You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 8, Issue 11
  • Protocol for the systematic review of research on professional learning to promote implementation of a multitiered system of support in education

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

XML
Public health
Protocol
Protocol for the systematic review of research on professional learning to promote implementation of a multitiered system of support in education
  1. Jose M Castillo1,
  2. Jennifer R Wolgemuth1,
  3. Diana S Ginns1,
  4. Joseph Latimer1,
  5. Nicholas Scheel1,
  6. Meaghan McKenna2,
  7. Amanda L March1,
  8. Sara Moulton1,
  9. Joy Wang1,
  10. Sarah Thoman1,
  11. Andrew Jenkins1,
  12. Kelli Henson3,
  13. John M Ferron1
  1. 1 Department of Educational and Psychological Studies, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, USA
  2. 2 Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, USA
  3. 3 Department of Child and Family Studies, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Jose M Castillo; jmcastil{at}usf.edu

Abstract

Introduction A multitiered system of supports (MTSS) represents a widely adopted public health approach to education in the USA. Researchers agree professional learning is critical for educators to implement the critical components of MTSS; however, professional learning approaches vary in their designs and targeted outcomes. While researchers increasingly focus their inquiries on professional learning for MTSS, no systematic research review exists.

Objectives The primary objectives for this mixed-methods review are to (1) understand how professional learning focused on MTSS has been operationalised (2) determine the impact of professional learning on educator (eg, knowledge) and implementation (eg, data-based decision-making processes) outcomes and (3) understand the contextual variables that influence professional learning in the USA. We aim to determine which elements of professional learning improve educators’ capacity to implement MTSS.

Methods and analysis We will include studies that use quantitative and qualitative methods. PsycInfo, PubMed, CIHAHL and ERIC will be the primary research databases used to search for studies published from January 1997 to May 2018. We also will search the US Institute for Educational Sciences and Office of Special Education Programs websites, ProQuest, Google Scholar, Science Watch and MSN. Finally, we will search the proceedings of relevant conferences, examine the reference lists of studies that pass full screening and contact authors for additional work. Data extraction will include participant demographics, intervention details, study design, outcomes, analyses and key findings. We will conduct a quality assessment and analyse the data using effect size and thematic analyses.

Ethics and dissemination Institutional review board or ethics approval is not needed for this review of already published works. We will disseminate the findings through presentations at state, national and international conferences; presentations to stakeholders and agencies; publication in peer-reviewed journals; and posts to organisational and agency websites.

  • multi-tiered system of supports
  • professional learning
  • professional development
  • educator
  • implementation

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024057

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors JMC conceptualised the topic and content parameters for the mixed-methods review and was the lead writer on the protocol. JMC is the guarantor for this systematic review. JRW provided technical guidance regarding the design and methods for the mixed-methods review and was a lead writer on the protocol. DSG contributed to the conceptualisation of specific parameters (eg, types of professional learning designs to include, educator and implementation outcomes to include) for the mixed-methods review and was a lead writer on the protocol. JL and NS contributed to the conceptualisation of specific parameters and wrote sections of the protocol. MM contributed to the conceptualisation of specific parameters and wrote a section of the protocol. ALM, SM, JW, ST, AJ and KH contributed to the conceptualisation of specific parameters and provided conceptual and editorial feedback on the protocol. JMF provided technical guidance regarding single subject design review and effect size calculations and wrote related portions of the protocol.

    • Funding This work currently is supported by an internal mini-grant awarded by the College of Education at the University of South Florida.

    • Competing interests JMC and ALM have received honoraria and travel funding from conference providers and school districts in the USA to present on MTSS implementation support. We are unaware of any competing interests for the remaining coauthors.

    • Patient consent Not required.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.