Abstract:heightened focus in the field on trying to bridge this research-to-practice gap, many researchers have experienced more than a modicum of success in facilitating teachers' use of research-based methods (Abbott, . We now know more about how to conduct professional development programs that support teachers' sustained implementation of new practices than we did a decade ago. Rather than the "sit and get" standalone workshops more prevalent in the past, successful efforts have focused on providing long-411 ABSTRA… Show more
“…When interventions are implemented in the classroom, there are several factors that may impact accurate and consistent treatment implementation, including (a) the complexity of the intervention, (b) time and resources required to implement the intervention, (c) the teacher's perceptions of intervention effectiveness, (d) the match between the intervention and the teacher's teaching style, (e) the teacher's understanding of the intervention plan, (f) the availability of feedback regarding implementation accuracy and intervention effectiveness, and (g) the teacher's motivation to intervene (Klingner, Ahwee, Pilonieta, & Menendez, 2003;Witt, Noell, LaFleur, & Mortenson, 1997). Because all of these factors are important, treatment acceptability, which encompasses many of the mentioned variables, is considered to be critical in influencing treatment integrity and intervention success.…”
This study examined the relationship between treatment integrity and acceptability for reading interventions across two consultation models, intensive data-based academic intervention (IDAI) and traditional data-based academic intervention (TDAI). Participants included 83 first-through fourth-grade students who met research criteria for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and evidenced academic difficulties and their general and/or special education teachers. Reading interventions were developed through individualized, data-driven consultation (IDAI) or generic, menu-based consultative services (TDAI). Results suggested a moderate, positive relationship between treatment integrity and acceptability for both consultation groups, although the relationship was statistically significant for the IDAI group only. Furthermore, although there was a significant difference between consultation groups on treatment integrity, differences between groups on treatment acceptability were not statistically significant. Implications for practice and future research are discussed. C 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
“…When interventions are implemented in the classroom, there are several factors that may impact accurate and consistent treatment implementation, including (a) the complexity of the intervention, (b) time and resources required to implement the intervention, (c) the teacher's perceptions of intervention effectiveness, (d) the match between the intervention and the teacher's teaching style, (e) the teacher's understanding of the intervention plan, (f) the availability of feedback regarding implementation accuracy and intervention effectiveness, and (g) the teacher's motivation to intervene (Klingner, Ahwee, Pilonieta, & Menendez, 2003;Witt, Noell, LaFleur, & Mortenson, 1997). Because all of these factors are important, treatment acceptability, which encompasses many of the mentioned variables, is considered to be critical in influencing treatment integrity and intervention success.…”
This study examined the relationship between treatment integrity and acceptability for reading interventions across two consultation models, intensive data-based academic intervention (IDAI) and traditional data-based academic intervention (TDAI). Participants included 83 first-through fourth-grade students who met research criteria for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and evidenced academic difficulties and their general and/or special education teachers. Reading interventions were developed through individualized, data-driven consultation (IDAI) or generic, menu-based consultative services (TDAI). Results suggested a moderate, positive relationship between treatment integrity and acceptability for both consultation groups, although the relationship was statistically significant for the IDAI group only. Furthermore, although there was a significant difference between consultation groups on treatment integrity, differences between groups on treatment acceptability were not statistically significant. Implications for practice and future research are discussed. C 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
“…Teacher educators have discussed barriers to innovative teaching practices, indicating that school norms and culture have a strong influence on the beliefs and practices of new teachers, due to fear of censure and worry for their jobs [34]. Administrators play an important role in setting a climate that either supports teacher development or one that encourages blind adherence to standardized practices, is not evidence-based, and does not further student learning [34,36].…”
Section: Theoretical Basis For the Researchmentioning
Background: Interest in professional expertise is growing. Interactional and developmental perspectives are being adopted to understand the nature of expertise and the environmental factors that influence its development. This article provides qualitative information about the workplace factors and experiences considered important by individuals providing education or mental health services to children, with one group working within an interprofessional team approach (service providers) and the other working in a discipline-specific manner (teachers).
“…The effect of having the researchers present in the classroom may have also influenced teachers and students. However, the SW-PBS professional development had been provided by the same university training team and, therefore, all staff and students were accustomed to having researchers present in a variety of school environments, including classrooms, and in a variety of roles, including resource support (Klinger, Ahwee, Pilonieta, & Menendez, 2003). In the case of this particular study, the ongoing presence of researchers was viewed as an asset given that research has indicated that participants' behaviors are less likely to be altered by the presence of outside observers when their presence has become familiar (Fox, Gunter, Davis, & Brall, 2000;Kazdin, 1982).…”
Increasing achievement for all students is a focus of general and special education reform today. Especially in the area of reading, there are many children who are at risk for failure. The purpose of this study was to describe teachers' use of instructional time during literacy with students at schools with (Title One) and without (non-Title) high percentages of students in poverty. Teachers and students from 35 classrooms were each observed for approximately 5 hours, for a total of 175 observation hours. Teachers identified the time when they consistently taught literacy and were observed in 1-hour increments across 5 days. The Setting Factors Assessment Tool was used to measure the instructional context, teacher behavior, and student behavior. Main results from descriptive and statistical analyses indicate that teachers spent the majority of literacy time in whole group (40%) and independent work (32%). Only small percentages of instructional time were spent in peer work (8%), small-group work (8%), and transition (8%). When comparing Title One and non-Title classrooms, teachers in Title One classrooms used significantly more noninstructional related talk, had more instructional down time, and a higher number of student exits during instruction. A discussion of the limitations of this study and need for future research to extend these findings follows. C 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.