Search

Although data-based individualization (DBI) has positive effects on learning outcomes for students with learning difficulties, this framework can be difficult for teachers to implement due to its complexity and contextual barriers. The first aim of this synthesis was to investigate the effects of ongoing professional development (PD) support for DBI on teachers' DBI knowledge, skills, beliefs, and fidelity and the achievement of preschool to Grade 12 students with academic difficulties. The second aim was to report on characteristics of this support and explore whether features were associated with effects. We identified 26 studies, 16 and 22 of which examined teacher and student outcomes, respectively. Meta-analyses indicated that the weighted mean effect size for DBI with ongoing support for teachers was g = 0.86 (95% confidence interval [CI] = [0.43, 1.28], p <.001, I 2 = 83.74%, k = 46) and g = 0.31 for students (95% CI = [0.19, 0.42], p <.001, I 2 = 61.38%, k = 103). We did not identify moderators of treatment effects. However, subset effects were descriptively larger for ongoing support that targeted data-based instructional changes or included collaborative problem-solving. Researchers may improve future DBI PD by focusing on support for teachers' instructional changes, describing support practices in greater detail, and advancing technological supports. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a multiyear, multisite, randomized control trial, we examined the effects of comprehensive professional development designed to support teachers’ data-based instruction (DBI) for students with intensive early writing needs. Teachers (N = 154; primarily special educators or intervention specialists) were assigned randomly to a treatment group (n = 76), in which they received tools, learning, and coaching to support their DBI implementation over 20 weeks, or to a control group (n = 78). Students either received DBI in early writing (n = 155) from treatment teachers or their usual writing instruction (n = 154) from control teachers. Treatment teachers outperformed controls on measures of DBI knowledge and skills (d = 1.57) and self-efficacy for writing instruction (d = .94), and treatment students outperformed controls on proximal and distal writing outcomes (ds = .14–.29). Student characteristics (grade, special education status, English learner status, and race/ethnicity) did not moderate intervention effects. We discuss findings in terms of the importance of supporting students with intensive learning needs, the efficacy and feasibility of implementing DBI-TLC, and implications for pre- and in-service teacher training and support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]