Developing and Sustaining a Research Agenda in Special Education Teacher Education

Two Lines of Empirical Inquiry

Two lines of empirical inquiry emerged from this context. The first looked at the effects of different classroom interventions on student academic, behavior, and interpersonal outcomes while the second focused on preparing general education teachers (i.e., candidate, novice, and experienced) to use these and similar interventions in their own teaching. Initially, classroom-based interventions were used with “classified” students with learning and behavior disorders who struggled in integrated and/or segregated settings. Subsequent observations found, however, many other nonidentified students with similar problems in the high-poverty settings in which we were working. This reinforced our perceptions of the magnitude of the instructional challenge and the need for more powerful classwide and buildingwide interventions.

In many of our studies, classroom peers served as primary intervention agents. For example, in one study, high-status peers were recruited to serve as academic tutors for classmates who were socially unpopular to improve the latter’s social acceptability (Maheady & Sainato, 1985). In another investigation, preschool students who were socially withdrawn served in high-preference, classroom roles (i.e., toy manager) to improve their social standing and interactions with peers (Sainato, Maheady, & Shook, 1986).

The second line of inquiry emerged naturally from the first. Since colleagues and I were conducting classroom-based research, it made sense to extend the knowledge and findings to the many teacher candidates we taught. The problem, however, was that undergraduate preservice teachers had too few opportunities to teach at the time. Their first clinical experiences did not occur until the junior or senior year, immediately before student teaching. A timely, state initiative (i.e., late 1980s), however, changed all of that. The state mandated that all preservice general educators be prepared to work effectively with students with disabilities, English Language Learners, and those from poverty environments. General education teacher candidates would clearly need more opportunities to learn how to do so.

The mandate spawned a second research line that examined the development, implementation, and evaluation of a more “practice-based” teacher education program (Maheady, Harper, Mallette, & Karnes, 1994; Maheady, Harper, Mallette, & Karnes, 1993). The program provided general education teacher candidates with a series of highly structured, developmentally sequenced, clinical experiences, 78% of which occurred in high-needs schools. We teacher educators gained more opportunities to observe and provide feedback on candidates’ teaching practices and assess their impact on select P-12 student outcomes. We observed at least three times, examined student assessment data, and collected written feedback from cooperating teachers and school leaders about the utility and acceptability of candidate assistance. Most importantly, students who struggled academically received a source of instructional assistance that was previously unavailable and delivered effectively and enthusiastically by teacher candidates. P-12 teachers, school leaders, and students consistently rated programs favorably and offered useful suggestions for improvement. Two of the early clinical experiences have been sustained for over 20 years even though no original faculty remain at the college (Maheady, Smith, & Jabot, 2013; Maheady, Magiera, & Simmons, 2016).

Merge Teaching, Research, and Service Functions

Admittedly, it was difficult to forge a research agenda while teaching four new classes, sometimes each semester for the first couple of years. (Later on, I learned to combine sections to reduce preparations and volunteered for service commitments with course reductions). In the interim, a few dissertation-related articles were written with my advisor and another colleague and a self-commitment was made to do at least one applied study the next year. Classes (e.g., Mainstreaming Students with Disabilities into Content Area Classes and Classroom and Behavior Management) were filled with undergraduate and graduate general education teachers, taking courses as electives and looking for practices they could use effectively with their students, preferably on a classwide basis. Invitations to do professional development (PD) in graduate students’ respective schools were followed by informal consultations with other teachers looking to improve student outcomes. Attending school–community events (i.e., social gatherings with parents, guardians, school leaders, and teachers) increased our understanding of school and community needs and enhanced our visibility among those with whom we were working.

The decision to merge research, teaching, and service functions early and as often as possible was clearly a survival strategy. There was too little time available to pursue separate and occasionally competing teaching, research, or service interests. Basically, we did research to improve important student outcomes while also teaching preservice candidates and experienced teachers and administrators how to use and evaluate the interventions in their own settings. Furthermore, we provided ongoing consultation and PD as part of our service commitments to schools and communities. Since we were in P-12 schools more with early clinical experiences, it made sense to conduct research, both descriptive and quasiexperimental, on the impact of these services on candidates and P-12 teachers and their students. It was equally logical to disseminate the findings throughout the same districts and in our college instruction.

Keep Improved Student Outcomes at Core of Merged Agenda

We were asked often, how did you get P-12 schools and teachers to work and do research with you? Our response was that we asked them, “What are your biggest instructional challenges and how can we help?” (in these instances, “we” meant professional colleagues, graduate students, and/or teacher candidates). The questions showed a desire to help meet a common goal (i.e., improve student outcomes) and a willingness to commit time and resources to doing so. The explicit focus on improving student outcomes also helped to maintain coherence and consistency in our teaching and research agendas and established credibility in P-12 settings. Importantly, the explicit focus on improving student outcomes allowed us to avoid what John Hattie called the politics of distraction. Distractors are a litany of topics (e.g., vouchers, charter schools, advanced degrees, grade retention, and summer school), typically structural and/or unalterable in nature, that consume educational debates yet provide little insight (or large effect sizes) to improve educational outcomes. Some major research contributions are highlighted below.

Efficiency and Social Acceptability Are Critical to Adoption and Sustainability

An early lesson learned was that P-12 teachers would not use interventions that took too much time or effort, required special materials or more adults, and/or did not fit their curriculum, schedule, or beliefs. Since they would not use practices they did not like, it did not really matter how “evidence-based” the interventions were. Proposed practices had to be efficient and socially acceptable, as well as effective, a higher standard for teacher educators/researchers to achieve, yet one that cannot be overlooked. Belfiore and Lee (2016) described these issues as contextual validity (i.e., fitting interventions into day-to-day realities of schools and classrooms) that must be addressed by applied researchers in P-12 settings.

P-12 teachers and students consistently rated program goals as important to very important, most practices as acceptable and very acceptable, and outcomes as satisfying to very satisfying. Teachers provided useful feedback regarding programming, monitoring, and evaluation issues and shared challenges of daily practice. They described their needs for instructional assistance and support as well as preferred ways of participating in PD and research. These insights helped us to develop more practice-based research questions (Maheady, Harper, & Mallette, 2006), identify important roles and responsibilities for teacher candidates during early clinical experiences (Maheady et al., 2007), and coauthor applied research studies (e.g., Ferneza et al., 2013).

Replication Research Is Important, Particularly in Naturalistic Settings

Makel and Plucker (2014) noted that educational research has focused heavily on experimental design but not much on replicating important results. Their analysis of the entire publication history of the top 100 education journals (i.e., ranked by 5-year impact) found that (a) only 0.13% of articles were replications and (b) replication success varied depending on the extent of involvement of original researchers. Replication is important because no single study, no matter how elegantly designed and conducted, is sufficient to answer the complex questions facing educators (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007). Replication studies assure that important findings are reliable and valid; examine the generality of effects and/or what role(s), if any, extraneous variables play; and when conducted in P-12 settings, can directly improve student outcomes. Demonstrating specific interventions are effective repeatedly when implemented by different teachers with different students across a range of subject matter increases professional practice utility. It is unfortunate that more teacher educators/researchers do not conduct replication research and that its importance is not valued more by researchers, administrators, and professional colleagues.

Our efforts to merge teaching and research functions included the development of a 9-hour, graduate research sequence in preparation for accreditation review. The last six credits in the sequence were devoted to the design and implementation of research-to-practice studies that partially replicated prior and concurrent research (Maheady & Jabot, 2011). These applied investigations (a) targeted teacher-identified educational problems, (b) were conducted in natural settings under typical instructional conditions, (c) provided clear and replicable descriptions of interventions and outcomes, and (d) used research designs that established functional relations whenever possible. The studies were designed to improve practice and extend research by replicating effects across new populations, settings, subject matters, and outcomes (Shriver & Watson, 2005).

Replication studies addressed common classroom problems (e.g., increasing active student engagement and work completion and accuracy), used similar interventions (e.g., response cards, group contingencies with randomized components, and mystery motivators) and research designs (i.e., A-B-A-B, multiple baselines, and alternating treatments), and most produced noticeable improvements in student outcomes that were verified independently and experimentally. Some studies resulted in coauthored publications in peer-reviewed journals with teachers as first authors (e.g., Houser, Maheady, Pomerantz, & Jabot, 2015) and most taught teacher candidates how to collect and analyze data to support instructional efficacy. Importantly, the studies benefited students directly and immediately. They bridged the so-called research-to-practice gap, at least locally and temporarily. None of this would have happened, however, if not for P-12 school partners.

Everyone Can Form School–University Partnerships

While most teacher educators will not secure multiyear, P-12 School–University Partnership grants in their professional careers, many will live within driving distance of local schools. Each school, rural, suburban, or urban is filled with students of multiple and varied academic and behavioral needs and dedicated teachers trying to meet as many of them as possible. What these teachers and students really need is instructional assistance designed specifically to meet their identified needs, delivered professionally and with fidelity, and monitored for its impact on student learning. The key to a successful partnership, irrespective of size and scope, is a trusting relationship built upon common goals and mutual benefits (Maheady, Magiera, & Simmons, 2016). Our first partnership began with one school principal seeking assistance in improving spelling skills among his culturally and linguistically diverse students. Four classroom teachers volunteered to participate in a study that examined the effects of CWPT on student spelling test scores (Maheady & Harper, 1987). Student achievement gains were immediate and educationally important, meeting both school needs and extending our credibility.

Subsequent research (i.e., 12 published studies), ongoing consultation, and PD in the same schools maintained our visibility and reinforced our commitment over two decades. These activities also facilitated the subsequent development, implementation, and evaluation of a clinically rich preparation program in partner schools (Maheady, Harper, Mallette, & Karnes, 1994; Maheady, Harper, & Mallette, 2005). Again, the program’s early clinical experiences, in particular, were designed explicitly to improve P-12 student outcomes, although measurement continued to be a vexing problem. Teachers and school leaders contributed significantly to the program design by (a) identifying the types of practices teacher candidates should provide during early clinical experiences (e.g., leading small reading groups, catching students being good, and working one-on-one with struggling students), (b) opening their classrooms to allow candidates to gain these experiences, and (c) participating willingly in repeated, research-related activities. P-12 students received more small-group and individualized instruction, preservice teachers got additional, well-structured opportunities to teach and receive performance-based feedback, and we gained valuable insights into practice-based teacher preparation.

You Can Do Good Research With Little Funding

Every year, the week after Memorial Day, colleagues and I would return from an annual convention fired up to do 10 or more applied research studies. We quickly realized that there was neither time nor money to do that. To get more done cheaply required us to prioritize our efforts and share responsibilities for study design, implementation, evaluation, and write up. We learned that it was possible to do high-quality, applied research without federal and/or state funding, although it never seemed as pleasant or career-enhancing as grant awards. Although project design was limited in scope and depth at times, quality was not compromised. Research questions still focused on important questions or problems, research methods were rigorous, but compromises were made in consideration of practitioner realities. Students, settings, interventions, and outcomes were described in sufficient detail to facilitate replication, and implementation fidelity and reliability were measured and reported. Rigorous, single-case designs were used whenever possible allowing us to work with one teacher and one struggling student, whole classrooms at different grade levels, and/or entire schools.

Our unfunded studies required pragmatic compromises and demanded professional resourcefulness to ensure implementation fidelity and evaluation reliability. This meant relying on permanent products rather than direct observations, training data collectors and doing fidelity checks ourselves, and/or using undergraduate student volunteers instead of paid graduate assistants. Study durations were occasionally shorter, fewer generalization and maintenance data were collected, and research responsibilities were often divided among multiple colleagues (note the high number of coauthored publications). Although most research efforts received little or no financial support, teachers and school leaders participated in exchange for free PD and having reliable, dependable, and enthusiastic undergraduate volunteers as observers and data collectors.

Get by With a Lot of Help From Friends

It is a bit ironic to discuss the only secured federal grant (i.e., early 1980s) following a segment on doing research without funding. Yet the grant did much more than funding our work. It provided opportunities to work with the best, brightest, and most generous people in our profession, individuals who gave freely of their time and expertise and continued to influence our research and practice for decades to come. The grant was awarded by the Office for Civil Rights and addressed the persistent problem of disproportionate representation of students of color in special education programs. At the time, approximately 18% of the total U.S. school population was African American, yet 38% of all students labeled mentally retarded were African American (Heller, Holtzman, & Messick, 1982). Common explanations for overrepresentation included test bias, teacher insensitivity to culturally different behavior, and/or too few African American examiners. Proposed solutions included use of nondiscriminatory assessment measures (e.g., culture-free and culture-fair tests), improved teacher training in interpreting diverse behavior patterns, and preparation of more minority psychologists.

Colleagues and I argued that disproportionate representation was related more to poverty than race or ethnicity (although more minority students were also poor) and that the problem was primarily instructional in nature (Maheady, Towne, Algozzine, Mercer, & Ysseldyke, 1983). If so, the best way to keep students of color from being labeled and placed in special education was to keep them from being referred in the first place. The grant focused on identifying instructional programs that were unusually effective in improving student achievement, particularly among those of color living in poverty and it produced two immediate benefits. It allowed us to (a) assemble an advisory board of knowledgeable professionals and research consultants to guide the process and (b) observe selected programs, interview teachers and students, and examine empirical evidence supporting program effectiveness.

The advisory board, Drs. Bob Algozzine, Jane Mercer, and James Ysseldyke, provided outstanding guidance throughout the project. They helped to identify exemplary programs (e.g., Direct Instruction, precision teaching, CWPT, and curriculum-based measurement) and connected us with program developers, professional trainers, and an array of special educational researchers (e.g., Drs. Ray Beck, Doug Carnine, Stan Deno, Russ Gersten, Charlie Greenwood, Bill Heward, Tom Lovitt, George Sugai, and Hill Walker) who helped to create a user-friendly, practitioner-implementation guide for teachers, school leaders, and state personnel. Practitioner guides were disseminated during full-day PD sessions conducted in 15 state capitals across all geographic regions of the country, and a special issue of Exceptional Children was devoted to some project findings (Algozzine & Maheady, 1986).

The individual kindness and support we received was overwhelming and had a career-long impact on our work. While we learned much about effective teaching (and continued to use these interventions throughout our careers), we learned much more about being collaborative professionals and good human beings. The generosity of Drs. Charlie Greenwood, Joe Delquadri, Judy Carta, Deb Kamps, and others at Juniper Gardens taught us much about CWPT, its powerful effects on student academic performance, and how to conduct high-quality, empirical research. Everyone we contacted treated us well even though most had no idea who we were.

Pay It Forward and Keep Nibbling

Realizing that you are blessed with great colleagues and unconditional support from others makes it easier to go to work, teach multiple classes, write articles in your “spare time” and/or help out in P-12 schools. Although the research agenda has thinned and colleagues have retired, opportunities to give back to schools and community still exist. I work currently with a different group of professionals at a new institution. These colleagues include an outstanding fourth-grade inclusion teacher, a retired special educator who directs a small grant through local teacher centers, and a cohort of university faculty from general and special education programs who want to improve student and teacher candidate outcomes and discuss and write about it.

The grant brings together P-12 teachers from a large urban and two smaller suburban districts for the explicit purpose of (a) implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs) with fidelity in their own classrooms, and (b) collecting quantitative evidence to examine effects on important student outcomes. Collaborations have included formal PD sessions, visits to the fourth-grade teacher’s class to see practices in action, and e-coaching via Edmodo on implementation, data collection, and analysis. Teachers share data collection responsibilities and PD sites allowing them to collaborate across buildings and districts. In the first year, over 20 elementary and middle schoolteachers presented data (i.e., mostly A-B design) showing positive effects on student performance.

So what does all this mean in the big picture and where do we go from here? I am not quite sure, but I am reminded of a story told by Fred Keller to one of Bill Heward’s graduate classes at the Ohio State University. B. F. Skinner was asked how behavioral educators could promote and advocate for better teaching practice in school. Skinner reportedly paused momentarily and said, “Well I guess we just keep nibbling.” By that, he meant we should continue working in small ways to promote good things that we see. We should thank teachers who we see doing an outstanding job with their students and recognize and support educators who work effectively with parents, teacher unions, and community members to improve student learning. We should advertise the success of local schoolteachers and leaders who use research evidence to improve educational decision making and challenge the “fake news” depictions of educational challenges and proposed solutions. In general, there is great value in our collective efforts to affect meaningful change so that more children, families, and teachers have better days.

Lessons Learned

Thank you for the opportunity to share some important lessons learned over a long and rewarding research career. The intent was not to boast about professional accomplishments but to highlight the important role that others (i.e., colleagues and friends) played in guiding and supporting these efforts. The article would be much shorter, indeed, without their assistance. Although these lessons were shaped more by a general than special education context, they may still offer some useful insights. One might argue that this was, unknowingly, some of the first “universal designs” for better instruction for all students.

There is wisdom, for example, in merging one’s teaching, research, and service functions early and substantially. In fact, there may not be another alternative? The merged agenda, if focused on improving P-12 student outcomes, might generate a research line that (a) identifies common problems of P-12 teaching practice, (b) creates a range of effective, efficient, and socially acceptable interventions for addressing these challenges, and (c) develops an infrastructure to sustain implementation of those practices found to be most effective. Teach about these practices, discuss why they are important, model them, provide opportunities for teacher candidates to use them, and measure their impact on student learning when they do.

Doing applied research in P-12 schools keeps you humble and thankful for the great work that teachers and school leaders do every day. It seems fitting that we support them in their important work, improving student educational outcomes. Each of us can build professional partnerships with P-12 schools and work collaboratively to (a) identify and prioritize important mutual needs, (b) study common problems of practice systematically and through multiple lenses, (c) identify, implement, and evaluate practices in terms of their effectiveness, efficiency, and acceptability, (d) disseminate validated practices via replication studies and on-site training and coaching, and/or (e) use implementation science guidelines to adopt and sustain the most effective practices in schools and universities.