Agreeing to Agree: A Response to Dempsey's Commentary on the Reported Prevalence by Australian Special Educators of Evidence-Based Instructional Practices

2011 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 226-229 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Carter ◽  
Jennifer Stephenson ◽  
Iva Strnadová
Keyword(s):  
Instructional Practices ◽  
Special Educators ◽  
Evidence Based

AbstractDempsey (this issue) has provided a commentary on our study (Carter, Stephenson, & Strnadová, 2011) examining the reported rates of use of instructional practices by Australian special educators. Examining this commentary, it is evident that on many issues we are on the same page and agree on many of the fundamental conclusions to be drawn from the study. Nevertheless, Dempsey did express concern regarding several aspects of the reporting of the study, which were suggested to have the ‘potential to mislead’ readers. In essence, these criticisms revolve around four substantive points and these will each be addressed.

Commentary on Carter, Stephenson and Strnadová's Reported Prevalence by Australian Special Educators of Evidence-Based Instructional Practices

2011 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 220-225
Author(s):  
Ian Dempsey
Keyword(s):  
Instructional Practices ◽  
Formative Evaluation ◽  
Special Educators ◽  
Skills Training ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Motor Training ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Australasian Journal ◽  
High Effect ◽  
Current Article

AbstractIn Volume 35, Issue 1 of the Australasian Journal of Special Education, Carter, Stephenson and Strnadová (2011) replicated a study by Burns and Ysseldyke (2009). In Carter et al.'s study, 194 Australian special educators were asked to rate the extent to which they used eight instructional practices. These practices were applied behaviour analysis, direct instruction, formative evaluation, mnemonic strategies, modality training, perceptual-motor training, psycholinguistic training, and social skills training. The first four of these practices had moderate to high effect sizes (and were regarded by the authors as more desirable techniques), and the final four practices had low effect sizes, on the basis of past meta-analytic research. Carter et al.'s findings were that while the Australian teachers used some desirable strategies relatively frequently, they also used some less desirable practices frequently and so desirable instructional practices should be encouraged at the expense of less effective practices. While these results are of interest, they also have the potential to mislead readers and later sections of the current article examine these potential misconceptions.

Instructional Practices, Priorities, and Preparedness for Educating Students With Autism and Intellectual Disability

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victoria F. Knight ◽  
Heartley B. Huber ◽  
Emily M. Kuntz ◽  
Erik W. Carter ◽  
A. Pablo Juarez
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Disability ◽  
Instructional Practices ◽  
Special Educators ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Professional Judgment ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Students With Autism ◽  
Services And Supports ◽  
Instructional Decision

Improving educational outcomes for students with autism and intellectual disability requires delivering services and supports marked by evidence-based practices. We surveyed 535 special educators of students with autism and/or intellectual disability about (a) their implementation of 26 instructional practices, (b) their recent access to training and resources on those practices, (c) the factors they consider when deciding which practices to use, (d) the importance they place on various instructional areas (e.g., social skills, reading), and (e) their preparedness to provide that instruction. Although teachers reported implementing a wide range of evidence-based instructional practices, their recent access to training and resources was fairly limited. Special educators identified a constellation of factors informing their instructional decision making, placing emphasis on student needs and professional judgment. When considering instructional areas, a gap was evident between ratings of importance and preparedness. We address implications for strengthening professional development pathways and offer recommendations for future research.

Educator Knowledge and Preparedness for Educating Students With Autism in Public Schools

2021 ◽  
pp. 108835762198931
Author(s):  
Jennifer Hamrick ◽  
Mari Cerda ◽  
Cyndi O’Toole ◽  
Katherine Hagen-Collins
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Public Schools ◽  
Public Education ◽  
Instructional Practices ◽  
Special Educators ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Research To Practice ◽  
Evidence Based Practices ◽  
Students With Autism ◽  
Practice Gap

Use of evidence-based practices is important for the success of students in special education settings in public education. In total, 255 special educators in public education were surveyed about (a) use of instructional practices, (b) preparedness to use interventions, (c) access to training, (d) influences on decision-making, and (e) areas of need related to current roles. Results indicate a research-to-practice gap as educators reported using many practices not identified as evidence-based intervention when working with individuals with autism and intellectual disabilities. Information about access to training and the types of trainings educators were currently participating in was gathered. Educators also reported feeling inadequately prepared to use interventions.

Formative Instructional Practices

2014 ◽  
Vol 50 (2) ◽  
pp. 69-75 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristall J. Graham-Day ◽  
Katelyn M. Fishley ◽  
Moira Konrad ◽  
Mary T. Peters ◽  
Virginia A. Ressa
Keyword(s):  
Instructional Practices ◽  
Special Educators ◽  
Instructional Decisions ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Individualized Education Programs ◽  
Education Programs ◽  
Optimal Learning ◽  
Evidence Based Practices ◽  
Ability Levels ◽  
Teachers And Students

With many states moving toward increased accountability for all teachers, special educators, who have long been held accountable through the implementation of individualized education programs and the use of evidence-based practices, have much to offer. Formative instructional practices are evidence-based techniques that are familiar to special educators and can be implemented in classrooms filled with students of all skill and ability levels. Formative instructional practices are the way that teachers and students document evidence of student learning and make instructional decisions based on that evidence. These effective and versatile practices help teachers continuously assess their students, make data-based decisions, and ensure optimal learning. This article suggests that special educators are well positioned to make an important contribution as schools adopt more rigorous standards and the formative instructional practices necessary to guide students to mastery of these standards. An overview of these practices is provided.

Evidence‐Based Practice in the Classroom: Evaluating a Procedure for Reducing Perseverative Requesting in an Adolescent with Autism and Severe Intellectual Disability

2008 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-65
Author(s):  
Jeff Sigafoos ◽  
Jennifer Ganz ◽  
Mark O’Reilly ◽  
Giulio Lancioni
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Intellectual Disability ◽  
Special Educators ◽  
Evidence Based Practice ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Individual Level ◽  
Severe Intellectual Disability ◽  
Speech Generating Device ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Response Interruption

Management of inappropriate behaviour is a major priority in special education. Evidence‐based practice dictates that interventions to reduce inappropriate behaviour should be evaluated at the individual level to demonstrate their efficacy in the classroom. This study illustrates the evaluation of an evidence‐based procedure (response interruption) for reducing perseverative requesting in an adolescent boy with autism and severe intellectual disability. The boy used a speech‐generating device to request snacks during baseline and response interruption conditions. During both conditions, the boy had to wait 30 seconds while the snack was being prepared. Requests that occurred during this wait interval were defined as perseverative. Intervention involved blocking perseverative requests and prompting the child to wait. An ABAB design was used to evaluate the effects of the response interruption procedure. The results demonstrated that response interruption effectively reduced perseverative requesting, while maintaining appropriate requesting at other times. The study illustrates how special educators might evaluate evidence‐based practice in the classroom.

Practice-Based Evidence: A Model for Helping Educators Make Evidence-Based Decisions

2018 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 82-92 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara Fink Chorzempa ◽  
Michael D. Smith ◽  
Jane M. Sileo
Keyword(s):  
Preservice Teachers ◽  
Teacher Preparation ◽  
Problem Solving ◽  
Instructional Practices ◽  
Learning Outcomes ◽  
Teacher Candidates ◽  
Graduate Program ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Certification Programs ◽  
K 12

Within their teacher preparation courses and field experiences, preservice teachers are introduced to numerous instructional practices, not all of which are considered research-based. For this reason, instruction in how to evaluate the effectiveness of one’s practices is essential, but it is often a lacking component of initial certification programs. In this article, a flexible, problem-solving model for collecting and reflecting on practice-based evidence (PBE) is described. The model, utilized in a graduate program in Special Education, was designed to assist teacher candidates in evaluating the effectiveness of the practices they implement to optimize students’ learning outcomes. Implications for practice in the K-12 environment are also provided.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document