Search

This exploratory case study (N=18) took place within a merged special education and elementary education teacher preparation program in which all coursework was co-taught by university faculty. Through interviews and focus groups, participants described their perceptions of the benefits of co-teaching; candidates reported participating in models of co-teaching as they learned through multiple perspectives, and faculty felt they grew through collaboration. They also experienced challenges, which included increased time commitment, coordination, and consistent use of co-teaching strategies. Participants indicated that positive relationships, co-planning practices, balanced roles and responsibilities, and administrative support make co-teaching work. Implications suggest approaches to magnifying benefits while minimizing challenges, such as pairing co-teachers with intentionality, developing communities of practice, and providing compensation for increased workload.

This meta-analysis included experimental or quasi-experimental intervention studies conducted between 1980 and 2020 that aimed to improve reading outcomes for Grade K-5 students with or at risk for dyslexia (i.e., students with or at risk for word reading difficulties, defined as scoring at or below norm-referenced screening or mean baseline performance thresholds articulated in our inclusion criteria). In all, 53 studies reported in 52 publications met inclusion criteria (m = 351; total student N = 6,053). We employed robust variance estimation to address dependent effect sizes arising from multiple outcomes and comparisons within studies. Results indicated a statistically significant main effect of instruction on norm-referenced reading outcomes (g = 0.33; p < 0.001). Because there was significant heterogeneity in effect sizes across studies (p < 0.01), we used meta-regression to identify the degree to which student characteristics (i.e., grade level), intervention characteristics (i.e., dosage, instructional components, multisensory nature, instructional group size), reading outcome domain (i.e., phonological awareness, word reading/spelling, passage reading, or reading comprehension), or research methods (i.e., sample size, study design) influenced intervention effects. Dosage and reading outcome domain were the only variables that significantly moderated intervention effects (p = 0.040 and p = 0.024, respectively), with higher dosage studies associated with larger effects (b = 0.002) and reading comprehension outcomes associated with smaller effects than word reading/spelling outcomes (b = -0.080).

This article is part of a special LDRP research-to-practice series introducing key concepts to enable special education practitioners and other nonresearchers to be more informed research consumers. In the article, we explore how social validity is assessed in special education research and how to interpret social validity assessments. Rather than focusing on measuring intervention effects, social validity involves assessing the social importance of the goals, procedures, and outcomes of interventions and programs. We define social validity, provide questions to consider when examining assessments of social validity in research papers, review approaches commonly used to assess social validity with examples from the research literature, and make recommendations for reconciling findings of positive intervention effects on targeted outcomes but absent or negative findings related to social validity in a study. Our take-home message is that considering social validity assessments helps research consumers interpret study findings and informs how to apply findings in practice.

Mixed-methods research can uniquely inform special education practice by combining qualitative and quantitative research approaches. However, its distinct features can also make mixed-methods research difficult to understand and apply. In this article, we provide an introduction to mixed-methods research purposes, designs, and quality considerations to help practitioners critically consume and apply this type of research when working with students with learning disabilities and their families. We describe three sample research studies to illustrate mixed-methods designs and contributions. Our take-home message is that mixed-methods research (a) requires unique research practices to meaningfully combine qualitative and quantitative research approaches in a single study and (b) can be particularly useful for informing special education practice in real-world contexts.

This study meta-analyzed the last four decades (1980-2020) of reading intervention research focused on improving reading outcomes for English language (EL) students in Grades K-5 with or at risk for word reading difficulties. Experimental and quasi-experimental group design and single-case experimental design (SCED) studies were included; 10 group design and 7 SCED studies met inclusion criteria (m = 61; total student N = 2,270). Visual inspection of the effect size distribution revealed that the assumption of between-study heterogeneity was not supported; therefore, the findings were synthesized for SCED studies separately from those reported in group design studies. Implications for practice, policy, and future research are discussed.

Qualitative research methods are used within special education research to provide insights about how and why phenomena occur. They can, however, be misunderstood and applied inappropriately. Our aim in this article is to provide an overview of qualitative methods, including their purpose, contributions to research involving students with learning disabilities, limitations, and quality indicators for methodological rigor. Additionally, we highlight common qualitative methods and data sources. We review a recent study that exemplifies the use of qualitative methods in the field. Our take-home message is that qualitative methods can provide valuable in-depth information about how and why phenomena occur, but they are not intended to support causal relationships or large-scale generalizability.

Treatment fidelity refers to the extent to which an intervention is implemented as planned. If researchers do not assess and report treatment fidelity, or if treatment fidelity is shown to be low, findings from intervention studies are difficult to interpret, because the intervention may not have been implemented as planned. In this article, our aim is to inform research consumers by discussing treatment fidelity and its primary dimensions, providing guidelines for interpreting treatment fidelity, considering implications of treatment fidelity for research and practice, and illustrating how fidelity is reported in two recent studies. Our take-home message is that when one is interpreting intervention studies, it is important to consider whether the interventions were applied as planned, or with fidelity.

Although the co-teaching service delivery model is the most commonly used service delivery model used to support co-teachers in the inclusive setting (Cook et al., 2017), research indicates that co-teachers may need support in order to increase the use of specialized instruction to meet the individual needs of students with disabilities (Scruggs et al., 2007). In this manuscript, we provide a process for instructional coaches to use to (a) develop and deliver effective professional development and (b) coach co-teachers. This process maximizes the potential of the co-teaching service delivery model in improving educational outcomes for students with disabilities.

Meta-analysis is one approach for synthesizing research studies to identify generally effective instructional practices for students with learning disabilities (LD). In this article, we define core components of meta-analytic literature reviews, discuss how to interpret findings from meta-analyses, and provide guidelines for how research consumers can utilize meta-analyses to guide instructional practices for students with LD. We conclude that meta-analyses provide valuable information for determining evidence-based practices for students with LD.

Evidence-based practice is among the most influential and compelling reforms in contemporary education. Despite their potential to improve the outcomes of students with disabilities, adoption and implementation of evidence-based reforms have been disappointing, with the gap between research and practice remaining wide. Practice-based evidence provides an alternative perspective on evidence grounded in the realities of classroom teaching in authentic settings, which practitioners find compelling when making instructional decisions. We propose that practitioners and other special education stakeholders (e.g., researchers) can form partnerships around practice-based evidence to leverage the implementation of evidence-based practice, and provide examples of such partnerships.

Evidence-based reviews are a type of systematic literature review used to identify evidence-based practices. When conducting an evidence-based review, researchers apply predetermined standards to identify evidence-based practices--practices that have been shown to reliably improve an outcome for a population of learners, according to evidence from a body of rigorous, experimental studies. In this article, we describe evidence-based reviews, provide an overview of one set of evidence standards used in special education, and describe important caveats and considerations related to evidence-based reviews. We conclude with two examples of evidence-based reviews in the field of learning disabilities. Our take-home message is that evidence-based reviews are a trustworthy approach for identifying generally effective instructional practices--but no practices, not even evidence-based practices, are effective for all learners.

Single-case research methods provide a basis for demonstrating that an intervention produces a reliable change in a targeted outcome for individual cases. To supplement visual analysis of data in single-case studies, researchers frequently report statistics--often referred to as effect sizes--to summarize study findings. The recent proliferation of effect sizes used in single-case research can be confusing. In this article, after reviewing single-case research, we provide an overview of common types of effect sizes used in single-case research, including overlap metrics and within- and between-participant effect sizes, and conclude with examples of these effect sizes in the single-case literature. Our take-home message is that effect sizes are useful complements to visual analysis when interpreting results of single-case design research studies.

Educators frequently use social media platforms such as Pinterest and Teachers Pay Teachers for guidance on teaching. In this article, we explore reasons why these websites are popular with educators, consider their potential risks and benefits, and provide examples of resources provided on these sites. We recommend that educators first identify and learn the critical elements of effective practices from trustworthy sources and then use sites such as Pinterest and Teachers Pay Teachers to facilitate implementation.

As a result of legal protections and the effects of inclusive reforms (e.g., improved academic skills, heightened expectations), more students with disabilities are entering higher education than ever before. The priorities and understanding of university faculty members directly shape the educational experiences and success of the rapidly growing group of college students with disabilities. Previous research in this area has focused primarily on faculty members' knowledge of legal issues, general attitudes toward students with disabilities attending college, and willingness to make accommodations. This study expands the extant knowledge base by examining the priorities and understanding of 307 faculty members at an 8-campus university system regarding university students with disabilities in the following areas: "Legal," "Accommodations-Willingness," "Accommodations-Policy," "Universal Design for Instruction," "Disability Characteristics," and "Disability Etiquette." Participants' ratings indicated that (a) accommodation policies and disability etiquette were viewed as highly important and were being addressed satisfactorily; (b) issues related to law, Universal Design for Instruction, and disability characteristics were important but were not being addressed satisfactorily; and (c) issues related to willingness to provide accommodations were neither highly important nor being addressed satisfactorily. Implications for faculty training are discussed. (Contains 5 tables.)

Although widely misunderstood, Lyme disease is the most prevalent vector borne disease in the United States. Children are the most at-risk group for Lyme disease, which can impact every system in the body. It can produce the musculo-skeletal, neurologic, psychiatric, opthalmologic, and cardiac symptoms. The symptoms of Lyme disease can have a large impact on school performance. This article will enable teachers to recognize and appropriately support children with Lyme disease. (Contains 1 table.)

Single-case research methods provide the basis for evaluating effective instructional approaches in special education. The purpose of this article is to provide special educators an overview of single-case research methods, with an emphasis on how these designs are used to establish whether an instructional practice relates to improved learner outcomes. Specifically, we describe (1) core principles of single-case design (SCD) research, (2) two frequently used SCDs--withdrawal and multiple-baseline designs, (3) how visual analysis of graphed data is used to examine functional relations in SCDs, (4) limitations to the generalizability of findings from individual SCD studies, and (5) two studies in the special education literature that use SCDs. Our take-home message is that SCDs can be used to determine whether an instructional intervention causes improved outcomes for students, but caution is warranted when generalizing results from individual SCD studies.

Effect sizes are powerful tools for evaluating the practical importance of study findings that should be considered in the context of study characteristics such as participants, dependent variables, and comparison condition. In this article, we discuss how group-difference effect sizes are used to gauge the practical importance of group experimental studies. We first define different types of group-difference effect sizes and discuss how they can provide valuable information for research consumers. Second, we present guidelines for interpreting group-difference effect sizes. Third, we discuss important contextual variables that should be taken into account when interpreting group-difference effect sizes reported in the literature. Last, we provide two examples of how group-difference effect sizes have been used in the learning disabilities research base.

Student-teaching is the foundational professional experience for most special education teachers. We investigated the influences on preservice teachers' decision-making during their student-teaching through a two-part study. In the first phase, six undergraduate student-teachers at a large Midwestern university participated in focus group. Participants indicated that they made instructional decisions in five main areas (i.e., planning, teaching style, teaching methods, behavior management, and handling of a difficult moment) that were primarily influenced by their cooperating-teacher, previous experience, and university coursework. We then generated a survey on which 51 special education student-teachers from the same university rated the degree to which these three sources influenced the five areas of instructional decision-making. Cooperating-teachers were perceived as a significantly greater influence than university coursework in handling a difficult moment, teaching methods, and planning; and were a significantly greater influence than previous experience in behavior management and planning. Previous experience was significantly more influential than university coursework in relation to teaching style and handling a difficult moment. Implications for teacher preparation and bridging the research-to-practice gap are discussed. (Contains 4 tables.)

"p" values are commonly reported in quantitative research, but are often misunderstood and misinterpreted by research consumers. Our aim in this article is to provide special educators with guidance for appropriately interpreting "p" values, with the broader goal of improving research consumers' understanding and interpretation of research findings. Specifically, we discuss null hypothesis significance testing, describe what "p" values mean and how they are reported, describe some common misconceptions of "p" values, and provide two examples from the research literature to illustrate how "p" values are used in the field. Our take-home message is that "p" values indicate how likely study results are to occur if the null hypothesis is true, and that "p" values should be cautiously interpreted.

Special educators are urged to use research findings to inform their instruction in order to improve student outcomes. However, it can be difficult to tell whether and how research findings apply to one's own students. In this article, we discuss how special educators can consider the samples and the sampling methods in studies to examine the relevance of research findings for their students. We describe two approaches for examining the degree to which research findings apply to one's students--the classical generalization model and the case-to-case transfer model. We also note additional factors and caveats to consider when evaluating the applicability of research findings, examine the implications of samples and sampling in two research studies, and provide a take-away message that educators should determine the relevance of research findings for their own students by examining studies' samples and the sampling methods.

Evidence-based reforms that emphasize the identification and implementation of empirically validated practices are at the forefront of educational research, and recently, the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC; 2014) published a set of standards for establishing evidence-based practices in special education. Although 30 years of research supports the effectiveness of ClassWide Peer Tutoring (CWPT), an instructional strategy intended to increase engagement and improve academic outcomes for students with disabilities, a formal evidence-based review has not yet been conducted on the practice. The purpose of this study is to examine whether CWPT, as developed by the Juniper Gardens Children's Project at the University of Kansas, can be considered an evidence-based practice for academic outcomes of students with high incidence disabilities using the CEC standards. Sixteen single-case design studies met inclusion criteria; no studies addressed all the required quality indicators. Although results of multiple studies show that CWPT had positive effects, the lack of methodologically sound studies supporting the practice means that CWPT is not considered an evidence-based practice according to the CEC (2014) standards. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

The aim of this article is to provide practitioners and other nonresearchers a basic understanding of research designs to aid in appropriately interpreting and applying research findings in special education. Research design provides the blueprint for conducting a research study and shapes what kind of knowledge is generated by the study. We discuss the purpose of, types of questions addressed by, and different types of studies associated with four research designs commonly used in special education--descriptive, relational, experimental, and qualitative designs, as well as briefly review an example study using each research design. The take-away message of this article is that different research designs address different types of questions. Therefore, it is important that research consumers know what type of questions each research design addresses and interpret and apply research findings accordingly.

Although researchers in special education have made significant advances in defining and identifying evidence-based practices, scholars often constitute an insular group that disseminates research findings primarily through outlets and venues targeting like-minded researchers using traditional approaches. Thus, despite tangible results in determining what works, using dissemination approaches that fail to resonate with or influence practitioners represents an important but often overlooked contributor to the ongoing research-to-practice gap in special education. The authors argue that empirical and theoretical literature outside of special education may offer insight into how ideas take hold, which may be especially relevant to the effective dissemination of evidence-based practices. Drawing on Heath and Heath's (2008) model, the authors describe 6 characteristics of messages that are likely to "stick": (a) simple, (b) unexpected, (c) concrete, (d) credible, (e) emotional, and (f ) stories. The authors consider each in terms of implications for dissemination of special education research findings, and urge special education researchers to consider researching, refining, and applying dissemination strategies that can make special education research matter on a broader scale.

Using evidence-based practices, or those instructional techniques shown by research to improve student outcomes meaningfully, increases the performance of students with disabilities and should therefore be a priority for special educators. But how does a practice come to be considered evidence based? The unique characteristics of group experimental research (i.e., the use of a meaningful comparison group and the active manipulation of an intervention) allow research consumers to conclude whether an intervention causes desired changes in student outcomes. As such, group experimental research is one type of research that is well suited to determine evidence-based practices. Examples of group experimental research are provided from the contemporary special education literature. (Contains 1 table.)

A major tenet of both the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and the No Child Left Behind Act is the identification and use of evidence-based practices, or those instructional techniques shown by research as most likely to improve student outcomes meaningfully. However, much confusion exists regarding the meaning and potential applications of evidence-based practices in special education. Evidence-based practices are traditionally supported by the findings of multiple, high-quality, experimental research studies. Rather than changing the nature of teaching or limiting teachers to following prescribed methods, prioritizing evidence-based practices will allow teachers to maximize the impact of their instructional efforts. (Contains 1 table.)

Different research designs answer different questions. Educators cannot use nonexperimental quantitative research designs, such as descriptive surveys and correlational research, to determine definitively that an intervention causes improved student outcomes and is an evidence-based practice. However, such research can (a) inform educators about a number of issues related to the education of students with disabilities and (b) guide experimental research efforts that can more definitively determine whether a practice is evidence based. Additionally, in the absence of relevant, high-quality experimental research, special educators can use some types of correlational research as the best available evidence to guide their instructional and curricular decision making. (Contains 1 table.)

Scholars in the field of special education put forth a series of papers that proposed quality indicators for specific research designs that must be present for a study to be considered of high quality, as well as standards for evaluating a body of research to determine whether a practice is evidence-based. The purpose of this article was to pilot test the quality indicators proposed for single-subject research studies in order to identify points that may need clarification or revision. To do this, we examined the extent to which the proposed quality indicators were present in two single-subject studies, both examining the effects of teacher praise on specific behaviors of school-age children. Our application of the quality indicators indicated that neither study met the minimal acceptable criteria for single-subject research. We discuss the use of the quality indicators in relation to their clarity and applicability and suggest points for deliberation as the field moves forward in establishing evidence-based practices. (Contains 1 table.)

A focus group with nine university professionals from two large Midwestern universities was conducted to investigate their perceptions regarding the unexpected impact of increasing numbers of students with learning disabilities attending college. Participants consisted of six faculty members, two directors of Offices of Student Disability Services, and one tutor at an Academic Success Center. Four guiding questions were used to structure the interview: (a) How has the increased presence of students with learning disabilities affected your professional lives in ways that you did not expect? (b) How has attending college affected students with learning disabilities in ways that you did not expect? (c) How has the increased presence of students with learning disabilities affected other college students in ways that you did not expect? and (d) What recommendations do you have for making college campuses more receptive to college students with learning disabilities? Eight themes emerged from the focus group session, including instruction and support services, formal accommodations, characteristics of students with learning disabilities, disclosure, parents, faculty training, transition and previous educational services, and student perceptions of faculty. Implications for practice and recommendations drawn from participants' comments are discussed.

Seventy general education elementary teachers nominated students corresponding with the attitudinal categories of attachment, concern, indifference, and rejection. Analysis indicated that students with disabilities were significantly underrepresented in the attachment category and significantly overrepresented in the concern and rejection categories. (Contains references.) (Author/DB)