Search results

This chapter examines evidence-based practice in the Australian education system, with particular reference to special education. Initially a brief overview of the Australian education system will be provided, followed by consideration of the incorporation of the concept of evidence-based practice into Australian educational policy at both national and state level. Subsequently, Australian teacher registration and teacher education program accreditation standards will be examined with regard to the adoption of evidence-based practice. We then describe the use of evidence-based practices in teacher education programs, particularly in the area of classroom and behavior management and in special education/inclusion subjects. We will overview several research studies to illustrate the degree of penetration of the concept of evidence-based practice into educational systems and teaching practice. Although we found little evidence of a commitment to evidence-based practice in Australian education systems beyond rhetoric, we are cautiously optimistic that increasing emphasis will be given to the use of empirical evidence in the future.

Evidence-based practice is an essential component of special education and provides a framework for promoting the use of research to inform policy and practice. Despite the importance of evidence-based practice to special education, the research-to-practice gap remains a persistent challenge to the successful dissemination of effective, research-based practices. Given the underuse of research in special education, the next big thing in evidence-based special education is to develop effective mechanisms for disseminating research and practice. The purpose of this paper is, therefore, to introduce research utilization as a concept to special education and present a preliminary analysis on special education teacher perceptions of research. Results suggest that special education teachers value evidence-based practice but remain unsure of their skills to distinguish between studies with more and less rigorous methods. Moreover, we found that special education teachers tended to use sources with lower self-reported ratings of trustworthiness, such as social media and teacher exchange websites, due to time efficiency and accessibility. Respondents provided recommendations for ameliorating the research-to-practice gap and increasing the usability of research overall.

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.

This chapter explains how special education is an integral part of the US system of public education; detailing the critical rationale for distinctions and specializations as well as how both general and special education might improve in the future delivery of an evidence-based educational system. Particular attention will be given to the importance of maintaining a structure that protects special education's particular purpose for a specific population, with the conceptual framework that preserving and enhancing special education's special and specialized identity are critical to adequate service delivery for the most vulnerable populations of students, families, and communities.

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.

Entrepreneurship education has been largely treated as a pedagogical “black box.” Despite the emergence of popular entrepreneurship models such as business planning, the lean startup, or business model canvas, neither theoretical nor pedagogical foundations are typically evident. This limits the accumulation of useful evidence that could inform better teaching practices. In this chapter, we develop a set of conceptual models anchored in learning theory regarding how entrepreneurship education should be taught to students. These conceptual models are built on the techniques of entrepreneurship pedagogy such as experiential education. They are developed for three groups of students: students without any entrepreneurship experience, students with previous entrepreneurship experience, and students who are currently running their start-ups. A set of potential variables that could be used for course evaluation purposes is also included. The proposed models meet the needs of students with different levels of entrepreneurship experience. Theoretically, we demonstrate that entrepreneurship students should not be treated as a homogeneous group, as they have different levels of startup experience and different educational needs. Lecturers of entrepreneurship programs could choose the suitable model proposed in this chapter in teaching based on the characteristics of their students. The chapter provides novel insights with regard to how entrepreneurship programs should be designed for students with different levels of entrepreneurship experience.

Over the past 20 years, the primary focus of education policy and programming in low- and middle-income country contexts has shifted from access to quality. There has also been a laudable increase in the amount of available research about education quality in low- and middle-income countries, and a growing emphasis placed on incorporating research- and evidence-based activities and approaches into donor-funded education programs, particularly for early grade reading. Reviews of early grade reading (EGR) programs and their level of impact, however, particularly when programs are implemented at large scale, may leave some practitioners, policy makers, and donors dismayed. Effect sizes and impacts of the programs are often positive, but the absolute gains in reading performance are not as dramatic as we would like, despite the implementation of evidence-based approaches.

In education policy and implementation literature, the decoupling of policy and implementation, and the messiness involved in putting research into practice in education, are well documented. In this chapter, the authors propose the idea of “satisficing,” as it has been defined in policy and implementation literature, as a useful lens for considering the apparent decoupling of actual impacts and anticipated outcomes for programs that have adopted research- and evidence-based approaches. Using examples from EGR programs in African and Asian contexts, the authors argue that “satisficing” occurs at multiple levels, including the classroom, school, district, and even the program implementation (i.e., contractor or grantee) levels. The authors also argue that this lens has important implications for education program design and research.

Special education for students with severe disabilities depends on advocacy, but for what issues we should advocate is arguable. Prioritizing issues for advocacy also may subject to debate. Some may argue for full inclusion, which is the idea that all children irrespective of impairments or needs should receive all services in general education settings. Full inclusion implies that all decisions about what, how, and where special education is provided must conform to general education contexts. Full inclusion is an absolute imposition and, accordingly, is diametrically opposed to an individualized approach articulated in US special education law. This chapter briefly addresses the incompatibility of inclusion (based on individualization) and full inclusion (based on absolute conformity) for students with severe disabilities, and suggests that special education professionals and leaders should champion meaningful curriculum delivered with effective instruction and behavioral supports. The foundations for this advocacy with and on behalf of students with severe disabilities should be scientific evidence, evidence-based practice, and the continued rights and protections associated with an individualized approach.

Multitiered systems of support (MTSS) is widely advocated as an approach to improving education for all students, including students with disabilities. A hope for MTSS is that it can solve or mitigate many problems associated with providing special education to students with disabilities. While MTSS shows some promise for better addressing these problems, enthusiasm for MTSS and unsound thinking about what MTSS can do, cannot do, and has not done can veil lack of progress toward improving special education, as well as obscure what improving special education requires. We suggest that for both MTSS and special education to make more progress toward achieving their promises, several reality checks are urgently needed.

In this chapter, we examined issues related to research design and research management as applied to scientific research conducted in applied school settings. In terms of research design, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have an important role to play in advancing a scientific agenda for school-based research. However, given their enormous cost and complexity, it is important to carefully time their implementation in the development cycle. We suggested that the use of RCTs is most appropriate in the later stages of the development cycle when the focus is on demonstrating the efficacy and/or effectiveness of an intervention and establishing its generalizability under the real world conditions of schooling. We also recommended establishing a hierarchy of evidence for an intervention that involves implementing a cost-efficient mix of single case, quasi-experimental, and true experimental designs where appropriate and feasible. In examining issues related to the management of research and the implementation of a knowledge development agenda for schools, it has become apparent that treatment integrity is a keystone variable. We discussed the importance of treatment integrity, with attention to the impact on internal and external validity. Finally, we offered practical considerations to support high-quality, respectful school-based inquiry.