Improving Teacher
Preparation: Including Knowledge and
Skills on Evidence-Based Practices
Dan Reschly, PhD & Lynn Holdheide, MA
Vanderbilt University/National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality
Martha Hougen, PhD
The University of Texas at Austin
Kelley Regan, PhD
George Mason University
OSEP Project Directors Meeting
July 20, 2011
12:30 p.m. - 3:00 p.m.
The Push to Refocus…
Teacher Evaluation
Research, Papers, and National Efforts (e.g. The Widget Effect, So
Long, Lake Wobegone)
All teachers are rated as good or great. Because of this…
- Excellent performance goes unnoticed
- Typical goes without support to improve further
- Chronically low performing goes unaddressed
Results of Teacher Evaluation have little/no impact on HR decisions
- Retention, promotion, placement, compensation, professional development, tenure,
etc.
Policy
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act & Race to the Top (RTTT) Priorities
Slide courtesy of Tony Bagshaw, Battelle for Kids
2
2
The Push to Refocus…
Teacher Preparation
• 1998 Higher Education Act Reporting Requirements
 Since 2001, 27 states have never identified a single teacher
preparation program as substandard
 Since 2002, 119 institutions have been named at-risk or low
performing. 58 are repeat offenders and 115 are still approved by
their state
 Few consequences for those that are named
 Research has found no difference in student achievement outcomes
of teachers from accredited or non-accredited programs
(Analysis by Education Sector: https://title2.ed.gov/default.asp; Aldeman, et al.,
2011)
• Potential ESEA & HEA Reauthorization Recommendations
3
Addressing Teacher Quality in
Teacher Preparation
• Adequate teacher preparation building blocks
to increasing the quantity and quality of the
teacher force
• Increasing teacher effectiveness and
equitable distribution are core reform efforts.
Federal funding supports efforts to
 Provide quality instruction
 Well-crafted learning experiences
 Sustained implementation regarding evidencedbased practices
4
Obama Administration….A Push Toward
Accountability in Teacher Preparation
• Overhaul reporting requirements for higher
education
• Presidential Teaching Fellows
 Scholarship Funding for high-quality teacher candidates
- Distinguishing between exemplary and lackluster
programs and routes
• Three measures of accountability
 Where graduates are placed & how long they stay in the
profession
 How much graduates help the students learn
 If employers are satisfied
5
State Accountability for Teacher
Preparation within RTTT
• Louisiana
 Uses VAM to calculate how well students taught by 1st
and 2nd year certified teachers from specific program
performed compared to similar students by experienced
teachers
 Teacher preparation programs are placed into one of five
levels
• Tennessee
 Teacher Preparation Program Effectiveness Report Card
- TN Higher Education Commission and stakeholder group will
work to reward successful programs and support and/or
decertify others
6
State Accountability for Teacher
Preparation within RTTT
• Florida
 Longitudinal database links students to their teachers
and courses, and teachers to teacher preparation
programs and professional development
 Not currently used in the approval process, but publically
reported. Plan to use if for approval process based on:
- Impact on student achievement
- Meeting LEA and state needs for new and retrained teachers
- Program’s contribution to induction and professional
development.
 Teacher Advisory Council to identify “Accomplished
Practices” for both teacher evaluation and teacher
preparation
7
State Accountability for Teacher
Preparation within RTTT
• Georgia
 Teacher Effectiveness Measure (TEM), Leadership
Effectiveness Measure (LEM), and District Effectiveness
Measure (DEM).
 By July 2011, TEMs and LEMs will feed into a Teacher
Effectiveness Program Effectiveness Measure (TPPEM)
 TPPEM
-
50% student achievement of graduates
20% of success rate of induction teachers
20% content knowledge of graduates
10% persistence of graduates
8
Modification of Evaluation Processes
for Special Educators
Percentage of Administrators
Who Report an Allowance in
Modification for Special Educators
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Among the local administrators,
81%
State
Local
Total
reported that contractual
agreement prevented
modification in the evaluation
process.
9
Evidence-Based Practices
• Meeting the needs of “diverse” learners may
not attend to the following:
 Special skills (individualized education program
[IEP] facilitation, collaboration, secondary
transition, social and behavioral interventions,
compliance with legal mandates)
 Evidence-based instructional methods
(direct/explicit instruction, scientifically based
reading instruction, learning strategy
instruction)
10
Opinions Regarding Special
Education Teacher Evaluation
Strongly Agree or Agree
92%
32%
84%
11
Teacher effectiveness, equitable distribution, and
teacher preparation are inextricably linked.
• TQ Center developed Innovation Configurations to
encourage examination of the strengths and gaps
within programs to answer the following questions:
 What types of instruction and experiences do teachers
receive throughout their preparation and/or professional
development that promote the use of evidenced-based
instructional practices?
 To what extent are teachers and teacher candidates
provided an opportunity to apply these strategies with
explicit feedback and sustained implementation and
support to ensure fidelity?
12
Workshop Overview
• Purpose
 To familiarize participants with tools designed to
improve teacher preparation and professional
development practices related to scientifically based
instruction and classroom organization and behavior
management… leading to improved teacher
qualifications and enhanced student outcomes
• Outcomes
 Participants will be able evaluate course syllabi by
using research-based practices as a guide
 Positive results on the OSEP Personnel Preparation
Program indicators
13
Innovation Configurations
• Hall & Hord, 1987; Roy & Hord, 2004
• Innovation configurations. Matrix specifying
 Essential components
 Level of implementation
• Vanderbilt University’s innovation configurations
content based on
 Research
 Policy
 Best Practices
14
What is an Innovation Configuration?
• Used for more than 30 years in development
and implementation of educational
innovations and methodologies.
 Evaluate programs
 Evaluate fidelity of implementation of
educational interventions
 Most commonly, professional development tools
(i.e., guide implementation of innovation within a
school and to facilitate the change process)
15
Application of Innovation Configurations
• IHE faculty self-assessment, self-reflection, course
improvement
• IHE department heads, deans, and other university
administrators interested in ensuring high-quality
instruction in teacher preparation programs
• State departments of education seeking to unify
instruction statewide with common language and goals
consistent with federal policy (e.g., Maryland and
Colorado)
• Design of professional development
• Professional association standards
• State licensure and teacher education program
approval requirements
16
Purpose of Innovation Configurations (ICs)
Purpose of TQ Center ICs
• To evaluate and improve teacher
preparation coursework and continuing
professional development -- focusing on the degree to which federal
policies and Scientifically Based Research
(SBR) are implemented in coursework and
supervised experiences in reading, classroom
behavior management, inclusive practices,
and learning strategies
17
Innovation Configurations
• Barriers to the Preparation of Highly Qualified Teachers in Reading
(http://www.tqsource.org/publications/June2007Brief.pdf)
• Effective Classroom Management: Teacher Preparation and Professional Development
(http://www.tqsource.org/topics/effectiveClassroomManagement.pdf)
• Teacher Preparation to Deliver Inclusive Services to Students With Disabilities
(http://www.tqsource.org/publications/TeacherPreparationtoDeliverInclusiveServices.pdf)
• Teacher Preparation and Professional Development in Effective Learning Strategy
Instruction (http://www.tqsource.org/publications/EffLearnStrtInstructionIssuePaper.pdf)
• Teacher Preparation for Response to Intervention in Middle and High Schools
(http://www.tqsource.org/publications/IC_RTI.pdf)
• Preparation of Effective Teachers in Mathematics
(http://www.tqsource.org/publications/IC_Mathematics.pdf)
• Linking Assessment and Instruction: Teacher Preparation and Professional Development
(http://www.tqsource.org/publications/EffLearnStrtInstructionIssuePaper.pdf):
• Upcoming
 Direct and Explicit Instruction
 Data Use and Interpretation by the Classroom Teacher
18
What Works? See Kavale (2005, 2007), Learning
Disabilities, 13, 127-138 and other sources
Treatment
Effect Size
 Applied Behavior Analysis (many applications)
+ 1.00
 Formative evaluation: CBM+
Graphing+Decision Rules+ Reinf.
+ 1.00
 Explicit Instruction and Problem Solving + .70 to 1.50
 Learning & Comprehension Strategies
+1.00
 Math Interventions
+.60 to 1.10
 Writing Interventions
+.50 to .85
 Matching instruction to learning styles??
0.00
 Note, these effect sizes are stable across cultural
groups
19
What Does NOT Work
(Forness et al, 1997; Kavale 2005, 2007)






Perceptual motor training
Matching instruction to presumed cognitive strengths
Training cognitive weaknesses (e.g., working memory) to
improve achievement
Special classes for students with high incidence disabilities
(exceptions?)
Unstructured instruction with learners who have limited
prior knowledge
Which do we see more of in current teacher preparation?
Reschly RTI
20
Some things do not make sense
21
21
Innovation Configurations
 Tool used to evaluate teacher preparation
coursework through reviewing syllabi
 Specifically assess the degree to which evidencebased practices are implemented in required
courses
 Focus on entire program, not a single syllabus
 Established through tables with two dimensions:
1.Key essential components
2.Levels of implementation
22
Research on Reliability
 Vanderbilt University conducted a study of
syllabi from 26 of 31 special education
teacher education programs in largepopulation state using the three ICs (Reschly,
Holdheide, Smartt, & Oliver, 2007)
 Both exact ratings from two independent
judges and one plus or minus were obtained
for interjudge reliability. Scores across the
three ICs ranges from approximately .79 to
.85, well within the sufficient range for
program evaluation purposes.
23
Use of Course Syllabi
• Common practice across disciplines
• Syllabus is a contract
• Examine all courses in teacher education regarding
IC components, not just a single course
• Limitations of Syllabi
 Incomplete reflection of course content and activities
 Difficult to judge depth of experiences
 Some content on syllabus not taught and some content
is taught that is not on the syllabus
• Overall: Syllabi reflect major features of program
24
Teacher Preparation
Significant gaps in the preparation of general
and special education teachers
Scientifically-Based principles for both,
including randomized controlled trials (RCTs),
often not applied
Gaps in:
• Teacher preparation and practice
• State program approval and teacher licensure
• Professional association standards
25
Summary: Teacher Preparation
and Practice
• Insufficient use of evidence-based practices in
teacher preparation/comprehensive professional
development and practice
• TQ Center use of evidence-based innovation
configurations to address these issues
• Improved implementation of evidence-based
principles leading to improved outcomes
• Major Challenge: Narrowing the gap between what
is known about evidence-based instruction and
teacher preparation and special education practice
26
Classroom Organization and
Behavior Management
• Oliver, R. M., & Reschly, D. J. (2007). Improving
student outcomes in general and special education:
Effective classroom management. Washington DC:
National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.
• Rationale: Teacher attrition, student achievement,
improves inclusion outcomes.
• Most beginning and some experienced teachers
report significant problems with “discipline.”
• Improved behavior also critical to ESEA and IDEA
outcomes.
27
Components of Good COBM
Structured environment
Active supervision and student engagement
School-wide expectations
Classroom rules
Classroom routines
Encouraging appropriate behavior
Discouraging inappropriate behavior
Monitoring student behavior and adjusting plan
(Emmer & Stough, 2001; Kerr & Nelson, 2002; Lewis
& Sugai, 1999; Martella, Nelson, & MarchandMartella, 2003)
28
Results of COBM IC Review
Proportion of University Syllabi with
Evidence of Component vs. No Evidence
46
35
38
58
50
81
100
54
65
62
42
code = 1-4
code = 0
50
19
St
ru
ct
ur
Su
ed
pe
rv
isi
Ex
on
pe
ct
at
io
ns
R
ul
es
R
ou
En
tin
co
es
ur
ag
em
en
R
t
ed
uc
tio
n
100
90
80
70
60
% 50
40
30
20
10
0
0
29
Implications of Findings
• More emphasis on reactive vs. proactive strategies
found in course syllabi
• Greater emphasis on proactive may improve
inclusive practices for students at-risk for or identified
with EBD
• Special educators should have a higher level of
preparation in classroom organization and behavior
management therefore general education teacher
preparation may be a concern
• Teacher preparation should include supervised
practice to develop proficiency
• Lack of entire course devoted to classroom
management indicates slivered fashion of teaching
content
30
Scientifically-Based Reading
 Smartt, S. M., & Reschly, D. J. (2007). Barriers to
the preparation of highly qualified teachers in
reading (TQ Research & Policy Brief). Washington,
DC: Learning Point Associates, National
Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.
 Rationale: Too many students read below basic
levels
 Many teacher education and professional
development programs do not implement the
scientifically based research on reading
31
National Assessment of Educational Progress
4th Grade Reading (2009) Tables A-12, A-15, & A-16
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
5
17
30
17
2
14
2
13
10
0
6
23
31
32
32
31
2
10
22
Advanced
36
31
52
48
21
53
Proficient
71
66
Basic
< Basic
23
32
NAEP (2009) 8TH Grade Reading (2009)
Tables A-20, A-23, & A-24
100%
2
90%
19
80%
1
15
0
13
0
3
36
43
42
3
0
8
22
38
70%
60%
6
29
43
Advanced
50%
40%
44
38
30%
20%
10%
41
37
18
44
Proficient
75
63
Basic
< Basic
17
0%
33
General Instructional Principle
• Instruction at student’s knowledge/skill level
Lower
Prior
Knowledge
Higher
Prior
Knowledge
Needs Complete,
Explicit
Systematic
Reschly RTI
Can Profit from
Incomplete
Implicit
Less Structured
34
34
What Is the Scientifically Based Reading
Instruction - IC?
• Essential Key Components (Content Validity)
 Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young
Children (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998).
 Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence Based
Assessment of the Scientific Research
Literature on Reading and Its implications for
Reading Instruction (National Reading Panel,
2000).
 Policy support
- ESEA (NCLB, 2002)
- IDEA (2004, 2006)
35
Essential Components
• Scientifically-based reading research/NCLB/IDEA
• Phonemic awareness
• Phonics
• Fluency
• Vocabulary
• Comprehension
• Integration of components
• Systematic and explicit instruction
• Screening and progress monitoring assessment
Reliability – approximately.85
36
KTG: Initial Sound
Fluency Fall to
January 05-06 Yr.
Benchmark: Winter KTG
25 sounds correct/min.
Fall
January
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
4
New KTG Teacher and
Traditional Instruction
7
10
13
16
Scale
37
KTG: Initial Sound
Fluency Fall to
January 05-06 Yr.
Benchmark: Winter KTG
25 sounds correct/min.
Fall
January
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
3
Experienced Teacher
Direct Instruction
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
38
Phoneme Seg.
Fluency: Jan to
May 05-06 Yr.
Benchmark: 35 correct
January
May
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
4
New KTG Teacher and
Traditional Instruction
7
10
13
16
Scale
39
Phoneme Seg.
Fluency: Jan to
May 05-06 Yr.
Benchmark: May 35 per
minute
Fall
January
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
3
Experienced Teacher
Direct Instruction
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
40
Purposes of Universal Screening
• Assess success of instructional program
 Percent of students at or above benchmarks
 If necessary, examine curriculum, instruction,
or both
• Identify students below benchmarks
 Interventions within general education
classroom
 Assess progress and consider need for more
intensive interventions at Tier II
41
Second Grade Oral Reading Fluency
Benchmark: End of 1st=42 WCM
Winter=71 WCM
End of 2nd=100 WCM
120
100
80
??
F
W
60
40
20
0
1
3
5
7
9
11
Students needing greater Gen’l Ed
monitoring and Interventions
13
15
17
19
42
Teacher Preparation
Significant gaps in the preparation of general
and special education teachers
Scientifically-Based principles for both,
including randomized controlled trials (RCTs),
often not applied
Gaps in:
• Teacher preparation and practice
• State program approval and teacher licensure
• Professional association standards
43
Using IC Data
• How are data collected?
(handout- steps, procedure)
• How are ICs scored?
(handout- steps, procedure)
• How are data analyzed?
(handout- steps, procedure)
44
Application of Data
How are findings used – local level?
• IHE administrators may conduct needs
assessment throughout all required early
reading courses across departments (e.g.,
teaching and learning, special ed)
university wide
• Lesson planning guide at the elementary
and higher education reading course level
to ensure that all elements of scientificallybased reading research are taught
45
Application of IC Data
• How are findings used—policy level?
 Evaluation and improvement of teaching preparation
and professional development in reading
 Examination and improvement of scientificprofessional association standards for teacher
preparation
 Improved state teacher licensure standards and
teacher preparation program approval
46
Communication
• How can the findings be shared with
educators and other stake holders?
47
Teacher Preparation
Significant gaps in the preparation of general
and special education teachers
Scientifically-Based principles for both,
including randomized controlled trials (RCTs),
often not applied
Gaps in:
• Teacher preparation and practice
• State program approval and teacher licensure
• Professional association standards
48
Key Essential Components
• Problem areas in teacher performance
• Content Validity based on
 Authoritative research review and integration sources (e.
g., Nat’l Rdg and Math Panels)
 Research (Experimental research confirming the validity
of the components for improving achievement)
 Policy (NCLB and IDEA)
• Listed on the left hand side of the IC
 Descriptors and examples to guide review
49
50
Levels of Implementation
Code 0—There is no evidence that the component is included in the class syllabus.
If no evidence of a component can be found in a course syllabus (e.g., the use of assessment to
guide instruction) including course objectives, lectures, discussions, reading, or assignments, a
score of zero would be appropriate, and an “X” could be marked under zero next to the
component.
Code 1—Syllabus mentions content related to the component.
Exact wording for each bulleted item is not necessary to score a 1 for mentioning the component.
If a component is listed as a topic item for lecture and discussion (e.g., progress monitoring) or
listed as an outcome or course objective (e.g., “students will use a progress monitoring
measure—i.e., Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills [DIBELS]”), then an “X” may
be placed under this variation.
Code 2—Syllabus mentions component and requires readings and tests or quizzes on the topic.
In order to score a 2, a course syllabus must mention a component as part of the lectures,
discussions, or course objectives and require readings and test or quizzes about the topic.
Evidence of readings includes textbooks (e.g., “Read Chapter 2—Vocabulary Instruction in
Adams, Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning About Print.”). Evidence of tests may include
“Test 2 will cover Lectures 15–25.” Note, however, that vocabulary instruction must be
mentioned under Lectures 15–25.
51
Levels of Implementation
Code 3—Syllabus mentions the component and requires readings, tests or quizzes, and assignments or projects for application.
In order to score a 3, a course syllabus must mention the component and require readings, tests
or quizzes, and an assignment (e.g., “Write a one-page reaction paper explaining why it is
important to provide vocabulary instruction”) or project (e.g., “Create a lesson addressing
vocabulary instruction”).
Code 4—Syllabus mentions the component and requires readings, tests or quizzes, assignments or projects, and teaching with application and
feedback.
A course syllabus might list application with feedback or student teaching as a general requirement.
However, in order to earn a score under this variation, the syllabus must link the application with
feedback experience with the particular concept (e.g., “Students will be required to practice skills
related to developing and instructing vocabulary. Direct observations with feedback by instructor
will be applied toward the total course grade.”).
52
Steps
Step 1
One IC each institution of higher education (IHE)
syllabi. After reviewing a course syllabus, an “X”
should be placed under the appropriate
implementation code
Step 2
Each item should be given an overall rating based on
the highest implementation score that received an
“X.” Overall ratings are marked in the last column on
the right under “Rating.”
53
Steps
Step 3
If more than one syllabus was rated on the innovation
configuration, the number of “Xs” for each variation
Step 4
Transfer the highest item ratings for each component
to the IHE Syllabi Evaluation Master Scoring Rubric
Step 5
Use results to identify the similarities, differences,
and gaps in content covered and skills acquired
within teacher training programs.
54
Your turn to practice using Innovation
Configuration Tools
• Provide sample syllabi and Scientifically
Based Reading IC for participants to work
in pairs ---share at table
• Follow up, break-out, discussion,
observations, whole group
55
Teacher Educators: The Key to
Implementation and Sustainability
Implementing SBRR in IHEs
• Challenges:
 In order to sustain the gains made by recent
initiatives we must better prepare our preservice teachers
 In order to prepare pre-service teachers, the
IHE faculty must have the knowledge
57
Faculty Collaboratives
• Higher Education Collaborative, funded
by Reading First, 2001-2008
• Focus on teacher educators, K-3
58
Working together to…
• Establish a community of
members who collaborate in the
ongoing process of adjusting their
instruction and materials to ensure
the preparation of highly qualified
teachers and school
administrators.
59
TX HEC Growth
60
Types of Teacher Preparation
Programs
Other
ACP-Universitybased
ACP-ESC
ACP-ISD
Post-Baccalaureate
Traditional
Undergraduate
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
61
Why is it working?
• WII-FM
• Provide what they need:





Research & data
Resources & Materials
Informative seminars
Collegial opportunities
Explicit instruction and support
62
Share & Suggest
• Never mandate
• No finger shaking
• Encouragement
• Respect
• Understanding of the change process
• Critical mass
• Acknowledge & make public strengths
63
College & Career Readiness Initiative:
Faculty Collaboratives
2008-2013
English/Language Arts
Mathematics
Science
Social Studies
Objectives
• Support faculty in integrating the CCRS in
pre-service courses
• Facilitate collaboration among liberal
arts/science faculty and teacher educators
• Provide ongoing professional development
and collaborative opportunities
65
English/LA Foci
• Cross Disciplinary Literacy
• Writing
• Rigor
66
Means
• Seminars, workshops, conferences
• Mini-grants to faculty to develop lessons,
modules, book chapters
• Faculty present and facilitate
• On-line resources
www.txfacultycollaboratives.org
67
Currently….
2,500+
150+
members representing
institutions
and still growing!
68
Improving Course Content and Syllabi
Revision for one SPED Teacher Preparation
Program
2011 OSEP Project Director’s Conference
George Mason University
325T Recipient, 2008 Cohort
Kelley Regan (PI)
kregan@gmu.edu
325T Personnel Training
Improvement Grant
GOAL: To IMPROVE our
training program to enable
pre-service teachers
interested in the field of
SPED to acquire
foundational, research, and
practical skills through
effective field experiences
and through the application
of current evidence-based
practices for students with
mild disabilities.
Aligning curriculum with
state licensure
requirements
Restructuring the program
and/or instructional
delivery
Improving curriculum
and course content
Improving student support
Evaluating
program/Outcomes
70
• Program for Students who Access the General Education
Curriculum (mild disabilities)
• Undergraduate minor of special education (15 credits)
• Cohort model across school districts/Non-cohort/Distance
• ~ 700 graduates per year total
• Adjuncts: ~30
• SPED Licensure program (33 credits), SPED MED (30
credits), Masters w/ licensure (39 credits)
• Licensure courses (including 2 credits of portfolio and 4
credit internship – two experiences)
71
Improving Curriculum and Course
Content
• Phase I: Developing a Process
• Phase II: Developing a Language of EBPs
• Phase III: Explicitly Identify EBPs
• Phase IV: Degree of EBP emphasis
• Phase V: Align knowledge with skills (in field
experiences + job)
72
Phase I: Developing a Process
• Non-evaluative approach with a content analysis procedure
• Sources initially included for Phase I:
- E-mail exchanges with faculty about defining EBPs and infusion of
EBPs in Syllabi
- 1:1 discussions with course leads of each course
- Survey to 27 adjuncts
- Project personnel reviewed most current course syllabi identifying
threads and core assignments (signature assignments aligned with
CEC)
- Review course Blackboard® (on-line) materials and resources
maintained by leads
- Project Personnel developed Course summaries to be validated by
course leads
- Monthly faculty meetings/discussions with 325T updates/themes
which emerge
73
Dialogue, Challenges, & Questions
 How are you/we defining Evidence-based practices?
 How can we generate productive dialogue for this topic?
 How do we balance autonomy versus a ‘list’ of what
works?
 The “So what?” factor (ie., is this additive or
transformative?)
 What ARE our goals for graduates? What knowledge and
skills do we prioritize?
 Where are the redundancies across course content?
 Where are the gaps across the program?
 What is covered and to what degree/level is the learning?
 How can we manage Course DRIFT?
74
Phase II: Developing Language of EBP
 Faculty recommendation to insert on relevant courses, a common
language to refine what the program means by evidence-based
practices (EBPs)
 Example from our Language Development and Reading course:
(Note: the terms in italics in first sentence vary across courses depending on threads of emphasis)
This course will incorporate the evidence-based practices (EBPs) relevant to the
five essential elements of reading (i.e. NRP, 2000), language development, and
informal literacy assessments. These EBPs are indicated with an asterisk (*) in this
syllabus. Evidence for the selected research-based practices is informed by metaanalysis, literature reviews/synthesis, the technical assistance networks which
provide web-based resources, and the national organizations whose mission is to
support students with disabilities. We address both promising and emerging
practices in the field of special education. This course will provide opportunities
for students to take an active, decision-making role to thoughtfully select, modify,
apply, and evaluate EBPs in order to improve outcomes for students with
disabilities.
75
Phase III: Explicitly identify EBPs
Collected evidence (full
citations)
for practices in areas of:
Math
Content Learning: History
Content Learning: Science
Foundational Reading
Secondary Reading
Inclusionary Practices
Assessment Practices
Behavior Practices
Writing Instruction
RESOURCES for Identifying Effective Practices
From Technical assistance and dissemination projects;
USDOE
1. Regional Resource and Federal Centers – The Federal
Resource Center for Special Education (FRC)
http://www.rrfcnetwork.org
2. Northeast Regional Resource Center (NERRC)
3. National Research Center on Learning Disabilities
(NRCLD) http://www.nrcld.org
4. Technical Assistance Center on Social Emotional
Intervention for Young Children (TACSEI)
http://challengingbehavior.org
5. Access Center: Improving Outcomes for All Students k-8
http://www.kbaccesscenter.org
6. National Center on Student Progress Monitoring
http://studentprogress.org
7. Center for Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports
(PBIS) http://www.pbis.org
8. The National Center on Response to Intervention (RTI)
http://www.rti4success.org
9. Center on Instruction http://www.centeroninstruction.org
10. IRIS Center for Faculty Enhancement
http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu
And….
11. Current Practice Alerts http://teachingld.org
12. National Comprehensive Center for Teacher
Quality – Innovation Configurations www.tqsource.org
13. Narrative reviews/Literature Reviews/Synthesis
76
77
78
79
Phase IV: Degree of EBP emphasis
• 45 Evidence-Based Practices identified across Literacy, Instructional
Strategies, Inclusionary Practices, Assessment, and Behavior.
• EBPs then ‘fit into’ the relevant course (s)
of
Course leads of the relevant licensure classes rated the degree
coverage for EBPs:
NOTE: modified scale from Innovation Configuration Tools out of www.ncctq.org
To what degree are the 45 practices/items
listed here
generally addressed in the identified course?
80
Concrete-Representational-Abstract (CRA)
Self-Regulatory Skills
81
Phase V: Alignment across:
Courses
→
• Common
language of EBP
• Explicitness in
course syllabi
(citations)
• Exposure to
varying degrees
of learning
• Polished field
experiences
Internship
→
 Common language
of EBP
 Supervisor’s
observation tool to
include EBP terms
 Are our students
using these
practices in the
classroom?
 Are our students
evidence-based
practitioners?
On the Job
 Link of EBPs to
school practices
 SURVEY of recent
grads and alumni
 Identify EBPs
(knowledge)
 What practices do
you feel most
comfortable
identifying?
 How well prepared
do you think you
were to perform as
a special
82
educator…..?
Thank you!
kregan@gmu.edu
The contents of this power point presentation were developed under a grant
from the US Department of Education, Cooperative Agreement
#H325T080052. However, those contents do not necessarily represent the policy
of the US Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by
the Federal Government.
83
Small Group Activity
Discuss – chart… review/apply
• Overall purpose and uses of ICs
• How ICs can be applied to policy and
practice
• How you can communicate findings to
educators and others
84
What Did You Learn?
Observations
1. _______ ………
2. _______ ………
3. _______ ………
4. _______ ………
5. _______ ………
Conclusions… ?
Take Homes… ?
85
Closing
• Final comments
• Questions
• Contact info:
• dan.reschly@vanderbilt.edu
• mhougen@mail.utexas.edu
86
Questions to Consider
1. How might you use the ICs in your
courses? University setting? State?
Comprehensive Center?
2. What would you add? Change?
87
References
Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process. New York: State
University of New York Press.
Hougen, M. (2008). What teachers need to teach about evidence-based instruction and
response to intervention. Washington DC: National Comprehensive Center on Teacher Quality,
Learning Point Associates. HEC web site www.texashec.edu
http://www.tqsource.org/forum/documents/EvidencedBasedInstructionalStrategiesHougenPap
er.pdf
Joshi, R. M., Binks, E. S., Graham, L, Dean, E. O., Smith, D., & Boulware-Gooden, R. (2009).
Do textbooks used in university reading education courses conform to the instructional
recommendations of the National Reading Panel? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42,
458-463.
Kavale, K.A.(2007). Quantitaive research synthesis: Meta-analysis of research on meeting
special educational needs. In L. Florian(Ed.),The Sage handbook of special education
(pp.207-221).London: Sage Publications.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of
the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction.
Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
Roy, P., & Hord, S. M. (2004). Chart a measured course toward change. Journal of Staff
Development, 25(2), 54–58.
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.) (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young
children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
88
88
•
•
•
•
•
Dan Reschly, Ph.D., 615-708-7910
E-Mail: dan.reschly@vanderbilt.edu
Marty Hougen, Ph.D., 512-762-8786
E-Mail: mhougen@austin.utexas.edu
Lynn Holdheide, 615-322-8155
E-Mail: lynn.holdheide@vanderbilt.edu
Learning Point Associates
1100 17th St. N.W., Suite 500
Washington, DC 20036-4632
General Information: 877-322-8700
www.tqsource.org/
89