EDSD 7073 Walden University Addressing Gaps in Special Education Research As a doctoral student and future leader in the field of special education, what d

EDSD 7073 Walden University Addressing Gaps in Special Education Research As a doctoral student and future leader in the field of special education, what do you believe are the key current gaps in practice, as related to evidence-based practices? For this Assignment, you will select a gap in practice that you have identified within the research as it relates to implementing specialized instruction in an area that is of interest to you. Provide evidence from the research to support your rationale as to why addressing this gap in practice will improve the delivery of services to students with exceptionalities and the overall field of special education.

To prepare:

Review the module’s Learning Resources. Reflect on the research-to-practice gap and why this is an issue in special education.
Select a gap identified in the research (i.e., 3–5 current research-based resources) related to a specific specialized instruction topic or specialized instruction across content areas from a previous module.

Compose a 3- to 5-page draft paper addressing a gap that you identified in the research that interests you. Include the following sections:

Section 1: Gaps in Evidence-Based Practice

Provide a 1- to 2-paragraph statement that identifies a gap in the research that is the result of a review of current literature and practice that contains the following information:

A logical argument for the need to address an identified gap in special education practice. Make sure to clarify why you believe that this is a problem of practice in special education. Support your argument by citing current research articles and contrasting them with older research articles related to gaps in practice.
Preliminary evidence that provides justification that this problem is meaningful. Provide a minimum of three to five key citations that support the relevance and currency of the problem. These references need not all be from peer-reviewed journals, but should be from reputable sources, such as national agency databases or scholarly books, and should ideally be from the past 5 years.

Section 2: Significance

Provide 1 or 2 paragraphs informed by the topic outlined in the gaps in evidence-based practice that describe the following:

How this study will contribute to filling the gap in special education practice. What original contribution will this make?
How this research will support professional practice or allow practical application: Answer the “So what?” question.

Section 3: Questions

List the research questions or a series of related questions that are informed by the purpose, which will lead to the development of what needs to be done to research the identified gap in practice. A research question informs the research design by providing a foundation for:

Generation of hypotheses in quantitative studies;
Questions necessary to build the design structure for qualitative studies; and a
Process by which different methods will work together in mixed-methods studies.

Section 4: Nature of the Study

Using one of the following terms as a subheading, provide a concise paragraph that discusses the approach that will be used to address the research question(s) and how this approach aligns with the problem statement. The subheadings and examples of study design are as follows:

Quantitative—for experimental, quasi-experimental, or non-experimental designs, treatment-control, repeated measures, causal-comparative, single-subject, predictive studies, or other quantitative approaches;
Qualitative—for ethnography, case study, grounded theory, narrative inquiry, phenomenological research, policy analysis, or other qualitative traditions; or
Mixed methods, primarily qualitative—for sequential, concurrent or transformative studies, with the main focus on qualitative methods, and single subject.

Section 5: Social Change

Consider the relationship between the identified problem of practice and social change. In 2–3 paragraphs, describe:

How the claim aligns with the problem statement to reflect the potential relevance in this study to society: How might the potential findings lead to positive social change for students with exceptionalities?
Then, give your perspective. Craft a “Research Promise to Students with Exceptionalities.” Take the researcher’s perspective as you craft this “promise.”
Example: “As I move through my program, I promise to seek the highest and deepest levels of scholarship in order to bring about meaningful social change for students with exceptionalities. As a part of this promise, I will: [list 2–3 ways in which you will pursue and fulfill this promise].”

Section 6: References

On a separate page, cite the text, articles, and other current peer-reviewed research in support of your position. Be specific and provide examples. Remember to use APA formatting to complete this Assignment.

Learning Resources

Note: To access this week‘s required library resources, please click on the link to the Course Readings List, found in the Course Materials section of your Syllabus.

REQUIRED READINGS

Cook, B. G., & Odom, S. L. (2013). Evidence-based practices and implementation science in special education. Exceptional Children, 79(2), 135-144.

Hudson, R. F., Davis, C. A., Blum, G., Greenway, R., Hackett, J., Kidwell, J., … & Schulze, M. (2015). A Socio-Cultural Analysis of Practitioner Perspectives on Implementation of Evidence-Based Practice in Special Education. The Journal of Special Education, 50(1), 27-36.

Stahmer, A. C., Rieth, S., Lee, E., Reisinger, E. M., Mandell, D. S., & Connell, J. E. (2015). Training teachers to use evidence-based practices for autism: Examining procedural implementation fidelity. Psychology in the Schools, 52(2), 181-195. Exceptional Children
Vol. 79. No. 2, pp. 135-144.
©20 J 3 CouncilforExceptional Children.
Evidence-Based Practices
and Implementation Science
in Special Education
BRYAN G. COOK
University of Hawaii
SAMUEL L. ODOM
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
ABSTRACT:
r:
Establishing a process for identifying evidence-based practices (EBPs) in special education has been a significant advance for the field because it has the potential for generating more
effective educational pro-ams and producing more positive outcomes for students with disabilities.
However, the potential benefit of EBPs is bounded by the quality, reach, and maintenance of
implementation. The cross-disciplinary field of implementation science has great relevance for
translating the promise of EBPs into positive outcomes for children and youth with disabilities.
This article examines the history, extent, and limitations of EBPs and describes the emergence and
current state of implementation science as applied in special education. Subsequent articles in this
special issue i?/Exceptional Children address a range of issues related to implementation science in
special education: the research-to-practice gap, dissemination and diffusion, adherence and sustainability, scaling up, a model for state-level implementation, and fostering implementation through
professional development.
ducators generally agree that
broad implementation of practices shown by scientific
research to reliably cause
increased student performance
(i.e., evidence-based practices; EBPs) will result in
increased student outcomes (Cook, Smith, &:
Tankersley, 2012; Slavin, 2008b). Despite special
educators’ general affinity for the concept of
EBPs, as Odom and colleagues (2005) suggested,
the devil of EBPs is in the details. Odom et al.
were referring to the difficulties involved in identifying EBPs (e.g.. How many studies must support
an EBP? What research designs should be consid-
Exceptional Children
ered? What quality indicators are necessary for a
trustworthy study? What effects must a practice
have to be considered an EBP?). Although these
issues continue to be debated (see Cook, Tankersley, & Landrum, 2009a; Slavin, 2008a), there has
been considerable progress in generating and applying guidelines for identifying EBPs in general
(e.g.. What Works Clearinghouse, WWC, 2011)
and special (e.g.. National Professional Development Center on Autism Spectrum Disorders, n.d.;
National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center, n.d.) education. However, the EBP
movement may have leapt from the frying pan
into the fire: The progress made in identifying
EBPs has highlighted the devilish details involved meaningful effects on student outcomes. The
with implementation of EBPs, which now need to logic behind EBPs is simple: Identifying and
using the most generally effective practices will
be addressed.
The gap—described by some as a chasm (e.g., increase consumer (e.g., student) outcomes. This
Donovan &C Cross, 2002)—between research and logic rests on the assumptions that the most effecpractice is a recurring theme in special education. tive practices were not previously identified, imIndeed, we suspect that the gap has been present plemented, or both; and that certain types of
in special education as long as research and prac- research (i.e., high-quality studies using designs
tice have co-existed. Attempts to bridge the re- from which causality can be inferred) are the best
search-to-practice gap by identifying and tools to determine effectiveness. Although not
implementing effective practices are a rich part of without detractors (e.g., Gallagher, 2004; Hamspecial education’s history (Mostert & Crockett, mersley, 2005) this logic has been generally
1999-2000). Despite considerable focus on the accepted (Slavin, 2008b) and even written into
research-to-practice gap (e.g., Carnine, 1997; law (i.e., the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001’s
Greenwood 8¿ Abbott, 2001) and on identifying emphasis on “scientifically based research”).
EBPs as means to bridge it (e.g.. Cook et al.,
Unlike previous approaches for identifying ef2009b; Odom et al., 2005), there is little evidence fective practices in education (e.g., best practices,
suggesting that the gap has been meaningfully re- research-based practices), supporting research for
duced. For example, a U.S. Department of Educa- EBPs must meet prescribed, rigorous standards
tion report (Crosse et al., 2011) noted that only (Cook & Cook, 2011). Although specific stan7.8% of prevention programs related to substance dards for EBPs vary between and within fields,
abuse and school crime used in over 5,300 schools research support for EBPs generally must meet
met their standards for an EBP. And, in special ed- standards along several dimensions, including
ucation, practitioners have reported using instruc- research design, quality, and quantity. Typical
tional practices shown by research to be ineffective guidelines require that for a practice to be consid(e.g., learning styles) with similar or greater fre- ered evidence-based it must be supported by
quency than some research-based practices (e.g., multiple, high-quality, experimental or quasimnemonics; Burns &C Ysseldyke, 2009).
experimental (often including single-case research)
This special issue of Exceptional Children fo- studies demonstrating that the practice has a
cuses on addressing some of the devilish details meaningful impact on consumer (e.g., student)
related to bridging the research-to-practice gap by outcomes.
Discussion and promotion of EBPs have beachieving broad, sustained, and high-quality implementation of EBPs. There is an emerging field come seemingly ubiquitous in education in recent
of implementation science (Eccles & Mittman, years (Detrich, 2008)—EBPs are promoted in na2006) that can be applied in special education to tional, state, and local educational policies; in proenhance the utilization of EBPs. To contextualize fessional conferences, university courses, and
consideration of implementation science related professional development; in professional stanto EBPs in special education, it’s important to dards; and in informal discussions among educadefine what an EBP is, as well as to be aware of tors. The federally funded WWC (http://ies.ed
critical caveats and controversies related to EBPs .gov/ncee/wwc/), established in 2002, is perhaps
the most comprehensive and well known source of
in the field of special education.
EBPs for education. Until recently, however, the
WWC did not identify EBPs for students with disEV I D E N C E – B A S E D
P R A C T I C E S
abilities, and now does so only for certain disability
groups. (The WWC has begun reviewing the eviWHAT ARE
EBPS?
dence base of practices for students with learning
Emerging from the field of medicine in the early disabilities, in early childhood special education,
1990s (Sackett, Rosenberg, Gray, Haynes, & and with emotional and behavioral disorders.)
To address the need for standards for EBPs
Richardson 1996), EBPs are practices and prodesigned
for and by special educators, Gersten et
grams shown by high-quality research to have
136
Winter 2013
al. (2005) and Horner et al. (2005) generated
standards for identifying EBPs in special education using group experimental and single-subject
research, respectively, in a special issue of Exceptional Cbildren (Odom, 2005). Since that special
issue, various organizations and teams of special
education scholars have used the standards proposed by Gersten et al. and Horner et al. (2005;
e.g., Cook et al., 2009a), used standards adapted
from Gersten et al. and Horner et al. (Odom,
Collet-Klingenberg, Rogers, & Hatton, 2010),
and developed independent sets of standards (e.g..
National Autism Center, 2009) to begin to identify a corpus of EBPs in special education. These
and other ongoing efforts to establish EBPs in
special education represent an important advance
for the field. However, EBPs are not a panacea,
and considerable and fundamental work remains
to be done if they are to meaningfully improve
outcomes for children and youth with disabilities.
mated that the most effective early reading interventions do not positively impact between 2%
and 6% of children. Researchers typically refer to
students for whom effective practices do not cause
meaningfully improved outcomes as treatment
resisters or nonresponders. Although EBPs have
relatively low rates of nonresponders, it is important to recognize that even when implemented
with fidelity and over time EBPs will not result in
optimal outcomes for all students. Thus, when selecting practices to use in special educatiorl programs, EBPs are a good place to start; but the
application of an EBP, like any other instructional
practice, represents an experiment of sorts in
which special educators must validate its effectiveness for each individual child.
CAVEATS AND CONTROVERSIES
Although more and more EBPs are being identified in both general and special education, because of the considerable time and expertise it
takes to complete an evidence-based review (i.e.,
apply standards for EBPs to the body of research
literature examining the effectiveness of a practice) many practices have not yet been reviewed.
And because of the relative scarcity of highquality, experimental research in the educational
literature (Berliner, 2002; Seethaler & Euchs,
2005), many evidence-based reviews result in the
conclusion that there is simply not enough highquality research utilizing appropriate designs to
meaningfully determine whether a practice is evidence-based. In other words, just because a practice is not considered an EBP does not necessarily
mean that it is ineffective. It is then important to
distinguish between practices that are not considered evidence-based because (a) they have been
shown by multiple, high-quality research studies
from which causality can be inferred to be ineffective and (b) an evidence-based review has not
been conducted or there is insufficient research to
conclusively determine whether the practice is
effective (Cook & Smith, 2012). The former
practices should rarely if ever be used, whereas the
latter might be implemented when relevant EBPs
have not been identified or a student has been
shown to be a nonresponder to identified EBPs.
No practice will work for every single
student; this is a reality of education.
Incomplete and Variable Identification of EBPs.
The introduction of EBPs in any field seems to be
inexorably followed by a period of questioning
and resistance, which certainly has occurred in
education (e.g., Hammersley, 2007; Thomas &
Pring, 2004). Although a complete discussion of
caveats and controversies regarding EBPs in (special) education are beyond the scope of this article
(see Cook et al., 2012 for an extended discussion), we focus our attention here on a few
prominent issues of which special educators
should be aware: EBPs are not guaranteed to
work for everyone, identification of EBPs is incomplete and variable, and EBPs will not be implemented automatically or easily in the “real
world” of schools and classrooms.
EBPs Are Not Guaranteed to Work for Every-
one. No practice will work for every single student; this is a reality of education (indeed, for all
social sciences) of which special educators are
keenly aware. As such, when educational researchers speak of causality, they do so in a probabilistic rather than absolute sense. That is, saying
that an instructional practice causes improved educational outcomes means that the practice reliably results in improved outcomes for the vast
majority, but not all, students who receive the intervention. Eor example, Torgesen (2000) esti-
Exceptional Children
Special educators also should recognize that
there are many difFerent approaches for identifying
and categorizing EBPs. For example. Homer et al.
(2005) proposed dichotomously categorizing practices (i.e., evidence-based or not evidence-based),
Gersten et al. (2005) proposed a three-tiered approach (i.e., evidence-based, promising, and not
evidence-based), and the W W C (2011) uses six
classifications (i.e., practices with positive, potentially positive, mixed, indeterminate, potentially
negative, and negative effects) to categorize the evidence base of practices. Moreover, approaches for
identifying EBPs in education vary on specific
standards For research design, quality of research,
quantity of research, and efFect size (see Cook et
al., 2012, For an extended discussion). Accordingly, the evidence-based status oF some practices
will likely vary across EBP sources (Cook & Cook,
2011). It is important, then, to consider EBPs
within the context oFthe specific standards used to
identify them.
Implementation. The research-to-practice gap
underlies what is probably the most vexing caveat
related to EBPs: the diFficulty in translating research findings to the everyday practices oF teachers in typical classrooms. As EBPs in education
began to be identified, relatively little attention
was given to how to implement them, perhaps
under the assumption that school personnel would
eagerly and readily apply identified EBPs. However, as Fixsen, Blase, Homer, and Sugai (2009)
noted, “choosing an evidence-based practice is one
thing, implementation oF that practice is another
thing altogether” (p. 5). The problem oF implementation is not unique to EBPs and likely underlies the generally d i s a p p o i n t i n g outcomes
associated with most school reForm eFForts (e.g.,
Sarason, 1993). Implementing and sustaining new
practices involves a host oF complex and interrelated problems, including issues related to the
practice being promoted (e.g., relevance and fit to
target environment, eFFiciency and practicality),
users (e.g., available time, mistrust oF research,
knowledge oF EBPs, skills), and the institutional
context (e.g., available resources, organizational
structures and culture, stafTlng, coaching, training,
administrative support; Fixsen, Naoom, Blase,
Friedman, & Wallace, 2005; Nelson, LeFfler &
Hansen, 2009; Tseng, 2012).
138
Implementation issues have been reFerred to
as “wicked” problems (e.g., Fixsen, Blase, Duda,
Naoom, ôqVan Dyke, 2009; Signal et al., 2012)
because, among other characteristics, they are
moving targets that fight back (Rittel S¿ Webber,
1973). For example, Fixsen, Blase, Metz, and Van
Dyke (this issue) noted that organizational systems work to sustain the status quo by “overwhelm[ing] virtually any attempt to use new
evidence-based programs” (i.e., fight back). In
contrast, tame issues may be complex but they
tend not to change or actively resist being solved.
As diFFicult as it may be to address the tame issue
oF how to identify EBPs, it is a fixed, circumscribed issue that once solved, stays solved. It is
hardly surprising, then, that typical, passive approaches For promoting the implementation oF
EBPs (e.g., “train and hope”) that do not provide
systematic and ongoing supports almost invariably Fail to address the wicked problems oF implementation and thereFore seldom result in broad,
sustained change (Fixsen et al., 2005).
Implementation is the critical link between
research and practice. Fixsen et al. (this issue) proposed a simple Formula to represent the critical
interaction oF research eFFicacy and practice (implementation) in generating outcomes:
Effective interventions X effective implementation =
improved outcomes
The implication oF this Formula is that in the absence oF implementation, even the most eFFective
intervention will not yield desired outcomes.
Glasgow, Vogt, and Boles (1999) conceptualized
the slightly more elaborate RE-AIM Framework to
represent the importance oF multiple dimensions
oF implementation in determining a practice’s
real-world impact. The RE-AIM model considers
Four aspects oF implementation in addition to a
practice’s eFFicacy in determining impact—R X E
X A X I X M = impact, where:
•
Reach: the proportion oF the target population reached by a practice.
•
EFficacy: the success rate oF a practice when
implemented appropriately.
•
Adoption: the proportion oF targeted settings
that adopt the practice.
Winter 2013
•
Implementation: the proportion of interventionists who implement the practice with
fidelity in real world settings.
•
Maintenance: proportion of organizations
(e.g., schools) and interventionists (e.g.,
teachers) who maintain implementation of
the practice over time.
Imagine, for example, that a school district
adopts an EBP for its students with learning disabilities in elementary schools. District personnel
are understandably excited to begin the new year
by rolling out a practice that has been shown by
multiple, high-quality studies to meaningfully improve outcomes for, say, 95% of elementary children with learning disabilities. However, only
80% of elementary schools agree to participate in
the project (reach). Further, given problems related to training, planning and instructional time,
and reluctance to adopt new practices, only 70%
of teachers within targeted schools end up using
the practice at all (adoption). Due to sometimes
ineffectual training and lack of ongoing support,
perhaps only 60% of teachers who adopt the
practice implement it with fidelity; and only 50%
of those maintain their use of the practice over
the entire school year. In this scenario, actual impact is calculated as
practice that is broadly implemented remains an
ineffective practice that will, at best, have limited
impact. When considering the importance of implementation, educators should not disregard the
importance of efficacy, but rather realize the symbiotic relationship of efficacy and implementation
in determining impact.
The recent emphasis on EBPs in special education is laudable, encouraging, and necessary, but
identification of EBPs is insufficient without supporting their use in common practice (Odom,
2009). The challenge is how to achieve high levels
of implementation of the most effective practices.
Unfortunately, because sound research investigating implementation has been sparse, “we are faced
with the paradox of non-evidence-based implementation of evidence-based programs” (Drake,
Gorman, & Torrey; as cited in Fixsen et al., 2005,
p. 35). Special educators do not yet have complete, empirically substantiated guidelines for supporting implementation of EBPs. The emerging
field of implementation science has begun to
address this issue by conducting research and generating theories regarding the implementation of
EBPs.
I M P L E M E N T A T I O N
.95 (efficacy) X .80 (reach) X .70 (adoption) X
.60 (implementation) X .50 (maintenance) = .16
In other words, due to problems at various levels
of implementation, the EBP actually had the desired impact on slightly less than 16% of elementary students with learning disabilities—a far cry
from the rosy 95% efficacy that district administrators found so attractive.
After considering these numbers, it may
seem that special educators would be better served
by pursuing practices that appeal to teachers and
are easily implemented, but which are less effective (i.e., typical practice), than by chasing the
large effects of EBPs that may be difficult to realize. However, special educators sell themselves
short—and, more important, do a disservice to
the students they serve—by settling for practices
with limited effects. Efficacy and implementation
both set a ceiling for real-world impact. Just as a
highly efficacious intervention that is not implemented will have no real effect, an ineffective
Exceptional Children
SCIENCE
In the inaugural issue of Implementation Science,
Eccles and Mittman (2006) defined implementation science as “the scientific study of methods to
promote the systematic uptake of research findings and other evidence-based practices into routine practice” (p. 1). A number of related terms
have been used to refer to this area of study (e….
Purchase answer to see full
attachment