Search results

The gap between research and practice in special education places an artificial ceiling on the achievement of students with learning and behavioral disabilities. Evidence-based practices (EBPs) are instructional practices shown by bodies of sound research to be generally effective. They represent a possible means to address the research-to-practice gap by identifying, and subsequently implementing, the most effective instructional practices on the basis of reliable, scientific research. In this chapter, we provide a context for the subsequent chapters in this volume by (a) defining and describing EBPs, (b) recognizing some of important limitations to EBPs, (c) introducing a number of ongoing issues related to EBPs in the field of learning and behavioral disabilities that are addressed by chapter authors in this volume, and (d) briefly considering a few emerging issues related to EBPs that we believe will become increasingly prominent in the near future.

In this chapter, we consider a number of issues that impact or are related to the identification and promotion of evidence-based practice (EBP) for students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD). Specifically, we offer (1) a brief overview of issues related to identifying EBP in special education generally; (2) some considerations about the prospects of identifying evidence-based practice for students with EBD in particular; (3) a discussion of the various sources from which information on EBPs can be drawn, and the issues and challenges associated with the search for EBPs; and (4) suggestions regarding reasonable expectations for practitioners in search of EBPs. We conclude with a discussion of several questions that must be addressed to ensure positive strides toward making EBPs available to practitioners in impactful ways for students with EBD.

Alternative education settings (AES; i.e., self-contained alternative schools, therapeutic day treatment and residential schools, and juvenile corrections schools) serve youth with complicated and often serious academic and behavioral needs. The use of evidence-based practices (EBPs) and practices with Best Available Evidence are necessary to increase the likelihood of long-term success for these youth. In this chapter, we define three primary categories of AES and review what we know about the characteristics of youth in these schools. Next, we discuss the current emphasis on identifying and implementing EBPs with regard to both academic interventions (i.e., reading and mathematics) and interventions addressing student behavior. In particular, we consider implementation in AES, where there are often high percentages of youth requiring special education services and who have a significant need for EBPs to succeed academically, behaviorally, and in their transition to adulthood. We focus our discussion on: (a) examining approaches to identifying EBPs; (b) providing a brief review of EBPs and Best Available Evidence in the areas of mathematics, reading, and interventions addressing student behavior for youth in AES; (c) delineating key implementation challenges in AES; and (d) providing recommendations for how to facilitate the use of EBPs in AES.

Quantitative research is based on epistemic beliefs that can be traced back to David Hume. Hume and others who followed in his wake suggested that we can never directly observe cause and effect. Rather we perceive what is called “constant conjunction” or the regularities of relationships among events. Through observing these regularities, we can develop generalizable laws that, once established, describe predictable patterns that can be replicated with reliability. This form of reasoning involves studying groups of individuals and is often called nomothetic and is contrasted with idiographic research that focuses on the uniqueness of the individual. It is clear that large-scale experiments with random assignment to treatment are based on nomothetic models, as are quasi-experimental studies where intact groups of people (e.g., students in a particular classroom) are assigned to treatments.

Evidence-based practices have been shown to meaningfully improve learner outcomes by bodies of high-quality research studies and should therefore be prioritized for use in schools, especially with struggling learners such as students with learning disabilities. Although many resources are available on the internet with information about evidence-based practices, the magnitude and technical nature of the websites are often overwhelming to practitioners and are therefore not frequently used as part of the instructional decision-making process. In this chapter, we aim to provide a “one stop shopping experience” for readers interested in evidence-based practices for students with learning disabilities by reviewing five relevant website. Specifically, for each website we review (a) the procedures used to classify the evidence-based status of practices, (b) the classification scheme used to indicate the level of research support for practices, and (c) the practices reviewed for students with learning disabilities and their evidence-based classification. We conclude with a discussion of issues related to interpreting and applying information on evidence-based practices from these websites.

The research-to-practice gap occurs when practices supported as effective by research are infrequently used in applied settings, such as classrooms. This gap may be due to teachers preferring to use practices they find to be trustworthy, usable, and accessible. Instead of relying on research, teachers frequently use resources from other teachers, which may be because teachers prefer practices that are supported by evidence developed in applied settings (i.e., practice-based evidence [PBE]). Using PBE to support the application of evidence-based practices (EBPs) may increase the latter's use in classrooms. In this chapter, we discuss the advantages and disadvantages of both EBPs and PBE and how the two can complement each other to help lessen the research-to-practice gap. We also discuss mixed-methods approaches that can be used to combine EBPs with PBE.

Evidence-based practice (EBP) can have a powerful impact on school-aged children. Yet this impact may not be realized if classroom teachers do not use empirically supported interventions and/or fail to include the best research available when they make important educational decisions about children. Whether classroom teachers use EBP may be influenced, in part, by what they learned or failed to learn in their preservice preparation programs. This chapter describes recent efforts to assess preservice teachers’ understanding and use of empirically supported interventions and provides four examples of how such practices were taught to preservice general educators in a small, regional teacher preparation program. We discuss four contemporary educational reform movements (i.e., federal policies mandating EBP, state-level policies linking growth in pupil learning to teacher evaluation, clinically rich teacher preparation, and the emergence of a practice-based evidence approach) that should increase interest and use of EBP in teacher education and offer recommendations for how teacher educators might infuse EBP into their traditional teaching, research, and service functions in higher education.

Increased attention has been placed on identifying and installing evidence-based practices (EBPs) to effectively and efficiently serve students with and at-risk for learning and behavioral challenges. Council for Exceptional Children's (CEC, 2014) Standards for Evidence-Based Practices in Special Education are often used to examine a range of strategies, practices, and programs to ascertain if they are indeed EBPs. Systematic reviews conducted to evaluate the evidence base of these potential EBPs are important as they inform practice. We contend it is important to provide well-vetted procedures for training scholars to conduct systematic reviews with replicable precision. We offer this chapter to assist scholars in conducting systematic reviews to quality appraise the methodological rigor of a body of literature using the CEC Standards for EBPs. We focus on (1) project management considerations and (2) steps and phases to support the development and dissemination of high quality, methodologically rigorous systematic literature reviews.

Purpose: The current study aims to cast light on the divide between academic research in management accounting and its applicability to practice by examining, from the standpoint of nursing, how this gap is perceived and what challenges may be involved in bridging it.

Design/Methodology/Approach: The current study compares the findings of Tucker and Parker (2014) with both quantitative as well as qualitative evidence from an international sample of nursing academics.

Findings: The findings of this study point to the differing tradition and historical development in framing and addressing the research–practice gap between management accounting and nursing contexts and the rationale for practice engagement as instrumental in explaining disciplinary differences in addressing the research–practice gap.

Research Implications Despite disciplinary differences, we suggest that a closer engagement of academic research in management accounting with practice “can work,” “will work,” and “is worth it.” Central to a closer relationship with practice, however, is the need for management accounting academics to follow their nursing counterparts and understand the incentives that exist in undertaking research of relevance.

Originality/value: The current study is one of the few that has sought to look to the experience of other disciplines in bridging the gap. Moreover, to our knowledge, it is the first study in management accounting to attempt this comparison. In so doing, our findings provide a platform for further considering how management accounting researchers, and management accounting as a discipline might, in the spirit of this study’s title, “Learn from the Experience of Others.”