Building on the Best, Learning from What Works: Direct Instruction
Why are some schools effective at educating most students, even those from disadvantaged, high poverty areas, while others struggle fruitlessly to fulfill their academic mission? How can schools replicate the successes of their more effective counterparts?
Researchers, working for years to answer these questions, have described the characteristics of successful schools-e.g., high expectations for all students; challenging curricula; clear standards and a coherent, focused academic mission; high-quality professional development aligned to the standards; small class sizes, especially in the early grades; an orderly and disciplined learning environment; a supportive and collegial atmosphere; and an intervention system designed to ensure that struggling students can meet the standards. But, while we now know a great deal about which reforms are effective, comparatively little is known about how to achieve them.
As many schools have found out the hard way, systemic reform is extremely difficult-especially when it must occur simultaneously on many fronts, and is begun without benefit of high-quality curriculum materials, appropriate professional development, or readily available technical assistance. In fact, a number of schools-especially those that are already foundering-have found that lasting improvement is impossible without concrete, step-by-step implementation support.
According to a recent study of efforts to raise academic achievement for at-risk students (Stringfield, et al., 1996), the reform strategies that achieve the greatest academic gains are those chosen and supported by faculty, as well as administrators. Success is also dependent on the existence of a challenging curriculum, and on paying "a great deal of attention to issues of initial and long-term implementation, and to institutionalizing the reforms." This and other studies have also found that schoolwide reforms tend to be more effective than pull-out or patchwork programs, and that externally developed programs-particularly those with support networks from which schools can draw strength and tangible assistance-tend to do better than local designs.
- High Standards. The program helps all students acquire the skills and/or knowledge they need to successfully perform to high academic standards.
- Effectiveness. The program has proven to be effective in raising the academic achievement levels of "atrisk" students in low-performing schools, based on independent evaluations.
- Replicability. The program has been effectively implemented in multiple sites beyond the original pilot school(s).
- Support Structures. Professional development, materials, and ongoing implementation support are available for the program, either through the program's developer, independent contractors, or dissemination networks established by schools already in the program.
In addition to information about each program's track record on raising student achievement, we have also attempted to gather and report details about main features and estimated costs. We hope that this information will assist members as they begin weighing the available options against student needs, school goals, and available resources. In deciding which programs warrant further investigation, we urge that you consider each program's "fit," as well the data on its efficacy and cost-effectiveness.
Direct Instruction (DI)
|Grades Covered||Primarily an elementary school (pre-K-6) program, but also used successfully with secondary and adult special education and remedial students.|
|Curriculum Materials||DI has generally been implemented as a schoolwide, subject area, and/or remedial elementary school program. However, the reading intervention program-Corrective Reading-can be used with struggling students from grade 3 through adulthood. (Corrective Spelling is also available for grades 4 through 12).|
|Instructional Support/Professional Development||Professional development and implementation support of differing levels of quality can be contracted from various providers.|
|School Reform/Restructuring Assistance||Not applicable for remedial use. (For use as a schoolwide reform, limited assistance can be contracted from some providers as part of their implementation- support package.)|
|Role of Paraprofessionals||Trained classroom paraprofessionals can be fully integrated into the program, working as instructional aides, one-on-one tutors, and small group leaders under the direction of certified teachers.|
|Cost of Implementation||For use as a remedial reading intervention, start-up costs for all student and teacher materials range from $25 to $40 per student. (In subsequent years, materials are approximately $10 per student.) Initial staff development costs range from $5,000 to $60,000 per school, depending on the type of implementation and the number of teachers and classrooms involved. Additional costs may include release time, depending on the implementation.|
|Results*/Effect Size|| Studies show reading improvement ranging from +.32 to +1.11.|
*To give a sense of scale, an effect size of +1.00 would be equivalent to anincrease of 100 points on the SAT scale or 15 points of IQ-enough to movea student from the 20th percentile (the normal level of performance forchildren in poverty) to above the 50th percentile (the norm for mainstreamstudents).
Direct Instruction (DI) is a highly structured instructional approach, designed to accelerate the learning of at-risk students. Curriculum materials and instructional sequences attempt to move students to mastery at the fastest possible pace. The oldest version of the program, Distar, was developed in the 1960s as part of Project Follow Through, a massive educational initiative of President Johnson's War on Poverty. Despite its success in raising student achievement levels, Distar was heavily criticized for being too rigid; concentrating too heavily on the basics; and for some vendors' poor implementation practices, such as selling it without support as a "teacher-proof " program. As DI, the original Distar program has been expanded and enriched. Although the early mastery of basic skills is still a key element, the program also addresses students' general comprehension and analytic skills. Although a number of schools have adopted DI as a schoolwide reform program, its components are more often purchased for separate implementations as language arts or remedial reading programs. Either way, adequate professional development, ensuring that practitioners understand what the program is and how it works, is essential for successful implementation.
Scripted lesson plans Classroom scripts are a hallmark of Direct Instruction; the scripts are written, tested, rewritten, retested-polished in a cycle of classroom field testing and revision that ends only when trials show that 90 percent of students grasp a lesson the first time around. Without proper orientation, many teachers find this level of prescriptiveness off-putting. The idea, however, is to ensure that even beginning teachers will be successful and to allow veteran educators to fill any holes in their teaching skills. With curricular and pedagogical details presented in precise relationship to each other, the program offers a template of how to teach particular skills and content. It is a template that can be applied to other curricula or modified to better suit the needs of a particular group of students, but only after the teaching methods have been learned to precision.
Although Direct Instruction has been evaluated among many populations over the years, the following only addresses the use of DI as a remedial reading intervention or as a regular education program serving a student population composed of a very large proportion of struggling readers. One study followed the effects of DI on a rural population of third-grade students from 1973 to 1980. Results showed that DI students outscored their counterparts in a comparison group by ES=+.61. Another study of mildly retarded students showed DI students outscoring control group students by ES=+.64. A third study, evaluating the effects of DI on both reading and spelling, showed DI students outperforming a control group by ES=+.75. A fourth study also showed DI students outscoring a control group in spelling and reading, this time by ES=+.32.
A summary meta-analyses of Direct Instruction showed overall large effect sizes for students in regular education (ES=+.82) and special education (ES=+.90). DI also showed large effect sizes when used with struggling middle and junior high school students (ES=+1.11).
Goethe Middle School (Sacramento, CA) With chronically low test scores across the curriculum, Goethe Middle School recently decided to attack its academic problems at their root: Many students had never learned to read well. Beginning with the 1997-98 school year, Goethe took a radical step. It trained all instructional staff in Corrective Reading and used fourth period for a mandatory reading class for virtually every student. Although this DI implementation is still too new to judge, preliminary data are encouraging. In the fall of 1997, only 11 percent of Goethe students could read above a sixth-grade level, while 12 percent were at a "high average" level for sixth grade. In other words, fewer than one in four students had much hope of keeping up with the reading assignments usually required of middle school students. By the end of the school year, the number of students reading at least at this basic level had more than doubled: 22 percent were at the "high average" level, 26 percent were above.
This is a highly interactive, teacher-intensive approach to education. Teachers and paraprofessionals must be informed about-and prepared for-its fast pace and the structured, repetitive nature of the program.
DI also has a history of problematic implementations. When the program's developer, former preschool teacher Siegfried Engelmann, started designing the curriculum more than 25 years ago, he included fully scripted teachers' guides, believing that they could serve as prototype demonstrations for specific teaching skills. In other words, one design objective was to provide hands-on teacher training during class time, thus reducing start-up costs and at the same time ensuring that all teachers would have the skills necessary to reach the maximum achievement levels. Unfortunately, some marketers and administrators interpreted this to mean that no training was necessary, and that teaching skill was inconsequential to the success of the program. DI materials were sold as "teacher-proof," leaving administrators who didn't understand the program to impose it in a rigid, dictatorial manner. Educator horror stories and lower-than-expected achievement levels were the predictable results. In some regions, this has left DI with a tarnished reputation that will have to be clarified and overcome. For any new implementation to be successful, proper orientation and ongoing training are vital-not only for teachers and paraprofessionals but also for administrators.
Another frequent criticism is that DI provides so much structure and regimentation that it stifles student and teacher creativity. The student results- both in higher academic achievement levels and elevated measures of self-esteem-should speak for themselves. Teacher focus groups, following multiple schoolwide DI implementations in Broward County, Florida, are also instructive. Some teachers felt that the "standardized approach actually allowed more creativity, because a framework was in place within which to innovate," and said that they could do more with content once DI had helped students acquire the necessary skills. Other teachers reported that they had initially been resistant, feeling that "even though the students thrived on it, the repetition was boring for the faculty," but, over time, had found ways "to innovate within the repetition, so that they become drawn in as well."
The Broward implementation also incorporated another important feature: advanced training for and assignment of teaching staff to act as full-time "coaches" (facilitators) for the new DI schools. By retaining their status within the bargaining unit, it was made clear that these educators were a resource for the benefit of the teaching staff, not administrators. There was always someone to turn to, on a confidential basis, for advice and assistance. Given the inevitable frustrations, glitches and misunderstandings that arise when implementing any new curriculum, using new instructional methods, this assistance has proven invaluable.
Adams, Gary L. and Engelmann, Siegfried. Research on Direct Instruction: 25 Years beyond Distar (1996). Seattle: Educational Achievement Systems. 206/820-6111.
Effective School Practices. Journal of the Associationfor Direct Instruction.
Gersten, Russell, et al. "Effectiveness of a Direct Instruction academic kindergarten for lowincome students," The Elementary School Journal(November 1988).
For more information
Direct Instruction Project, University of Oregon, College of Education, 170 Education, Eugene, Oregon 98195, or Association for Direct Instruction, P.O. Box 10525, Eugene, Oregon 97440. Phone: 800/995-2464. E-mail: [email protected] Internet: http://www.adihom.org or http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~adiep.
Adams, M.J. (1990). Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
American Educator, (1998) Vol. 22, Nos. 1&2: Spring/Summer.
Adams, M.J., Foorman, B.R., Lundberg, I. & Beeler, T. (1998). "The elusive phoneme."
Beck, I.L., McKeown, M.G., Hamilton, R.I. & Kucan, L. (1998). "Getting at the meaning"
Cunningham, A.E. & Stanovich, K.E. (1998) "What reading does for the mind."
Greene, J.F. (1998). "Another chance."
Moats, L.C. (1998). "Teaching decoding."
Torgesen, J.K. (1998) "Catch them before they fall."
American Educator, (1995) Vol. 19, No. 2: Summer.
Adams, M.J. & Bruck, M. (1995). "Resolving the 'Great Debate'."
Beck, I.L. & Juel, C. (1995). "The role of decoding in learning to read."
McPike, E. (1995). "Learning to read: Schooling's first mission."
Moats, L.C. (1994). "The missing foundation in teacher education."
Blachman, B.A. (1997). Foundations of Reading Acquisition and Dyslexia: Implications for Early Intervention. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Chall, J.S. (1983). Stages of Reading Development. New York: McGraw Hill.
Gough, P. B. & Hillinger, M. L. (1980). "Learning to read: An unnatural act." Bulletin of the Orton Society,30.
Herman, R. and Stringfield, S. (1997). Ten Promising Programs for Educating All Children: Evidence ofImpact. Arlington, Va.: Educational Research Service.
Learning First Alliance (1998). Every Child Reading: An Action Plan. Washington, D.C.: LFA.
Learning to Read, Reading to Learn (1997). Washington, D.C.: American Federation of Teachers.
National Research Council (1998). Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. Washington, D.C.:National Academy Press.
Raising Student Achievement: A Resource Guide for Improving Low-Performing Schools (1997). Washington,D.C.: American Federation of Teachers.
Shaywitz, S.E. (Nov. 1996). "Dyslexia." Scientific American.
Slavin, R.E. & Fashola, O.S. (1998). Show Me the Evidence! Proven and Promising Programs for America'sSchools. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin Press.
Slavin, R.E., Karweit, N.L. & Wasik, B.A. [Eds.] (1994). Preventing Early School Failure: Research, Policyand Practice. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Stanovich, K.E. (1994). "Romance and reality." The Reading Teacher, 47.
Click the "Endnotes" link above to hide these endnotes.
1. Both Corrective Reading and Corrective Spelling are published by SRA, a division of Macmillan/McGraw-Hill, 800/843-8855.
2. An effect size is a standard means of expressing achievementgains and losses across studies, showing differences betweenexperimental and control groups in terms of standard deviation.An effect size of +1.00 indicates that the experimentalgroup outperformed the control group by one full standarddeviation. To give a sense of scale, this would be equivalentto an increase of 100 points on the SAT scale, two stanines,21 NCEs (normal curve equivalent ranks) or 15 points of IQ(Fashola and Slavin, 1996)-enough to move a student fromthe 20th percentile (the normal level of performance for childrenin poverty) to above the 50th percentile (in range withmainstream America). Because of differences among studydesigns and assessments, this can only be considered a"rough" measure of comparison. In general, an effect size of+.25 or more is considered educationally significant.
3. Darch, C., Gersten, R. & Taylor, R. (1987). "Evaluation of Williamsburg County Direct Instruction program: Factors leading to success in early elementary programs," Research in Rural Education, 4.
4. Haring, N.G. & Krug, D.A. (1975). "Evaluation of a program of systematic instruction procedures for extremely poor retarded children," American Journal on Mental Retardation.
5. Lloyd, J., Cullinan, D., Heins, E.D. & Epstein, M. (1980).Direct Instruction: Effects on oral and written language comprehension.Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 3.
6. Lum, T. & Morton, L.L. (1984). Direct Instruction inspelling increases gain in spelling and reading skills. SpecialEducation in Canada, 58.
7. Adams, G. L. & Engelmann, S. (1996). Research on DirectInstruction: 25 Years Beyond DISTAR. Seattle, Wash.:Educational Achievement Systems.
8. School Board of Broward County, Florida. (August 1996).Alliance of Quality Schools Evaluation Report.