2026, Vol. 6, Issue 10, Part A

Keywords: Special Education, Professional Development, Evidence-Based Practices, Teacher Training, Instructional Practices, Behavioral Practices, Coaching, Implementation Fidelity

Introduction

Special education teachers work with students who have diverse academic, behavioral, communication, and social-emotional needs. Effective instruction therefore requires teachers to select and consistently implement practices supported by research. However, knowledge of an evidence-based practice does not automatically ensure accurate classroom implementation, and a persistent research-to-practice gap remains despite legal mandates calling for evidence-based instruction (Cook et al., 2013; Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 2004) ^{[1, 2]}. Professional development can bridge this gap by providing teachers with knowledge, demonstrations, opportunities for practice, feedback, and continued coaching.

Recent evidence supports this relationship. A 2026 meta-analysis of special education professional development reported a larger average effect on teacher-related outcomes than student outcomes, with teacher outcomes showing an effect size of g = 0.53 and student outcomes g = 0.17 (Didion et al., 2026) ^[3]. The reviewed PD programs addressed areas including literacy, behavioral support, explicit instruction, and data-based decision-making. A systematic review also found that practical exercises, performance feedback, and on-site coaching are particularly relevant to improving implementation fidelity and sustaining outcomes (Wang et al., 2024) ^[4].

Literature review

Research consistently identifies professional learning as an important factor in supporting teachers’ implementation of evidence-based practices (Desimone, 2009; Darling-Hammond et al., 2017) ^{[6, 5]}. PD approaches vary from one-time workshops to multicomponent programs incorporating modeling, practice, observation, feedback, and coaching. Evidence suggests that active participation is more closely aligned with implementation than passive information delivery alone (Joyce et al., 1980; Darling-Hammond et al., 2017) ^{[7, 5]}.

A 2024 analysis of in-service training for special education teachers identified six common factors: instruction, demonstration, video demonstration, practice, assessment, and coaching (Wang et al., 2024) ^[4]. Training programs containing some or all of these components showed substantial positive effects on teacher outcomes. Similarly, a 2026 meta-analysis found positive effects of special education PD on teacher knowledge, skills, and related outcomes (Didion et al., 2026) ^[3]. Broader evidence from inclusive-education PD also reported positive effects on teacher knowledge, skills, beliefs, and student behavior (Donath et al., 2023) ^[8].

Problem statement and motivation

3.1 Problem statement

Special education teachers may receive professional development without sufficient opportunities to practice, receive feedback, or apply newly learned strategies in authentic classrooms. Consequently, a gap can emerge between teachers’ knowledge of evidence-based practices and their actual implementation. Inconsistent use may reduce instructional consistency, weaken behavioral support, and limit opportunities for students to benefit from validated interventions.

Traditional workshop-centered PD can provide information efficiently but may not provide sufficient modeling, practice, observation, and individualized feedback (Joyce et al., 1980) ^[7]. Research on special education EBP training emphasizes practical exercises, performance feedback, and on-site coaching as important implementation components (Wang et al., 2024; Borosh et al., 2023) ^{[4, 9]}. Performance-feedback research published in 2026 ^[10] likewise found significant improvements in teacher behavior across reviewed single-case studies (Levi-Nielsen et al., 2026) ^[10].

Related work

Previous research has examined teacher training, coaching, behavioral skills training, performance feedback, and evidence-based instructional practices. Modeling, practice activities, performance assessment, and on-the-job coaching are some of the key elements in a successful training process, based on an analysis of in-service special education EBP training (Wang et al., 2024) ^[4]. Research on training and coaching with performance feedback has also demonstrated improvements in teachers’ implementation of evidence-based instructional procedures and maintenance following intervention (Kraft et al., 2018; Levi-Nielsen et al., 2026) ^{[11, 10]}.

A separate 2023 systematic review found that behavioral skills training was commonly used when special education teachers trained paraeducators to implement practices for students with disabilities (Borosh et al., 2023) ^[9]. These findings suggest that professional development can extend beyond teacher knowledge toward observable classroom performance.

Methodology / proposed framework

The proposed framework uses a practice-based professional development cycle grounded in the classic training-and-coaching model of theory, modeling, practice, feedback, and coaching for transfer (Joyce et al., 1980) ^[7]. First, teachers complete a baseline assessment measuring knowledge and current use of evidence-based instructional and behavioral practices. Second, teachers participate in structured training involving explicit explanation, live or video modeling, guided practice, and classroom examples. Third, teachers implement selected practices in authentic classroom settings. Coaches or supervisors observe implementation using fidelity checklists and provide performance feedback. Fourth, teachers review classroom data and identify areas requiring additional support. Finally, coaching and repeated practice continue until implementation becomes stable.

Methodological measures

• Teacher Knowledge: Pretest and posttest scores (Didion et al., 2026) ^[3].
• Implementation Fidelity: Percentage of required EBP steps correctly implemented (Sanetti et al., 2009) ^[12].
• Instructional Practice: Frequency of explicit instruction, prompting, scaffolding, and systematic instruction (Archer et al., 2011; McLeskey et al., 2017) ^{[13, 14]}.
• Behavioral Practice: Use of reinforcement, antecedent strategies, behavior-specific feedback, and data-based intervention (Simonsen et al., 2008) ^[15].
• Student Engagement: Percentage of observed intervals involving active academic or instructional engagement (Fredricks et al., 2004) ^[16].

Experiment / case study / simulation

A simulated pretest–posttest case study is proposed to demonstrate how the framework could be evaluated. A hypothetical sample of 30 special education teachers is divided conceptually into baseline and post-PD measurements. The intervention consists of a four-week professional development cycle involving workshops, modeling, guided practice, classroom implementation, observation, feedback, and coaching. Teacher performance is assessed using a standardized implementation-fidelity checklist informed by progress-monitoring principles (Deno, 1985; Sanetti et al., 2009) ^{[17, 12]}.

The simulated results below are illustrative and should not be interpreted as empirical findings from actual participants. The expected pattern is an increase in knowledge, instructional implementation, behavioral-support implementation, and student engagement following professional development. This design is consistent with research showing that active professional development and performance feedback can improve teacher-related outcomes (Kraft et al., 2018; Levi-Nielsen et al., 2026) ^{[11, 10]}.

Conclusion

Professional development can play an important role in strengthening special education teachers’ use of evidence-based instructional and behavioral practices. The literature indicates that professional learning is more than the delivery of information; effective programs incorporate opportunities for teachers to observe practices, practice skills, receive performance feedback, and apply strategies in authentic classroom environments (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017) ^[5]. Recent research identifies several important components of special education EBP training: modeling, practical exercises, performance assessment, and coaching (Wang et al., 2024) ^[4].

The proposed framework connects baseline assessment, structured training, modeling, guided practice, classroom implementation, observation, feedback, data analysis, and sustained coaching. The illustrative simulation demonstrates how teacher knowledge, implementation fidelity, behavioral practices, data use, and student engagement could be monitored before and after PD. Future empirical research should test this framework using larger samples, comparison groups, direct classroom observations, and longer follow-up periods. Such studies can clarify which PD components produce the most durable improvements and how schools can sustain evidence-based practices over time (Desimone, 2009) ^[6].

References

1. 1.Cook BG, Odom SL. Evidence-based practices and implementation science in special education. Exceptional Children. 2013;79(2):135-144.
2. 2.Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. 2004.
3. 3.Didion L, Filderman MJ, Hart EJ, Payne SB, Vitale J, Olmstead C, Wexler J. High-quality special education professional development improves teacher and student outcomes. The Journal of Special Education. 2026;60(2):92-104.
4. 4.Wang HT, Chen PJ, Lin FY, Chen MC, Hu ST. Systematic review of effects and key components of in-service special education teacher training in evidencebased practices for students with autism and developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities. 2024;59(1):97–112.
5. 5.Darling-Hammond L, Hyler ME, Gardner M. Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute; 2017.
6. 6.Desimone LM. Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher. 2009;38(3):181-199.
7. 7.Joyce B, Showers B. Improving inservice training: The messages of research. Educational Leadership. 1980;37(5):379-385.
8. 8.Donath JL, Lüke T, Graf E, Tran US, Götz T. Does professional development effectively support the implementation of inclusive education? A metaanalysis. Educational Psychology Review. 2023;35:Article 30.
9. 9.Borosh AM, Newson A, Mason RA, Richards CD, Collins Crosley H. Special education teacher-delivered training for paraeducators: A systematic and quality review. Teacher Education and Special Education. 2023;46(3):223-242.
10. 10.Levi-Nielsen S, Dowdy A, Tobin RM, Schneider WJ. A systematic review and single-case meta-analysis of performance feedback as teacher professional development. Journal of School Psychology. 2026;115:Article 101527.
11. 11.Kraft MA, Blazar D, Hogan D. The effect of teacher coaching on instruction and achievement: A meta-analysis of the causal evidence. Review of Educational Research. 2018;88(4):547-588.
12. 12.Sanetti LMH, Kratochwill TR. Toward developing a science of treatment integrity: Introduction to the special series. School Psychology Review. 2009;38(4):445-459.
13. 13.Archer AL, Hughes CA. Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. Guilford Press; 2011.
14. 14.McLeskey J, Barringer MD, Billingsley B, Brownell M, Jackson D, Kennedy M, Lewis T, Maheady L, Rodriguez J, Scheeler MC, Winn J, Ziegler D. High-leverage practices in special education. Council for Exceptional Children & CEEDAR Center; 2017.
15. 15.Simonsen B, Fairbanks S, Briesch A, Myers D, Sugai G. Evidence-based practices in classroom management: Considerations for research to practice. Education and Treatment of Children. 2008;31(3):351–380.
16. 16.Fredricks JA, Blumenfeld PC, Paris AH. School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research. 2004;74(1):59-109.
17. 17.Deno SL. Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children. 1985;52(3):219-232.