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 ( d s = .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.

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, I² = 83.74%, k = 46) and g = 0.31 for students (95% CI = [0.19, 0.42], p < .001, I² = 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.

The importance of mathematical problem solving (MPS) has been widely recognized. While there has been significant progress in developing and studying interventions to support teaching and learning MPS for students with disabilities, the research on how to accurately and effectively assess the impact of those interventions has lagged, leaving a gap in understanding whether interventions are truly achieving their intended outcomes. The purpose of this mixed-method study was to explore how a dynamic assessment (DA) approach can be used in the context of an evidence-based MPS intervention, Enhanced Anchored Instruction, as an alternative means of assessing the MPS of students with disabilities. Our findings suggest that DA is an adequate assessment tool and can provide additional information for teachers to better understand the MPS strengths and challenges of students with disabilities such as MPS ownership transition. Study limitations, considerations for future research, and implications for practice are discussed, emphasizing the importance of rigorous evaluation of the DA approach to improve teaching and learning MPS for students with disabilities.

The purpose of this logistic regression study was to identify predictors of teacher-reported sustained use of data-based instruction (DBI) during the COVID-19 pandemic and assess the extent to which the identified predictors explained teachers’ sustained use after completing programmatic support for intensive early writing instruction. We surveyed 58 teachers who participated in a professional development efficacy trial regarding their sustained use of DBI in writing. The model indicated a higher predicted probability of sustaining DBI for teachers who received the full treatment (tools, learning modules, and coaching for 20 weeks of intervention during their year of participation in the efficacy trial) compared to teachers in the control group who only received tools and learning modules at the end of their participation year. In addition, teachers who taught in-person were more likely to sustain compared to those who taught in remote or hybrid models, controlling for other variables. Furthermore, as the number of facilitators that teachers reported increased, teachers were more likely to sustain their use of DBI components, controlling for other variables. Further research could shed light on the relative impact of different types of facilitators and different levels of support.