A Bridge between Research and Practice: Building Consensus

Carmine presented a cogent and important analysis of a problem thee has long plagued not just special education but other areas as well. Areas closely related to special education, such as school psychology (Wits, 1987) and behavior analysis (Stolz, 1981)--as well as broader areas of educational reform (Alexander, Murphy, & Woods, 1996; Campbell, 1975)--have all wrestled with the problem of bringing together research and practice; too often they have been pinned by the reigning champion. Carnine offered new hope not by arguing the technical or philosophical issues but by pragmatically suggesting that different constituencies unite in a joint effort to provide information that is trustworthy, useful, and accessible. Few problems plague education more than questions about effectiveness of practices. Not only are arguments about the quality of educational practices debated regularly in teachers' lounges, but they are a reservoir for newspaper articles and even political campaigns. However, a substantial body of research has examined educational practices and identified many that are more effective than others. Indeed, much educational research produces results of such strength that, were the studies conducted in fields such as medicine, the experiments would be stopped because assigning children to the control groups would be placing them at an ethically unacceptable degree of risk for failure (Gage, 1978). That is, education has many trustworthy findings--findings that we can trust as accurate or faithful representations of the effects of particular practices. In his proposal, Carnine offered suggestions about how we might encourage the adoption of research-supported practices so that fewer students are placed in the equivalent of control groups receiving less effective practices. If special educators coalesced around the guidelines Carnine and the respondents to his paper suggested, it would permit researchers to provide research that would be readily useful and accessible to practitioners. By understanding the research about a particular instructional practice, practitioners (e.g., teachers) would be able to incorporate the practice in a manner consistent with that research and the broader context of instruction. Understanding research findings takes teachers beyond the idiosyncratic knowledge gained from personal experiences with instructional practices, making it possible to apply practices that are the combination of many experiences. In the foregoing pages, representatives of diverse groups with interests in both the research and practice of special education have offered analyses of Carnine's proposals. In these pages, we first reflect on the original paper and the subsequent analyses, searching for common themes. Then we draw these together to propose the basis for further action. THEMES The representatives of each interest group responded from their unique perspectives. Morrissey provided a legislative view, just as Sydoriak and Fields represented the beliefs of special education administrators. Kornblet championed parents' concerns about their children) Mitchell drew connections with business' considerations; and Billups represented the outlook of teachers. On first reading, we found the diversity of responses reason for pause. On subsequent readings, however, we found many important themes. Importance of Not one of the respondents maligned research. Although some educators routinely dismiss the value of research--in an extreme but too-familiar form, the proposition may be put this way: Research is scientific and teaching is an art; the two are incompatible--the representatives of these important constituencies unanimously supported efforts to infuse research into practice. There is also consensus on the need to improve the validity, utility, and application of research. Many of Carnine's points echo in the commentaries. …