Summit 2006

First Annual Summit on Evidence-based Education

The Evidence-based Education Roadmap: Bridging the Research to Practice Gap

April 27, 2006

8:45 Introduction to The Wing Institute and Summit Outcomes
  view presentation
  Randy Keyworth, The Wing Institute
Keyworth reviewed the mission and activities of The Wing Institute, set the context for discussing evidence-based decision making, introduced the concept of real time evidence-based special education, and reviewed the desirede Summit outcomes.
9:00 An Expanded Model of Evidence-based Special Education
  View presentation
  Ronnie Detrich, The Wing Institute
Detrich presented the obstacles to evidence-based special education, limitations of the current evidence-based model, and the rationale for an expanded model calling for increased focus on research to practice components: effectiveness research and implementation. He then introduced a comprehensive model integrating all aspects: the Evidence-based Education Roadmap.

9:15 What is evidence? and Small Work Group discussion
  View presentation
  Ronnie Detrich, The Wing Institute
Detrich reviewed the results from the pre-summit participant survey regarding various definitions of evidence, discussed levels of evidence, and presented two different approaches for determining whether or not an intervention is evidence-based: threshold and continuum.
9:45 Break
10:00 Roles and Responsibilities of Researchers and Practitioners
Translating Research to Practice
  View presentation

Shriver, M. D. (2007). Roles and responsibilities of researchers and practitioners for translating research to practice. Journal of Evidence-Based Practices for Schools, 8(1), 1–30.

  Mark Shriver, Ph.D., Munroe-Meyer Institute for Genetics and Rehabilitation University of Nebraska Medical Center
Shriver outlined the critical components of research to practice experimentation and distinguished between efficacy and effectiveness research. He then outlined the roles and responsibilities for researchers, administrators, practitioners, and consumers in an evidence-based education culture.

11:00 "GAP Analysis Overview"
  Jack States, The Wing Institute
States introduced the GAP analysis tool and work group exercises. The GAP analysis identifies critical areas for peformance improvement, including: desired outcomes, current status, controlling contingencies, and recommendations. The work groups were given assignments to complete a GAP analysis on selected strategic areas in education.

11:15 Small Work Groups: Gap Analysis Exercise 1
Each work group was comprised of representatives from many different professions, organizations, and perspectives. The groups were instructed to select one strategic area, identify current practices, analyze the controlling contingencies, and develop a recommended corrective action plan.

11:45 Lunch
12:30 Supporting and Evaluating Broad Scale Implementation of Positive Behavior Support
  View presentation

Lewis-Palmer, T., & Barrett, S. (2007). Establishing and sustaining statewide positive behavior supports implementation: A description of Maryland’s model. Journal of Evidence-Based Practices for Schools, 8(1), 45–61.

  Teri Lewis-Palmer, Ph.D., University of Oregon
Lewis-Palmer presented a comprehensive model for the adoption and implementation of positive behavior support programs at school, district, and state-wide levels. She provided information on a problem-solving process, as well as specific strategies, for getting started, expanding implementation, and sustaining efforts.

1:30 Small Work Groups: Gap Analysis Exercise 2
The small work groups continued their GAP analysis exercise.

2:00 Break
2:15 Contingencies for the Use of Effective Educational Practices: Developing Utah's Alternate Assessment
  View presentation

Hager, K. D., Slocum, T. A., &Detrich, R. (2007). No Child Left Behind, Contingencies, and Utah’s Alternate Assessment. Journal of Evidence-Based Practices for Schools, 8(1), 63–87.

  Tim Slocum, Ph.D., University of Utah
Slocum provided a detailed analysis of the policy contingencies shaping the debate on alternative assessment models in special education. He then discussed how the Utah Alternate Assessment model was designed to address the demands of the federal/state guidelines, meet validity standards, and accurately reflect the progress of individual students.

3:15 Small Work Groups: GAP Analysis Reports (Exercise 3)
  The small work groups report out their findings.
3:45 Next Steps: Knowledge Network
  View presentation as a web page
  Randy Keyworth, The Wing Institute
Keyworth solicited input from the participants on recommended next steps for ongoing collaboration and introduced the Wing Institute Knowledge Network.