## Key Ideas > [!abstract] Core Concepts > > - **Research-based practices fail through distortion**: Educational innovations often lose critical features during implementation, undermining effectiveness > - **Understanding the "why" essential**: Successful implementation requires knowing underlying principles, not just surface procedures > - **Lethal mutations common**: Changes that seem minor can destroy what makes practices work ## Definition **Implementation fidelity**: The degree to which an educational practice is implemented as designed, maintaining the critical features that make it effective (Durlak & DuPre, 2008). ## Overview Educational research identifies practices that improve student learning. However, these evidence-based approaches often fail when implemented in schools, not because the underlying ideas are flawed but because implementation changes critical features. This phenomenon - where practices mutate during implementation, losing effectiveness - represents a major challenge for educational improvement. Understanding why practices work proves as important as knowing what works, because that understanding guides faithful implementation whilst allowing appropriate adaptation to local contexts. ## Connected To [[Explicit Teaching]] | [[Mastery Approach to Learning]] | [[Formative Assessment]] | [[Scaffolding]] | [[Feedback]] | [[Retrieval Practice]] | [[What Research Can You Trust]] --- ## The implementation problem Research demonstrating an approach's effectiveness does not guarantee similar results in new contexts. Decades of educational research show a consistent pattern: promising practices identified through careful research produce disappointing results when scaled to broader implementation. This "research-to-practice gap" has multiple causes, but implementation fidelity represents a crucial factor (Fixsen et al., 2005). When schools adopt evidence-based practices, they often implement modified versions that retain the name whilst losing essential features. These modifications - lethal mutations - destroy what made the original practice effective. Teachers and administrators may not recognise the importance of features they change or eliminate, particularly when those features conflict with existing beliefs, require significant effort, or challenge comfortable practices. The problem is not deliberate sabotage. People genuinely attempting to implement evidence-based practices make changes believing they improve or adapt the approach. Without understanding why specific features matter, implementers cannot distinguish essential elements from peripheral details. This lack of understanding produces well-intentioned mutations that undermine effectiveness. ## Common lethal mutations Several practices show predictable patterns of mutation that destroy effectiveness. ### Mastery learning mutations **Original practice**: Students demonstrate understanding of content before progressing to new material. The curriculum pace adjusts to student learning, with time treated as variable and learning as constant. Students who struggle receive additional high-quality instruction until they achieve mastery (Bloom, 1968). **Common mutations**: - Fixed time becomes constant whilst achievement becomes variable - the opposite of mastery learning. Students move forward with the class regardless of whether they have mastered prerequisites. - "Mastery" is defined as completing worksheets rather than demonstrating understanding through assessment. - Reteaching becomes "do the same thing again" rather than different high-quality instruction addressing why students initially struggled. - Lower expectations for some students, allowing them to "master" less content or less rigorous standards than peers. **Why it fails**: These mutations eliminate the features that make mastery learning effective. When students advance without understanding prerequisites, they cannot build on weak foundations. When mastery is defined as compliance rather than competence, the system provides no information about actual learning. When reteaching repeats ineffective instruction, students who struggled initially continue struggling. **Preserving effectiveness**: Genuine mastery learning requires valid assessment of understanding (not just completion), flexible pacing allowing students necessary time without lowering expectations, high-quality reteaching using different approaches when initial instruction fails, and commitment to all students achieving true mastery of rigorous content. ### Formative assessment mutations **Original practice**: Teachers systematically gather evidence of student understanding during instruction and use that evidence to adjust teaching in real-time. Assessment is integrated into instruction, informing immediate decisions about pacing, reteaching, and support (Black & Wiliam, 1998). **Common mutations**: - Frequent testing without using results to adjust instruction - collecting data but not acting on it. - Self-report ("Do you understand?") replaces actual assessment of student thinking. - Assessment occurs but teacher continues with planned instruction regardless of results. - Tests labeled "formative" but used to grade students rather than inform teaching. **Why it fails**: Formative assessment works by creating responsive teaching where instruction adapts to student needs. Collecting data without acting on it provides no benefit. Self-report is unreliable due to the [[Dunning-Kruger Effect]]. Continuing with plans regardless of assessment defeats the purpose of gathering evidence. **Preserving effectiveness**: Genuine formative assessment requires actual evidence of student thinking (not self-report), real-time interpretation of that evidence, willingness to adjust instruction based on what assessment reveals, and focus on improving learning rather than generating grades ([[Formative Assessment]]). ### Scaffolding mutations **Original practice**: Temporary support enables students to complete tasks within their zone of proximal development, with systematic removal as competence develops. Scaffolding must fade for students to develop independent capability (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976). **Common mutations**: - Scaffolding becomes permanent support rather than temporary assistance, creating dependency. - Support is never removed because students "need" it, preventing development of independence. - Same scaffolding provided to all students regardless of individual capability levels. - Scaffolding is removed suddenly rather than gradually faded. **Why it fails**: Permanent scaffolding prevents students from developing independent capability. Students learn to rely on support rather than building their own competence. The [[Scaffolding]] that should be temporary becomes a permanent crutch. When scaffolding is removed abruptly rather than faded, students who depended on support fail. **Preserving effectiveness**: Genuine scaffolding requires systematic fading plan from the start, monitoring of student progress to determine when to reduce support, individualisation matching support to student capability, and commitment to eventual independence as the goal, not permanent supported performance. ### Growth mindset mutations **Original practice**: Messages emphasising that abilities develop through effort, effective strategies, and learning from mistakes help students develop belief in malleability of intelligence. This belief supports persistence and resilience (Dweck, 2006). **Common mutations**: - Generic praise replacing specific feedback about effort and strategies. - "You can do anything" messages without emphasis on effective effort and learning strategies. - Growth mindset becomes excuse for vague encouragement rather than high expectations with support. - Messages about growth mindset without actually providing the instruction, feedback, and opportunity to improve that make growth possible. **Why it fails**: Growth mindset is not magical thinking that effort alone guarantees success. It works when combined with effective instruction, specific feedback, and genuine opportunities to improve through learning. Empty reassurances without substantive support do not help students develop competence or confidence. **Preserving effectiveness**: Genuine growth mindset interventions require specific feedback on effort and strategies (not generic praise), high-quality instruction enabling improvement when students try, messages linking effort to effective learning approaches, and evidence that effort actually produces growth through provision of instruction responsive to student needs (Yeager & Dweck, 2012). ### Active learning mutations **Original practice**: Students engage in cognitive activities requiring thinking, not just physical activity or busy work. The focus is cognitive engagement - active mental processing of content (Chi & Wylie, 2014). **Common mutations**: - Physical activity (cutting, pasting, moving around room) is equated with learning without attention to cognitive engagement. - Group work where students talk socially rather than discuss academic content. - "Discovery" activities where students lack the knowledge needed for productive exploration. - Activity for its own sake rather than activity serving clear learning objectives. **Why it fails**: Physical activity does not guarantee cognitive engagement. Students can be physically active whilst thinking about irrelevant content. Productive active learning requires appropriate cognitive challenge matched to student knowledge, with [[Memory|attention focused on content rather than activity]]. **Preserving effectiveness**: Genuine active learning requires focus on what students are thinking about during activities (not just what they are doing), cognitive challenge appropriately calibrated to student knowledge levels, clear connection between activity and learning objectives, and attention to whether students are processing target content or distracted by activity features. ## Why lethal mutations occur Understanding why practices mutate helps prevent it. Several factors contribute to implementation changes that undermine effectiveness. **Misunderstanding underlying principles**: Implementers who do not understand why practices work cannot distinguish essential features from peripheral details. They may eliminate crucial elements whilst preserving superficial aspects. Understanding the theoretical and empirical basis for practices - the "why" behind the "what" - enables identifying which features must be preserved (Fixsen et al., 2005). **Insufficient training and support**: Implementing evidence-based practices well requires knowledge and skill. Brief workshops or reading about practices does not provide the deep understanding needed for faithful implementation. Teachers need ongoing support, coaching, and opportunities to develop proficiency (Joyce & Showers, 2002). **Conflicting beliefs**: Practices may conflict with existing beliefs about learning and teaching. When implementation requires changes to fundamental beliefs, people modify practices to align with current beliefs rather than changing beliefs to match practices. These modifications undermine effectiveness whilst feeling more comfortable. **Practical constraints**: Real schools face time, resource, and structural constraints. Practices designed in research settings may require modifications for practical implementation. However, adaptations must preserve essential features. This requires understanding which elements are critical and which can be modified without destroying effectiveness. **Incremental drift**: Practices may be implemented faithfully initially but drift over time as people introduce small changes. Each modification seems minor, but accumulated changes eventually destroy the practice. Without monitoring and attention to fidelity, implementation drifts from effective to ineffective (Stirman et al., 2012). ## Preserving fidelity whilst allowing adaptation Implementation fidelity does not mean rigid adherence to every detail. Effective implementation requires balancing fidelity to essential features with appropriate adaptation to context. **Identify core components**: Research on a practice should identify which features are essential for effectiveness and which are peripheral. Core components must be preserved; peripheral elements can be adapted to context (Blase et al., 2012). **Understand theoretical basis**: Knowing why practices work enables identifying essential features. If formative assessment works by creating responsive teaching, then any implementation must preserve gathering evidence and adjusting instruction based on evidence. The specific techniques for gathering evidence can vary. **Monitor implementation**: Regular checks on how practices are being implemented reveal drift before it destroys effectiveness. Observations, self-assessments, and student outcome data all provide information about implementation quality (Century & Cassata, 2016). **Provide ongoing support**: Teachers need continued support as they develop proficiency. Coaching, professional learning communities, and structured reflection opportunities help teachers implement practices faithfully whilst troubleshooting challenges. **Expect gradual refinement**: Initial implementation is often imperfect. Rather than expecting immediate perfect implementation, support gradual improvement whilst monitoring that changes move toward rather than away from fidelity to core components. ## Implications for professional learning **Go deep on underlying principles**: Professional learning should address not just what to do but why practices work. Teachers who understand underlying cognitive science, learning theory, and empirical evidence can make informed decisions about implementation. **Provide examples and non-examples**: Teachers benefit from seeing both faithful implementation and common mutations. Analysing why mutations fail reinforces understanding of essential features. **Support implementation with coaching**: Classroom-based coaching helps teachers develop proficiency whilst maintaining fidelity to essential features. Coaches can identify when implementation drifts and support corrective adjustments (Joyce & Showers, 2002). **Create implementation guides**: Clear documentation of core components and peripheral features helps implementers distinguish what must be preserved from what can be adapted. Guides should be based on understanding of why practices work, not just procedural checklists. **Monitor and provide feedback**: Regular assessment of implementation quality with specific feedback helps teachers refine practice whilst maintaining fidelity. The feedback should focus on core components rather than superficial adherence to procedures. ## Key considerations and warnings **Perfect fidelity is impossible**: Some adaptation is inevitable and often beneficial. The goal is preserving core components whilst adapting peripheral features to context, not rigid adherence to every detail of original implementation. **Context matters**: Practices proven effective in one setting may require thoughtful adaptation for different contexts. However, adaptations must preserve the mechanisms through which practices produce effects. **Implementation takes time**: Developing proficiency with new practices requires extended time and support. Expecting immediate perfect implementation creates pressure that may lead to superficial compliance rather than genuine learning. **Measure outcomes, not just process**: Monitoring implementation fidelity is important, but ultimately what matters is whether students are learning. Outcome data provides essential feedback about whether implementation is effective in the local context. **Involve teachers in adaptation decisions**: Teachers closest to implementation often see what adaptations may be needed for local context. However, these decisions should be informed by understanding of core components and made collaboratively with support from those who understand why practices work. > [!tip] Implications for Teaching > > - Learn not just what evidence-based practices involve but why they work at a theoretical and empirical level > - Identify core components that must be preserved versus peripheral features that can be adapted > - Monitor your own implementation to catch drift before accumulated changes destroy effectiveness > - Seek feedback from coaches or colleagues about whether implementation preserves essential features > - Be suspicious of "research-based" practices that have been heavily modified from original tested versions ## References Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. *Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice*, 5(1), 7-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102 Blase, K., Van Dyke, M., Fixsen, D., & Bailey, F. W. (2012). Implementation science: Key concepts, themes, and evidence for practitioners in educational psychology. In B. Kelly & D. F. Perkins (Eds.), *Handbook of implementation science for psychology in education* (pp. 13-36). Cambridge University Press. Bloom, B. S. (1968). Learning for mastery. *Evaluation Comment*, 1(2), 1-12. Century, J., & Cassata, A. (2016). Implementation research: Finding common ground on what, how, why, where, and who. *Review of Research in Education*, 40(1), 169-215. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X16665332 Chi, M. T. H., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. *Educational Psychologist*, 49(4), 219-243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.965823 Durlak, J. A., & DuPre, E. P. (2008). Implementation matters: A review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. *American Journal of Community Psychology*, 41(3-4), 327-350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-008-9165-0 Dweck, C. S. (2006). *Mindset: The new psychology of success*. Random House. Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). *Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature*. University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, National Implementation Research Network. Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). *Student achievement through staff development* (3rd ed.). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Stirman, S. W., Kimberly, J., Cook, N., Calloway, A., Castro, F., & Charns, M. (2012). The sustainability of new programs and innovations: A review of the empirical literature and recommendations for future research. *Implementation Science*, 7(1), 17. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-17 Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. *Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry*, 17(2), 89-100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Mindsets that promote resilience: When students believe that personal characteristics can be developed. *Educational Psychologist*, 47(4), 302-314. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.722805