EDSD 7073 Walden University Addressing Gaps in Special Education Research

User Generated

Gvnan24

Writing

EDSD 7073

Walden University

EDSD

Description

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.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

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.g., knowledge utilization, knowledge transfer, knowledge translation, implementation research, translational research, diffusion, uptake; Straus, Tetroe, & Graham, 2009). We use implementation science because, in our experience, it is the most frequently used term by contemporary education scholars. This is not meant to suggest that a definitive corpus of knowledge has been established in the area of implementation (i.e., a science of implementation); rather, it denotes a field of scientific inquiry in which issues related to implementation are investigated. Implementation science, which draws on a rich history of foundational research investigating 139 implementation in various fields (e.g., Rogers, 1962; see Weatherly & Lipsky, 1977, for an example in special education), is associated most closely with the second of two phases of translation research. The first phase of translating research into practice involves the relatively neat, orderly, and relatively well funded, endeavors of conducting and synthesizing applied research to determine what works in real-world settings (i.e., establishing EBPs; Hiss, 2004). Hiss suggested that Phase 2 translation research, which investigates adopting and sustaining the EBPs identified in Phase 1 translation research, tends to be messy and poorly funded. However, with the recent increase in attention being paid to implementation (or lack thereof), funding appears to be increasing. For example, the W. T. Grant foundation recently funded 15 research projects in general education designed to examine how research is used to inform policy and practice in local schools (Tseng, 2012). Essentially, the goal of inquiry in implementation science is to research and understand how innovations are adopted and maintained, so that implementation moves from "letting it happen" to "making it happen" (Greenhalgh, Robert, MacFarlane, Bate, Si Kyriakidou, 2004). As has been the case with the vast majority of previous education reforms, letting EBPs happen (i.e., assuming that they will be implemented by virtue of their identification) has proven largely unsuccessful (Tseng, 2012). To bring about the broad and sustained implementation of EBPs, special educators need to (a) look to the lessons learned thus far from implementation science and (b) identify what is not known about making EBP implementation happen and condtict research to systematically fill those gaps in our knowledge base. Based on their comprehensive review of the literature in implementation science, Fixsen et al. (2005) concluded that the relatively sparse experimental research in implementation science indicates that providing guidelines, policies, information, and training are not enough to "make it happen." In contrast, long-term, multilevel strategies tend to result in successful implementation. The authors gleaned seven core implementation components (or implementation drivers) that, when in place and functioning at a high level, can routinely change and improve 14O practitioner behavior related to the implementation of EBPs: staff selection, pteservice and inservice training, ongoing consultation and coaching, staff evaluation, ptogram evaluation, facilitative administrative support, and systems interventions (i.e., "strategies to work with external systems to ensure the availability of the financial, organizational, and human resources required to support the work of the practitioners," p. 29). They suggested that purveyors—change agents who are experts at identifying and addressing obstacles to implementation—are critical for utilizing core implementation components to achieve broad and sustained implementation of EBPs. Schoolwide positive behavior support (SWPBS) is a good example of a program used in special education that incorporates lessons from implementation science into its design (see Mclntosh. Filter, Bennett, Ryan, & Sugai, 2010). Indeed, SWPBS implementation is guided by a model incorporating five principles drawn from implementation science: contextual fit, priority, effectiveness, efficiency, and using data for continuous regeneration (Mclntosh, Horner, & Sugai, 2009). For example, SWPBS practices ate modified to maximize fit with the environment in which they will be implemented, although modifications are made with a strong understanding of SWPBS such that they do not violate the integrity of core components of the intervention (i.e., fidelity with flexibility; see Harn, Parisi, & Stoolmiller, this issue). Moreover, SWPBS frequently utilizes structures such as state leadership teams that lead and coordinate training, coaching, and evaluation to systematically support and scale up SWPBS (see Fixsen et al., this issue; Sugai & Horner, 2006). Such attention to the principles of implementation science has, no doubt, contributed to SWPBS's extensive, sustained, and effective application (e.g., Horner, Sugai, & Anderson, 2010). Fixsen et al. (2005) defined implementation broadly: "activities designed to put into practice an activity or program" (p. 5). Thus, virtually any activity involved in the implementation process might be considered under the purview of implementation science. The topics addressed in this special issue of Exceptional Children (i.e., a theoretical framework for linking research to practice, dissemination, balancing fidelity with fiexibility Winter 2013 and fit, scaling-up implementation efforts, statewide implementation efforts, and professional development) are by no means exhaustive of the many and varied elements of implementation science that have application for special education. We have included topics that represent what we believe to be among the most critical areas for improving the implementation of EBPs in special education. We have included topics that represent what we believe to be among the most critical areas for improving the implementation of EBPs in special education. ARTICLES SPECIAL IN THIS ISSUE The purpose of this special issue, and each of the articles in it, is two-fold: (a) review emerging evidence in the area of implementation science that special education scholars, policy makers, administrators, and other stakeholders can apply to advance the implementation of EBPs and (b) provide a framework for identifying unanswered questions for future research to explore related to implementation of EBPs in special education. In the first article. Smith, Schmidt, Edelen-Smith, and Cook propose a conceptual framework for understanding and bridging the research-to-practice gap. Drawing from Stoke's (1997) Pasteur's quadrant model, they posit that rather than dichotomizing research as either rigorous or relevant, research must be both rigorous and relevant to be translated into practice and positively impact student outcomes. Smith et al. propose that educational design research conducted within communities of practices is a promising approach for conducting relevant and rigorous inquiry that will facilitate implementation of EBPs. One of the critical stages of translating research to practice is disseminating and diffusing EBPs. Unfortunately, EBPs are primarily disseminated in traditional and passive ways (e.g., journal articles, research briefs) that hold little sway with the practitioners who actually implement the practices. In the second article. Cook, Cook, and Exceptional Children Landrum explore a variety of approaches for actively and effectively disseminating researchvalidated practices. They utilize Heath and Heath's (2008) SUCCESs model, which posits that dissemination efforts that "stick" are simple, unexpected, concrete, credible, emotional, and conveyed as stories. They provide theoretically and empirically validated dissemination approaches that might be utilized and researched further by special educators in each of these areas. If practitioners do not implement EBPs with fidelity or as designed, the practices may not have the same positive effect demonstrated in research studies. However, in the third article, Harn, Parisi, and Stoolmiller note that demanding rigid adherence to predetermined procedures will decrease the likelihood that practitioners will adopt and sustain a practice. Moreover, practitioners being more concerned with adherence than meeting the needs of their students may actually decrease EBP effectiveness. Ham et al. discuss different aspects of the multifaceted construct of implementation fidelity and how programs and practices can be designedflexiblyso that they can be implemented with fidelity but still meet the needs of different students in varying educational contexts. In the fourth article. Klingner, Boardman, and McMaster discuss issues related to scaling up EBPs. The issue of scale is of critical importance in implementation science. Although implementing an EBP in a single school will positively impact the outcomes of a limited number of students with disabilities, if implementation of EBPs is addressed one school at a time, the research-topractice gap is likely to remain wide. Klingner et al. propose a model of scaling up at the district level that involves district—researcher partnerships, integrating new practices with other district initiatives, tailoring the EBP to the districts' needs, enlightened professional development that includes team building and coaching, and district leadership that ensures communication with school personnel. They also provide an example of the model in practice. In the fifth article, Eixsen and colleagues from the National Implementation Research Network (NIRN) apply a model of implementation science to address the problem of promoting programs that utilize EBPs for students with disabilities. They emphasize the importance of building an infrastructure at the state level, and propose a framework that involves external systems change support, the creation of an executive management team, a process for training and support that flows from policy to practice levels, and, of particular importance, a feedback loop that incorporates information from the practice level into ongoing planning to support implementation. The sixth article relates Odom, Cox, Brock and the NPDC Research Group's design of a professional development program supporting improvement in program quality and practitioners' use of EBPs for students with autism spectrum disorders, which followed an implementation science process based on the work of Eixsen, NIRN, and others. The process begins with developing a planning team at the state policy level, selecting a team or teams for providing technical assistance and coaching, providing training to practitioners and technical assistance providers together, and transferring control from professional development projects (i.e., Fixsen et al.'s, this issue, external systems change support) to state providers. CONCLUSION and student outcomes. This special issue is, we believe, a fitting conclusion to what is now a trilogy of Exceptional Cbildren special issues on EBPs. Implementation is the next, and arguably most critical, stage of evidence-based reforms. REFERENCES Berliner, D. C. (2002). Educational research: The hardest science of all. Educational Research, 31(8), 18-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X031008018 Burns, M. K., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2009). Reported prevalence of evidence-based instructional practices in special education. The fournal of Special Education, 43, 3-11. http://dx.doi.0rg/lO.l 177/0022466908315563 Carnine, D. (1997). Bridging the research-to-practice gap. Exceptional Children, 63, 513-521. Cook, B. G., & Cook, S. C. (2011). Unraveling evidence-based practices in special education, fournal of Special Education. Advance online p u b l i c a t i o n . http://dx.doi.0rg/lO.l 177/0022466911420877 Cook, B. G., & Smith, G. J. (2012). Leadership and instruction: Evidence-based practices in special education. In J. B. Crockett, B. S. Billingsley, & M. L. Boscardin (Eds.), Handbook of leadership in special education (pp. 281-296). London, England: Routledge. Cook, B. G., Smith, G. J., & Tankersley, M. (2012). We have been involved with two previous special Evidence-based practices in education. In K. R. Harris, issues of Exceptional Children that, respectively, set S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), APA educational psyforth guidelines for identifying EBPs in special chology handbook, volume 1 (pp. 493-528). Washingeducation (Odom, 2005) and applied those ton, DC: American Psychological Association. guidelines to a variety of research bases in special Cook, B. G., Tankersley, M., & L a n d r u m , T. j . education to identify EBPs in our field (Cook et (2009a). Determining evidence-based practices in speal., 2009b). We believe that this work has helped cial education. Exceptional Children, 75, 365-383. to advance the potential role of research in prac- Cook, B. G., Tankersley, M., Ô£ Landrum, T. J. (Eds.). tice, although the actual impact of EBPs on the (2009b). Evidence-based practices for reading, math, outcomes of children and youth with disabilities writing, and behavior [Special issue]. Exceptional Chilis unavoidably bounded by implementation. dren, 75. EBPs cannot have an impact unless they are im- Crosse, S., Williams, B., Hagen, C. A., Harmon, M., plemented. Difficulties with implementation are Ristow, L., DiGaetano, R., . . . Derzon, J. H. (2011). not unique to education, and they have spawned Prevalence and implementation fidelity of research-based an emerging multidisciplinary field of implemen- prevention programs in public schools: Final report. Washtation science, dedicated to better understanding ington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/other/researchhow to translate research knowledge into practice. based-prevention.pdf It will be important for special education scholars Detrich, R. (2008). Evidence-based, empirically supto understand and apply relevant lessons from the ported, or best practice? A guide for the scientist-practiimplementation science literature, some of which tioner. In J. K. Luiselli, D. C. Russo, W. P. Christian, are included in this special issue, to realize the & S. M. Wilczynski (Eds.), Effective practices for chilfruits of their labor related to EBPs; that is, to dren with autism (pp. 3—25). Oxford, England: Oxford translate research findings into improved practice University Press. Winter 2013 Donovan, M. S., Sí Cross, C. T. (Eds.) (2002). Minority students in special and ffßed education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Hammersley, M. (2005). Is the evidence-based practice movement doing more good than harm? Reflections on lain Chambers' case For research-based policy making Eccles, M. P., & Mittman, B. S. (2006). Welcome to a n d p r a c t i c e . Evidence Implementation http://dx.doi.Org/l 0.1332/1744264052703203 Hammersley, M. (Ed.). (2007). Educational research and evidence-based practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Science. Implementation Science, l(\), 1—3. Retrieved from http://www.implenientacion science.com/content/1/1/1 & Policy, 1{\), 85-100. Heath, C , & Heath, D. (2008). Made to stick: Why Fixsen, D., Blase, K., Horner, R., & Sugai G. (2009). Concept paper: Developing the capacity for scaling up thesome ideas survive and others die. New York, NY: Raneffective use of evidence-based programs in state depart- dom House. ments of education. Retrieved from http://ea. Hiss, R. G. (2004). Translational research—two phases niusileadscape.org/docs/FINAL_PRODUCTS of a continuum. In Erom clinical trials to community: the /LearningCarousel/DevelopingCapaciry.pdf science of translating diabetes and obesity research (pp. 11 Fixsen, D. L., Blase, K. A., Duda, M. A., Naoom, S. E, ÔC Van Dyke, M. (2009). Wicked problems: From demonstrations to transformation zones. Retrieved From http://www.kl2.wa.us/RTl/Implementation/pubdocs/ WA_2WickedProblems_NIRN0409_HO.pdf Eixsen,- D. L., Naoom, S. E, Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, E (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa, EL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Elorida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network (EMHI Publication #231). Retrieved from http://www.fpg.unc.edu/-nirn/resources/publications/ Monograph/pdf/Monograph_full.pdf Gallagher, D. J. (2004). Educational research, philosophical orthodoxy, and unfulfilled promises: The quandary of traditional research in U.S. special education. In G. Thomas & R. Pring (Eds.), Evidence-based practices in education (pp. 119-132). Columbus, OH: Open University Press. Gersten, R., Euchs, L. S., Compton, D., Coyne, M., Greenwood, C , & Innocenti, M. S. (2005). Quality indicators for group experimental and quasi-experimental research in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 149-164. Glasgow, R., Vogt, T., & Boles, S. (1999). Evaluating the public health impact oF health promotion interventions: The RE AIM framework. American journal of Public Health, 89, 1322-1327. http://dx.dol.org/10 .2105/AJPH.89.9.1322 Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., MacEarlane, E, Bate, P., & Kyriakidou, O. (2004). Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: Systematic review and recommendations. The Milbank Qiiarterly, 82, 581-629. http://dx.doi.Org/10.llll/j.0887-378X.2004.00325.x Greenwood, C. R., & Abbott, M. (2001). The research to practice in special education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 24, 276-289. http://dx.doi.org /lO.l 177/088840640102400403 Exceptional Children 14). Bethesda, MD: National Institute oF Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Retrieved From http:// www2.niddk.nih.gov/NR/rdonlyres/864EE73D-C8764B30-A0EB-l4E3911E2499/4589/Confpublication.pdF Horner, R. H., Carr, E .G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The use of singlesubject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 165-179. Homer, R. H., Sugai, G., & Anderson, C. M. (2010). Examining the evidence base For school-wide positive behavior support. Eocus on Exceptional Children, 42{8), 1-14. Mclntosh, K., Filter, K. J., Bennett, J. L., Ryan, C , & Sugai, G. (2010). Principles of sustainable prevention: Designing scale-up of school-wide positive behavior support to promote durable systems. Psychology in the Schools, 47,5-2\. Mclntosh, K., Horner, R. H., & Sugai, G. (2009). Sustainability of systems-level evidence-based practices in schools: Current knowledge and future directions. In W. Sailor, G. Dunlap, G. Sugai, & R. H. Horner (Eds.), Handbook of positive behavior support (pp. 327-352). New York, NY: Springer. Mostert, M. P , & Crockett, J. B. (1999-2000). Reclaiming the history of special education For more effective practice. Exceptionality, S{2), 133-143. http://dx.d0i.0rg/l 0.12O7/S15327O35EX0802_4 National Autism Center. (2009). National standards report. Randolph, MA: Author. National Professional Development Center on Autism Spectrum Disorders, (n.d.). Evidence-based practices. Retrieved from http://autisnipdc.fpg.unc.edu /content/evidence-based-practices National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center, (n.d.). Evidence based practices. Retrieved From http://www.nsttac.org/content/evidence-based-practices Nelson, S. R., LeFfler, J. C , & Hansen, B. A. (2009). Toward a research agenda for understanding and improv- 143 ing the use of research evidence. Portland, OR: North-Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur's quadrant: Basic science west Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved from and technological innovation. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press. http://educationnorthwest.org/webfm_send/311 Odom, S. L. (2005). Criteria for evidence-based prac- Straus, S. E., Tetroe, & Graham. (2009). Defining tice in special education [Special issue]. Exceptional knowledge translation. Canadian Medication Association Children, 71. Journal, 181{3-4), 165-168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1503 Odom, S. L. (2009). The ties that bind: Evidence- /cmaj.081229 based practice, implementation science, and outcomes Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2006). A promising apfor children. Topics in Early Childhood Special Educaproach for expanding and sustaining the implementation, 29, 53-61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0271121 tion of school-wide positive behavior support. School 408329171 Psychology Review, 35, 245-259. Odom, S. L., Brandinger, E., Gersten, R., Horner, R. Thomas, G., & Pring, R. (Eds.). (2004). Evidence-based H., Thompson, B., & Harris, K. R. (2005). Research practice in education. Berkshire, England: Open Univerin special education: Scientific methods and evidence- sity Press. based practices. Exceptional Children, 71, 137-148. Torgesen, J. (2000). Individual differences in response Odom, S. L., CoUet-Klingenberg, L., Rogers, S., & to early interventions in reading: The lingering probHatton, D. (2010). Evidence-based practices for chil- lem of treatment resisters. Learning Disabilities Research dren and youth with autism spectrum disorders. Pre- & Practice, 15, 55-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207 venting School Failure, 54, 275-282. http://dx.doi. /SLDRP1501_6 org/10.1080/10459881003785506 Tseng, V. (2012). The uses of research in policy and Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas practice. Social Policy Report, 26{2). Retrieved from in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, http://www.srcd.org/index.php?option=com_content& 155-169. task=view&ici=232ôiltemid=658 Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of innovations. New Weatherly, R., & Lipsky, M. (1977) Street-level buYork, NY Free Press. reaucrats and institutional innovation: Implementing Sackett, D. L., Rosenberg, W. M., Gray, J. A., Haynes, R. B., & Richardson, W. S. (1996). Evidence based medicine: What it is and what it isn't. British Medical Journal, 312, 71-72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj .312.7023.71 special education reform. Harvard Educational Review, 47, 171-197. What Works Clearinghouse. (201 1). Procedures and standards handbook (Version 2.1). Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/reference_resources Sarason, S. B. (1993). The predictable failure of educa- /wwc_procedures_v 2_l_standards_handbook.pdf tional reform: Can we change course before it's too late? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Seethaler, P. M., & Fuchs L. S. (2005). A drop in the A B O U T T H E A U T H O R S bucket: Randomized controlled trials testing reading and math interventions. Learning Disabilities Research BRYAN G. COOK (Hawaii CEC), Professor of & Practice, 20, 98-102. http://dx.doi.Org/10.llll/j Special Education, University of Hawaii, Hon.1540-5826.2005.00125.X olulu. SAMUEL L. ODOM (North Carolina Signal, L. N., Walton, M. D., Mhurchu, C. N., Mad- CEG), Director, Frank Porter Graham Child dison, R., Bowers, S. G., Carter, K. N., . . . Pearce, J. Development Institute, University of North Car(2012). Tackling 'wicked' health promotion problems: olina at Chapel Hill. A New Zealand case study. Health Promotion International, 31, Slavin, R. E. (2008a). Evidence-based reform in education: Which evidence counts? Response to comments. Educational Researcher, 37, 47—50. http://dx.doi.org /10.3102/0013189X08315082 Address correspondence concerning this article to Bryan G. Cook, University of Hawaii at Manoa, College of Education, Department of Special Education, 1776 University Avenue, Wist Hall 123, Honolulu, HI 96822 (bgcook@hawaii.edu). Slavin, R. E (2008b). What works? Issues in synthesizing educational program evaluations. Educational Researcher, 37, 5-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013 Manuscript received April 2012; accepted July 2012. 189X08314117 144 Winter 2013 Copyright of Exceptional Children is the property of Council for Exceptional Children and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. 613592 research-article2015 SEDXXX10.1177/0022466915613592The Journal of Special EducationHudson et al. Article A Socio-Cultural Analysis of Practitioner Perspectives on Implementation of Evidence-Based Practice in Special Education The Journal of Special Education 2016, Vol. 50(1) 27­–36 © Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2015 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0022466915613592 journalofspecialeducation.sagepub.com Roxanne F. Hudson, PhD1, Carol A. Davis, EdD1, Grace Blum, MEd1, Rosanne Greenway, MEd1, Jacob Hackett, MEd1, James Kidwell, MEd1, Lisa Liberty, PhD1,2, Megan McCollow, PhD1,3, Yelena Patish, MEd1, Jennifer Pierce, PhD1,4, Maggie Schulze, MEd1, Maya M. Smith, PhD1, and Charles A. Peck, PhD1 Abstract Despite the central role “evidence-based practice” (EBP) plays in special education agendas for both research and policy, it is widely recognized that achieving implementation of EBPs remains an elusive goal. In an effort to better understand this problem, we interviewed special education practitioners in four school districts, inquiring about the role evidence and EBP played in their work. Our data suggest that practitioners’ responses to policies that press for increased use of EBP are mediated by a variety of factors, including their interpretations of the EBP construct itself, as well as the organizational conditions of their work, and their access to relevant knowledge and related tools to support implementation. We interpret these findings in terms of their implications for understanding the problem of implementation through a more contextual and ecological lens than has been reflected in much of the literature to date. Keywords evidence-based practices, implementation, special education practitioners In the field of special education, a commitment to the logic and ethics of using research to inform decisions about practice has been reflected in the field’s efforts to identify and use evidence-based practices (EBPs) as a standard for the profession (Council for Exceptional Children, 2014; Odom et al., 2005). As in other fields, this focus has led inexorably back to what some commentators have termed the “wicked” problem of implementation (Cook & Odom, 2013). Fixen and his colleagues (following Rittel & Webber, 1973) described wicked problems as those that are “difficult to define and fight back when you try to solve them” (Fixen, Blaze, Metz, & Van Dyke, 2013, p. 218). Indeed, the observation that “interests vested in the system-as-is suddenly appear and typically deter attempts to change the system” (Fixen et al., 2013, p. 218) has been made by ecologically oriented observers of human behavior since time of Marx (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Lewin, 1951; Marx, 1888/1984). One implication of this view, of course, is that the problem of (non)implementation of EBP may be most usefully viewed not simply as a “deficit” in the knowledge, skills, or ideological commitments of practitioners but as a product of the set of social, organizational, and material conditions that operate in a given human service setting. In this article, we draw on interviews conducted with special education practitioners to investigate how these kinds of contextual factors (and others) may affect the ways in which practitioners interpret and respond to contemporary press for implementation of EBP. We are by no means the first to recognize the importance of seeking practitioner perspectives in understanding the challenges of implementing EBP in special education. For example, Landrum, Cook, Tankersley, and Fitzgerald (2002) surveyed 127 teachers (60 special educators, 67 general educators) to assess their views about the value of four sources of information about practice: university coursework, 1 University of Washington, Seattle, USA Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, USA 3 Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, USA 4 American Institutes for Research, Washington, DC, USA 2 Corresponding Author: Roxanne F. Hudson, Area of Special Education, University of Washington, P.O. Box 353600, Seattle, WA 99195, USA. E-mail: rhudson@uw.edu 28 The Journal of Special Education 50(1) research journals, teaching colleagues, and in-service/professional development workshops. Their data indicated that research journals and university courses (presumably sources of relatively reliable information about EBP) were viewed as less useful, less trustworthy, and less accessible than either information from colleagues or information received via professional development. Similarly, Boardman, Argüelles, Vaughn, Hughes, and Klingner (2005) reported that teachers often expressed the belief that the extant research was not relevant to the populations they served in their classrooms, and reported relying on colleagues for recommendations about practice. In a more recent study, Jones (2009) investigated the views of 10 novice special educators regarding EBP. Based on interview, classroom observation, and rating scale data, Jones suggested that the novice teachers she studied fell into three broad groups. “Definitive supporters” expressed clear and positive views about the importance of research in decisions about classroom practice. “Cautious consumers” felt research could be useful, but often did not reflect characteristics and needs of their individual students. A third group, “The Critics,” expressed skepticism about the value of research for decisions about classroom practice. Taken together, these studies (and others) provide a rather robust picture of the tensions between research and practice in special education. While significant variation exists among special education practitioners in their views about the value and relevance of research to their work in the classroom, many express more confidence in the knowledge and expertise of local colleagues than in information they might receive from university coursework and/or researchers. This result is consistent with research from other fields and suggests that much remains to be learned about the conditions under which practitioners utilize knowledge from research in decisions about practice (Aarons & Palinkas, 2007; Glasgow, Lichtenstein, & Marcus, 2003). In our review of the special education research on this topic, we noted that most researchers have framed their analysis of practitioner perspectives related to implementation of EBP in essentially individualistic and personological terms—placing teachers (and, in some cases, administrators) in the center of their analysis of the implementation process. For example, as noted earlier, Jones (2009) parsed individual teachers into groups such as “the Critics” and “the Supporters.” Also focusing on individual practitioners, Landrum et al. (2002) argued, Only when we have confidence that teachers learn about empirically sound practice in both their initial preparation and ongoing professional development, and that their skills reflect this training, can we predict that students with disabilities will be afforded the most appropriate learning opportunities available. (p. 48) We do not entirely disagree with these conclusions, and others like them that underscore the importance of personological variables (e.g., practitioner knowledge, prior training, attitudes) affecting implementation of EBP. But we would also argue that in foregrounding characteristics of individual practitioners as a focus of analysis, these studies reflect a set of implicit assumptions about the nature of practice and how it is constructed that narrows our view of the problems of implementation, and the range of actions to be considered in engaging those problems. In the present study, we follow recent recommendations (Harn, Parisi, & Stoolmiller, 2013; Klingner, Boardman, & McMaster, 2013; Peck & McDonald, 2014) in undertaking a more holistic and contextual approach to understanding how practitioner perspectives on EBP are shaped by the conditions in which they work. Theoretical Framing In conceptualizing “a more contextual” approach to understanding practitioner interpretation and implementation of EBP, we drew on some of the precepts of sociocultural theory as a general framework for investigating ways in which social and material conditions shape workplace learning and practice (Billett, 2003; Engeström, 2001; Scribner, 1997; Vygotsky, 1978). Our choice of a sociocultural perspective was based on several of its key precepts that we believed would be useful in understanding practitioner perspectives on implementation of EBP. First, sociocultural theory foregrounds analysis of relationships between individual and collective dimensions of social practice—in this case, the analysis of the transactions that take place between individual practitioners and the organizations in which they work (Engeström, 2001). Second, this view assumes that human thought processes (including, of course, one’s views about EBP) are shaped by the demands of the practical activities in which people are regularly engaged. A third assumption of this stream of sociocultural theory is that participation in social practice is affected by the affordances and constraints of the conceptual and material tools available (e.g., the characteristics and representations of EBP available in local school districts and other professional resources; Falmagne, 1995; Leontev, 1975/1978; Scribner, 1997). Overall, the sociocultural perspective suggests the value of undertaking a more focused analysis of the social and organizational conditions in which decisions about practice are made than has been reflected in much of the extant research on the problem of implementation. We used the following research questions to guide our inquiry: Research Question 1: How do special education practitioners interpret the meaning of EBP in the context of decisions they make about curriculum and instruction? 29 Hudson et al. Table 1. School District Characteristics. District Students eligible for Special education free or reduced-price Enrollment enrollment (%) meals (%) A B C D 18,123 20,659 17,973 8,920 9.70 13.60 13.60 12.40 22.10 35.10 66.90 26.00 Research Question 2: What contextual factors are associated with practitioner interpretations of the role EBP can and should play in their decisions about instruction? Method We used a qualitative methodology (Merriam, 2009) to investigate the perspectives—that is, the values, beliefs, and attitudes—held by special education practitioners with regard to their views about EBP, and the role research played in their decisions about curriculum and instruction. We elected this methodological approach because of the hypothesis-generating, rather than hypothesis-testing, purposes of the study (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Participants A total of 27 special education practitioners participated in our study. We contacted directors of special education via email and invited participation from four school districts in the Seattle/Puget Sound area. Demographics for these districts are presented in Table 1. Teacher participants were nominated by special education directors, who were asked to identify individuals they believed would be interested in being interviewed for the study. In each district, we requested nominations of teachers working in three types of programs or settings: resource rooms serving students with a wide range of disability labels placed primarily in general education classrooms, self-contained classes serving students with emotional/ behavioral disabilities (EBD), and self-contained classrooms serving students with low-incidence developmental disabilities. Table 2 reports the number, working context, and experience level of study participants in each of the districts in which we collected data. Data Collection and Analysis Interviews. The primary data source for our study consisted of face-to-face interviews we conducted individually with the 27 special educators who agreed to participate in the study. We used semistructured interview protocols for each of the four types of practitioners we interviewed: special education directors, resource room teachers, EBD teachers, and teachers of students with low-incidence developmental disabilities. While the protocols for administrators and teachers varied in some ways, both were structured to proceed from general, context-descriptive questions such as “Tell me about the work you do,” to more focused questions about daily practice (“Tell me about a typical day in your classroom”). We asked each informant to define the term EBP and tell us what it meant to them in terms of their decisions about curriculum and instruction. Interview protocols also included a series of questions about district policies related to EBP in both general and special education, and how these affected the decisions our informants made in the classroom. Interviews were generally between 45 min to an hour in length. Interviews were audio-recorded and subsequently transcribed verbatim for analysis. Transcripts were entered into a web-based platform for qualitative and mixed-method data analysis (http://www.dedoose.com). Data analysis. We used the standard procedures for inductive data analysis described by Charmaz (2002), Strauss and Corbin (1997), and others. Thus, we began our analysis by having each of the 11 members of our research team read through the interview transcripts, identifying text segments of potential relevance to our research questions. Each of these segments was tagged using low inference descriptors, such as “classroom assessment” or “progress monitoring.” Members of the research team then met to discuss examples of the text segments they had tagged, identifying and defining codes emerging from individual analysis to be formalized and used collectively. The remainder of the interviews were then coded, followed by an additional round of team meetings in which examples of each code were discussed, with some codes combined, others modified or deleted based on their perceived value relative to our research questions. A set of interpretive categories were developed through this process which were used to aggregate coded data segments and which became the basis for further analysis. These categories were then used as a basis for developing a series of data displays (Miles & Huberman, 1994) organized by district and by each type of participant (i.e., resource room teachers, special education directors, etc.). Team members met to discuss the implications of these analyses and to develop a set of analytic memos which integrated the categorical data into larger and more interpretive case summaries. These summaries were used to develop the set of cross-case findings described below. Results Our findings suggest that personal characteristics (particularly values and beliefs about EBP), the features of organizations (particularly practitioner positionality within these organizations), and access to relevant tools all affected the 30 The Journal of Special Education 50(1) Table 2. Participant Characteristics. Participants District A B C D Special education director EBD teacher Resource room teacher Self-contained teacher Number of participants per district Median years in position 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 6 7 7 7 7 10 6 6 Note. EBD = emotional/behavioral disabilities. ways practitioners interpreted the relevance of the EBP to decisions they made about practice. We interpreted these as dimensions of practical activity that were inseparable and mutually constitutive (Billett, 2006). As depicted in Figure 1, our data suggest these factors operate in a highly interdependent manner. We use this conceptual model to understand both the points of the triangle and the interactions that take place between points as represented by the lines of the triangle. In the following sections, we will present findings both related to the points of the triangle and the intersections of elements. First, we use excerpts from our interviews to illustrate how the practitioners we interviewed interpreted the idea of EBP, the organizational contexts they worked in, and the tools and resources available to them. Second, we present findings that illuminate the connections and interactions between them. People: Practitioner Definitions of EBP We asked each of our informants how they defined EBP in the context of their work in special education. The predominance of responses to this question reflected the notion that EBP meant that “someone” had researched a specific program or practice and found it to be effective: There’s obviously been research and studies so what I picture in my mind is that they have a curriculum and they conduct a study where they have kids who participate in the study and then they probably have some pre- and posttest to see if they’ve made gains. I’d say evidence-based would be like, that it’s been tried in lots of different settings, across you know lots of different populations and there’s been demonstrated success using that curriculum or whatever the thing is you’re talking about, you know, the social skills sheet or something. So it’s used with lots of people and over different settings. We noticed that our participants typically defined EBP in ways that emphasized its external origins, and its ostensive function as a “prescription” for their practice, rather than as a resource for their own decision making (Cook & Odom, 2013). In some cases, this interpretation was also congruent with the stance taken by district administrators: We have adults that want to continue to do what they’ve done in the past. And it is not research-based nor if you look from a data perspective has it been particularly effective and that’s not going to happen and we say, “This is the research, this is what you’re going to do.” (Special Education Director, District A) This strong ideological commitment to use of EBP in the classroom was shared by some teachers: I believe that by using research-based instruction, and teaching with fidelity, then you’re more likely to have an outcome that is specific to the research, as long as we use the curriculum as it’s designed. Um, I think it’s vital, I think it’s vital that we are not pulling things out of a hat, that we are using. (Resource Room Teacher, District A) More often, however, we found that practitioner views about research in general, and the value of EBP in decision making about classroom practice in particular, were more ambivalent. Perhaps the most widely shared concern about EBP expressed by our informants had to do with the tensions they perceived between the “general case” and the specifics of local context, including the special needs of the children served in the schools and classrooms in which they worked (Cook, Tankersley, Cook, & Landrum, 2008). While the value of research and the relevance of EBP were often acknowledged in abstract terms, both teachers and administrators were quick to identify what they perceived to be limitations in the relevance of research for local decision making and special populations: . . .well what makes me question it—I’m always curious about what the norm population is because it is talking about typically developing kids and research-based practices that are used for those types of kids. It’s very different for my kids. So when I’m looking at an evidenced-based practice I want to be clear on what evidence [is about] Gen Ed versus the Special Ed population. (Self-Contained Classroom Teacher, District B) 31 Hudson et al. Figure 1. Relationships between people, organizations, and tools. Adapted from McDiarmid & Peck (2012). For many teachers, ambivalence about EBP included particular tension about who makes decisions about the relevance of evidence to their classroom practice. These teachers often made reference to local perspectives as “forgotten” or “overlooked” in decisions about practice: . . . evidence-based is very important because you do need to look at what you’re doing but there is just the day-to-day knowledge that is overlooked in the evidence-based piece. (Self-Contained Classroom Teacher, District B) Most of the teachers and many administrators we interviewed appeared to locate the authority for making evidence-based decisions about curriculum and instruction with the district central office or with “general education.” For example, one director of special education reported, “for our resource room students . . . we always start with the Gen Ed and then if we have curriculum, if a part of that curriculum has a supported intervention component to it we start with that.” Many teachers similarly viewed the locus of decisions about curriculum and instruction as external to their classrooms. As a Resource Room Teacher in District D puts it, They tell us what to teach and when to teach it. I mean, we have a calendar and a pacing guide. We can’t, we really don’t make the decisions too much. I would hope . . . that it’s supported and making sure that students learn but I don’t really know. In some cases, these teachers expressed confidence that the judgments of district curriculum decision makers were grounded in appropriate evidence: I kind of just trust that the district is providing me with evidence-based stuff. So I’m trusting that the curriculum that they’ve chosen and that my colleagues have done test work on is really what they say it is. (EBD Teacher, District D) However, in other cases, teachers expressed more skeptical views about the trustworthiness of the data district officials used to make decisions about curriculum: . . . over the years we’ve had so many evidence-based, research based and so many changes, that . . . if you just want my honest [opinion] . . . I know that there’s data behind it, but if it’s evidence based or research based, why are we always changing? (EBD Teacher, District B) 32 The Journal of Special Education 50(1) To summarize, similar to earlier studies (Boardman et al., 2005; Jones, 2009; Landrum et al., 2002), we found that the personal characteristics of practitioners—that is, their experiences, values, beliefs, and attitudes—functioned as a powerful filter through which they interpreted the meaning of EBP and evaluated the relevance of this construct for their decision making about curriculum and instruction. Practitioner definitions of EBP often reflected the assumption that the locus of authority regarding EBP lies outside the classroom, and the ostensive function of EBP was to provide prescriptions for classroom practice. In the following sections, we report findings related to our second research question, describing ways in which contextual features such as organization and access to tools and resources may influence the way practitioners interpret the value and relevance of EBP in their daily work. Organizational Contexts of EBP Our data suggest that our interviewees’ views about the value and relevance of evidence in decision making about practice were often part of a larger process of coping with the organizational conditions of their work. Several specific issues were salient in the interviews we conducted. One of these, of course, had to do with district policies about evidence-based decision making (Honig, 2006). In some districts, special education administrators described strong district commitments related to the use of research evidence in decision making: In this district, it’s [EBP] becoming really big. You don’t ever hear them talk about any initiative without looking at the research and forming some sort of committee to look at what practices are out there and what does the research tell us about it. And then identifying what are the things we’re after and how well does this research say they support those specific things we want to see happen. I would say that work has started, and that is the lens that comes from Day One of anything we do. (Special Education Administrator, District C) However, strong district commitments to evidence-based curriculum decisions in general education were sometimes viewed as raising dilemmas for special education teachers. A teacher of students with emotional and behavioral problems in District B described the problem this way: . . . if (general education teachers) change their curriculum then I need to follow it so my kids can be a part of it. Especially with my kids being more part of the classroom. So you know 4 years ago I was not doing the Math Expressions, and now I am doing the Math Expressions and it’s hard because I’m trying to follow the Gen Ed curriculum and there’s times where the one lesson ends up being a 2- or 3-day lesson with some added worksheets because they just aren’t getting the skill and, being a spiraling curriculum, it goes pretty fast sometimes too. (Self-Contained Teacher, District B) While the tensions between curriculum models in general education and special education (with each claiming its own evidentiary warrants) were problematic for many of the resource room teachers we interviewed, these dilemmas were less salient to teachers of children in self-contained classrooms, including those serving students with EBD and those serving students with low-incidence disabilities. Instead, the challenges that these teachers described had to do with isolation and disconnection from colleagues serving students like theirs. A Self-Contained Classroom Teacher, District B, said, “Well, this job is very isolating. I’m the only one that does it in this building . . . so uh I’m kind of alone in the decisions I make.” Another SelfContained Classroom Teacher, District D, said, Sometimes it makes me feel like it’s less than professional . . . I don’t know, I just sometimes wish that, I feel like there’s not always a lot of oversight as far as what am I doing. Is there a reason behind what I’m doing? And did it work? I wish there was more. In cases where teachers felt isolated and disconnected from district colleagues, they often reported relying on other self-contained classroom teachers for support and consultation, rather than resources in their district or from the research literature: When you’re in an EBD class you can get pretty isolated . . . but the other beauty of being in an EBD room is you have other adults in the room that you can talk to, or they can have other ideas, or you can call other teachers. (EBD Teacher, District B) Resources and Tools Related to EBP I try to make our classroom setting as much like a general Ed classroom as I can, because the goal is to give them strategies to work with behaviors so that they can function in Gen Ed classrooms. Which is a challenge, because they were in Gen Ed classrooms before they came here, so something wasn’t working. District commitments to use of EBPs in the classroom were in many cases accompanied by allocation of both material and conceptual resources. The resources and supports most often cited by both administrators and teachers in this connection were focused on curriculum materials: Some special education teachers described being caught between curriculum decisions made in general education and practices they saw as more beneficial for their students with disabilities: Susan, who is our Special Ed curriculum developer, and Louisa, who’s our curriculum facilitator . . . they recognize that we’ve shifted practice to a really research-based practice . . . We never really did this [before] we just bought books and 33 Hudson et al. stuff. And I said, “Well, I don’t operate that way. We’re going to shift practice and I’m going to help you” . . . and she has actually been very, very successful at reaching out and capturing the attention of folks, authors that publish . . . and some other materials and some other research and then digging deep. (Special Education Director, District A) I think there’s something really powerful about having that scope and sequence and that repetition that gradually builds on itself. Yeah so instead of me trying to create it as I go, having that research-based program, and of course I’m going to see if it’s not working, then I’m flexible to change it, but I’m going to have a good base to at least start with. (Resource Room Teacher, District B) While district curriculum resources (which were often assumed to be evidence-based) were important tools for many resource room teachers we interviewed, both teachers and administrators expressed frustration about what they viewed as a paucity of evidence-based curriculum and instructional resources for students in self-contained programs, particularly those serving students with low-incidence disabilities: There’s not a lot of curriculum out there for the self-contained classrooms. So we do have some, some for our more mild selfcontained programs, specific reading, writing, math curriculums. But we also made our own library we call it “The Structured Autism Library” . . . it’s a library of materials we have online that we’ve developed ’cause you can’t really pull anything off the shelves for those kinds of kids. (Special Education Director, District D) . . . in self-contained settings in Ocean View, I think that I am expected to . . . sort of use Gen Ed assessments, but in Kindergarten they already test out of those, they already fail so miserably at those. I am then the expert because there’s no assessments that assess these kids’ growth so I make my own assessments. (Self-Contained Classroom Teacher, District D) In the context of these perceptions about the lack of relevant evidence-based resources, we found that only a few teachers undertook individual efforts to locate and use available research. Those who did often encountered considerable difficulty in locating relevant research resources: If I’m implementing something I’m not so good at then I’ll go do some reading on it. The Autism modules online are helpful. I’d say mostly every time I try and type something in for a problem I’m having without knowing if there is any research on it, I can never find it, hardly ever. (Self-Contained Classroom Teacher, District C) More often, teachers adopted a “progress monitoring” approach to evidence and decision making: “We take what we learn about the kids and we change how we instruct them, so that’s kind of what we do every day . . . based on each kid and their individual performance” (Self-Contained Classroom Teacher, District B). After our examination of each separate element of the system, we analyzed the interactions between elements to understand the transactional, contextual nature of practitioners’ understanding of EBPs. A Holistic View: Relationships Between People, Tools, and Organizations Our data suggest that the positions practitioners occupied within their schools and districts had considerable influence on their access to useful resources and tools related to EBP. The nature of the tools available to them, in turn, affected practitioner experiences with and beliefs about the value and relevance of EBPs in the context of decisions they were making. Our findings are summarized below in terms of some specific hypotheses regarding the ways in which these dimensions of practice are related to one another. Hypothesis 1: Practitioner beliefs about the value and relevance of EBP are shaped by the affordances and constraints of the tools and resources they use for decision making. Similar to other researchers (e.g., Boardman et al., 2005; Landrum et al., 2002), we found some skepticism about the practical relevance of research for local decision making across all of the practitioner groups we interviewed. However, we also noted that this view was most prevalent among self-contained classroom teachers and particularly among teachers of students with low-incidence disabilities. In many cases, both teachers and administrators working with students with low-incidence disabilities expressed the belief that research on “kids like ours” did not exist. For example, a Self-Contained Classroom Teacher in District B explained her stance about research and practice this way: Well it’s just that there’s not a lot out there for me and maybe it’s hard to find. I feel like through my multiple programs, I’ve looked at a lot and there’s just not a lot out there. And I know why—this is a small fraction of the population. In some cases, teachers in our study described themselves as having access to curriculum tools they considered to be evidence-based for some populations, but inappropriate for the specific students they served. Hypothesis 2: Practitioner access to relevant tools and resources is affected by the position they occupy within the school and the district. The self-contained classroom teachers we interviewed often described themselves as being extremely isolated, and as 34 The Journal of Special Education 50(1) having relatively little access to tools and resources (research studies, evidence-based curriculum, and relevant evidencebased professional development) they viewed as useful for the students they taught. We found that teachers who worked in positions that were relatively close to general education often had access to more tools and resources (evaluation instruments, curriculum guides, professional development) related to EBP, but were also more likely to encounter tensions between mandates from general education, and practices they viewed as appropriate for students with special education needs. The effects of organizational position were also mediated by district policies and practices around collaboration. For example, one district had strategically developed specific organizational policies and practices to support collaboration among their self-contained classroom teachers. One of the teachers in this district commented on the value of these practices as a support for implementation of EBPs: I definitely believe in the PLC (professional learning community) model and just sharing ideas and having, taking on new strategies, and monitoring our own use of them. I think that is kind of the future. I think you’re going to get more buy-in, than a sit and get PD session on evidence-based practice. I think its been proven actually, that you just sit and get it and then you don’t have to use it, no one checks in with you to make sure you are using it. So making groups of people accountable (to each other) makes a ton of sense to me. (SelfContained Classroom Teacher, District B) More often, however, district policies, resources, and supports related to EBP were reported to be focused on curriculum and instructional programs for students with high-incidence disabilities. Teachers in self-contained classrooms often found these tools and resources, and the idea of EBP to be of little direct value to their daily work. Hypothesis 3: How practitioners define EBP affects how they interpret the value and relevance of tools and other organizational resources available to them related to EBP. As we explain further later on, most of the teachers and administrators we interviewed defined EBP primarily in terms of prescriptions for practice that were made by external authorities. Many of these informants were also those who expressed ambivalence, and often outright skepticism, about the value of EBPs for their work. In contrast to this pattern, a few of the practitioners we talked with appeared to have a more nuanced way of defining EBP. In these cases, EBP was defined less as a prescription for practice than as a resource for decisions they would make in the classroom: I think it would be wonderful to be informed of that research, and the best teacher would have all that information, and be able to look at the kid, and provide them an opportunity with a program that is research-based and validated and everything, and look at how the child is responding to the program, give it a little bit of time, make sure you’re delivering it with authenticity and the way it’s supposed to be delivered, you know, give it 3–4 weeks, and if it’s not working you need to find something else. (Resource Room Teacher, District B) Discussion Over the last decade, the notion of EBP has become one of the most influential policy constructs in the field of special education. In this study, we sought to improve our understanding of the ways practitioners define the idea of EBP and interpret its relevance in the contexts of their daily practice. In addition, we hoped to extend previous research by learning more about some of the contextual factors that might influence practitioner views about EBP. To investigate these two issues, we conducted interviews with special education professionals in four local school districts, including those occupying positions as directors of special education, resource room teachers, self-contained classroom teachers of students with emotional and behavioral disabilities, and teachers of students with low-incidence developmental disabilities. Our analysis of these data was guided by some general precepts drawn from sociocultural theory (Chaiklin & Lave, 1993; Vygotsky, 1978), particularly the idea that social practice can be understood as a process in which individuals are continually negotiating ways of participating in collective activity (Nicolini, Gherardi, & Yanow, 2003). We found that the practitioners we interviewed often defined EBP in ways that externalized the locus of authority for what constituted relevant evidence for practice as the results of “studies someone had done.” Ironically, this view also appeared to be the focus of considerable tension and concern, as many of the practitioners we interviewed expressed the idea that research did not adequately reflect the characteristics of the students they served nor the contexts of the decisions about practice they were charged with making on a daily basis. Our findings extend previous research (e.g., Boardman et al., 2005; Jones, 2009) by identifying some specific hypotheses regarding the ways practitioner interpretations and responses to contemporary pressures for use of EBPs may be shaped by the organizational contexts of their work, as well as the professional resources (research, curriculum tools, training) that are available to them. We consider some implications of these general ideas below. Context, Participation, and Practice In the interviews we conducted, we were continually impressed with the ways in which practitioners’ ideas and decisions about their ways of doing things were shaped by the resources available to them, the policies and practices of the schools and districts in which they worked, and the values and norms of their colleagues. The view which emerges from these interviews suggests many ways in which decisions 35 Hudson et al. about practice—that is, decisions about how to do things in the classroom—are distributed across multiple participants and multiple settings. We believe this perspective is in tension with much of the literature on implementation of EBP, which tends to reflect a much more individualistic view of the problem, with an accompanying set of intervention strategies focused primarily on individual practice (e.g., Jones, 2009; Landrum et al., 2002). Just to be clear, we are not suggesting that researchers are naïve about what are often conceptualized as “contextual variables” affecting individual practice. The hypothesis is actually more provocative—that is, that practice itself may be understood as essentially social, relational, and distributive in nature (Edwards, 2012). Such a view does not suggest that changing individual behavior is unimportant, much less that the “real” issues reside only in the “system” (Fixen et al., 2013). Our data suggest, rather, that our understanding of the problems of implementing EBP may be improved by more focused investigation of the ways in which individual and collective dimensions of professional practice create and sustain one another (Nicolini et al., 2003; Peck, Gallucci, Sloan, & Lippincott, 2009). A recurring theme in the interview data we collected had to do with the ways that practitioner definitions of EBP, and their views of the relevance of this construct for their work, were confounded with their concerns about the locus of power and control over decision making about classroom practice. In some cases, these concerns appeared to be more salient to our informants than those about the substance of the decisions themselves, and reflected a sense of practitioner alienation from researchers (and, in some instances, administrators). Our interpretation of these concerns was that they represented fundamental and perennial tensions about power and authority over decisions in the classroom. Issues of power and control are by no means limited to the problems of implementation of EBP, but are, rather, one of the most pervasive challenges to any kind of systemic change effort in educational organizations (van den Berg, 2002). We hasten to point out that we do not interpret this finding in personological terms, that is, we do not see these practitioners as simply “burned out” or “resistant.” Rather, we view their responses to be, at least in part, a reflection of the tensions they experience between the organizational contexts of their work, the tools and resources available to them, and the demands of their work in the classroom. These hypotheses appear worthy of further investigation. that inevitably accompany decisions about practice (Harn et al., 2013). As we noted above, this sample of practitioners more often interpreted research as a prescription for practice, rather than as a source of hypotheses about what might work with their students (Cook & Odom, 2013). This “top-down” view of EBP appeared to be distributed equally across teachers and administrators in our study. As we have noted, this interpretation of the EBP construct was often associated with skeptical views about the value of EBPs for decisions about classroom practice. This finding, if replicated through additional research with larger and more diverse samples, may be an important focus for professional development. Neither the teachers nor the administrators we interviewed appeared well prepared to access tools that were not immediately available in the districts in which they worked. For example, very few of the teachers and administrators we interviewed seemed to be aware of the tremendous changes in online accessibility of library resources that has taken place in the past few years, as well as the explosion of online training resources related to EBPs in special education (e.g., http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/index.html). While the restricted sample of practitioners we interviewed mandates caution in generalizing from these findings, these data do suggest the value of undertaking a broader investigation of the kinds of preparation and support practitioners receive via both preservice and professional development activities related to online access to tools for evidencebased decision making about curriculum and instruction. We conclude by noting the congruence of our emerging hypotheses regarding the socially negotiated and distributed nature of practice with findings from other educational settings (Ingram, Seashore Louis, & Schroeder, 2004; Peck & McDonald, 2014; Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond, 2001) and other fields of practice (Nicolini et al., 2003). These studies, and our present findings, suggest that achieving implementation of EBP may be viewed most productively not simply as a problem of individuals acquiring new knowledge, skills, and dispositions but rather as a broader social process in which individual practitioners participate in the collective negotiation of decisions about practice in the context of the tools available to them and the organizational conditions in which they work. Acknowledgments We are thankful to the teachers and principals who generously shared their thinking with us. Professional Development and Implementation of EBP Authors’ Note The interviews we conducted raise several questions about training and professional development related to implementation of EBP. First, we found that most of the 27 teachers and administrators we interviewed were ill-prepared to understand and respond to the essential epistemological tensions between the “general case” and the “local case” Declaration of Conflicting Interests The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Office of Special Education Research. The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. 36 Funding The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Research reported here was supported by Award Number H325D100072A. References Aarons, G. A., & Palinkas, L. A. (2007). Implementation of evidence-based practice in child welfare: Service provider perspectives. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 34, 411–419. Billett, S. (2003). Sociogeneses, activity and ontogeny. Culture & Psychology, 9, 133–169. Billett, S. (2006). Constituting the workplace curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38, 31–48. Boardman, A. G., Argüelles, M. E., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M. T., & Klingner, J. (2005). Special education teachers’ views of research-based practices. The Journal of Special Education, 39, 168–180. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). Contexts of child rearing: Problems and prospects. American Psychologist, 34, 844–850. Chaiklin, S., & Lave, J. (1993). Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Charmaz, K. (2002). Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory analysis. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context & method (pp. 675–694). London, England: SAGE. Cook, B. G., & Odom, S. L. (2013). Evidence-based practices and implementation science in special education. Exceptional Children, 79, 135–144. Cook, B. G., Tankersley, M., Cook, L., & Landrum, T. J. (2008). Evidence-based practices in special education: Some practical considerations. Intervention in School and Clinic, 44, 69–75. Council for Exceptional Children. (2014). Standards for evidencebased practices in special education. Reston, VA: Author. Edwards, A. (2012). The role of common knowledge in achieving collaboration across practices. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1, 22–32. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14, 133–156. Falmagne, R. (1995). The abstract and the concrete. In L. Martin, K. Nelson, & E. Tobach (Eds.), Sociocultural psychology: Theory and practice of doing and knowing (pp. 205–228). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Fixen, D., Blaze, K., Metz, A., & Van Dyke, M. (2013). Statewide implementation of evidence-based programs. Exceptional Children, 79, 213–230. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Press. Glasgow, R. E., Lichtenstein, E., & Marcus, A. C. (2003). Why don’t we see more translation of health promotion research to practice? Rethinking the efficacy-to-effectiveness transition. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 1261–1267. Harn, B., Parisi, D., & Stoolmiller, M. (2013). Balancing fidelity with flexibility and fit: What do we really know about fidelity of implementation in schools? Exceptional Children, 79, 181–193. The Journal of Special Education 50(1) Honig, M. (2006). Complexity and policy implementation. In M. Honig (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 1–25). Albany: State University of New York Press. Ingram, D., Seashore Louis, K., & Schroeder, R. (2004). Accountability policies and teacher decision making: Barriers to the use of data to improve practice. Teachers College Record, 106, 1258–1287. Jones, M. L. (2009). A study of novice special educators’ views of evidence-based practices. Teacher Education and Special Education, 32, 101–120. Klingner, J. K., Boardman, A. G., & McMaster, K. L. (2013). What does it take to scale up and sustain evidence-based practices? Exceptional Children, 79, 195–211. Landrum, T. J., Cook, B. G., Tankersley, M., & Fitzgerald, S. (2002). Teacher perceptions of the trustworthiness, usability, and accessibility of information from different sources. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 42–48. Leontev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality (M. J. Hall, Trans.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. (Original work published 1975) Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. Oxford, UK: Harpers. Marx, K. (1984). Thesis on Feuerbach. In K. Marx & F. Engels (Eds.), The individual and society (pp. 5–7). Moscow, Russia: Progress. (Original work published 1888) McDiarmid, G. W. & Peck, C. (2012, April). Understanding change in teacher education programs. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, B.C., Canada. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Nicolini, D., Gherardi, S., & Yanow, D. (2003). Knowing in organizations: A practice-based approach. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Odom, S. L., Brantlinger, E., Gersten, R., Horner, R. H., Thompson, B., & Harris, K. R. (2005). Research in special education: Scientific methods and evidence-based practices. Exceptional Children, 71, 137–148. Peck, C. A., Gallucci, C., Sloan, T., & Lippincott, A. (2009). Organizational learning and program renewal in teacher education: A socio-cultural theory of learning, innovation and change. Educational Research Review, 4, 16–25. Peck, C. A., & McDonald, M. (2014). What is a culture of evidence? How do you get one? And . . . should you want one? Teachers College Press, 116(4), 1–27. Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169. Scribner, S. (1997). Mind and social practice. Selected writings of Sylvia Scribner. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30, 23–28. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1997). Grounded theory in practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. van den Berg, R. (2002). Teachers’ meanings regarding educational practice. Review of Educational Research, 72, 577–625. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, UK: Harvard University Press.  C Psychology in the Schools, Vol. 52(2), 2015 View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pits 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/pits.21815 TRAINING TEACHERS TO USE EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICES FOR AUTISM: EXAMINING PROCEDURAL IMPLEMENTATION FIDELITY AUBYN C. STAHMER AND SARAH RIETH Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego and University of California, San Diego EMBER LEE Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego ERICA M. REISINGER AND DAVID S. MANDELL The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Center for Autism Research JAMES E. CONNELL AJ Drexel Autism Institute The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which public school teachers implemented evidence-based interventions for students with autism in the way these practices were designed. Evidence-based practices for students with autism are rarely incorporated into community settings, and little is known about the quality of implementation. An indicator of intervention quality is procedural implementation fidelity (the degree to which a treatment is implemented as prescribed). Procedural fidelity likely affects student outcomes. This project examined procedural implementation fidelity of three evidence-based practices used in a randomized trial of a comprehensive program for students with autism in partnership with a large, urban school district. Results indicate that teachers in public school special education classrooms can learn to implement evidence-based strategies; however, they require extensive training, coaching, and time to reach and maintain moderate procedural implementation fidelity. Procedural fidelity over time and across intervention C 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. strategies is examined.  Special education enrollment for children with autism in the United States has quadrupled since 2000 (Scull & Winkler, 2011), and schools struggle to provide adequate programming to these students. A growing number of interventions for children with autism have been proven efficacious in university-based research settings, but much less attention has been given to practical issues of implementing these programs in the classroom, where most children with autism receive the majority of their care (Sindelar, Brownell, & Billingsley, 2010). In general, evidence-based practices for children with autism are rarely incorporated into community settings (Stahmer & Ingersoll, 2004). Teachers in public schools report receiving inadequate training and rate their personal efficacy in working with children with autism as low (Jennett, Harris, & Mesibov, 2003). Training public educators to provide evidence-based practices to children with autism is a central issue facing the field (Simpson, de Boer-Ott, & Smith-Myles, 2003). One major challenge to implementing evidence-based practices for children with autism in community settings is the complexity of these practices. Strategies based on the principles of applied behavior analysis have the strongest evidence to support their use (National Standards This research was funded by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health (5R01MH083717) and the Institute of Education Sciences (R324A080195). We thank the School District of Philadelphia and its teachers and families for their collaboration and support. Additionally, Dr. Stahmer is an investigator with the Implementation Research Institute at the George Warren Brown School of Social Work, Washington University, St. Louis, through an award from the National Institute of Mental Health (R25MH080916). Correspondence to: Aubyn C. Stahmer, Child and Adolescent Services Research Center & Autism Discovery Institute, Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego, 3020 Children’s Way, MC5033, San Diego, CA 92123. E-mail: astahmer@ucsd.edu 181 182 Stahmer et al. Project, 2009). These practices vary greatly in structure and difficulty. Some strategies, such as discrete trial teaching (DTT; Leaf & McEachin, 1999; Lovaas, 1987), are highly structured and occur in one-on-one settings, whereas others are naturalistic, can be conducted individually or during daily activities, and tend to be more complex to implement (e.g., incidental teaching; Fenske, Krantz, & McClannahan, 2001; or pivotal response training [PRT]; Koegel et al., 1989). There are also classroom-wide strategies and structures based on applied behavior analysis, such as teaching within functional routines (FR; Brown, Evans, Weed, & Owen, 1987; Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 1987; Marcus, Schopler, & Lord, 2000; McClannahan & Krantz, 1999). Although all of these evidencebase...
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Hello there, please find the uploaded complete paper. I have enjoyed working on your project an I hope to work with you in the future. Should you need further assistance, please let me know. Otherwise, goodbye for now🙏 🙏 🙏

Running head: SPECIAL EDUCATION GAPS

Special Education Gaps
Student's Name
Institutional Affiliation

1

SPECIAL EDUCATION GAPS

2
Special Education Gaps

Gaps in Evidence-Based Practice
Special education is a grade saver, but it fails to meet all the prerequisite requirements
to mould a complementary system that is all around. Constant special education groups from
different cultural backgrounds should be addressed equally. Education is a vehicle that is
open and diverse to facilitate any individual towards their future goals. The ambitions cannot
be attained, however, if concerned parties fail to address inequality emanating from cultural
and background issues (Klingner & Boardman, 2017). For instance, if 7 % of the Caucasian
students are selected for special education, it is expected that 7 % of Latinos, African
Americans have chosen for the same course, but that is not always the case (Stahmer et al.,
2014). The ultimate results are that one group appears as over-represented while others fail to
recognize even a single realization in the special education. Equality is a virtue provided in
the American constitution, and if the individual needs, the educational sector will
accommodate such a milestone endeavor, then the future is brighter.
Significance
The study will contribute to filling the gap by proposing an RTI model that will be
functional in mitigating the gap existing in the different education sectors. Offering an
outcome-oriented action plan might play a considera...


Anonymous
Super useful! Studypool never disappoints.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags