for this study was collected using multiple qualitative sources, including a demographic survey, teacher reflection logs, semi-structured interviews, and researcher reflexive notes. Using multiple data sources enabled triangulation and provided a more comprehensive understanding of teachers’ perceptions and experiences by comparing responses from questionnaires, reflection logs, and interviews to identify consistent patterns and differences. (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Data collection and analysis took place over approximately nine weeks, beginning with a preliminary open-ended survey, followed by three weeks of teacher reflection logs, and concluding with individual semi-structured interviews. Throughout the data collection and analysis process, the researcher also maintained reflexive notes to document observations, reactions, and emerging ideas related to the study (see Appendix E). 27 Preliminary Open-Ended Questionnaire At the beginning of the study, participants completed a preliminary open-ended questionnaire (see Appendix C). The purpose of this questionnaire was to gather background information about participants and to collect initial reflections on their experiences using the myPerspectives curriculum. The questionnaire included open-ended questions that asked teachers to describe how the curriculum created, limited, or complicated opportunities for students to connect texts to their identities, engage in ethical thinking, and consider perspectives different from their own. Additional questions asked teachers to describe how closely they implemented the curriculum, how district expectations influenced their instructional decisions, and how using a district-mandated curriculum influenced their sense of their role as an English Language Arts teacher. The questionnaire also included questions about participants’ professional backgrounds, such as years of teaching experience, grade levels taught, level of curriculum implementation, frequency of curriculum supplementation, comfort facilitating discussions on ethical and social issues in literature, and relevant professional development or coursework. The demographic information collected from this questionnaire was used to create the participant demographic table presented in Chapter 3, while the open-ended responses were treated as qualitative data and included in the coding and thematic analysis process. The questionnaire was distributed electronically, and participants completed it before the reflection log portion of the study began. Teacher Reflection Logs In addition to the preliminary questionnaire and interviews, participants completed three reflection logs over a three-week period (see Appendix D). The purpose of the reflection logs was to capture teachers’ ongoing experiences using the myPerspectives curriculum in real time, 28 rather than relying solely on retrospective accounts during interviews. Each reflection log focused on a different conceptual area related to the study, including identity development, ethical reflection, and empathy and perspective-taking. Each week, teachers were asked to respond to a set of open-ended prompts related to their experiences teaching the curriculum. These prompts asked teachers to describe how they used the curriculum during the week, how students responded to the texts and assignments, whether opportunities arose for students to engage in identity exploration, empathy, or ethical thinking, and whether the teacher supplemented, adapted, or modified the curriculum in response to student needs or instructional goals. Teachers were also asked to describe any challenges they encountered while implementing the curriculum and how district expectations influenced their instructional decisions. Reflection logs were submitted electronically at the end of each week. These logs provided insight into teachers’ day-to-day instructional decision-making and classroom experiences, serving as an additional source of qualitative data for the study. Semi-Structured Interviews Semi-structured interviews were conducted with each participant following the completion of the reflection logs (see Appendix E for interview questions). The purpose of the interviews was to gain a deeper understanding of teachers’ experiences using the myPerspectives curriculum and to allow participants to elaborate on ideas that emerged in the preliminary questionnaire and reflection logs. Semi-structured interviews were chosen because they allow for consistency across interviews while also providing the researcher with flexibility to ask followup questions and explore participants’ responses in greater depth (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Prior to the interviews, a pre-interview process was conducted. This process included providing participants with a demographic questionnaire, a copy of the interview protocol, and a 29 list of interview questions. The demographic questionnaire gathered information on each teacher’s background, including teaching experience, grade levels taught, and involvement with the pilot curriculum. Providing participants with interview questions in advance helped ensure transparency and allowed participants time to reflect on their experiences before the interview. Each interview lasted approximately 20-30 minutes and was conducted on-site at the participants’ school. Interviews were audio-recorded with participants' consent and later transcribed for analysis. During the interviews, the researcher asked guiding questions about teachers’ experiences implementing the curriculum; opportunities for student identity development, empathy, and ethical thinking; challenges associated with the curriculum; and the influence of district expectations on instructional decision-making. Follow-up questions were asked as needed to clarify responses and explore emerging ideas in greater depth. Data Collection Timeline Data were collected over a nine-week period during the 2025-2026 school year. Multiple data sources were collected sequentially, beginning with a preliminary open-ended questionnaire, followed by weekly teacher reflection logs, and concluding with semi-structured interviews. This sequence allowed participants to first reflect on their general experiences with the curriculum, then document their ongoing classroom experiences, and finally participate in interviews that enabled deeper reflection and clarification of those experiences. The data collection timeline is outlined in Table 2. 30 The sequence of data collection was designed to allow interviews to build on participants’ written reflections and responses from the preliminary questionnaire and reflection logs. This approach allowed the researcher to identify emerging ideas prior to the interviews and to ask follow-up questions about them during the interviews. Recording, Transcription, and Data Storage All interviews were audio-recorded with participants' consent and transcribed by the researcher. Transcripts were reviewed for accuracy before beginning the coding process. All data, including survey responses, reflection logs, interview recordings, transcripts, and researcher reflexive notes, were stored on a password-protected computer. Pseudonyms were used in all transcripts and documents to protect participant confidentiality. Only the researcher had access to the data, and all files will be deleted after the study is completed. Data Analysis Data analysis for this study followed an inductive thematic analysis process as outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006). Inductive thematic analysis was appropriate for this study because the goal was to identify patterns and themes that emerged from teachers’ descriptions of their experiences using the district-mandated curriculum, rather than to test a predetermined hypothesis. The analysis focused on identifying patterns related to teachers’ perceptions of how the curriculum influenced opportunities for student identity development, empathy, and ethical reasoning, as well as how teachers navigated district expectations and curriculum implementation. Data analysis began after all data sources were collected and organized, including preliminary open-ended questionnaires, teacher reflection logs, semi-structured interview transcripts, and the researcher's reflexive notes. The researcher first read through all data sources 31 multiple times to become familiar with the data and to gain an overall sense of participants’ experiences. During this initial reading, the researcher wrote analytic memos and reflexive notes to document initial impressions, recurring ideas, and potential patterns that appeared across participants. After becoming familiar with the data, the researcher began coding. Using an open coding approach (Saldaña, 2021), the researcher identified meaningful segments of text and assigned initial codes that described the main idea of each segment. These initial codes were descriptive and stayed close to the participants’ language to accurately represent their perspectives. Codes were applied across all data sources, including questionnaire responses, reflection logs, and interview transcripts. After initial coding was completed, the researcher reviewed the codes and grouped similar codes together into broader categories. These categories were then examined to identify patterns and relationships across participants. Throughout the analysis, the researcher compared responses across participants to identify shared patterns and outlier perspectives. Through this process, broader themes began to emerge from the data. Themes were developed by identifying recurring patterns in how teachers described their experiences with the curriculum, particularly regarding opportunities for identity development, empathy, ethical reasoning, curriculum structure, district expectations, and teacher decision-making. Themes were reviewed and refined multiple times to ensure that they accurately represented the data across participants and data sources. The researcher compared themes against the original data to ensure that each theme was supported by multiple data examples and was not based on a single participant’s experience. Throughout the analysis process, the 32 researcher used reflexive notes to reflect on personal assumptions and potential biases, ensuring that interpretations remained grounded in participants’ descriptions. To organize the data analysis process, the researcher created coding tables and charts that grouped initial codes, categories, and emerging themes. These visual organizers helped the researcher track patterns across participants and refine themes as the analysis progressed. The final themes presented in Chapter 4 were developed through this iterative process of coding, categorizing, and theme development. The coding and theme development process was iterative rather than linear. As codes were developed, the researcher repeatedly returned to the data to compare responses across participants and across data sources. Data were organized by interview question and by participant to identify patterns, similarities, and differences in teachers’ responses. Codes were revised, combined, or reorganized as patterns became clearer. Through this recursive process, categories were developed and refined into broader themes that represented patterns across participants. This iterative movement between the data, codes, and themes is consistent with Braun and Clarke’s (2006) description of thematic analysis as a recursive and reflective process. To support the organization of the coding process, the researcher created coding tables and visual charts to track the development of initial codes, categories, and themes. An example of this process is shown in Figure 1. 33 While the coding process involved extensive notes, code lists, and working documents, Figure 1 provides a simplified example of how data excerpts were coded and developed into broader themes. As shown in Figure 1, the data analysis process moved from specific data excerpts to initial codes, which were then grouped into broader categories and developed into themes. This process was conducted across multiple participants and data sources to identify patterns and recurring ideas in teachers’ experiences with the curriculum. This approach helped ensure that the themes represented patterns across the dataset rather than isolated responses. Ethical Considerations This study was submitted to the Weber State University Institutional Review Board (IRB) prior to data collection. All research activities followed the ethical standards set by the university’s IRB. To protect participants, informed consent forms were provided, and voluntary participation was emphasized. Additionally, confidentiality measures, as previously described, 34 were implemented. Professional boundaries and transparency were prioritized due to the nature of the colleague-researcher relationship. As previously mentioned, reflexivity was maintained throughout the data collection and analysis process to monitor potential bias (Creswell & Poth, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Trustworthiness was supported through member checking, as participants reviewed their interview transcripts to confirm that the recorded information accurately reflected their responses and perspectives. Any corrections or clarifications requested by participants were incorporated into the final dataset prior to analysis, ensuring that their feedback was accurately represented. A record of any participant-requested revisions was kept in the researcher’s documentation, although the final transcript reflected the corrected version to maintain clarity and confidentiality. A detailed record of analytic decisions was also maintained, including how the data were coded and grouped into themes, and how decisions were made throughout the process. Additionally, comprehensive contextual information about the participants, curriculum, and school setting was provided to help readers understand the study's context and evaluate the credibility and transferability of the findings. Additional coding tables and theme development documents are included in Appendix F. Summary This chapter described the research design, setting, participants, data collection procedures, and data analysis methods used in this study. Ethical considerations and steps taken to ensure trustworthiness were also described. The next chapter presents the study's findings, organized by themes that emerged from the data analysis. 35 Findings This study examined how junior high English Language Arts teachers view a districtmandated curriculum’s ability to foster and support students’ identity development, ethical reflection, and engagement with diverse perspectives. It also examined the opportunities and challenges teachers faced in implementing this curriculum to achieve these goals. The following research questions guided this study: 1. How do junior high ELA teachers perceive a district-mandated literature program’s ability to support students’ identity development, ethical reflection, and engagement with diverse perspectives? 2. What opportunities and challenges do teachers encounter when implementing a districtadopted literature curriculum to meet these goals? The findings presented in this chapter reflect teachers’ experiences implementing this curriculum during the pilot year, as well as the expectations and uncertainties associated with a pilot implementation. Through inductive thematic analysis of teachers’ responses to a preliminary questionnaire, weekly field notes, and a final interview, several patterns emerged that illustrate how teachers perceive their role as ELA teachers, how they experience the curriculum, and how they navigate both the opportunities and limitations of working with a district-mandated program. For context, this study took place during the district’s pilot year of implementing the Savvas myPerspectives English Language Arts curriculum. The pilot was part of a broader district initiative to move toward what district leaders described as a “guaranteed and viable curriculum,” meaning a standardized curriculum intended to ensure consistency in instruction across schools, alignment with standards, and use of district-approved instructional materials. 36 District leaders also communicated that adopting a standardized curriculum would help streamline the process of approving instructional materials and support efforts to improve student performance on standardized assessments. Teachers reported that the decision to adopt the Savvas myPerspectives curriculum was made at the district level, and schools were later invited to volunteer as pilot sites to implement the curriculum before district-wide implementation. Teachers reported that the purpose of the pilot year was to allow a small number of schools to implement the curriculum first, to work through implementation challenges, and to help guide the district’s broader rollout in the following school year. As part of the pilot, teachers were initially expected to implement the curriculum with fidelity, meaning they were asked to follow the provided texts, pacing guides, and instructional materials as closely as possible. At the time of data collection, teachers had been using the curriculum for approximately two school terms, or one semester, and reported that expectations regarding fidelity had begun to shift, allowing more flexibility in how they used it. Understanding this implementation context is important for interpreting this study's findings, as teachers’ perceptions of their role, instructional decision-making, and experiences with the curriculum were shaped not only by the curriculum materials themselves but also by the expectations and structures surrounding the pilot implementation. Across data sources, participants consistently emphasized that English Language Arts should support students’ identity development, ethical reflection, and engagement with diverse perspectives. While teachers perceived that the Savvas myPerspectives curriculum provided some opportunities for this type of learning, they described these opportunities as inconsistent and not strongly embedded in the curriculum’s structure. Teachers frequently identified structural features of the curriculum, such as pacing requirements, workload, and the design of 37 learning tasks, as barriers to deeper engagement with literature and discussion. Teachers also described external influences, including district expectations and community context, as shaping their implementation of the curriculum. As a result, teachers reported that they often supplemented, adapted, or reframed elements of the curriculum to create more engaging and meaningful learning experiences for their students. The findings in this chapter are organized into three major sections. The first section presents findings related to participants’ beliefs about the purpose of English Language Arts and the role of literature in supporting students’ identity development, empathy, and ethical thinking, as well as the contextual factors that influenced how teachers implemented the curriculum. The second section presents findings on the opportunities and challenges teachers experienced in implementing the district-mandated curriculum. The third section presents findings related to how teachers adapted and mediated the curriculum in response to these opportunities and constraints. Within these sections, six themes emerged from the data: (1) Teachers’ Beliefs About ELA and Perceived Changes in Their Role, (2) District and Community Influence, (3) Opportunities Without Structural Support, (4) Structural Constraints of the Curriculum, (5) Teachers Mediated the Curriculum to Make Learning Accessible and Meaningful, and (6) Skills-Focused Curriculum vs. Meaningful Engagement. Collectively, these findings illustrate that teachers navigate a complex relationship, and often a tension, among curriculum design, external influences, and teacher autonomy. These findings provide insight into the realities that teachers navigate at the intersection of their efforts to use literature to support identity development, ethical thinking, and engagement with diverse perspectives and the bounds of a district-mandated curriculum. 38 Section 1: Beliefs and Contexts Shaping Curriculum Implementation While this study focused on teacher perceptions of the curriculum, participants consistently explained that their instructional decisions were shaped not only by the curriculum itself, but also by their beliefs about the purpose of English Language Arts and by external contextual factors such as district expectations and community climate. Together, these internal beliefs and external pressures shaped how teachers interpreted, implemented, and adapted the curriculum in their classrooms. Teachers’ Beliefs About ELA and Perceived Changes in Their Role Teachers Believe ELA Should Support Identity, Empathy, and Ethical Thinking. Throughout this study, teachers consistently articulated their view of ELA as a subject that should directly support identity development, empathy, and ethical thinking. All participating teachers described ELA as a subject that should extend beyond basic literacy skills to support students’ personal and social development, often describing this work as central to the purpose of English as a discipline. When discussing the role of literature in helping students engage with ethical and social issues, Teacher A stated, “It should play a huge part. That’s sort of the point of English,” and Teacher C similarly articulated that literature “should play a critical role.” Teachers also described literature as a way for students to experience perspectives beyond their own. Teacher C referenced the “mirrors and windows” framework, explaining that “literature can serve as either a reflection of who we are… or a window to see other cultures.” Similarly, Teacher D emphasized the disciplinary uniqueness of ELA in fostering reflection, explaining that English classes are well-suited to helping students make “text to self and text to world connections,” a type of thinking she noted is not typically emphasized in other subject areas. 39 In addition to identity exploration and perspective-taking, teachers frequently connected literature instruction to empathy and ethical reflection. Teacher E explained that the study of literature “helps us build empathy and sympathy for others” and that “books can help students leave their own bubble.” Teacher E also connected literature to ethical thinking, explaining that ELA should challenge students to think about “their place in the world and their morality.” However, Teacher E introduced an important point of tension, stating that while literature can support this type of reflective thinking, “whether or not that's how we are encouraged to use it is a different question.” While teachers shared similar beliefs about the purpose of ELA, there was a notable difference in how one teacher described the types of literature that support identity exploration and ethical thinking. Teacher A emphasized that canonical texts remain relevant because they address enduring human concerns, explaining, “That’s why we read books that are three hundred years old… that’s why [Shakespeare] remains relevant.” In contrast, the other teachers did not mention the importance of the canon and instead focused on how literature should be used to help students see themselves reflected in or gain insight into others’ lived experiences. This suggests that while teachers agreed that literature should support identity development, empathy development, and ethical thinking, they differed somewhat in how they imagined achieving these goals. Overall, teachers described English Language Arts as a subject that should support identity development, empathy, and ethical thinking in addition to academic literacy skills. While teachers described different types of texts and instructional approaches, they shared similar beliefs about the broader purpose of ELA. Teachers Felt Their Role Was Reduced or Constrained by Curriculum Structures. While participants expressed strong beliefs about the purpose of ELA and their role as ELA 40 teachers, they also discussed how the district-mandated pilot curriculum changed, and in some cases reduced, their role as educators. Teacher C described this shift by explaining, “At first, I felt like it completely took over my role. I was no longer selecting texts that I felt were relevant to the demographic in my area. I was no longer creating assignments or discussions that met student interest and the standards. I've come to see my role as more of a promoter of basic literacy skills rather than higher-order thinking skills.” Similarly, Teacher E described their role as being limited to assignment delivery, explaining that “my role was to give students the assignments on Canvas and do nothing else,” and later stating that their role felt “undermined and reduced entirely.” In addition to feeling that their role had shifted, teachers reported being less able to meet diverse student needs within the curriculum’s structure, which is typically central to a classroom teacher’s role. Teacher D explained that the pacing and workload “made it difficult to differentiate instruction” and made it “difficult… to provide service time… for students with IEPs.” Teacher C similarly stated, “I don't think it allows adjustment for student needs.” Teachers also described feeling restricted in their instructional decision-making and autonomy. Teacher B explained, “I feel very restricted… I feel that I, and I think a lot of other teachers, do better when we have more freedom to choose literature and activities that we know and like. I feel like it negates my role. This could be done as an online curriculum.” Similarly, Teacher A described feeling that instruction had become more focused on producing specific outcomes rather than developing student thinking, explaining, “It feels less like I’m trying to teach them critical thinking skills and more that I’m inputting certain kinds of information to get a specific output. It seems all about improved scores, not necessarily improved learning.” 41 Finally, some teachers described their level of autonomy as unclear or inconsistent. Teacher C explained, “As the district has lightened up on their expectations for implementing the curriculum with fidelity, I have felt more autonomy… but that still feels limited and unclear,” while Teacher E similarly noted, “I have felt like I have more control… as the district has pulled back.” Overall, teachers described district expectations, community context, and political climate as factors that influenced how they implemented the curriculum and what topics they felt comfortable addressing in class. District and Community Influence District Expectations and Curriculum Fidelity. Teachers consistently described strong district expectations to teach the curriculum with fidelity during the pilot program's initial implementation. Several teachers explained that they tried to follow the curriculum exactly as written to meet district expectations. For example, Teacher C stated, “First term I was completely faithful to the curriculum,” while Teacher E similarly explained, “Starting out, it was fully. I taught it as written,” and noted that “the district asked us to teach it with fidelity.” Teacher D also stated that the “district said follow curriculum exactly,” and Teacher A explained that “we’ve been asked by the district to stick to the textbook and not supplement with outside materials,” adding that they had “tried to stick to the Savvas curriculum… to give Savvas a chance.” Teachers described district expectations as influencing how closely they followed the curriculum, especially during the early stages of implementation. Shifting and Unclear District Expectations. While teachers initially described strong expectations to follow the curriculum faithfully, several teachers reported that these expectations changed over time and were sometimes unclear. Teacher C explained that “the district kind of lightened up,” while Teacher D similarly stated that “now they’ve loosened that expectation.” 42 Teacher E described a similar shift, explaining that “the district has pulled back, and so have I.” However, teachers also described district expectations as inconsistent, with Teacher C noting that “expectations… change frequently and signals are often crossed.” Teachers reported that these shifting and sometimes unclear expectations affected how they implemented the curriculum, as they were often unsure how closely they were expected to follow the program and, consequently, made individual decisions about when to follow the curriculum as written and when to adapt, supplement, or adjust the pace to move through certain units. Teachers reported that this resulted in differences in how they used the curriculum and the degree to which they felt comfortable modifying lessons to better meet their students’ needs. Political and Community Climate Influences Instruction. In addition to district expectations, several teachers noted that the surrounding community and political climate affect their professional decisions and how they approach certain topics in class. Several teachers explained that certain topics felt contentious or difficult to address because of community attitudes and political pressures. Teacher A explained that topics such as “ICE, immigrants, refugees… it becomes a contentious thing,” and noted that “students’ opinions come from home.” Similarly, Teacher C stated, “We’re in a political climate where it makes it more difficult,” and explained that in their context, “you can’t even use the word equity,” describing the community as “very conservative.” Teacher E also shared feeling “political pressure within my community” and expressed “fear of pushback from district, legislation, state.” Teachers described responding to this pressure in different ways, including being more cautious in how they phrased their language, carefully framing discussions, and sometimes avoiding or limiting certain topics they felt might lead to conflict with parents or the community. Some teachers indicated that these concerns influenced how deeply they engaged with themes 43 that naturally arose in the curriculum’s literature, particularly when discussions involved immigration, race, equity, or other social issues. In these situations, some teachers described relying more closely on the district-adopted curriculum or being more cautious about introducing additional materials or discussions, particularly when topics were politically or socially sensitive. These accounts suggest that teachers were not only responding to external pressures but were also anticipating potential conflict, which influenced how they approached certain topics and how much flexibility they felt they had in extending discussions beyond the curriculum. Teachers described making professional decisions about when to follow the curriculum closely and when to adapt instruction, often based on their perceptions of community expectations and potential pushback. Teacher Self-Censorship and Caution. Due to district and community pressures, several teachers reported modifying their instruction, language, or topic choices to avoid conflict. Teacher A explained that when certain topics come up, “I steer us away from that,” and said that if an issue is a “hot button issue… I don’t find that there’s benefit to going there,” adding that “it’s just going to get ugly.” Similarly, Teacher E said, “I’m very careful about what I choose to talk about,” and noted, “I was very careful with my wording,” though they also clarified, “I don’t avoid the topic entirely.” Teacher C described feeling limited, saying, “I dance around a bit because of backlash,” and added, “I feel really restricted… I feel restricted as an educator.” Teacher D also mentioned modifying instruction by “doing a disclaimer before certain things.” Teachers described modifying their instruction, language, or topic choices due to concerns about backlash, conflict, or community reactions. 44 Section 2: Opportunities and Challenges Within the Curriculum Opportunities Without Structural Support This section presents findings related to Research Question 2, which examined the opportunities and challenges teachers experienced when implementing the district-mandated curriculum. While teachers believed that literature and English Language Arts should support students’ identity development, empathy, and ethical thinking, they described mixed experiences with the curriculum in supporting these goals. Teachers identified some opportunities within the curriculum for meaningful discussion and reflection; however, they also described structural features of the curriculum, such as pacing requirements, workload, and the design of instructional tasks, as limiting the extent to which these opportunities could be fully explored. As a result, teachers often described needing to adapt, supplement, or modify the curriculum to create more meaningful learning experiences for their students. Teachers’ descriptions of the curriculum showed that many of these opportunities were tied specifically to the texts included in it, which occasionally addressed historical events, cultural perspectives, and human experiences. Teachers reported, either directly or indirectly, that the texts used in the Savvas curriculum, particularly those addressing important historical moments, cultural perspectives, or human experiences, created opportunities for teachers to connect literature to identity reflection and perspective-taking. Several teachers highlighted the diversity of the texts provided as one of the strengths of the curriculum because it exposed students to experiences and perspectives that were different from their own. For example, Teacher D noted that “there are culturally diverse texts,” while Teacher C described texts about “individuals who were Jewish, Somalian, or Hispanic.” Teacher E similarly explained that “each unit… provides diverse texts… I really appreciate that,” and Teacher C added that the curriculum “provides access to texts I wouldn't have found.” 45 Teachers also mentioned that the texts often covered topics that could encourage students to reflect on human experiences and issues of fairness. Teacher A explained that students related to Martin Luther King Jr.’s speech, stating, “Students connected pretty well with Martin Luther King’s ‘I Have a Dream’ speech,” and noted that students were “thinking about how life was then and how different it is now.” Teacher A also said that “you can't have a unit on civil rights… without exploring this idea of otherness.” Similarly, Teacher E described the curriculum as including “stories from a world they aren't familiar with but still connect to,” and clarified that these stories were “very human and compelling.” Teacher C stated that the curriculum “exposes them to a lot of different cultures,” and Teacher D mentioned that “there were opportunities to discuss ethical dilemmas.” Teacher A explained that through these texts, students start to see that “people's experiences… it's not as black and white as they think.” Teachers described these texts as providing opportunities for perspective-taking, empathy, and ethical reflection. While teachers generally discussed the text's strengths in offering opportunities for perspective-taking and reflection, they each highlighted different aspects of these opportunities. Teacher A focused on historical and social issues, such as civil rights and otherness, while Teacher C emphasized exposure to different cultures. Teacher D emphasized opportunities to discuss ethical dilemmas, while Teacher E focused on the emotional and human connections students made through the stories. Although teachers agreed the texts provided opportunities for reflection and perspective-taking, they emphasized different aspects of these opportunities. However, while teachers identified these texts as providing opportunities for perspective-taking and reflection, they also consistently noted that these opportunities were not strongly supported by the curriculum’s structure or instructional design. 46 Although each teacher identified opportunities, specifically from the curriculum texts, to guide students towards identity reflection, empathy, and perspective-taking, they frequently described these opportunities as surface-level and noted that students were not given scaffolding to support deeper thinking. Teacher A explained that the curriculum “does sometimes ask them to connect the texts to their own experiences, but when they do it's a very surface connection.” Similarly, Teacher C stated that reflective “questions… are far and few between” and that “students are not given scaffolding… to support this thinking.” Teacher C also explained that “the prompts… did not encourage students to think ethically or deeply.” Teacher E described how reflective opportunities were often limited to early activities in a unit, explaining that “after the icebreaker… students are only asked to access their own experience in “First Thoughts” assignments.” As these opportunities were not consistently developed within the curriculum, teachers reported needing to take an active role in facilitating deeper discussion and reflection. Teachers reported that, while these instances of deeper thought were present, they largely depended on how the teacher facilitated them and required teacher guidance to develop into a discussion. Teacher E explained that “it's up to the teacher to pull that out,” while Teacher A described needing to explicitly guide these conversations, stating, “I have to point it out… what do we think about what's happening in the story?” and “I initiated those conversations.” Teacher C similarly stated that “the opportunity is there,” but explained that “it didn't lead anywhere” without additional support from the teacher. Overall, teachers described the curriculum as including texts and topics that created opportunities for identity reflection and perspective-taking; however, they also described that these opportunities were often surface-level and typically required teacher facilitation to develop 47 into deeper discussion or reflection, rather than being structurally supported by the curriculum itself. Structural Constraints of the Curriculum While the previous section described how the curriculum texts created several opportunities for perspective-taking, identity reflection, and ethical discussion, teachers also identified several structural features of the curriculum that limited how fully these opportunities could be developed. Participants often mentioned text complexity and accessibility, student engagement, pacing, and lesson structure as barriers to creating more consistent and meaningful learning experiences. Teachers consistently described the curriculum texts as too difficult for many students and reported that some students struggled to access and engage with the content. Several teachers described the texts as developmentally too advanced and noted that the curriculum assumed a level of prior knowledge and skill that many students did not yet have. For example, Teacher A explained that “some of them… are even too advanced for this age group,” and that the curriculum “assumes kids can do more than they can at this point.” Teacher A also noted that there is “a huge difference” in difficulty between eighth and ninth grade, describing the curriculum as a “big leap” in expectations across the grade level. Teachers also described challenges related to accessibility for struggling readers and special education students. Teacher D similarly explained that the “texts are very advanced” and noted that they “need to be altered to reach special education students.” However, Teacher D also explained that even scaffolded versions from the curriculum, or “bridge texts,” sometimes “leave them more confused.” Teachers reported that when students struggled to access the texts, engagement decreased, particularly for struggling readers. As Teacher A explained, while strong 48 readers were generally able to access the texts, “the kids that really struggle with reading… tune out.” Teachers’ descriptions suggest that text difficulty affected not only students’ ability to understand the texts, but also their ability to participate in class activities and discussions. Consequently, teachers reported needing to provide additional support to help students access the material, which influenced how class time was used and how deeply students could engage with the curriculum. These challenges related to text complexity and accessibility were closely connected to other structural challenges teachers described, including pacing constraints and the need to modify or supplement curriculum materials. In addition to text complexity, teachers often noted that the curriculum texts and assignments lack relevance and engagement for students, thereby reducing their interest and limiting opportunities for meaningful discussions. Teacher E said that “a lot of the texts were very dry,” and even mentioned that “I had a hard time being engaged with them as well,” while Teacher C explained that “the materials aren't always the most engaging” and described the curriculum as “demanding and maybe a little bland.” Teacher D reported that “some ninth grade students… have been very vocal that they hate it,” and Teacher B noted that “students find the assignments repetitive, tedious, and boring.” Teacher D also observed that “students have to figure out why they should care.” Even in cases where students showed interest in a particular text, teachers explained the structural constraints, particularly pacing and workload, which often limited the amount of time available to build on that engagement through extended discussion or reflection. While teachers generally described the content as difficult to engage students with, in some instances, teachers mentioned moments where engagement with the content happened 49 more naturally. For example, Teacher E described some of the stories as “very human and compelling.” Teacher C also mentioned a moment of engagement with a specific text by saying, “They really connected with the “Words Do Not Pay,” which was that speech given by a Native American chief… They were quite interested and they were thinking about it. And that was that was good to see.” Across participants, pacing and workload were among the most significant structural constraints, and they noted that the fast pace left little time for extended discussion or reflection. Teacher C explained that “the pacing is really tough for them,” while Teacher A stated that “if you're following the structure with strong fidelity, there's not time to have those discussions” and that “it goes so fast. There's so many assignments.” Teacher D similarly explained that “we only have a few minutes before class ends” and that “any time that a student has connected with an idea or a text, it has just felt like we kind of say, ‘that's great. We have to move on right now’ because the pacing is very intense. Teacher E also stated that “there is so much in the curriculum,” and Teacher A explained that “the pace for this curriculum is so fast there isn't much time to do deep dives into any one text.” Another concern about the Savvas curriculum reported most by teachers (Teacher B, C, D, and E), was that its specified essential questions and lesson structure did not effectively support deeper thinking or sustained discussion of topics related to identity, empathy, and perspective-taking. Teacher C stated that “the essential questions don't encourage that” and that “they are vague and unconnected to the text.” Teacher C also explained that “there's nothing really in the curriculum that does that ‘follow-through.’” Teacher D similarly stated that “it never facilitated those conversations,” and Teacher E explained that “the curriculum doesn’t encourage discussion.” Teacher B added that “questions are not really geared towards the age… which 50 makes it difficult… to make a connection.” In addition, Teacher C described a lack of thematic coherence across units, explaining that “the stories don't connect,” “texts don’t make sense together,” and that “the essential questions can be a roadblock.” Teacher A did not specifically mention the curriculum’s structure as a barrier, focusing more on issues related to text complexity and pacing. Teachers ultimately described the curriculum’s structure as limiting opportunities for identity exploration, empathy, and ethical thinking. Teacher C stated that “the rest of it actually serves as a roadblock,” while Teacher A explained that “the curriculum itself doesn't do that.” Teacher E stated that “students feel it's not encouraged,” and Teacher A explained that “Savvas makes no attempt… If it doesn’t come up naturally, it’s not going to be addressed by the curriculum at all.” Teacher C stated that “lessons… in no way approached this deeper level of thinking… and constrained my ability.” While teachers focused on different structural concerns, several teachers stated that the curriculum did not encourage or facilitate deeper discussion or reflection. Taken together, teachers described the curriculum’s structure as limiting opportunities for identity exploration, empathy development, and ethical thinking, not because these topics were completely absent, but because structural features of the curriculum made it difficult to consistently engage students in deeper discussion and reflection. Section 3: Teachers Adapted and Mediated Teachers Mediated the Curriculum to Make Learning Accessible and Meaningful Teachers reported that they initially attempted to follow the district’s instructions to implement the Savvas curriculum with “full fidelity,” meaning they taught it as closely as possible to its design. Over time, all teachers reported using the curriculum more flexibly or selectively, whether due to changing district expectations or their own perception that they 51 needed to adjust to teach effectively. Teacher D explained that their use of the curriculum “changed… from fully to more selectively.” Teacher D noted that, “I started using the curriculum as a framework… rather than a script.” Teacher E explained that they “take what I think is the strongest parts of the curriculum” and then “adapt it to make it work for time and grading.” Together, teachers described their use of the curriculum as changing over time from full implementation toward more flexible or selective use. As teachers began using the curriculum more flexibly, they described supplementing the curriculum with additional materials, activities, and texts to better meet their students’ needs. Across data sources, teachers reported supplementing the curriculum with additional materials, activities, and texts to better meet their students' needs. Teacher A explained, “I've pulled in some supplemental videos… otherwise they're going to fall asleep,” and “That [an ethical conversation] came about because we added To Kill a Mockingbird… which we supplemented.” They also report creating their own assignment and activities. Teacher B explains, “I'm always bringing in additional activities,” and “I have since been supplementing my own assignments.” In some cases, teachers described replacing or adding texts to better meet student needs, with Teacher C explaining, “I have also changed the order of texts we read in class to be more relatable to and meaningful for students.” Teachers also described adding discussion-based activities that were not part of the curriculum, such as when one teacher explained, “We added a Socratic seminar” (Teacher E). In addition to supplementing materials, teachers described providing additional context, scaffolding, and instructional support when teaching curriculum texts and concepts. Several teachers explained that students often needed additional background knowledge or guided instruction to access the material. For example, Teacher C explained, “I’ve added things to help 52 the texts make more sense,” while Teacher A described how they “added background information or context.” Teachers also described modifying or guiding discussion questions, with Teacher E explaining that “questions are often odd and require me to give guiding questions.” Additionally, teachers noted that students often struggled to engage in discussions about empathy or ethical issues without additional support, such as conversation guides or context. Teacher E explained that “students struggled without additional context,” and Teacher C stated that “empathy occurred after added context.” Teachers explained that these additional supports were often necessary not only for comprehension but also to help students engage in discussions related to empathy, identity, and ethical issues. Teachers reported that while the curriculum occasionally raised issues of identity, empathy, and ethics, they often created additional opportunities for these discussions through their own prompts, supplemental texts, or activities. Teacher E explained that “Anything that comes up… is my own prompting,” while Teacher E stated, “You have to intentionally build it into the discussion.” Teachers also described how some of the most meaningful discussions came from supplemental texts or teacher-created activities rather than the curriculum itself. For example, Teacher A explained that discussions about ethical issues “came about because we added To Kill a Mockingbird,” while Teacher C stated that “the only time… empathy emerged… was during our Socratic Seminar… not from the curriculum.” Teacher A similarly explained that opportunities for empathy emerged from a supplemental text, “not because the curriculum made any point to lean into that.” Skills-Focused Curriculum vs. Meaningful Engagement While teachers described creating additional opportunities for discussion and reflection through their own adaptations, they also explained that without these adaptations, and when the 53 curriculum was followed closely as written, instruction became primarily focused on skill practice, assignment completion, and covering content on pace. Several teachers explained that when they followed the curriculum with fidelity or relied solely on the textbook, there was little time or space for extended discussion or exploration of ethical or personal topics. Teachers described this version of the curriculum as structured, fast-paced, and focused on reading, writing, and vocabulary skills. Teachers consistently described the curriculum as heavily focused on basic reading and writing skills, assignment completion, and covering content. Teacher A explained that many “assignments are about mechanics of writing, rather than ideas or ethical questions.” Similarly, Teacher C reported that “the curriculum wanted us to focus on vocabulary and grammar,” and that there was “pressure to focus on vocabulary and word study,” and that “assignments are mostly written” (Teacher E). Teacher D explained, “I wasn't leaving air for discussion,” and Teacher A added, “We were pushing through,” describing the pressure to move quickly through the curriculum. Teacher C summarized this focus by explaining that “the focus of the curriculum is more focused on reading comprehension, grammar, and writing skills than allowing for textbased discussions and exploration.” Teachers also connected this focus on skill practice and content coverage to broader pressures related to test scores, pacing expectations, and accountability. Teacher C explained that there was “pressure about test scores,” and Teacher D stated that “the program prioritizes compliance and coverage on a timeline over flexibility.” Teacher A added that using the textbook alone would have resulted in “more quantity than quality.” Teachers reported that these pressures affected how much time they had for discussion, with one teacher explaining that “the focus and structure limit discussion,” and another stating that the curriculum “doesn't encourage 54 bigger picture questions” (Teacher C; Teacher E). Teacher D also described that when discussion prompts were included in the curriculum, they were limited or scripted, explaining that “discussions… [were] reduced to short, scripted prompts… [that] prioritize completion for a grade,” and that “students are often guided toward predetermined interpretations.” Teacher D also noted that “moments where empathy could emerge are… cut short and redirected toward mastering a skill,” while Teacher C explained that the “curriculum pushed students to pay more attention to theme and structure rather than ethical thinking.” Teacher A summarized their experience with the Savvas curriculum by explaining, “It feels less like I'm trying to teach them critical thinking skills and more that I'm inputting certain kinds of information to get a specific output,” and that the curriculum “seems all about improved scores, not necessarily improved learning.” Although teachers described many limitations in discussion and ethical reflection, one teacher noted that the curriculum appeared to positively support students’ academic skill development. Teacher C explained, “I've seen a lot of growth academically,” and noted that students “can write one heck of an argumentative essay.” However, the same teacher contrasted this academic growth with a lack of personal or ethical development, explaining that there was “not a lot of character growth like how I've seen in past years.” Overall, teachers described the curriculum, when followed closely as written, as emphasizing reading and writing skills, assignment completion, and content coverage, with limited time for extended discussion or exploration of ethical, personal, or identity-related topics. Discussion This discussion will further detail and interpret data, drawn from surveys, field notes, and interviews, in relation to existing research on adolescent identity development, critical literacy, 55 and teacher agency within structured curricular environments. The discussion focuses on how teachers’ beliefs, external structures, and the curriculum itself shaped how literature was taught and experienced in classrooms using the Savvas myPerspectives curriculum. Section 1: Beliefs and Contexts Shaping Curriculum Implementation One important finding of this study was that teachers consistently viewed the study of literature not only as a space for developing academic reading and writing skills but also as a space for reflection on human experiences and social issues. These pedagogical beliefs are consistent with existing research, which highlights that literature does, in fact, hold a unique capacity to support adolescent identity formation and the development of empathy and ethical reasoning (Branje et al., 2021; Verhoeven et al., 2018; Mirra, 2018; Nikolajeva, 2014). Although teachers personally believed that the role of ELA included issues of identity, empathy, and ethical reflection, they reported that their district’s adopted curriculum did not support these goals. Instead of positioning teachers as facilitators of discussion, interpretation, and critical thinking, the curriculum often framed them as facilitators of tasks and assignments. Teachers felt that their role had shifted from designing and facilitating instruction to implementing a pre-designed program, limiting their ability to adapt instruction to student needs. This perceived loss of autonomy affected how teachers implemented the curriculum and how much space they felt they had to engage students in discussion, reflection, or exploration of complex ideas. This finding is significant, as studies have emphasized the importance of teacher agency for students to meaningfully engage with literature (Levine et al., 2021; Mirra, 2018; Germán, 2021). These studies highlight that when teachers have limited autonomy or feel constrained, literature instruction can shift toward task completion and skill development rather than discussion and critical engagement, a pattern also evident in this study's findings. 56 Teachers described having to consider not only how their pedagogical commitments aligned with the district’s adopted curriculum when making instructional decisions, but also the district’s expectations and the broader community context. They noted that district expectations regarding curriculum fidelity significantly influenced how closely they followed the curriculum, especially during the initial stages of implementation. However, teachers also reported that these expectations changed over time and were sometimes unclear, which created uncertainty about how much flexibility they had to adapt or modify instruction. In addition to district expectations, teachers reported that they must consistently navigate the community context in which they teach. This suggests that instruction is shaped not only by the curriculum design itself, but also by how teachers perceive the district’s and the community’s expectations and boundaries. This shared experience is also discussed in Ali-Khan and White (2020), who said that teachers are often engaged in both explicit and self-censorship when navigating what to teach in ELA classes. Ali-Khan and White (2020) say that these outside pressures not only shape instruction but also the depth and nature of classroom discussions. Taken together, the findings of this study and those of previous studies suggest that teachers' instructional choices to facilitate learning around identity, empathy, and ethical issues are shaped not only by the curriculum being used but also by external contextual factors. Overall, teachers in this study believe that the goals of identity development, ethical reflection, and diverse perspectives are central to ELA. This foundation helps frame the discussion around how the Savvas curriculum, as structured, supported or limited ongoing and sustained engagement with these goals. Section 2: Opportunities and Challenges Within the Curriculum While Section 1 examined how teachers’ beliefs and contexts shaped implementation, this section focuses on how the curriculum itself enabled or constrained meaningful literary 57 engagement. Teachers' responses suggest that the Savvas curriculum included texts and topics that offered students opportunities to reflect on identity, ethics, and empathy, but these opportunities were not deeply embedded in the curriculum as a sustained focus of learning and largely depended on the teacher to facilitate or develop them into deeper discussions or meaningful reflection. Teachers noted that certain texts prompted identity, empathy, and ethical reflection and provided opportunities for perspective-taking. However, the specific types of reflection varied depending on the text and the teacher’s instructional focus, suggesting that the depth and direction of these discussions were more shaped by teachers than by the curriculum’s design. These findings indicate that while the texts included in the curriculum created opportunities for meaningful conversations, the curriculum itself did not consistently provide instructional structures to support sustained engagement with these topics. Teachers reported that when these opportunities arose in the curriculum’s texts, they felt they were surface-level or isolated, meaning these opportunities were typically brief and did not lead to deeper discussion or analysis. This finding aligns with current research on critical literacy, which holds that meaningful engagement with literature requires intentional planning rather than the mere presence of literary texts (Levine et al., 2021; Mirra, 2018; Germán, 2021). A similar body of research further explains that text selection and intentional planning can maximize students' engagement with literature when teachers purposefully plan time in ELA classes for discussion, reflection, and critical inquiry (Mirra, 2018; Thomas & Stornaiuolo, 2016). While teachers found some of the texts in the curriculum helpful for deepening students' engagement with literature, the findings of this study also showed that several structural features of the curriculum not only failed to support this type of engagement but also hindered students 58 and teachers from sustaining discussions and thinking centered around identity, ethics, and empathy development. One of the constraints mentioned by several teachers in this study was that many texts were too difficult for many students to read and understand, which they noted created unequal comprehension and prevented lower-level readers from fully engaging with the content. This finding aligns with research on adolescent literacy and identity development, which confirms that students must be able to access the texts themselves to engage with them at a level beyond mere comprehension (Branje et al., 2021; Verhoeven et al., 2018). When students struggle with a highly unnecessary, overly complex text, class time shifts toward basic comprehension support rather than discussion and interpretation, as the teachers in this study noted. When comprehension becomes the focus, opportunities for identity reflection and ethical discussion are structurally reduced. Another common challenge presented by the Savvas curriculum was that teachers felt the texts and assignments generally lacked relevance or engagement for students, which reduced student interest and opportunities for students to connect with literature. Teachers noted that, naturally, student engagement varied by text, suggesting that relevance and engagement were more closely tied to specific text selections than to the curriculum structure and activities themselves. This limits students’ emotional and personal connection to texts, which is necessary for meaningful engagement with identity and ethical issues. Research on adolescent literacy indicates that emotional and personal engagement with literature plays a critical role in prompting students to engage with texts beyond basic comprehension (Levine et al., 2021; Nikolajeva, 2014). Finally, one of the most frequently discussed challenges among teachers regarding the Savvas curriculum was that the pacing and workload significantly constrained the instructional 59 choices they could make to create opportunities for students to think critically about the texts they read. Teachers described pacing guides that required them to move through units, texts, and multiple written assignments within a relatively short timeframe, often covering several texts and corresponding assignments within a single unit. Teachers reported that a typical class period often included reading a new text, completing vocabulary activities, responding to writing prompts, and completing multiple written assignments aligned with the curriculum. Because of these pacing expectations, teachers reported that class time was often spent ensuring students completed required assignments and assessments, rather than engaging in extended discussions, reflective activities, or deeper exploration of complex themes in the texts. Participants reported that they frequently had to prioritize pacing and completion over opportunities for authentic discussion and engagement with texts. Scholars have also found this tension between coverage and inquiry to be a common roadblock in literacy and ethical engagement when teachers and students must work in highly structured or fast-paced curricular environments (Mirra, 2018; Germán, 2021). When pacing becomes the priority, literature instruction may shift toward task completion rather than exploration of complex ideas. Taken together, these findings suggest that structural elements such as text complexity, engagement, pacing, and curriculum organization shaped not only how teachers taught the curriculum but also the kinds of learning experiences that were possible within it. Pacing then functioned not simply as a scheduling tool but as an instructional constraint that shaped which learning experiences were prioritized and which were not possible within the time available. Section 3: Teachers Adapted and Mediated Across data sources, the findings of this study suggest that when the Savvas curriculum was implemented as written and with full fidelity, instruction often became heavily focused on 60 skill mastery, assignment completion, and content coverage, limiting opportunities for discussion, ethical reflection, and the growth of empathy when engaging with texts. Each teacher frequently described how they felt the curriculum was based on completing tasks, practicing basic reading and writing skills in isolation, and moving through the content at an expected pace. One teacher in this study noted that these activities supported the development of academic literacy skills, but they did not frequently enough shift away from this focus to create space for discussion and reflection. Scholars have highlighted a similar concern: when ELA instruction becomes overly focused on formulaic responses and skill practice, students miss opportunities to apply these skills to more complex ideas and learning (Levine et al., 2021; Mirra, 2018). This finding further suggests that the curriculum did not necessarily lack meaningful texts and topics, but that its structure and pace prioritized skill progression and task completion, which shaped how and when teachers could engage students in thinking and grappling with complex ideas. The challenges teachers described in this study were followed by explanations of how they bridged these gaps to continue providing accessible and meaningful ELA instruction for their students. The teachers’ instinct to adapt the curriculum to better serve students aligns with existing research indicating that teachers shouldn't just implement a curriculum, but should act as instructional decision-makers who interpret, modify, and reshape it based on their students and teaching environment (Marlatt, 2019). Teachers shared how their use of the curriculum changed over time from full implementation (as directed by the district) toward adaptation and selective use based on student needs, classroom realities, and their beliefs about the purpose of ELA while following the curriculum strictly as written. In practice, teachers described adapting the curriculum as modifying or supplementing curriculum materials to improve student engagement and create more meaningful learning 61 experiences. Teachers also reported that they played an important role in scaffolding student understanding and helping students access the curriculum content. Research on literature instruction similarly emphasizes that teachers should play a critical role in helping students access texts and ideas through scaffolding, discussion, and intentional instructional support, rather than relying on prescribed assignments and tasks to do this work (Verhoeven et al., 2018). This same body of research highlights that teacher scaffolding and support is even more essential when addressing texts that could prompt discussions about complex social, ethical, or identityrelated topics (Verhoeven et al., 2018). Taken together, these findings suggest that teachers believed the curriculum cannot and should not function as a fixed program. Rather, teachers discovered that using the resource, guided by their professional judgment about when to supplement, adapt, add to, or reshape the order of the curriculum and the use of texts, resulted in much more meaningful learning experiences. This finding is especially significant as it affirms the widely agreed-upon idea in current research that teacher agency plays a significant role in determining whether literature instruction goes beyond basic and completion comprehension tasks to deeper engagement with complex ideas. Finally, these findings suggest that the curriculum itself did not determine whether students engaged in identity reflection, empathy, or ethical thinking. Rather, these experiences arose and were largely shaped by individual teachers’ instructional choices and their ability to adapt and mediate the curriculum in response to their teaching contexts and students’ needs. Additionally, these findings suggest that when the Savvas curriculum is implemented without any classroom teacher mediation, it tends to position literary study as a means of skills development and assignment completion only. Teachers’ adaptations to the Savvas curriculum 62 were often necessary to transform literature instruction from a focus on skill and assignment completion into opportunities for discussion, reflection, and engagement with complex human and ethical ideas. These findings indicate that the curriculum itself did not determine the depth of literary engagement. Instead, teacher agency was the primary factor shaping whether students engaged in identity reflection, ethical reasoning, and perspective-taking. Summary of Findings This study examined teachers’ perceptions of a district-adopted English Language Arts curriculum and the opportunities and challenges they encountered when using it in relation to identity development, ethical reflection, and engagement with diverse perspectives. The findings of the study show that teachers believed ELA instruction and the study of literature have strong potential to support identity exploration, the development of empathy, and ethical thinking. Teachers in this study reported that they did not perceive these goals to be consistently supported by the structure of the Savvas curriculum. Overall, teachers reported that while the curriculum provided topics and texts that could create opportunities for this kind of engagement with literature, these opportunities were explained as being surface-level or heavily dependent on teacher facilitation and follow-through. Teachers described several structural and contextual challenges that influenced how they implemented the curriculum. These factors included district expectations, community context, text complexity, curriculum pacing, and student engagement and relevance. These factors led teachers to frequently adapt, supplement, and scaffold the curriculum to make learning more accessible and meaningful for their students. Overall, this study suggests that the Savvas curriculum’s ability to support identity development, ethical reflection, and engagement with 63 diverse perspectives depends not only on the curriculum itself but also on its structure, teacher agency, and the broader contextual factors in which it was implemented. Implications The findings in this study have several implications for classroom teachers, curriculum designers, district policymakers, and future research. The findings here highlight broader considerations outside these teachers and this specific ELA curriculum regarding the role of teacher agency, instructional decision-making, and curriculum structure and implementation in ongoing efforts to support students’ identity development, ethical reflection, and engagement with diverse perspectives through the study of literature. Decisions about curriculum are made at multiple levels throughout the educational system, including curriculum design, district policy, and classroom instruction. As this study suggests, curriculum and district implementation policies play a significant role in shaping teachers’ ability to make research-based instructional decisions. As a result, curriculum and policy should be designed to support classroom teachers, rather than as systems that limit teachers' ability to respond to student needs and facilitate meaningful engagement with literature. Therefore, the implications of this study are discussed beginning at the curriculum design and leadership level, before teachers. Implications for Curriculum Designers: Embedding Opportunities for Critical Engagement This study illustrates that ELA curriculum designers should continue to seek a diverse set of texts and topics, but also more closely consider the instructional structures that accompany them. Teachers reported that while many texts in the curriculum had the potential to prompt meaningful discussions on empathy, identity, and ethical thinking, these opportunities were not consistently supported by the tasks, assignments, and assessments. Teachers found that text selection alone was insufficient to engage students in complex social and ethical issues. Instead, 64 a curriculum should be intentionally designed to include structured opportunities for discussions, reflection, and tasks that engage students in critical thinking alongside literary study. Another implication for curriculum designers when selecting texts is the importance of student engagement and text accessibility to diverse learners. A frequent challenge for teachers was that lower-level readers could not engage with the texts due to their reading abilities, and that other students generally found the texts unengaging or irrelevant to their lives and lived experiences. When teachers supplemented the texts with scaffolded background knowledge or introduced other materials to enhance relevance and engagement, they found much success with the curriculum and texts. This suggests to curriculum designers that when challenging texts are included, they should be supported more effectively through scaffolding or context. The findings further indicate the importance of a curriculum that embeds critical engagement with literature within its structure. Teachers in this study frequently reported that pacing expectations, workload, and the types of assignments and tasks did not allow them to prioritize critical literacy. Teachers described feeling that the curriculum left no time for discussion and reflection, indicating that this facet of literary study should be prioritized when a curriculum is planned and written. Additionally, teachers reported that the curriculum was too heavily focused on basic comprehension and writing tasks. This suggests that curriculum designers must intentionally balance skill development with opportunities for discussion and inquiry-based learning. Finally, if ELA curriculum designers intend for literature instruction to support identity development, empathy, and ethical reflection, these goals must be placed at the forefront of the curriculum’s design. Based on scholarship and teacher responses, these are widely recognized goals of literature instruction and should therefore be central to the design. When asked what 65 teachers felt the curriculum was missing in this regard, they included more effective essential questions, sensitive topics protocols, reflective writing prompts, student discussions, and more inquiry-based learning activities. Designing a curriculum with structures already in place will support teachers in creating more opportunities for critical thinking that do not occur incidentally but are instead an intentional and consistent element of literature instructions. Implications for District and School Leaders: Balancing Fidelity with Teacher Agency Teachers frequently discussed the role district leaders played during this pilot year of the Savvas curriculum, indicating that this study has implications for this educational level. Teachers described feeling heavily influenced in their instructional decisions and what they believed they were allowed to do in their classrooms when attempting to use the curriculum and meet students’ needs. When teachers felt the most pressure to strictly follow the curriculum without any input from teachers, they reported having far fewer opportunities to facilitate important discussions and moments of engagement with the texts. District policies do not just influence organizational procedures but also shape the kinds of learning experiences available to students. One implication from the data collected is that district leaders should consider how curriculum fidelity expectations are communicated to teachers and what these expectations look like for classroom teachers. A unified curriculum provides important structure and support for teachers, but this study highlighted that overly rigid fidelity expectations greatly limited teachers’ ability to adapt to their teaching contexts and respond to students' needs and pacing. This indicates that district leaders should provide clear and consistent guidance on when and in what contexts teachers can exercise their professional judgment while remaining confident that they are working within district expectations. Additionally, in the pilot stage of adoption of a curriculum, it is important to regularly receive feedback from participating teachers on their 66 instructional decisions as they work with the curriculum to improve clarity and clarify the boundaries between fidelity and flexibility. Another implication from this study for school leaders is that district rigid pacing expectations will likely result in literature instruction prioritizing coverage over depth of learning. Teachers in this study described feeling pressure to quickly cover large amounts of content to meet district expectations, often resulting in significant shortening or outright skipping of important literary discussions and thinking. Districts should consider the pacing expectations that allow time and flexibility for these learning experiences. Ultimately, this study calls attention to the need for district policies and curriculum implementation expectations to function as support for teachers’ instructional work in the classroom rather than as systems focused primarily on pacing and coverage. Teachers in this study demonstrated a willingness to adapt, scaffold, and supplement the curriculum while still using the structure, thereby better meeting students' needs and creating more meaningful learning experiences. Supporting this work through clear yet flexible development, professional development, and incorporating teacher feedback would likely help align district goals, curriculum design, and classroom instruction in ways that better support student learning and engagement. Implications for Classroom Teachers: Enacting Agency Within Curricular Constraints While curriculum design and district implementation policies establish many of the structures in which teachers work, classroom teachers still make daily decisions that shape students' potential for engagement with literature. Ideally, school structures and the curriculum would be designed to fully support teachers in this work; however, because most teachers are often constrained by the realities of existing structures, implications for classroom teachers 67 discussed here are framed by the reality that they may need to make decisions within those structures other than ideal ones. One of the most crucial points of this study is that it suggests classroom teachers play a significant role in shaping how students experience literature, especially when working within a district-wide uniform curriculum. In the study, teachers reported that opportunities for identity development, empathy, and ethical reflection did not arise automatically from the curriculum itself, but rather largely depended on how teachers framed discussions, scaffolded texts, and made instructional decisions within the curriculum's structure. This suggests, and scholars agree, that teachers are not simply the ones to implement a curriculum but are instructional decisionmakers who mediate and interpret a curriculum in response to their expert knowledge about their students and their classroom’s context. Because of this, when possible, teachers should engage with the provided curriculum to ensure it aligns with students' needs and their own pedagogical beliefs about ELA goals. A specific implication from this study is that teachers should not assume that moments of critical literacy will occur naturally through reading literature. Teachers need to incorporate discussion-based activities, reflective writing, and text-to-self and text-to-world connections to ensure that students can engage with literature beyond basic comprehension and tasks. The study also reveals the important role that scaffolding plays in students’ ability to engage with complex texts and ideas. In this study, when students struggled to access a text due to difficulty or a lack of contextual knowledge, the teacher purposefully took time to provide necessary scaffolding through background knowledge, vocabulary, and other similar strategies to help students first access the texts and, second, engage with them more meaningfully. Teachers also reported that relevance and student engagement played a significant role in determining whether students 68 connected with a text and participated in discussions and activities in meaningful ways. This illustrates that, when possible, teachers should select or add supplementary texts that students find relevant, engaging, or emotionally compelling, as such connections increase students’ ability and willingness to reflect on complex ideas in a text. Overall, this study supports the idea that while teachers may work within structural and institutional constraints, their instructional decisions still play an important role in shaping whether literature instruction becomes an opportunity for discussion, reflection, and engagement with complex human experiences and ideas. Understanding the role of teacher agency within these structures may help educators better understand how meaningful literary study occurs in real classroom settings and why teacher decision-making remains a crucial part of the curriculum. Implications for Future Research: Examining Curriculum, Context, and Teacher DecisionMaking As is the nature of learning, this study prompts further questions and areas for future research related to literature instruction and curriculum design. First, this study focused on teachers’ perceptions of one district-adopted ELA curriculum within a single school. Future research could explore whether similar findings emerge in other schools and districts, other curriculum programs, and under various district expectations and community contexts. Similar studies that could serve as a comparison would provide further insight into how curriculum design influences opportunities for identity development, empathy, and ethical reflection in literature classrooms. Additionally, this study was primarily focused on teachers' perspectives and experiences. Valuable information could emerge from examining students’ perspectives on how literature 69 instruction influences their identity development, empathy, and critical thinking. While teachers in this study described what they perceived students’ experiences to be with the Savvas curriculum, directly examining students’ perceptions would deepen this research and include the most important voices in this work. It would also be valuable for future research to include classroom observations to better understand how teachers implement, adapt, and supplement a curriculum in practice. While this study relied on interviews, surveys, and teacher logs, direct classroom studies could provide additional insight into how instructional decisions are made in real time and how classroom discussions, student engagement, and opportunities for reflection and critical thinking unfold in practice. Observational research would likely expand on this study's conclusions about how a structured curricular environment both encourages and challenges ELA teachers' work. Future research could also explore how a specific instructional approach to teaching literature directly influences students’ identity development, empathy, and ethical reasoning. While this study lays a preliminary foundation for the types of learning experiences that promote meaningful engagement with literature, more information is needed about the relationship between these instructional practices and students' outcomes. More information on these practices would help educators better understand which classroom practices most effectively support teachers’ goals of literature instruction. Finally, a critical area for future research, beyond the scope of this study, with great potential to shape critical literacy, is to examine how district curriculum policies and contextual community factors influence teacher agency and instructional decision-making over time. This study took place at the beginning of a pilot year of curriculum implementation, and teachers frequently noted that their instructional decisions and the level of agency they perceived 70 themselves to have had changed over a brief period. Longitudinal research that follows teachers over multiple years would likely provide valuable insights into how teachers adapt their curriculum over time in response to district expectations and community influences. A closer examination of these influences may help educators better understand how teachers navigate institutional expectations while making pedagogical decisions that remain firmly aligned with professional commitments and research-based best practices in English Language Arts instruction. Limitations of the Study While this study provides understanding about teachers’ perceptions of a district-adopted ELA curriculum and its relationship to identity development, ethical reflection, and engagement with diverse perspectives, several limitations should be considered when interpreting the findings. First, this study included a small sample of four teachers, mainly from a single school district. Therefore, the findings are not intended to be generalized to all ELA classrooms, districts, or curricula. Instead, the findings were used to explore and better understand teachers’ experiences within a specific context. While the findings should not be generalized, they may be transferable to similar secondary ELA settings using district-adapted curriculum programs and to teachers working within similar structural and community contexts. Second, this study relied primarily on teacher self-reported data that was collected through surveys, interviews, and teacher logs. While these data sources provide helpful insight into teachers’ experiences, self-reports are not guaranteed to always fully reflect what occurs in the classroom or what students experience. Naturally, teachers may unintentionally emphasize certain experiences, forget or omit others, or describe their practices differently than how they 71 occur. Further research that includes observational data could reinforce this study and provide additional insight into how a curriculum is implemented and adapted in real time. Another limitation to consider is that the study focused only on teachers' perspectives and did not include students' perspectives or direct measures of students' outcomes related to identity development, empathy, or ethical thinking. This study did not directly examine how the curriculum or teachers’ instructional decisions impacted student learning academically or emotionally. As a result, the findings reflect how teachers perceived student engagement and growth, rather than how students themselves experienced or were affected by the curriculum, which may differ in important ways. This absence also points to a broader concern that student experience can become marginalized within highly structured or mandated curricular environments, where instructional decisions are often shaped more by external expectations than by students’ lived engagement with the material. It is also important to note that this study took place during the first half of the pilot year of a newly adopted curriculum, which certainly influenced teachers’ experience and perceptions. As some teachers mentioned in this study, during the pilot year, teachers were still learning how best to use the new curriculum and how the district's expectations and implementation policies changed over this period. Consequently, teachers’ experiences during the pilot year may differ from those in later years of implementation, once they have more experience and understanding of the curriculum. Finally, the researcher's role in this qualitative study should be noted. The researcher is a secondary ELA teacher at the same school as the interviewed teachers and has a professional interest in literature instruction, specifically how it can shape identity formation and critical literacy skills. As the nature of qualitative research relies on the interpretation of participant 72 responses, the researcher’s experiences and beliefs will have influenced how the data was interpreted. To minimize the impact of this limit, the research used verbatim transcripts, systematic coding procedures, and reflective note-taking throughout data collection and analysis. These measures were taken to keep the findings grounded in the teachers’ responses and reduce the influence of personal bias on the results. Despite these limitations, this study offers meaningful insight into how teachers navigate and implement a district-adopted curriculum, highlighting how curriculum structure, teacher agency, and contextual factors interact to shape students’ opportunities to engage with complex human experiences, identity, and ethical questions through literature. Conclusion This study explored junior high English Language Arts teachers’ perceptions of districtadopted literature curriculum and its ability to support students’ identity development, ethical reflection, and engagement with diverse perspectives. This study also explored the opportunities and challenges that teacher faced while implementing this curriculum during a pilot year and how these factors influenced their instructional decision-making. The study was guided by two research questions: how teachers perceived the curriculum’s ability to support identity development, ethical reflection, and engagement with diverse perspectives, and what opportunities and challenges teachers encountered when implementing the curriculum to meet these goals. The findings suggest that teachers strongly believe that English Language Arts, and specifically literature, should play a significant role in fostering opportunities for students to reflect on identity, develop empathy for other perspectives, and think about important ethical and social issues. The study revealed that teachers did not perceive the structure and implementation 73 process of the Savvas ELA curriculum as consistently supporting these goals. In fact, they reported that while the curriculum included some texts and topics that had potential to support these goals, these opportunities were surface-level and largely depended on teacher facilitation rather than on the curriculum's design. Teachers further described how the curriculum not only failed to support these goals but also, alongside contextual challenges, limited their ability to promote meaningful critical literacy. One of the most considerable results of this study is that the curriculum itself did not ultimately determine whether students engaged in critical literacy thinking and learning experiences. The findings indicate that teachers’ instructional decisions, including how they scaffolded texts, supplemented materials, facilitated discussions, and created opportunities for reflection and connection, ultimately determined the extent to which students engaged in identity development, ethical reflection, and critical thinking. This finding is significant, as it reinforces existing research emphasizing the importance of teacher agency as instructional decision-makers who interpret and adapt the curriculum in response to their teaching contexts and students' needs. Yet, despite the substantial body of research supporting teacher expertise and the extensive professional training educators receive, rigid, preformatted curricula often undermine teachers’ ability to exercise this agency, limiting their capacity to tailor instruction and engage students in deeper, more meaningful learning. Literature instruction that supports identity development, empathy, and ethical reflection does not automatically occur through the presence of literary texts alone. Instead, these outcomes depend much more significantly on teachers' instructional decisions and the broader educational contexts and structures in which literature is taught. This study emphasizes the importance of purposeful curriculum design, thoughtful and flexible district policies, and teacher agency 74 working in tandem to support students’ crucial and meaningful engagement with literature, rather than prioritizing task completion and skill coverage alone. Ultimately, this study contributes to a vital conversation about the role of literature in English Language Arts education and the role of teachers in shaping students’ experiences with literature. While curriculum and policy establish important instructional structures, this study affirms that teachers remain central to how literature is experienced in the classroom. When teachers are supported, encouraged, and empowered to make intentional and thoughtful instructional decisions, classrooms can become spaces where students not only develop crucial academic literacy skills but also engage deeply with complex human experiences, reflect on their identities, and consider perspectives beyond their own. The power of literature in students’ lives, therefore, lies not simply in the texts they read but in the instructional decisions teachers make every day and also in the structures, policies, and professional supports that either enable or constrain those decisions. These findings underscore the importance of collaboration among educators, curriculum designers, and policymakers to create conditions that fully leverage teacher expertise and maximize students’ meaningful engagement with literature. 75 Appendix Appendix A Recruitment Email Dear [Name of Requested Participant], I am reaching out because I am currently completing my master’s thesis in Curriculum and Instruction at Weber State. My research focuses on how junior high ELA teachers perceive the effectiveness of Savvas’ myPerspectives curriculum in relation to fostering students’ ethical reasoning, empathy, and identity development. I want to invite you to participate in this study and share your thoughts and perceptions about the program. Participation will involve one interview lasting approximately 20-40 minutes, during which you can share your thoughts and experiences using myPerspectives to help students engage with diverse literature and complex ideas. The interview will take place either in person before or after school or through a secure video conferencing platform, depending on your preference and schedule. Participation is entirely voluntary, and you may withdraw at any time. The responses you share will remain confidential, and pseudonyms will be used in transcripts and reports to protect your identity. If you are interested in helping with this research, I will send you an informed consent form and a copy of the interview questions to review before you make your final decision. Once you have had a chance to review these materials and sign the consent form, we can coordinate a time to schedule an interview that works best for you. Thank you so much for considering this invitation. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or would like further information before making a decision. Warmly, Jemma Phillips 76 Appendix B Informed Consent Form Title of Study: Exploring Teachers’ Perceptions of Identity, Empathy, and Ethics in a Mandated ELA Curriculum Researcher: Jemma Phillips English Language Arts Teacher, Legacy Junior High M.Ed. Candidate, Weber State University Jemmaphillips@mail.weber.edu Faculty Advisor: Dr. Christy Call, Weber State University Purpose of the Study You are invited to participate in a research study exploring how junior high English Language Arts (ELA) teachers perceive the myPerspectives curriculum and its potential to promote students’ ethical reasoning, identity development, and empathy. This study aims to gain a deeper understanding of teachers’ experiences with the myPerspectives curriculum as part of the Davis School District’s pilot program and how they interpret its impact on student learning. Procedures If you agree to participate, you will engage in one semi-structured interview lasting approximately 20–40 minutes. The interview will focus on your experiences with the myPerspectives curriculum and your thoughts about how it supports, limits, or complicates students’ opportunities to explore identity, empathy, and ethical reasoning through literature. Interviews will take place in person at Legacy Junior High or through a secure video conferencing platform, depending on your preference and schedule. With your permission, the interview will be audio-recorded and later transcribed verbatim to ensure accuracy. After 77 transcription, you will have the opportunity to review your transcript to verify accuracy or clarify any statements. Voluntary Participation Participation in this study is entirely voluntary. You may choose not to participate or to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty. Your decision to participate or not participate will not affect your professional standing, evaluation, or collegial relationships in any way. Confidentiality Your confidentiality will be maintained throughout this study. Pseudonyms will be used in all transcripts, notes, and reports. Audio recordings and transcriptions will be stored in a password-protected digital folder accessible only to the researcher. Once the project is completed, all recordings will be permanently deleted. Risks and Benefits There are no anticipated risks associated with this study beyond those typically encountered in professional conversations about teaching practices. While there are no direct benefits to you, your participation may contribute to a deeper understanding of how English teachers perceive and experience curriculum implementation in the district. Researcher Role and Reflexivity Because I am also a teacher in the same English department, I will maintain professional boundaries and ensure transparency throughout this process. Reflexive notes will be used to remain aware of potential bias and to ensure that your voice and experiences are represented accurately. Questions About the Study 78 If you have any questions about this study, please contact: Jemma Phillips at jemmaphillips@mail.weber.edu or Dr. Christy Call at ccall2@weber.edu If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, you may contact the Weber State University Institutional Review Board. Consent Statement By signing below, you indicate that you have read and understood the information above, that your participation is entirely voluntary, and that you may withdraw at any time without penalty. Participant’s Name: _____________________________________________________________ Participant’s Signature: __________________________________________________________ Date: ______________________________ Researcher’s Signature: __________________________________________________________ 79 Appendix C Demographic Survey 1. What is your highest level of education? ☐ Bachelor’s degree ☐ Master’s degree ☐ Doctorate 2. How many total years have you taught English Language Arts? ☐ 1–3 ☐ 4–6 ☐ 7–10 ☐ 11 or more 3. How have you engaged with the myPerspectives pilot curriculum since its adoption in May? ☐ I have fully implemented the pilot units as written. ☐ I have partially implemented the pilot and supplemented it with my own materials. ☐ I have explored the pilot but not yet implemented it in full. ☐ Other (please describe): _________________________ 4. Which grade level(s) and course type(s) do you currently teach? (check all that apply) ☐ 7th Grade English ☐ 8th Grade English ☐ 9th Grade English ☐ Co-taught English (GenEd/SpEd collaboration) ☐ Special Education English 80 5. Have you completed any professional development or coursework related to any of the following? (check all that apply) ☐ Culturally responsive or inclusive teaching ☐ Teaching ethics or social-emotional learning ☐ Teaching diverse or multicultural literature ☐ Curriculum design or adaptation 6. How comfortable do you feel facilitating classroom discussions about ethical, social, or cultural issues in literature? ☐ Very comfortable uncomfortable ☐ Somewhat comfortable ☐ Neutral ☐ Somewhat ☐ Very uncomfortable 7. How frequently do you supplement or adapt the district curriculum with additional diverse texts? ☐ Regularly ☐ Occasionally ☐ Rarely ☐ Never 81 Appendix D Interview Protocol Title of Study: Exploring Teachers’ Perceptions of Identity, Empathy, and Ethics in a Mandated ELA Curriculum Purpose: This study aims to examine how junior high English Language Arts (ELA) teachers perceive the myPerspectives curriculum and its role in promoting ethical reasoning, empathy, and identity development in students. The interviewer will follow the steps detailed below to ensure consistency and professionalism across all interviews: 1. Preparation a. Review the interview questions and protocol before meeting with each participating teacher. b. Ensure the recording device is functioning and able to capture the entire interview. c. Ensure that the participant has signed the consent form. 2. Opening the Interview a. The interviewer will begin with the standardized introduction script. b. The script will reconfirm voluntary participation, confidentiality and the right to skip questions. 3. Conducting the Interview a. The interviewer will follow the semi-structured interview guide (below) in the order provided. 82 b. The interviewer will use neutral follow-up prompts, when necessary (e.g., “Can you tell you tell me more about that?” “What does that look like in practice?”) c. Avoid leading questions or giving opinionated responses. d. Take brief field notes during the interview to support later reflexive analysis. 4. Controlling the Interview Environment a. The interviewer will seek to maintain a neutral, supportive demeanor. b. Allow the interviewee sufficient time to think and respond. c. Redirect the conversation gently if the conversation moves far from the study’s focus. 5. Closing the Interview a. The interview will use the standardized wrap-up script. b. The script will remind participants about their right to review the transcript and the confidentiality of their responses. c. Thank the interviewee for their time and contribution to the study. 6. Post-Interview Procedures a. The researcher will save the recording in a secure, password-protected location and label the file with a pseudonym and the date and time of the interview. b. The researcher will take any necessary additional field notes immediately following the interview. c. The research will begin the transcription process promptly (within the next 48 hours) and prepare the transcript for participant review. Interview Flow: • Interview Introduction Script 83 • Context and General Experience Questions (see Appendix E for questions) • Perception Questions • Opportunities and Challenges Questions • Teacher Value Questions • Wrap-Up Interview Script Interview Introduction Script: Thank you for meeting with me today for this interview! Before we begin, here are a few reminders: • This interview is to support my master’s research project at Weber State University. • This interview aims to better understand your experiences with Savvas’ myPerspectives curriculum and how you see its impact on students’ opportunities to explore identity, empathy, and ethical reasoning. • Your participation is voluntary. You can choose to skip any questions or end the interview at any time. • With your permission, I will record our conversation so I can accurately transcribe it later. • Your name and any identifying information will stay confidential. Pseudonyms will be used in all reports. Wrap-Up Interview Script Thank you so much for your time and for sharing your insights and experiences with me today. Before we end the interview, I want to make sure we have covered everything that feels important to you and relevant to this discussion. Is there anything else you would like to add 84 about your experience with myPerspectives or how you see the curriculum shaping students’ opportunities to explore identity, ethics, or empathy? (Pause for interviewee response.) Thank you. Once again, I sincerely appreciate your willingness to participate and speak openly about your experiences. Your insights and perceptions are incredibly valuable to this project. As a reminder, I will now transcribe this interview and send you the transcripts so you can review them and make any necessary corrections or clarifications. Any changes you request will be noted and included in the final data set. Everything you have shared today will stay confidential, and your name will not be used in any reports or summaries of the findings. Your perspective truly matters to this work! 85 Appendix E Interview Questions Section 1: Context and General Experience 1. What role do you personally think English Language Arts should play in helping students think about themselves, others, and ethical or social issues? 2. How do you think literature can help students learn about themselves or people who are different from them? 3. How have you engaged with the Savvas pilot curriculum this year (e.g., fully, partially, selectively)? What influenced those choices? How have your decisions evolved over time? 4. How do you make decisions about when to follow the curriculum closely and when to adapt it or supplement it? 5. How have students responded to the curriculum and its materials so far? Section 2: Perceptions of Identity, Ethics, and Diversity 6. How do students typically engage with Savvas texts in your classroom (discussion, writing, activities, projects, etc.)? 7. Have you observed any Savvas texts or lessons that encouraged students to reflect on their identities or personal experiences? What did that look like in practice? 8. Can you recall moments when students connected strongly with particular stories, characters, or issues in the Savvas materials? What seemed to prompt those connections? 9. To what extent do you feel the curriculum encourages students to explore multiple perspectives or understand people who are different from themselves? What features of the curriculum influenced your perspective? 86 10. Has the curriculum opened opportunities for students to discuss fairness, right/wrong, or moral dilemmas? If so, what have those conversations looked like? If not, what do you think limited them? 11. How have you observed that students typically respond when the curriculum does lend itself to conversations about issues or characters that could spark reflection on identity or values? Section 3: Opportunities and Challenges in Implementation 12. What parts of the Savvas curriculum make it easier to teach about identity, empathy, or ethical reasoning? 13. What challenges or limitations do you face when trying to foster those skills (exploration of identity, empathy, and ethics) within the curriculum’s structure? 14. Have broader political, legislative, or community pressures influenced how you implement Savvas? In what ways, if any, do these pressures shape your choices? 15. Do you ever adjust, omit, or reframe topics, discussions, or texts to avoid potential controversy? What contributes to those decisions? Section 4: Teacher Values 16. At the beginning of the interview, you discussed the role that you believe ELA should play in helping students explore their identity and those of others and explore social and ethical issues. In what ways does the Savvas curriculum align with or differ from what you believe is important for students to learn through literature? 17. If you could change or add something to the curriculum to make it more meaningful or relevant to students, what might that addition be? 87 18. Is there anything else you would like to share about your experiences teaching with Savvas’ curriculum? 88 Appendix F Reflexive Interviewer Notes Template • The purpose of these notes will be to help the interviewer recognize how their role as a colleague may influence the participant’s responses, as well as the interviewer's interpretations of those responses • The researcher will also keep reflexive notes throughout the analysis process to acknowledge their dual role as both a colleague and investigator, and to remain aware of potential biases Interviewee: Date: Researcher Notes: 89 Appendix G Weber State University IRB Letter of Approval January 29, 2026 Christy Call Jemma Phillips Graduate Studies in Education Re: Exempt - Initial - IRB-AY25-26-148 - Exploring Teachers’ Perceptions of Identity, Empathy, and Ethics in a Mandated ELA Curriculum Dear Dr. Call: The Weber State University Institutional Review Board has rendered the decision below for the study "Exploring Teachers’ Perceptions of Identity, Empathy, and Ethics in a Mandated ELA Curriculum." Decision: Approved Approval: January 29, 2026 Expiration: January 28, 2027 The project was proposed as expedited research. However, it meets the definition of exempt research under Category 2 (i). Research that only includes interactions involving educational tests (cognitive, diagnostic, aptitude, achievement), survey procedures, interview procedures, or observation of public behavior (including visual or auditory recording) if at least one of the following criteria is met: The information obtained is recorded by the investigator in such a manner that the identity of the human subjects cannot readily be ascertained, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects. Subjects are considered adults, signatures/consent are required, and they may choose not to participate. Anonymity and confidentiality are addressed appropriately, and the type of information gathered could not "reasonably place the subjects at risk of criminal or civil liability or be damaging to the subjects' financial standing, employability, or reputation" (Code of Federal Regulations 45 CFR 46, Subpart D). You may proceed once you have permission from the IRB of the Education Agency in which you are conducting your study. You have one year to complete the study. Please remember that any anticipated changes to the project and approved procedures must be submitted to the IRB prior to implementation. Any unanticipated problems that arise during any stage of the project require a written report to the IRB and possible suspension of the project. If you have any questions please contact your review committee chair or irb@weber.edu. Sincerely, Wei Qiu, Ph.D. Chair, Moyes School of Education IRB Sub-Committee Weber State University Institutional Review Board 90 References Appleman, D. (2024). Critical encounters in secondary English: Teaching literary theory to adolescents (2nd ed.). Teachers College Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/978131546561614 Bal, P. M., & Veltkamp, M. (2013). How does fiction reading influence empathy? An experimental investigation on the role of emotional transportation. PLOS ONE, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0055341 Barker, M. A. (2023). Banish the bans: The teacher educators’ role in preparing preservice teachers for book challenges. Study and Scrutiny: Research on Young Adult Literature, 9(1). Bishop, R. S. (1990). Mirrors, windows, and sliding glass doors. Perspectives: Choosing and Using Books for the Classroom, 6(3). Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Buckley-Marudas, M. F., & Martin, M. (2020). Casting new light on adolescent literacies: Designing digital storytelling for social justice with preservice teachers in an English language arts education program. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 20(4), 691–722. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-0000-2.ch002 Coleman, J. J. (2021). Affective reader response: Using ordinary affects to repair literacy normativities in ELA and English education. English Education, 53(4), 254–276. https://doi.org/10.58680/ee202131482 91 Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529614572.n50 Dixon, M., & Oakhill, J. (2024). Exploring teachers teaching reading comprehension: Knowledge, behaviours and attitudes. Education 3–13, 52(7), 963–978. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2024.2357884 Franzese, P. A. (2016). The power of empathy in the classroom. Seton Hall L. Rev., 47, 693. Germán, L. E. (2021). Textured teaching: A framework for culturally sustaining practices. Heinemann. Gleichgerrcht, E., & Decety, J. (2013). Empathy in clinical practice: How individual dispositions, gender, and experience moderate empathic concern, burnout, and emotional distress in physicians. PLOS ONE, 8(4). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0061526 Grecu, Y. V. (2022). Overcoming obstacles to differentiate instruction when implementing prepared curricular resources in a diverse classroom. Anatolian Journal of Education, 7(1), 167–180. https://doi.org/10.29333/aje.2022.7113a Hattan, C., & Lupo, S. M. (2020). Rethinking the role of knowledge in the literacy classroom. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1). https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.350 Iskhak, I., Mujiyanto, J., & Hartono, R. (2020). “No more being stuck” in reading literature: Effects of reader response journal project on EFL teacher trainees’ literacy engagement. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 443, Proceedings of ISET 2019. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.200620.010 92 James, K. (2019). Mapping sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) inclusion through curriculum and practice in a Canadian teacher education program. Canadian Journal of Education / Revue Canadienne de l’Éducation, 42(3), 957–991. Johnson, R. D., Araujo, J. J., & Cossa, N. (2017). Literacy: The Critical Role of Teacher Knowledge. The Thirty-Ninth Yearbook: A Double Peer-Reviewed Publication of the Association of Literacy Educators and Researchers. Association of Literacy Educators and Researchers. Koss, M. D., & Paciga, K. A. (2025). Teacher autonomy and decision making on curricular book choices. Reading Horizons, 64(1). Levine, S., Trepper, K., Chung, R. H., & Coelho, R. (2021). How feeling supports students’ interpretive discussions about literature. Journal of Literacy Research, 53(4), 491–515. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296x211052249 Marlatt, R. (2018). Toward diversity in texts: Using global literature to cultivate critical perspectives. Journal of Curriculum, Teaching, Learning and Leadership in Education, 3(1), Article 8. https://doi.org/10.32873/uno.dc.ctlle.03.01.1045 Merriam, S. B., & Grenier, R. S. (Eds.). (2019). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-08044894-7.01532-3 Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-7730-0.ch001 Minor, C., & Alexander, K. (2020). We got this: Equity, access, and the quest to be who our students need us to be. Heinemann. 93 Mirra, N. (2018). Educating for empathy: Literacy learning and civic engagement. Teachers College Press & National Writing Project. Nadelson, L. S., Freed, A., Oyeniyi, O., Parham, C., Perry, S., Walthall, B., & White, N. (2024). Teachers’ perceptions, knowledge, and interactions with scripted curriculum. Research Journal of Education, 10(1), 13–29. https://doi.org/10.32861/rje.101.13.29 National Center for Education Statistics. (2024). Legacy Junior High School: School detail for Layton, Utah. U.S. Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/school_detail.asp?ID=490021001275 Nikolajeva, M. (2014). Memory of the present: Empathy and identity in young adult fiction. Narrative Works, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.7202/1062101ar Priestley, M., Biesta, G., & Robinson, S. (2015). Teacher agency: An ecological approach. Bloomsbury Academic. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315678573-15 Riess, H., & Neporent, L. (2018). The empathy effect: Seven neuroscience-based keys for transforming the way we live, love, work, and connect across differences. St. Martin's Essentials. Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (4th ed.). Sage Publications. Smith, B. Q. P. Q., & Banack, A. (2024). Resisting the chilling effect of censorship and scripted curriculum. English Journal, 113(3). https://doi.org/10.58680/ej2024113329 Suarez, G. W. A., & Diva, C. (2022). Using reader response strategy and affective learning domain in teaching literature to enhance critical thinking. International Journal of Educational Management and Development Studies, 3(4), 61–82. https://doi.org/10.53378/352938 94 Thomas, E. E., & Stornaiuolo, A. (2016). Restorying the self: Bending toward textual justice. Harvard Educational Review, 86(3), 313–338. https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-504586.3.313 U.S. News & World Report. (2024). Legacy Junior High School overview. U.S. News & World Report. https://www.usnews.com/education/k12/utah/legacy-junior-high-21075 Verhoeven, M., Poorthuis, A. M., & Volman, M. (2018). The role of school in adolescents’ identity development: A literature review. Educational Psychology Review, 31(1), 35–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9457-3 White, J. W., & Ali-Khan, C. (2020). Sex and Sexuality in the English Language Arts Classroom. English Education, 52(4), 282–309. https://doi.org/10.58680/ee202030766 Zhou, Z. (2022). Empathy in education: A critical review. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 16(3). https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2022.160302 Zohrabi, M., & Zarei, P. (2025). The benefits of using literature in educational practices and boosting student engagement. Literary Arts, 17(2), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.22108/liar.2025.144049.2431