IES Blog

The Postdoctoral Research Training Program in Special Education and Early Intervention is designed to prepare scientists to conduct rigorous, practice-relevant research to advance the fields of special education and early intervention. Dr. Jun Ai recently completed an IES postdoctoral fellowship at the University of Kansas and is currently an assistant research professor at the University of Northern Iowa. Her research focuses on the implementation of early childhood behavioral interventions, particularly for young learners with disabilities and those from minoritized communities. We recently caught up with Dr. Ai to learn more about her career, the experiences that have shaped it, and how her work addresses equity and inclusion in early intervention. This is what she shared with us.

How did you begin your career journey as an education researcher?

My research focuses on the equitable and sustainable implementation of early childhood positive behavioral interventions and supports (EC-PBIS) to promote the social-emotional and behavioral health of all children, especially those with disabilities and/or from minoritized groups. Before starting my PhD program, I was a special education teacher working with students with autism spectrum disorders in China. That’s when I learned about applied behavioral science and PBIS. I decided to become a board-certified behavior analyst (BCBA) during my doctoral studies at the University of Kansas. Through my BCBA practicum, I worked with young children with disabilities and challenging behaviors in self-contained settings.

Meanwhile, I was also supervising pre-service teachers and behavioral analysts working in inclusive early care and education settings where behavior issues were addressed through multi-tiered EC-PBIS. These experiences deepened my interest in EC-PBIS and led me to research how to prepare professionals to use multi-tiered EC-PBIS to promote foundational social-emotional competence and prevent challenging behaviors for all children, regardless of their abilities or forms of diversity. Most importantly, I study how equitable and sustainable implementation of EC-PBIS can reduce racial disciplinary disparities to eventually eliminate suspension and expulsion in early care and education. Through my dissertation and NCSER-funded postdoctoral fellowship at Juniper Gardens Children’s Project at the University of Kansas, I led multiple independent research projects in these areas. With the support from my mentors, Judith Carta, Kathryn Bigelow, and Jay Buzhardt, I also had the opportunity to work on several NCSER-funded projects that address issues in EC-PBIS and the implementation of evidence-based practices.

What is the most rewarding part of your research?

Currently, I serve on the Iowa state leadership team of EC-PBIS and continue to expand my scholarship on EC-PBIS implementation through my research and teaching capacities. The most rewarding part of my work has been gaining expertise in a variety of research methodologies, especially mixed-methods research. Mixed-methods research allows me to carry out rigorous quantitative intervention and test hypotheses while also hearing the voices of participants and various stakeholders using trustworthy qualitative methodology, with data from each method informing the other. As a result, I can tackle complex issues related to implementing interventions in real-world settings and improve the design of interventions.

In your area of research, what do you see as the most critical areas of need to address diversity and equity and improve the relevance of education research for diverse communities of students and families?

One of the greatest needs is around diversifying the researcher leadership workforce. Higher education institutions need to prioritize recruitment, retention, and tailored support for educational researchers from historically and currently marginalized groups based on their race, ethnicity, language, sexual orientation, disabilities, and more.

Equally important is the need to increase funding resources for minority researchers whose scholarship aims to dismantle systemic racism and racial inequities in our educational systems. Researchers of color need more seats at the table to disturb the power imbalance within the research community, advocate for students and families in their own communities, and improve the relevance of education research for diverse groups.

Last but not least, the education research community at large needs to question the status quo of how to conduct research for, with, and by diverse communities.

What advice would you give to emerging scholars from underrepresented, minoritized groups that are pursuing a career in education research?

Find the research topic that gives you goosebumps. It might be hard at the beginning when research interests are highly directed by the existing research agenda of advisors or funding sources. But don’t let that feeling of butterflies go. Try to start small. It might mean stepping out of your normal circle to find mentors, allies, or funding agencies that are also excited about your mission and your research interests.

Remember that you need to be so good that nobody can ignore you. Researchers of color, especially minoritized early career scholars, still need to work multiple times harder to be seen and heard. Unfortunately, this will still be true in the foreseeable future. Find and join minority education researcher communities through professional organizations or organize your own. You are not in this alone.

While continuing to hone your craft, speak up for yourself and your community when you can. Recognize your own burdens and privileges and stand with the most oppressed. Learn about and practice how to have a voice at the table even though your culture or your lived experience told you otherwise. The work you care about can change students' and families’ lives. Your work matters. Your voice matters.

This year, Inside IES Research is publishing a series of interviews (see here, here, and here) showcasing a diverse group of IES-funded education researchers and fellows that are making significant contributions to education research, policy, and practice.

This blog was produced by Bennett Lunn (Bennett.Lunn@ed.gov), Truman-Albright Fellow, and Katie Taylor (Katherine.Taylor@ed.gov), postdoctoral training program officer at the National Center for Special Education Research.

NCSER celebrates Middle Level Education Month this year by highlighting some of our current research projects aimed at supporting the literacy skills of middle school students with and at risk for disabilities. Data from the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) indicate that in 2019, 68% of eight graders with disabilities scored “Below NAEP Basic” in reading compared to 22% of students without disabilities, a gap that had grown larger over the previous decade. The urgent need to improve the reading skills of middle school students with disabilities has led to some important NCSER-funded research projects.  

Sharon Vaughn and Leticia Martinez at the University of Texas, Austin and Jeanne Wanzek at Vanderbilt University, along with their colleagues, are testing the efficacy of Promoting Adolescents' Comprehension of Text (PACT), a fully developed reading comprehension intervention for middle school students with evidence of efficacy for students without disabilities. The current study will be the first efficacy trial of PACT that focuses specifically on students with disabilities. PACT is a text- and inquiry-based reading comprehension intervention with instructional supports for teachers and material for students in general education classrooms. In this large-scale, multi-site study, the team is using a randomized controlled trial in approximately 80 eighth-grade social studies classrooms, each with at least two students with disabilities. The team will examine the intervention’s impact on student reading and social studies outcomes, whether the impact differs depending on level of teacher fidelity or by student characteristic, and the intervention’s cost-effectiveness over the typical expenditures.

PACT is also being used as the evidence-based literacy intervention in a project designed to support middle school teachers’ knowledge and practices and improve reading and content area knowledge among students with disabilities. Jade Wexler at University of Maryland, College Park and Elizabeth Swanson at the University of Texas, Austin, along with their colleagues, are developing and testing a model for instructional leaders to provide ongoing support to content-area middle school teachers as they implement PACT. More specifically, the team will be developing an intervention package that includes a multi-stage, adaptive intervention coaching model to systematically tailor support to teachers as they implement Tier 1 literacy practices (in this case, the PACT intervention) in their content areas (English language arts, social studies, and science) to improve reading outcomes for students with disabilities. The package will also include a professional development program to train instructional leaders on how to implement the coaching model with teachers effectively.

Deborah Reed at the University of Iowa and her colleagues are also focusing on integrating literacy instruction with content-area instruction, but this team is focused on the Tier 2 level. They are developing and testing an intervention for middle school students with or at risk for reading disabilities who need support in literacy and text-based content in science and social studies. Pairs of students will alternate reading science and social studies texts, with specific academic vocabulary language, on a digital platform. This platform will provide scaffolded support and allow opportunities for individual work in building related reading and writing skills. Passages on each science or social studies topic repeat 85% or more of the unique words but in different contexts to support students’ ability to recognize and read the academic vocabulary. The overall aim of the intervention is to improve student literacy as well as science and social studies performance.

Marcia Barnes and her team at Vanderbilt University are testing the efficacy of a reading comprehension intervention, Connecting Text by Inference and Technology (Connect-IT), with middle school students with or at risk for reading disabilities. Connect-IT, developed with a prior IES grant, was designed to improve inference-making and reading comprehension in this population. In the current study, the research team will examine the impact of the intervention on students in grades 6-8 who did not pass their state English Language Arts test and who have demonstrated difficulties in reading comprehension. They will compare the efficacy of the intervention as implemented in small groups by a teacher, individual implementation of the intervention through computer software with project interventionist supervision, and the school’s business-as-usual classes. The study aims to determine the effect of each version of the intervention on student inference-making abilities and reading comprehension, as well as whether various student skills (such as vocabulary, word reading, attention, and anxiety) may moderate the impact of the interventions. The interventions’ cost-effectiveness will also be evaluated.

Focused on more intensive intervention for middle school students with or at risk for reading  disabilities, Mary Beth Calhoon at the University of Miami is testing the efficacy of a 2-year implementation of the Adolescent Multi-Component Intensive Training Program (AMP-IT-UP), which was previously tested after 1 year of implementation through an IES-funded grant. The intervention uses direct, systematic, explicit instruction (in phonological decoding with comprehension, spelling, and fluency) and cognitive strategy instruction (including use of cues and anchors), combined with reciprocal peer-mediated instruction. Dr. Calhoon’s research team is conducting a randomized controlled trial with middle school students with or at risk for reading disabilities who are still reading at the third-grade level or below. They will examine the impact after 2 years of intervention as well as 1 year after intervention has ended to determine its effect on student word recognition, spelling, fluency, and comprehension skills.

We look forward to reporting on the results of these studies as these teams complete their work in the years to come.

The blog was authored by Amy Sussman (Amy.Sussman@ed.gov), Sarah Brasiel (Sarah.Brasiel@ed.gov), and Katie Taylor (Katherine.Taylor@ed.gov), program officers for NCSER.

Teachers often have the critical and daunting task of developing behavioral and academic skills simultaneously. For students at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD), this can be even more challenging. Researchers Ann Daunic and Nancy Corbett, along with co-PI Stephen Smith and other colleagues at the University of Florida, developed Social-Emotional Learning Foundations (SELF), an intervention  developed and tested for efficacy through IES funding. SELF combines instructional strategies in literacy and social-emotional self-regulation for kindergarten and first grade teachers to provide more in-depth opportunities for at-risk students to develop these skills. Recently, we spoke with the SELF creators to learn more about the needs addressed by the intervention and the early evidence for its efficacy.

What are some challenges facing early elementary students at risk for developing EBD?

Ann Daunic (AD): Children at risk for developing EBD typically have issues with self-regulation, which can lead to a variety of maladaptive behaviors and affect their social-emotional adjustment and their academic outcomes. For example, children with aggressive tendencies are often impulsive, lack appropriate decision-making skills, and may be rejected by peers.

What are some challenges facing teachers of students at risk for EBD in the area of literacy?

Nancy Corbett (NC): We know that higher levels of behavioral self-regulation are associated with greater literacy and language skills. Children who come to kindergarten with fewer skills, either social or cognitive, may experience the classroom as a threatening place and therefore be less engaged with school at an early age. When children are disengaged at school, important early learning skills, including literacy, are more difficult to attain. Because literacy plays such a fundamental role in school success, it is critical that teachers meet the challenge of keeping children involved and motivated in this area.

How did you develop SELF to address these challenges?

AD: First, we realized that children at early risk for EBD may not benefit sufficiently from universally delivered, or Tier 1, instruction. We designed SELF to extend prior work in social-emotional and academic learning by providing small group, or Tier 2, instruction for at-risk children within the general education classroom.

Embedding social-emotional learning (SEL) within literacy instruction enables teachers to foster self-regulatory skills that are critical not only for social-emotional adjustment, but also for developing literacy. Using dialogic reading (an interactive strategy where adults and children have a dialogue around the text they are reading to enhance children’s literacy and language skills), SELF teachers can promote “emotion discourse” through interactive storybook reading, which occurs frequently in K-1 classrooms. In SELF, the teacher begins by introducing key concepts and vocabulary to the whole class. This is followed by a small group setting in which the teacher provides additional opportunities to engage the children at risk for EBD in conversations about their feelings and choices while developing listening comprehension. Children learn to identify their feelings using selected vocabulary words and they acquire strategies for regulating those feelings and related behaviors.

Why was it important to develop a social-emotional curriculum that could be implemented during literacy instruction?

NC: In addition to the fact that social-emotional growth and academic learning are inextricably connected, there is constant pressure to demonstrate continuous academic growth. As a result, it is challenging for many teachers to find time during the school day to focus on SEL. Therefore, it was not only conceptually, but also practically, sound to integrate an SEL curriculum within an academic subject taught in the primary grades. Since some children need more intensive and explicit instruction, we combined universally delivered and small group lessons to provide children at risk for EBD additional opportunities to strengthen language related to SEL and engage in social problem solving.

What have you found in the efficacy trial of SELF? 

AD: During our trial, we collected data primarily through teacher reports of children’s knowledge and behaviors related to social-emotional competence and managing emotions, as well as some direct assessments of the children’s vocabulary, language, and self-regulation. Our findings showed that compared to at-risk children in the control condition (in which students received their usual instruction and services), children who were taught SELF lessons had more positive outcomes on measures related to self-regulation, SEL vocabulary, SEL competence, and behavior (externalizing and internalizing challenges, social skills, and school adjustment). These findings suggest that SEL curricula embedded within academic areas such as literacy can be effective.

Teacher feedback about SELF’s feasibility has consistently indicated that teachers like the curriculum and think it benefits their students, particularly those who are reluctant to say much in a whole group setting. Children have more opportunities in the small group to make connections from storybook characters’ experiences and feelings to their own, and introverted children are more likely to express their thoughts and emotions. Because these children do not typically receive as much attention as children at risk for externalizing problems, the evidence that SELF was effective for them was particularly noteworthy.

What are the next steps for your research?

AD: Theoretically speaking, the discourse opportunities provided in the small-group lessons are key to making SEL instruction effective for at-risk students. Over the years, however, many teachers using SELF have expressed a desire to teach the entire curriculum in a whole class setting, reasoning that all children can benefit from the instruction. This preference could indicate either a failure to grasp the fundamental role the small-group lessons play in providing opportunities for developing receptive and expressive social-emotional language, or it could be a practical concern with adding Tier 2 SEL instruction to their already demanding schedules. Therefore, future studies might include more formal qualitative inquiry focused on implementation concerns. We also need to examine whether children from different cultural and ethnic backgrounds respond similarly to SELF lessons. Finally, we would like to examine the pathways through which this model works, such as investigating whether SELF improves SEL language development and/or self-regulation, which then leads to the overall positive behavior and academic outcomes we have observed.

Where can interested school personnel learn more about SELF?

NC: Providing access to validated instructional interventions like SELF is of primary importance to us, so we are currently finalizing a website for interested stakeholders to freely access the curriculum after completing one hour of professional development. The website includes a video overview of SELF and orientation to SEL topics, our research papers and conference presentations, and for those who have completed the PD, the instructional materials and strategies used throughout the lessons.

Ann Daunic, PhD, principal investigator for the SELF research project, is an emeritus scholar in the School of Special Education, School Psychology, and Early Childhood Studies in the University of Florida’s College of Education.

Nancy Corbett, PhD, co-principal investigator, is a retired faculty member in the School of Special Education, School Psychology, and Early Childhood Studies in the University of Florida’s College of Education.

This interview was produced and edited by Julianne Kasper, Virtual Student Federal Service Intern at IES and graduate student in Education Policy & Leadership at American University. Jacquelyn Buckley is the program officer for NCSER’s Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Competence portfolio.

At the recent 2022 Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) Convention and Expo, scholars were recognized for their research contributions to the field of special education. Among those honored by the CEC were several researchers funded through IES.

Kathleen Lane, PhD, Roy A. Roberts Distinguished Professor in the Department of Special Education at the University of Kansas and associate vice chancellor for research, was awarded the 2022 Lifetime Achievement Award. This award recognizes an individual whose life’s work has been focused on improving outcomes for students with exceptionalities and the educators who serve them. Over the years, Dr. Lane has been involved in numerous projects funded by IES. She is currently serving as principal investigator (PI) on Project SCREEN, a NCSER-funded grant aimed at validating a free tool that K-12 educators can use to identify students who are at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD). As part of the Multi-Tiered Systems of Support Network, she is the PI for a Research Team enhancing and testing the efficacy of Ci3T, an intervention that combines positive behavior interventions and supports (PBIS) and response to intervention (RTI) approaches to build social skills, particularly for students with or at risk for EBD. This project was an extension of a prior NCER-funded researcher-practitioner partnership with a local school district to implement and test the Ci3T model. Dr. Lane also led Project WRITE, which focused on Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD), an intervention that facilitates the teaching of writing and behavioral self-regulation techniques simultaneously. Dr. Lane’s project modified and tested SRSD for students with serious behavior challenges who struggle with writing. Dr. Lane also served as a mentor to another CEC award winner, Dr. Robin Ennis (below), on her Early Career Development and Mentoring project.

Robin Ennis, PhD, associate professor and special education program coordinator at the University of Alabama at Birmingham’s School of Education has received the 2022 Martin J. Kauffman Distinguished Early Career Research Award from the CEC’s Division for Research. This award recognizes an individual who has made outstanding scientific contributions in special education research within the first 10 years following receipt of their doctoral degree. Dr. Ennis was the principal investigator of a NCSER-funded Early Career Development and Mentoring project. In this project, Dr. Ennis developed a training model designed to support third grade teachers’ implementation of a low-intensity evidence-based strategy, instructional choice, to improve the academic and behavioral outcomes of students with or at risk for emotional disturbance. Initial testing indicated that teachers who received PD implemented the intervention with high fidelity and students experienced increased engagement.

Charles “Skip” MacArthur, PhD, professor of special education and literacy in the School of Education at the University of Delaware, received two awards from CEC. He received the Special Education Research Award, given in recognition of an individual whose outstanding research has had an impact on practice and has improved outcomes for youth with exceptional needs. In addition, Dr. MacArthur received the Division for Learning Disabilities’ Jeannette Fleischner Career Leadership Award for his leadership in research and impact on practice, including his work on improving writing instruction and assistive technology for students with learning disabilities. Dr. MacArthur has been the PI on two NCER-funded projects: one which collaboratively designed a curriculum for postsecondary developmental writing and that demonstrated positive impacts on writing quality, writing self-efficacy, and mastery motivation in a pilot study and a second which is evaluating the efficacy of the aforementioned curriculum.

Congratulations to this year’s award recipients!

This blog was authored by Julianne Kasper (American University), IES intern through the Virtual Student Federal Service.

Career and Technical Education (CTE) Month® is celebrated every February to raise awareness about the role that CTE has in preparing students for college and career success and the achievements of CTE programs across the country. In recognition of this year’s CTE Month®, we caught up with Dr. Michael Gottfried, University of Pennsylvania, to discuss his CTE research.

Through NCSER’s Career and Technical Education for Students with Disabilities special topic area, Dr. Gottfried was awarded a grant to examine whether participating in STEM CTE courses in high school is related to pursuing and persisting in STEM majors and/or careers for students with learning disabilities (SWLDs), a project featured initially in a March 2020 blog. During our recent conversation, he shared updates with us about his CTE project as well as the policy and practice implications of his research.

When we discussed this project in 2020, you shared your research goals and what you had learned so far. Could you provide us with an update?

Since the last time that we chatted, we have made some great progress on this project. We have had several papers accepted for publication. In some of our work, we were interested in the STEM CTE coursetaking patterns of SWLDs in high school. We found that SWLDs are more likely to participate in CTE courses compared to students without disabilities. Yet, when looking at the specific category of STEM CTE courses, there is no evidence that SWLDs are more likely to participate in high school STEM CTE courses compared to students without disabilities.

We have also looked at specific outcomes for SWLDs in STEM CTE courses. For instance, we examined computer science STEM CTE coursetaking for SWLDs. Participation was associated with growth in STEM self-efficacy and STEM utility (usefulness of what is learned for practical application) for SWLDs, whereas it related to positive development of STEM self-efficacy and STEM identity, but not STEM utility, for students without learning disabilities.

After we discovered that little was known about the association between STEM CTE coursetaking and college STEM persistence for SWLDs, we wanted to explore this area. So far, we have found that SWLDs who earned more units of STEM CTE in high school were more likely to seriously consider and ultimately declare STEM majors in college that are related to high school STEM CTE courses, such as information technology or engineering technology.

You and your colleagues recently published a paper in Education Research based on your NCSER-funded research. Could you summarize the findings in this paper and the implications for policy and practice?  

In our paper, we set out to identify whether there were any observable changes in CTE participation over time. The unique aspect of this study was that it combined national data from the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 and the High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 with administrative data from the state of Washington. Key findings indicated that CTE participation declined nationally between the graduating class of 2004 and the graduating class of 2009 except in the area of applied science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medical/health (STEMM) CTE, which includes courses in information technology, engineering technology, and health sciences. Data from Washington tended to be less varied in nature compared to national data, with fewer discernible trends, though in general STEM CTE did appear to have an upward trend for all students.

Our work also has direct relevance to policy. Recent changes in the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education for the 21^st Century Act emphasized the need to focus on increasing access and participation in STEM-related CTE coursework. While there does appear to be an upward trend in participation in these STEM fields, the tradeoff may be coming at the expense of other CTE areas of study. Combined with the increasing pressure for students to complete more and more academic coursework in a push for college readiness, this decrease in non-STEM CTE participation is particularly noteworthy. Finally, our work helps highlight the importance of examining CTE trends at the state and national levels. Different states have different needs and different graduation requirements that may or may not include CTE participation. As such, given the overall call to increase CTE participation for SWLDs, we encourage future research that explores the implications of these trends for this population.

What do you hope that school leaders, CTE teachers, and students will learn from all the research you are conducting?

The research has numerous implications for policy and practice. First, the results will be important for policymakers as they consider new or revised educational policies to support the pursuance and persistence of SWLDs into STEM fields. Education policymakers in particular need to understand the effects of STEM CTE coursetaking for SWLDs at multiple time points (transition into college, during college, and post-college). Understanding these issues more completely will make for well-informed policy decisions that promote short- and long-term success in STEM for SWLDs. This, in turn, has larger social policy implications with respect to upward mobility and lifelong success.

This project also has important implications for practice. By sharing these results, we hope to support education practitioners in making the adjustments necessary to improve the use of educational resources to ensure that SWLDs are prepared for and engaged in fields with high growth potential. For instance, many states have begun to accept STEM CTE courses for graduation requirements, which increases the likelihood students will take these courses. As STEM CTE courses prove important for SWLDs across the pipeline, then states and districts might consider how to best encourage students to take and succeed in these courses.

What additional research is needed to improve CTE policy and practice?

The current work can inform the future development of an intervention, assessment, or decision to evaluate an intervention. Evidence that STEM CTE coursetaking is associated with higher likelihood of college enrollment and the pursuit of STEM pathways for SWLDs supports the need to study interventions that encourage STEM CTE coursetaking for these students. For example, a randomly selected set of SWLDs who do not take traditional STEM could be counseled into taking STEM CTE courses or placement tests could be used to assign students to STEM CTE or traditional STEM courses. In both cases, students could then be followed into college and beyond to compare education and career outcomes using rigorous research designs. The results could provide additional, strong evidence for the value of STEM CTE coursetaking on postsecondary STEM outcomes.

This blog was authored by Akilah Nelson (akilah.nelson@ed.gov), Program Officer at NCSER, and Michael Gottfried (mgottfr2@upenn.edu), Associate Professor at the University of Pennsylvania.