Handbook of Special Education

Research Volume I Theory Methods and

Developmental Processes 1st Edition
Thomas W. Farmer
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/handbook-of-special-education-research-volume-i-the
ory-methods-and-developmental-processes-1st-edition-thomas-w-farmer/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Handbook of Special Education Research Volume II

Research Based Practices and Intervention Innovations
1st Edition Lemons

https://ebookmeta.com/product/handbook-of-special-education-
research-volume-ii-research-based-practices-and-intervention-
innovations-1st-edition-lemons/

Developmental Research Methods 3rd Edition Scott A

Miller

https://ebookmeta.com/product/developmental-research-methods-3rd-
edition-scott-a-miller/

Handbook of Personality Disorders Second Edition Theory

Research and Treatment W. John Livesley

https://ebookmeta.com/product/handbook-of-personality-disorders-
second-edition-theory-research-and-treatment-w-john-livesley/

Handbook of Automata Theory Volume I Theoretical

Foundations First Edition Jean Éric Pin

https://ebookmeta.com/product/handbook-of-automata-theory-volume-
i-theoretical-foundations-first-edition-jean-eric-pin/
Handbook of Critical Education Research 1st Edition
Sarah Diem

https://ebookmeta.com/product/handbook-of-critical-education-
research-1st-edition-sarah-diem/

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Creative Research Methods

Helen Kara

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-bloomsbury-handbook-of-
creative-research-methods-helen-kara/

Handbook of Personality Theory and Research 4th Edition

Oliver P. John

https://ebookmeta.com/product/handbook-of-personality-theory-and-
research-4th-edition-oliver-p-john/

Public Policy and Higher Education Strategies for

Framing a Research Agenda ASHE Higher Education Report
Volume 41 Number 2 1st Edition Nicholas W. Hillman

https://ebookmeta.com/product/public-policy-and-higher-education-
strategies-for-framing-a-research-agenda-ashe-higher-education-
report-volume-41-number-2-1st-edition-nicholas-w-hillman/

The Palgrave Handbook of History and Social Studies

Education 1st Edition Christopher W. Berg

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-palgrave-handbook-of-history-
and-social-studies-education-1st-edition-christopher-w-berg/
 HANDBOOK OF SPECIAL EDUCATION
RESEARCH, VOLUME I

Divided into two volumes, Handbook of Special Education Research provides a comprehensive overview
of critical issues in special education research. This first volume addresses key topics in theory,
methods, and development, exploring how these three domains interconnect to build effective
special education research. Each chapter features considerations for future research and implications
for fostering continuous improvement and innovation. Essential reading for researchers and students
of special education, this handbook brings together diverse and complementary perspectives to help
move the field forward.

Thomas W. Farmer is Professor at the University of Pittsburgh, USA.

Elizabeth Talbott is Professor and Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Development at
William & Mary, USA.

Kristen McMaster is Professor and Chair of the Department of Educational Psychology at the
University of Minnesota, USA.

David Lee is Professor of Education at Pennsylvania State University, USA.

Terese C. Aceves is Professor in the School of Education at Loyola Marymount University, USA.
 HANDBOOK OF SPECIAL
EDUCATION RESEARCH,
VOLUME I
Theory, Methods, and Developmental
Processes

Edited by Thomas W. Farmer, Elizabeth Talbott, Kristen

McMaster, David Lee, and Terese C. Aceves
 Cover image: © Getty Images/piranka
First published 2022
by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
and by Routledge
4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2022 selection and editorial matter, Thomas W. Farmer, Elizabeth
Talbott, Kristen McMaster, David Lee, Terese C. Aceves; individual
chapters, the contributors
The right of Thomas W. Farmer, Elizabeth Talbott, Kristen McMaster,
David Lee, Terese C. Aceves to be identified as the authors of the editorial
material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted
in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in
any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing
from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or
registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation
without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record for this book has been requested
ISBN: 978-0-367-74267-6 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-0-367-70884-9 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-15685-7 (ebk)
DOI: 10.4324/9781003156857
Typeset in Bembo
by Apex CoVantage, LLC
 CONTENTS

Acknowledgementsix

SECTION 1
Theoretical Foundations of Special Education Research 1

1 Taking Stock of Special Education Research: Current Perspectives

and Future Directions 3
The Executive Committee of the Division for Research, Council for Exceptional
Children

2 Theoretical Foundations of Applied Behavior Analysis and Applications

in Special Education Research and Practice 10
Rachel E. Robertson, Joseph M. Lambert, Kristen Buonomo, and
Bailey A. Copeland

3 Contributions of Cognitive Science to Special Education Research and

Practice: Historical Context, Current Influences, and Future Directions 24
Marcia A. Barnes, Nathan H. Clemens, and Anna H. Miller

4 Using Data in Research and Practice: Intensifying and Strengthening

the Effectiveness of Academic Instruction 40
Kristen L. McMaster, Britta Cook Bresina, Lynn S. Fuchs,
and Douglas Fuchs

5 Examining Common Theoretical Orientations to Family–School

Partnership Research in Special Education to Promote Equity 53
Shana J. Haines, Kathleen B. Kyzar, Grace L. Francis, Heather M. Aldersey,
and Katharine G. Shepherd

v
 Contents

6 Developmental Science and Special Education Research: Dynamic

Systems, Person-in-Context, and Lifecourse Perspectives 67
Thomas W. Farmer, Michael Wehmeyer, David Houchins,
and Haya Abdellatif

SECTION 2
Methods, Design, and Analysis in Special Education Research 83

7 Examining Critical Issues in Special Education Using Single-Case

Research Methods 85
Jennifer R. Ledford and Erin E. Barton

8 Group Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Research Designs for

Special Education Intervention Validation 101
Daniel M. Maggin

9 Cluster-Randomized Trials in Special Education Research 115

Greg Roberts, Nancy Scammacca, Philip Capin, and Sharon Vaughn

10 Family–Professional Partnership Research: Key Methodological

Considerations for Elevating Family Voices 131
Tracy Gershwin, Natalie Holdren, and Terese C. Aceves

11 Beyond Cultural Responsivity: Applied Behavior Analysis Through a

Lens of Cultural Humility 144
Rebecca L. Kolb, Alexandria C. Robers, Christerralyn Brown, and Jennifer
J. McComas

12 Leveraging Moderation and Mediation to Examine Individual Differences

in Special Education Research 158
Jason C. Chow and Esther R. Lindström

13 Beyond Exploratory: How Varied Qualitative Methodologies Can Inform

and Advance the Field of Special Education 171
Alexandra A. Lauterbach, Elizabeth Bettini, Hannah Morris Mathews, Zachary
Rossetti, and Oscar E. Hughes

14 An Introduction to Mixed Methods Special Education Research 187

David E. Houchins, Robbie J. Marsh, and Emily K. Tanner

15 Implementation Science in Special Education: Progress and Promise 204

Kevin S. Sutherland, Bryce D. McLeod, Maureen A. Conroy, Aaron R. Lyon,
and Nicole Peterson

vi
 Contents

16 Open Science in Special Education Research 217

Sarah Emily Wilson, William J. Therrien, Jesse I. Fleming,
and Bryan G. Cook

17 Making Sense of Multiple Data Sources: Using Single-Case Design

Research for Behavioral Decision-Making 231
Elizabeth Talbott and Andres De Los Reyes

18 Longitudinal Research to Support Tailored Interventions: Person- and

Process-Oriented Approaches 245
Chin-Chih Chen, Xu Qin, Shana DeVlieger, and Thomas W. Farmer

SECTION 3
Leveraging Developmental Processes and Contexts in Intervention 257

19 Developmental Distinctions in Mathematics for Students With Disabilities 259

Gena Nelson, Allyson J. Kiss, and Angela Crawford

20 The Development of Reading Comprehension in Adolescents With

Literacy Difficulties 272
Alexandra Shelton and Jade Wexler

21 Self-Regulation and Executive Function: The Foundation for Student

Success285
Michelle M. Cumming, Philip David Zelazo, Stephen W. Smith,
and Helen R. Flores

22 Underrepresented Students Within Gifted and Talented Education 299

Mary Ruth Coleman, Kristina Henry Collins, Tarek Grantham,
and Winfred Harris Biddle

23 Family as Faculty: Centering Families’ Expertise for the Benefit of Youth

With Disabilities 314
Cristina Santamaría Graff

24 Advancing Positive Outcomes for Students With Disabilities With

Culturally Adapted Behavioral Strategies 328
Christerralyn Brown, Daniel M. Maggin, and Elizabeth Talbott

25 The Role of Classroom Social Dynamics in Students With

Exceptionalities’ Involvement in Peer Victimization 342
Molly Dawes, Terri N. Sullivan, and Colleen S. Walsh

vii
 Contents

26 Targeted Universalism and Tiered Systems of Adaptive Support:

Centering Intervention on the Developmental Needs of Students
With Exceptionalities 354
Thomas W. Farmer, David L. Lee, and William Therrien

Index366

viii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This volume and our companion volume (Handbook of Special Education Research, Volume II: Research-
Based Practices and Intervention Innovations) grew out of numerous discussions and activities of the
Division for Research (DR) of The Council for Exceptional Children. We felt a need to take stock
of where the field has been, where it currently is, and potential avenues for the future. These dis-
cussions continue regularly among members of the DR executive committee. It seemed fruitful to
share these ideas and conversations with the entire membership of the division and the field more
broadly. In many respects, the purpose of this volume is to help chart the future, but not as a map or
set of guideposts. Rather, our goal is to cultivate a fertile landscape from which emerging scholars,
personnel preparation program leaders, and other stakeholders in special education can develop and
nurture their own ideas and pathways forward as they move toward currently unknown frontiers.
We would like to thank Chris Lemons, Sarah Powell, Kathleen Lane, and Tisa Aceves, the editors
of the companion volume. We started out thinking that we would have just one volume. However,
as we began to identify potential topics and authors, the number of chapters ballooned to over 50.
Fortunately, Chris, Sarah, Kathleen, and Tisa agreed to step forward to lead a second volume.
We would also like to thank all the members of the executive committee of DR for the past seven
years. Through their hard work, their conversations in committee meetings, and their own research
activities and experiences, they collectively created the impetus and foundation for this volume.
In addition, we would like to thank the Hammill Institute, sponsors of DR’s Doctoral Student
Seminars in Special Education Research. This online seminar and discussion series involves a revolv-
ing network of doctoral students in special education from universities across the world who collabo-
ratively work to address the question, “What makes for excellence in special education research?”
The work this group does annually reminds us of the importance of the next generation of scholars
and strengthens our commitment to building for the future. The Doctoral Student Seminars began
in 2008, and many of the contributors in this volume have linkages to this program. We would also
like to thank the faculty leaders of the Doctoral Student Seminars: Dr. Jean B. Crockett (University
of Florida), Dr. Mary Theresa Kiely (Queens College, The City University of New York), and Dr.
Kristen M. O’Brien (George Mason University).
Special education research could not occur without the vision and financial support from our
funding agencies. We are grateful for the agencies that support special education research and per-
sonnel training. In particular, the National Center for Special Education Research of the Institute
of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, funds much of the research activities that
serve as the foundation of these two volumes. Likewise, the Office of Special Education Programs

ix
 Acknowledgements

(OSEP, U.S. Department of Education) provides critical funding to grow the next generation of
special education scholars and leaders, as well as to prepare educators to implement practices backed
by evidence from research.
Finally, we would like to thank our editorial support at Routledge. This includes Misha Kydd,
who initiated discussions and guided us in the planning of the volume; Nicole Salazar, who took
over from Misha; and Olivia Powers, who provided guidance and support from the beginning to the
end of all our efforts.

x
 SECTION 1

Theoretical Foundations of Special

Education Research
 1
TAKING STOCK OF SPECIAL
EDUCATION RESEARCH
Current Perspectives and Future Directions
The Executive Committee of the Division for Research, Council for
Exceptional Children

From time to time, it is instructive for a scientific discipline to step back, reflect on its progress,
consider the impact the field is having on constituent stakeholders and society more broadly, and
contemplate next steps forward. In the past few decades, the world has changed in many ways
that affect the lives of children with exceptionalities and their families. From increasing diversity,
enhanced technology, innovations in communications and social media, and changing educational
and work structures, the landscape for working with and supporting individuals with exception-
alities has become more complex and also potentially more powerful as we have more resources
and opportunities to make a difference. Likewise, for children and youth with exceptionalities, the
increased complexity in their developmental experiences and circumstances means they have to
negotiate new challenges that also present new possibilities in their learning, growth, and outcomes.
With the backdrop of the recent pandemic; forced adaptations; and inequities compounded as
different groups and communities were differentially affected by the resulting health, social, eco-
nomic, and political turmoil, we are now positioned to better see the adversity experienced by
the youth we serve. On one hand, there is more innovation and promise than ever to support the
unique needs of students with exceptionalities. On the other hand, disparities in resources and
experiences and constraints in opportunities and services are reflected in growing gaps in educational
performance and outcomes of youth from different backgrounds (Fuchs et al., 2018; NCES, 2019;
Spencer, 2019).
As the Council for Exceptional Children, Division for Research (CEC-DR), it is important to
elucidate, disseminate, and build upon advances in the field. It is equally critical to illuminate imbal-
ances and disproportionate challenges experienced by subgroups of students and identify needed
intervention and service delivery adaptations to respond to the differential needs of each child and
the families, communities, and cultures that are central to their learning and growth. Accordingly,
the goal of this two-volume handbook on special education research is to summarize advances in
research while simultaneously addressing critical issues and needs in our efforts to support each stu-
dent with exceptionalities across different abilities, backgrounds, cultures, and ecologies.
In the first volume, our aim is to meet this goal in three complementary ways. First, we pro-
vide an overview of key concepts and theories that undergird research in special education and the
intervention and service delivery strategies we use to support students with exceptionalities and
the ecological systems (e.g., families, peer groups, classrooms, schools, neighborhoods, cultures,

3 DOI: 10.4324/9781003156857-2
 Executive Committee

sociopolitical structures) in which they live and that shape their opportunities and development.
Second, we present methodological and analytical approaches that are used in special education
research to clarify information; answer theoretical and conceptual questions; make inferences from
data; evaluate programs and services; aggregate and distill information across studies; and utilize the
evidence base to guide efforts to tailor interventions to students, teachers, schools, and communi-
ties. Third, we examine a variety of developmental processes and ecological factors that differentially
influence the opportunities and experiences of students with exceptionalities and the special educa-
tion services they need.
In the second volume, the authors highlight critical areas of special education research and outline
what we currently know about effective systems, interventions, assessments, and efforts to support
educators. They also provide ideas about where special education researchers should go next to
enhance the effectiveness of our efforts. Topics span academic, behavioral, and social interventions;
assessment; tiered systems of support; the educator workforce; technology; and the needs of our
most vulnerable populations. Our hope is that these chapters inspire the next generation of special
education researchers to push the field forward in new and innovative ways.

Foundations of Research in Special Education

By its very nature, special education grew out of the understanding that all children have differ-
ent characteristics and abilities, and each student can learn and develop skills to contribute to their
own self-determined pathways, careers, and lifestyles when they are provided educational supports
and related services that are responsive to their own strengths, needs, and ecological circumstances.
Although students with exceptionalities differ somewhat from the majority of their same-age class-
mates in terms of their characteristics, development, and learning needs, their capacity to grow,
adapt, and be successful in school and life can be nurtured and enhanced when supports are centered
on what they need rather than on what works for others who are different from them. The following
three foundational concepts of special education are central to conducting research to create effective
interventions and service delivery frameworks that are responsive to students with exceptionalities
with diverse needs.

Individualized
First, it is critical to individualize strategies and supports for youth with exceptionalities. Special edu-
cation recognizes that what works for others is likely to not work in the same way for the students
we serve. Students with exceptionalities can be highly successful. It is incumbent upon researchers
to realize that teachers and other service providers will need to tailor strategies and supports to spe-
cific students, circumstances, and contexts. Youth with exceptionalities, like all youth, are dynamic
in their growth and functioning. This means a strategy that works now may not work tomorrow or
that additional factors may need to be considered to foster the success for a specific child. Therefore,
as we conduct research, we need to develop frameworks that provide interventionists (e.g., teachers,
other related service providers) with conceptual guides, data use tools, and decision trees to monitor
each student’s progress and to make ongoing adaptations in the supports and strategies they use for
individual students.

Interdisciplinary
Second, special education is necessarily interdisciplinary. Across the various special education cat-
egories, individual characteristics and needs vary broadly across physical or sensory factors; cognitive
and learning processes; emotional, social, and behavioral functioning and adjustment; and health

4
 Taking Stock of Special Education Research

and developmental adaptation. Therefore, as a field, special education involves an array of specialties
and specialists. But the need for different disciplines working together extends beyond services for
different categories of exceptionalities. Rather, individual children, themselves, develop as an inte-
grated whole (Farmer et al., 2016). Although a child may be identified for services for a particular
exceptionality classification (autism spectrum disorder, deaf-blindness, deafness, early childhood,
emotional disturbance, giftedness, hearing impairment, intellectual disability, multiple disabilities,
orthopedic impairment, other health impairment, specific learning disability, speech or language
impairment, visual impairment including blindness), many of these classifications may be comorbid,
and students may need services in other related domains. As children develop, their functioning in
one domain is likely to influence and be influenced by their functioning in other domains (Darling-
Hammond et al., 2020; Sameroff, 2020). Therefore, it is necessary to provide services and supports
that extend beyond the primary area of exceptionality and include a focus on the other domains
that may affect or be affected by the child’s exceptionality. That is why we have mandates for mul-
tidisciplinary teams and services in our special education policy. As we conduct research in special
education, we need to ensure that we are considering the whole child and the interplay of an array
of services and supports they need rather than focusing exclusively on a discrete domain or skill in
isolation.

Contextualized
Third, it is necessary to understand and support the student in context. In addition to focusing on
the whole child and how different domains operate together as a dynamic system, we must con-
sider how the various settings in which children are embedded contribute to their functioning and
growth (Bronfenbrenner, 1996). Children learn and develop, in large part, by how they engage
with multilayered ecologies (e.g., families, peer groups, classroom, schools, neighborhoods, cultures,
sociopolitical structures) that collectively shape their experiences (Bronfenbrenner, 1977; Smith &
Thelen, 2003). This means that development is experiential, as opposed to universal, and involves
continuous adaptation between the characteristics of the child and the affordances and constraints of
their ecological systems (Bronfenbrenner, 1996; Cairns, 2000; Nasir, 2018). Two children who are
together in the same classroom may experience the context very differently both because of their
different characteristics and because of different ecological factors that they experience in their daily
living (Cairns & Cairns, 1994; Farmer et al., 2016; Sameroff, 2020).
For example, consider a setting in which the school district mandates a 20-minute silent reading
activity in middle school with everyone reading the same assigned book in homeroom each day.
This activity is an evidence-based universal program required by the district as an opportunity to
foster independent leisure reading skills while helping students transition into a learning mindset
to start the school day. Two students who are from the same neighborhood and the same general
background experience this activity in very different ways. One student is a strong reader, enjoys the
content of the assigned books, has been reading books with a parent at home, and finds this activity
to be a relaxing way to transition into the start of instructional activities. The second student has
dyslexia, struggles to read independently, and reads at home with parents with books that are adapted
to their reading needs. During this activity, the student is not sure they are even on the correct page
and spends the time acting like they are reading and hoping to go unnoticed by classmates. At the
completion of this routine morning activity, one student is emotionally and behaviorally prepared
to succeed throughout the day while the other receives no adaptive supports, struggles with their
disability, and starts the day acutely aware of their reading difficulties and feeling socially vulnerable
and thinking they do not belong in class.
When children experience difficulties, it is helpful to view problems as not resting in the stu-
dent or the ecology, but in the transactions between the two (Hobbs, 1966). This means that when

5
 Executive Committee

teachers and other specialists intervene with a student, it is necessary to not only focus on the
characteristics of the child that needs support but also to clarify how both proximal and more dis-
tal ecological factors are contributing to the child’s functioning and how they can be addressed or
leveraged in intervention. In addition to investigations that control for context to say whether an
intervention works, we need research that clarifies how to respond to multilevel contexts that con-
tribute to students’ functioning and growth. This requires a different set of research questions that
center on understanding how to be responsive to multilayered ecologies and how to use them as an
ally in the intervention process.

The Present Role and Circumstances of Special Education Research

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004) mandates services that are individual-
ized and responsive to the unique strengths and needs of each child we serve. Thus, special educa-
tion research, by its very nature, centers on idiographic considerations (Maggin et al., 2016). We use
research techniques such as single-case designs and data-driven intervention approaches because the
students with whom special educators work are, by definition, likely to have needs that are expressed
and manifested differently from the general population of students. Therefore, while it is possible
to use larger population data sets and group designs to help clarify whether an intervention shows
promise with a particular group of students with exceptionalities (e.g., students with learning dis-
abilities, students with intellectual disabilities, students with emotional and behavioral disorders), our
mission is not so much to say whether an intervention works generally as it is to clarify the assess-
ment considerations, strategy selection, and adaptive parameters for going about the process of sup-
porting the successful learning and social and behavioral adjustment of individual youth who have
needs and circumstances that are different from others (Danielson & Rosenquist, 2014; Fuchs &
Fuchs, 2015; Kern & Wehby, 2014; Roberts et al., 2021).
As we work to produce and support the use of evidence-based intervention by teachers and other
related service providers, we must distinguish what that means for a field in which development is
not universal, our students’ needs are typically outside the parameters of the supports that work for
the general population, and their needs are often influenced by the contributions of multiple factors
that make a singular approach ineffective (Chen et al., 2021; Lemons et al., 2014; Sutherland et al.,
2018). We must temper the common expectation that scripted, manualized programs can be devel-
oped that will be effective for all children if they are implemented with fidelity. We are working with
highly individualized, dynamic phenomena where day-to-day monitoring of students’ performance
and corresponding adaptation of strategies and supports are essential. For some special education
issues or needs, it may be possible to develop programs that have this individualized and dynamic
component built within them. But in many cases, we are necessarily dealing with moving targets
that require complex, multifactored, and tailored approaches that are student and context specific.
Therefore, we need research designs that can help guide practice on the ground that is consistent
with special education mandates and that recognize that generalizable, one-size-fits-all approaches
are illusory for our field.

The Centrality of Diversity in the Mission of Special Education Research

A key premise in special education is that all children can learn and be successful if we center our
efforts on their strengths and needs and we provide supports that minimize the impact of their dif-
ferences on their daily functioning and adaptation. Because they in some ways learn and function
differently from other children, the developmental trajectories to success for youth with exception-
alities are likely to be different. Metrics of flourishing growth and corresponding supports to foster
sustained positive adaptation for students with exceptionalities are likely to be different as well. That

6
 Taking Stock of Special Education Research

is the beauty of human development. There are diverse pathways to positive outcomes, and children
do not need to follow the same developmental sequence or have the same abilities, characteristics,
and experiences of others to achieve success that is meaningful within their worlds. They need
opportunities and supports that are relevant to them.
This developmental diversity is critical for special education research. In some ways, population-
based research centered on the general linear model presupposes universal developmental pathways
and sameness in the experiences and needs of all children. The expectation that interventions can
be created that are generally effective for all children and implemented in the same way across dif-
ferent individuals, contexts, circumstances, and cultures ignores developmental diversity and is likely
to result in inadequate supports for children who are represented in the tails of the normal curve on
common learning and developmental factors. Children with exceptionalities can learn and grow.
However, the predominant population-centered research paradigm in education and the resulting
programs, interventions, and policies are not necessarily designed to align with their needs, nor their
pathways to success.
This is where special education research is critical. Our very mission is to be responsive to dif-
ferences in ability, functioning, and adaptation. Rather than expecting that all children can get to
the same outcome in the same way, we recognize the need to adapt learning strategies and environ-
ments to the individual and to the diverse characteristics, strengths, and needs that are relevant to
their development and success. We also recognize that self-determination is a critical component of
the development of children with exceptionalities, and we cannot presuppose the outcomes that are
meaningful to them. Therefore, at its very core, special education research is centered on individual
persons as opposed to the general population. Our goal is to establish systematic approaches to build
from our knowledge of diversity in development and to use data in ways that tailor supports to the
student, the circumstances, and the ecology.
This means that our research must extend beyond focusing on identifying intervention programs
or strategies that generally work. We need to ensure that our research includes an emphasis on the
diversity of persons and the diverse, multilevel contexts they experience and navigate across the
lifecourse. The lenses of social justice, equity, antiracism, inclusion, and belonging must also be
central to our efforts, and we must focus on diversity in preparing the next generation of special
education researchers. We have a strong foundation of research that is centered on individuals and
the use of data to adapt strategies to their diverse strengths and needs. This work is systematic and
rigorous, though it necessarily may not be generalizable. Instead, the metrics of the impact of our
field must include our responsiveness to diversity and our capacity and effectiveness in fostering the
self-determined success of each individual person we serve.

Building for the Future

As special education research moves forward, we need to continue what we do well, educate others
about the necessary differences between our work and research in general education and allied fields,
and broadly disseminate the impact and contributions that special education makes to education
more generally (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2015; Maggin et al., 2016; Vaughn & Swanson, 2015). Advocating
for our students and their families is also a critical feature of our research. This means uncovering
and bringing to the forefront differences in the experiences and needs of students with exceptionali-
ties in ways that promote equitable practices and opportunities for each child. But helping others
understand our students and what we do is only part of the equation to realize the promise of IDEA.
We must also be introspective, willing to change what needs to be changed, and willing to see what
we do in a new light.
This means that we must be prepared to take bold steps and foster innovations that extend
beyond what we do well and what is familiar or comfortable. We must continually ask ourselves hard

7
 Executive Committee

questions. Are we responsive to relevant constituents? Are we engaging all constituents in equitable
and impactful ways? Are we asking the right questions? Do we have the tools and supports to fulfill
our mission? Should we reframe the interplay between research and practice within our field? Can
we better engage allied and adjacent fields?
We did not seek to answer these questions as we set out to develop these two volumes. Our goal
was more modest. We aimed to bring together a broad group of scientists in special education repre-
senting different areas of interests, reflecting different levels of career backgrounds and experiences,
and exemplifying a broad range of disciplinary perspectives and expertise. At one level, the chapters
across the two volumes, both individually and collectively, are an accounting of where we have
been, where we are, and where we might go in the future. At a second level, they are a conversa-
tion. A discussion of what we know, what we need to know, and what is possible. Broadly, research
is the generation and application of new knowledge. Yet its impact arguably rests in its interpretation
and perceived relevance. On this score, we hope the conversations in these volumes extend beyond
authors, scientists, and students and foster new lenses through which to engage with and be respon-
sive to individuals with exceptionalities, their families, and the teachers and other professionals who
support them in their daily lives.

References
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32,
513–531. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0003-066X.32.7.513
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1996). Foreward. In R. B. Cairns, G. H. Elder, & E. J. Costello (Eds.), Developmental science
(pp. ix–xvii). Cambridge University Press.
Cairns, R. B. (2000). Developmental science: Three audacious implications. In L. R. Bergman, R. B. Cairns,
L-G. Nilsson, & L. Nystedt (Eds.), Developmental science and the holistic approach (pp. 49–62). LEA.
Cairns, R. B., & Cairns, B. D. (1994). Lifelines and risks: Pathways of youth in our time. Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Chen, C-C., Sutherland, K. S., Kunemund, R., Sterrett, B., Wilkinson, S., Brown, C., & Maggin, D. M.
(2021). Intensifying interventions for students with emotional and behavioral difficulties: A conceptual syn-
thesis of practice elements and adaptive expertise. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 29, 56–66.
Danielson, L., & Rosenquist, C. (2014). Introduction to the TEC special issue on data-based individualization.
Teaching Exceptional Children, 46, 6–12.
Darling-Hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-Harvey, C., Barron, B., & Osher, D. (2020). Implications for educa-
tional practice of the science of learning and development, Applied Developmental Science, 24, 97–140.
Farmer, T. W., Gatzke-Kopp, L. M., Lee, D. L., Dawes, M., & Talbott, E. (2016). Research and policy on
disability: Linking special education to developmental science. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain
Sciences, 3, 138–145. doi:10.1177/2372732215624217
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2015). Rethinking service delivery for students with significant learning problems:
Developing and implementing intensive interventions. Remedial and Special Education, 36, 105–111.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., McMaster, K. L., & Lemon, C. J. (2018). Students with disabilities’ abysmal school
performance: An introduction to the special issue. Learning Disabilities Research Practice, 33, 127–130.
Hobbs, N. J. (1966). Helping disturbed children: Psychological and ecological strategies. American Psychologist,
21, 1105–1115.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).
Kern, L., & Wehby, J. H. (2014). Using data to intensify behavioral interventions for individual students. Teach-
ing Exceptional Children, 46, 45–53.
Lemons, C. J., Fuchs, D., Gilbert, J. K., & Fuchs, L. S. (2014). Evidence-based practices in a changing world:
Reconsidering the counterfactual in education research. Educational Researcher, 43, 242–252.
Maggin, D. M., Wehby, J. H., Farmer, T. W., & Brooks, D. S. (2016). Intensive interventions for students with
emotional and behavioral disorders: Issues, theory, and future directions. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral
Disorders, 24, 127–137. doi:10.1177/1063426616661498
Nasir, N. S. (2018). When development is not universal: Understanding the unique developmental tasks that
race, gender, and social class impose: Commentary on Rogers and Way. Human Development, 61, 332–336.
National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES-NAEP) (2019). The great divergence: Growing disparities
between the Nation’s highest and lowest achievers in NAEP mathematics and reading between 2009 and

8
 Taking Stock of Special Education Research

2019. NAEPPLUS+: The Official Blog of the Nation’s Report Card. https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/
blog/mathematics_reading_2019.aspx
Roberts, G. J., Vaughn, S., Roberts, G., & Miciak, J. (2021). Problem behaviors and response to reading inter-
vention for upper elementary students with reading difficulties. Remedial and Special Education, 42, 169–181.
Sameroff, A. J. (2020). It’s more complicated. Annual Review of Developmental Psychology, 2, 1–26. https://doi.
org/10.1146/annurev-devpsych-061520-120738
Smith, L. B., & Thelen, E. (2003). Development as a dynamic system. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 343–348.
Spencer, M. B., Lodato, B. N., Spencer, C., Rich, L., Graziul, C., & English-Clarke, T. (2019). Innovating resil-
ience promotion: Integrating cultural practices, social ecologies and development-sensitive conceptual strat-
egies for advancing child well-being. In D. A. Henry, E. VotrubaDrzal, & P. Miller (Eds.), Child development
at the intersection of race and SES. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 57, 101–148.
Sutherland, K. S., Farmer, T. W., Kunemund, R. L., & Sterrett, B. I. (2018). Learning, behavioral, and social
difficulties within MTSS: A dynamic perspective of intervention intensification. In N. D. Young, K.
Bonanno-Sotiropoulos, & T. A. Citro (Eds.), Paving the pathway for educational success: Effective classroom Inter-
ventions for students with learning disabilities. Rowman & Littlefield.
Vaughn, S., & Swanson, E. A. (2015). Special education research advances knowledge in education. Exceptional
Children, 82, 11–24.

9
 2
THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS
OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR
ANALYSIS AND APPLICATIONS
IN SPECIAL EDUCATION
RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
Rachel E. Robertson, Joseph M. Lambert, Kristen Buonomo,
and Bailey A. Copeland

This chapter outlines theory, development, and application of behavior analysis as it relates to spe-
cial education research and practice. One particular branch of behavior analysis, applied behavior
analysis (ABA), is embedded in both the history and practice of special education. ABA is a scientific
approach to understanding and changing behavior in ways that address problems of social impor-
tance (Wolf, 1978). Using a variety of research-based strategies, ABA practitioners and behaviorally
oriented educators dedicate their practice to the systematic application of instructional technologies
that develop the skills (e.g., academic, behavioral, daily living) most likely to increase quality of life
in individuals with and without disabilities.

Theoretical Foundations of ABA

A comprehensive treatment of behaviorism extends beyond the purview of this chapter, and inter-
ested readers are referred to various authoritative, book-length treatments of the topic (e.g., Catania,
2013; Michael, 2004; Moore, 2008; Skinner, 1938). However, the scientific by-product of this
philosophy, behavior analysis, has facilitated the development of generalizable principles, processes,
and concepts of behavior that have proven invaluable to the development of an increasingly robust
technology of behavior change often employed in the service of therapeutic outcomes for individu-
als both with and without developmental disabilities (e.g., intellectual disabilities, autism spectrum
disorder [ASD]). Thus, an overview of the theory of knowledge that establishes the behaviorist
perspective and justifies its methods of inquiry is warranted.

Behaviorism Versus Mentalism

A historical overview of ABA typically begins with Watson (1924). Prior to Watson’s entry into the
field, explanations of human behavior were dominated by fixed, internal attributes such as states of
mind. Watson introduced a behaviorist point of view, shifting the focus to observable, measurable
behaviors. Thus, perhaps the easiest way to describe behaviorism is to first describe what it is not.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003156857-3 10
 Theoretical Foundations

Mentalism attempts to explain behavior by attributing causal status to phenomena that purport-
edly occur in a domain (e.g., mental, cognitive, conceptual, spiritual, psychic) that differs from the
domain in which behavior occurs. More specifically, mentalism infers that (a) entailed in any given
organism’s physiological makeup exists a domain beyond the one in which behavior occurs (e.g.,
consciousness, intelligence, soul); (b) within this domain exists unobservable phenomena that are
considered to be the independent contributions of the organism; (c) explanations of behavior neces-
sarily consist of an appeal to these inferred phenomena as causes; and (d) organism and behavior are
only in direct contact with the inferred phenomena, not the environment itself. As a result, specifi-
cation of the causal status of these phenomena serves as the focus of inquiry of mentalistic traditions
(e.g., Moore, 2015). By contrast, behaviorists view dualistic (mind/consciousness) explanations of
behavior as problematic because they impede the development of an accurate and unified account of
nature, due to their tendency to promote circular reasoning (e.g., Billy can solve problems because
he is smart. We know Billy is smart because he can solve problems) and (often) because they stall
the achievement of the regarded scientific objectives of prediction and control (e.g., if it is assumed
that causal variables extend beyond the reach of scientific methods, then causality cannot be known
through scientific means).
As an alternative, behaviorists view human behavior as the completely determined product of
an interaction between innate endowment and environmental events. By extension, they propose
that the study of behavior can be meaningfully construed as a life science and, more specifically,
as a branch of biology. From this vantage point, behaviorists assert that it must be possible, at least
in principle, to secure a complete account of all human behavior in terms of historically relevant
behavioral, physiological, and environmental variables, without appeals to mentalistic dimensions.
Thus, for a behaviorist, behavior itself is the appropriate subject matter of all psychological inquiry
and should not be considered a mere index of processes that allegedly occur in hypothetical domains
(Skinner, 1938).

Contribution of Cognitive Processes, Genetics, and Physiology to Behavior

A rejection of mentalism does not suggest that behaviorists also reject the existence (or importance)
of higher-order cognitive processes (e.g., language, problem-solving). Rather, behaviorists propose
that these processes are themselves instances of behavior and are best understood in relation to cur-
rent and historical interactions between the relevant organism and its environment, thus making
them directly amenable to scientific inquiry.
Related, behaviorists do not reject the contribution of genetic endowment and acknowledge
the mediational role of physiology in the development and evolution of behavioral processes. Tech-
nically, behavior is the action of an organism’s effector (an organ at the end of an efferent nerve
fiber specialized for altering its environment mechanically or chemically [e.g., striped and smooth
muscles, duct and ductless glands]). Further, a stimulus is an energy change that affects an organ-
ism through a receptor (an organ that converts environmental energy changes into nerve impulses),
and energy transformations caused by stimuli are at the root of experiences such as seeing, hearing,
smelling, and tasting. Thus, by definition, stimulus-response interactions are a direct product of
physiological processes.
Notwithstanding, an intimate understanding of an organism’s physiology is unnecessary
for understanding general principles of behavior, and scientific discoveries in physiological
domains will only serve to justify, rather than alter, discoveries made at the behavioral level.
As a result, from a behaviorist’s perspective, the most thorough explanation for any organ-
ism’s current performance can be found by analyzing its history of interactions with the
environment.

11
 Rachel E. Robertson et al.

Contribution of Environmental Contingencies to Behavior

As in biology, the theory of evolution (Darwin, 1859) and the concept of selectionism (repeated
cycles of variation, interaction with the environment, and differential replication as a function of
that interaction) hold a critical role in behavioral accounts of what an organism does. Specifically, it
is useful to analyze the evolution of a repertoire by considering the “fitness” of each of its constitu-
ent members. Said differently, behavior persists because of its ability to meet the demands posed by
the contingencies of relevant environments, and therefore survive. Thus, the behavior of an organ-
ism can be understood to be the joint product of (a) phylogenic selection (contingencies of survival
responsible for species-specific repertoires), (b) ontogenic selection (contingencies of reinforcement
responsible for the shaping and conditioning of idiosyncratic repertoires across an individual’s life-
time), and (c) cultural selection (contingencies that maintain evolved social environments). Although
each topic serves as the focus of different academic disciplines ([a] behavioral genetics and ethology,
[b] behavior analysis, [c] social and cultural anthropology), it can be useful to describe their interac-
tions when justifying the behavior-analytic perspective.

Behavior of the Species: Phylogeny

At this level, behavioral science is concerned with the evolutionary history of the innate behavior
of an entire species (e.g., reflex, kinesis, taxis, fixed action patterns). Theoretically, these behaviors
are selected because they have facilitated differential success in accessing or avoiding contact with
environmental events that are critical to survival (e.g., access to life-sustaining resources and mates,
avoidance of predators). Organisms without these innate repertoires do not survive, and therefore
do not reproduce. Organisms who do possess them propagate their lines of descent. Environmental
contingencies determine the functional utility of responses (e.g., it is only adaptive to blink if damage
to an eyeball disadvantages the relevant organism and jeopardizes its ability to survive and reproduce).
Thus, it is the environment (not the individual) that selects innate repertoires.
Given the volatility of most environmental contingencies, an important development in human
evolution was its inheritance of a genetic endowment that allowed organisms of the lineage to be
changed idiosyncratically, and semi-permanently, by their interactions with the environment—that
is, to “learn.”

Behavior of the Individual: Ontogeny

At this level, science is concerned with the evolution of individual repertoires across a single lifetime.
Specifically, ontogeny is concerned with the ways in which learned behavior evolves to promote and
propagate the survival of individuals. Theoretically, the temporary diminishing impact of frequent
and repeated exposure to eliciting stimuli (habituation), the conditioning of reflex responses to occur
in the presence of novel stimuli (respondent conditioning), and the temporal and topographical
sensitivities of general repertoires to their impact on the environment (operant conditioning) collec-
tively allow an organism to maximize contact with life-sustaining events and minimize contact with
events that jeopardize survival (for detailed explanations of these terms and concepts, see Catania,
2013; Michael, 2004). Thus, in discussions of ontogenic selection, specific stimulus-response rela-
tions metaphorically “survive” when they enhance effective action in novel environments and do not
survive (or are “extinguished”) when they do not.
As is the case at the level of phylogeny, environmental contingencies (the circumstances under
which neutral stimuli come into contact with unconditioned and conditioned stimuli and uncon-
ditioned and conditioned behavior) determine what relations are conditioned at any given moment
across an organism’s lifetime. For example, certain four-legged furry animals are paired with the

12
 Theoretical Foundations

sound “dog” in the United States, but the sound “cachorro” (Ka-show-ho), in Brazil. Thus, it is
again the environment (not the individual) that selects learned repertoires and the circumstances
under which they manifest.

The Behavior of Cultures

Loosely defined, cultural practice describes a phenomenon in which, through shared experience,
individual members of a group come to do the same things, for the same reasons, under similar sets
of circumstances (Hayes & Toarmino, 1995). “Culture,” then, refers to a population of cultural prac-
tices, as well as the artifacts involved in their replication (Skinner, 1938, 1981, 1987).
Technically, cultural practices are specific instances of operant behavior, and controlling variables
that propagate them can easily be found in the history of the individual. However, when certain
practices are coordinated with the actions of others, their collective impact on the environment
is greater than the sum of their constituent parts (e.g., certain hunting or agricultural practices,
warfare). Theoretically, the synergistic qualities of coordinated action are so effective at amplifying
the impact of an individual’s behavior on the environment that the act of coordinating action itself
becomes reinforcing. As a result, members of certain groups learn to attend to the behavior of others
and to mediate contingencies of reinforcement and punishment that shape and maintain important
cultural practices. Language (itself a cultural practice) is a particularly important medium through
which these practices are transmitted.
At the level of cultural selection then, behavioral science is concerned with analysis of the contin-
gencies (often interlocking and socially mediated) responsible for shaping and transmitting cultural
practices among group members across the “lifetime” of a culture. Cultural practices that provide
solutions to problems related to a group’s welfare (e.g., how resources are acquired and consumed,
how waste is managed, rules of logic and reasoning) purportedly “survive.” Practices that do not
benefit the group purportedly do not. As is the case at the levels of phylogeny and ontogeny, envi-
ronmental contingencies (not members of a group) select and maintain cultural practices.

Scientific Objectives of Behavior Analysis

The objective of behavior analytic inquiry is to understand how an organism is affected by the envi-
ronment by exploring its unlearned and learned response mechanisms through analysis of contin-
gencies found in nature. Although contemporary behavior analysis is not atheoretical, its historical
roots are embedded in operationism (i.e., the meaning of a scientific concept is synonymous with
the operations by which it is measured) and a healthy skepticism of theory-driven experimentation
(cf. Skinner, 1950). From a behaviorist perspective, science is a process through which empirically
based rules or laws of nature can be formulated and improved. The purpose of this process is no dif-
ferent from that of any other functional behavior; namely, to maximize contact with reinforcement
and to minimize contact with punishment for anyone who encounters it (Skinner, 1957). Science
based on theories that do not promote effective action is unnecessarily wasteful. Thus, to a behavior-
ist, a theory is only valuable to the extent to which it promotes effective action.
In this quest for actionable knowledge, searches for order and lawfulness are pragmatic, conserva-
tive in scope, and guided by inductive logic. The paradigm begins with a description of simple cases
and facts: for example, statements such as “it is consistently demonstrated that the future frequency
of certain classes of behavior are sensitive to the consequences which follow them.” From those facts
emerge general, abstract, and functionally defined conceptual taxonomies (e.g., antecedents, conse-
quences, reinforcers, punishers, discriminative stimuli, etc.), which can then be used for interpretive
analysis and experimentation.

13
 Rachel E. Robertson et al.

From a foundation of basic conceptual principles, inquiry advances to analysis of larger systematic
arrangements of these principles so that they can be qualified or expanded upon. For example, when
exploring parameters of reinforcement, basic scientists learned that the effect of reinforcement on
behavior was relative, rather than absolute. Specifically, when multiple contingencies of reinforce-
ment are concurrently available, the amount of responding allocated toward any one contingency is
directly proportional to the amount of reinforcement provided by that contingency, relative to the
reinforcement provided by all currently operating contingencies. This principle, known as the gen-
eralized matching law (Baum, 1974), qualifies the impact that a single contingency of reinforcement
has on behavior and has held substantial explanatory power in the decades since its initial discovery.
Each step toward complexity increases the depth and precision of behavioral concepts, thereby
increasing the circumstances under which prediction and control can be accomplished. Because
principles are not deduced, but rather emerge as the inductive product of empirical facts, negative
outcomes (i.e., null effects) are as valuable as positive ones and the field advances each time the results
of a well-controlled experiment are reported (Tincani & Travers, 2018).

Scientific Methods in Behavior Analysis: Single-Case Design

Because behavior is a continuous phenomenon that occurs at the individual level (Cooper et al.,
2020), behaviorists are skeptical of conclusions drawn from aggregated summaries of data collected
at single points in time (Sidman, 1960). As a result, they have developed and continue to refine an
experimental methodology—single-case design—which allows scientists to establish control (i.e.,
unambiguous evidence of a functional relation between behavior and relevant environmental vari-
ables) at the individual level, using time series (repeated) measurement systems. Single-case design,
then, is the methodology used by behavior analysts to examine and show evidence of changes in
behavior resulting from changes in environmental conditions. For an in-depth treatment of single-
case methods, see Chapter 9 of this volume.
A variety of single-case designs have been developed that demonstrate functional or causal rela-
tions between independent (introduced by the experimenter) and dependent (behavior targeted for
change) variables. Regardless of the specific type of single-case design, single-case methods always
include an operationally defined target behavior that is measured in a consistent and systematic man-
ner over time and across varying conditions to determine how conditions (e.g., interventions) affect
the target behavior. Effects of the independent variable on the dependent variable must be replicated
across time and/or individuals to verify that a functional relation exists between the two variables.
Single-case design initially developed from experimental studies of animal behavioral models but
has become one of the most effective methodologies for identifying evidence-based practices in spe-
cial education (Horner et al., 2005). A number of features of single-case design make it well suited to
research (and practice) in special education. Primary among them is that single-case design analyzes
the behavior of an individual over time and only requires one case to demonstrate causal relationships.
Because individuals with disabilities are fewer in number and present more unique characteristics than
the general population, single-case design can be used to conduct rigorous research with very low-
incidence populations. In addition, single-case graphs allow researchers and practitioners to visually
examine changes in individual behavior over time and provide a decision-making aid regarding inten-
sifying or changing interventions and supports—a process that has led to important knowledge produc-
tion in research and implementation of effective learning and behavior support strategies in practice.

Scientific Domains of Behavior Analysis

Currently, behavior analytic scientific endeavors expand across four distinct but interrelated (and
ideally communicating) domains: theory, basic science, applied science, and practice.

14
 Theoretical Foundations

Theory and Interpretation

Although behaviorists prioritize experimental analysis over theory, data without interpretation are
meaningless. For experimental outcomes to be generally useful, some degree of extrapolation is
needed. Further, as has been previously stated, behaviorists contend that, at least in principle, it must
be possible to appeal to past and present physiological and behavioral principles to secure a complete
account of all human behavior. Because the rigors of valid experimentation introduce both practi-
cal and ethical barriers to comprehensive empirical analysis across many domains relevant to human
functioning, it becomes important to generate plausible (and falsifiable) accounts of behavior in these
domains, using conceptual systems and functional taxonomies informed by the findings of decades
of experimental analysis.
Thus, the role of this branch of inquiry is interpretation and extrapolation. A nonexhaustive list
of topics addressed through behavior analytic theory include the existence and functions of private
events (e.g., Skinner, 1957; Palmer, 2009); choice (e.g., Baum, 1974); impulsivity (e.g., Madden &
Bickel, 2010; Odum, 2011); persistence (e.g. Nevin & Grace, 2000); relapse (e.g., Shahan, 2020);
the functions of verbal behavior (e.g., Skinner, 1957); the functions of rule-governed behavior (e.g.,
Hayes et al., 1989); problem-solving (e.g., Skinner, 2013); cultural design (e.g., Skinner, 1971);
and the roles that arbitrarily applicable derived relational responding (a phenomenon that might be
easiest to understand as a special case of generalization) can play in symbolic representation, “under-
standing,” and emotional pain associated with certain psychopathologies (Hayes et al., 2001; Hayes,
2004; Snyder et al., 2011).
Because these theories are formulated using operationalized taxonomies and functional concep-
tual units, the validity of their predictions can be subjected to experimental analysis at both basic
and applied levels in ways that simultaneously enhance their precision and utility (basic) and the
impact of technologies designed for the resolution of socially significant problems (applied). Thus,
the degree to which theories guide effective action determines their value and justifies when and
how they are modified.

Basic Science
The primary objective of science at this level of inquiry is to develop, refine, and clarify basic and
universally applicable principles of behavior. As the theory of evolution establishes a continuity
of species, behaviorists are minimally concerned with the identity of subjects who participate in
these experiments, provided species-specific traits and tendencies can be controlled for prior to the
extrapolation of principle. Basic scientists are in constant contact with theory, as the findings of their
empirical work directly inform when and how theory is modified.

Applied Science
The objective of applied science is to leverage conceptual systems provided by basic science and the-
ory in the development and expansion of behavior-change technology appropriate for the resolution
of socially important problems. Said differently, the purpose of applied science is to produce clear
and unambiguous evidence (or lack thereof) of specific techniques that contribute to a generaliz-
able technology of behavior change that bridges the gap between what is known and what is useful.
To accomplish this, applied scientists must remain aware of developments in theory and basic sci-
ence, as each clarification of a basic principle of behaviors has the potential to amplify the impact of
interventions at the applied level. Likewise, they must stay abreast of challenges encountered by prac-
titioners who deliver behavior analytic services to ensure experimental initiatives remain tethered
to clear and socially valid objectives. Because the points of contact between basic laboratory models

15
 Rachel E. Robertson et al.

and applied scenarios can be vague or otherwise unspecified, a subdomain of applied research (i.e.,
translational research) has grown in popularity.
Translational research describes a scientific tradition in which researchers conduct proof-of-
concept studies meant to bridge gaps between basic and applied knowledge for reasons that range
from demonstrations of generality to problem-solving (Mace & Critchfield, 2010). Broadly, trans-
lational research can be useful because it demonstrates how, specifically, basic laboratory findings
might bear relevance to socially significant problems. When successful, these endeavors provide
applied scientists with points of contact between applied problems and known mechanisms of
change and thus serve as a muse for conceptually systematic problem-solving (e.g., Greer & Shahan,
2019; Wathen & Podlesnik, 2018). Occasionally, they also serve to facilitate identification and/or
clarification of behavioral processes uniquely relevant to applied populations (e.g., Sidman, 2000;
Dixon et al., 2021).
Although any human problem can be the subject of applied or translational scientific inquiry,
robust technologies useful to children with disabilities have included the assessment and treatment of
challenging behavior, systematic instruction, and language-based intervention.

Practice
Service providers with a behavioral orientation adopt the conceptual systems and technologies
developed by basic and applied science to improve the lives of the population(s) of clients for whom
said technologies were developed. Occasionally, comprehensive treatment packages have been devel-
oped to serve certain populations or problems, including (but not limited to) models of discrete trial
instruction (i.e., carefully constructed, concrete opportunities to respond) inspired by work by Ivar
Lovaas (e.g., Lovaas, 1977, 1987). More often, practitioners individualize interventions according to
their fluency with general principles of systematic instruction (e.g., conditioning through prompt-
ing systems and differential reinforcement, shaping, chaining, generalization, and maintenance), and
goals are individualized based on the outcomes of functional assessments designed according to
conceptual systems developed by the other three branches of inquiry. Functional assessments com-
monly relevant to children with disabilities include assessments of expressive and receptive commu-
nication, from a behavior analytic perspective (e.g., Sundberg, 2008; Partington, 2008), challenging
behavior (Bloom et al., 2013; Hanley et al., 2014; Lambert & Houchins-Juárez, 2020), and symbolic
representation and generativity (e.g., Rehfeldt & Barnes-Holmes, 2009; Dixon, Belisle et al., 2015;
Dixon, Paliliunas et al., 2019; Gibbs & Tullis, 2020).
Contemporary practitioners of behavior analysis (i.e., board-certified behavior analysts [BCBAs])
are not distinguished by a specific profession (e.g., psychology, special education) as much as by
the nature of their practice and the structure and content of their preservice professional train-
ing. Specifically, BCBAs in any profession can be distinguished by their commitment to objective
improvements in operationally defined and empirically verifiable goals of social significance through
interventions that are individualized based on the results of ongoing and valid formative assessment
and that operate on variables found in the natural world (as opposed to a mental one). Although
these practitioners prioritize client outcomes and develop data systems that facilitate data-based
individualization (rather than experimental control), they are trained in single-case methodology
and are capable of conducting applied science within the context of their own practice whenever
new knowledge directly relevant to their clientele is needed. That is, they are professionally trained
to be scientist-practitioners (e.g., Critchfield, 2015; Dorsey & Harper, 2018). Preservice practitioner
graduate programs that embrace the conceptual foundations of behaviorism and mastery of basic and
applied methods of inquiry (regardless of profession) can be authorized to deliver coursework that
qualifies its graduates to obtain the BCBA credential in addition to whatever professional credentials
are valued by the department that houses the program (BACB.com).

16
 Theoretical Foundations

Behavior-Analytic Influences in Special Education

ABA has made many critical contributions to special education research and practice. In this section,
we outline some of these contributions in terms of their connection to behavioral theory and impact
on special education.

Operant Learning Theory

Nearing a century ago, B.F. Skinner (1938) discovered principles of operant conditioning that
allowed researchers to systematically shape and establish idiosyncratic behavioral repertoires. These
principles were initially studied in labs with nonhuman subjects (e.g., rats or pigeons) and provided
the empirical foundation of modern-day, behavior-analytic practices. Through hundreds of lab-
based animal experiments, Skinner established the consistent and generalizable effect of basic oper-
ant conditioning procedures (e.g., reinforcement, punishment) on behavior. Specifically, Skinner
found that behavioral responses followed by improved conditions (e.g., food or water) resulted in
increased rates of those behavioral responses. He further found that specific antecedent stimuli could
come to occasion these responses when followed by powerful reinforcers, thus formalizing the three-
term contingency of discriminative stimulus, behavioral response, and reinforcing stimulus. Using
this three-term contingency, also known as operant conditioning, Skinner was able to develop a
variety of new behaviors in animal models.
Fuller (1949) first extended operant conditioning to individuals with disabilities in a study with
an institutionalized 18-year-old man with profound developmental disabilities and severely limited
mobility. Staff described this young man as incapable of learning; however, when Fuller provided a
preferred sugar milk solution following arm raises, the participant soon learned to raise his arm at a
rate of three times per minute. This study demonstrated the potential benefit of behavior analysis for
individuals with profound disabilities whose ability to learn had previously been dismissed.
Researchers soon moved from targeting simple motor responses to demonstrating that operant
conditioning could be used to increase socially important skills and behaviors, as well as decrease
challenging behaviors that interfered with quality of life (Wolf, 1978). Lovaas (1977, 1987) began
seminal work using operant conditioning to teach social, communication, and academic skills to
children with ASD through methods of discrete trial teaching. A number of researchers in ABA
have extended this work to embed operant conditioning and discrete trials into play-based and other
natural routines to teach critical skills for children with ASD. For example, Brock et al. (2018) used
peer-implemented pivotal response training (Koegel & Koegel, 2019), in which typical children
were taught to encourage and socially reinforce social play behaviors during recess to increase peer
interaction and play in children with ASD. As a result of its empirical support, insurance coverage
of ABA-based therapy for children with ASD is now mandated in the majority of the United States.
Overall, many evidence-based special education practices are grounded in principles of operant con-
ditioning and ABA (Wong et al., 2014), including the use of (a) direct instruction with rapid oppor-
tunities to respond, (b) systematic prompting procedures, and (c) individualized or group-based
reinforcement contingencies such as token economies or self-monitoring systems. Further, operant
learning theory has led to evidence-based approaches to teacher professional development, such as
behavioral skills training, in which a coach provides instructions, modeling, rehearsal/role play, and
feedback to teach school staff to implement special education strategies (Kirkpatrick et al., 2019).

Function-Based Approach to Challenging Behavior

Another example of how behavioral science has contributed to instructional technologies that ben-
efit children with disabilities may be found in the development of functional analysis (FA) and

17
 Rachel E. Robertson et al.

functional behavior assessment (FBA). In a seminal paper, Carr (1977) reviewed previous empirical
work to consider why individuals with disabilities might engage in self-injurious behavior (SIB). At
this time, challenging behavior in children and adults with disabilities, particularly SIB, was generally
viewed as aberrant and maladaptive with purposes that were unknowable and irrelevant to treatment.
Therefore, SIB was typically assessed by its form and targeted for reduction using consequence-based
procedures like extinction (Lovaas et al., 1965), response-cost (Iwata & Bailey, 1974), overcorrection
(Foxx & Bechtel, 1983), or differential reinforcement of incompatible behavior (Peterson & Peter-
son, 1968). Although these procedures were also based on behavior analysis, they were not informed
by an understanding of the function, or reinforcement contingencies, maintaining the challenging
behavior and often produced mixed results (Bachman, 1972). Carr (1977) concluded that SIB may
be maintained by positive, negative, and/or automatic reinforcement in different individuals. Carr
went further to identify ways in which knowledge of the motivation for challenging behavior might
be used to increase the effectiveness of intervention. He also suggested creating different social
conditions in which individuals with SIB could be observed to see which situations were associated
with higher rates of SIB, thereby indicating the function of SIB for that person. Iwata et al. (1982),
building from Carr’s theoretical work, developed a procedure (a multielement FA) that allowed
interventionists to confirm (and rule out) multiple hypotheses of challenging-behavior function
across a relatively brief period of time (e.g., a few hours). This procedure has proven critical to dec-
ades of intervention research (Beavers et al., 2013; Hanley et al., 2003; Mace, 1994) and practice, as
FA and its variations (e.g., trial-based FA; Bloom et al., 2013), as well as FBA (a nonexperimental
approach to identifying potential functions of challenging behavior), are commonly used to inform
interventions for individuals with challenging behavior.
Thus, theory-driven etiological accounts of challenging behavior eventually led to the develop-
ment of evidence-based methodologies (FA and FBA), which now play a critical role in the edu-
cational programming of many children with disabilities. Applied research has consistently found
behavior interventions based on the function of an individual’s challenging behavior to be more
effective than behavior interventions not based on function (Jeong & Copeland, 2020). As a result,
in 2004, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 20 U.S.C § 1415 Procedural Safe-
guards included provisions mandating an FBA and function-based behavior intervention plan (BIP)
for students with disabilities under certain conditions and recommending them for any student with
a disability whose behavior interferes with learning. Additionally, FA and FBA procedures have
become important tools for caregivers supporting positive behavior at home in their children with
disabilities (Fettig & Barton, 2014).

Data-Based Decision-Making and Individualization

A final example of ABA’s influence on the field of special education is in the use of ongoing forma-
tive assessment to monitor, evaluate, and adjust academic and behavioral interventions for students
with disabilities. Such data collection and analysis procedures include curriculum-based measure-
ment (CBM; Deno, 1985), brief experimental analysis (BEA; Daly et al., 1999), progress monitor-
ing (PM; Gesel & Lemons, 2020), data-based decision-making (DBDM; Bruhn et al., 2020), and
data-based individualization (DBI; Jung et al., 2018). See Chapter 4 for a more in-depth descrip-
tion of these approaches applied to academic contexts. Although these procedures were developed
by researchers both inside (Daly et al., 1999) and outside (Deno & Mirkin, 1977) of ABA, the
approach to evaluating the effectiveness of a specific practice for an individual student using system-
atic, repeated measures highly sensitive to change is rooted in ABA traditions of data collection and
analysis (Fuchs, 2017) and can be readily traced back to the work of Dr. Ogden Lindsley (Bruhn
et al., 2020).

18
 Theoretical Foundations

Lindsley studied behavior analysis with B.F. Skinner and applied the measurement and analysis
methods used by Skinner to teaching students with disabilities, an approach known as precision
teaching (PT; Lindsley, 1991). Specifically, PT incorporated five principles derived from Skinner’s
experimental work with animal models: (a) the learner knows best; (b) measure observable behav-
ior; (c) use frequency as the unit of measurement; (d) use a standardized data display; and (e) care-
fully describe environmental conditions (White, 1986). When combined, these principles involved
daily measuring and graphing of student learning on a Standard Celeration Chart and analyzing
student progress from initial baseline level to the goal level, or aim, plotted on the graph. If the
student was progressing along the aim line, which connected their initial performance to their aim,
instruction and monitoring continued as planned; however, if student progress was beneath the aim
line, instruction was adjusted or intensified until student progress was on course to reach the aim
(Lindsley, 1972). Instructional methods used in PT were based on operant conditioning and when
combined with regular evaluation and enhancement of student progress resulted in an extremely
effective approach to teaching academic skills to students with disabilities (White, 1986). As a result,
PT was federally funded and successfully implemented in a large number of public schools (Beck &
Clement, 1991) with such outcomes as fourth-graders in PT schools performing in the 95th percen-
tile on standardized scores of reading achievement compared to fourth-graders in non-PT schools
performing at the 71st percentile (Beck, 1979). Building from the work of Lindsley (1972), Deno
and Mirkin (1977), Fuchs (Fuchs et al., 1989), and many others, DBI has developed greatly in recent
years (Lemons et al., 2017; McMaster et al., 2020), including the federal funding of the National
Center on Intensive Intervention (NCII; intensiveintervention.org).

Conclusions and Future Directions for ABA in Special Education

In conclusion, ABA, based on behavioral theory, has positively affected special education research
and practice in many crucial areas, including (a) research methodology uniquely suited to identify-
ing evidence-based practices for students with disabilities; (b) effective and systematic instructional
methods for students with high- and low-incidence disabilities; (c) theory-driven approaches to
assessing and improving challenging behavior in students with and without disabilities; and (d) data-
based methods of monitoring, evaluating, and intensifying individualized interventions. Although
researchers have used ABA-based methods to develop many evidence-based practices in special
education (Wong et al., 2014), an important area of current and future work in ABA lies in creating
conditions that facilitate the effective, sustained, and scaled implementation of its practices. Issues of
implementation fidelity, maintenance, and generalization are not new to ABA and have been dis-
cussed since its inception (Ayllon & Michael, 1959; Baer et al., 1968; Wolf, 1978); however, more
recent successes and initiatives in supporting the implementation of effective ABA practices have
involved skills-based training, a systems approach, a focus on cultural responsiveness, and methods
for fostering “buy-in.”
Each of these implementation factors can be found in School-wide Positive Behavioral Inter-
ventions and Supports (PBIS), a framework for delivering school-based behavior supports that is
strongly rooted in ABA (Horner & Sugai, 2015). PBIS has experienced great success in its adoption
and implementation, with over 25,000 U.S. schools implementing it as of 2018 (pbis.org/about/
about). While PBIS incorporates ABA-based approaches to skills training for school staff (Kirk-
patrick et al., 2019), it also works at a systems level by focusing on the entire school as the unit
of analysis (Horner & Sugai, 2018), thus shaping broader school cultural contingencies to support
sustained implementation. More recently, PBIS researchers have been analyzing and developing
ways to increase racial equity and cultural responsiveness within the PBIS framework (Gion et al.,
2020). In general, as the United States grows more diverse and recognizes the social importance of

19
 Rachel E. Robertson et al.

addressing racial inequity, behavior analysts will need training and frameworks for implementing
culturally responsive interventions (Conners et al., 2019). Finally, PBIS research and practice have
devoted considerable energy to understanding and measuring a rather “nonbehavioral” concept:
“buy-in,” or personal agreement and investment in the implementation of a practice (Filter et al.,
2016). School staff buy-in to PBIS has repeatedly been identified as a critical barrier (and facilitator)
to its implementation, and effective methods of fostering buy-in to increase sustained implementa-
tion of ABA-based practices may exist (Feuerborn et al., 2016; Robertson, 2020). In sum, research,
methods, and practice arising from behavioral theory have greatly affected special education; future
efforts to further and broaden acceptance and implementation of ABA-based practices may benefit
from an increased focus on understanding the systems, cultures, and people who could use and ben-
efit from ABA in special education.

References
Ayllon, T., & Michael, J. (1959). The psychiatric nurse as a behavioral engineer 1. Journal of the Experimental
Analysis of Behavior, 2(4), 323–334.
Bachman, J. A. (1972). Self-injurious behavior: A behavioral analysis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 80(3),
211–224. doi:10.1037/h0033736
Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., & Risley, T. R. (1968). Some current dimensions of applied behavior analysis. Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1(1), 91–97.
Baum, W. M. (1974). On two types of deviation from the matching law: Bias and undermatching. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 22, 231–242.
Beavers, G. A., Iwata, B. A., & Lerman, D. C. (2013). Thirty years of research on the functional analysis of
problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46, 1–21. doi:10.1002/jaba.30
Beck, R. (1979). Report for the office of education joint dissemination review panel. Precision Teaching Project.
Beck, R., & Clement, R. (1991). The great falls precision teaching project: An historical examination. Journal
of Precision Teaching, 8(2), 8–12.
Bloom, S. E., Lambert, J. M., Dayton, E., & Samaha, A. L. (2013). Teacher-conducted trial- based functional
analyses as the basis for intervention. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46(1), 208–218.
Brock, M. E., Dueker, S. A., & Barczak, M. A. (2018). Brief report: Improving social outcomes for students
with autism at recess through peer-mediated pivotal response training. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 48, 2224–2230. doi:10.1007/s10803-017-3435-3
Bruhn, A. L., Wehby, J. H., & Hasselbring, T. S. (2020). Data-based decision making for social behavior: Setting
a research agenda. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 22(2), 116–126.
Carr, E. G. (1977). The Motivation of self-injurious behavior: A review of some hypotheses. Psychological Bul-
letin, 84, 800–816. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.84.4.800
Catania, A. C. (2013). Learning (5th ed.). Sloan.
Conners, B., Johnson, A., Duarte, J., Murriky, R., & Marks, K. (2019). Future directions of training and field-
work in diversity issues in applied behavior analysis. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 12(4), 767–776.
Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2020). Applied behavior analysis. Pearson.
Critchfield, T. S. (2015). What counts as high-quality practitioner training in applied behavior analysis? Behavior
Analysis in Practice, 8, 3–6.
Daly III, E. J., Martens, B. K., Hamler, K. R., Dool, E. J., & Eckert, T. L. (1999). A brief experimental analysis
for identifying instructional components needed to improve oral reading fluency. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 32, 83–94.
Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection. Murray.
Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52(3),
219–232. doi:10.1177/001440298505200303
Deno, S. L., & Mirkin, P. (1977). Data-based program modification. Council for Exceptional Children.
Dixon, M. R., Belisle, J., Hayes, S. C., Stanley, C. R., Blevins, A., Gutknecht, K. F., . . . Lucas, C. (2021). Evi-
dence from children with autism that derived relational responding is a generalized operant. Behavior Analysis
in Practice, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-020-00425-y
Dixon, M. R., Belisle, J., Stanley, C., Rowsey, K., Daar, J. H., & Szekely, S. (2015). Toward a behavior analysis
of complex language for children with autism: Evaluating the relationship between PEAK and the VB-
MAPP. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 27, 223–233.

20
 Theoretical Foundations

Dixon, M. R., Paliliunas, D., Barron, B. F., Schmick, A. M., & Stanley, C. R. (2019). Randomized controlled
trial evaluation of ABA content on IQ gains in children with autism. Journal of Behavioral Education, 1–23.
Dorsey, M. F., & Harper, J. M. (2018). Toward the scientist practitioner model in applied behavior analysis:
Examples of a science-based practice. Education and Treatment of Children, 41, 273–275.
Fettig, A., & Barton, E. E. (2014). Parent implementation of function-based intervention to reduce children’s
challenging behavior: A literature review. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 34(1), 49–61.
Feuerborn, L. L., Wallace, C., & Tyre, A. D. (2016). A qualitative analysis of middle and high school teacher
perceptions of schoolwide positive behavior supports. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 18, 219–229.
Filter, K. J., Sytsma, M. R., & McIntosh, K. (2016). A brief measure of staff commitment to implement school-
wide positive behavioral interventions and supports. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 42(1), 18–31.
Foxx, R. M., & Bechtel, D. R. (1983). Overcorrection: A review and analysis. In S. Axelrod & J. Apsche (Eds.),
The effects of punishment on human behavior (pp. 133–220). Academic Press.
Fuchs, L. S. (2017). Curriculum-based measurement as the emerging alternative: Three decades later. Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice, 32(1), 5–7. doi:10.1111/ldrp.12127
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Hamlett, C. L. (1989). Effects of alternative goal structures within curriculum-based
measurement. Exceptional Children, 55(5), 429–438. doi:10.1177/00144029805500506
Fuller, P. R. (1949). Operant conditioning of a vegetative organism. American Journal of Psychology, 62, 587–590.
Gesel, S., & Lemons, C. J. (2020). Comparing schedules of progress monitoring using curriculum-based meas-
urement in reading: A replication study. Exceptional Children, 87. doi:10.1177/0014402920924845.
Gibbs, A. R., & Tullis, C. A. (2020). The emergence of untrained relations in individuals with autism and
other intellectual and developmental disabilities: A systematic review of the recent literature. Review Journal
of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 1–26.
Gion, C., McIntosh, K., & Falcon, S. (2020). Effects of a multifaceted classroom intervention on racial dispro-
portionality. School Psychology Review, 1–17.
Greer, B. D., & Shahan, T. A. (2019). Resurgence as choice: Implications for promoting durable behavior
change. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 52, 816–846. doi:10.1002/jaba.573
Hanley, G. P., Iwata, B. A., & McCord, B. E. (2003). Functional analysis of problem behavior: A review. Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 147–185.
Hanley, G. P., Jin, C. S., Vanselow, N. R., & Hanratty, L. A. (2014). Producing meaningful improvements in
problem behavior of children with autism via synthesized analysis and treatments. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 47, 16–36.
Hayes, L. J., Thompson, S., & Hayes, S. C. (1989). Stimulus equivalence and rule following. Journal of Experi-
mental Analysis of Behavior, 52, 275–291.
Hayes, S. C. (2004). Acceptance and commitment therapy, relational frame theory, and the third wave of behav-
ioral and cognitive therapies. Behavior Therapy, 35, 639–665.
Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (Eds.). (2001). Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of
human language and cognition. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Hayes, S. C., & Toarmino, D. (1995). If behavior principles are generally applicable, why is it important to
understand cultural diversity? The Behavior Therapist, 18, 21–23.
Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The use of single subject
research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 165–179.
Horner, R. H., & Sugai, G. (2015). School-wide PBIS: An example of applied behavior analysis implemented
at a scale of social importance. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 8(1), 80–85.
Horner, R. H., & Sugai, G. (2018). Future directions for positive behavior support: A commentary. Journal of
Positive Behavior Interventions, 20(1), 19–22.
Iwata, B. A., & Bailey, J. S. (1974). Reward versus cost token systems: An analysis of the effects on students and
teacher. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 7(4), 567–576. doi:10.1901/jaba.1974.7-567
Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. S., Bauman, K. E., & Richman, G. S. (1982). Toward a functional analysis of self-
injury. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 2(1), 3–20. doi:10.1016/0270-4684(82)90003-9
Jeong, Y., & Copeland, S. R. (2020). Comparing functional behavior assessment-based interventions and non-
functional behavior assessment-based interventions: A systematic review of outcomes and methodological
quality of studies. Journal of Behavioral Education, 29, 1–41. doi:10.1007/s10864-019-09355-4
Jung, P. G., McMaster, K. L., Kunkel, A. K., Shin, J., & Stecker, P. M. (2018). Effects of data- based individu-
alization for students with intensive learning needs: A meta-analysis. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice,
33(3), 144–155. doi:10.1111/ldrp12172
Kirkpatrick, M., Akers, J., & Rivera, G. (2019). Use of behavioral skills training with teachers: A systematic
review. Journal of Behavioral Education, 28, 344–361. doi:10.1007/s10864-019-09322-z
Koegel, R., & Koegel, L. (2019). Pivotal response treatment for autism spectrum disorders (2nd ed.). Paul H. Brookes.

21
 Rachel E. Robertson et al.

Lambert, J. M., & Houchins-Juárez, N. J. (2020). Do functional analyses probe learning histories, or cre-
ate them? An exploratory investigation. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 125,
200–216.
Lemons, C. J., Sinclair, A. C., Gesel, S., Gandhi, A., & Danielson, L. (2017). Supporting implementation of data-
based individualization: Lessons learned from NCII’s first five years. National Center on Intensive Intervention at
American Institutes for Research.
Lindsley, O. R. (1972). From Skinner to precision teaching: The child knows best. In J. B. Jordan & L. S. Rob-
bins (Eds.), Let’s try doing something else kind of thing (pp. 1–12). Council for Exceptional Children.
Lindsley, O. R. (1991). Precision teaching’s unique legacy from B. F. Skinner. Journal of Behavioral Education, 1,
253–266. doi:10.1007/BF00957007
Lovaas, O. I. (1977). The autistic child: Language development through behavior modification. Irvington.
Lovaas, O. I. (1987). Behavioral treatment and normal educational and intellectual functioning in young autistic
children. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 55, 3.
Lovaas, O. I., Freitag, G., Gold, V. J., & Kassorla, I. C. (1965). Experimental studies in childhood schiz-
ophrenia: Analysis of self-destructive behavior. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 2, 67–84.
doi:10.1016/0022-0965(65)90016-0
Mace, F. C. (1994). The significance and future of functional analysis methodologies. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 27, 385–392.
Mace, F. C., & Critchfield, T. S. (2010). Translational research in behavior analysis: Historical traditions and
imperative for the future. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 93, 293–312.
Madden, G. J., & Bickel, W. K. (2010). Impulsivity: The behavioral and neurological science of discounting. American
Psychological Association.
McMaster, K. L., Lembke, E. S., Shin, J., Poch, A., Smith, R. A., Jung, P., . . . Wagner, K. (2020). Supporting
teachers’ use of data-based instruction to improve students’ early writing skills. Journal of Educational Psychol-
ogy, 112(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000358
Michael, J. L. (2004). Concepts and principles of behavior analysis. Western Michigan University: Association for
Behavior Analysis International.
Moore, J. (2008). Conceptual foundations of radical behaviorism. Sloan Pub.
Moore, J. (2015). From a behavioral point of view: A psychological primer. Sloan.
Nevin, J. A., & Grace, R. C. (2000). Behavioral momentum and the law of effect. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
23, 73–90.
Odum, A. L. (2011). Delay discounting: I’m ok, you’re ok. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 96,
427–439.
Palmer, D. C. (2009). The role of private events in the interpretation of complex behavior. Behavior and Phi-
losophy, 37, 3–19.
Partington, J. W. (2008). The assessment of basic language and learning skills—revised (ABLLS-R). Behavior Analysts.
Peterson, R. F., & Peterson, L. R. (1968). The use of positive reinforcement in the control of self- destructive behav-
ior in a retarded boy. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 6, 351–360. doi:10.1016/0022-0965(68)90116-1
Rehfeldt, R. A., & Barnes-Holmes, Y. (Eds.). (2009). Derived relational responding: Applications for learners with
Autism and other developmental disabilities. New Harbinger Publications.
Robertson, R. E. (2020). Breaking down buy-in: Can lessons from social psychology increase teacher use of
proactive behavior management? Psychology in the schools, 57(11), 1771–1786.
Shahan, T. A., Browning, K. O., & Nall, R. W. (2020). Resurgence as choice in context: Treatment duration
and on/off alternative reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 113, 57–76.
Sidman, M. (1960). Tactics of scientific research. Authors Cooperative, Inc.
Sidman, M. (2000). Equivalence relations and the reinforcement contingency. Journal of the Experimental Analysis
of Behavior, 74, 127–146.
Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. Appleton-Century.
Skinner, B. F. (1950). Are theories of learning necessary? Psychological Review, 57, 193–216.
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Skinner, B. F. (1971). Beyond freedom and dignity. Pelican.
Skinner, B. F. (1981). Selection by consequences. Science, 213, 501–504.
Skinner, B. F. (1987). Whatever happened to psychology as the science of behavior? American Psychologist, 42,
780.
Skinner, B. F. (2013). An operant analysis of problem solving. In J. S. Vargas (Ed.), Contingencies of reinforcement
(pp. 133–171). XanEdu (Original work published 1969).
Snyder, K., Lambert, J., & Twohig, M. P. (2011). Defusion: A behavior-analytic strategy for addressing private
events. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 4(2), 4–13.

22
 Theoretical Foundations

Sundberg, M. L. (2008). VB-MAPP verbal behavior milestones assessment and placement program: A language and social
skills assessment program for children with autism or other developmental disabilities guide. Printed by the Author.
Tincani, M., & Travers, J. (2018). Publishing single-case research design studies that do not demonstrate experi-
mental control. Remedial and Special Education, 39(2), 118–128.
Wathen, S. N., & Podlesnik, C. A. (2018). Laboratory models of treatment relapse and mitigation techniques.
Behavior Analysis: Research and Practice, 18, 362–387. doi:10.1037/bar0000119
Watson, T. S. (1924). Behaviorism. W.W. Norton.
White, O. R. (1986). Precision teaching—precision learning. Exceptional Children, 52(6), 522—534. https://
doi.org/10.1177/001440298605200605
Wolf, M. M. (1978). Social validity: The case for subjective measurement or how applied behavior analysis is
finding its heart. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 203–214.
Wong, C., Odom, S. L., Hume, K., Cox, A. W., Fettig, A., Kucharczyk, S., et al. (2014). Evidence-based practices
for children, youth, and young adults with autism spectrum disorder. The University of North Carolina, Frank
Porter Graham Child Development Institute, Autism Evidence-Based Practice Review Group.

23
 3
CONTRIBUTIONS OF
COGNITIVE SCIENCE TO
SPECIAL EDUCATION
RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
Historical Context, Current Influences, and
Future Directions

Marcia A. Barnes, Nathan H. Clemens, and Anna H. Miller

Author note
The writing of this chapter was supported by Grants R324A160052, R324A200101, and
R324A200209 from NCSER, Institute of Education Sciences, and U.S. Department of Education
and by Grant H325D180086 from the Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of
Education. Nothing in the chapter necessarily reflects the positions or policies of the federal govern-
ment, and no official endorsement by it should be inferred.
Cognitive science includes cognitive psychology, developmental cognitive psychology, and educational
and cognitive neuroscience (see Chapters 7 and 18). In this chapter, we illustrate the contribution of
cognitive science to understanding the nature of learning disabilities (LDs) and to intervention design.
We discuss historical and current influences of cognitive science, including how (a) academic interven-
tions for LDs were motivated by schema theory and theories of metacognition and metacognitive devel-
opment; (b) cognitive principles of learning have been applied to academic interventions; and (c) models
of reading and mathematical cognition inform understanding of and interventions for dyslexia, reading
comprehension disabilities, and math disabilities. We also present some directions for future research.

Human Learning and Memory

In this section we describe three theoretical frameworks broadly situated in the study of human
learning and memory and describe their application to LDs. In reality, most interventions are multi-
faceted, drawing on more than a single theoretical framework or technique from cognitive science.
Although we present these frameworks separately given their different historical origins, we make
links between them particularly with respect to future research.

Metacognition

History
Metacognition is most strongly associated with the cognitive developmental psychologists John H.
Flavell and Ann Brown. They observed that compared to older children, younger children were

DOI: 10.4324/9781003156857-4 24
 Contributions of Cognitive Science

remarkably poor at judging how well they could perform a task such as remembering something
they learned or realizing when they didn’t understand something (e.g., Flavell et al., 1970). Flavell
was interested in describing the development of the ability to understand and reflect on one’s own
and other’s cognition, the former making its way into education in terms of cognitive monitoring
and self-regulation, and the latter evolving into the field of theory of mind (Baker et al., 2020). Per-
haps because developmental differences in metacognition were studied using reading comprehension
tasks, it was a short leap to integrate metacognitive theory into academic interventions (Baker et al.,
2020), including for students with LDs. For example, in 1992 a special issue of the Journal of Learn-
ing Disabilities reported interventions using metacognitive principles for children with disabilities in
reading, mathematics, and writing (Borkowski, 1992).

Relations to Academic Skills and Use in Interventions

The two main components of metacognitive theory that have been applied to academic skills devel-
opment include self-monitoring, an in-the-moment judgment of one’s progress with respect to their
task goals, and self-regulation, a forward-looking aspect involving cycles of planning, directing one’s
attention and effort to the task at hand, evaluation, and revision. Metacognitive approaches are often
referred to as dialogue-based. Structured dialogue is used by a teacher (or peer) to model strategies
that are applied to content. The student is then guided in their own dialogue-based application of
the strategy, often taking the form of “think-alouds” or group discussion (Berkeley & Larsen, 2018).
Metacognitive dialogic approaches often involve positive self-talk routines to maintain motivation
and address negative attributions (Berkeley & Larsen, 2018). Dialogue-based metacognitive com-
ponents are also used in reciprocal teaching/peer-mediated learning (Palincsar & Brown, 1984).
Metacognitive theory has been influential in the design of strategy-based interventions for LDs.
Cognitive strategies need not be metacognitive unless they involve self-monitoring or self-regulation
components.
In a quantitative synthesis, reading comprehension interventions with an explicit self-regulation
component produced large effect sizes (Berkeley & Larsen, 2018). Although these effect sizes were
consistent with some previous findings for cognitive strategy instruction, the authors suggested that
the self-regulation component was important for transfer and independent strategy use because
effects were maintained over time. Metacognitive approaches for students with writing disabilities,
such as those found in self-regulated strategy development, are associated with the largest effects on
written composition compared to other instructional methods (Gillespie & Graham, 2014). In a
meta-analysis across academic domains not disaggregated for LDs, the effect of metacognitive com-
ponents added to strategy instruction were the highest for writing, then math, then reading (Donker
et al., 2014).
Only a few studies of LDs have compared the same intervention with and without the added
self-regulatory component. In a study of children with dyslexia, effects on word reading were
stronger for a phonologically based intervention with a metacognitive component compared
to the phonological approach alone (e.g., Lovett et al., 2000). In a study of third-grade chil-
dren with math difficulties, Fuchs and colleagues (Fuchs et al., 2021b) compared a fractions
intervention with and without a self-regulation + growth-mindset component. There was no
added benefit of the metacognitive component, leading the researchers to suggest that, with a
strong domain-specific intervention, self-regulation strategies might not be necessary. In a writ-
ing intervention study that isolated the self-regulatory component from the cognitive writing
strategies component, there was also no added benefit of the self-regulatory component (Gra-
ham & Harris, 1989). Metacognitive strategies of goal setting and measuring attainment of that
goal were not effective practices when examined individually for children with math disabilities
(Gersten et al., 2009).

25
 Marcia A. Barnes et al.

Issues and Future Directions

Metacognitive approaches have been an important aspect of strategy-based interventions for chil-
dren with LDs; however, it is unclear whether the addition of metacognitive components leads to
better learning than well-designed, domain-specific interventions without such components. This
question is best addressed with experimental studies comparing the same domain-specific inter-
vention with and without a metacognitive/self-regulatory component. Given that metacognitive
components, when combined with domain-specific instruction, might be particularly relevant for
maintenance and transfer, we think this direction is worth pursuing in future studies, which should
include maintenance and transfer outcomes. It is also important to determine for whom metacogni-
tive components might be most effective. Sufficient domain knowledge and/or cognitive resources
are important for the efficient implementation of metacognitive strategies (Compton et al., 2014),
and yet knowledge and cognitive resources are often cited as areas of deficit for individuals with LDs
(Swanson et al., 2009). Future research might examine whether domain knowledge and/or cogni-
tive resources moderate effects of interventions with metacognitive components.

Schema Theory

History
Schema theory can be traced to Sir Frederic C. Bartlett (1932), who proposed that one’s previous
knowledge primes or sets up expectations for the processing of new information. Although this
statement seems uncontroversial, it was at odds with predominant behaviorist theories at the time.
Schema theory underlines the importance of prior knowledge for facilitating acquisition of new
knowledge and problem-solving.

Relations to Academic Skills and Use in Interventions

Schema theorists have contributed to special education by providing a set of procedures for use in inter-
ventions in reading comprehension, mathematics word-problem solving, and written composition. In
reading comprehension, a specific use of schema theory has involved teaching different types of text
structure, particularly for expository text (e.g., description, cause/effect, compare/contrast, problem/
solution, sequence). The idea is that understanding and learning from texts are facilitated when the
reader processes the text according to the structure the author has used (Williams, 2018). A meta-
analysis of text structure interventions showed substantial effect sizes and larger effects in studies that
included instruction in more than one schema for students with or at risk for disabilities (Hebert et al.,
2016); however, effects on general measures of reading comprehension were smaller than those on
researcher-created measures, without much evidence of maintenance (Hebert et al., 2016). Another
technique based on schema theory is activation of topic knowledge prior to processing text (see Hall,
2016 for examples in inference-making interventions for children with reading disabilities).
Schema theory has been applied frequently to math word problems interventions, which have
underlying semantic structures (e.g., for additive schema, combine, compare, change problems; for
multiplicative schema, equal groups, comparison and proportions or ratio problems; Powell & Fuchs,
2018). These approaches have yielded large effect sizes on math problem-solving in elementary and
secondary school students with LDs (Jitendra et al., 2017; Peltier & Vannest, 2017).

Issues and Future Directions

Schema-based approaches can improve reading comprehension, mathematical problem-solving, and
writing. We see opportunities for additional research given common findings of fade-out effects (e.g.,

26
 Contributions of Cognitive Science

Bailey et al., 2020; Hebert et al., 2016), which suggest that schemas are not consolidated in long-
term memory postintervention or are not easily accessible or retrievable during independent learn-
ing. Research on cognitive learning principles reviewed later suggests that various techniques that
lead to stronger and less context-dependent retention and retrieval of previously learned information
might be integrated into schema-based instruction to increase maintenance and transfer of effects.
Another avenue for research relates to intensification that takes children’s general linguistic and
cognitive difficulties into account (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2014). For example, children with math disabili-
ties often have co-occurring language difficulties (Morsanyi et al., 2018). In a study of first-graders
with significant math difficulties, although schema-based intervention was effective compared to a
business-as-usual or number knowledge intervention, word problem and word problem language
outcomes were significantly stronger for the group that received the same schema-based intervention
plus an embedded language comprehension component compared to all other conditions at posttest
(Fuchs et al., 2021a).

Cognitive Learning Principles

The term “cognitive learning principles” comprises a theoretical framework for the peculiarities
of how human learning and memory work (Bjork et al., 2013). We highlight only a few of these
principles from cognitive psychology. See Jordan et al. (2020) for a review of cognitive learning
principles with particular reference to children with math disabilities; to the Institute of Education
Sciences (IES) practice guide Organizing Instruction and Study to Improve Student Learning (Paschler
et al., 2007); and to Mayer’s (2008) multimedia principles, which reduce cognitive load in interven-
tions using assistive technology and nonelectronic materials (e.g., text and diagrams).

History
The beginnings of the experimental study of human learning and memory, and the discovery of
some of the principles, are attributed to a German psychologist, Hermann Ebbinghaus (1885/2013;
Memory: A Contribution to Experimental Psychology). Ebbinghaus was the sole subject of his experi-
ments in which he used nonsense words to study the conditions under which learning and forget-
ting occurs. He found that repetition of information across sessions resulted in “savings” and that
spacing of learning or distributed practice resulted in stronger retention over time. From the middle
of the last century, experimental research in this tradition has been an important subfield of cogni-
tive psychology and has seen something of a renaissance in the past decade or so in its application to
education. Most experimental studies of these principles have been conducted with typical college
and K to 12 students (e.g., Rittle-Johnson et al., 2020).

Relations to Academic Skills

We review a select number of learning principles: (a) practice that is spaced or distributed; (b) inter-
leaving, a type of distributed practice; and (c) contextual variation. Retrieval practice, also called the
testing effect (Roediger & Karpicke, 2006), is effective for evaluating one’s own learning and also
for learning itself (Dunlosky et al., 2013). We refer to this principle as applicable when discussing
practice.

DISTRIBUTED PRACTICE

Learning and practice that is spaced—or distributed—over time better consolidates new learning in
memory than learning that is massed. This finding holds for a range of knowledge acquisition tasks

27
 Marcia A. Barnes et al.

(Dunlosky et al., 2013). Despite many studies of the general phenomenon, optimal delays for dis-
tributed practice effects (Cepeda et al., 2009) and whether these delays vary for learners at different
levels of knowledge or for different types of knowledge are not well understood. In interventions
for children with LDs, relevant effects of distributed practice would ideally be measured across much
longer time periods than is typical in most cognitive experiments.
In one of the first studies to address educationally relevant practice lags, spacing of greater than
one day was associated with better long-term retention (Cepeda et al., 2009). Studies manipulat-
ing lag in children are rare; one with typical third-graders showed that spacing math facts practice
by three hours resulted in better retention over time than either massed practice or a ten-minute
lag between practice sessions (Powell et al., 2020). Distributed practice is often part of intervention
study design and is recommended as a best practice (i.e., versus massed practice) for children with
LDs in reading (Earle & Sayeski, 2017), writing (Harris et al., 2017), and math (Hughes et al., 2019).
Although experimental cognitive researchers have not frequently manipulated lags in distributed
practice, it is actually common in interventions for children with LDs to include a form of distrib-
uted practice called cumulative review that occurs over educationally relevant lags. Cumulative review
arose from the theory of instruction literature from the 1970s (Engelmann & Carnine, 1982) and has
been a critical aspect of interventions for children with LDs since then (personal communication,
Russell Gersten, January 29, 2021).
Whereas cognitive studies indicate the superiority of distributed versus massed practice in inter-
ventions for children with LDs and cumulative review is a cornerstone of interventions for children
with or at risk for LDs, we see several possibilities for additional research: (a) To our knowledge,
manipulations of distributed practice to determine optimal lag length have not been conducted
for children with LDs; (b) given findings with college students that distributed practice might be
differentially effective for learning different types of knowledge (Ebersbach et al., 2020), we sug-
gest that such distinctions may need to be considered and manipulated when applying distributed
practice routines to interventions for children with LDs; and (c) we question whether schema-
based interventions might benefit from manipulations of spacing, both within the intervention and
between posttest and testing of delayed effects, essentially introducing additional practice retrieval
opportunities after the end of formal instruction. This suggestion also applies beyond schema-based
interventions.

INTERLEAVED PRACTICE

Interleaving is a type of distributed practice in which different types of problems or tasks are inter-
leaved during learning and recall rather than focusing on learning of one type (of text, of math
problem, and so forth) before moving on to the next. In a classic demonstration, Rohrer and Taylor
(2007) provided brief math tutorials followed by practice problems to college students on finding the
volumes of geometric solids. Tutorials and practice were either blocked within a single session (learn
one solid, practice problems for that type, then learn the next solid) or interleaved (learn all four
solids followed by interleaved practice in all four types). Although novel problem-solving accuracy
was better for the blocked condition during the tutorial-practice session, it was better for the inter-
leaved condition after a one-week delay. Proposed mechanisms behind the interleaving effect are that
(a) comparative learning aids in choosing the correct problem-solving solution when problems are
mixed (Dunlosky et al., 2013), as they typically are in real-world situations; (b) interleaving forces
retrieval from long-term memory, which is needed to consolidate learning and transfer, whereas
blocking simply relies on retrieval from working memory (Dunlosky et al., 2013); and (c) interleav-
ing introduces contextual variation, which is discussed in the next section.
Because interleaving has largely been tested in cognitive studies of short duration, interleaved
practice and instruction are essentially the same construct; that is, in these studies, new concepts are

28
 Contributions of Cognitive Science

briefly instructed and practiced in one or two sessions, as in the Rohrer and Taylor (2007) study
noted earlier. However, intensive interventions provided to individuals with LDs typically take place
across weeks and months, and so interleaving could conceivably be used during instruction of new
concepts, during practice of what has been instructed, or during both instruction and practice. Tak-
ing an example from our work on the design of an intervention for middle school students with
reading comprehension disabilities, we blocked instruction for the four types of inferences we taught
across 20 lessons (5 lessons per inference type). After these 20 lessons, there were five sessions of inter-
leaved practice (Martinez-Lincoln et al., 2021). However, we could have used a different approach and
interleaved instruction and practice for all types of inferences beginning with the first lesson. Our
approach was based on our best guess from studies such as that by Rau and colleagues (Rau et al.,
2010) who found that middle school students with low prior fractions knowledge did not benefit as
much from initial interleaved practice as did higher knowledge students, though a practice schedule
that started with blocking and proceeded to interleaving was beneficial for these lower knowledge
students.
Questions for future study are: (a) Is blocking during instruction followed by interleaved practice
beneficial for children with LDs? The rule of thumb for intensive interventions is to break learning
into manageable pieces with enough practice to ensure early success and mastery—which is easier
to accomplish using blocked instruction and practice, but are there costs for long-term retention
and transfer of blocked instruction and practice even if it is followed later by interleaved practice?
(b) Does interleaving of instruction and practice lead to longer-term retention and transfer even if
acquisition is slower? Learning that starts slowly with initial low performance followed by better
performance over the longer term is called “desirable difficulties” (Bjork & Bjork, 2011). Although
desirable difficulties benefit college students, a lack of early success in learning could be demotivating
for children with LDs, some with long histories of learning failure. (c) Is interleaving differentially
effective for different types of materials or skills?

CONTEXTUAL VARIATION

Examples of contextual variation include using varied materials or contexts across learning trials
(Bolger et al., 2008), different types of response formats such as multiple choice and short answer
questions for reading comprehension or providing assorted problem formats such as standard and
nonstandard equations in mathematics (Powell et al., 2015), and even varying the physical learn-
ing environment (e.g., Smith et al., 1978). These aspects of contextual variation are associated
with superior learning. Hypothesized mechanisms are that (a) the more contexts in which learning
occurs, the more memory traces that are laid down and the more decontextualized learning becomes
through increasing the types of cues that can be used to facilitate less effortful retrieval (Bolger et al.,
2008) and (b) comparative processing aids learning. Contextual variation can also be thought of as
a special case of interleaving where the context in which new information is learned changes across
trials.
Vocabulary interventions for children with or at risk for disabilities often include a type of con-
textual variation involving the use of examples and nonexamples (e.g., Swanson et al., 2015). In
a single-session learning experiment with secondary school students, Barnes et al. (2021) com-
pared vocabulary learning using example and nonexample sentences with learning using two simi-
lar correct-example sentence contexts. Contextual variation using examples and nonexamples was
effective for new word learning in more skilled, but not in less skilled, comprehenders. Because com-
paring examples and nonexamples requires considerable cognitive resources, adolescents with read-
ing comprehension disabilities might have been disadvantaged by this type of contextual variation.
Contextual variation has also been used in interventions for children with math disabilities. The
concrete-representational-abstract (CRA) framework is often used in math interventions with the

29
 Marcia A. Barnes et al.

assumption that learning benefits from instruction that proceeds from the concrete (e.g., hands-
on, or physical), through the representational (e.g., diagrams), to the abstract (e.g., symbolic). In
this framework, learning is sequential, but it need not be. In a study comparing a sequential CRA
approach with an integrated approach in fifth- and sixth-graders with math disabilities, there were
no significant differences between conditions at posttest, although both conditions had large gains
from pretest to posttest (Morano et al., 2020).
A second example of contextual variation in math derives from research on the development of
relational concepts concerning the equal sign and mathematical equivalence. In an intervention with
children with math disabilities (Powell et al., 2015), the use of standard and nonstandard equations
(the operation is on the right side of the equal sign) was more effective at improving understand-
ing of equivalence than the use of standard equations alone. One explanation for this phenomenon
is that varying the contextual environment (the structure of the equation) allows more accurate
encoding of information because of more exposure to varied perceptual patterns (McNeil & Alibali,
2004), which may be particularly important for younger children before representations of math-
ematical patterns are engrained (Powell et al., 2015).
This type of comparative approach in single experimental (e.g., Barnes et al., 2021) or multises-
sion interventions (e.g., Morano et al., 2020; Powell et al., 2015) holds promise for understanding
conditions under which children with LDs are most likely to respond to intervention. Studying
when a technique such as contextual variation might be most beneficial for children with LDs may
also be important. For example, in typical adults, anchoring word meanings in context first and
subsequently providing contextual variation improved word learning (Mak et al., 2021). Finally,
testing combinations of learning principles might provide a useful direction for future research. In
a study with typical learners, Sidney et al. (2015) found that only when contextual variation (using
contrasting examples in math) was paired with prompts to self-explain similarities and differences
was there increased learning (self-explanation is a cognitive learning principle that is reviewed in
Dunlosky et al., 2013).

FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR APPLYING COGNITIVE LEARNING PRINCIPLES TO LEARNING DISABILITY

RESEARCH

It is our sense that intervention studies use one or more cognitive learning principles, viewing them
as “best practices” for instructional design. Because these are assumed to be universal learning princi-
ples, this approach is sensible in the absence of information to the contrary. Based on our review, how-
ever, we think it would be valuable to (a) manipulate instructional and practice techniques based on
these principles to empirically determine whether and how they apply to children with LDs; (b) test
possible optimal sequences or combinations of these principles for children with LDs; and (c) inves-
tigate whether student characteristics (e.g., domain knowledge, cognitive resources) and item char-
acteristics (e.g., type of material to be learned) moderate effects of these techniques. Finally, given
the central importance of practice to interventions for children with LDs, our suggestions for future
research should not be construed as parametric testing of a set of “learning tricks,” but as part of a
program of research seen through a deliberate practice lens (e.g., Ericsson et al., 2006) in which
practice is planned, coached, and delivered with sufficient intensity to promote retention and transfer.

Contributions of Cognitive Models of Reading to LD Research

Word Reading
Dyslexia represents significant and intractable difficulties in reading and spelling words and is the
most commonly identified disability in education. We describe several perspectives from cognitive

30
 Contributions of Cognitive Science

science that have contributed to understanding word-reading development, how and why difficulties
occur, and how interventions can be better structured to improve outcomes.

Connectionist Models
Considerable theoretical and empirical work has sought to understand the remarkable process
whereby, in the span of just three to five years, most children evolve from nonreaders to read-
ing thousands of words without requiring instruction with most words. Older cognitive models
such as the “dual-route” theory (Coltheart et al., 2001) argued that for reading systems such as
English, phonetically regular words are read through a phonological route in which letters and letter
combinations are connected to their common sounds, while irregular words are read through an
orthographic route in which words are recognized according to larger spelling units or whole-word
spellings. In contrast, newer connectionist frameworks view all words on a continuum of regularity.
Connectionist frameworks (Harm & Seidenberg, 2004) hypothesize that learning to read a vast
number of words efficiently is made possible through the development of a distributed network
of connections among words. The network is formed through connections between overlapping
phonological (pronunciation), orthographic (word spelling), and semantic (meaning) layers of infor-
mation. These three representations form a triangle of interconnections; hence, connectionist frame-
works are sometimes referred to as triangle models (Perfetti’s lexical quality hypothesis [LQH],
2007 is another triangle model). Thus, in a connectionist framework, words are hubs that connect
phonological, orthographic, and semantic representations, which are connected with representa-
tions of other words to form the network. Reading experience strengthens, changes, and expands
the network. Word reading difficulties arise when deficits in one or more of areas of representation
exist. For example, difficulties with phonological awareness impede the ability to form high-quality
spelling (orthographic)–sound (phonological) connections, which in turn impairs the activation of
meaning from printed words.
Connectionist models recognize the importance of explicit instruction in phonics to start the
connection-forming process (Foorman, 1994); however, direct instruction cannot teach every
printed word a child will encounter. Experience is essential to the development of the network—a
developing reader must have many opportunities to read words and receive feedback.

Statistical Learning
Statistical learning refers to knowledge or skills acquired implicitly through perception of probabil-
istic, “statistical” regularities in stimuli. Statistical learning likely plays a role in reading acquisition.
Developing readers are sensitive to letter formation, recurring letter patterns, their frequency, and
their position within words (e.g., review in Sawi & Rueckl, 2019). Exposure to variability, through
instruction and practice opportunities in reading and spelling words, is necessary for these regulari-
ties to be perceived (Gingras & Sénéchal, 2019; Steacy et al., 2019). Scholars have speculated that
individual differences in statistical learning may underlie dyslexia, although data are not conclusive
(Schmalz et al., 2017). However, intervention studies have begun to demonstrate that exposure to
variability in word spellings and pronunciations may improve word-reading skills for struggling read-
ers (e.g., Apfelbaum et al., 2013; Chen & Savage, 2014), suggesting there may be ways to structure
intervention to activate statistical learning mechanisms.

Set for Variability

Another way that cognitive perspectives have informed understanding of word-reading develop-
ment and related difficulties is through considering how a reader navigates variable pronunciations

31
 Marcia A. Barnes et al.

of word spellings. “Set for variability” (SFV; Tunmer & Chapman, 2012) refers to a reader’s ability
to adjust an approximate, partial, or incorrect pronunciation, as derived from its spelling-sound con-
nections, to a correct pronunciation stored in memory. For instance, a beginning reader may initially
pronounce “island” as “is-land,” but in recognizing the inaccurate pronunciation, might adjust their
pronunciation to omit the silent “s.” Similar types of subtle and not-so-subtle adjustments are needed
for many words that vary in their spelling-pronunciation correspondence.
Students’ SFV, measured by their ability to adjust pronunciations when needed, is a strong predic-
tor of skills in reading both regular and irregular words (Steacy et al., 2019; Tunmer & Chapman,
2012). SFV has links to connectionist frameworks, statistical learning, and lexical quality perspectives
discussed earlier; the ability to adjust pronunciations when needed is initially made possible by a
reasonably close pronunciation based on knowledge of spelling-sound correspondence, followed by
the presence of a sufficient store of words in one’s oral vocabulary, awareness of variability in spelling-
sound correspondence and knowledge of how letters and spelling patterns potentially vary in pro-
nunciation, and high-quality connections among representations that can be efficiently accessed.
Additionally, as a metacognitive activity, SFV is also facilitated by self-regulation and attention pro-
cesses because the reader must attend to pronunciations, recognize when a derived pronunciation is
correct, and when it is incorrect, flexibly test alternatives and evaluate their fit.

Cognitive Perspectives on Word Reading in Interventions for Students with

WLRD
The perspectives discussed earlier offer insight into how reading interventions for students with
dyslexia can be structured to take advantage of cognitive processes involved in word reading acquisi-
tion. A factor that unifies connectionist models, statistical learning, the LQH, and SFV is the role of
exposure to variability in how letters and letter units are pronounced (see interleaving and contextual
variation principles earlier). It is possible that previous interventions, in efforts to scaffold instruction
and maximize students’ success, have not offered sufficient exposure to variability in the writing sys-
tem that may foster stronger learning (Compton et al., 2014). Better approaches might include more
strategic instruction and supported practice with word sets and extensive opportunity to read texts
(with immediate feedback) that better reflect natural word variability. Greater opportunities to read
text exposes students to greater breadth in spelling patterns and vocabulary, as well as the practice
to establish high-quality connections that facilitate automaticity. The LQH argues for integrating
word meaning instruction within word reading instruction, whereby learning semantic representa-
tions for words targeted in decoding may strengthen overall spelling-sound linkages and enhance
retrieval efficiency when encountered in print. Evidence suggests that SFV can be taught (Savage
et al., 2018), and promising approaches include teaching students to adjust pronunciations, how to
navigate variable letter-sound correspondences (especially for vowel sounds), or how to apply a set
of decoding strategies flexibly (Savage et al., 2018; Steacy et al., 2016).

Reading Comprehension
Cognitive models of reading comprehension are of two types: cognitive process models and compo-
nent skills models, each of which describes reading comprehension at different grain sizes. Cognitive
process models describe reading comprehension as a highly interactive process in which the reader
constructs a representation of the text from the text itself and the integration of information from
long-term memory in a cyclical fashion (e.g., construction-integration or C-I model, Kintsch,
1988; structure building framework, Gernsbacher, 2013; landscape model, van den Broek et al.,
2005). Although some of these models can address developmental and individual differences, they
are not developmental in nature, and their application to atypical development is not straightforward.

32
 Contributions of Cognitive Science

Component skills models (e.g., simple view of reading, Hoover & Gough, 1990; direct and
inferential mediation model of reading, Ahmed et al., 2016; Cromley & Azevedo, 2007; direct
and indirect effects model of reading; Kim, 2017) are those that test the strength (e.g., effect sizes)
and nature (e.g., additive, interactive, direct and indirect effects) of the relations between reading
comprehension and reading-related knowledge (e.g., vocabulary, world knowledge, text structure)
and skills (e.g., word reading, inference making, comprehension monitoring). These models may
inform us about potential targets for intervention and even provide hypotheses about mechanisms of
effect on reading comprehension (e.g., indirect, direct), but, understandably, it is difficult to build a
single intervention that addresses the multifaceted and interactive nature of reading comprehension
as suggested by these models.
Perfetti has suggested that reading comprehension is a sufficiently complex construct that lends
itself to testing only parts of the system at any one time (Perfetti & Stafura, 2014). Extending this
complexity to interventions for individuals with reading comprehension disabilities suggests that
addressing those parts of the system that are malleable and that exert the largest effects on reading
comprehension—or pressure points—might be most helpful. The following is therefore restricted to
two of these pressure points—inference making and verbal knowledge—which have strong relations
to reading comprehension, are central components of cognitive models, and have specified relations
to each other in these models.

Inference Making
In process models, inference making is needed to link words and sentences to form the text-based
representation and to construct the situation model in which knowledge is integrated with text. In
component skills models, inference making is a component skill that is strongly and directly related
to reading comprehension and also mediates the relation of verbal knowledge (vocabulary knowl-
edge and world knowledge) to reading comprehension (Ahmed et al., 2016). Several studies suggest
that individuals with reading comprehension disabilities have difficulty with inferences needed to
construct both text-based representations and situation models (reviewed in Fletcher et al., 2019).

Knowledge
Verbal (vocabulary and world) knowledge is critical to inference making, but also has direct effects
on reading comprehension (Ahmed et al., 2016). In cognitive process models, knowledge is involved
in bottom-up processes that make reading comprehension efficient (Kintsch, 1988), while top-down
metacognitive processes that require both knowledge and cognitive resources are involved in mak-
ing more effortful repairs to comprehension (van den Broek et al., 2005). The automatic activation
of word meanings during reading and their integration with ongoing text is important for reading
comprehension (Perfetti & Stafura, 2014), but these processes are inefficient in less skilled compre-
henders even when they have requisite verbal knowledge (Barnes et al., 2015).

Cognitive Perspectives on Reading Comprehension Interventions

Systematic reviews suggest that inference-making interventions are effective for individuals with
comprehension disabilities (Hall, 2016; Elleman, 2017). They also reveal an interesting time gap in
creating and testing such interventions: Thirty to forty years ago, cognitive models influenced the
design and testing of inference-making interventions, but this research became less frequent than
cognitive strategy instruction following the National Reading Panel Report (2000), in which infer-
ence intervention studies were subsumed under question generation and answering strategies. The
past few years have marked renewed interest in inference-making interventions for children with or

33
 Marcia A. Barnes et al.

at risk for reading disabilities in which interventions (and assessments) are designed based on cogni-
tive models of reading comprehension (e.g., Kendeou et al., 2020; Martinez-Lincoln et al., 2021).
This newer generation of studies incorporates cognitive principles such as interleaved practice
(Martinez-Lincoln et al., 2021) and timing of practice retrieval (i.e., questioning; Butterfuss et al.,
2021). These studies also test moderators of intervention effects. In one study of a diverse sample
of kindergartners, those with better-developed language comprehension and executive functions
showed stronger inference intervention effects (Butterfuss et al., 2021). Adolescents with reading
comprehension difficulties who reported higher levels of mind wandering (failure to maintain
attentional control) benefited from a computerized version of an inference-making intervention
that involved frequent question answering with feedback during reading (Martinez-Lincoln et al.,
2021).
Given the importance of knowledge for comprehension, a major goal of reading comprehen-
sion interventions ought to be how to increase domain knowledge, as well as efficient retrieval of
acquired knowledge. Interventions to improve domain knowledge are much needed, but difficult to
conceive of and design. For example, even the most effective academic vocabulary interventions to
date do not accelerate the acquisition of verbal knowledge to levels needed to support reading for
understanding and learning in children with reading disabilities (Elleman et al., 2009). Suggestions
for improving knowledge by applying latent semantic analysis to produce microworlds of knowledge
within a reading comprehension intervention can be found in Compton et al. (2014). New word-
level interventions using statistical learning and connectionist approaches discussed earlier might
also prove helpful for reading comprehension because they are designed to improve access to word
meanings through the triangulation of phonology-orthography-semantics.

Contributions of Cognitive Science to Math Disabilities Research

Two strands of research in the cognitive sciences have contributed to descriptive and interven-
tion research in math disabilities. One such tradition in cognitive psychology stems from dual-task
experimental and descriptive studies in adults. These studies are anchored in theories of limited
capacity processing models (i.e., working memory, Baddeley, 2010) and show the cognitive resources
that support performance of different arithmetic operations and other mathematical processes (e.g.,
LeFevre et al., 2005). The other strand is from the cognitive developmental sciences, including
longitudinal studies of early linguistic and cognitive resources related to later mathematical develop-
ment (e.g., Bull et al., 2008); research on development of mathematical concepts such as equivalence
and commutativity, as discussed earlier; and studies in which infants appear sensitive to quantita-
tive manipulations on small sets (Wynn, 1992) and to quantitative differences between large sets of
objects (Butterworth et al., 2011).
The influences of cognitive psychology and cognitive developmental science on our understand-
ing of math disabilities and applications to interventions are many and varied. We focus on only one
of these—working memory. Reviews of these other influences can be found in Fletcher et al., 2019;
Jordan et al., 2020; NICHD math conference proceedings referred to later).
The many cognitive and cognitive developmental studies of the relation of working memory and
executive processes to mathematics have influenced intervention design for children with math dis-
abilities. First, most interventions account for limitations in attention, working memory, and other
executive processes by using supports that reduce cognitive load (Jordan et al., 2020). Examples
include using concrete materials such as manipulatives (though manipulatives may not always reduce
cognitive load; see Petersen & McNeil, 2013); using simple language with pictorial or other sup-
ports, as in schema-based instruction, that the child can refer to during intervention; using gestures,
particularly in mathematics (Jordan et al., 2020); and breaking tasks into explicit, short instructional
sequences with cumulative practice. However, even with these design features, it can be difficult to

34
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
back
back
back
back
back
back
back
back
back
back
back
back
back
back
back
back
back
back
back
back