ED523 Research Analysis Purpose Finding research-based instruc.docx

ED523 Research Analysis
Purpose:
Finding research-based instructional practices that are
applicable to your unique classroom situation can inform your
practice. In this assignment you will use the ERIC database in
the University Library to select an article to analyze. In Unit 3,
you will write a lesson plan using what you have learned from
this article about your chosen instructional technique.
Directions:
Choose one instructional method that is applicable to your
unique classroom situation. This can be based on what you have
learned in previous courses or from your own experience. Some
suggestions can be found in the Bullmaster literature review in
Unit 2.
Go to the University Library to search the ERIC, Academic
Search Premier, or Professional Development Collection
databases and select one full text article on your chosen
instructional method. Examples of possible topics might be
discovery learning, scaffolding, nonlinguistic representations,
cooperative learning, etc. (This topic can also be used for your
Literature Review due in Unit 6. If you find several articles of
interest, you might want to save them for your Literature
Review.)
Write a 2-3 page paper analyzing and reflecting on the article
you read. Use the following headers and discussion questions to
frame your research analysis assignment.
Research Problem:
· What are the research questions? What is the hypothesis being
tested?
Literature Review/ Theoretical Framework: (This will be a
summary of the author’s literature review included in the
article. You will not need to create a new literature review.)
· What general field of knowledge does this study investigate?

Examples could include: Research on Teacher Effectiveness,
Research on Self-Reflective Learning, Research on Gender
Differences in Mathematics Performance, etc.
· List three key points from the study’s literature review that
help the reader understand what is already known about the
subject, and the purpose of this study in light of other studies.
· Cite at least one study used by the author for each of the three
points you list.
Research Design:
· Describe the research design (experimental, correlational,
descriptive, etc.).
· Describe the method(s) of data collection.
· Describe the method(s) of data analysis.
· Experimental studies seek to prove cause-and-effect
relationships. The role of the researcher is to introduce a change
(known as a "treatment") into a situation and note the results.
Collecting data in experimental studies is accomplished through
observation, "counting," and measurement. The data is then
analyzed by statistical methods. These studies are sometimes
referred to as quantitative studies.
· Correlational studies can be descriptive or experimental, and
they seek to prove a relationship between events without any
manipulation of those events by the researcher. Data from
correlational studies is analyzed by statistical methods.
· Descriptive or qualitative studies report and analyze
descriptions of educational settings, events, or processes
without seeking to change these settings, events, or processes.
Descriptive studies often take the form of case studies. Data in
these studies is collected through interviews, observation notes,
audio and video records of activities, and open-ended survey
responses. Descriptive studies do not analyze data with
sophisticated statistical methods and do not prove cause-and-
effect relationships between events.

Findings:
· Briefly describe the outcomes of the research. (Summarize the
study's results in general terms; you do not have to supply large
amounts of statistical data from the study.)
Limitations:
· What are the limitations of this research?
· Can the outcome(s) be generalized or transferred to groups
outside of this study? Why or why not?
Implications for Practice:
· Discuss ways in which you can incorporate findings from this
study into your own professional practice.
A sample Research Analysis is available in Course Resources.
This assignment is due at the end of Unit 2 and is worth 100
points. The rubric may be found under the Grading Rubrics link
under Course Resources.
Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 30(2), 91–101
C© 2015 The Division for Learning Disabilities of the Council
for Exceptional Children
Using the 6S Pyramid to Identify Research-Based Instructional
Practices
for Students with Learning Disabilities
Tanya Santangelo
Arcadia University
Leslie C. Novosel and Bryan G. Cook
University of Hawai´i at Mānoa
Meredith Gapsis

Arcadia University
To optimize students’ learning outcomes, educators are
increasingly expected to use instruc-
tional practices shown to be effective by credible research. To
help make this possible, or-
ganizations and scholars are producing resources that
summarize research related to various
instructional practices. However, as the collection of resources
grows in size and complexity,
it can be difficult and frustrating for practitioners to locate and
utilize this information. In
this article, we describe the 6S Pyramid (DiCenso, Bayley, &
Haynes, 2009), a framework for
efficiently and accurately prioritizing different types of
research evidence. We also identify and
briefly summarize Internet resources corresponding with each
level of the Pyramid that can
be used to identify research-based practices for students with
learning disabilities. To illustrate
how the 6S Pyramid can be used in school and classroom
settings, we begin and end the article
with vignettes featuring a pair of co-teachers seeking to
improve instruction for their students
who struggle with reading.
MS. MARKLOFF AND MS. HUTCHINSON: ACT I
Ms. Markloff is a second-year, general education teacher.
This year, she is teaching a diverse, inclusive class of 24
fourth graders, six of whom have learning disabilities (LD),
and struggle with reading. An additional four students in the
class have not been identified with LD, but consistently score
below grade-level expectations on the state reading assess-
ment. During the language arts period, Ms. Hutchinson, a
special education teacher, provides push-in support for the

students who struggle with reading. The progress monitor-
ing data Ms. Markloff and Ms. Hutchinson gathered during
the first 2 months of school suggest that their core literacy
instruction is effective for most of the class. However, the
teachers are very concerned because several students, in-
cluding those with LD, are not making adequate gains.
As the teachers begin to brainstorm how to improve
reading instruction for the students who are struggling,
they recall a workshop they attended last year, where the
presenter encouraged them to use the Internet as a tool to
identify effective instructional practices. Ms. Markloff and
Ms. Hutchinson cannot recall the specific Web sites the
presenter recommended, so they reach out and ask several
colleagues, as well as a couple of their former college
professors, for suggestions. They set aside an hour and a
Requests for reprints should be sent to Tanya Santangelo,
Arcadia Uni-
versity. Electronic inquiries should be sent to [email protected]
half after school the following Friday to check out their
leads. When Friday afternoon arrives, they compile the
recommendations they received into a list that includes more
than 10 Web sites, such as What Works Clearinghouse and
National Center on Intensive Intervention (see Table 1).
As Ms. Markloff and Ms. Hutchinson navigate the Web
sites, they become increasingly frustrated and overwhelmed
with the magnitude, variability, and complexity of informa-
tion across the different websites they visit. Many sites have
far more information than they expected—much of which they
find to be confusing and not directly related to their students.
They also discover a lack of consistency in the types of re-
sources available. For example, some sites offer narrative
summaries of the research related to a particular topic area,
others rate the effectiveness of particular practices and pro-

grams using specific criteria, and one site evaluates partic-
ular elements of individual studies. When the teachers finish
exploring the last Web site on their list, they realize nearly
two hours has passed; yet they are still unsure of how to
improve their instruction to help their students who struggle
with reading. Disappointed and frustrated after their expe-
rience, Ms. Markloff and Ms. Hutchinson find themselves
questioning whether Internet resources really DO offer use-
ful information for teachers.
We suspect that many teachers find themselves in situ-
ations similar to Ms. Markloff and Ms. Hutchinson. That
is, they want to find the most effective practices for
improving the outcomes of their struggling learners, and
92 SANTANGELO ET AL.: 6S PYRAMID
TABLE 1
Summary of Internet Resources
Levels of Information Offereda
Name of Internet Resource Web Address 2 3 4 5
Best Evidence Encyclopedia www.bestevidence.org X
Center on Instruction www.centeroninstruction.org X X
Current Practice Alerts www.teachingld.org/alerts X
National Center on Intensive Intervention
www.intensiveintervention.org X
National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities
www.parentcenterhub.org X
National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center
www.nsttac.org X
What Works Clearinghouse www.ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc X X X

aRefers to the levels of evidence in the 6S Pyramid (DiCenso et
al., 2009), as shown in Figure 1.
they like the idea of using practices shown to be effective
by credible research evidence. However, despite the grow-
ing number of resources available on the Internet related
to instructional practices supported by scientific research
(i.e., research-based practices (RBPs); further defined in the
next section), information from the Internet can be mislead-
ing, overwhelming, and difficult to translate into practice.
In this article, we describe a model for guiding special ed-
ucators through the maze of Internet resources related to
RBPs for students with LD. Specifically, after providing a
brief overview of RBPs and their importance for special ed-
ucators, we discuss the 6S Pyramid (DiCenso, Bayley, &
Haynes, 2009) and how it can help practitioners efficiently
and accurately prioritize RBPs for students with LD that can
be found on a number of existing Internet resources. We con-
clude with a description of Ms. Markloff and Ms. Hutchinson
using the 6S Pyramid and Internet resources described in this
article to identify RBPs for their students who struggle with
reading.
RBPs
Although no instructional program or technique works for
every student, some practices are generally more effective
than others for improving student outcomes (Cook, Smith, &
Tankersley, 2012; Hattie, 2009). Because scientific research
has an unparalleled track record of determining which prac-
tices work best (Odom et al., 2005; Slavin, 2002, 2008), re-
cent educational reforms and laws emphasize identifying and
implementing practices shown by sound, scientific research
to be effective (Yell & Rozalski, 2013). In this article, we
use the term RBPs to refer generally to instructional strate-

gies, techniques, and programs shown by credible scientific
research to be effective. We distinguish RBPs from evidence-
based practices which, according to Cook and Cook (2013),
are a subset of RBPs with research bases that meet rigorous
standards related to research design, quality, and quality (e.g.,
Gersten et al., 2005; Horner et al., 2005). Thus, in this arti-
cle we use RBPs synonymously with “empirically validated
practices” to refer to practices supported as effective by sci-
entific research, but with research bases that do not necessar-
ily meet the rigorous standards required for evidence-based
practices.
Although RBPs can help improve outcomes for all learn-
ers, they are especially important for students with LD, who
require highly effective instruction to reach their goals and
potential (e.g., Swanson, Harris, & Graham, 2013). The re-
search base on interventions for students with LD, however, is
large, varied, and technical (Cook et al., 2012). Miech, Nave,
and Mosteller (2005) referred to this as the 20,000 article
problem because approximately 20,000 education-related ar-
ticles are published annually and, clearly, educators do not
have time to read and make sense of that much information.
Moreover, even if time were not a barrier, many educators
do not have the advanced training necessary to critically
analyze the research base. In response to this problem, ed-
ucational organizations and scholars have begun to appraise
and synthesize research findings to help practitioners and
other stakeholders readily identify RBPs (Odom et al., 2005;
Slavin, 2002, 2008). However, like the research bases they
intend to simplify, the growing array of resources has be-
come sizeable, diverse, and complicated. As Ms. Markloff
and Ms. Hutchinson discovered, rather than streamlining the
process of determining what works, these resources may un-
intentionally confound the problem by adding another layer
of information through which practitioners must sift.

IDENTIFYING INTERNET RESOURCES FOR
RBPs
We used the following process to locate and analyze the re-
sources described in this article. First, we conducted a search
of Internet resources that we and our colleagues identified as
potentially including information about RBPs for students
with LD to determine which ones offer free and publicly
available information corresponding with different levels
of the 6S Pyramid. Specifically, we focused on practices
targeting academic (e.g., reading, math, writing, content
area knowledge) and other college- and career-readiness
outcomes (e.g., functional life and transition skills) for
K-12 students. Thus, assessment (e.g., curriculum-based
measurement) and behavioral interventions (e.g., school-
wide positive behavioral support) were not included. We
also restricted our focus to resources that synthesize and
appraise evidence from studies using research designs
generally recognized as establishing cause and effect
LEARNING DISABILITIES RESEARCH 93
relationships: true random experiments (e.g., randomized
control trials), quasi-experiments, and single-case studies
(Cook, Tankersley, Cook, & Landrum, 2008; Odom et al.,
2005). We originally planned to only include information
derived from research conducted exclusively with students
with LD. However, given the scarcity of such resources, we
decided to also include information derived from research
with samples that include students with LD along with other
groups, such as students determined to be at risk of academic
failure. In subsequent sections of this article, we note when
the participants involved in research supporting a practice
are not just students with LD. Through our initial search,

we identified seven relevant Internet resources that provide
information on RBPs for students with LD that correspond
with one or more levels of the 6S Pyramid (see Table 1).
Next, two authors independently examined all of the RBP-
related resources available at the seven web sites and docu-
mented critical characteristics of each relevant publication
found (e.g., title, level/type of evidence, percentage of stu-
dents with LD in the sample, targeted outcome area, pri-
mary findings). The data collected by the two authors were
then compared and the few differences found were resolved
through discussion (inter-rater reliability, calculated as to-
tal% agreement, >99 percent). Our review and analysis of
the Web sites took place during the fall and spring of 2013
and was updated in September of 2014.
THE 6S PYRAMID
The 6S Pyramid (DiCenso et al., 2009; see Figure 1) is a
framework for categorizing and prioritizing resources that
appraise and synthesize research findings. The 6S Pyramid
was developed in the field of medicine to help doctors and
other professionals make decisions based on the best avail-
able research evidence (e.g., Robeson, Dobbins, DeCorby,
& Tirilis, 2010). The Pyramid represents a hierarchy of ev-
idence in which higher levels provide increasingly accurate
and efficient types of information. Therefore, when search-
ing for RBPs using the 6S Pyramid, practitioners should
start at the highest possible level and only work down to
lower levels as necessary. For some well-researched practices,
the highest level of available evidence might be a summary
of the research (Level 2). In contrast, the highest level of
evidence for a practice that is not yet well-researched might
be a single study (Level 6). In the following sections, we
describe each level in the 6S Pyramid and summarize Inter-
net resources currently available to educators. Because each

level of the Pyramid builds on information from lower levels,
we begin our description at the bottom and move up.
Level 6: Studies
The lowest level in the 6S Pyramid is studies. Although indi-
vidual studies are the building blocks of research bases, a sin-
gle study, by itself, offers relatively little value to practitioners
looking to identify RBPs (DiCenso et al., 2009). No study is
perfect or represents “the truth.” Indeed, many studies con-
tain bias and may report misleading findings (Cook, 2014).
As such, examining the effectiveness of a practice should in-
volve consideration of findings from multiple, high-quality,
experimental studies. However, searching for, critically ana-
lyzing, and synthesizing the findings of multiple studies are
incredibly time-consuming tasks and, thus, are not practical
for busy educators to do on their own (Haynes, 2001). Given
the availability of more efficient and accurate information at
higher levels of the Pyramid, examining original studies is
not the preferred method to determine the effectiveness of a
practice and should only be used when higher-level resources
are unavailable.
Level 6 Resources
Individual studies examining the impact of instructional prac-
tices for students with LD were not offered at any of the Web
resources we examined. However, they are readily available in
professional journals, such as Learning Disabilities Research
& Practice. Google Scholar (www.scholar.google.com) and
ERIC (www.eric.ed.gov) are two search engines educators
can use to search for individual studies, and they are also
available through many public and university-based libraries.
Level 5: Synopses of Studies

Synopses of studies are concise, accessible descriptions of
individual studies written by experts (DiCenso et al., 2009).
Synopses of studies are beneficial to practitioners because
they summarize the critical elements of the original research
into a much shorter format, typically using nontechnical lan-
guage. Most synopses of studies also include an evaluative
commentary that highlights important strengths and limita-
tions of the study. Therefore, reading a synopsis of a study is
more accurate and efficient than reading the original study.
Nonetheless, study synopses are limited because they only
provide evidence from one study. Confidence in the effective-
ness of a practice is greatly increased when multiple studies
are considered and the results are consistent (Moonesinghe,
Khoury, & Janssens, 2007). Because of the important limi-
tations associated with considering evidence one study at a
time, all higher levels of the 6S Pyramid consider findings
across multiple studies.
Level 5 Resources
We identified two Internet resources that currently offer Level
5 information related to instructional practices for students
with LD: What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) and National
Center on Intensive Intervention. The study synopses pro-
duced by the WWC are called “Single Study Reviews” and
can be accessed by clicking the “Single Study Reviews” link
located on WWC’s home page. Each Single Study Review
includes a concise summary of the targeted study’s features
and findings, as well as a rating of research quality (i.e., meets
WWC evidence standards without reservations, meets WWC
evidence standards with reservations, or does not meet WWC
evidence standards). Although the WWC had produced more

FIGURE 1 The 6S Pyramid (DiCenso, Bayley, & Haynes, 2009).
than 80 Single Study Reviews at the time of our review, only
one was a synopses of a study that included students with
LD (i.e., Same-Language-Subtitling [SLS]: Using Subtitled
Music Video for Reading Growth). Because WWC releases
several new Single Study Reviews each month, we anticipate
additional LD-related Level 5 resources will be available
from WWC in the future.
The study synopses produced by National Center on
Intensive Intervention are organized into a “Tools Chart”
that can be accessed using the “Tools Charts” dropdown
menu at the top of the home page or directly at the
URL: www.intensiveintervention.org/chart/instructional-
intervention-tools. Each synopsis includes: (1) a summary
of the intervention (e.g., targeted students, cost); (2) an
evaluation and description of key elements related to
research quality (e.g., design, fidelity); (3) details related
to implementation (e.g., group size, duration, training);
(4) a description of the findings (e.g., effect size for all
participants as well as targeted subgroups, such as students
with LD); and (5) related research (i.e., number of additional
studies evaluating the practice and whether they have been
reviewed by WWC). At the time of our review, 59 study
synopses were available from National Center on Intensive
Intervention. Consistent with the organization’s mission,
all of the synopsized studies focused on students with
academic difficulties and 19 specifically included students
with LD in the sample (16 studies targeted literacy and 3
focused on math). Practitioners should prioritize practices
that are supported as effective by multiple, high-quality
studies for a target population (e.g., elementary students
with LD). For example, in the “Tools Chart,” we found

three studies evaluating Stepping Stones to Literacy, all of
which involved kindergarten participants, received positive
ratings for study quality, and showed positive effects on
reading and prereading outcomes. Thus, educators can have
considerable confidence in the effectiveness of this practice
for this population.
Level 4: Syntheses
Syntheses draw conclusions about the effectiveness of a
practice by systematically considering findings across mul-
tiple experimental studies. A research synthesis can, then,
be thought of as a “study of studies.” Because it is unclear
whether the results from any individual study are accurate or
generalizable until they are (or are not) confirmed by other
studies, replication is one of the foundational tenets of scien-
tific inquiry (Jasny, Chin, Chong, & Vignieri, 2011). Since
syntheses consider the findings of multiple studies, they rep-
resent a higher level of evidence than individual studies.
Reading a synthesis is also more efficient than reading all of
the individual studies included in the review. Because of their
advantages, syntheses are being conducted with increasing
frequency to determine what works in education, including
for students with LD (e.g., Swanson et al., 2013).
A common type of synthesis used to identify RBPs is a
meta-analysis. In a meta-analysis, researchers establish crite-
ria for what studies will be included in their review, and then
calculate the average impact (i.e., effect size) of the practice
across the studies reviewed (Cooper, Hedges, & Valentine,
2009; see Banda & Therrien, 2008, for a practitioner-friendly
introduction to meta-analysis). An evidence-based review is
another type of synthesis used to identify RBPs (Cook et al.,
2012). Similar to meta-analyses, evidence-based reviews an-
alyze multiple studies, but the latter (1) consider only studies

that meet quality standards and (2) use predetermined stan-
dards to categorize the effectiveness of the practice based on
the findings from high-quality studies.
Despite their strengths, research syntheses are also sub-
ject to limitations that can impact the accuracy and efficiency
of their results. For example, published syntheses can be
lengthy and, without an understanding of advanced statisti-
cal methods, the details and nuances of the findings can be
challenging to interpret. Also, just like with individual stud-
ies, low quality methods can negatively impact the accuracy
and utility of the findings (Cooper et al., 2009). Moreover,
most practitioners have neither the time nor expertise needed
to critically examine and evaluate a synthesis. Additionally,
because syntheses conducted by different organizations and
researchers do not necessarily use the same methods (e.g.,
different studies are included), they can produce conflicting
results about the effectiveness of a practice (Briggs, 2008;
Cook & Cook, 2013; Slavin, 2008). Finally, syntheses have
not been conducted on all practices, and they can quickly fall
out of date as new research is completed.
Level 4 Resources
We identified five Web sites that currently offer syntheses.
Meta-analyses are available at the Center on Instruction and
evidence-based reviews can be found at WWC, Best Evi-
dence Encyclopedia, National Secondary Transition Tech-
nical Assistance Center, and Current Practice Alerts. The
Center on Instruction has produced two meta-analyses that
include research with samples containing some or all students

with LD: Interventions for Adolescent Struggling Readers:
A Meta-Analysis with Implications for Practice; and Math-
ematics Instruction for Students with Learning Disabilities
or Difficulty Learning Mathematics: A Synthesis of the In-
tervention Research. They focus on grades 4–12 and 1–12,
respectively. These syntheses can be found by clicking the
“Special Education” link on the Center on Instruction’s home
page and then selecting “Research: Meta-analyses and Sum-
maries.” Although Center on Instruction is not producing
new publications, all their resources are archived and remain
available.
The evidence-based reviews offered by WWC, called “In-
tervention Reports,” are produced by a team of experts and
include: (1) an overview of the targeted practice, (2) a de-
tailed description of the methods and results for each in-
cluded study, and (3) a list of studies excluded from the
review along with the reasons why. WWC syntheses cate-
gorize practices—based on the number, quality, and effects
of reviewed studies—as having either positive, potentially
positive, mixed, no discernible, potentially negative, or neg-
ative effects (Effectiveness Rating). An Improvement Index
(which summarizes the impact of the intervention in per-
centile points) and an Extent of Evidence Rating (either small
or medium to large) are also provided. WWC Intervention
Reports can be accessed by clicking the “Intervention Re-
ports” link on the home page. At the time of our review,
WWC had published 17 syntheses targeting students with
LD (i.e., included research with samples comprised of at
least 50 percent of students with LD). As shown in Table 2,
TABLE 2
What Works Clearinghouse Ratings for Practices with Reviewed
Research Studies Involving Students with Learning Disabilities
Rating Practice and Grade Level by Outcome Area

General Reading Achievement
No Discernible Effects Project Read Phonology (K-4)
Repeated Reading (5–12)
Alphabetics
Potentially Positive Effects Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing
(4)
No Discernible Effects Reading Mastery (2–4)
Reading Fluency
(4)
Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (2–6)
No Discernible Effects Read Naturally (4–6)
Reading Comprehension
Potentially Positive Effects Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies
(2–6)
No Discernible Effects Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing (4)
Reading Mastery (2–4)
Mathematics
(4)
No Discernible Effects Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (2–6)
Writing
Potentially Positive Effects Read Naturally (4–6)
Spelling Mastery (2–4)

Potentially Negative Effects Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing
(4)
No Studies Meet Evidence Standards
Alphabetic Phonics, Barton Reading & Spelling System,
Dyslexia Train-
ing Program, Fundations, Herman Method, Read 180,
Reciprocal Teaching,
Unbranded Orton–Gillingham-based Interventions, Voyager
Reading Pro-
grams, Wilson Reading System.
seven of these syntheses include at least one study that met
WWC evidence standards and, thus, these practices received
an Effectiveness Rating.
Whereas WWC syntheses focus on specific practices, the
evidence-based reviews produced by Best Evidence Encyclo-
pedia analyze research related to broader topic areas, such as
elementary mathematics instruction. The rating scale used by
the Best Evidence Encyclopedia to describe the effectiveness
of a practice has six categories: strong evidence of effective-
ness, moderate evidence of effectiveness, limited evidence
of effectiveness—strong evidence of modest effects, limited
evidence of effectiveness—weak evidence with notable ef-
fects, insufficient evidence of effectiveness, and no quali-
fying studies. Each “Best Evidence Synthesis” completed
by the Best Evidence Encyclopedia results in two publica-
tions: a “Full Report,” which comprehensively describes the
synthesis methods and findings, and an “Educator’s Sum-
mary,” which is a short and easy-to-read summary designed
to help practitioners understand and utilize the synthesis re-
sults. Syntheses can be accessed via the topic-specific links
on the left-hand side of the home page. At the time of our
review, the Best Evidence Encyclopedia offered one synthe-
sis that included research with (K-5) students with LD, titled

Effective Programs for Struggling Readers: A Best Evidence
Synthesis.
TABLE 3
Ratings for Practices with Reviewed Research Studies Involving
Students with
Learning Disabilities
Level of Evidence Practice and Grade/Age Level by Outcome
Area
Academic Skills
Strong Mnemonics (13–17)
Peer Assistance (13–17)
Self-Management (13–16)
Technology (12–22)
Visual Displays (13–16)
Functional Life and Transition Skills
Moderate Self-Advocacy strategy (to teach student involvement
in the IEP meeting, 12–18)
Self-Determined Learning Model (to teach goal attainment, 14–
19)
Self-Directed IEP (to teach student involvement in the IEP
meeting, 12–21)
Simulations (to teach social skills, 12–21)
Training Modules (to promote parent involvement in the
transition process, 15+)

Whose Future is it Anyway? (to teach knowledge of transition
planning, 12–16)
Whose Future is it Anyway? (to increase self-determination
skills, 12–16)
Potential Computer-Assisted Instruction (to teach participation
in the IEP process, 12–18)
Mnemonics (to teach completing a job application, 15–16)
The evidence-based reviews published by National Sec-
ondary Transition Technical Assistance Center, called
“Practice Descriptions,” are written specifically for
practitioners. Each includes a brief summary of the prac-
tice, a short description of the research included in the re-
view, a list of additional references, and recommendations
for learning more about implementation (including links to
sample lesson plans). The level of evidence supporting a
practice is rated as strong, moderate, potential, or low. Al-
though National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance
Center’s synthesis process is generally consistent with the
way other organizations (e.g., WWC and Best Evidence En-
cyclopedia) conduct evidence-based reviews, it is unique in
that, sometimes, an existing synthesis (e.g., a meta-analysis
published in a peer-reviewed journal) is used to develop
a Practice Description (rather than independently locating
and analyzing the individual studies). At the time of our
review, 14 Practice Descriptions included research with stu-
dents with LD (see Table 3). They can be accessed from the
“Evidence-based Practices” tab at the top of their home page
or directly from http://nsttac.org/content/evidence-based-
practices-secondary-transition.
The Council for Exceptional Children’s Division for
Learning Disabilities and Division for Research collabora-
tively produce a series of “Current Practice Alerts”. Like Na-
tional Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center’s

Practice Descriptions, Current Practice Alerts are written
specifically for educators and include a concise description
of the targeted practice and research. Current Practice Alerts
rate the effectiveness of practices reviewed as either Go for It
(evidence suggests a high likelihood of effectiveness) or Use
Caution (either insufficient evidence to determine effective-
ness or evidence indicating small, no, or negative effects).
Current Practice Alerts differ from the systematic synthe-
ses produced by WWC, Best Evidence Encyclopedia, and
because a uniform set of predetermined standards is not used
to categorize the effectiveness of each practice reviewed.
Rather, authors, who are experts in the field, make a decision
based on their own interpretation of the research (which is
then reviewed and verified by the Alerts Editorial Commit-
tee). As shown in Table 4, 16 Current Practice Alerts that
include research with students with LD were available at the
time of our review.
In addition to the Web resources described above, re-
search syntheses examining the effectiveness of instructional
practices for students with LD are frequently published
in professional journals. As previously described with
Level 6 resources, Google Scholar, ERIC, and other search
engines can be used to locate relevant syntheses published in
journals. For example, a teacher who wants to improve the
written language skills of his/her students with LD would
find several syntheses by conducting a search using the key
words “learning disabilities,” “meta-analysis,” and “writing
instruction.”
Level 3: Synopses of Syntheses
Synopses of syntheses are brief and accessible reviews
of existing syntheses. They include a summary of the

synthesis’ methods, findings, and implications and, in
most cases, an expert evaluation of the research quality
(DiCenso et al., 2009). Synopses of syntheses preserve
the strengths of syntheses (e.g., determining effectiveness
across multiple studies), while addressing some of their
limitations (e.g., significant time and expertise required to
critically analyze methods and interpret results). Nonethe-
less, it is important to recognize, like Level 5 and Level
4 evidence, Level 3 synopses are only as good as the
original research on which they are based (Windish, 2013).
Additionally, they are relatively rare in education and, as
with syntheses, they become outdated as more research is
conducted.
TABLE 4
Current Practice Alerts Ratings for Reviewed Practices
Rating Practice and Grade Levela by Outcome Area
Multiple Academic Domains and Content Areas
Go For It • Direct Instruction (K-12)
• Class Wide Peer Tutoring (K-12)
• Cognitive Strategy Instruction (K-12)
• Graphic Organizers (K-12)
• Mnemonics (K-12)
• Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction (not specified)
• Vocabulary Instruction (K-12)
Use Caution • Cooperative Learning (K-12)
• Co-teaching (K-12)
• Learning Styles (not specified)

Reading
Go For It • Fluency Instruction (not specified)
• Phonics Instruction (beginning readers and older students with
reading difficulties)
• Phonological Awareness Acquisition and Intervention
(beginning readers)
• Reading Comprehension Strategy Instruction (not specified)
Use Caution • Reading Recovery (not specified)
Writing
Go For It • Self-Regulated Strategy Development for Writing
(upper-elementary through middle school)
aMost Current Practice Alerts indicate a relevant age range,
rather than the specific grades represented in the research used
to determine the rating.
Level 3 Resources
Center on Instruction and National Dissemination Center for
Children with Disabilities are the two Internet resources we
identified that currently offer synopses of syntheses related
to students with LD. Center on Instruction’s synopses are
written for practitioners and include an easy-to-understand
summary of the synthesis methods and findings, as well as
a section devoted to implications for practice. They do not
include an explicit evaluation of the synthesis methods; how-
ever, the syntheses were all chosen to be synopsized because
of their quality. Center on Instruction syntheses can be lo-
cated by clicking the “Special Education” link on the left-
hand side of the home page, and then selecting “Research:
Meta-analyses and Summaries” or by typing “Synopsis” into
the “Search Terms” box at the top of the page. Center on In-
struction offers one synopsis of a synthesis examining ways

to improve expository text comprehension for students with
LD, and two others related to writing instruction for all stu-
dents, including those with LD.
National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabil-
ities offers a number of synopses of syntheses, which they
call “Research Summaries.” Each synopsis uses the same,
practitioner-friendly format and offers a summary of the syn-
thesis methods, findings, and implications. As with Center
on Instruction, National Dissemination Center for Children
with Disabilities synopses do not include an evaluative com-
ponent, but syntheses are selected because of their generally
high quality. Eighteen of National Dissemination Center
for Children with Disabilities’ synopses are of syntheses
that included research with samples comprised of students
with LD. They represent a variety of outcome areas (e.g.,
reading, math, writing) and span grades K-12. Because of
discontinued funding, National Dissemination Center for
Children with Disabilities’ original Web site is no longer
active; however, all the publications are archived and remain
available through The Center for Parent Information and
Resources (www.parentcenterhub.org/resources).
Level 2: Summaries
Summaries are publications typically produced by a group
of experts, who seek to integrate all available research ev-
idence (e.g., original research and syntheses) related to a
particular topic area; therefore, they provide highly reliable
recommendations (DiCenso et al., 2009; Haynes, 2006). To
the degree that summaries reflect an entire research base,
they represent the most accurate form of evidence that can
be used to identify RBPs. Additionally, reading a single sum-
mary is much more efficient than reading the large body of
studies and syntheses on which the recommendations in the

summary are based. In education, Level 2 summaries are
currently the highest level of evidence available and, thus,
this is the level where educators should begin their search
for information, examining lower levels only when relevant
Level 2 summaries cannot be found. Although summaries do
not exist for all academic areas, they are available for many
key skill areas, such as reading, writing, and mathematics.
Despite their many strengths, it is important to recognize
that, like syntheses, summaries are only as valid as the stud-
ies and the process used to create them (Windish, 2013).
Finally, summaries are not available for all populations (e.g.,
students with LD) in all topic areas. And, as with syntheses,
summaries need to be reviewed and revised periodically so
they do not become outdated.
Level 2 Resources
“Practice Guides” are the only example of summaries we
identified related to LD. Each Practice Guide is written by a
panel of experts, which includes both researchers and practi-
tioners, and is focused on a specific topic (e.g., reading com-
prehension) and (in most cases) specific student population
(e.g., elementary-aged students; English language learners).
Based on the panel’s extensive and rigorous review of the
available, high quality research, a set of recommendations
for school/classroom practice is offered. Each recommen-
dation is rated as being supported by a strong, moderate,
or minimal level of evidence. Although Practice Guides are
comprehensive, they are written so that practitioners can un-
derstand the panel’s methods and findings and can use them
to guide school/classroom practice. Practices Guides can be
accessed by clicking the “Practice Guides” link on WWC’s

home page. At the time of our review, none of the 17 avail-
able Practice Guides focused specifically on students with
LD. However, nine included research involving at least some
students with LD: Assisting Struggling Students with Mathe-
matics; Dropout Prevention; Developing Effective Fractions
Instruction for Kindergarten Through 8th Grade; Effective
Literacy and English Instruction for English Learners in the
Elementary Grades; Improving Adolescent Literacy: Effec-
tive Classroom and Intervention Practices; Improving Math-
ematical Problem Solving in Grades 4 Through 8; Organizing
Instruction and Study to Improve Student Learning; Reduc-
ing Behavior Problems in the Elementary School Classroom;
and Teaching Elementary School Students to be Effective
Writers.
Level 1: Systems
Representing the highest tier of the 6S Pyramid, systems are
computerized decision support tools that summarize all rel-
evant research evidence about a particular practice or topic
(Cullum, Ciliska, Haynes, & Marks, 2008; DiCenso et al.,
2009). Systems provide recommendations—based primar-
ily on Level 2 summaries—in response to practitioner input
(Haynes, 2001, 2006). For example, in medicine, clinicians
can enter patient characteristics and symptoms, and the elec-
tronic system will provide research-based recommendations
aligned to the patient’s specific needs and characteristics. In
medicine, enthusiasm for systems is growing (e.g., Hlyva
et al., 2010; Osheroff et al., 2007). Although systems do not
yet exist in education, we envision them being developed
and utilized in the future. Once this happens, an educator
could enter information about a learner’s characteristics (e.g.,
grade, age, disability information) and target area (e.g., be-
ginning reading skills, math problem solving) via a pulldown
menu on a Web site, and the system would generate a list of
recommended practices based on the best available research

evidence. Importantly, the goal of systems is not to replace
professional judgment, but rather to provide individualized,
authoritative, and timely research-based recommendations
to inform and support practitioners’ decision making (Hlyva
et al., 2010).
Considerations and Limitations
When using the 6S Pyramid as a guide for identifying
effective instructional practices, it is important that special
educators bear in mind that different resources use different
procedures and criteria, the levels of the 6S Pyramid may
overlap, RBP-related terminology is used inconsistently,
and implementation of RBPs needs to be supported. Con-
sideration of these issues will inform and optimize special
educators’ use of the 6S Pyramid.
Educators should not assume that RBPs at a given
level of the 6S Pyramid are equivalent across Web
sites/organizations. For example, at Level 4, some syntheses
use stringent criteria applied to a comprehensive search of
the literature as the basis for their conclusions, whereas oth-
ers use no systematic criteria or criteria that are less rigorous.
Similarly, synopses vary in terms of their clarity for practi-
tioners, the depth of information provided, and the presence
and quality of an evaluation. In fact, resources at the same
level may occasionally provide conflicting recommendations
(e.g., one synthesis indicates a practice is effective, but an-
other reports it is not). In such cases, the higher quality re-
sources should carry more weight. If practitioners encounter
conflicting results from resources at the same level of the 6S
Pyramid, we recommend they consult with individuals with
advanced research training and expertise to determine which
is more credible.
Organizations providing resources related to RBPs have

not, to our knowledge, designed their products to align di-
rectly with one or more levels of the 6S Pyramid. Rather, the
6S Pyramid is a heuristic framework that we have applied
to existing resources in order to better understand and apply
those resources. Although we believe that the different levels
of the 6S Pyramid make useful distinctions between differ-
ent types of resources, it is important to recognize that it may
be difficult to neatly classify some resources into one of the
six levels. For example, an exhaustive meta-analysis that is
conducted by a group of scholars and includes an expanded
discussion of practical recommendations might reasonably
be considered either a Level 2 (summary) or Level 4 (syn-
thesis). Despite this potential difficulty, it is important to
remember that the guiding principle of the 6S Pyramid is for
practitioners to prioritize resources that incorporate entire re-
search bases, regardless of how we or others may categorize
them.
Terminology related to RBPs is used inconsistently
in the field of special education (Cook & Cook, 2013).
For example, National Secondary Transition Technical
Assistance Center refers to a practice as evidence-based
(with potential evidence) when supported as effective by a
single study. In contrast, other synthesis authors (e.g., Baker,
Chard, Ketterlin-Geller, Apichatabutra, & Doabler, 2009;
Chard, Ketterlin-Geller, Baker, Doabler, & Apichatabutra,
2009) only categorized practices as evidence-based for
students with LD when supported by multiple, high-quality
studies. Additionally, sources use different terms and criteria
to classify the effectiveness of practices. For instance, the
WWC refers to practices supported by the highest level
of evidence as having “positive effects,” whereas National
Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center uses

“evidence-based practices with strong evidence” and the
Current Practice Alerts use “Go For It.” Because these
labels correspond with different criteria, it is important to
understand what a particular term designates.
Although we recommend using the 6S Pyramid to
identify effective practices, it is important to recognize
identifying RBPs is but the first (and perhaps easiest) step
in implementing effective instruction and improving learner
outcomes. As Fixsen, Blase, Horner, and Sugai (2009) noted,
identifying an RBP “is one thing, implementation of that
practice is another thing altogether” (p. 5). Implementing
RBPs successfully over time can be very difficult in schools
and needs to be supported by ongoing training and a
supportive school culture (see Cook & Odom, 2013; Fixsen,
Blase, Metz, & Van Dyke, 2013). Moreover, some recom-
mended practices/programs may entail costs and training not
available to some educators. Additionally, special educators
will need to balance implementing effective practices as
designed (i.e., with fidelity) with adapting them in ways
to optimize their positive impact on students with LD. We
suggest interested educators read Johnson and McMaster’s
(2013) excellent chapter for guidelines on adapting RBPs by
implementing critical elements of RBPs as designed, while
tailoring other aspects of interventions to meet the unique
characteristics and needs of groups and individuals. Finally, it
is important to recognize that even practices with significant
research support will not work for every learner; there will be
“nonresponders” to every practice. As such, even when using
practices at the highest levels of the 6S Pyramid, special
educators should systematically monitor student progress to
evaluate the effects of the practice on individual learners.
Notwithstanding these limitations and considerations, the

6S Pyramid can be a useful tool for educators to efficiently
identify and prioritize RBPs for students with LD using ex-
isting Internet resources. We conclude with the second act
of our vignette, in which Ms. Markloff and Ms. Hutchin-
son demonstrate how the 6S Pyramid can be applied in
practice.
Ms. Markloff and Ms. Hutchinson: Act II
After reading about the 6S Pyramid, Ms. Markloff and Ms.
Hutchinson are excited to conduct a second search for RBPs;
this time, they will use their understanding of hierarchical
levels of evidence to search strategically and efficiently. The
teachers plan to start searching at the top of the Pyramid and
work down only as necessary. Because there are no resources
at Level 1 in education, they begin their search browsing
through the only Level 2 resources available for students
with LD, the Practice Guides, and decide that Improving
Adolescent Literacy: Improving Classroom and Intervention
Practices is the most relevant because it focuses on students
in 4th–12th grade and includes some research with students
with LD.
In the guide, they find five recommendations. The first four
relate to core reading instruction for all students: provide ex-
plicit vocabulary instruction, provide direct and explicit com-
prehension instruction, provide opportunities for extended
discussion of text meaning and interpretation, and increase
student motivation and engagement in literacy learning. Af-
ter discussing these recommendations, Ms. Markloff and Ms.
Hutchinson conclude that they already incorporate these
practices as part of their instructional routine, though the
descriptions and examples in the Practice Guide do provide
them with several new and important ideas for optimizing
their instruction. The teachers recognize they do not imple-

ment the fifth recommendation (make available intensive and
individualized interventions for struggling readers that can
be provided by trained specialists), so they read this section
of the guide very carefully and take notes on the recommen-
dations they would like to implement. These include: using
assessments to precisely identify each student’s strengths and
weaknesses, aligning instruction and intervention with stu-
dents’ individual needs, establishing learning goals, utiliz-
ing learning aids, such as graphic organizers, and explicitly
teaching reading strategies.
Ms. Markloff and Ms. Hutchinson decide to search for ad-
ditional resources to help them deepen and extend what they
learned by reading the Practice Guide. Having exhausted
the relevant Level 2 resources, the teachers search next
for Level 3 resources. To their surprise—between National
Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities and
Center on Instruction—they locate more than 10 synopses
of syntheses related to reading instruction for students with
LD. While reading these publications, they expand and
refine their notes. For example, reading National Dissem-
ination Center for Children with Disabilities’ synopsis of
How Reading Outcomes of Students with Disabilities are
Related to Instructional Grouping Formats: A Meta-Analytic
Review convinces them to use small group instruction more
frequently, because a solid body of research indicates it
improves reading outcomes for students with disabilities,
including those with LD. They also decide to implement peer-
mediated programs, such as peer tutoring and reciprocal
teaching, because they are supported as effective in the syn-
opsis. From National Dissemination Center for Children with
Disabilities’ synopses of Fluency and Comprehension Gains
as a Result of Repeated Reading and A Synthesis of Research
on Effective Interventions for Building Reading Fluency
with Elementary Students with Learning Disabilities, they
learn about the positive outcomes associated with repeated

reading and decide to also incorporate repeated reading into
their instructional routine. Center on Instruction’s synopsis
of Improving Comprehension of Expository Text in Students
with Learning Disabilities: A Research Synthesis and several
similar synopses produced by National Dissemination Cen-
ter for Children with Disabilities reinforce what they learned
from the Practice Guide about the effectiveness of con-
tent/text enhancements and cognitive strategy instruction,
and also provide additional suggestions for implementation.
At this point, Ms. Markloff and Ms. Hutchinson review all
of their notes and decide that they have identified a sufficient
number of RBPs to implement based on what they learned
from the Level 2 and Level 3 resources. Rather than try
to implement everything at once, they select two RBPs with
which they feel comfortable and that align well with the needs
of their students: graphic organizers and repeated reading.
They each take one practice to research and set a goal of
finding or making a checklist of the critical elements of each
practice by the end of next week that they will use to guide
their use of the practices.
REFERENCES
Baker, S. K., Chard, D. J., Ketterlin-Geller, L. R.,
Apichatabutra, C., &
Doabler, C. (2009). The basis of evidence for Self-Regulated
Strat-
egy Development for students with or at risk for learning
disabilities.
Exceptional Children, 75, 303–318.

Banda, D. R., & Therrien, W. J. (2008). A teacher’s guide to
meta-analysis.
Teaching Exceptional Children, 41(2), 66–71.
Briggs, D. C. (2008). Synthesizing causal inferences.
Educational Re-
searcher, 37(1), 15–22. doi:10.3102/0013189×08314286
Chard, D. J., Ketterlin-Geller, L. R., Baker, S. K., Doabler, C.,
& Apichatabu-
tra, C. (2009). Repeated reading interventions for students with
learning
disabilities: Status of the evidence. Exceptional Children, 75,
263–281.
Cook, B. G. (2014). A call for examining replication and bias in
special
education research. Remedial and Special Education, 35, 233–
246.
doi:10.1177/0741932514528995
Cook, B. G., & Cook, S. C. (2013). Unraveling evidence-based
prac-
tices in special education. Journal of Special Education, 47, 71–
82.
doi:10.1177/0022466911420877
Cook, B. G., & Odom, S. L. (2013). Evidence-based practices
and im-
plementation science in special education. Exceptional
Children, 79,
135–144.
Cook, B. G., Smith, G. J., & Tankersley, M. (2012). Evidence-
based practices

in education. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.),
APA
educational psychology handbook (Vol. 1, pp. 495–528).
Washington,
D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Cook, B. G., Tankersley, M., Cook, L., & Landrum, T. J.
(2008).
Evidence-based practices in special education: Some practical
con-
siderations. Intervention in School & Clinic, 44, 69–75.
doi:10.1177/
1053451208321452
Cooper, H., Hedges, L. V., & Valentine, J. C. (2009). The
handbook of
research syntheses and meta-analysis (2nd ed.). New York, NY:
Russell
Sage.
Cullum, N., Ciliska, D., Haynes, R. B., & Marks, S. (Eds.)
(2008). Evidence-
based nursing: An introduction. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
DiCenso, A., Bayley, L., & Haynes, R. B. (2009). Accessing
pre-appraised
evidence: Fine-tuning the 5S model into a 6S model. Evidence
Based
Nursing, 12, 99–101. doi:10.1136/ebn.12.4.99-b
Fixsen, D. L., Blase, K. A., Horner, R., & Sugai, G. (2009).
Concept
paper: Developing the capacity for scaling up the effective use
of
evidence-based programs in state departments of education.
Retrieved

from
http://www.uconnucedd.org/lend/readings/2011/pdfs/Session
%2025%20-
%20Mar%2025,%202011/Concept_Paper_SISEP_0409_
WEB.pdf
Fixsen, D., Blase, K., Metz, A., & Van Dyke, M. (2013).
Statewide im-
plementation of evidence-based programs. Exceptional
Children, 79,
213–230.
Gersten, R., Fuchs, L., Compton, D., Coyne, M., Greenwood,
C., & In-
nocenti, M. S. (2005). Quality indicators for group experimental
and
quasi-experimental research in special education. Exceptional
Chil-
dren, 71, 149–164.
Hattie, J. A. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800
meta-analyses
relating to achievement. New York, NY: Routledge.
Haynes, R. B. (2001). Of studies, syntheses, synopses, and
systems: The
‘‘4S’’ evolution of services for finding current best evidence.
Evidence
Based Medicine, 6, 36–38. doi:10.1136/ebm.6.2.36
Haynes, R. B. (2006). Of studies, syntheses, synopses,
summaries, and
systems: The “5S” evolution of information services for
evidence-
based healthcare decisions. Evidence- Based Medicine, 11, 162–
164.

Hlyva, O., Cotoi, C., Hobson, N., Parrish, R., Jedraszewski, D.,
Wilczyn-
ski, N., et al. (2010). MacPLUS Federated Search: A new era
tool
for evidence-informed clinical decision making. McMaster
University
Medical Journal, 7, 57–60.
Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., &
Wolery, M.
(2005). The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-
based
practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 165–
179.
Jasny, B. R., Chin, G., Chong, L., & Vignieri, S. (2011). Again,
and again, and again . . . Science, 334(6060), 1225.
doi:10.1126/
science.334.6060.1225
Johnson, L. D., & McMaster, K. L. (2013). Adapting research-
based prac-
tices with fidelity: Flexibility by design. In B. G. Cook, M.
Tankersley,
& T. J. Landrum (Eds.), Advances in learning and behavioral
disabili-
ties (Vol. 26, pp. 65–91). Bingley, UK: Emerald.
Miech, E. J., Nave, B., & Mosteller, F. (2005). The 20,000
article problem:
How a structured abstract can help practitioners sort out
educational
research. Phi Delta Kappan, 86, 396–400.
Moonesinghe, R., Khoury, M. J., & Janssens, A. C. J. (2007).

Most published
research findings are false—But a little replication goes a long
way.
PLoS Medicine, 4(2), e28. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040028
Odom, S. L., Brantlinger, E., Gersten, R., Horner, R. H.,
Thompson, B., &
Harris, K. R. (2005). Research in special education: Scientific
methods
and evidence-based practices. Exceptional Children, 71, 137–
148.
Osheroff, J. A., Teich, J. M., Middleton, B., Steen, E. B.,
Wright, A., &
Detmer, D. E. (2007). A roadmap for national action on clinical
decision
support. Journal of the American Medical Informatics
Association, 14,
141–145. doi:10.1197/jamia.M2334
Robeson, P., Dobbins, M., DeCorby, K., & Tirilis, D. (2010).
Facilitating
access to pre-processed research evidence in public health.
BMC Public
Health, 10, 95. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-10-95
Slavin, R. E. (2002). Evidence-based education policies:
Transforming edu-
cational practice and research. Educational Researcher, 31(7),
15–21.
doi:10.3102/0013189×031007015
Slavin, R. E. (2008). Perspectives on evidence-based research in
ed-
ucation: What works? Issues in synthesizing educational pro-
gram evaluations. Educational Researcher, 37(1), 5–14.

doi:10.3102/
0013189×08314117
Swanson, H. L., Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (2013). Handbook
of learning
disabilities (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.
Windish, D. (2013). Searching for the right evidence: How to
answer your
clinical questions using the 6S hierarchy. Evidence-Based
Medicine,
18(3), 93–97. doi:10.1136/eb-2012-100995
Yell, M. L., & Rozalski, M. (2013). The peer-reviewed
requirement of the
IDEA: An examination of law and policy. In B. Cook, M.
Tankersley,
& T. J. Landrum (Eds.), Evidence-based practices. Advances in
learn-
ing and behavioral disabilities (Vol. 26, pp. 149–172). Bingley,
UK:
Emerald.
About the Authors
Tanya Santangelo is an Associate Professor in the Department
of Leadership for Educational Equity and Excellence
in the School of Education at Arcadia University. She received
her Ph.D. in Special Education from the University
of Maryland in 2005. Her two primary areas of research/interest
are: developing, validating, and disseminating ef-
fective practices for teaching and assessing writing; and
increasing educators’ knowledge and use of evidence-based
practices.
Leslie C. Novosel is an Assistant Professor in the Department of

Special Education at the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa.
She received her Ph.D. in Special Education from the University
of Kansas in 2011. Her research interests include evidence-
based practices, school-wide models of response to intervention,
and literacy interventions for adolescents with learning
disabilities.
Bryan G. Cook is a Professor in the Department of Special
Education at the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa. He received
his
Ph.D. in Special Education from the University of California at
Santa Barbara in 1997. His research interests include evidence-
based practices, meta-research in special education, and
physical activity among children and youth with high-incidence
disabilities.
Meredith Gapsis is a special education teacher who works in an
inclusive high school English classroom. She is currently
completing her doctoral degree in special education at Arcadia
University. Her dissertation focuses on teachers’ use of Web-
based
resources to identify and implement evidence-based practices.
Copyright of Learning Disabilities Research & Practice (Wiley-
Blackwell) is the property of
Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed
to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.

ED523 Research Analysis Purpose Finding research-based instruc.docx

ED523 Research Analysis Purpose Finding research-based instruc.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to ED523 Research Analysis Purpose Finding research-based instruc.docx

Similar to ED523 Research Analysis Purpose Finding research-based instruc.docx (20)

More from tidwellveronique

More from tidwellveronique (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

ED523 Research Analysis Purpose Finding research-based instruc.docx