The Quest to Translate Research Into Classroom Practice T

The Quest to Translate Research Into Classroom Practice The Emerging Knowledge Base RUSSELL GERSTEN

AND

SUSAN

UNOK

BRENGELMAN

A B S T R A C T

T

HIS ARTICLE REVIEWS T H E EMERGING

1 HI

KNOWL-

E D G E B A S E ON P R O C E D U R E S A N D S T R A T E G I E S T H A T A P P E A R TO C O N S I S T E N T L Y

L E A D TO T E A C H E R S ' S U S T A I N E D

INNOVATIVE RESEARCH-BASED

USE OF

PRACTICES IN CLASSROOMS.

IN P A R T I C U L A R , W E FOCUS O N T H E

IMPORTANCE OF PROVID-

ING BOTH B E H A V I O R A L / T E C H N I C A L S U P P O R T AS W E L L AS O P P O R T U N I T I E S FOR T E A C H E R S TO E X P L O R E A N D STAND THE CONCEPTUAL ASPECTS U N D E R L Y I N G RESEARCH. A CASE STUDY I L L U S T R A T I N G T H E S E N E N T S MAY P R O V I D E S O M E I N S I G H T I N T O W H Y

UNDER-

THE COMPO-

TEACHERS

SOMETIMES REJECT INNOVATIVE PRACTICES EVEN GROWTH IN S T U D E N T L E A R N I N G

IS

THOUGH

DOCUMENTED.

What does not change/Is the will to change —Charles Olson (1966)

A,

.FTER THE DROPPING OF THE ATOMIC

bomb at the end of World War II, many artists understandably equated science and technology with destruction and evil. The poet Charles Olson (1966), however, was a rarity: He continually tried to reconcile the "facts" and "laws" of science with human feeling and thought. For this reason, his writing is particularly meaningful for those trying to translate research findings into practice.

The quotation above provides some insight into why one of the most treacherous areas in social science research is the study of the process of change, or the transfer of research knowledge into practice. Research on such transfer by and large suggests that it is extremely rare for research to find its way into classrooms (Fullan, 1991), and that when it does, the quality of implementation is often poor (Cuban, 1986; Ellmore & McLaughlin, 1988; Kennedy, 1991). As Huberman (1993) noted: "If the innovation literature teaches us just one thing, it is that practice change is an uneven, uncertain affair that seldom transcends trivial levels . . ." (p. 25). Yet in the past 20 years, a body of knowledge has slowly emerged that can, at the very least, help guide our efforts in successfully translating research findings into practice. Synthesizing this literature is difficult, however, because it comes from many disciplines, including research on policy (Ball, 1990; McLaughlin, 1991), professional development (Guskey, 1984, 1995; Showers, Joyce, & Bennett, 1987), teaching (Good, 1986; Morine-Dershimer, 1978-79; Richardson, 1994), educational implementation (Kline, Deshler, & Schumaker, 1992; Simmons, Fuchs, Fuchs, & Mathes, 1995), and school reform (Burlingame, 1979; Goodman, 1995; Hargreaves, 1994; Murphy, 1991; Newmann, 1993). Interpreting findings from these different bodies of literature is frequently difficult, because they use very different terminologies. For example, many researchers investigating teaching in general or special education define effectiveness in terms of enhanced student outcomes. In R E M E D I A L

AND

S P E C I A L

E D U C A T I O N

Volume 17, Number 2, March 1996, Pages 67-74

g

7

contrast, policy researchers such as McLaughlin (1990) often define effectiveness in terms of innovative practices that are sustained by teachers in a school or district. Of course, both definitions of effectiveness are important (see Cuban, this issue). The problem is that communication between educators is sometimes hindered when important terms, such as effectiveness, are not clearly defined.

REALITY PRINCIPLE

SCOPE Neither too Broad/Vague nor too Narrow

Sustained Use of Research-Based Practices

FOSTERING U S E OF RESEARCH-BASED PRACTICES

This article synthesizes a disparate body of knowledge in order to delineate those factors that promote implementation of research-based practices that transcend the uncertain or even trivial levels of implementation observed by researchers such as M. Huberman (1993) and Ball (1990). The goal of this type of synthesis is to provide the reader with a framework for critically evaluating and interpreting the three research articles in this topical issue. It is important to note that educational change involves both behavioral and conceptual change on the part of teachers, and both new learning and "letting go." Neglect of any of these components can be disastrous for sustained use (Ball, 1990; Woodward, 1993). Figure 1 is a graphic organizer for the major topics discussed in this section.

The Reality Principle Many previous attempts to design models for professional development have foundered in part because they lacked concreteness, specificity, and intensity (McLaughlin, 1991). In fact, specificity has been a persistent theme in the research on instructional change. As early as 1977, Doyle and Ponder noted the importance of concrete, practical suggestions from consultants or change agents. One of the most extensive studies of school improvement in history (Crandall, 1981; A. M. Huberman & Miles, 1984; Loucks & Zacchei, 1983) similarly concluded that successful change efforts almost always involved concrete, usable ("classroom-friendly") remedies for instructional problems. This theme was reinforced in the research by Schumm and Vaughn (1991), which stressed the importance of teachers' concern for the feasibility of any proposed adaptation for facilitating learning of students with learning disabilities. When teachers are provided with vague guidelines without concrete examples and procedures, the rate of implementation is low and erratic, and growth in student achievement is minimal (Bereiter & Kurland, 1981-1982; Englert & Tarrant, this issue; Hofmeister, 1993; Stallings, 1975). In other words, to be useful, research must be able to be translated into manageable and comprehensible teaching strategies and procedures. Further, these strategies must reflect and fit within the details of day-to-day classroom instruction. Gersten, Woodward, and Morvant (1992) called this the reality principle (see Figure 1). ZTO

R E M E D I A L

A N D

S P E C I A L

Volume 17, Number 2, March 1996

E D U C A T I O N

CONCEPTUAL • Linking research ideas to classroom situations * Joint problem solving

FIGURE 1. Factors leading to sustained use of research-based practices.

Attention to Both Technical and Conceptual Aspects of the Change Process Simply providing teachers with access to innovative instructional strategies is insufficient to alter existing patterns of teaching (Goldenberg & Gallimore, 1991; Richardson, 1994; Showers, Joyce, & Bennett, 1987). Ellmore and McLaughlin's (1988) characterization of the process of educational change as "steady work" requiring ongoing observation, feedback, and discussion, is an excellent encapsulation of a decade's worth of research. A structure and system must exist so that when teachers try out new methods of teaching, they receive feedback from a peer or a person knowledgeable in the new strategies or innovation (Cruickshank, 1985; Gersten et al., 1992). As Eisner (1992) noted, "For complex forms of human action, general advice is of limited utility. Feedback needs to be specific and focused on the actor in context" (p. 614). Additionally, it is critical that teachers have regular opportunities to discuss the impact of the new practices on student learning in a supportive, collaborative atmosphere (McLaughlin, 1990; Showers et al., 1987). McLaughlin (1990) observed that successful change efforts need to involve individuals who can provide "the ongoing and sometimes unpredictable support teachers needed" (p. 12). During the 1980s, researchers tended to stress specificity, practicality, and intensity of technical support in staff development programs (Crandall, 1981; Loucks & Zacchei, 1983) and to focus on observed teaching behaviors (e.g., Good, 1986; Stallings, 1975). It now seems that during this period the technical aspects of training were overemphasized. Sashkin and Egermeier's (1993) research

synthesis on the change process identified this era as being predominantly "rational-scientific" and based on an assumption that people would accept and use information that was scientifically shown to result in improvement. This movement was spurred in large part by the disastrously low levels of implementation of models that provided only intellectual content with no specific procedural components for actually demonstrating what to do (Bereiter & Kurland, 1981-82). A meta-analysis of professional development programs by Showers et al. (1987) was pivotal in stressing the equal importance of conceptual and procedural components to any professional development effort that would lead to enduring change. They found that programs with a cognitive-conceptual component, along with demonstration and practice (what they called coaching), tended to triple the effect of programs that merely included behavioral training on new techniques. Showers et al. reminded us that "what the teacher thinks about teaching [practices] determines what the teacher does in the classroom" (p. 85). The importance of building professional development frameworks that significantly alter teachers' conceptions of teaching practice grew in the late 1980s and 1990s. Innovations during this time began to require more precision from teachers in specifying what they wanted to teach in disciplines such as mathematics, history, or language arts (Kline et al., 1992; Little, 1993; Schumm, Vaughn, & Leave 11, 1994). Also, instructional interactions that required deeper content understanding than had previously occurred were beginning to be expected (Harris & Pressley, 1991; Idol, 1988; Palincsar & Klenk, 1992). Ball's (1990) work provided important insights into teachers' struggles with the demands of newer cognitively based approaches to instruction, which they frequently grapple with in isolation. For example, Ball documented in considerable detail how a teacher vigorously supported a conceptual approach to teaching math that involved allowing students to verbalize thoughts and intuitions about the problem-solving process and opportunities to defend their analyses, but in reality, implemented a direct instruction approach with clear models of the exact steps all, students should take in solving mathematical problems. Her rapidly paced lessons did not allow students enough time to develop alternative explanations. Her concern for student success led her to provide an excessive number of prompts, which had the effect of extinguishing any ambiguity about how to solve problems. Yet ambiguity was necessary according to her espoused philosophy of teaching mathematics for understanding. As McLaughlin (1995) so perceptively noted, this teacher could learn some new techniques (such as use of manipulatives), but without any type of feedback from colleagues or consultants, and with no access to a collegial teacher work group, she could not "unlearn" her old techniques, which often deflected her from the goal of actively engaging students in the process of mathematical reasoning.

Increasingly, teachers are asked to fundamentally rethink how and what they teach, to refine their teaching based on student performance (Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, & Bentz, 1994; Guskey, 1995; Leinhardt & Greeno, 1986; Rosenfield & Rubinson, 1985), to seriously assess what they plan to teach special education students in mainstream classes, and to collect information on what actually was learned (Gersten et al., 1992). As Little (1993) noted, this rethinking often represents "a substantial departure from teachers' prior experience, established beliefs, and present practice. Indeed, they hold out an image of conditions of learning for children that their teachers have themselves rarely experienced" (p. 130). Similarly, Kennedy (1991) concluded, We now realize that the task . . . entails more than teaching teachers specific techniques, and more than teaching them a vision [emphasis added]. . . . Teachers must grasp the significance of these new ideas, understand how these ideas differ from those they have held in the past, and be persuaded that these ideas are better than the ideas they had in the past. (p. 64) She also noted that earlier, when researchers attempted to translate their findings into practice, they rarely "took into account the deeply-held and tacit convictions that teachers brought with them" (p. 64, emphasis added).

Collegial Support and Networks Professional development activities must include opportunities for teachers to discuss with colleagues the specific realities of applying new strategies and to learn about their underlying concepts and intent. By creating situations and structures that both allow and encourage teachers to apply innovative concepts and principles, researchers can reinforce teachers' ultimate responsibility for decisions and guide their work with the students in their classrooms. Models for such dialogue sessions are provided by Johnson and Pugach (1991), Sparks-Langer and Colton (1991), and Richardson (1990), as well as the research papers in this issue. Joint planning of units provides another important context in which teachers can test new ideas about instruction (Gersten, Dimino, & Peterson, 1995; Lenz, 1991). As teachers discuss, problem solve, and develop alternative strategies, they are able to merge "practice knowledge" and "research knowledge" (Malouf & Schiller, 1995). Additionally, these collegial discussions can be invaluable for enabling teachers with "navigat[ing] the difficult space between letting go of old patterns and grasping on to new ones" (Deal, 1990, p. 12). Recently, McLaughlin (1995) concluded that, although individual teachers can learn in isolation, "unlearning," or letting go, requires involvement in a group. Providing structures that facilitate learnR E M E D I A L

A N D

S P E C I A L

E D U C A T I O N

Volume 17, Number

2, March

1996

/CQ

ing new techniques as well as "unlearning" ineffective ones is essential for teachers as they grapple with changing teaching practices, especially as researchers have begun to acknowledge that, "In the final analysis, it seems that the process of applying research . . . can never be better than the local practitioner is able to make it" (Malouf & Schiller, 1995, p. 22). We are only beginning to understand how these structures operate and sustain themselves, which configurations are most likely to succeed, and the optimal mix of technical, conceptual, and personal collegial supports (Guskey, 1995). Nevertheless, McLaughlin's (1993) research on teacher work groups found that "professional communities that are cohesive, highly collegial environments are also settings in which teachers report. . . high levels of energy and enthusiasm, and support for personal growth and learning" (p. 94). Of most relevance to special education is the fact that these teachers "also report a high level of commitment to teaching and to all of the students with whom they work" (p. 94). Link Changes in Teaching to Student

Learning

One of the earliest findings from the research on innovation and change was that a major reason teachers continued to use an innovative practice was that it enhanced performance for difficult-to-teach students (Berman & McLaughlin, 1976). In subsequent years, a small body of well-designed experimental and quasi-experimental research seemed to validate this proposition. A series of studies (Gersten, Carnine, Zoref, & Cronin, 1986; Guskey, 1984; Sparks, 1988) found that a critical determinant of teachers' attitudes toward change was not prior attitudes or beliefs, as was commonly thought, but rather, whether new practices led to demonstrable gains in student achievement. These researchers found that prior attitudes to proposed change were not good predictors of implementation success. In fact, attitudes often changed dramatically when teachers saw changes in their students' learning performance. Thus, attitudinal shifts often followed behavioral shifts. Furthermore, this focus on student learning is critical, given that "intensive collaboration—planning, exchanging materials, and regulating pupil performance— does not automatically translate into observable changes in classroom practice and may, if pushed too hard, actually eat into time for ongoing instructional work in class" (M. Huberman, 1993, p. 13). Careful attention to student performance during a lesson is, in fact, a characteristic of skilled teachers (Kinder, Gersten, & Kelly, 1989; Leinhardt & Greeno, 1986; Palincsar, 1986). By focusing on the impact of instruction on learners and helping teachers to more carefully assess student learning during instruction, those involved in collaborative efforts can help teachers become more observant and reflective as they teach (Cruickshank, 1985). Nevertheless, making these explicit links between changes H f\

R E M E D I A L

A N D

Volume 17, Number

S P E C I A L

2, March

1996

E D U C A T I O N

in student performance and use of new techniques requires numerous examples based on direct observation and a good deal of sustained dialogue. However, Kline et al. (1992) raised a critical issue regarding the sometimes difficult task of documenting changes in student performance, especially with some of the newer cognitively based practices such as learning strategy instruction. Initial change in student performance may be very subtle and not easily discernible, and valid measures don't always exist to help track these changes. Even when such measures are available, though, teachers may not always use data to alter their teaching (Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, & Bentz, 1994; Rosenfield & Rubinson, 1985). It is important to remember that in judging the effectiveness of a lesson, many teachers rely more on observable student behavior than on quantitative assessment data (Morine-Dershimer, 1978-1979). In fact, teachers often do not even look at curriculum-based measurement data unless these data serve as a focus for a discussion with a consultant (Gersten, Morvant, & Brengelman, 1995). Thus, it appears that curriculum-based measures, or criterion-referenced test data, can enhance the process of change, but only if a good deal of energy goes into explaining the meaning of the data and how they can be used to help students learn. One promising direction has been developed by Fuchs, Fuchs, and Hamlett (1994), who have provided teachers with specific suggestions for alternative ways to teach math to special education students as part of a curriculum-based measurement system. Finally, it is important for those in special education to realize that, for many classroom teachers, enhanced performance of students with learning disabilities or other low-performing students is only one concern among many (Gersten & Woodward, 1992). As M. Huberman (1993) observed, it is unrealistic to expect "that most teachers would derive more professional satisfaction from resuscitating three sullen, low-performing pupils on the brink of dropping out than from raising class-level achievement tests by half a standard deviation" (p. 42). In other words, despite massive efforts by special educators to change priorities, teachers are more strongly rewarded by principals and school boards for raising overall achievement; in other words, for "teaching to the middle." Scope and Magnitude

of Intended

Change

It is only in the 1990s that researchers have honed in on the issue of scope of planned change efforts (Kennedy, 1991; McLaughlin, 1990). McLaughlin (1990) concluded, "Planned change efforts . . . need to be sufficient in scope to challenge teachers and kindle interest, but not so ambitious that they require too much too soon" (p. 12, emphasis added). Neither requiring wholesale, radical alterations of instructional practice nor merely tinkering with small aspects of teaching behavior are likely to result in meaningful or sustained change in teaching practice. Requests for radical

change ignore what is currently working for teachers and are likely to be deflected, as in the case of the secondgrade math teacher who was both unwilling and unable to abandon her entire battery of instructional techniques that kept students (even low-performing students) attentive and successful in order to attempt to teach math for deep conceptual understanding. On the other hand, tinkering with small aspects of teaching behavior (such as attempts to ask teachers to provide "wait time" after asking higher order questions, or prereferral interventions that ask teachers to implement a strict contingency-based behavior plan for one student in their class that does not fit their overall classroom management system) typically fails to address how teachers think about teaching, and thus assimilation is rare (McLaughlin, 1991; Showers et al., 1987). Research suggests that regardless of the intensity of technical support, the scope of the intended change is a major factor in determining whether the change effort is successful (Bereiter & Kurland, 1981-82). Many special education interventions currently being recommended may simply be too narrow in scope. If an intervention focuses on only one child and is based on a narrow conception of teaching, it is unlikely to engage a teacher in a serious way. This would be equally true for the research findings on wait time or guided practice, which, despite their empirical support, rarely found their way into routine practice. Again, the scope may have been insufficient to truly engage teachers. On the other hand, far too many interventions have foundered due to their overly broad, ambitious scope. The erratic implementation of cognitively derived approaches toward teaching math (Ball, 1990) and reading (Goldenberg, in press; McGuire, 1989; Reid, 1992) may well be due to the radical shifts required in both teaching behaviors and conceptual understanding, as well as the elusiveness of the specific nature of desired changes in teaching. Bereiter and Kurland (1981-82) noted how the intricate instructional management systems and discourse structures promoted by many reformers tend to be implemented well by only a small portion of teachers, and thus rarely produce benefits for students, especially those with serious learning difficulties. In this respect, the research of Englert and Tarrant (this issue) could be a dramatic breakthrough. But, here, too, the fact that only a small group of dedicated special educators was involved means that results may not be easily replicated.

A MINI-CASE STUDY The mini-case study in this section helps with understanding the apparent mystery of what accounts for lack of continuation of a seemingly successful instructional program. Analysis of this problem sheds light on the erratic use of many interventions developed by special education

researchers—erratic despite data supporting the intervention's effectiveness. The profound differences between successful short-term implementation and sustained use is illustrated in a study by Woodward and Gersten (1992) of a videodisc program for teaching fractions to special education high school students. Whereas many other technology implementations had failed (Apple & Jungck, 1990; Cuban, 1986), we concluded that "the relatively limited focus of the intervention reduced stress and enhanced likelihood of initial success" (Woodward & Gersten, 1992, p. 419). Teachers were asked only to change selected aspects of their teaching, and only how they taught one unit—albeit an extremely important one and one that they and their students indicated they struggled with the most. The working hypothesis was that technical support and feedback from an experienced special education teacher who was conversant with the program and skilled in the area of professional development would lead to high levels of implementation and significant growth in student learning. In fact, for the group of seven teachers (only one of whom had ever used technology in the classroom), results indicated the following: • High frequency of use (i.e., daily use of the program for the 6-week period by all seven teachers); • High quality of implementation (relatively high levels of implementation of critical implementation variables determined by direct observation); and • High growth in student achievement (mean pre-post growth for the secondary special education students was about 50% on a criterion-referenced test; mean student performance on the posttest was 80%; in four of the classes, mean posttest scores were 84%, 85%, 87%, and 90%, all extremely high mean scores for students with learning disabilities who, only 6 weeks before, scored on the average of 30%). Interviews revealed extraordinarily high levels of teacher enthusiasm for the innovative practice. Teachers talked about how they had struggled for years (often unsuccessfully) with teaching this abstract topic to special education students and were thrilled with the fact that most of the students really learned the concepts. They all noted how the high-quality graphics increased student motivation and made concepts such as "equivalence" much easier to understand. Although the professional development activities did not focus on underlying instructional principles, over half the teachers noticed them. They were able to articulate key REMEDIAL

A N D

S P E C I A L

E D U C A T I O N

Volume 17, Number

2, March

1996

7 1

instructional design features of the software—such as the orchestration of skills and topics across lessons rather than the one-topic-per-lesson format of most texts, and continual review of key concepts using a wide range of examples. They noted how this orchestration and repeated review seemed to be crucial in helping students learn a topic that they had been exposed to many times before but had never really grasped. The study also contained a transfer-of-training component. We observed the teachers before and several weeks after they had used the 6-week unit. Observations revealed that as a result of the videodisc experience, teachers tended to provide significantly more explicit instruction on how to solve problems and more guided practice. As a result, student success rate for daily independent work increased from 69% (prior to the videodisc experience) to 83%. By most standards, this would be considered an extremely successful implementation. The success can be attributed in large part to the components discussed in Figure 1: clarity and specificity, provision of technical assistance, and feedback on use by a knowledgeable consultant who used a pragmatic approach to problem solving (Gersten & Kelly, 1992). The consultant was available to deal with an array of problems ranging from glitches in technology use to student motivational problems to deciding the best way to provide feedback. The consultant also provided teachers with feedback based on weekly classroom observations. Despite this seeming success, 1 year later, only two of the seven chose to continue using the videodisc program. In other words, using conventional criteria, the implementation was successful; however, on the basis of McLaughlin's (1991) definition of effectiveness of implementation— consistent, sustained use of the new approach for a period of several years—implementation was only a very modest success. Examination of Sustained

of Possible Reasons for Lack Use

To understand the reasons for this surprising lack of interest, we first needed to examine the nature of the intervention itself. The structured teaching methodology entailed in the videodisc program required teachers to forego one of their major prerogatives—departing from texts and guides in a spontaneous fashion (Woodward, 1993). Despite teachers' admitted difficulties in knowing how to provide meaningful examples of concepts involving fractions, several had a strong inclination to "stop the program" and interject something of themselves into the lesson. "In the fervent quest for precise rationality and technical efficiency" (Cuban, cited in Woodward, 1993, p. 357), teachers fear that too much reliance on technology will hinder their flexibility, thus destroying their emotional connections with the students (Gersten, Davis, Green, Miller, & Morvant, 1985). In fact, we would argue that the y O

REMEDIAL

AND

SPECIAL


EDUCATION

widespread popularity of innovations such as whole language and its incorporation into major American textbooks, despite lack of empirical support, is at least partly attributable to the movement's explicit attempt to re-invigorate the emotional life of classrooms (Pearson, 1989; Routman, 1988). We discovered other reasons why teachers may have discontinued use of this innovation by exploring other features from Figure 1. For example, the staff development effort was extremely strong in the technical and behavioral realm, but fairly limited in the conceptual area. In other words, teachers were not given opportunities to discuss reasons for changes noted in students' learning, or to "think through" how this way of teaching math was different from the way they had taught mathematics to special education students in the past. Nor was much done to provide collegial networks to support continued use. The consultant from the university was essentially the sole source of support; the seven teachers never had the opportunity to meet and work together in the type of teacher work groups Talbert and McLaughlin (1994) found were crucial to sustained innovation and change. We are only beginning to understand how to predict which practices are likely to be consistently implemented by practitioners, and how certain practices might be reshaped to better fit the culture of schools without losing any of their integrity or potential for positive impact on students; The issues raised in this implementation study provide some insights into the critical components likely to be needed to ensure sustained use.

SUMMARY A N D C O N C L U S I O N S

Ball (1993) concluded that "those who would try to change what goes on in schools must figure out how to communicate about change in a way that makes sense and respects where teachers are and yet makes them realize that they are being asked to rethink what they do" (p. 257, 258, italics added). Figure 1 is an attempt to codify the current knowledge base on how to achieve this intricate goal. A final source of problems was articulated by Kennedy (1991). In most cases, individuals involved in or directing the change effort possess only half-formed visions of what they are striving for, and thus have problems in conveying their visions with the concreteness and specificity often desired by teachers. This has been true for innovations as diverse as direct instruction (Gersten et al., 1986; Simmons, Fuchs, Fuchs, & Mathes, 1995), full inclusion, conceptually based mathematics instruction (Ball, 1990), classwide peer tutoring (Greenwood, Delquadi, & Hall, 1989), and learning strategies instruction (Kline et al., 1992). Certainly this problem is reflected in the three research articles in this topical issue, which are examples of collaborations as well as occasional clashes or misunderstandings between two sets of practitioners—researchers and teach-

ers. Schon (1987) helped elucidate the problem that these researchers, and all researchers involved in attempts to systematically improve practice, face: In the varied topography of professional practice, there is a high, hard ground overlooking a swamp. On the high ground, manageable problems lend themselves to solution through the application of research-based theory and technique. In the swampy lowland, messy, confusing problems defy technical solution. The irony of this situation is that the problems of the high ground tend to be relatively unimportant to individuals or society at large, however great their technical interest may be, while in the swamp lie the problems of greatest human concern. The practitioner must choose. Shall he [sic] remain on the high ground where he [sic] can solve relatively unimportant problems according to prevailing standards of rigor, or shall he [sic] descend to the swamp of important problems? (p. 3) There is now a body of professional knowledge base— however imperfect—that can help guide our efforts as the research community increasingly descends to the swamp of important "problems of greatest human concern." • RUSSELL GERSTEN is a professor of special education at the University of Oregon and a senior researcher at the Eugene Research Institute. His research has focused on the design and implementation of professional development programs and on the process of translating research into practice. SUSAN UNOK BRENGELMAN is a doctoral student in the Division of Special Education and Rehabilitation at the University of Oregon and a research associate at the Eugene Research Institute. She has worked in the field of special education for almost 20 years, working with adults and children with disabilities. Her areas of expertise include research methods, qualitative research, and case study methodology. Address: Russell Gersten, Eugene Research Institute, University of Oregon, 1400 High St., Suite C, Eugene, OR 97405. AUTHORS' NOTES

1. This research was supported in part by Grant No. H023C20111 and Contract Number HS92017001 from the Division of Innovation and Development of the Office of Special Education Programs of the U.S. Department of Education. 2. The authors wish to thank Thomas Keating and Matt Cranor for their thoughtful feedback on earlier versions of the article, and Carol Munch for her assistance in preparing this manuscript. REFERENCES

Apple, M. W., & Jungck, S. (1990). "You don't have to be a teacher to teach this unit": Teaching, technology and gender in the classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 227-251. Ball, D. L. (1990). Reflections and deflections of policy: The case of Carol Turner. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12, 247259.

Ball, D. L. (1993). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Dilemmas of teaching elementary school mathematics. Elementary School Journal, 93, 373-397. Bereiter, C , & Kurland, M. (1981-1982). A constructive look at Follow Through results. Interchange, 12(1), 1-22. Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. (1976). Implementation of educational innovations. Educational Forum, 40, 345-370. Burlingame, M. (1979). Some neglected dimensions in the study of educational administration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 15(1), 1-18. Crandall, D. P. (1981). Emulation and replication. Teacher Education and Special Education, 4(2), 13-22. Cruickshank, D. R. (1985). Use and benefits of reflective teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 66, 704-706. Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press. Deal, T. E. (1990). Reframing reform. Educational Leadership, 48(8), 6-12. Doyle, W., & Ponder, G. A. (1977). The practicality ethic in teacher decision-making. Interchange, 8(3), 1-12. Eisner, E. (1992). Educational reform and the ecology of schooling. Teachers College Record, 93, 610-627. Ellmore, R. F., & McLaughlin, M . W . (1988). Steady work: Policy, practice, and the reform of American education. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corp. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Hamlett, C. L. (1994). Strengthening the connection between assessment and instructional planning with expert systems. Exceptional Children, 61, 138-146. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., & Bentz, J. (1994). Classwide curriculum-based measurement: Helping general educators meet the challenge of student diversity. Exceptional Children, 60, 518-537. Fullan, M. G., with Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Record. Gersten, R., Carnine, D., Zoref, L., & Cronin, D. (1986). A multifaceted study of change in seven inner city schools. Elementary School Journal, 86, 257-276. Gersten, R., Davis, G., Green, W., Miller, B., & Morvant, M. (1985, April). The fragile role of the instructional supervisor in school improvement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. Gersten, R., Dimino, J., & Peterson, A. (1995, April). An in-depth examination of the process of coaching and expert consultation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. Gersten, R., & Kelly, B. (1992). Coaching secondary special education teachers in implementation of an innovative videodisc mathematics curriculum. Remedial and Special Education, 13(4), 40-51. Gersten, R., Morvant, M., & Brengelman, S. (1995). "Close to the classroom is close to the bone": A study of the process of coaching as a means to translate research into classroom practice. Exceptional Children, 62, 414-429. Gersten, R., & Woodward, J. (1992). The quest to translate research into classroom practice: Strategies for assisting classroom teachers' work with "at risk" students and students with disabilities. In D. Carnine & E. Kameenui (Eds.), Higher cognitive functioning for all students (pp. 201-218). Austin, TX: PRO-ED. Gersten, R., Woodward, J., & Morvant, M. (1992). Refining the working knowledge of experienced teachers. Educational Leadership, 49(7), 34-39. Goldenberg, C. (in press). The education of language minority children: Where are we? Where do we need to go? Elementary School Journal. Goldenberg, C , & Gallimore, R. (1991). Changing teaching takes more than a one-shot workshop. Educational Leadership, 49(3), 69-72. Good, T. L. (1986, April). Training elementary teachers to implement effective teaching practices in mathematics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. REMEDIAL

AND

SPECIAL

EDUCATION


7Q

Goodman, J. (1995). Change without difference: School restructuring in historical perspective. Harvard Educational Review, 65(1), 1-29. Greenwood, C. R., Delquadri, H., & Hall, R. V. (1989). Longitudinal effects of classwide peer tutoring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 371-383. Guskey, T. (1984). The influence of change in instructional effectiveness upon the affective characteristics of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 245-259. Guskey, T. R. (1995). Professional development in education: In search of the optimal mix. In T. R. Guskey & M. Huberman (Eds.), Professional development in education (pp. 114-131). New York: Teachers College Press. Hargreaves, A. (1994). Restructuring restructuring: Postmodernity and the prospects for educational change. In P. Grimmett & J. Newfeld (Eds.), Teacher development and the struggle for authenticity: Professional growth and restructuring in the context of change (pp. 52-78). New York: Teachers College Press. Harris, K. P., & Pressley, M. (1991). The nature of cognitive strategy instruction: Interactive strategy construction. Exceptional Children, 57, 392-404. Hofmeister, A. M. (1993). Elitism and reform in school mathematics. Remedial and Special Education, 14(6), 8-13. Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. (1984). Innovation up close: How school improvement works. New York: Plenum Press. Huberman, M. (1993). The model of the independent artisan in teachers' professional relations. In J. W. Little & M. W. McLaughlin (Eds.), Teachers' work: Individuals, colleagues, and contexts (pp. 11-50). New York: Teachers College Press. Idol, L. (1988). Johnny can't read: Does the fault lie with the book, the teacher, or Johnny? Remedial and Special Education, 9(1), 8-25. Johnson, L., & Pugach, M. (1991). Peer collaboration: Accommodating students with mild learning and behavior problems. Exceptional Children, 57, 454-461. Kennedy, M. M. (1991). Implications for teaching. In E. A. Ramp & C. S. Pederson (Eds.), Follow through: Program and policy issues (pp. 57-71). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Education Research and Improvement. Kinder, D., Gersten, R., & Kelly, B. (1989, April). Expert math instruction for at risk students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. Kline, F. M., Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (1992). Implementing learning strategy instruction in class settings: A research perspective. In M. Pressley, K. R. Harris, & J. T. Guthrie (Eds.), Promoting academic competence and literacy in school (pp. 3 6 1 406). San Diego: Academic Press. Leinhardt, G., & Greeno, J. G. (1986). The cognitive skill of teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 75-95. Little, J. W. (1993). Teachers' professional development in a climate of educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, 129-151. Loucks, S. F., & Zacchei, D. A. (1983). Applying our findings to today's innovations. Educational Leadership, 41(3), 28-31. Malouf, D. B., & Schiller, E. P. (1995). Practice and research in special education. Exceptional Children, 61, 414-424. McGuire, M. H. (1989). Understanding and implementing a wholelanguage program in Quebec. Elementary School Journal, 90, 143159. McLaughlin, M. (1990). The Rand Change Agent Study revisited: Macro perspectives and micro realities. Educational Research, 19(9), 11-16. McLaughlin, M. W. (1991). Enabling professional development: What have we learned? In A. Lieberman & L. Miller (Eds.), Staff development for education in the 90s: New demands, new realities, new perspectives (pp. 61-82). New York: Teachers College Press. McLaughlin, M . W . (1993). What matters most in teachers' workplace context? In J. W. Little & M . W . McLaughlin (Eds.), n

A

R E M E D I A L

A N D

Volume 11, Number

S P E C I A L

2, March

1996

E D U C A T I O N

Teachers' work: Individuals, colleagues, and contexts (pp. 79-103). New York: Teachers College Press. McLaughlin, M. W. (1995, April). Making change happen: The search for coherence. Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. Morine-Dershimer, G. (1978-1979). Planning and classroom reality: An in-depth look. Education Research Quarterly, 3(4), 83-99. Murphy, J. (1991). Restructuring schools: Capturing and assessing the phenomena. New York: Teachers College Press. Newmann, F. M. (1993). Beyond common sense in educational restructuring: The issues of content and linkage. Educational Researcher, 22(2), 4-13, 22. Olson, C. (1966). The kingfishers. In R. Creeley (Ed.), Selected writings (pp. 167-173). New York: New Directions Books. Palincsar, A. (1986). The role of dialogue in providing scaffolded instruction. Educational Psychologist, 21(1 & 2), 73-98. Palincsar, A. S., & Klenk, L. (1992). Fostering literacy learning in supportive contexts. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 211-225, 229. Pearson, P. D. (1989). Reading the whole-language movement. The Elementary School Journal, 90, 231-241. Richardson, V. (1990). Significant and worthwhile change in teaching practice. Educational Researcher, 19(7), 10-18. Richardson, V. (1994). Conducting research on practice. Educational Researcher, 23(5), 5-10. Rosenfield, S., & Rubinson, F. (1985). Introducing curriculum-based assessment through consultation. Exceptional Children, 52, 2 8 2 287. Routman, R. (1988). Transitions: From literature to literacy. Portsmouth, N H : Heinemann. Sashkin, M., & Egermeier, J. (1993). School change models and processes: A review and synthesis of research and practice. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement Programs for the Improvement of Practice. Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schumm, J. S., & Vaughn, S. (1991). Making adaptations for mainstreamed students. Remedial and Special Education, 12(4), 1 8 27. Schumm, J. S., Vaughn, S., & Leavell, A. G. (1994). Planning pyramid: A framework for planning for diverse student needs during content area instruction. The Reading Teacher, 47, 608-615. Showers, B., Joyce, B., & Bennett, B. (1987). Synthesis of research on staff development: A framework for future study and stateof-the-art analysis. Educational Leadership, 45(3), 77-87. Simmons, D. C , Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., & Mathes, P. (1995). Effects of explicit teaching and peer tutoring on the reading achievement of learning disabled and low-performing students in general education. Elementary School Journal, 95, 387-408. Sparks, G. M. (1988). Teachers' attitudes toward change and subsequent improvements in classroom teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 111-117. Sparks-Langer, G. M., & Colton, A. B. (1991). Synthesis of research on teachers' reflective thinking. Educational Leadership, 48(6), 3 7 44. Stallings, J. (1975). Follow Through program classroom observation evaluation. Menlo Park, CA: Stanford Research Institute. Talbert, J. E., & McLaughlin, M . W . (1994). Teacher professionalism in local school contexts. American Journal of Education, 102, 123-152. Woodward, J. (1993). The technology of technology-based instruction: Comments on the research, development, and dissemination approach to innovation. Education and Treatment of Children, 16(4), 345-360. Woodward, J., & Gersten, R. (1992). Innovative technology for secondary learning disabled students: A multi-faceted study of implementation. Exceptional Children, 58, 407-421.

Copyright of Remedial & Special Education is the property of Sage Publications Inc. 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.