John Carl Hughes

Wales provides a distinctive case study of evidence-informed literacy policy because its devolved education system has enabled the development of a bilingual literacy policy that has followed a different trajectory from those of other UK nations. Drawing on a documentary analysis of national literacy policy since devolution (1999), this paper examines how research evidence has informed successive phases of literacy reform and considers what the Welsh experience contributes to wider international debates concerning evidence-informed policymaking. The analysis demonstrates that Welsh literacy policy has evolved from an initial emphasis on educational standards and accountability, through curriculum reform and professional agency, towards increasing engagement with evidence from the Science of Reading. Rather than interpreting these developments as a choice between competing research traditions, we argue that literacy policy encompasses multiple policy questions requiring different, though complementary, forms of evidence. Evidence from the Science of Reading provides the strongest available empirical foundation for decisions concerning reading instruction, whilst evidence relating to bilingualism, curriculum design, professional learning and implementation informs how those instructional principles are interpreted and enacted within Wales’ distinctive educational context. The Welsh case suggests that the central challenge for evidence-informed literacy policy is to establish a coherent framework in which the strongest available evidence provides the foundation for instructional decisions, whilst complementary evidence informs their contextualisation and implementation.

Children with intellectual disabilities often find acquiring age‐appropriate reading skills difficult. We evaluated the impact of a structured online reading intervention on the reading skills of children aged 5–11 years in special educational needs (SEN) schools in England. A two‐armed cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) compared Headsprout Early Reading® (HER®) with education as usual (EAU). Children completed the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills® measure online before randomisation and 1 year later. Fifty‐five SEN schools (382 children) were randomised to HER® or EAU. Children in HER® schools made no additional progress in reading, on average, compared to children in EAU schools (Hedges' g = −0.01, 95% CI [−0.28, 0.26]). HER® seemed to have a positive impact on oral reading fluency (IRR = 0.77, 95% CI [0.60, 0.98] SE = 0.1), but these data were only available for 55% of children. Intervention compliance was low, with only ten children completing ≥40% of HER®. HER® was not implemented as planned and attrition was relatively high in the intervention group, compared with EAU. It is therefore difficult to draw firm conclusions. We successfully recruited SEN schools and children, suggesting large‐scale RCTs in SEN schools may be feasible; however, challenges must first be overcome to ensure acceptable implementation. ISRCTN 46208295.

Well‐designed computer or app‐based instruction has a number of potential benefits (eg increasing accessibility and feasibility of high‐quality instruction, reducing time and resources required for training expert delivery, saving instructional time). However, variation in implementation can still affect outcomes when using educational technology. Research generally suggests that without follow‐up support after training, implementation of educational interventions is often poor and outcomes reduced. However, the extent to which this is the case when the core element of an intervention is computer or app‐delivered is not yet clear. This study investigated the effects of providing ongoing implementation support for Headsprout Early Reading (HER, an early reading programme accessible via a computer or an app), to determine whether such support leads to better outcomes. Twenty‐two primary schools (269 learners) participated in a cluster‐randomised controlled trial. Eleven schools received initial training followed by ongoing support across the school year, whereas the other 11 schools received initial training and technical support only. Pre‐ and post‐measures of reading skills were conducted using the York Assessment of Reading for Comprehension. We found no effect of implementation support on outcomes, and no effect of implementation support on delivery of the core element of HER. However, there were some effects of implementation support on the implementation of other HER elements relating to the responsiveness of educators to learners' learning within HER. These findings have implications for providing access to high quality online instruction in early reading skills at scale, with minimal training. More broadly, the current study suggests that well‐designed computer or app‐based instruction can yield positive outcomes with minimal implementation support and training. However, further research is required to ensure the interplay between learners' app‐based learning and teacher intervention functions as intended to provide additional support for those who need it. Practitioner notes: What is already known about this topic: Well‐designed computer or app‐based instruction has a number of potential benefits (eg increasing accessibility and feasibility of high‐quality instruction, reducing time and resources required for training expert delivery, saving instructional time). Implementation can still affect outcomes when using educational technology, and without follow‐up support after training, implementation of educational interventions is often poor and outcomes reduced. The extent to which this is the case when the core element of an intervention is computer or app‐delivered is not yet clear. What this paper adds: We found that providing implementation support for teachers and teaching assistants delivering Headsprout Early Reading (HER; an early reading programme accessible via a computer or an app) did not affect the reading outcomes of learners. We also found the implementation support did not affect delivery of the core, app‐delivered element of the programme. However, there were notable differences in implementation of other aspects of the programme, particularly in relation to the role of the teacher or educational practitioner in managing the interplay between the app‐based learning and teacher intervention for learners who require further support. Implications for practice and policy: These findings have implications for providing access to high quality instruction in early reading skills at scale, with minimal training. More broadly, the current study suggests that well‐designed computer or app‐based instruction can yield positive outcomes with minimal implementation support and training. However, the findings of this study identify some potential risk of an over‐reliance on technology to facilitate the learning of all learners accessing the programme. Further research is required to ensure the interplay between learners' app‐based learning and teacher intervention functions as intended to provide additional support for those who need it.

Developing an evidence‐base for educational provision can be an arduous journey. To facilitate consistent and accurate implementation of promising approaches, research efforts need to answer questions relating to theoretical coherence, efficacy, effectiveness, cost, ease of use, and acceptability. An evidence‐building framework can help us to think critically about the current state of evidence and plan a long‐term research programme. In this conceptual paper, we draw attention to an evidence‐building framework from medical and psychosocial science that conceptualises the phases and challenges along this journey. We have adapted this framework to help researchers and other education practitioners conceptualise how to review, synthesise, generate and communicate evidence in education. This framework facilitates a questions ‐ to ‐ methods approach in our journey to evidence, dissolving the idea that some research and analysis methods are superior to others. We argue that this evidence building framework can help us to distinguish between key terms in education, such as evidence ‐ informed and evidence ‐ based practice, as well as teacher enquiry and research —helping to distinguish the roles of researchers and practitioners. This paper has direct relevance to informing how we build evidence in education and identifies a need for collaboration as we work towards an evidence‐based teaching profession.

The Say-All-Fast-Minute-Every-Day-Shuffled (SAFMEDS) strategy promotes fast and accurate recall. The existing literature suggests that the strategy can help learners improve academic outcomes. Through a cluster randomized controlled trial, we assessed the impact of implementation support on children’s mathematics outcomes during a teacher-led SAFMEDS intervention. Following training and prior to baseline assessments, we randomly allocated schools to receive either no (n = 31) or ongoing (n = 33) support from a researcher. Support consisted of three in-situ visits and email contact. Assessors remained blind to the condition of the schools throughout. We analyzed the outcomes of children (n_Support = 294, n_NoSupport = 281) using a multi-level mixed-effects model; accounting for the children nested within schools. The results suggest that implementation support has a small effect on children’s fluency of arithmetic facts (Mathematics Fluency and Calculation Tests (MFaCTs): Grades 1–2, d = 0.23, 95% CI: 0.06–0.40; MFaCTs: Grades 3–5, d = 0.25, 95% CI: 0.08–0.42). These results are larger than the average effect sizes reported within professional development literature that apply coaching elements to mathematics programs.

Purpose: There is an apparent disconnect between the understanding of best practice and service delivery in the support of people with learning disabilities at risk of behaviours that challenge. We suggest, is a problem of implementation. The purpose of this paper is to explore reasons why this might be the case: a failure to recognise the collective works of successive generations of research and practice; and a failure to address the macro-systems involved and systems changes needed to support implementation.Design/methodology/approach: This paper reviews the consensus that exists in respect of best practice. Drawing upon ideas from implementation science the paper highlights the complexities involved in the implementation of all evidence-based practices and uses this as a framework to propose ways in which an infrastructure that facilitates the delivery of services in the learning disabilities field might be built.Findings: This paper highlights core recommended practices that have been consistent over time and across sources and identifies the systems involved in the implementation process. This paper demonstrates that many of the necessary building blocks of implementation already exist and suggests areas that are yet to be addressed. Critically, the paper highlights the importance of, and the part that all systems need to play in the process.Originality/value: In the absence of any generalised implementation frameworks of evidence-based practice in the learning disabilities field, the paper suggests that the findings may provide the basis for understanding how the gap that exists between best practice and service delivery in the support of people with a learning disability at risk of behaviours that challenge might be closed.

Statistics relating to special schools indicate very low rates of basic literacy. However, there is very little information available regarding typical instruction in these settings and, therefore, no clear picture of the potential barriers precluding the improvement of reading skills in special schools. The current paper investigated current practices in conventional early reading instruction (i.e., instruction involving the development of reading abilities using traditional orthography) with children in special schools and, in particular, children with intellectual disabilities. One hundred and ninety teachers participated in the survey, which aimed to: collate information on current practices related to conventional early reading instruction for children with intellectual disabilities in special schools across the United Kingdom (UK); investigate the putative effects of age and severity of intellectual disabilities on teachers’ choice of instructional approaches; and examine teachers’ perceptions of barriers to improving reading skills in this population. Age and severity of intellectual disability were associated with different responses relating to the choice of approaches and expectations. Access to training and suitable curricula were seen as greater barriers to improving reading skills than time or staffing.

Increasing evidence indicates that individuals with Intellectual Disabilities ( ID ) might benefit from phonics‐based reading instruction. However, research and instruction in this field has predominantly focused on sight word reading. Models for complex interventions recommend that feasibility research be conducted prior to conducting randomised studies to assess efficacy of interventions (Thabane et al., 2010). The aim of the current paper is therefore to investigate feasibility questions relating to conducting a full‐scale randomised controlled trial ( RCT ) evaluation of an online, phonics‐based reading programme (Headsprout ^™ Early Reading; HER ) with children with ID . Employing a randomised pre‐test post‐test group design, this study explores and trials important aspects of a RCT evaluation to inform a full‐scale RCT . We also found that HER had a significant effect on reading skills when compared with ‘education as usual’, with large effect sizes on the main outcome measure. This indicates that further, more robust evaluations using HER with children with ID are a worthwhile pursuit.

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the feasibility, and effectiveness, of using Headsprout Early Reading (HER), an online computer program, to teach basic reading skills to adult offenders with mild intellectual disabilities (IDs) in a secure hospital.Design/methodology/approach: A single subject pre-post-test design replicated across two participants was used. Two standardized literacy tests were completed at baseline, half way through the intervention, and at the end of the intervention period. A measure of reading self-concept was also completed. An additional component to this research design was the inclusion of two “treatment as usual” (TAU) control participants who did not complete the program.Findings: Results are positive in terms of the feasibility of running the program, improved reading skills, and self-concept scores for both “intervention” participants compared to the “TAU” participants.Originality/value: HER was originally developed for typically developing children, and has been found to be effective for children with IDs and developmental disabilities. This is the first study to evaluate this program with an adult population.