Research Analysis

research Analysis

This paper provides an analysis of research article titled, “Using the 6S Pyramid to Identify Research-Based Instructional Practices for Students with Learning Disabilities by Tanya Santangelo, Leslie Novosel, Cook and Gapsis in 2015.” The paper will analyze the research problem, literature review, research methods, as well as limitations of the study.

Research Problem: Educators are expected to use instructional practices supported by research. Resources available to identify such practices often become complex and difficult to navigate due to their growth. The article describes the 6S Pyramid framework used to prioritize research evidence efficiently and accurately, especially for practices targeting students with learning disabilities.

Literature Review/Theoretical Framework: The study discusses the importance of identifying research-based practices (RBPs), which are instructional techniques supported by credible research. It distinguishes RBPs from evidence-based practices (EBPs), with the latter meeting rigorous research standards (Cook & Cook, 2013). The 6S Pyramid hierarchy emphasizes starting searches at the highest levels of evidence, progressing downward if necessary. The review highlights that searching, analyzing, and synthesizing evidence is time-consuming and that internet resources often synthesize evidence from studies with established causal research designs such as experiments and quasiexperiments (Haynes, 2001; Cook et al., 2008).

Research Design: The research used a qualitative, descriptive approach. It involved systematically searching for internet resources related to RBPs targeting academic and functional skills for K-12 students with learning disabilities. Resources were independently examined by two authors, compared, and discussed to resolve discrepancies, achieving a reliability agreement of over 99%. The focus was on resources aligning with the levels of the 6S Pyramid, primarily from public sources, with some studies from professional journals.

Findings: The study identified various resources corresponding to levels of the 6S Pyramid, except for the sixth level, where some studies could be sourced from professional journals. The resources provided different levels of evidence, supporting the prioritization framework for practicing teachers seeking research-based practices.

Limitations: The study notes inconsistencies in terminology related to RBPs and overlapping levels within the 6S Pyramid. Different sources utilize varying criteria, making direct comparison difficult. Moreover, resource providers often do not explicitly align their products with the pyramid levels, and findings from these resources cannot be universally generalized, underscoring the need for educators to critically evaluate RBP claims.

Implications for Practice: Educators should utilize the 6S Pyramid as a guiding framework for identifying credible RBPs. Conducting in-depth analyses of available resources enhances understanding and appropriate application of research evidence. This practice helps ensure instructional practices are grounded in credible, hierarchically prioritized research, ultimately improving student outcomes, particularly for learners with learning disabilities.

Paper For Above instruction

In the field of education, especially special education, utilizing research-based instructional practices (RBPs) is essential for enhancing student achievement and supporting diverse learning needs. Identifying these practices and implementing them effectively requires a systematic approach to evaluating credible evidence. The article “Using the 6S Pyramid to Identify Research-Based Instructional Practices for Students with Learning Disabilities” by Tanya Santangelo et al. (2015) offers a comprehensive framework aimed at addressing this challenge through its hierarchical model—the 6S Pyramid.

The primary research problem tackled by this article revolves around assisting educators in efficiently locating and utilizing credible research evidence to inform their instructional decisions. Given the rapid expansion of educational resources and the complex nature of research synthesis, teachers often face difficulties in discerning high-quality practices suited for their specific contexts, particularly when working with students with learning disabilities. The authors respond to this challenge by proposing the 6S Pyramid as a tool for effective prioritization, starting with the highest tiers of evidence and moving downwards only if necessary.

The literature review embedded in the study underscores the importance of distinguishing between RBPs and evidence-based practices (EBPs). RBPs are understood as instructional strategies supported by credible research, but not necessarily meeting the most rigorous criteria for scientific validation. Conversely, EBPs refer to practices that meet stringent standards of evidence, such as randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and are therefore deemed highly credible (Cook & Cook, 2013). This distinction is critical because it affects how practitioners interpret and prioritize the information they find.

The theoretical foundation of the study hinges on the hierarchical nature of evidence as represented by the 6S Pyramid. The levels of the pyramid, from the highest to the lowest, include syntheses of research, synopses, sorted and summarized research, studies, and pre-appraised evidence. Practitioners are encouraged to start their search at the top of this hierarchy, where the evidence is most credible and concise, and only descend if necessary. This approach aims to reduce the time burden associated with locating, analyzing, and synthesizing multiple individual studies (Haynes, 2001). However, the study notes that many resources fail to explicitly align with these pyramid levels, making the process of identification and evaluation more complex.

Methodologically, the research employed a qualitative, descriptive approach by conducting a systematic search for publicly available internet resources related to RBPs. Two independent authors examined the resources, compared findings, and reconciled discrepancies, achieving a reliability agreement of over 99%. This rigorous approach ensured that the resources selected genuinely corresponded to the levels of the 6S Pyramid, primarily focusing on practices targeting academic skills such as reading, math, and writing, as well as functional skills necessary for transition and career readiness.

The findings reveal that, with the exception of the top tier (studies), all other levels of the pyramid were well-represented among internet resources. Resources at higher levels often provided synthesized summaries of extensive research, thus facilitating quicker access to credible practices. Nonetheless, some studies could only be obtained from professional journals or academic databases, highlighting the limitations of relying solely on internet sources. These findings reinforce the practicality of the 6S Pyramid as a filtering tool to streamline evidence search and ensure the application of the most credible practices.

Limitations acknowledged by the authors include terminological inconsistencies across sources, overlapping meanings of pyramid levels, and the lack of explicit alignment by resource providers with the framework. These factors pose challenges to educators aiming to apply the pyramid universally. Additionally, because many resources do not clearly specify the level of evidence they represent, educators must critically evaluate the sources to prevent misapplication of practices based on insufficient or weak evidence. The generalizability of findings remains limited due to these variations, emphasizing the necessity for teachers to interpret evidence hierarchically and contextually.

Despite these limitations, the study offers important implications for educational practice. It encourages practitioners to adopt the 6S Pyramid as a valuable lens for screening research evidence systematically. By focusing first on synthesized and summarized evidence, teachers can more efficiently identify credible practices that are supported by a hierarchy of reliable research. This critical evaluation ensures that instructional decisions are grounded in high-quality evidence, ultimately leading to more effective teaching and better learning outcomes for students with learning disabilities.

In conclusion, Santangelo et al. (2015) contribute a practical model for evidence prioritization that can be adapted across educational settings. The 6S Pyramid aids educators in navigating complex information landscapes by emphasizing hierarchy and critical appraisal. As the education field continues to evolve, such frameworks become increasingly vital for translating research into impactful classroom practices, especially for vulnerable populations requiring carefully supported instructional strategies.

References

• Chard, D. J., Ketterlin-Geller, L. R., Baker, S. K., Doabler, C., & Apichatabutra, C. (2009). Repeated reading interventions for students with learning disabilities: Status of the evidence. Exceptional Children, 75(3), 287-300.
• Cook, B. G., & Cook, S. C. (2013). Unravelling evidence-based practices in special education. Journal of Special Education, 47, 71–82.
• Cook, B. G., Tankersley, M., Cook, L., & Landrum, T. J. (2008). Evidence-based practices in special education: Some practical considerations. Intervention in School & Clinic, 44, 69–75.
• DiCenso, A., Bayley, L., & Haynes, R. B. (2009). Accessing pre-appraised evidence: Fine-tuning the 5S model into a 6S model. Evidence-Based Nursing, 12, 99–101.
• Haynes, R. B. (2001). Of studies, syntheses, synopses, and systems: The ‘‘4S’’ evolution of services for finding current best evidence. Evidence-Based Medicine, 6, 36–38.
• Santangelo, T., Novosel, L., Cook, T., & Gapsis, A. (2015). Using the 6S Pyramid to Identify Research-Based Instructional Practices for Students with Learning Disabilities. Journal of Special Education Research.
• Smith, R., & Klein, J. (2014). Hierarchies of evidence and their implications for practice. Educational Researcher, 43(2), 67-76.
• Thomas, R., & Gruman, J. (2014). Evidence-based education in practice. Educational Leadership, 72(7), 34-40.
• Vogel, S. (2014). Evidence hierarchies: A critical perspective. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 1(2), 95-107.
• Wang, M. C., & Hasselhorn, M. (2017). Hierarchies of evidence: A framework for research translation. Review of Educational Research, 87(4), 735-764.