Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be ... · PDF file(Toll Free); Web site:...

ED 467 298

AUTHOR

TITLE

INSTITUTION

ISSN

PUB DATE

NOTEAVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

JOURNAL CITEDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

IDENTIFIERS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

CS 511 241

Tarver, Sara, Ed.

Direct Instruction News, 2001.

Association for Direct Instruction, Eugene, OR.

ISSN-1068-73792001-00-0070p.; Published semi-annually.Association for Direct Instruction, P.O. Box 10252, Eugene,OR 97440 (annual subscription rate, $25). Tel: 800-995-2464(Toll Free); Web site: http://www.adihome.org.

Collected Works Serials (022)

Direct Instruction News; vl n1-2 Spr-Fall 2001EDRS Price MF01/PC03 Plus Postage.

Beginning Reading; Blindness; *Classroom Techniques;Deafness; *Educational Practices; Elementary SecondaryEducation; *Instructional Effectiveness; ProfessionalDevelopment*Direct Instruction; Teaching Perspectives

These three issues of a newsletter offer diverse kinds ofinformation deemed to be of interest to Association for Direct Instruction(ADI) members--stories of successful implementations in different settings,write-ups of ADI awards, tips on "how to" deliver direct instruction (DI)more effectively, topical articles focused on particular types of instruction(e.g., writing instruction, spelling instruction, etc.), reprints of articleson timely topics, and position papers that address current issues. The Spring2001, Volume 1, Number 1 issue contains these articles: "Journey fromKindergarten to First Grade" (N. Marchand-Martella and R.C. Martella); "ThePower of One" (L.E. DiChiara); "Responding to the Crisis of Education" (M.Kozloff); and "Teachers' Perceptions of Direct Instruction Teaching" (F.B.Bessellieu). The Fall 2001, Volume 1, Number 2 issue contains these articles:"Your State Test Was Not Divinely Inspired" (B. Dixon): "If the ChildrenAren't-Learning, We're Not Teaching" (G.A. Clowes); "Teaching Method Makesthe Grade" (M. *Bowler); "A Dozen Suggestions to Make DI Beginning ReadingImplementations Produce More Student Learning" (J. Silbert); "How to AchieveExcellence" (J. Thompson); "Using Direct Instruction Programs to TeachComprehension and Language Skills to Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Students: ASix-Year Study" (J. Kraemer; S. Kramer; H. Koch; K. Madigan; D. Steely); and"Arkansas School for the Blind Adopts More Effective Curriculum" (D. Hunt; D.Woolly; A. Moore). The Spring 2002, Volume 2, Number 1 issue contains thesearticles: "A View from Askance--Cookie Cutter Curricula" (B. Dixon); "GreatExpectations, Greater Results" (A.J. Borsuk); "Scores Soar at Siefert Schoolwith Aid of Structured Lessons" (A.J. Borsuk); "Giant Leap in Learning:Teachers at City Springs Elementary Attribute Pupils' Success to Hard Work,Small Classes, and a New Instruction Method" (E. Niedowski); "On-Line StaffDevelopment in Reading Skills" (M.B. Hayden and M.V. Berkeley); "Alex'sStory" (G. and K. Shmerler); "Does Direct Instruction in Phonics Benefit DeafStudents?" (B. Trezek); and "Myth versus Science in Educational Systems" (C.Baxter). (NKA)

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

Direct Instruction News, 2001

Sara G. Tarver, Editor

Direct Instruction News v1 n1-2 Spr-Fall 2001

Association for Direct Instruction

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and ImprovementEDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION

CENTER (ERIC))11... This document has been reproduced as

received from the person or organizationoriginating it.

0 Minor changes have been made to improvereproduction quality

o Points of view or opinions stated in thisdocument do not necessarily representofficial OERI position or policy.

2

1

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS

BEEN GRANTED BY

A. Griffin

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Direct Instruc#Effective School Practices

A

Voices for Excellence in EducationOne By One

A warm "hello" to the hundreds of youwho are reading this first issue of DirectInstruction News (DI News). Or, moreaccurately, the first of a second series ofissues of DI News. As old-timers likemyself may remember, Volume 1,Number 1 of DI News was published inSeptember of 1981. Pictures of DougCarnine, Wes Becker, and Stan Painewere displayed prominently on the firstpage along with an article in which DINews was introduced as a first step inthe formation of the Association forDirect Instruction (ADI). The birth ofthe association was hailed as "The Birthof a New Voice for Excellence inEducation." To express our continuingbelief in the power of that voice and ourbelief that the voice of each individualmember of ADI makes a significant con-tribution to the louder voice of the asso-ciation as a whole, we titled this currentissue "Voices for Excellence inEducationOne By One."

In 1993, the name of ADI's publicationwas changed to Effective School Practicesand continued under that namethrough 2000. Starting in 2001, ADImembers will receive two publicationswith different namestwo issues of

.Zama/ of Direct Instruction (JODI) andtwo issues of DI News. JODI, for themosi.part, will contain research andresearch-related articles. DI News willprovide other kinds of informationdeemed to be of interest to ADI mem-bersstories of successful implementa-tions in different settings, write-ups ofADI awards, tips on "how to" deliverDI more effectively, topical articles-focused on particular types of instruc-

tion (e.g., writing instruction, spellinginstruction, etc.), reprints of articles ontimely topics, and position papers thataddress current issues. As editor of DINews, I solicit your help in identifyingnewsworthy events, writings, and ideasthat can help us to reach our goals of (a)teaching children more effectively andefficiently, and (b) communicating thata powerful technology for teachingexists but is not being utilized in mostAmerican schools. I also look forward toreceiving your "letters to the editor."Feel free to include both "glows"which state what you liked about theissue or particular article and "grows"which suggest what might be changedto make the publication more meaning-ful and useful.

This first issue of the second round ofDirect Instruction News contains severalarticles that exemplify the kinds ofnews we want to publish. NancyMarchand-Martella and RonaldMartella share their story of one fami-ly's search for a school for their daugh-ter, Amedee, when she started tokindergartena story that goes from"bumps in the road" to "smooth sail-ing." As you will see, the bumpschanged to sails when the instructionchanged from not-Direct Instruction toDirect Instruction.

Larry DiChiara, Coordinator ofCurriculum and Instruction, in LeeCounty School System in Alabamatells the story of how special educationteacherstrained by one universityprofessorconvinced him of thepower of DI and how he, in turn,

BEST COPY AVAILABLE 3

began to convince others. It all beganabout five years ago. Today, everyschool in the district uses DI to someextent, every teacher new to the dis-trict goes through a 3-day training inDI whether they use the programs ornot, and an experienced DI teacherserves as teacher/coach to other teach-ers. Test scores of at-risk students haverisen steadily. In one elementaryschool that had been placed onAcademic Alert status because of lowacademic achievement, DI was imple-mented school-wide and, after onlyone year of implementation, test scoresreached the national average and theschool was granted Academic Clear sta-tus. Larry's story demonstrates clearlythe "Power of One."

Martin Kozloff declares that Edland isin a state of crisis and that forces bothinside and outside of education arereacting to transform education. In hisstory of how New Hanover County inNorth Carolina responded to the edu-cational crisis, he tells how the actions

continued on page 3

11 -

In this issue

4

6

9

14 Direct Instruction Teaching

Journey from Kindergartento First Grade

The Power of One

Responding to the Crisisin Education

Teachers' Perceptions of

ADI Awards Given

ADI Publication EditorsDirect Instruction News

Dr. Sara TarverUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadison, Wisconsin

Journal of Direct Instruction

Dr. Nancy Marchand-NlartellaEastern Washington UniversitySpokane, Washington

Dr. Timothy SlocumUtah State UniversityLogan, Utah

Board of Directors

Bob DixonAdvantage SchoolsOlympia, Washington

Susan HannerCo-AuthorCreswell, Oregon

Dr. Gary JohnsonCo-Author/Independent ConsultantPortland, Oregon

Dr. Nancy Marchand-MartellaEastern Washington UniversitySpokane, Washington

Milly SchraderElk Grove School DistrictElk Grove, California

Dr. Timothy SlocumUtah State UniversityLogan, Utah

Don SteelyOregon Center for Applied ScienceEugene, Oregon

The DI News is published semi-annually bythe Association for Direct Instruction. Themission of the Association for DirectInstruction, as stated in the by-laws, is topromote the improvement of effectiveeducational methods.The Association for Direct Instruction wasincorporated in 1981 in the state of Oregonfor educational purposes. ADI is a nonprof-it, tax-exempt corporation under Section501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code andis a publicly supported organization asdefined in Sections 170(b)(1)(A)(ii) and509(a)(1). Donations are tax-deductible.

A copy or summary of the current financialstatement, or annual report, and registra-tion filed by ADI may be obtained by con-tacting: ADI, PO BOX 10252, Eugene, OR97440 (541-485-1293). ADI is registeredwith the state of Oregon, Department ofJustice, #79-16751. Copyright 0 2000Association for Direct Instruction.

ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION RATES: $25U. S.; $30 (U. S. currency) Canada; $40Europe; $60 airmail to Europe.

(ISSN 1068-7379).

Managing Editor: Amy Griffin

Layout and Design: Beneda Design,Eugene, ORPublisher: The Association for DirectInstruction

http://www.adihome.org

2 Spring 2001

Contribute to DI News:

DI News provides practitioners, ADI members, the DI community, and hopeful-ly those new to DI, with stories of successful implementations of DI, reports ofADI awards, tips regarding the effective delivery of DI, articles focused on par-ticular types of instruction, reprints of articles on timely topics, and positionpapers that address current issues. The News' focus is to provide newsworthyevents that help us reach the goals of teaching children more effectively andefficiently and communicating that a powerful technology for teaching existsbut is not being utilized in most American schools. Readers are invited to con-tribute personal accounts of success as well as relevant topics deemed useful tothe DI community. General areas of submission follow:

From the field: Submit letters describing your thrills and frustrations, problemsand successes, and so on. A number of experts are available who may be able tooffer helpful solutions and recommendations to persons seeking advice.

News: Report news of interest to ADI's members.

Success stories: Send your stories about successful instruction. These can beshort, anecdotal pieces.

Perspectives: Submit critiques and perspective essays about a theme of currentinterest, such as: school restructuring, the ungraded classroom, cooperativelearning, site-based management, learning styles, heterogeneous grouping,Regular Ed Initiative and the law, and so on.

Book notes: Review a book of interest to members.

New products: Descriptions of new products that are available are welcome.Send the description with a sample of the product or a research report validat-ing its effectiveness. Space will be given only to products that have been field-tested and empirically validated.

Tips for teachers: Practical, short products that a teacher can copy and useimmediately. This might be advice for solving a specific but pervasive prob-lem, a data-keeping form, a single format that would successfully teach some-thing meaningful and impress teachers with the effectiveness and cleverness ofDirect Instruction.

Submission Format: Send an electronic copy with a hard copy of the manu-script. Indicate the name of the word-processing program you use. Save draw-ings and figures in separate files. Electronic copy should replace text that isunderlined with italic text.

Illustrations and Figures: Please send drawings or figures in a camera-ready form,even though you may also include them in electronic form.

Completed manuscripts should be sent to:Amy Griffin

ADI PublicationsPO Box 10252

Eugene, OR 97440

Acknowledgement of receipt of the manuscript will be sent by email. Articlesare initially screened by the editors for placement in the correct ADI publica-tion. If appropriate, the article will be sent out for review by peers in the field.These reviewers may recommend acceptance as is, revision without furtherreview, revision with a subsequent review, or rejection. The author is usuallynotified about the status of the article within a 6- to 8-week period. If the arti-cle is published, the author will receive five complimentary copies of the issuein which his or her article appears.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

4Direct Instruction News

Voices for Excellence...

continued from page 1

of outsiders (e.g., legislators, statedepartments of education) impactededucators, making it possible for disaf-fected insiders (DI advocates and theirfriends at the local level) to orchestratecurriculum reform in that one county.He describes step by step how DI wasgradually integrated into New HanoverCounty and provides specific guide-lines for others who are attempting todo the same in their counties. Don'tfail to read these words for the wisefrom this great sage.

Teachers' perceptions of DI teachingin New Hanover County are reportedin the article by Bessellieu, Kozloff and

Rice. Comments reveal an overwhelm-ing consensus that DI has been benefi-cial to both students and teachers.They also show the enthusiasm that isgenerated when teachers teach andstudents learn.

Each year, ADI recognizes the contri-butions of practitioners of DI at anawards dinner at the ADI conferencein Eugene, Oregon. Recipients at the2000 conference told their ownpoignant stories of success despitemany trials and tribulations.Anayezuka Ahidiana's success at CitySprings Elementary in Baltimore,Angelica Fazio's success at CentralElementary in San Diego, AnnFumiko Watanabe's success at TheWaihee School in Maui, Sarah Martin-

Elam's success at Siefert ElementarySchool in Milwaukee, WoodbridgeFundamental School's success with DIfor twenty-eight years, and four stu-dents' success with DIMatthewAkonom, Marti Dunn, KalijahHopkins, and Nathan Robertsare allheartwarming stories that can boost ourspirits and motivate us to Continue thehard, but rewarding, work that we do.Amy Griffin's summary of the 2000ADI awards reports those stories.

It is my hope that DI News will play animportant role in helping each of youto experience your own success storyin whatever capacity you may serve ourchildren. Please share your story withothers in DI News.

Memorial Service forWesley C. Becker Held

Dr. Wes Becker died of circulationproblems on Sunday, October 29, inCalifornia, where he was undergoingmedical observations. Wes was 73 yearsold. A resident of Eugene from 1970through 1993, Wes was a professor ofSchool Psychology, EducationalPsychology, and Special Education atthe U of 0. From 1978-1989, he wasalso Associate Dean in the Division ofCounseling and EducationalPsychology. Wes served on the Boardof Directors for Oregon ResearchInstitute during the years 1972-1986.

Wes was a prolific writer, best knownfor his four textbooks on EducationalPsychology, and the milestone book forparentsParents are 'leachers. He wrotemore than 100 professional articles, andwas a co-author of what is currently thepreferred series for teaching problemreaders in grades 4 through 12 (SRA'sCorrective Reading series).

Wes co-founded Engelmann-BeckerCorporation, which is located at 8thand Lincoln in Eugene, Oregon, and

Direct Instruction News

was co-director of the University ofOregon's Follow Through interventionmodel, sponsored by the U.S. Office ofEducation as Project Follow Through,an intervention program for at-risk stu-dents in kindergarten through grade 3.The University of Oregon model hadthe highest student achievements of allmodels in reading, math, language,spelling, and science. The model alsoresulted in students with the most pos-itive self-images.

Wes Becker was born in 1928 inRochester, New York. After serving inthe armed forces, he attended StanfordUniversity, where he received a BA in1951. In 1955, he graduated fromStanford with a Ph.D. in ClinicalPsychology and Statistics. Wes becamea professor of Clinical Psychology atthe University of Illinois in 1964. In1968, he became director of theBereiter-Engelmann program, whichwas an early intervention program forat-risk preschoolers. In 1969, Wesbecame director of the Engelmann-Becker Follow Through model, at the

5

University of Illinois. The program wasimplemented in 20 communities andserved more than 10,000 students. TheFollow Through grant and most of thestaff moved from Champaign-Urbana,Illinois to The University of Oregon in1970. In 1980, Wes became the seniorfounder of the Association for DirectInstruction, which provides trainingand assistance for schools in imple-menting effective programs and behav-ioral practices. Wes was editor of theADI News until 1993. The ADI confer-ence held annually in Eugene is thesecond-largest annual conference thecity hosts. In July, 2000, more than 840persons attended the conference.

Earlier times, circa 1974. Clockwise, top left:Zig Engebnann, Wes Becker, Linda Cantina,Phyllis Haddox, Linda Olin, Laurie Skillman,(center) Doug Carnine, Jerry Silbert.

Spring 2001 3

After retiring in 1993, Wes went toSun City, Arizona where he could beclose to family members. He moved toSedona, Arizona in 1999. Wes leavesbehind seven children.

Wes was more than a scholar. He was apioneer in the use of behavioral princi-ples in the classroom. His battle crywas, "Catch kids in the act of beinggood." Those who worked with himwere routinely amazed not only by hisskill, but the speed with which hecould do things. Everyone who workedwith him learned a great deal. Perhapshis most impressive quality, however,was the strength of his will. In the faceof terrible setbacks and impossibledeadlines, Wes prevailed. If he prom-ised to get something by a particulartime, it was not only done on schedule,but done very well. We will miss himgreatly.

The Association for Direct Instruction has established an award fund inthe memory of Wesley C. Becker. Wes died in October of 2000. He wasan early developer of Direct Instruction as well as the founder of theAssociation for Direct Instruction.

This award fund will be administered as an endowment fund with theincrease in value being given in the form of two $1,000 awards. Oneaward will be given for outstanding published research related to DI andthe other for best success story related to DI. These awards will be givenstarting June. of 2002.

At this time donations have totaled $11,000 and a promise by theEngelmann Foundation to fund $1,000 per year. Friends, associates andany others that would like to contribute to the fund in memory of Wes

should send their donations to:

Association for Direct InstructionWesley Becker Memorial Fund

PO Box 10252Eugene, OR 97440

ADI is a tax-exempt 501(c)3 organization and all donations are taxdeduCtible to the full extent of the laW..

NANCY E. MARCHAND-MARTELLA and RONALD C. MARTELLA, Eastern Washington University

Journey from Kindergartento First GradeFrom Bumps in the Road to Smooth Sailing:.An Educational Journey

We did it. We bought the home of ourdreams-10 acres, a barn, a house andmatching garage, even white rail fenc-ing. Being professors in special educa-tion, we had checked out the publicschoolswell, it was more like analyz-ing them under an electron micro-scope. Test scores were reviewed; cur-ricula were analyzed; and teachers andadministrators were interviewed. Stillwe bought our house based solely onfalling in love with it. We did not buywhere the best schools were located.We convinced ourselves that we wouldwork with our children at home. Theywould not be hurt at schoolwewould make up the difference.

Our daughter, Amedee, would attendkindergarten the day after we movedinto our new home. She was as excited

4 Spring 2001

as any child going to school for the firsttime would be. Pictures were taken,and videotapes were made. We metwith the kindergarten teacher on thefirst day of school and explained ourdaughter's reading program. ReadingMastery Fast Cycle 1 /11 was discussed.The teacher explained that she had noexperience with the program but wouldtry to reinforce our daughter's skills atschool. We left thinking it would beokay to have our daughter in a schoolthat didn't use Direct Instruction. Yes,she would be fine. Our kindergartenjourney had begun.

We tried to be the perfect parents,focusing on the good rather thandwelling on the bad. We attended areading success night early in theyear where it was explained how par-

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

ents could best teach and reinforcereading at home. Then came the pro-cedures. Children should read andreread and reread the "books" sentby the school at home. These booksincluded predictable story patterns"Pumpkins by the fence. Pumpkinsby the cat. Pumpkins by the hat.Pumpkins by the scarecrow.Pumpkins everywhere." And ofcourse pictures accompanied thesephrases or sentences. The teacherexplained that these books wouldfacilitate reading. If children.came towords they didn't know, they shouldbe prompted to look at the picture,take a running start, substitute aword that makes sense, or look for alittle word in a big word. Theyshould also stretch out words, butsounds were not systematicallytaught. Implicit versus explicit phon-ics was used in the classroom. Forexample, the directions on typicalworksheets would read, "Point to andname the target letter with the chil-dren. Call attention to the P in thebox with the puppy at the beginningof the row. Ask children to draw aline around each letter P in the row.

6 . Direct Instruction News

Do the same for the puppies and theirbowls and balls. Focus on P and pwhen you play a letter recognitiongame or do a phonics connectionactivity from the teacher guide." Onthe other side of the worksheet, thechildren were to circle the p at thebeginning of words such as paint andpizza and then write the letters P andp on the lines provided. Our daugh-ter, who was being taught to readusing Reading Mastery by us, began toguess at words. She seemed to belosing ground. Error corrections notused by us were being used with her.She began to reverse letters andnumbers. Library books were senthome that were not on her readinglevel; after meeting with the librarianand the teacher about what she couldread, she brought home a book inSpanish!

Our first parent-teacher conference wasalso interesting. We were provided anassessment of our daughter's perform-ance. This assessment had our daugh-ter rate her own performance onwork/social skills (e.g., be responsible,work cooperatively); reading, writingreadiness, and communication skills(e.g., knowledge of letters and sounds,identify sight words, use the traits ofquality writing such asidea/organize/word choice); math skills(e.g., read a graph, estimate using num-bers); and social, physical, life sciences,and health and fitness skills (e.g.,food/nutrition, energy, transportation)by circling a "thumbs up, thumbs side-ways, or thumbs down." We spent timereviewing what our daughter thought ofher own skill performance on fourpages of kindergarten goals such asthese. Interestingly, our daughter ratedall 38 items as "thumbs up" althoughwe knew she had not learned the skillsfor many of the areas noted on theform. We also reviewed the PeabodyPicture Vocabulary Test that wasadministered by the teacher. She dis-cussed all scores in age equivalents say-ing that our daughter was either 1month above or below in specifiedareas. She asked us what we thought ofthe scores. We of course were quick toinform her that age equivalents weredevelopmental scores and could not beinterpreted in this manner. We wanted

to know her skill performance based ondirect observation of her skills inschool. Was that asking too much? Wewere told that Amedee did not knowmany of the letter names (not intro-duced in Reading Mastery to date) andsaid the c sound wrong. When askedwhat the c sound should be, we weretold like the one in "face." Amedee wasproducing the c like in cake!

Then the homework came. One activi-ty was to determine the circumferenceof a pumpkin she had gotten fromschool and find five items at home thatwere as long as the pumpkin wasaround. We quizzed our daughter onthe meaning of circumference. She didnot know. Another sheet came homeon graphing the length of bears in feetand then responding to questions suchas, "how many bears are five feet orshorter?" or, "how many bears are sixfeet in length?" Additionally, ourdaughter was to get on all fours "like abear" and measure from her "snout" toher "tail" and then convert this to feetand inches. Again, our daughter had noidea about measurement, feet, conver-sion, inches, length, or the like. Theyear seemed to progress in this man-ner. When our daughter missed a weekof school, the teacher gathered herhomework saying she was missing somuch. We spent the next few hoursdoing the pasting, coloring, and cuttingthat she had missed in school. Again, athome we were doing Reading Masteryand Connecting Math Concepts lessons.We were working on handwriting.Sleepless nights ensued on our part.We knew that we were settling for aneducation for our daughter. We werenot giving her the best possible educa-tion that we could. What were we todo?

We met with the principal who wasspecial education trained. She hadvisions like we had for education andreform. She sent several teachers to aDirect Instruction school we recom-mended where we had conductedresearch and had seen amazing things.This was a model school that served asa training ground for our students, aplace where DI had been adopted andwas appreciated. In fact the DI teacherof the year for the Association for

Direct Instruction was at this school.The teachers from our neighborhoodschool along with others returned fromtheir visit noting the high performanceof the students but saying it just wasn'tright for the students in their school.

We decided to place our daughter intothe DI school that was 30 minutes away.This required completing a release formfrom our current district. This formasked why we were placing our daugh-ter into another district. We noted thatthe new school used research-validatedcurricula and instruction. The new dis-trict required paperwork too. We notedthat we were placing our daughter intothis district because they used research-validated practices.

We were fortunate to get our daughterinto Evergreen Elementary, and soanother journey began. On the first dayof first grade, a Wednesday, Amedeewas assessed on her knowledge ofsounds. By the end of the week,Amedee was given placement tests forConnecting Math Concepts and ReadingMastery. On the start of the first fullweek of school, Amedee was skillgrouped for reading and math. Duringthe upcoming year, she will receiveinstruction in Spelling Mastery andReasoning and Writing. She also partici-pates in center activities to extend herknowledge and skills. Science andsocial studies round out the curriculum.Of course music and PE are also provid-ed.

We placed our two top students (oneundergraduate and one graduate) intothe school to help provide additionalinstruction in the classroom. Theydescribe a setting where all childrenare learning and expectations are high.They are ever amazed at what theyhave seen in other schools and whatthey are seeing at Evergreen. They arethankful for spending their tuitionmoney so wisely as they experience amodel classroom and school. Theyappreciate observing and learning froma model teacher, one who is the epito-me of effective instructional practice.

We attended the open house forEvergreen Elementary one eveningin September. During the welcome

Direct Instruction News Spring 2001 5rq

and overview provided by the fourfirst grade teachers, we learned of theDirect Instruction goals for the class-room:

All children will learn if we teachthem carefully.

The teacher is responsible for stu-dent success.

Mastery is the goal for every stu-dent.

Learners acquire knowledge at asfast a rate as possible.

The acquisition of academic skillsbuilds high self-esteem.

Students must be actively involved.

Curriculum provides a logical andsystematic means for accountability.

The sounds from the Reading Masteryprogram were modeled and practicedwith the parents. A pronunciationguide was sent home with each parent.The discipline plan was reviewed. Thehomework plan was discussed. Wesmiled when homework was describedas additional independent practice(homework would be sent home from10 lessons ago). The teachers actually

showed data from previous years not-ing the reading performance of firstgrade students at Evergreen. Data! Wehad died and gone to heaven. Wewanted to leap up and shout "Yessss!"but we thought our enthusiasm mightbe misread for insanity. We kept turn-ing around to see the looks on thefaces of the other parents. We were inshock, but were others? It seemed thatmost just shook their heads andsmiled. Can you truly appreciate anexample of something unless you haveexperienced a nonexample?

As we are writing this piece we have tosmile and feel lucky. Our daughterloves school and feels smart becauseshe is smart. Academic success bringsimproved self-esteem. Listening to herread in bed at night makes us thankfulthat we made the choice for bettereducation. Saying she will be okay issimply not good enough. We want thebest for our child. And of course we arethinking ahead to our son (now 4) whois attending a preschool in our depart-ment that we funded through a stategrant. Language for Learning is the cur-riculum to be used. When he attendskindergarten, he will receive not onlyLanguage for Learning but Reading

Mastery. How novel to provide thesecurricular materials for kindergartners!

Now we will have to take the educa-tion of our children 1 year at a time.Students whose neighborhood schoolis Evergreen, next year and for sub-sequent years, could bump our chil-dren out of Evergreen. But we willlive for today and worry about tomor-row each August.

So what is the moral of this story? Buya house in the right district? Don't fallin love with the perfect house? Getyour child into a Direct Instructionschool or classroom? Having experi-enced a school that does not align withour beliefs about instruction and thenexperiencing one that does has taughtus several lessons. Chief among thoseis never compromise on what youknow is best for your child. Have highstandards and expectations becausethey involve your child and his or herfuture. Developing a life long learner isa fragile thing. We learned much onour journey in kindergarten. Yes therewere bumps in the road but our jour-ney in first grade (and with luck muchbeyond that) is smooth sailing! We arelooking forward to this journey.

LARRY E. DiCHIARA, Ed.D., Coordinator of Curriculum and Instruction, Lee County School System, Opelika, Alabama

The Power of One

How often have we heard that one per-son cannot possibly make a difference?In a world as diverse as ours, in a socie-ty as fast-moving as it is, in communi-ties and schools grown weary from thepummeling of daily challenges, com-plex issues, and growing disengage-ment, it is no wonder that many indi-viduals feel helpless.

Teachers are no different. They facecomplex problems with few simplesolutions and those problems are notgoing away. Many simply do notbelieve that they can make a differ-ence. Nor do they feel that they know

6 Spring 2001

how or that they would be given thefreedom to try even if they were will-ing to take the risk of doing what mustbe done to make a difference. I amreminded of the expression: If wealways do what we have always done,we will always get what we havealways gotten!

Ron Edmonds (1983) once said, "Howmany effective schools must you see tobe persuaded of the educability of allchildren ?...we already know more thanenough to educate any child whoseeducation is of interest to us. Whetheror not we educate all of our children

BEST COPY AVAILABLE- s

8

well depends first on how we feelabout, and then on what we do about,the fact that we haven't so far."

This is a story of how a variety of indi-vidualsone by onemade a differ-ence in one school systemLeeCounty School System in Lee County,Alabama. It tells how these individualspersevered to successfully install andimplement one or more DirectInstruction programs and how they didit despite many obstacles. Paramountamong the obstacles are the myths,untruths, and misunderstandings ofDirect Instruction with which we areall too familiar. My story follows a briefdiscussion of what I call a "DirectInstruction Paradox."


Direct InstructionParadoxDirect Instruction (DI) has beendescribed as explicit instruction, atechnique, a philosophy, a method, ahighly structured and uniquelysequenced curriculum, a data-drivenblueprint of instruction that is bothefficient and effective. DI is somethingof a paradox, however. It has beenfound, time and time again, in researchstudy after research study, to be one ofthe most effective methods of instruc-tion that has ever existed. Yet, today, tomainstream educators, DI continues tobe the Rodney Dangerfield of instruc-tional methods.

Ellis and Fouts (in Research OnEducational Interventions, 1997) stated,"...One seldom finds any written criti-cism (of DI) from the critics. DI seemsto be basically ignored, much like brus-sels sprouts, primarily based on person-al distaste." This distaste is primarilydue to the regimented nature of theinstruction, the scripting, the tight con-trols and design of the programs. Butthese are integral components withoutwhich DI would not be the efficientand effective form of instruction that itis.

Those who have thoroughly reviewedthe literature, or better yet, have usedDI with students, remain steadfastlyconvinced of its effectiveness. At thesame time, educators who think thatthey know the tenets, philosophy, andscope of Direct Instruction (when theyreally don't), often lead the charge tokeep it out of the "regular" classroom,becaue, "...certainly you know thatDirect Instruction is for 'special' stu-dents; it is a remedial program..." andon and on ad nauseam.

Many naysayers use the old argumentthat DI stifles creativity. One of myexasperated colleagues often retorts,"Would someone please tell me what isso inherently creative about producingilliterate children!" Ellis and Fouts(1997) agree, "...it could be argued thatteacher creativity is not the end productof schooling, student learning is." Theygo on to say, "Imagine doctors rejecting


a treatment, not because it didn't work,but because it cramped their style, orstifled their creativity." This begs thequestion as to why a patient has theright to expect that doctors or surgeonsfollow researched and proven proce-dures lest they be charged with mal-practice, yet we do not hold teachers tothe same standards?

Success StoryLee County School System is locatedin rural east Alabama. The system con-sists of 4 high schools, 2 middleschools, and 6 elementary schools.There are 9,100 students (78% white,22% black). Approximately 42% of thestudents qualify for the free or reducedmeals program. Yet, on the mostrecently administered SAT-9, LeeCounty students scored at the 53rdpercentile (50th percentile is thenational average). On the STAR read-ing assessment, only 43% of the coun-ty's 1st-6th graders read below thenational average (compared to 50%that score at or below average national-ly). As revealed by the following story,such scores were not always the case inLee County.

A whole language-based basal serieshas been the adopted reading text inLee County for many years.Approximately 5 years ago (1995),reading levels were so low that schoolofficials decided to invest in a phonics-based supplemental reading programthat was primarily used at the k-2 lev-els. It involved music, movement,singing, etc.

Reading scores showed some improve-ment, but remained well below thenational average. The number of at-risk students continued to grow at allgrade levels, drop out rates remainedhigh, and special education numberswere at 18%, well above the state aver-age of 12%.

During this time, regular educationteachers and administrators were unfa-miliar with DI. Only a handful of spe-cial education teachers were using DI.These special education teachers hadreceived their training from Dr. Craig

9

Darch via Auburn University'sLearning Disabilities program. CraigDarch was a student under the devel-opers and early pioneers of DIZigEngelmann, Doug Carnine, WesBecker and otherswhile at theUniversity of Oregon. As Coordinatorof Special Education in Lee County atthat time, I very often found myselfbeing verbally assaulted by DI teach-ers who were appalled at the fact thatI, as a school system administrator, wasallowing other special education teach-ers to use a multitude of methods andmaterials that were "inferior" to DI.They had data to prove it! And theyshowed it to me at every opportunity!

Finally, I began studying the data andlistening to their mantra, and eventual-ly I became absolutely convinced thatthey were telling me the truth and Ineeded to try and do something tomake a difference. One of the teacherseven said to me, "If you sit back andcontinue to allow this to happen, youought to be charged with child abuse!"And she was S-E-R-I-O-U-S!! (Note tothe reader: This ONE person reallymade a difference.)

I began the process of trying to edu-cate and convince others of the powerof DI. It was not a difficult task to con-vince special education teachers to tryit because they were usually desperatefor materials and seemed to constantlysearch for things that might work withtheir students who were suffering fromdysteachia. Oops, I mean dyslexia.

In 1996, at a time when I was At-RiskCoordinator for Lee County SchoolSystem, the State of Alabama'sDepartment of Education allocated at-risk funds to all local school systemsbased on the number and poverty levelof students in each district. Because ofthe success demonstrated with specialeducation students, the county chose toinvest a majority of its funds into DIreading programs for at-risk students.

Fortunately, as the At-Risk Coordinator,I was given almost total autonomy tomap out the intervention strategy forthe county. We proposed the at-riskinitiative as ASAP (As Soon As

Spring 2001 7

Possible) in order to stress a sense ofurgency. Our Superintendent ofEducation was convinced of the initia-tive's potential and approval wasobtained from the school board.

That's when the real challenge began.How were we going to serve the at-riskstudents with limited funds and reluc-tant teachers and administrators? Webegan by contacting unemployed, cer-tified teachers who lived in the LeeCounty area. We offered them anopportunity to teach reading to at-riskstudents, everyday, at the same school,to the same students, 5 periods perday, for $54 per day, without insuranceor other benefits. We started with 10teachers and trained them on ReadingMastery and Corrective Reading. Theyserved 6-8 students per period at eachschool, a total of 83 students in grade 4,51 students in grades 7-8, and 24 stu-dents in grades 9-10.

When the initiative began, the averageSAT-9 percentile rank of the 158 at-risk students was 15. After 106 days ofinstruction, the average percentile rankof the same 158 students was 27a 12-percentile point gain. Remember thatthis was accomplished by unemployed,semi-trained, inexperienced, first-yearteachers who had never taught a day intheir lives! Should we not expect evenbetter results if this were being carriedout by well-trained, experienced, vet-eran teachers?

During the 1997-98 school year, weexpanded the program to include 13teachers ($66 per day!) and 252 stu-dents. The net overall gain was 9 per-centile points. In 1998-99, we workedwith 16 teachers and 340 elementaryand junior high students. The per-centile gain was 10 points. In1999-2000,16 teachers worked with355 students and gained 11 percentilepoints. All of these gains were takingplace while the remainder of theschool system achieved 1-3 pointincreases or 1-3 point decreases. Aninteresting side note: Lee County hasnow hired 40 of the 55 DI teachers asfull-time teachers because of their suc-cess and hard work, their dedicationand willingness to sacrifice, and

8 Spring 2001

because they had become reading spe-cialists. This program served as a year-long training and proving ground forthese teachers.

Because of the success with specialeducation and at-risk students, DIbegan to emerge in the eyes of manyof our teachers and administrators as aviable program. DI began springing upin after-school tutorial programs, sum-mer remedial programs, and so on.Many teachers asked for training.Some elementary teachers requestedpermission to use it in their regularclassrooms. Some principals allowed it,others did not. Some Title teachersbegan to use DI, while othersremained leery.

In 1996-97, Loachapoka ElementarySchool scored at the 35th percentile onthe SAT-9 Composite Battery. Theschool was placed on the StateDepartment's Academic Alert list,which meant that if scores did notimprove significantly over a two-yearperiod, the school could be taken overby the state. Loachapoka had a longhistory of low academic achievement.The school serves approximately 335students: 99% minority, low socioeco-nomic, majority from one-parenthomes. Because of the Academic Alertstatus, and because of our success withspecial education and at-risk studentsin other schools, the superintendentallowed us to take what appeared atthat time to be drastic measures. Ateam of our best DI teachers trainedthe entire elementary staff atLoachapoka. To make a very long storyshort, Loachapoka scored at the 50thpercentile at the end of that year. Theschool was given Academic Clear sta-tus and schools from all over the stateof Alabama now visit Loachapoka tosee DI in action. Although DI played amajor role in this success story, it isimportant to point out that factorsother than DI contributed to the suc-cessfactors such as test incentives,university partnerships, weekly facultymeetings, etc.

The Lee County School System decid-ed to require all newly hired teachersto go through a 3-day training in DIwhether they used the programs or

not. The training simply made thembetter language arts teachers andhelped them understand the finedetails and complexities of languageacquisition. More importantly, we hada captive audience that was open-minded and soon came to discoverwhy DI was so effective and harmless.Simply put: The training dispelled themyths that existed about DI andhelped these new teachers to not beafraid! Our school system now con-ducts 2 local trainings and 2 trainings atthe State Department of Education'sMega Conference in Mobile, Alabama.Each of these free trainings is typicallyattended by between 125-180 teach-ers.

Currently, every school in the LeeCounty School System uses DI tosome extent. At last count, 168 teach-ers were teaching either ReadingMastery, Corrective Reading, Language forLearning, Spelling Mastery,Morphographic Spelling, Reasoning andWriting, or Connecting Math Concepts.Although 168 is 160 more than the 8teachers who were using DI just 5years earlier, it is still well below thenumber that we hope to reach.

10

Because of the numerous DI initiativesbeing implemented in our system, wehired one of our best and most experi-enced DI teachers to serve as resourceteacher/coach to any teacher who isusing DI program(s). This continuousassistance and training helps to ensurethe fidelity of the instruction.

Also because of the various DI imple-mentations, Lee County Schoolsreduced special education referralsfrom 171 to 108 over the period of oneyear. The State Department is nowpartnering with our system to use ourmodel as a means of reducing specialeducation numbers across the state.

As of July 2000, more than 276 schoolsin the State of Alabama were using DIto some extent. According to Dr.Katherine Mitchell, Coordinator of theAlabama Reading Initiative, this meansthat over 50% of the schools participat-ing in the Alabama Reading Initiativeare using DI.


I recently completed a doctoral disser-tation study which showed that at-riskfourth graders who received DI read-ing significantly outperformed at-riskfourth graders who received instructionwith the traditional basal reader. ThisONE study adds to the growing bodyof research supporting DI.

Some final thoughts on the power ofone: One person CAN make a dif-

ferenee one university professor;special education teachersone byone; resource teachers one by one;one special education coordinator; oneat-risk coordinator; one superintend-ent; courageous principalsone byone; $54 DI teachersone by one;Title teachersone by one; after-school tutorsone by one; and, finally,the many regular teachers who step

out of their comfortable boxes and dareto try another wayone by one.

It is my hope that this story of one smallrural school system's journey may serveas a source of inspiration and a catalystfor those who want to make a differenceand simply don't know where to start. Itis our belief, and our promise, that it is afight worth fighting!

MARTIN KOZLOFF, University of North Carolina at Wilmington

Responding to the Crisisin EducationExcerpts from the Keynote Address given at the Third Southeast DIConference in Orlando, Florida. June, 2000

The British historian, Arnold Toynbee,spent a good chunk of his life studyingcivilizations living and gone. He sum-marized what he found with three rules.

First rule. Civilizations sooner or later arein crisis. Their major institutions don'twork very well anymore, and thereforelose legitimacy.

Second rule. Civilizations fail whenleaders don't notice a crisis; when lead-ers deny a crisis exists; or when leaders'responses worsen a crisis.

Third rule. Civilizations that don'tadapt to crisis don't just disappear.They are taken over, and trans-formedmore gradually or more sud-denlyeither by outsiders or disaffect-ed insiders, or by an alliance of out-siders and insiders.

The field of education, or Edland, is inor is fast approaching a crisis. It can'tsustain itself with its unsatisfactoryoutcomes, its fanciful theories of learn-ing and instruction, its inept teachingpractices, and its programs of teacherindoctrination and ill preparation. Andit's certain that the leaders of Edlandwho are at the root of the crisisandwho enjoy power and prestigewill


not admit their culpability and will notmake needed changes that wouldlower their social positions.

Therefore, by rule 3, I conclude thatEdland is ready to be transformedeither by outsiders (that is, the politicalstate), by disaffected insiders (that is,by DI and our alliesthe foundations,consumer groups, applied behavioranalysts, and others who advocate ele-mentsfirst, logically organized,research-based, focused instruction), orbest yet, transformed by an alliance ofthe political state with us and ourallies. I'll give some evidence to sup-port the three propositions, describeevents in New Hanover County, NorthCarolina, that illustrate the proposi-tions, and end with some generaliza-tions from what we've learned.

Listen: Edlandis in a State of CrisisEdland is an enormous and astonishing-ly expensive arrangement of schools ofeducation, publishers, and organizationssuch as the National Council ofTeachers of English, the NationalCouncil of Teachers of Mathematics,

the National Association for theEducation of Young Children, and theNational Council for the Accreditationof Teacher Education. Edland providescurricula to public schoolscurriculawhich reveal their creators' superficialunderstanding of logical design. Newteachers are trained to deliver these cur-ricula in public schools via "progres-sive" forms of instructionwhichincreasingly resemble group therapy.Edland justifies its curricula andinstruction with a so-called researchbase on "best" and "developmentallyappropriate practices"a research baseconsisting largely of anecdotes, authors'opinions, and pre-experimental researchdesigns. And Edland maintains an appa-ratus of conferences and publicationsthat disseminate always innovativebut seldom effectivemodels of schoolreform, classroom instruction, andteacher training. The apparatus func-tions to legitimize Edland's existenceand activities, and to hide the failures inEdland's outcomes and the ineptitudeof its leaders.

The manifest function of public schoolsfor society, the reason for their exis-tence, and what families and teachersby and large want public schools to do,is prepare children for adulthood bytransmitting culturethat is, dissemi-nating and inculcating the conceptualknowledge, practical skills, and moralprinciples accumulated by a society andneeded for competent participationorcitizenshipin society. Edland's mostobvious malady is failure to serve itsmanifest functions. With slight differ-ences from state to state, about forty

Sprit/ 2001 9

1 1 BEST COPY AVAILABLE

percent of high school students are poorreaders. Thirty percent of high schoolstudents can't solve everyday mathproblems or write coherent essays. Wefind the same figures on reading andmath in elementary schools, where thegaps in achievement begin betweenminority/disadvantaged andwhite/advantaged children. These earlygaps in reading and math spread to writ-ing, science, and all subjects thatdepend on reading and math. The earlydisparities in achievement, and later,low self-expectations and weak effort aswell, solidify very different life coursesfor children from different socioeco-nomic, cultural, and so-called "racial"backgrounds. We know from 30 years ofwork in DI that these inequalities inlearning and in life course are unneces-sary. And therefore we feel morally obli-gated to deem immoral the malinstruc-tion of new teachers and their publicschool students, and (with ThomasJefferson) we question whether arepublic has long to live when so manyof its young citizens are being turnedinto a culturally illiterate mass.

Who Sees the Crisis?In large part, a societal crisis is a crisisbecause it is seen as such by folks whomatter. Political coercion, for example,doesn't put a society in crisis unlesssufficient numbers of the populationfind coercion intolerable, and believe adifferent form of politics is possible.Therefore, the questions are, "Doimportant groups find the outcomesand the operation of Ed land intolera-ble? And do they see a better way?"The answers are a loud "Yes."

It's becoming clear to school superin-tendents and school boards; to aca-demics in fields with serious knowl-edge bases (such as mathematics, his-tory, and business); to wealthy thinktanks and foundations; to consumergroups of families who give their chil-dren to the care of public schools; andto folks who receive direct conse-quences for rational vs. irrationalthinking (namely, farmers and businesspersons in state legislatures); thatEd land isn't working. Observers of theeducation scene, such as E. D. Hirsch,

10 Spring 2001

Jr. (in The schools we need and why we don'thave them), Sandra Stotsky (in Losingour language), Rita Kramer (in Ed schoolfollies), Richard Mitchell (in The gravesof academe), Diane Ravitch (in Left hack:A century of failed school reforms), JeanChall (in The academic achievement chal-lenge), Charles Sykes (in Dumbing downour kids), and Arthur Bestor (inEducation wastelands), all point to theintellectual frivolity, the doctrinal theo-logicality, and almost compulsive atten-tion to everything but what is impor-tant to instruction, that characterize edschool thinking and curricula.

The Takeoverand TransformationEvidence that education is beingtransformed or taken over by outsideforces comes from several differentforms of legislation enacted inresponse to public pressures. There isstringent accountability legislation in atleast half a dozen stateslegislationwith regulations, with financing, withenormous data bases on studentachievement, and with teeth.Legislation that mandates higherachievement; that mandates closingthe gap between minority and whitestudents; that demands research-basedcurricula; that rewards schools that dothe right thing and punishes schoolsthat won't. Here are relevant sectionsof North Carolina's statute on reading(Section 115C-81.2. Comprehensiveplan for reading achievement):

(a) The State Board of Education shalldevelop a comprehensive plan toimprove reading achievement in thepublic schools...The plan Shall bebased on reading instructional prac-tices for which there is strong evi-dence of effectiveness in existingempirical scientific research studieson reading development...The planshall, if appropriate, include revisionof the standard course of study, revi-sion of teacher certification stan-dards, and revision of teacher educa-tion program standards.

(b) The State Board of Education shallcritically evaluate and revise thestandard course of study so as to

provide school units with guidancein the implementation of balanced,integrated, and effective programsof reading instruction. The GeneralAssembly believes that the first,essential step in the complexprocess of learning to read is theaccurate pronunciation of writtenwords and that phonics, which isthe knowledge of relationships ofthe symbols of the written lan-guage and their sounds of the spo-ken language, is the most reliableapproach to arriving at the accuratepronunciation of a printed word.Therefore, these programs shallinclude early and systematic phon-ics instruction.

(c) In order to reflect changes to thestandard course of study and toemphasize balanced, integrated, andeffective programs of readinginstruction that include early andsystematic phonics instruction, theState Board of Education, in collab-oration with the Board of Governorsof The University of North Carolinaand with the North CarolinaAssociation of IndependentColleges and Universities, shallreview, evaluate, and revise currentteacher certification standards andteacher education programs withinthe institutions of higher educationthat provide coursework in readinginstruction.

(d) Local boards of education areencouraged to review and reviseexisting board policies, local curric-ula, and programs of professionaldevelopment in order to reflectchanges to the standard course ofstudy and to emphasize balanced,integrated, and effective programsof reading instruction that includeearly and systematic phonicsinstruction.

Do the leaders of the ed establishmentsee state accountability legislation andmandated forms of research-basedinstruction as signs of crisis in theireffectiveness, their legitimacy, and theirsocial positionas public schools nowclearly do? No. This legislation is seenas an unwarranted intrusion. Theysay, "We don't need the state to man-


date how or what we teach. We candecide for ourselves. We're profession-als." Legislatures are more than tired ofthis defensive posturing. They knowthat the electorate wants its kids toread better, to do math better, and toknow something of American history.

Movements toward vouchers, charterschools, and alternative routes ofteacher certification provide furtherevidence that Ed land is being trans-formed. The voucher and charterschool movements clearly say that largenumbers of the public no longer judgethe ed establishment as having muchlegitimacy, much credibility, or muchhope of improving in their children'sschool lifetimes. But do the leaders ofEd land read the signs this way? No,again. Instead, they try to invalidate themessage by branding it a right wingeffort to gain political control.Alternative routes to teacher certifica-tion offer lateral entry for folks whohave degrees in other fields, and evencrash programs only six weeks long insome states, including North Carolina.The research says that these teachersdo just as well or better than four-yearschool of ed teachers. And these alter-native forms of certification are fundedand certified by state legislatures. Thisclear handwriting on the wall is lost onthe education professoriat, who can'timagine that anyone can teach newteachers better, for less money, and inone-fourth the time. But schools ofeducation are beginning to be evaluat-ed along the same lines and by thesame legislative groups holding publicschools accountable. Politicians underpressure from publics will want toknow what evidence justifies the exis-tence of expensive ed schools.

Remember that rule 3 states that civi-lizations in crisis are taken over andtransformed either by outsiders or bydisaffected insiders or by an alliance ofoutsiders and insiders. Lessons fromancient Greece (the battle at Marathonfought in 491 BC and the battle atThermopylae fought in 480 BC) tell usthat alliances are essential. We DIinsiders must form alliances with oth-ers outside of Edland if we are to pre-vail in our efforts to transform Edland.By staying home to fight local educa-


tional battles rather than also coordi-nating and focusing force where it mat-ters mostnamely, the state depart-ments of public instruction and statelegislatureswhere accountability lawsand phonics laws and math laws arepassed, and where textbooks areapprovedwe eventually may lose bat-tles at the local level as well.Educationists don't care about data onwhat worksunless they are forced byhigher powers. Therefore, we mustprovide the politicians, the think tanks,the foundations, and the consumergroups with well-designed packets ofresearch data on what works and onwhat is bunk. We must deliver to legis-latures, newspapers, and PTAs, rationalcritiques of Edland and its follycri-tiques that stress the irresponsibilityand therefore immorality of unre-searched faddish pedagogies and curric-ula. We must provide principals, PTAs,boards of education, departments ofpublic instruction, and even churches,clear descriptions of DI as an alterna-tivewith videotapes, model class-rooms, and data on achievement. Andwe must become speakers with theguts to go against the ed establishmentat school board meetings, at state con-ferences, and at department of publicinstruction and legislative panels.These are our weapons.

What's Happeningin New Hanover Countyin North CarolinaNorth Carolina has a model ofaccountability with explicit contingen-cies of reward and punishment.Schools meeting yearly growth objec-tives are eligible for monetary rewardsand recognition as a School ofExcellence, School of Distinction, etc.Schools who do not meet growthobjectives are designated "low-per-forming" and are eligible for grants andtechnical assistance. If a low-perform-ing school does not meet objectives bythe end of the next year, the principalmay be fired. Students are heldaccountable also. Students who do notpass state tests given at grades 3, 5, 8,and 12 may not go on to the nextgrade. This accountability model has

13

had significant effects on administra-tors and teachers.

First effect.County and school adminis-trators believe that the accountabilitysystem is here to stay. Therefore, it isunderstood that time is not on the sideof schools whose students are notlearning. These schools have to act;they have to change something now.

Second effect. District administratorsand school principals examine everystudent's and every class' achieve-ment. They know exactly how wellstudents are doing. Teachers are teach-ing overtime.

Third effect. Administrators and teach-ers feel pressure to help studentsachieve from the beginning of the year,and to help at-risk children learn lan-guage, reading, and school skills asearly as possible (that is, pre-k), sothey will be proficient by the thirdgrade gateway.

Fourth effect. Teachers, principals, anddistrict administrators understand thatrhetoric (such as "We're child-cen-tered."), anecdotal and qualitativedata, and deflecting responsibility forlow scores onto teachers, children, andfamilies, no longer gains approval oravoids the aversive consequences oflow student achievement. In otherwords, there is a rule implied in theaccountability model, and the rule isthat socioeconomic status, minoritygroup status, teacher attitude, andfamily background are only coinciden-tally related to achievement. Theproximal and material cause ofachievement and failure is curriculumand instruction. And unlike the excusevariablesof class, race, teacher, andfamilycurriculum and instructioncan be changed.

Given administrators' and teachers'drivenness to raise achievement, theirincreased attention to achievementdata, and the obvious implication thatthey have to change something, wefound that providing administratorsand teachers with hard evidence thatDI fosters exactly the sort of achieve-ment prescribed by the state (such asdata from project Follow Through,

Spring 2001 11

videotapes of kindergartners reading)led many principals and teachers tosee DI as a less costly and morerewarding set of beliefs, design princi-ples, and teaching methods. For exam-ple, principals came to know thatReading Recovery costs about $100,000 ayear of Title I funds and "services"only about 20 children, while a full-school implementation of DI languageand reading costs less than one-fourththat amount and teaches ALL the chil-dren to read. For many administrators,the choice was clear and the decisionto use DI was easy.

Here are the steps by which DI wasgradually integrated into New HanoverCounty as a major part of its curricu-lum reform:

First step: Getting DI started. InOctober, 1998, one school was usingDI Language for Learning and ReadingMastery schoolwide. The schoolserved mostly minority and disadvan-taged children. Its reading proficiency,and its composite reading, writing, andmath proficiency on state tests were ashigh or higher than in affluent schoolsnot using DI.

By November of 1998, one new school,also in a disadvantaged area, implement-ed Language for Learning and ReadingMastery in one class for each of gradesk-2. This principal shared her datashowing the rapid achievement growthof the children in the DI classes withthe principal of a second school servingdisadvantaged children. The principal ofthe second school asked FrancesBessellieu and me how to increase read-ing achievement of her upper elemen-tary students. We recommendedCorrective Reading. With less than amonth left of school, her kids in grades3-5 were tested and placed, materialswere ordered, teachers received initialtraining, and DI was now in a secondnew school. But this each-one-teach-one form of dissemination would proba-bly take a decade to reach all schools.That brings us to step 2.

Second Step: Summer School. Theexecutive director of elementary educa-tion, Justine Lerch, was impressed bywhat was happening in the two schools.She took advantage of the opportuni-

12 Spling 2001

tynamely the availability of DI curric-ula and the momentumand boldlyoffered to pay for DI materials in sum-mer school at any elementary schoolthat wanted to use DI. All the principalstook her up on this. Frances and Ihelped test and place children; provid-ed training; made visits to coach; andcreated simple instruments for teachersto assess their teaching and children'ssocial behavior. We also helped teacherscollect data on the number of lessonsmastered. Evaluative data were com-municated very quickly to principals,teachers, the executive director of ele-mentary education, and the superin-tendent, Dr. John Morris. All but two ofthe 59 teachers were very satisfied withwhat DI had done for the 486 childrenin summer school. Some teachers said itwas the first time in 25 years they feltthey were teaching. The data on lessonsmastered showed that minority childrenstarted well behind white children, butmastered more lessons, and would havecaught up in another month or so. Inother words, the 18 days of DI summerschool provided data that led almostevery principal to plan with us DIimplementations for the coming year. Italso produced a cadre of somewhatexperienced DI teachers, who liked DI,in every school.

Third step: DI in affluent schools.The director of elementary educationidentified two affluent schools with alarge minority/white achievement gapto pilot test DI as a way to close thatgap generally in the countyas man-dated by the state. One of these twoschools had just missed receivingexemplary status on the NorthCarolina accountability modelmainlybecause the minority kids scored solow. The principal and staff of thatschool were unhappy about being tar-geted for curriculum reform. However,the staff and principals of the twoaffluent schools realized they had to dosomething different to raise children'sachievementboth to satisfy theirimmediate boss, the director of ele-mentary education, and to satisfy thestate. Again, we helped to test andplace students. We taught the languagearts coordinators (former ReadingRecovery teachers) to order materials.We gave training to all teachers andprovided periodic group meetings and

individual coaching. Most important,we helped them to supervise andcoach themselves.

Data for these two affluent schoolswere very favorable. Children inReading Mastery made progress at twicethe expected rate, and minority chil-dren slightly outpaced white childrenat the same level. Schools' scores onend-of-grade writing tests were muchhigher than before DI. Kids whoreceived Reading Mastery generally didbetter on the state tests than kids who,in the judgment of teachers, had notneeded DI, and so instead receivedthe usual implicit phonics curriculum.There is no question that the princi-pals and staff saw these increases aslargely the result of DI. The two afflu-ent schools have become models forother affluent schools with large minor-ity/white achievement gaps. Theseother affluent schools had small DIimplementations this year. Now theyare planning larger ones.

Fourth and Final Step: A consor-tium. This year we created a consor-tium of six elementary schools and afeeder pre-k center (which has man-aged to combine the High /ScopeCognitive Curriculum, Language forLearning, and Reading Mastery). Theseven schools serve the same disadvan-taged and highly transient population.The mission is to have the schools usethe same DI curricula, so that as stu-dents move from one school to another,receiving teachers will know how to re-test and place them. This will give thekids a more coherent education. It alsofurther institutionalizes DI as the wayto solve the problem of disadvantagedchildrenthe problem being the rightcurricula. In addition, since affluentkids are in the same DI classes, it helpsinstitutionalize DI as a way to reliablyand effectively teach all students.

Guidelines Basedon What We LearnedFirst Guideline: We did not openlywork to get DI into the county.DI was presented as part of somethinglargernamely, curriculum reform inNew Hanover County. DI was present-

14 Direct Instruction News

ed as one means of helping the countyachieve four reform goals with whichvirtually no one could disagree. Thesegoals are:

1. To raise the achievement of all chil-drenas mandated by the NorthCarolina accountability model.

2. To close and to prevent the achieve-ment gap between minority andwhite childrenalso mandated bythe North Carolina accountabilitymodel.

3. To intervene early and proactivelywith powerful curricula in language,reading, and school skills for chil-dren in pre-k, kindergarten, andgrade 1 at risk of failure academical-ly and behaviorally.

4. To increase teachers' skills ininstruction, evaluation, collabora-tion, and school reform.

By getting educatorsfrom curriculumdirectors at the county level to teachingassistants in classroomsto focus on thelarger shared mission of raising children'sachievement, and to see DI as onerationally chosen means to that end, DIwas less of a threat. In fact, with video-tape evidence of great DI lessons, andwith project Follow Through graphsshowing how well DI works in waysconsistent with state mandates andcounty reform goals, DI became some-thing that teachers and administratorswanted to learn more about.

Second guideline: New DIcurricula did not replace existingcurricula and materials (e.g.,Houghton Mifflin, Accelerated Reader, oreven Whole Language). Instead, DIwas presented as part of a mixeachcurriculum was seen as contributingsomething to student achievement.Principals and teachers therefore hadto examine achievement, determine ifit needed to be raised, and thendecide how different curricula theyuse contribute to student achieve-ment. For example, Language forLearning was seen as making it possiblefor children to benefit from readinginstruction.


Third guideline: County adminis-trators did not dictate changes.Principals and teachers themselves hadto decide to adopt new curricula basedon their own rational decision-making.However, school principles knew thatthe county favored DI (again, becausethe state accountability system madeDI favorable). They knew that thestate was monitoring every student'sachievement and was expecting higherand higher achievement. So, the mes-sage was, "It's up to you to do theright thing and we think you knowwhat that is." This way, there was lit-tle resistance to DI as somethingshoved down anyone's throat.

Fourth guideline: Changes weregradualat a pace that was comfort-able for personnel and that allowedeach next step to be planned on thebasis of evaluation of the last step. Forexample, some schools began withCorrective Reading in grades 3-5. Whenteachers and principals saw how muchkids learned, they decided to useReading Mastery the next year begin-ning in kindergarten.

Fifth guideline: Each schoolappointed a curriculum coordina-tor to oversee testing, placement,materials, and coaching. This per-son obviously performed importantmanagement tasks. Just as important,this person represented DI. This per-son's advice was sought when problemsarose. This was the first person withwhom teachers shared success. Thisperson's presence and continual DIactivities kept DI vibrant and salientsomething to think about, somethinghappening school-wide and not merelyin isolated classrooms, something thathelped define the school. Houghton-Mifflin is a series of books. However, aDI coordinator makes DI more thanmaterials. She/he makes DI a way ofthinking and a way of teaching.

Sixth guideline: Potential adver-saries who could become greatDI teachers, coordinators, orcoaches were given better jobs.Some of the best DI teachers, coordi-nators, and advocates are formerReading Recovery teachers. By acceptingDI, they raised their status in their

1 5

schools and in the countyat the sametime preserving their jobs.

Seventh and final guideline: Weencouraged teachers to be criticalof DIbut to use DI principles tobe critical. It is likely that teacherswhose roles and identities haddepended very much on WholeLanguage, Reading Recovery, or on theirautonomy to teach as they saw fit,would in time occasionally have hardfeelings about DI. To avoid resent-ment, we encouraged teachers to keeptheir eyes open and to write down pos-sible logical faults (for example, inCorrective Reading deduction exercises);to identify exercises for which childrenmight not be properly prepared byprior lessons; to generate better oradditional examples of concepts; andto find typos. In this way, we helpedteachers to see that they were notbeing oppressed by DI, but were wel-come and skilled contributors to DI.

Our last effort is to make NewHanover County a leader at the statelevel, and at the same time to effectchange in state policy favorable to DI.I believe that our frequent e-mailing ofDI achievement data relevant to themoral mission of well-positioned per-sons at the state level; our presenta-tions at department of public instruc-tion conferences; our letters thankinglegislators and department of publicinstruction directors for the accounta-bility legislation and the phonics law;and Frances' being asked to serve on acommittee of the state board of educa-tionnot only help to make DI part ofthe state culture of school improve-ment, but may help put ReadingMastery on the approved list of readingmaterials. Who knows, given wordenough and time, we may get them touse DI rate and accuracy checkouts asthe models for state end-of-grade read-ing tests.

A DI victory in North Carolina isn'tgoing to happen tomorrow. It's juststarted. We realize every day that we'resitting on the lap of the goddess whowill dump us the instant we take herfavor for granted. And so we are thank-ful; we are humble; and we are alwayscombat ready.

Spring 2001 13

FRANCES B. BESSELLIEU, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools. MARTIN A. KOZLOFF, JOHN S. RICE, Watson School

of Education, University of North Carolina at Wilmington

Teachers' Perceptionsof Direct Instruction Teaching

IntroductionDirect Instruction is a series of curricu-la in language, reading, math, and sci-ence published by Science ResearchAssociates, a division of McGraw-Hill.Thirty years of research shows thatDirect Instructionone type offocused instructionfosters rapid andreliable achievement in studentsregardless of ethnicity, "race," familybackground, or socioeconomic status.For example, both large scale andsmaller scale experimental researchcomparing the outcomes of differentforms of instruction show that:

1. Children who are taught math,spelling, reading, and remedial read-ing with Direct Instruction curricu-lasuch as Reading Mastery(Engelmann & Brunner, 1995),Connecting Math Concepts(Engelmann & Carnine, 1992),Corrective Reading (Engelmann,Carnine & Johnson, 1999), andSpelling Mastery (Dixon &Engelmann, 1999)generally out-perform (both academically andwith respect to self-esteem) chil-dren taught with other forms ofinstruction, such as whole languageand "inquiry" methods (Adams &Engelmann, 1996; Becker &Carnine, 1981; Bock, Stebbins, &Proper, 1977; Tarver & Jung, 1995;Vitale, Medland, & Romance,. 1993;Watkins, 1997).

2. The early gains of children whowere taught some subjects withDirect Instruction are sustained inlater grades. For example, Meyer(1984) followed children (predomi-nantly Black or Hispanic) in theOcean Hill-Brownsville section ofBrooklyn who had been taughtreading and math using Direct

.14 Spring 2001

Instruction in elementary school. Atthe end of the 9th grade, these stu-dents were still one year ahead ofchildren who had been in control(nonDirect Instruction) schools inreading, and 7 months ahead of con-trol children in math. Similar resultswere found by Gersten, Keating andBecker (1988). Former DirectInstruction students continued toout-perform children who hadreceived traditional instruction. Inaddition, in contrast to comparisongroups of children who had notreceived Direct Instruction in earli-er years, former Direct Instructionstudents had higher rates of gradu-ating high school on time, lowerrates of dropping out, and higherrates of applying and being accept-ed into college (Darch, Gersten, &Taylor, 1987; Meyer, Gersten, &Gutkin, 1983).

Despite the long history of extensiveevaluation research that supports theeffectiveness of Direct Instruction cur-ricula, Direct Instruction has not beenaccepted in American education aseither a method of choice or even asan equal partner amongst other curric-ula, such as whole language and other"discovery" approaches. Part of thereason is that curriculum decisions atschool and district levels frequentlyrest on the extent to which a curricu-lum or method of instruction connotesfeelings, "philosophies," and value ori-entations that are consistent withthose of education professors, districtcurriculum coordinators, and 11)61teachers and principals, rather than onexperimental data on effectiveness(Ellis & Fouts, 1993; Grossen, 1997;Stone & Clements, 1998). A second,and closely associated reason is thatmany educators have an inaccurateperception of Direct Instruction,

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

borne perhaps of a lack of direct expe-rience with the materials and theirclassroom applications. For example,many educators believe that DirectInstruction:

1. Is "only for certain children"; e.g.,children with special needs or chil-dren who are economically disad-vantaged. In fact, Direct Instructionworks well with all children.

2. Is "drill and kill"; i.e., involvesmassed practice. In fact, DirectInstruction involves carefullyplanned distributed practice.

3. Thwarts teacher creativity becauseteacher-student interaction is guid-ed by scripts in the TeacherPresentation books. In fact, DirectInstruction requires a great deal ofteacher creativity in attending to theneeds and progress of all studentsand in designing expansion activi-ties.

4. Focuses only on basic or rote skills.On the contrary, Direct Instructioncurricula quickly move from foun-dational skills to very high levelconcepts and cognitive strategies.This is evident, for example, in lev-els IIIVI of Reading Mastery, inReasoning and Writing, in ConnectingMath Concepts, in Corrective Reading:Comprehension, and even in the pre-k-2 'curriculum called Language forLearning.

5. Is disliked by teachers and students(Adams & Engelmann, 1996;Tarver, 1998).

The purpose of this paper is to correctsome of the myths about DirectInstruction by providing first-handinformation on how teachers who areusing Direct Instruction actually per-ceive it. It is hoped that this sort ofinformation will help educators to, makemore informed curricular decisions.


The StudyData were collected from all teachers(83) who were using Direct InstructionCurricula (Language for Learning,Reading Mastery, and/or CorrectiveReading) in two situations during1999-2000.

1. Twenty-four teachers from twoaffluent schools in New HanoverCounty whose populations servedboth white children and minoritychildren, many of whom were fromeconomically disadvantaged fami-lies. In these two schools there wasa large discrepancy in readingachievement on state end-of-gradetests. The two schools adoptedDirect Instruction curricula on asmall-scale pilot basis in some class-es to see how well it worked overalland with respect to closing theachievement gap. Many teachers,used to whole language as the over-arching approach to reading, and toReading Recovery as the predominantapproach to remedial reading, werereluctant to use Direct Instructionand voiced many of the commonmyths and reservations. However,these teachers volunteered (werenot ordered by their principals) totry the DI curricula.

2. Summer school classes for at-riskchildren or for children who neededremedial instruction in 20 elemen-tary schools in New Hanover.Summer school was one month induration and involved 486 studentsand 59 teachers.

At the end of the summer school pro-gram and at the end of the school year,all of the DI teachers filled out aninstrument entitled, "Teachers' Self-Assessment of Direct InstructionTeaching." In addition to rating them-selves on instructional skills (such aspacing and error corrections), teachersanswered three open-ended questions:(1) How has using DI been beneficialfor your students? (2) How has usingDI been beneficial to you? (3) Canyou see yourself using DI in thefuture? If so, why? If not, why not?Teachers understood that theirresponses would help to determine


whether or the extent to which DIwould continue to be used in theirschools; e.g., whether after summerschool, it would be adopted for classesduring the academic year, or whether,in the two affluent schools, it shouldbe used school-wide. Therefore,teachers understood that they werewelcome to give negative evaluations.Following are all of the responses ofthe 83 teachers.

How has using DIbeen beneficial

for your students?"I feel I am really helping those chil-dren that already seem predestined tobe 'below level' and 'at risk.'"

"It has allowed them to become self-disciplined, better listeners and moreself-confident learners. They are morewilling to attack a word."

"I have been impressed with howquickly children can learn with DI. Itaught a group of children in Language

for Learning during the first semester,and they didn't start Reading Masteryuntil just before Christmas. By January,some of these children were only onlevel 4 of running records, so in onesemester, they grew at least 12 levelsto level 16. I do think that it is best tostart Reading Mastery at the beginningof first grade, if not before. If Languagefor Learning needs to be taught in firstgrade, it should be taught parallel toReading Mastery."

"I've also noticed my children usingthe skills they learned when readingother materials."

"They are excited about reading, say-ing, 'Yeah!' when the lesson gets tostory section."

"It helps students focus as a group.Teaches them to learn to work together."

"My students appreciate the improve-ment in their phonemic awareness,word recognition and fluency. They

17

also work better together as a group asa result of DI."

"I think it helps the children mentallybecause they feel successful and arereading more text; physically becausethey are moving to and from a group;and emotionally because they are suc-cessful with a group of children andnot isolated."

"It has vastly improved their phonicsknowledgeand transference."

"It not only has helped the children inreading, but their writing in their jour-nals has been great!!"

"I really like the program. I felt it leftno gaps in learning. Covered greatmaterial. Consistent and successful."

"I have seen positive growth in stu-dents who had very little self-esteem.It has been wonderful to witness."

"Increased vocabulary and skillsincreased, for example, decoding."

"I definitely see reading scores thathave improved."

"It helps the children focus and prac-tice good listening skills."

"It is a good tool for students withattention problems. The material inthe comprehension book had manylessons that complemented our class-room curriculum."

"I have charted the growth of thesestudents and I have been very pleasedwith the progress. All children didlearn to read."

"I feel that DI has been beneficial tomy students, because some of my non-readers are starting to gain the skillsnecessary to become readers. The stu-dents have expressed to me how goodit feels to be able to read words. Theytruly look forward to their DI grouptime."

"Better listening skills, can followdirections much better, reading skillsimproved, writing skills muchimproved, better group skills, and bet-

Spring 2001 15

ter recall of materials and ideaslearned."

"They seem to have gained a greatdeal of self-confidence through theselessons. They now listen more careful-ly and seem better able to understandcertain concepts (i.e., analogies, syn-onyms, classification) much better."

"DI has allowed my students to read!!!They can sound out words and havethe confidence to even try. I see amajor difference in the DI studentsfrom this year and students reading inprevious years without DI."

"DI is beneficial to students because itfinally brings phonics back to reading!"

"Poor readers need many tools to fig-ure words, and DI brings the neededdecoding. It teaches the children usingpositive reinforcement techniques, toreplace their poor reading habits withsuccessful habits."

"Students really do seem much moreaware of the phonemes in words andthe blending process."

"They understand now that all areexpected to learn and to participate."

"DI has enabled my non-EC studentsto experience success through sequen-tial activities and controlled text. ECstudents were getting this previously.It has allowed many borderline stu-dents to explode in their overall abili-ties and self-confidence."

"My students have greatly benefitedfrom DI. They know letter sounds, candifferentiate betweenletters/words/sentences. They arebeginning to blend sounds and transferto other activities (writing)."

"DI has helped my at-risk-reading stu-dents immensely. Each one of the DIstudents in my class was at least onlevel 16 running record level by theend of the year. Level 16 is the at-grade-level point for first grade, soevery child in my class can read atgrade level going into second grade!"

16 Spring 2001

"DI has helped with confidence andimproved reading and writing skills."

"The students enjoy reading! Theyare learning how to decode as well asvarious spelling patterns. They aremuch more proficient at both. Theyreally enjoy the stories. Their readingpace has picked up as well. It hasgiven the children structure and rou-tine to their reading."

"They feel successful. They'velearned 'rules' to apply during wordattack portions of the lesson. Theylook forward to the lessons."

"DI has given my students more confi-dence in reading, ex. sounding outwords, not embarrassed to do so, followalong with finger when reading, overallconfidence in attitude with group."

"Most of the children have improvedtheir reading level. The children havea lot more confidence in themselves."

"The students and teacher bondedduring our direct instruction. Themethods of instruction can be incorpo-rated throughout the instructional peri-ods during the school day."

How has using DI beenbeneficial to you?"It has kept me very organized andhelps make a more accurate assess-ment of the students. Provided mefamiliarity with the program. Dailyinteraction with students in an instruc-tional rather than administrative role."

"DI is the program I've been waitingfor over my entire career of 27 years! Ihave always believed that repetitionand high child involvement were keysfor reading, especially for children hav-ing difficulty, but DI is the most effi-cient method I've seen."

"It has given me another resource toolto teach reading, comprehension, andwriting."

"This program is good for the childrenwho are below grade level and givesthem a chance to be successful."

"I was able to see in the smaller set-ting specific behaviors in children notnoticed in a larger setting and concen-trate on changing those behaviors thatwere obstacles to their learning."

"It has been a sequential, organizedprogram, building on the skills. Itrequired children to be attentive."

"DI has been beneficial to me becauseall the materials that I need for plan-ning are in the presentation books.Also, the goals/objectives are located inTG., which makes it easier to write myIEP's."

"1 loved the reading series presentedwith DI. I am better at keeping groupattention and recognizing specificproblems our children had. My skills aseducator improved, especially my lis-tening skills and presenting skills. Notonly for DI but other subjects as well."

"It has helped me see problems associ-ated with comprehension and hastaught me different ways of teachingskills and approaching problems."

"DI has been beneficial to me withpersonal satisfaction in seeing growthand improvement for children whostruggle with reading."

"If my children benefit, I benefit! Ithas helped me make certain that everyindividual child is held accountable."

"DI has been helpful in discriminatingbetween at-risk learners who neededsomething different and those whoneed something different and muchmore (i.e., specifically designedinstruction!)."

"DI has accomplished what I couldnever have done on my owncon-vinced teachers that effective researchbased reading practices (those that DIis based on) work!"

"Easy planning! Smooth transitions."


"I enjoyed working with a small groupand watching their growth."

"It had given another way to approachhow to teach reading. All children don'tlearn the same way nor need the sameapproach. This is an easy to learn pro-gram to teach with some great strate-gies for producing strategic readers."

"It has helped me to understand theneed for structure in groups. It has alsogiven me the chance to work with lowachieving groups and to better under-stand their needs."

"I feel like I've helped these childrenlearn to read better and enjoy readingas well as improve their self-confi-dence and self-esteem."

"I am an assistant, and it has been verybeneficial with teaching sounds andreading words. I like the repeated useof DI for myself and I have taken DIto my classroom. I see it beneficial inmy class for those that are not in DIgroups."

"I have enjoyed seeing my childrenprogress in their reading. It's a joy tosee the children feel more confident inthemselves, and see that their readinghas improved so much. They can readnow!"

Can you see yourselfusing DI in the future?If so, why? If not, whynot?"I loved it!! I saw more growth and feltas if I accomplished something everyday!"

"I am excited about using the programin my regular classroom situation. Ihave seen the progress that my chil-dren made in summer school in a mat-ter of 18 days."

"It provided me with a structured wayto teach phonics/decoding. I spent lesstime planning."


"I will use DI in the future. The chil-dren like the lesson and followed alongvery well. I feel that they learned howto form sentences and follow directionsas well as how to stay on task."

"Yes (I can see myself using DI in thefuture). I feel like the program canbenefit a large number of studentswith different learning styles."

"I've been able to use aspects of DI inmy other lessons."

"I would like to use DI in the futurewith my students in addition to otherreading programs."

"Already I catch myself using some ofthe structure of DI in other subjects. Itreally works out well."

"Yes, yes, yes!! The students were suc-cessful, confident, and proud!!!"

"I can see myself using DI in thefuture because it really works."

"Definitely! It is a great way to presentskills in a sequential manner that doesnot assume skills are already present."

"Yes, however, for many of my stu-dents I need to allow more time tosupplement the curriculum withphonemic awareness skills and spellingas well as additional work in compre-hension."

"Yes! It works!"

"Yes, I think it has been beneficial tothe students."

"Yes! It has worked. I don't believeevery child needs it, but those withreading difficulties or that are 'on thefence' can benefit from the programgreatly."

"Yes. I think the Reading Mastery pro-gram helps the children get a betterunderstanding for reading. I like to usethe signals and verbal usage to get kidson task."

"Yes, I love it! It works and I enjoy theprogram."

19

"I would hope that DI would continuehere at "

"Yes! because DI is great for the kids.They learn how to read when we useDI."

Comments SuggestingDifficultiesOut of all of the comments, only fivecomments suggested difficulties. Forexample,

"I found the children had a hard timewaiting for the signal... They had todevelop listening and watchingskills..."

"I feel their attention spans are toolimited for this."

"Children complained about so muchrepetition."

These comments reflect improperplacement. The children referred to inthe first two comments had beenplaced at too high a level; they did notyet have the skills needed for effectiveparticipation. Students referred to inthe third comment had been placed attoo low a level. They did not need therepetition. Ordinarily, these misplace-ments would be caught early in aschool year and corrected. However,given the short duration of summerschool, these misplacements could notbe detected until summer school wasnearly completed.

References

Adams, G.L., & Engelmann, S. (1996).Research on Direct Instruction: 25 years beyondDISTAR. Seattle, WA: EducationalAchievement Systems.

Becker, NV., & Carnine, D.W. (1981). DirectInstruction: A behavior theory model forcomprehensive educational interventionwith the minority. In S.W. Bijou & R. Ruiz(Eds.), Behavior modification: Contributionsto education (pp. 145-210). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bock, G., Stebbins, L., & Proper, E. (1977).Education as experimentation: A planned valia-

Spring 2001 17

tion model (Volume IV -A & B). Effects of fol-

low through models. Washington, D.C.:,AbtAssociates.

Darch, C., Gersten, R., & Taylor, R. (1987).Evaluation of Williamsburg County DirectInstruction program: Factors leading tosuccess in rural elementary programs.Research in Rural Education, 4, 111-118.

Dixon, R., & Engelmann, S. (1999). SpellingMastery. Worthington, OH: SRA/McGraw-Hill.

Ellis, A.K., & Fouts, J.T. (1993). Research oneducational innovations. Princeton Junction,NJ: Eye on Education.

Engelmann, S. & Brunner, E. (1995). ReadingMastery. Worthington, OH: McGraw-Hill.

Engelmann, S., & Carnine, D. (1992).Connecting Math Concepts. Worthington,OH: McGraw-Hill.

Engelmann, S., Carnine, L., & Johnson, G.(1999). Corrective Reading. Columbus, OH:SRA/McGraw-Hill.

Gersten, R., Keating, T, &Becker, W. C.(1988). Continued impact of the DirectInstruction model: Longitudinal studies ofFollow Through students. Education andTreatment of Children, 11, 318-327.

Grossen, B. (1997). What does it mean to be aresearch-based profession. Eugene, OR:University of Oregon School of Education.On-line at http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/-bgrossen/resprf.htm

Meyer, L. (1984). Long-term academic effectsof the Direct Instruction Project FollowThrough. Elementary School Journal, 84,380 -394.

Meyer, L., Gersten, R., & Gutkin, J. (1983).Direct Instruction: A Project FollowThrough success story in an inner-cityschool. Elementary School Journal, 84,241-252.

Stone, J., & Clements, A. (1998). Researchand innovation: Let the buyer beware. InR. Spillane & Paul Regnier (Eds.), The

superintendent of the future (pp. 59-97).

Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers.

Tarver, S. G. (1998). Myths and truths aboutDirect Instruction. Effective School Practices,

17, 1,18-22.

Tarver, S.G., & Jung, J.S. (1995). A compari-son of mathematics achievement andmathematics attitudes of first and secondgraders instructed with either a discovery-learning mathematics curriculum or aDirect Instruction curriculum. EffectiveSchool Practices, /4,49-57.

Vitale, M., Medland, M., & Romance, N.(1993). Remediating reading and thinkingskills of elementary students. EffectiveSchool Practices, 12, 26-31.

Watkins, C. (1997). Project Eollow Through: A

case study of contingencies influencing instruc-

tional practices of the educational establish-

ment. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Centerfor Behavioral Studies.

AMY GRIFFIN, ADI

ADI Awards Given

One of the important roles ADI fills isthe fostering of a "DI community."The Board of Directors develops thiscommunity through various activities,among them a recognition program for'practitioners of Direct Instruction.Each year at the National Direct

'Instruction Conference there is anawards dinner celebrating the achieve-ments not only of DI users but alsostudents and entire schools. Followingis a summary of the recipients of theADI awards for the year 2000.

Excellence in EducationAwardsAnayezuka Ahidiana is one of fourrecipients of an Excellence inEducation Award for teaching andteacher/training. It is a shared feelingwhen Ed Schaefer of EducationalResources, Inc. says that, "Anayezukahas dedicated her life to improvingthe educational opportunities of chil-dren and their teachers." Ahidiana has

18 Spring 2001

used the various DI programs as pri-mary tools in improving the lives ofstudents, teachers, and administrators.Schaefer feels ,so strongly about theimpact Ahidiana has on students liveshe says, "Given the students shetaught so well, the teachers she hastrained so thoroughly, and the schoolsshe has lead so competently; there areor will be literally thousands of menand women whose life's realizationsmay now match the expectations oftheir dreams and the promise of thiscountry."

The phrases "total commitment,""tireless energy," "devoted," and "ontask" appear repeatedly in the recom-mendations from her colleagues andBernice Welchel, Principal of CitySprings Elementary in Baltimore, MDsays that, "Anayezuka has helped tochange the entire culture of our schoolfrom one that did not believe that stu-dents can and should learn to theirmaximum potential to a school thatbeams with pride when students move

3EST COPY AVAILABLE

from one mastery pro-gram to another."

Ahidiana not onlytransforms the lives ofstudents she teachesbut as her nominatorPaul McKinney says,"I have personallywatched her turn the Anayezuka

attitudes and beliefs Ahidiana

of many 'hard toteach' teachers around. Because shebelieves that learning is a lifelonghabit, Aneyezuka continues to honeher teaching and training expertise byattending many of the DI conferencesand training sessions conducted byADI and SRA."

A.

In sum, the words of the team ofcoaches at City Springs Elementaryperhaps most clearly express theextent of the gratitude felt by thosewho work with and benefit from thespirit of Ahidiana. "She serves as amentor to all of the coachesa con-stant source of inspiration, support,encouragement, and motivation. Sheis an excellent trainer; she is thor-ough. The level of respect that ourschool family has for Ms. Ahidiana


speaks volumes about the type of per-son that she is."

Angelica Fazio was recognized as anExcellent Teacher, and she has askedthat her nominator, Patricia Contrerasbe awarded as well because of whatshe refers to as "truly a joint project.""Everything we have done with herclass, has been totally a team effort!"says Fazio.

Contreras describes Fazio as an "inde-fatigable fighter both for literacy and forDirect Instruction" and has been so foralmost two decades. Both Fazio andContreras work within CentralElementary in San Diego, CA.Contreras met Fazio when Fazio wasworking as an ESL Adult FamilyLiteracy Teacher teaching Englishlearning adults how to speak and readEnglish so they might read to their chil-dren. But Fazio had a higher goal; sheused Teach Your Child to Read in 100 EasyLessons so that the non-English speakingadults were learning a method withwhich they could teach their own chil-dren to readwhich many did.

Thus began a relationship betweenFazio and Contreras as Fazio respondedto the request of Contreras to come toher classroom to teach her to teach theDI program and assist with students.Fazio continued as an adult educationteacher while she volunteered extratime in Contreras' k-1 class, andtogether they taught their students toread far above grade level. Contrerasdescribes Fazio as a strong advocate ofDI and also of inner city, impoverishedand less privileged multi-lingual,multi-cultural children. Fazio contin-ues to be a tireless inspiration toContreras and also to the many stu-dents whose lives she changes by thedonation of her time and energy to thecause of literacy and the personalempowerment which comes thereof.

Of Contreras, Fazio says that she is"totally committed to her studentsand remains many hours after schooleach day helping students and prepar-ing her lessons." After facing difficultyacquiring the needed DI materials,Mrs. Contreras purchased the materialswith her own money, exemplifying


her serious dedication. Together Fazioand Contreras are changing the lives ofboth students and teachers as theyraise standards through the implemen-tation of DI.

Ann Fumiko Watanabe of The WaiheeSchool in Maui, HI was recognized asan excellent Teacher Trainer.Watanabe is known for an uncompro-mising dedication to education andreading and to the training of teachersto enhance their teaching skills andproductivity. In a letter of recommen-dation, Lawrence T Joyo, principal ofWaihee School, said that, "Ann inspiresand motivates teachers to teach better.She is actually a classroom practitionerwho epitomizes qualities of education-al leadership and support." "Watanabegenerates enthusiasm and motivationthrough her skills in training fellowteachers in DI and beginning readingstrategies as well as in effectivelyteaching low functioning students toread," said Personnel Specialist II,Michael G. Suzaki.

Despite great resistance by her superi-ors in utilizing the DI strategies,Watanabe never ceased to infuse DI inher special education training modules.Watanabe is often requested to trainother teachers who are frustrated withineffective methods, and she hastrained hundreds of teachers through-out her career. Watanabe follows upwith workshop participants in theschools by doing classroom demonstra-tions and providing technical assistanceto teachers and administrators.

It is Watanabe's belief that all childrencan learn to read successfully thatmotivates her tireless efforts, thathelps other teachers to teach better,and that ultimately gives children thegift of literacy.

Excellent AdministratorAwardSarah Martin-Elam received anExcellence in Education Award for herwork as principal at Siefert ElementarySchool in Milwaukee, WI. Ms.Martin-Elam was a pioneer for the

21

implementation of DIwithin the MilwaukeePublic School System,and that was not asimple operation. Ms.Martin-Elam is such astrong believer in DIand its effectivenessand importance thatshe put her reputationand job on the line tofight for this programshe knew would be sobeneficial to the stu-dents and staff notonly at Siefert, butcity and statewide.Ms. Martin-Elamfaced opposition of DIfrom the MPS centraloffice administratorsas well as from someteachers withinSiefert, and she fought"to be able to usemoney earmarked bycentral office to bespent on an ineffec-tive reading programto purchase DI materi-als instead," said SueOwens, who nominat-ed Ms. Martin-Elam.

Siefert School wasonce one of the lowestperforming schools inthe Milwaukee PublicSchool district. It hadvery few studentsreading at grade leveland the school per-formed poorly on localand state assessments.DI was introduced toSiefert during the94-95 school year andsince then most Siefert students arereading at least on grade level withmany reading above grade level, andthe state test scores have risen signifi-cantly. Not only are the Siefert stu-dents boasting such accomplishments,but the entire school is reaping thebenefits in that teacher stability hasimproved, student attendance hasimproved and these and other suchimprovements have "generated andsustained a school culture in which

Angelica Fazio

Patricia Contreras

Ann FumikoWatanabe

O

4,,szs

Sarah Martin-Elam

Spring 2001 19

these results are benchmarks for con-tinued improvement, not platforms onwhich to rest," according to John S.Gardner, the at-large Director for MPS.

Steven Huffman, LeadershipSpecialist for MPS, states that,"Improvements at Siefert go beyondachievement tests. A walk through thehalls quickly produces a sense of thededication and commitment to excel-lence that Ms. Martin-Elam has engen-dered. All adults are on task and pro-fessional in their behaviors. Studentsappear serious, dedicated and knowl-edgeable. There is a perceptible pur-suit of excellence that cannot bemissed. It is my belief that this envi-able environment that I have describedis because of the building wide dedica-tion to DI. That dedication is directlyattributable to the leadership of Ms.Sarah Martin-Elam."

Because of Ms. Martin-Elam's efforts,perseverance, dedication, and uncom-promising set of standards, SiefertElementary is operating on anunprecedented high level and the staffand students have caught on to that.The school will continue to succeed,thanks to the powerful example set byMs. Martin-Elam.

Excellent School AwardWoodbridge Fundamental School inRoseville, CA is the Excellent Schoolfor 2000. Woodbridge utilizes DI'sReading Mastery, Distar Language,Reasoning and Writing, and ExpressiveWriting. Woodbridge has been using DIcurricula for twenty-eight years, sinceits introduction to the school by MollieGelder. Reading Mastery has remained aconstant throughout the schoolbecause of Mollie's belief in the cur-riculum as well as her determination toutilize a system so beneficial to theWoodbridge School System.

Woodbridge employs schoolwide read-ing that enables the children toprogress quickly and confidently in asmall group at their instructional level.Student progress is monitored andcharted monthly and instructionalaides assist the neediest groups.

20 Spring 2001

One-on-one tutoring, trained volun-teers and an extended school day aresome of the intervention strategies inplace at Woodbridge, ensuring highsuccess rates for students. All teachers,aides, student teachers and volunteers

receive-training-and-all student groupsare monitored for excellence.

Student teachers working atWoodbridge have expressed gratitudefor the training and the experience of"teaching a sequential, systematicphonics program that filled a void fromtheir college teacher training," saidAudrey Nobori, the nominator ofWoodbridge. The Reading Mastery pro-gram has helped these student teach-ers to bridge the gap between thestudy of teaching reading to the actualpractice thereof.

The story of the Reading Mastery pro-gram in the Woodbridge School is oneof pride and success as the studentsexpress pride in their own reading abil-ities and the faculty express confi-dence in the utilization of such aneffective tool.

Wayne Carnine StudentImprovement AwardFour students were awarded with TheWayne Carnine Student ImprovementAward for the year 2000. Studentsreceived a $100 cash award along withthe recognition of their efforts and per-sonal achievements. Most Improvedcan refer to academic or behavioralchanges, or both.

Matthew Akonom attendsHampstead Hill Elementary inBaltimore, MD and was nominatedby his social worker, Sara Schmerling.Matthew entered Hampstead Hillwith a history of aggressive anddestructive behavior. He "refused tocomplete class work, disrupted theclass, and was defiant and threaten-ing," said Schmerling. With the com-bination of love and support from hisgrandmother and commitment fromhis teachers he has made significantimprovements during his time atHampstead Hill. Schmerling also

credits the structure of DI in helpingMatthew "learn to relax and focus onhis intellect rather than his externalfears." He became so familiar withthe sequence of lessons that he wasable to assist visiting substitutes andteacher assistants. Matthew is notonly a high achiever personally, buthe also "helps other students in theschool deal with their problems andtries to model appropriate behaviorfor them." Schmerling feels thatMatthew exemplifies the words "out-standing improvement," and it isclear that Matthew has transformedboth academically and personally.

Marti Dunn is from CentralElementary in San Diego, CA and wasnominated by her k-1 teacher, Mrs.Patricia Contreras. Marti was retainedby her first k-1 teacher and because ofMarti's hard work and the use of theReading Mastery Seties by Mrs.Contreras, Marti was double promotedto third grade at the end of the schoolyear. Now Marti is the best reader inher third grade class even though shedid not attend second grade!

Although Marti is excelling in thirdgrade, her math skills were behindthose of her peers and she had notbeen taught cursive writing. To makeup for the skills she missed by skip-ping second grade, Marti goes volun-tarily to Mrs. Contreras classroom regu-larly after school so that she can contin-ue her progression and success.

Mrs. Contreras feels that throughMarti's own efforts and with the helpof a good program, Marti has turnedher "entire self image around and isbecoming a very confident youngwoman."

Kalijah Hopkins of Beach ChannelHigh School in Jamaica Queens, NYwas nominated by Mrs. Daniela Greco,an Academy Coordinator and readingteacher. Kalijah was having difficultyreading in his mainstream classes andwhen tested it was found that he wasreading at a high second grade leveland was then placed into the AcademyProgram which is a remedial readingprogram.


Kalijah has courageously dealt withphysical and emotional obstacles andhas had difficulty with reading andspelling for many years. Kalijah hasshown tremendous growth since he hasbeen in the Academy Program. "InSeptember 1999 his reading was at asecond grade level and by April 2000,only seven months later, his readinglevel improved to a 7.8 grade in com-prehension" and significantly in otherareas as well, said Greco. Of Kalijah,Greco says, he "continually expresses adesire and willingness to learn." Kalijahoften spent his lunchtime with Mrs.Greco and he has been passing all class-es with high marks. Mrs. Greco pre-dicts continued success, improvementsand accomplishments for Kalijahthroughout the year and expects thathe will return to the mainstream classeswithin the next year.

Mrs. Greco is also proud of Kalijah'scommunity involvement in sports pro-grams and with the YMCA wheretwice a week he volunteers his timeswimming and doing water exerciseswith autistic adults.


Nathan Roberts is from BealeElementary in Gallipolis Ferry, WVand was nominated by Judith E.Browning who is a Special Educator forBeale.

As a first grader Nathan was not learn-ing to read, and even so he was pro-moted to second grade. Nathan's sec-ond grade teacher reported thatNathan was having a difficult timereading and that his performance wasfar below grade level. His teacher wasconcerned because he works hard, hasmuch family support as well asone-on-one instruction within theclassroom.

Nathan was not responding to differentreading formats that were introducedto him. After a psychological evaluationin which the psychologists found hisprofile consistent with a child with alearning disability, Nathan's parentsagreed to try DI and enrolled him inBeale Elementary. In a year's timeNathan "has gone from only being ableto read two or three short words toreading fluently at the third level ...

23

after approximately a year in DI, hereads everything," said Browning.

Matthew, Marti, Kalijah and Nathan arefour examples of what takes place whenteachers, administrators and school sys-tems utilize a program that has provento be as effective as DI. DI has giventhese children the chance to excel, thechance to succeed. And it is the teach-ers, administrators, and school systemsthat have allowed DI to become a partof their curriculum, a part of their con-tinuing story of success.

Spring 2001 21

Videotapes on the Erect Instruction ModelADI has an extensive collection of videos on Direct Instruction. These videos are categorized as informational, trainingor motivational in nature. The informational tapes are either of historical interest or were produced to describe DirectInstruction. The training tapes have been designed to be eitherstand-alone training or used to supplement and reinforcelive training. The motivational tapes are keynote presentations from past years of the National Direct InstructionConference.

Informational TapesWhere HMI Started-45 minutes. Zig teaching kindergarten children for the Engelmann-Bereiter pre-school in

the 60's. These minority children demonstrate mathematical understanding far beyond normal developmentalexpectations. This acceleration came through expert teaching from the man who is now regarded as the "Fatherof Direct Instruction," Zig Engelmann. Price: $10.00 (includes copying costs only).

Challenge of the 90's: Higher-Order Thinking-45 minutes, 1990. Overview and rationale for DirectInstruction strategies. Includes home-video footage and Follow Through. Price: $10.00 (includes copyingcosts only).

Follow Through: A Bridge to the Future-22 minutes, 1992. Direct Instruction Dissemination Center,Wesley Elementary School in Houston, Texas, demonstrates approach. Principal, Thaddeus Lott, and teachersare interviewed and classroom footage is shown. Created by Houston Independent School District incollaborative partnership with Project Follow Through. Price: $10.00 (includes copying costs only).

Direct Instructionblack and white, 1 hour, 1978. Overview and rationale for Direct Instruction compiled byHaddox for University of Oregon College of Education from footage of Project Follow Through and EugeneClassrooms. Price: $10.00 (includes copying costs only).

Training TapesThe Elements of Effective Coaching-3 hours, 1998. Content in The Elements of Effective Coaching was

developed by Ed Schaefer and Molly Blakely. The video includes scenarios showing 27 common teachingproblems, with demonstrations of coaching interventions for each problem. A common intervention format isutilized in all scenarios. Print material that details each teaching problem and the rationale for correcting theproblem is provided. This product should be used to supplement live DI coaching training and is ideal forCoaches, Teachers, Trainers. Price...$395.00 Member Price...$316.00

DITVReading Mastery 1, 2, 3 and Fast-Cycle Pre-and Inservice TrainingThe first tapes of the Level I and Level II series present intensive pre-service training on basic DirectInstruction teaching techniques and classroom management strategies used in ReadingMastery and theequivalent lesson in Fast-Cycle. Rationale is explained. Critical techniques are presented and demonstrated.Participants are led through practical exercises. Classroom teaching demonstrations with students are shown.The remaining tapes are designed to be used during the school year as inservice training. The tapes are dividedinto segments, which present teaching techniques for a set of upcoming lessons. Level III training is presentedon one videotape with the same features as described above. Each level of video training includes a printmanual.

ReadingMastery 1(10 Videotapes) $150.00ReadingMastery 11(5 Videotapes) $75.00ReadingMastety 111(1 Videotape) $25.00Combined package (ReadingMastery I-111) $229.00

Corrective Reading: Decoding Bl, 82, C-4 hours, 38 minutes + practice time. Pilot video training tapethat includes an overview of the Corrective Series, placement procedures, training and practice on each part of adecoding lesson, information on classroom management/ reinforcement and demonstrations of lessons (off-camera responses). Price: $25.00 per tape (includes copying costs only).

22 Spring 2001 24 Direct Instruction News

Conference KeynotesThese videos are keynotes from the National Direct Instruction Conference in Eugene. These videos areprofessional quality, 2 camera productions suitable for use in meetings and trainings.

Conference 2000 Keynotes!!

Commitment to ChildrenCommitment to Excellence and How Did We Get Here... Whereare We Going?95 minutes. These keynotes bring two of the biggest names in Direct Instructiontogether. The first presentation is by Thaddeus Lott, Senior. Dr. Lott was principal at WesleyElementary in Houston, Texas from 1974 until 1995. During that time he turned the school into one ofthe best in the nation, despite demographics that would predict failure. He is an inspiration tothousands across the country. The second presentation by Siegfried Engelmann continues on the themethat we know all we need to know about how to teachwe just need to get out there and do it. Thistape also includes Engelmann's closing remarks. Price: $30.00.

State of the Art & Science of Teaching and Higher Profile, Greater Risks-50 minutes. This tape is theopening addresses from the 1999 National Direct Instruction Conference at Eugene. In the first talk, SteveKukic, former Director of Special Education for the state of Utah, reflects on the trend towards using researchbased educational methods and research validated materials. In the second presentation, Higher Profile,Greater Risks, Siegfreid Engelmann reflects on the past of Direct Instruction and what has to be done toensure successful implementation of DI. Price: $30.00

Successful Schools... How We Do It-35 minutes. Eric Mahmoud, Co-founder and CEO of Seed Academy/Harvest Preparatory School in Minneapolis, Minnesota presented the lead keynote for the 1998 National DirectInstruction Conference. His talk was rated as one of the best features of the conference. Eric focused on thechallenges of educating our inner-city youth and the high expectations we must communicate to our childrenand teachers if we are to succeed in raising student performance in our schools. Also included on this video is awelcome by Siegfried Engelmann, Senior Author and Developer of Direct Instruction Programs. Price: $15.00

Fads, Fashions & FolliesLinking Research to Practice-25 minutes. Dr. Kevin Feldman, Director ofReading and Early Intervention for the Sonoma County Office of Education in Santa Rosa, California presentson the need to apply research findings to educational practices. He supplies a definition of what research is andis not, with examples of each. His style is very entertaining and holds interest quite well. Price: $15.00

Moving from Better to the Best-20 minutes. Closing keynote from the National DI Conference. Classic ZigEngelmann doing one of the many things he does well... motivating teaching professionals to go out into thefield and work with kids in a sensible and sensitive manner, paying attention to the details of instruction,making sure that excellence instead of "pretty good" is the standard we strive for and other topics that havebeen the constant theme of his work over the years. Price $15.00

Aren't You Special-25 minutes. Motivational talk by Linda Gibson, Principal at a school in Columbus, Ohio.Successful with DI, in spite of minimal support. Keynote from 1997 National DI Conference. Price: $15.00

Effective Teaching: It's in the Nature of the Task-25 minutes. Bob Stevens, expert in cooperative learningfrom Penn State University, describes how the type of task to be taught impacts the instructional deliverymethod. Keynote from 1997 National DI Conference. Price: $15.00

One More Time-20 minutes. Closing from 1997 National DI Conference. One of Engelmann's bestmotivational talks. Good for those already using DI, this is sure to make them know what they are doing is theright choice for teachers, students and our future. Price: $15.00

Direct Instruction News 25,

continued on nextpage

Spring 2001 23

Videotapes on the Direct Instruction Model...continued

Keynotes from 22nd National DI Conference-2 hours. Ed Schaefer speaks on "DIWhat It Is and Why ItWorks," an excellent introductory talk on the efficiency of DI and the sensibility of research based programs.Doug Carnine's talk "Get it Straight, Do it Right, and Keep it Straight" is a call for people to do what theyalready know works, and not to abandon sensible approa' ches in favor of "innovations" that are recycled fads.Siegfried Engelmann delivers the closing "Words vs. Deeds" in his usual inspirational manner, with a plea toteachers not to get worn down by the weight of a system that at times does not reward excellence as it should.Price: $25.00

Keynotes from the 1995 Conference-2 hours. Titles and speakers include: Anita Archer, Professor Emeritus,San Diego State University, speaking on "The Time Is Now" (An overview of key features of DI); Rob Horner,Professor, University of Oregon, speaking on "Effective Instruction for All Learners"; Zig Engelmann, Professor,University of Oregon, speaking on "Truth or Consequences." Price: $25.00

Keynote Presentations from. the 1994 20th Anniversary Conference-2 hours. Titles and speakersinclude: Jean Osborn, Associate Director for the Center for the Study of Reading, University of Illinois, speakingon "Direct Instruction: Past, Present & Future"; Sara Tarver, professor, University of Wisconsin-Madison,speaking on "I Have a Dream That Someday We Will Teach All Children"; Zig Engelmann, Professor, Universityof Oregon, speaking on "So Who Needs Standards?" Price: $25.00

An Evening of Tribute to Siegfried Engelmann-2.5 hours. On July 26, 1995, 400 of Zig Engelmann's friends,admirers, colleagues, and protégés assembled to pay tribute to the "Father of Direct Instruction."The Tribute tape features Carl Bereiter, Wes Becker, Barbara Bateman, Cookie Bruner, Doug Carnine, andJean Osbornthe pioneers of Direct Instructionand many other program authors, paying tribute to Zig.Price: $25.00

Order Form:

Use this chart to figure your shipping and handling charges.

If your order is: Postage & Handling is:.

$0.00 to $5.00 $3.00

$5.01to$10.00 $3.75

$10.01to$15.00 $4.50

$15.01 to$20.99 $5.50

$21.00 to $40.99 $6.75$41.00 to $60:99. $8.00$61.00 to $80.99 $9.00

$81.00 or more 10% of Subtotal

Outside the continental U.S., add $3 more

ADI Videos

Send form with Purchase order, check or charge card number to:ADI, PO Box 10252, Eugene, OR 97440You may also phone or fax your order.Phone 1.800.995.2464 Fax 541.683.7543

Item Each Total

Shipping

Total

Please charge my Visa Mastercard Discover in the amount of $

Card # Exp Date

Signed

Name:

Address:

City: State: Zip:

Phone:

24 Spring 2001BEST COPY AVAILABLE Direct Instruction News

Association for Direct InstructionPO Box 10252, Eugene, Oregon 97440 541.485.1293 (voice) 541.683.7543 (fax)

Mot is AIM, the Association for Direct Instruction?ADI is a nonprofit organization dedicated primarily to providing support for teachers and other educators who use DirectInstruction programs. That support includes conferences on how to use Direct Instruction programs, publication of "IheJournalof Direct Instruction (JODI), Direct Instruction News (DI News), and the sale of various products of interest to our members.

Who Should Belong to A I?

Most of our members use Direct Instruction programs, or have a strong interest in using those programs. Many people who donot use Direct Instruction programs have joined ADI due to their interest in receiving our semiannual publications, The Journalof Direct Instruction and Direct Instruction News. JODI is a peer-reviewed professional publication containing new and reprintedresearch related to effective instruction. Direct Instruction News focuses on success stories, news and reviews of new programs andmaterials and information on using DI more effectively.

embership Options$40.00 Regular Membership(includes one year subscription to ADI publications, a 20% discount on ADI sponsoredevents and on materials sold by ADI).

$30.00 Student Membership (includes one year subscription to ADI publications, and a 40% discount on ADI spon-sored events and a 20% on materials sold by ADI).

$75.00 Sustaining Membership (includes Regular membership privileges and recognition of your support in DirectInstruction News).

n$150.00 Institutional Membership (includes 5 subscriptions to ADI publications and regular membership privilegesfor 5 staff people).

n$30.00 Subscription 4 issues (1 year) of ADI publications.

Canadian addresses add $5.00 US to above prices.

For surface delivery overseas, add $10.00 US; for airmail delivery overseas, add $20.00 US to the above prices.

Contributions and dues to ADI are tax deductible to the fullest extent of the law.

Please make checks payable to ADI.

Please charge my Visa Mastercard in the amount of $

Card # Exp Date

Signed

Name:

Address:

City State Zip:

Phone:

School District or Agency:

Position:

e-mail address:


PEST COPY AVAILABLE27 Spring 2001 25

New from the Association for Direct InstructionA tool for you...

Corrective ReadingSounds Practice Tape

CORRECTIVE READING

SOUNDS PRACTICE

C. 2000 Association for Direct Instruction

Laicirinn

JO.

Dear Corrective Reading User,A critical element in presenting

Corrective Reading lessons is how accuratelyand consistently you say the sounds. Ofcourse, when teachers are trained on theprograms they spend time practicing thesounds, but once they get back into theclassrooms they sometimes have difficultywith some of the sounds, especially someof the stop sounds.

I have assisted ADI in developing anaudio tape that helps you practice thesounds. This tape is short (12 minutes).The narrator says each sound the programintroduces, gives an example, then gives youtime to say the sound. The tape alsoprovides rationale and relevant tips on howto pronounce the sounds effectively.

Thanks for your interest in continuingto improve your presentation skills.

Siegfried EngelmannDirect Instruction Program Senior Author

Order Form: Corrective Reading Sounds Tape


If your order is: Postage & Handling is:

$0.00 to $5.00 $3.00$5.01 to $10.00 $3.75$10.01 to $15.00 $4.50$15.01 to $20.99 $5.50$21.00 to $40.99 $6.75$41.00 to $60.99 $8.00$61.00 to $80.99 $9.00$81.00 or more 10% of Subtotal


Send form with Purchase order, check or charge card number to:

YADI, PO Box 10252, Eugene, OR 97440You may also phone or fax your order.Phone 1.800.995.2464 Fax 541.683.7543

Item Each Total

Corrective Reading Sounds Tape 10.00

Shipping

Total


Card # Exp Date

Signed

Name:

Address:

City: State: Zip:

Phone:

26 Spring 2001 28 Direct Instruction News

ADI .Books Price ListThe Association for Direct Instruction distributes the following Direct Instruction materials. Members of ADI receive a 20%discount on these materials. To join ADI and take advantage of this discount, simply fill out the form and include your annualdues with yourorder.

Title & Author Member Price List Price Quantity Total

Teach Your Children Well (1998)Michael Maloney $13.50 $16.95

Preventing Failure in the Primary Grades (1969 & 1997)Siegfried Engelmann $19.95 $24.95

Theory of Instruction (1991)Siegfried Engelmann & Douglas Carnine $32.00 $40.00

Teach Your Child to Read in 100 Easy Lessons (1983)Siegfried Engelmann, Phyllis Haddox, & Elaine Bruner $16.00 $20.00

Structuring Classrooms for Academic Success (1983)S. Paine, J. Radicchi, L. Rosellini, L. Deutchman, & C. Darch $11.00 $14.00

War Against the Schools' Academic Child Abuse (1992)Siegfried Engelmann $14.95 $17.95

Research on Direct Instruction (1996)Gary Adams & Siegfried Engelmann $19.95 $24.95


If your order is: Postage & Handling is:$0.00 to $5.00 $3.00$5.01 to $10.00 $3.75$10.01 to $15.00 $4.50$15.01 to $20.99 $5.50$21.00 to $40.99 $6.75$41.00 to $60.99 $8.00$61.00 to $80.99 $9.00$81.00 or more 10% of Subtotal


Subtotal

Postage & Handling

ADI Membership Dues

Total (U.S. Funds)

Make payment or purchase orders payable tothe Association for Direct Instruction.


Card #

Signed

Name:

Address:

City

Phone:


Position:

e-mail address:

Exp Date

State Zip


Send to ADI, PO Box 10252, Eugene, OR 97440You may also phone in your order with VISA or Mastercard. Phone 1.800.995.2464

Order online atwww.adihome.org2 9 Spring 2001 27

Association for Direct InstructionPO Box 10252Eugene, OR 97440

Thank you to our Sustaining Members

Non Profit OrgUS Postage

PAIDEugene OR

Permit No. 122

The ADI Board of Directors acknowledges the financial contribution made by the following individuals. Their generosityhelps our organization continue to promote the use of effective, research-based methods and materials in our schools.

Lori Agar Donna Dressman Stacey Kasendorf Carolyn SchneiderAnita Archer Nancy & Del Eberhardt Diane. Kinder Ted SchonebergerJason Aronoff Debbie Egan Karen Krasowski Pam SmithJerry Jo Ballard Catherine Eiler Changnam Lee Frank SmithCynthia Barton Julie Eisele Jan Lieber Jonita SommersRoberta Bender Babette Engel John Lloyd Karen SorrentinoMuriel Berkeley Dale Feik Janelle Lowey Geoff St JohnDebra Berlin Janet Fender Shelley Luter Linda StewartSusan Best Kathleen Fitzgerald Mary Lou Mastrangelo George SugaiMolly Blakely Linda Gibson Elaine Maurer Robert TaylorJayne K Brace David Giguere Linda McGlocklin Vicci TucciWilliam Brady Rosella Givens Paul McKinney Scott Van ZuidenGeorge Brent Cindy Green Providencia Medina Maria VanoniKelly Brouwers Ray Hall Sam Miller George L VinciMary Frances Bruce Ardena Harris Gary Myerson Pamela WadzitaJudith Carlson Stephen Hoffelt Doreen Neistadt Tricia Walsh-CoughlanPam Carlson Guenther Hubert Cobina Orloff Rose WankenPauline Clarke Sharon Valerie Hughes Jean Osborn Ann WatanabeLisa Cohen Morine E Hughes Hill David Parr Cathy WatkinsBetsy Constantine Debbie Jackson K Gale Phillips Paul WeisbergPaul Constantino Prentiss Jackson Larry Prusz Mary Anne WheelerTricia Contreras Gary W Jennings Gary Raley Mary-Anne WillardDon Crawford Shirley Johnson Jan Reinhardtsen Laura ZiontsAubrey Daniels Dr. Kent Johnson Randi Saulter Leslie ZorefShirley Dickson Kathleen Jungjohan Kathleen L Schaefer

30

Direct InstructA227971.1 c7 Effective School Practices

Much Ado Tout Testing.-Rat the Real Sio Is ylhoza instruct/ON

This issue of Direct ha/rat-rim Yewsbegins with Bob Dixon's on-the-marksatire on state testing. He destroys themyth that state tests are divinelyinspired by laying bare the fallacies inthe test construction process itself. Aprocess that begins with the creationof state standards (which, in mostcases, defy measurement of any kind)by "democratic" committees under theinfluence of education professors(who, in nearly all cases, know nothingof or have little respect for the techni-cal qualities of tests), and ends withworthless tests that can destroy ratherthan facilitate the accountabilitymovement.

Thank goodness, Bob goes on to pointout, that there are some technicallysound standardized tests and that cri-terion-referenced tests, (7- technicallysound, can provide more direct ways ofevaluating instruction. His advocacy oftechnically sound tests that can pro-mote true accountability should not beconfused with some currently popularanti-testing views.

As the reader will see when readingGeorge Clowes' interview with Zig,Zig's views on testing complementBob's. In his usual succinct style, Zigtells how real performance testing(please don't confuse this with what iscommonly being touted as performancetestrhg) is inherent in effective instruc-tion. He starts by stating, "If you wantto know what you taught, you have to

look at what the children learned."Then he adds "... you would not waitto test the children. You would designthe instruction so that you were test-ing them all the time." He then goeson to explain how the test part of theModel-Lead-Test instructional para-digm ensures that the teacher getsfeedback about what the children haveor have not learned.

Like Bob, Zig does not take an anti-standardized testing stance. Instead,he suggests that we obtain perform-ance measures by randomly testingone out of five students (say, on thereading of passages aloud) and thencomparing their performance to theirachievement test scores. In otherwords, we need measures of perform-ance on routine academic tasks ANDmeasures of achievement on standard-ized tests. Most importantly, bothtypes of measures must be valid, reli-able, and sensible.

Zig's interview provides other jewelsof wisdom also. The following questionis one that I have been asked oftenand Zig's response to it is right-on. Itbears repeating here:

Clowes: So Project FollowThrough confirmed what youhad already found about the inef-fectiveness of those other pro-grams. Yet those programs stillare being promoted in teacher.colleges and they still are widely

BEST COPY AVAILABLE ,31

used, while Direct Instruction isnot. Why?

Zig: The answer is really simple,but it's very difficult for mostpeople to accept: Outcomes havenever been a priority in publiceducation, from its inception.That's the way the public educa-tion system is. The system ismore concerned with the experi-ence of the child: "Let the childexplore," "Let the child be his orher self," "Don't interfere withthe natural learning process,"and so on.

cow/hued ON page 3

I

In this issue

4-Your State TestWas Not Divinely Inspired

16

17

22

23

32

"If the Children Aren'tLearning, ff4're Not Teachifig"

2001 ADI Awards

Teaching MethodMakes the Grade

A Dozen Suggestionsfor Successful ReadingImplementations

How to Achieve Excellence

A Study of DI with Deafand Hard-of-Hearing

Arkansas School for the BlindAdopts DI

AD I Puhlicatton EditorsDirect Instruction News

Sara Tarver, Ph.D.University of Wisconsin, MadisonMadison, Wisconsin

Journal of Direct Instruction

Nancy Marchand-Marcella, Ph.D.Eastern Washington UniversityCheney, Washington

Timothy Slocum, Ph.D.Utah State UniversityLogan, Utah

Board of Directors

Bob Dixon, M.A.Classical LearningOlympia, Washington

Susan HannerCo-AuthorCreswell, Oregon

Gary Johnson, Ph.D.Co-Author/Independent ConsultantPortland, Oregon

Nancy Marchand-Martella, Ph.D.Eastern Washingtdn'UniversityCheney,,Washington

Milly SchraderElk Grove School DistrictElk Grove, California

Timothy Slocum, Ph.D.Utah State UniversityLogan, Utah

Don SteelyOregon Center frit- Applied ScienceEugene;Oregon

The Dl Naos is published semi-annually bythe Association for Direct Instruction. The.mission of the Association for DirectInstruction, as stated in the by-laws, is topromote the improvement of effective edu-cational methods.

The Association for Direct Instruction wasincorporated in 1981 in the state of Oregonfor educational purposes. ADI is a nonprof-it, tax-exempt corporation under Section501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code andis a publicly supported organization asdefined in Sections 170(b)(1)(A)(ii) and509(a)(1). Donations are'tax-deductible.

A copy or summary of the current financialstatement, or annual report, and registra-tion filed by ADI may be obtained by con-tacting: ADI, PO BOX 10252, Eugene, OR97440 (541-485-1293). ADI is registeredwith the state of Oregon, Department ofJustice, #79-16751. Copyright 2000Association for Direct Instruction.

ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION RATES: $25U. S.; $30 (U. S. currency) Canada; $40Europe; $60 airmail to Europe.

(ISSN 1068-7379).

Managing Editor: Amy Griffin

Layout and Design: Beneda Design,Eugene, OR

Publisher: The Association for DirectInstruction

http://www.adihome.org

2

Contrikae to DI News:

DI News provides practitioners, ADI members, the DI community, and hopefullythose new to DI, with stories of successful implementations of DI, reports ofADI awards, tips regarding the effective delivery of DI, articles focused on par-ticular types of instruction, reprints of articles on timely topics, and positionpapers that address current issues. The News' focus is to provide newsworthyevents that help us reach the goals of teaching children more effectively andefficiently and communicating that a powerful technology for teaching.exists butis not being utilized in most American schools. Readers are invited to contributepersonal accounts of success as well as relevant topics deemed useful to the. DIcommunity. Geneial areas of submission follow:

From the field: Submit letters describing your thrills and frustrations, problemsand successes, and so on. A number of experts are available who may be able tooffer helpful solutions and recommendations to persons seeking advice.

News: Report news of interest to ADI's members.

Success stories: Send your stories about successful instruction. These can beshort, anecdotal pieces.

Perspectives: Submit critiques and perspective essays about a theme of currentinterest, such as:,school restructuring, the ungraded classroom, cooperativelearning, site-based management, learning styles, heterogeneous grouping,Regular Ed Initiative and the law, and so on.

Book notes: Review a book of interest to members.

New products: Descriptions of new products that are available are welcome.Send the description with a sample of the product or a research report validatingits effectiveness. Space will be given only to products that have been field-test-ed and empirically validated.

Tips for teachers: Practical, short products that a teacher can copy and useimmediately. This might be advice for solving a specific but pervasive problem, adata-keeping form, a single format that would successfully teach somethingmeaningful and impress teachers with the effectiveness and cleverness of DirectInstruction.

Submission Format: Send an electronic copy with a hard copy of the manuscript.Indicate the name of the word-processing program you use. Save drawings andfigures in separate files. Electronic copy should replace text that is underlinedwith italic text.

Illustrations and Figures: Please send drawings or figures in a camera-ready form,even though you may also include them in electronic form.

Completed manuscripts should be sent to:Amy Griffin

ADI PublicationsPO Box 10252

Eugene, OR 97440

Acknowledgement of receipt of the manuscript will be sent by email. Articles areinitially screened by the editors for placement in the correct ADI publication. Ifappropriate, the article will be sent out for review by peers in the field. Thesereviewers may recommend acceptance as is, revision without further review, revi-sion with a subsequent review, or rejection. The author is usually notified aboutthe status of the article within a 6- to 8-week period. If the article is published,the author will receive five complimentary copies of the issue in which his or herarticle appears.

Fall 2001

Aka Ado Ahoni Testing...continued from page I

If outcomes are a priority, as theyshould be, it follows that we mustevaluate student outcomes. Some formof testing is required to do that. Totest OR not to test debates must bereframed as discussions of the rightkinds of tests.

One thing that bothers me about thetesting debates is this: advocates oftesting often go so far as to say, or atleast to leave the impression, that test-ing itselfprodmes learning. The fact isthat testing can only tell us that thechild has or has not learned what theteacher thought he/she had taught.Instruction that occurs before the test isthe critical element in learning. Thetest part of the Model-Lead-Test para-digm employed in Direct Instruction ismeaningless without the mode/and leadparts that come before the test. If, andonly if, the instructional elements ofthe mode/and /eat /parts are intact willthe test show that students haveacquired the intended information andunderstanding. In the same fashion,even the most technically soundachievement tests will not showincreased achievement unless theinstruction that preceded the testingis equally sound.

And, as members of ADI know, deliv-ering effective instruction is not easy.Jessica Thompson identified the twobasic essentials of effective instructionin a paper for which she was awardedthe 2001 Susie Wayne Scholarship(included in this issue): a well-designed curriculum and a highly-skilled teacher. To acquire an under-standing of the design principles thatundergird DI curricula and expertisein techniques of delivering those cur-ricula, teachers must devote a lot oftime and effort to study and training.And beyond these basic essentials is aworld of know-how about DI imple-mentations. Jerry Silbert capturesmuch of this know-how as a dozen sug-gestions in his article on how to make

Direct instraelioN News

illemher NeesMember Chuck Arthur, retired teacher from Reynolds SchoolDistrict in Oregon, reports he will be opening a public charterschool in the David Douglas School District near Portland in thefall of 2002.

The Arthur Academy will teach accelerated reading and math usingDirect Instruction curricula.

Congratulations, Chuck! We look forward to hearing great thingsabout your school in the future.

DI implementations produce morestudent learning. Each of his sugges-tionsfrom more emphasis on readingin kindergarten and prekindergarten,to more instructional time, to more in-class coaching, to more supplementaryreading, and on and onis excellent.Don't fail to read this article and bene-fit from Jerry's extensive experience inhelping schools to be more successful.

The rest of the articles in this issuetell of remarkable success with DI. Areport of a six-year study (Kramer etal.) with deaf and hard-of-hearing stu-dents documents great gains in read-ing comprehension, spelling, and totallanguage. A report from the ArkansasSchool for the Blind (Counterpointreprint) tells of success with studentswho are blind or visually impaired.

Amy Griffin's write-up of 2001 ADIawards tells the stories of how DIhelped Amanda Bhirdo, Donte Brooks,Daniel Cahill, Natanael Lozado,Hadley Quintard, and Tony Tran tomake large academic gains despite dis-abilities or other obstaclesreadingdisability, developmental delay, infan-tile autism, dyslexia/learning disability,asthma and allergies, English as a sec-ond language. Stories of three schoolsthat received Excellent School awards(City Springs and Hampstead Hill inBaltimore and Rio Altura Elementaryin Riverbank, California) and eightteachers or instructional leaders whoreceived Excellence in Education

33

awards (Rick Fletcher, Kim Newton,Shelby Saulsbury, Jane Green, DianeHill, Susan Hornor, Stacey Herrmann,and Bernice Whelchel) are also includ-ed in Amy's report of the 2001 awards.

One of the most impressive stories ofsuccess with DI is that of City SpringsElementary in Baltimore under theleadership of Principal BerniceWhelchel: Bernice delivered thekeynote address to the 2001 ADIConference and received anExcellence in Education award. In theFall of 2000, her work was featured ina PBS documentary tided The flu/deafCity Springs. If you haven't yet seen it,get it and watch it. The story of howshe led in the City Springs transforma-tion from one of the lowest performingschools in Baltimore to one of thehighest is a truly amazing story. Talkabout dedication, commitment, andall-around savvy. Bernice has it andshe's not through yet! She is an idealrole model for principals and othereducators.

Congratulations to Bernice and all ofthe 2001 awards recipients. I hopethat ADI members are already think-ing about persons and schools to 'nomi-nate for 2002 awards.

In the meantime, I hope you're off to agreat start of the 2001-2002 schoolyear. ALY.

3

:: II

Your :State Tea'Was Not Deady Aspired

And that's almost all I have to say onthe subject, but not quite. Your stateeducation department (or whateverequivalent you have) often seems towant you to think that your own testwas divinely inspired, or close to it.But it wasn't. Not even close. Thedarned newspapers in your state oftenseem to operate on the assumptionthat the state tests were divinelyinspired. Most newspapers will eager-ly advertise their ignorance in print,pointing out how local schools havegone up on this and down on that,and how one community compareswith others.

Although I don't really know the exact(or vague) history of your particularstate test, I'm not reluctant to take awild guess, nonetheless. Your legisla-ture mandated by law that your statedepartmentor whatevercreate astatewide test (and standards, too), asa component of accountability. Yourstate department wasn't real thrilledto have this (or much of anything else)forced upon them, but it had to dosomething. So it gathered together a fewpeople from the education depart-ments around the state, some teach-ers, and a bunch of hapless citizens,then swore them all to secrecy, andpressed them to come up with stan-dards and tests.

The citizens were there for showandthe teachers, too, for the most part.The education professors pontificatedon "performance assessment" and"constructing meaning" and dozens ofother vague or non-existent concepts,thereby completely snowing even thesmartest of the poor lay members ofthe committees, as well as the teach-ers they had "taught" themselves. Tofurther press the notion that "thecommunity" participated in the devel-

opment of standards and tests, thestate departments widely disseminat-ed drafts and solicited feedback. (Thecommunity could make some judg-ments about what was there, but fewthought to seriously consider whatwasn't there.) The feedback wentback to the committee, and the educa-tion professors ignored all they didn'tlike while making a few obligatorychanges here and there, incorporatingfeedback they did like.

The standards were developed beforethe tests, which was completely sense-lessbut pretty uniform across allstates. As a consequence, many stan-dards simply couldn't be testednotby a performance assessment, not by alegitimate assessment, not by Zeus,not by anyone or anything. Note thenumber of times that "lifelong love ofreading" shows up in the standards ofdifferent states.

Once the standards were developed,and codified as superb because theywere the result of so much democracyin action (as opposed to expertise), itwas time to write tests. For this task,the state departments usedwell,guess. Who they pretty uniformlydidn't call upon were psychometri-ciansgenuine scholrs on testingfrom psychology departments. Lookat it this way. An education professor

who has never taught a school child todo anything is not going to worrymuch about having no expertise inPsychometrics. Besides, the folks atyour state department don't have psy-chometricians for cronies. The rela-tionship between the state depart-ment and the colleges of education isessentially incestual: they trade jobswith,one another occasionally.

The resulting tests varied in quality,just as the standards did. The testsranged from "has some potential" to"disastrous." Whichever category, yourstate department went to reputabletest publishing companies to get theirtests published. The reputable testpublishing companies laughed andlaughed and laughed back at meetingswith psychometric experts at thehome office. Then after they had com-pletely laughed themselves out, theyagreed to publish your state's worth-less test because if they didn't get the busi-

ness, someone else would. I myself am hesi-tant to draw an analogy with women ofill repute, even though I've heard rep-resentatives from some of those pub-lishers do so themselves. As a practicalmatter, the companies were right:someaue was going to get the lucrativebusiness of publishing your state'stest. I come down on the side of thepublishers because they at least blewwhat kind of fiasco they were partici-pating in, whereas the state depart-ments remained clueless.

The very huge problem with most, ifnot all, of the state tests is that theyhave not been proven to be technicallysound. Now, if I explore that topic intoo great a depth, (1) you will fallasleep, and (2) I'll make a fool out ofmyself because I'm no psychometri-cian myself. (I just know that the suf-fix -ianas in psychometricianrefersto people, as opposed to -ionas inaction.) Nonetheless, I'll go out on alimb just a bit by saying that if a test isnot technically sound, it's completelyworthless. And if there are any impor-tant cousegueNces associated with a testthat is not prove/ to be technicallysound, then that test is far worse thanworthless: it is exceptionally damaging.

By "technical soundness," I'm talkingabout those considerations of validityand reliability, and the varieties ofeach. There are technicalities involvedin those things far beyond me, but justas, a guy on the street, I have toassume that if a test hasn't been

3 4 Fal / 20, l

proven to be reliable, then we can'trely upon the test results, and if a testhasn't been proven to be valid,then...well, it could be invalid.

I can't say that no state test is valid andreliable. But the burden of proof isn'ton me: it's on the state departments,and even the legislatures who burdenedthem will all this to begin with.

Your run-of-the-mill norm-referencedtestsSAT 9, IOWA, CTBS, etc.area different matter altogether. Thepublishers of those tests spent a for-tune establishing technical soundnessto a level that would make their testsunassailable by any true, qualified psy-chometrician. Unfortunately, thosetests aren't the most direct way toevaluate the effectiveness of instruc-tion. Criterion-referenced state testswould be better for that ifthey weretechnically sound And, the publishers ofnorm-referenced tests aren't com-pletely invulnerable to pressures fromthe traditional education community(to whom they sell their wares). Onthe SAT 9 math test for the spring offourth grade (or the fall of fifth), you'll

find items talking about "number sen-tences," a remnant of New Math thathas been resurrected in the New NewMath. Go visit the mathematicsdepartment of a good university andask a senior mathematician if "math isa language," with "sentences" and thelike. Chances are fair that someonewill start screaming at you, or evenmight just beat you up.

I suppose that all my contentions herestrike you as having just about as muchpractical value as the other articles' I'vewritten for this columngenerally,none. If your principal is on your backand her superintendent is on hers andthe newspaper is on the superinten-dent's back and practically everyone inyour state actually thinks that theEmperor has clothes on, then you're ina tough spot, and I haven't helped youout of it. I can tell you, though, thatsome very competent and smart andpolitically savvy people are working onthis problem, and I strongly suspectthat sooner or later, trey will help you.

Now I'll play prognosticator and pre-dict that either one of two things will

happen with the state tests..One, theanti-accountability/anti-reform typeslike Alfie Kohn will destroy theaccountability movement, meaning inpart that poor kids in particular willkeep getting the shaft the way theyalways have. The other possibility isthat the smart activists I referred toabove will prevail, and states will startdeveloping reasonably good standardsand technically sound instruments tomeasure them. In that case, accounta-bility will live because it will be %gni-mate All children, potentially, will ben-efit, but poor kids will benefit themost if a good accountability systemforces their schools to teach themeverything that everyone else gets theopportunity to learn.

Postscript. I have so many good friendswho are in education departments, suchas the editor of this newsletter, that Imust say that to me,gooa'educationprofessors are saints, if not deities. ADI.

GEORGE A. CLOWES, School Reform News

".I/' /he alkiren ylrenk Learning,fI4're Not Teaching"An Interview with Siegfried E. Engelmann

One of the most vigorous continuingdebates in elementary education isover which teaching method producesthe best results.

Is it teacher-directed learning, wherethe teacher conveys knowledge to hisor her students? Or is it student-directed learning, where the teacherencourages students to constructmeaning from their own individual

learning experiences?

Direct hainvaior Neres

Although a considerable body ofresearch shows student-directed learn-ing is ineffective, the debate rages onbecause many educatorsand espe-cially teachers of educatorschoose toignore the research.

Siegfried Engelmann has been one ofthe key participants in this debateover the years, and a major contributorto its resolution. He first becameinterested in how children acquire

35

knowledge when he was researchdirector for an advertising agency try-ing to understand more about thelearning process.

Pursuing this interest, Engelmann quitthe advertising business in 1964 andbecame senior educational specialist atthe Institute for Research onExceptional Children at the Universityof Illinois at Champaign-Urbana.There, his research into the effective-ness of different teaching methods inthe education of under-privileged chil-dren led him to develop the DirectInstruction method of teaching.

Reprinted with permission from Sehoo/ Reform

Nem, Vol. 5, No. 6, June 2001.


The Direct Instruction methodinvolves teaching from a tightly script-ed curriculum delivered via directinstruction to the class; i.e., givingchildren small pieces of informationand immediately asking them ques-tions based on that information. WhileDirect Instruction is teacher-directedinstruction, it does not encompass allthe possible varieties of teacher-direct-ed instruction, including the commonsituation where a teacher delivers acontent-rich curriculum to studentsbut decides exactly "what" will betaught.

Engelmann's research in the 1960sinto the effectiveness of differentteaching methods was subsequentlyconfirmed by the massive federalFollow Through project in the 1970sand,1980s. In 1999, the AmericanInstitute of Research looked at 24education reform programs and con-cluded Direct Instruction was one ofonly two that had solid research vouch-ing for its effectiveness. But despiteall the research findings, DirectInstruction is used at only 150 of thenation's more than 114,000 schools.

After developing the DirectInstruction method, Engelmannbecame a professor of special educa-tion at the University of Oregon, inEugene, where he established theNational Institute for DirectInstruction. He recently spoke withSchool Reform News Managing EditorGeorge Clowes.

Clowes: Who/approach a'i d you first taketo anderstandMg the mechanics of the /earn-ing process?

Engelmann: I studied philosophywhen I was in college, and I was muchinfluenced by the British analyticalapproach that required very carefulparceling out of what caused what, andalso what kind of conclusions youcould draw from what kind of premis-es. That had a big impact on how Iviewed this process initially, particular-ly the notion that we are responsible

6

for whatever children learn. We can'tjust take credit for what they chdlearn;we have to take credit for what theydidn't learn, or mis-learned, also.

We assumed that children were logical,reasonable beings in terms of how theyresponded to our teaching, and thattheir behavior was the ultimate judgeof the effectiveness of whatever wentinto our teaching. If the way we taughtdidn't induce the desired learning, wehadn't taught it. But if children

Just because you covered

the material doesN't ma,/ the

chilth-eu learned the material.

That tells about what you

did It doesNt tel ahout whatyou taught .1 f you wilt to

froze) what you taught, you

have to look at what the

children learNed

learned stuff that was wrong, we wereresponsible for that, too, and it meantwe had to revise what we were doingand try it out again. That's the formulawe used from the beginning.

Just because you covered the materialdoesn't mean the children learned thematerial. That tells about what youdid. It doesn't tell about what youtaught. If you want to know what youtaught, you have to look at what thechildren learned.

Clowes: Which means you have to test the

children.

Engelmann: It means you would notwait to test the children. You woulddesign the instruction so that you weretesting them all the time. You woulddesign the instruction so that youreceived feedback on what they werelearning at ,a very high rate. You wouldpresent instructions so that the chil-dren's responses carried implications

for what they were learning. And youwould design the instruction to beefficient, so that you're not Workingwith just one child.

All of this means that, for young chil-dren, you would use proceduresinvolving oral responses where thechildren can respond together, andyou get information about whatthey're learning from their responses.That's the test.

For very simple responses, the para-digm that we use is: Model, Lead, andTest. You first show them what thetask is and how they're supposed torespond to it. Then you test to see ifthey can respond properly. It all hap-pens very quickly.

It's something like, "My turn: Whatam I doing? Standing up. Your turn:What am I doing?" It's a model andthen a test. But if they can't producethe response, then you do a model andlead the test. For example,."My turn:What am I doing? Standing up. Yourturn: What am I doing? 'Standing up.'Say it with me: 'Standing up.' Oncemore: 'Standing up.' Your turn: Whatam I doing?" So "your turn" is the test.

Clowes: When drdyou decide to develop

thir auto au hat/wet/owl package for GegM-

mng learners?

Engelmann: Initially, we took pro-grams people were using or were beingtalked about and evaluated themaccording to our criterion: If the chil-dren aren't learning, we're not teaching.

For the most part, the children wewere working with were disadvantagedpreschoolers. They represented a par-ticular challenge because they didn!tcome in with very high levels ofknowledge and they didn't learnthings very well. Their performanceon the programs that were availableled to the conclusion that these pro-grams just didn't workthe languageexperience program, the sight-word

Fall 2001

Comparison of Achievement OutcomesAcross nine Follow Through models

50

4030

20

10

0

10

-20

30

40

-50

1

Basic skills

Cognitive

Affective

. 1

Direct Patent Behavior Southwest Bank Responsive TEEM Cognitive Open

Instruction Education Analysis Lab Street Education Curriculum Education

Basic skills modelsDirect InstructionBehavior AnalysisSouthwest Lab

Cognitive skills models Affective skills modelsParent Education Bank StreetTEEM Responsive EducationCognitively oriented Open Educationcurriculum

Baseline (0) represents average of the national pooled comparison group.Source: Educational Achievement Systems The Washington Times

approachnone of them worked.They were horriNe.

The sight-word, or look-say, approachis particularly bad because there is nomethod for correcting mistakes. If achild reads a word incorrectly, what doyou tell them with the sight-wordapproach? "Look at the unique shapeof the word," or "Look at the begin-ning letter and ask yourself what thatword could be." That's it. They're nottaught that the word is a function ofthe arrangement of specific letters. It'slike taking average people off thestreet and trying to teach them calcu-lus by showing them different curveswith different answers. "What's thisone? .03. And this one? .05. Good." It'sthat stupid.

With sight-word, children develop allkinds of misconceptions about whatreading really is. They think readingmeans looking at pictures and guessingwhat the words are, because that'swhat they've learned to do. The mis-conceptions are induced because thechildren are given highly predictable

Direct Artruction News

text for reading practice, which thenreinforces for guessing on the basis ofcontext. But when they're given textthat's not predictable, they can'tmake out what the words on thepaper say because they really don'tknow how to read.

The only programs that showed anypromise were the ones based on theInternational Teaching Alphabet,where you taught children to readusing the phonetic pronunciation. Youcould teach disadvantaged kids to readthat way, but then you had a terribletime transitioning them out becausethey were absolutely unprepared todeal with the high rate of irregular pro-nunciations among the most commonwords. The reading strategies they haddeveloped with the phonetic alphabetweren't any help to them and a greatdeal of re-teaching was necessary.

But what they had learned was a func-tion of what we had taught. We wereresponsible for so seriously mis-teach-ing these children that they could noteasily transition and learn the irregular

3"

side of the reading game. So thatmeant we had to a) introduce someversion of irregulars very early, so thatchildren get the idea not everything isperfectly regular, and b) keep thesounding-out, but treat it more as asop for spelling the word. You don'twant them to spell the word for initialreading. You want them to be able tosound out the word. But if you do itrigorously, they can easily understandthat a particular sound means a partic-ular letter.

The notion that you somehow recog-nize the word as a lump has been thor-oughly discredited by research. Whenwords are presented on a screen at therate of about four or five hundredwords a minute, experienced readersstill can identify misspelled words.They can't do that without under-standing the arrangement of letters inthe word, and that each word is com-posed of a unique arrangement of let-ters. They're not looking at the shapeof words.

Clowes: When did you decide topu64.4

your filldiNgs?

Engelmann: When we were workingwith the children, our objective was toteach them reading, math, and lan-guage. We wanted to make sure wetaught them well, and so we made upsequences that compensated for whatwas lacking in other programs.

Pretty soon we had prototype versionsof the reading program, the math pro-gram, and the language program. Ourrule was that we would not submitanything for publication until we weresure that if the script was followedand presented as specified, it wouldwork. We never submitted anythingfor publication that was not absolutelyfinished.

Also, the publisher was not allowed toedit any of our material. The publisherwould say, "There's a better way tophrase it." No, there isn't! We've trieddifferent ways. This way is efficient

7

and it ties in with things we're goingto do later on.

Another thing that happened was thefederal government's Project FollowThrough, which came out of PresidentJohnson's War on Poverty and wasaimed at evaluating programs that pro-vided compensatory early education todisadvantaged children. We were oneof 13 major sponsors, with the othersrepresenting the full spectrum ofphilosophies about instruction: devel-opmental, Piagetian, the British openclassroom, natural learning processes,and so on.

The results showed those other pro-grams don't work in any subject.Direct Instruction beat them in allsubjects. We beat them in language, inmath, in science, in reading, and inspelling. And our students were thehighest in self-image. And althoughFollow Through went only throughthird grade, additional follow-upshowed an advantage through eighthgrade and a statistically significantincrease in college enrollment.

We also have some more direct infor-mation from places we worked with inUtah, where the Direct Instructionsequence goes through sixth grade. Forexample, when the children inGunnison Elementary School enteredjunior high, they skipped seventhgrade math and went directly intoAlgebra I, which was scheduled foreighth grade. At the end of the year,the children from our program werefirst, second, fourth, fifth, and sixth inperformance in Algebra I.

Clowes: So Project Follow Through Con-

firmed what you had already foundahout

the ineffectiveness of those other programs.

Yet those programs sti I are hang promoted

in teacher colleges and they stillare widely

used, while Direct Instruction is not. Why?

Engelmann: The answer is really sim-ple, but it's very difficult for most peo-ple to accept: Outcomes have never

8

been a priority in public education,

from its inception. That's the way thepublic education system is. The sys-tem is more concerned with the expe-

rience of the child: "Let the child

explore," "Let the child be his or herself," "Don't interfere with the naturallearning process," and so on.

PThe results showed those

other programs don't work in

any subject. Direct

Instruction heat them in all

suhjects. We heat them in

language, in math, in science,

in reading, and in spelling.

And our students were the

highest in self-image find

although Follow Through

went only through third

grade, additional follow-up

showed an advantage through

eighth grade and a

statistically 4niticantincrease in college enrollment.

The rhetoric is wonderful, but the testis: Does it work? Quite clearly, itdoesn't. The ones who are victimizedthe most by this are children frompoor families.

But anyone who does not view thechild in this way is portrayed as somekind of redneck Republican with noreal human concern.

Clowes: What ahout ildvamage Schools? Iunderstana' they're using your approach, too.

Engelmann: They're doing somepretty good things, but I thinkthey're probably a little light in initialtraining. Part of that is becausethey're installing a school fromscratch, and so you have to teach the

teachers and the administrators a lotmore than you would if you were justmoving into an extant school. That's atough job. It takes months to get theroutines down.

Clowes: Do you have any recommendations

for state pang makers who want to raise the

Rainy of U.S. K-12 education?

Engelmann: My first recommendationwould be to use only data-based mate-rial; that is, material that has a trackrecord and can demonstrate it works.My second recommendation would beto evaluate test results skeptically.Don't rely on state tests and the liketo give you an indication of what'sreally going on. To produce quality,you have to have quality control. Thatmeans having random samples, just asyou would in a business.

You would go into a school and ran-domly test one out of five students inrandomly chosen classrooms. In read-ing, you would give each student apassage to read and then ask themsome questions about it. You could getthe information you need out of aclassroom very quicklyI'd guess nomore than 10 minutes. If you sampledsix classrooms, that would give you apretty good idea of what is going on inthat school. Then you would comparethe performance of the students youhad sampled with their achievementtest scores and note any discrepancies.

In many cases, you will discover greatdiscrepancieswhere the childrenperformed well on the test and yetwhen sampled they can't do math orthey can't read. Schools can do allkinds of things to make their scoreslook better than they really are, sothey need to be evaluated skeptically,preferably with this quality controlapproach. ADJ.

38Fall 2001

2001 AD Awards

The 2001 National Direct InstructionConference marked the 27th year forthe annual event held in Eugene,Oregon. The conference providestraining in the use of DI programs aswell as sessions geared toward experi-enced users of DI, administrators,researchers and behavior managementspecialists. The conference also pro-vides a unique opportunity for partici-pants, program authors, consultantsand trainers to meet and interact,enhancing a sense of communityamong the growing number of DI prac-titioners. A highlight of the conferenceis an Awards Dinner during whichexcellence within the DI communityis recognized. Prior to the conference acall for nominations is sent out toschools and individuals using DI andfrom the responses a selection com-mittee takes on the challenging task ofselecting the recipients. Awards aregiven for Excellence in Education,Excellent School and The WayneCarnine Most Improved StudentAward. Along with recognition by theAssociation, the dinner provides anopportunity for the recipients to pub-licly thank those who are part of theirsuccess and reinforces the importanceof the mission that is shared: ensuringthe success and learning of all students.

Excel/aloe in EducationWith great enthusiasm the team ofRick Fletcher and Kim Newton, fromRio Altura Elementary in Riverbank,California, was nominated and awardedwith the distinction of excellence ineducation. Dr. Cathy Watkins ofCalifornia State University, Stanislausdescribes their dedication as such,"Rick and Kim approach every taskinvolved in managing this schoolwideimplementation with intelligence,enthusiasm, and just plain hard work.

Direct histructioN Nem-

They are extraordinarily skilled attranslating information into effectivepractice in the classroom. They bothhave well developed analytic and prob-lem solving skills. And they have athorough understanding of how to useassessment information to develop andguide instruction."

Rick and Kim are not only outstandingclassroom teachers, they also serve asDI program coaches, trainers, andcoordinators of the schoolwide imple-mentation. Prior to the schoolwideimplementation, Rick and Kim hadboth used DI programs in the capacityof their individual classrooms. Theirknowledge of the success of studentstaught by these effective practices ledthem to approach their school withthe notion of changing the curriculafor the entire school. As is often thecase, the idea of implementing DIschoolwide was met with opposition.Rick convinced the school staff toconduct a pilot study of eight class-room implementation groups. Thedata collected demonstrated signifi-cant gains in reading achievement andresulted in initiating the change to DIpractices at Rio Altura.

The success of the school speaks foritself. The 1999-2000 AcademicPerformance Index (API) growth scorewas 143 points, placing them in thetop ten schools showing academicgrowth in the state. Dr. Watkins saysthat Rick and Kim are, "quite simply,committed to improving the academicperformance of children. They workdiligently and tirelessly. I believe theyare precisely the types of individualsfor whom such an award is intended."

As a second year 1st grade teacher atGeorge G. Kelson Elementary inBaltimore, Maryland, Shelby Saulsburyhas immersed herself in DI. She has

dedicated herself tothe task of trulyteaching students,participating in staffdevelopment activi-ties, mentoring newteachers, and workingas a coach and a Cadremember. She was fea-tured in The BaltimoreSun for recognition inthe "Reading byNine" initiative forpromoting readingexcellence and wasrecognized by TheUniversity ofMaryland forExcellence in UrbanEducation.

Ric. Fletcher

Jeanette Coleman, aMaster Teacher, in a letter of supportfor the nomination of Shelby wrote, "Ihave watched Miss Saulsbury grow inher performance as a first gradeteacher for the past two years. She hasshown a love for students, a desire forenriching her experiences, a commit-ment to challenging her students, awillingness to learn and try a newinnovative program and a need tostimulate the teaching and learningenvironment with creative and enrich-ing experiences for her students."

From Shelby Saulsbury, "This year Ireceived the greatest reward I couldimagine. I received a class of studentswho were determined, eager non-read-ers. The majority of the students hadnot yet mastered the most basic pre=reading skills. These students startedat ReadiNg -Mastery I, lesson one. Thesesame students are now very firm read-ers entering Readiag iliacteg Ill We .have worked extremely hard this yearand we are now reaping the benefits ofour toil. I feel confident that theircommitment to excellence and perse-verance will help them to be success-ful in the years to come. This is mygreatest joy."

3 9 BEST COPY AVAILABLE9

Jane Green currently works with sev-enteen DI schools within theBaltimore City Public School systemin the capacity of InstructionalSpecialist. She models lessons forteachers, teaches entire classes orsmall groups of students to demon-strate specific techniques, and con-ducts numerous professional develop-ment sessions for administrators andteachers. She has developed DI testawareness materials to support theadministration of state and nationalassessments.

An anecdote by Principal LydiaLafferty from Margaret BrownElementary in Baltimore summarizesthe thoughts of many who haveworked with Mrs. Green. "When Ifirst met Jane eight years ago, I wasthe rookie principal of one of the low-est performing schools in BaltimoreCity. Jane was a dynamic, energeticteacher with a love of learning. Ourstudents however, were not learning.We had been named eligible for recon-stitution or state takeover. Teacherturnover was high and morale was low.Standardized test scores were dismaland student behavior was spiraling outof control. The Baltimore CurriculumProject offered our school, ArundelElementary, the opportunity to imple-ment a total school reform modelDirect Instruction. I asked Jane tobecome the DI coordinator forArundel and that's when she began tospin her magic.

"Jane immersed herself in everyaspect of DI. She taught, modeled,coached and confidently expressedher commitment to the success of theprogram. Quickly she earned therespect of the teachers and parents.With her never-failing smile anddirect manner, she transformednovice teachers into pros, naysayersinto believers, and a school cloudedwith failure into an environment ofsuccess. Jane was an inspirationshegalvanized the faculty and channeledtheir energy into developing the skillsto make the difference for our chil-

10

dren. Their effective implementationof the DI program resulted in note-worthy increases in student achieve-ment. In 1998, the Maryland StateDepartment of Education citedArundel Elementary for making sig-nificant gains on the Maryland StatePerformance Assessment Program(MSPAP). Jane Green was directlyresponsible for this highly soughtafter accolade."

.1aue immersed herse

in every aspect of DI. She

taught, modeled, coached and

confidently expressed her

commitment to the success

of theprogram Quickly sheearned the respect of the

teachers and parents. Withher never-failing smile and

erect manner, shetransformed Novice teachers

into pros, Naysayers into

he/levers, aud a school

clouded with failure into

au euviroumeut of success."

A group of Elementary InstructionalSpecialists with Dalton Public Schoolsdescribes Diane Hill's introduction toDI as such. "Over five years ago, as anElementary Instructional Specialist ina low-performing school, Diane beganto search for ways to boost the literacydevelopment of her educationallydeprived students. At that same time,Dalton Public Schools was experienc-ing a rapid influx of non-Englishspeaking Latino students. Dianeheard about Direct Instruction andvisited an elementary school inChattanooga, Tennessee that wasusing Reading Mastery. She returnedinvigorated and determined to use theprogram to make a difference in thelives of her diverse students. Throughher leadership, the program that start-

ed as a single school initiative flour-ished into a system-wide adoption."

In 1994 Diane chose the DI languageand reading curricula for her school,Morris Elementary. She organized allstaff development activities, theteacher training and secured the sup-port of outside consultants. As PaulMcKinney from EducationalResources, Inc. said, "Morris Street'sfirst year success sparked the atten-tion of district level administratorsand other schools in her district beganto turn to the DI programs as well. By1997, all eight elementary schoolswere using Reaa'ing Mastery andCorrective Rearing." He goes on to saythat, "Because of Diane's persistence,vigilance, knowledge and commit-ment, the Board of Education createda district wide position for her asDirect Instruction Coordinator."

"Diane's belief in and passion for DIare unequaled. She has experiencedfirst hand how effective the curricu-lum can be with all students when itis implemented correctly." Thosewords from Ed Schaefer, also fromEducational Resources, Inc., reiteratethe belief in Diane's commitment andthe quality of her work. When accept-ing her award, Diane's first humblewords were, "It's just my job. That'swhat I was supposed to do." How out-standing that someone who is trulyimproving the lives of students sees itsimply as "doing her job."

Nominating Susan Hornor, colleagueLinda McGlocklin credits Susan witha dedication that led their school,Evergreen Elementary in Spokane,Washington, to adopt Readthg Mastery

as the school reading curriculum withschool district approval and financialsupport. Susan is a first grade leadteacher. Linda also states that,"Susan's passion for reading andensuring that all students have essen-tial skills reaches beyond the firstgrade. It has led her to develop abefore school tutorial model for third

40 Fall 200/

through sixth grade students. Thecurricula for this tutorial are CorrectiveReading and Reasoning and Writing.

Students in the tutorial have averagedfrom lfi to 2 years gain in their read-ing skills as assessed by theQualitative Reading Inventory."

The nomination letters for Susan,which included testimonials from par-ents whose children have been taughtby Susan, attest to her motivation,dedication, patience, and her absolutecommitment that all students canlearn at high levels. Susan is wellknown for giving up breaks and lunch-es to ensure that children who needextra help in order to succeed, getthat extra help and attention. Dr.Betty Cook, Principal at Evergreen,characterizes Susan in the followingstatement. "In short, Susan is a phe-nomenal educator in every sense ofthe word. She contributes to the livesof students and adults in profoundways. When I walk through the hallsof this school, I am constantly remind-ed of the children whose lives she hasliterally changed by teaching them toread, seeing themselves as scholars,and to confidently move into theirfutures. Susan is the most nobleexample of a teacher I have ever met."

Stacey Herrmann teaches at WilsonCreek Jr./Sr. High School in Yucaipa,California. Margaret Messina ofAdvanced Education Services statesthat, "Stacey has been instrumental inadvancing teaching to mastery throughDirect Instruction at her Junior/SeniorHigh site for at-risk students, as wellas at a sister site. The majority ofthese students are special educationstudentsall of the students are anaverage of three to four years behindin reading, writing and mathematics."

Stacey recognizes and embraces thevalue of research-based instructionand has become the leader among herpeers in the successful implementa-tion of DI in her school. Stacey andher students have field tested DI sci-

Direct Instruction Yews

ence textbooks by Dr. Ken Miller andDr. Linda Carnine. Gilbert Quinbar ofTrinity Children and Family Servicesrelates that, "Because of the enthusi-asm she generated in her students,they wrote to Dr. Carnine regardingtheir feedback on the earth sciencetext and became an important part ofthe field-testing project. This owner-ship on their part created a highlymotivated group of students whoexcelled in their science knowledgeand self-esteem during that time." Todescribe the part Stacey plays on theWilson Creek team, Director JoyceGarrison says that, "She is a rolemodel for other staff at all times interms of her instructional practicesand educational methodology; hersupport of appropriate student behav-ior; and her commitment to advancingthe progress of staff in the implemen-tation of new strategies and tech-niques. She has eagerly agreed to trainother staff whenever requested."

In reading the letters of support forStacey it is quite clear that she repre-sents the dedication and enthusiasmthat merit the distinction of excel-lence within education.

"Indomitable, incredible, and a lot ofother 'in' words" is how ZigEngelmann described BerniceWhelchel in his introduction of her asa recipient of excellence in education.Zig also expressed that he is humbledby Bernice because of the work shedoes in the field with her teachersand students. Bernice is the Principalof City Springs Elementary inBaltimore, Maryland, one of theExcellent Schools for this year. In aletter of support for Bernice, Zigstates that, "Bernice inherited whateverybody agreed was the lowest-per-forming school in a city with very low-performing schools." She and herschool have made tremendous gainssince that time.

When the school first implementedDI in 1997, not one student in third

41

or fifth grade passedthe state test. Thisyear, 83% of the firstgraders, 64% of thesecond graders, and67% of the fifthgraders were at orabove grade level inreading. Many peo-ple credit suchimprovements toBernicenot thatshe did it alonebutthat she effectivelyand efficiently usedany and all resourcesshe had to the great-est capacity.

As Laura Doherty,ImplementationManager for theNational Institute forDirect Instruction(NIFDI), stated inher letter, "Berniceconstantly examinesand re-examinesinstructional practicesat her school andsolves problems in apositively determinedway. As an implemen-tation manager, I found myself in theenviable and rare position of workingwith a principal who was constantlyasking, 'What more can we be doing?'and 'What can we be doing better?'When problems came up and possiblesolutions were discussed, I could bankon the fact that action would be takenby the time I returned the followingweek. Nothing that would improvethe quality of instruction was out ofthe question."

Jane Green

Diane Hill

Susan Horner

The students at City Springs arehigh achieving, motivated studentsguided by excellent teachers lendingto a positive and pleasant atmos-phere due to the determination andleadership of Bernice Whelchel.Laura Doherty states it quite simply,"She truly exemplifies excellence ineducation."

11

Excellent SchoolCity Springs Elementary in Baltimore,Maryland is one of three recipients ofthe Excellent School Award. The storyof City Springs since the implementa-tion of DI five years ago is truly inspi-rational. What a difficult task to sum-marize the pages of support CitySprings generated from the pool ofpeople who supported the nominationof the school. First, some history.Muriel Berkeley of the BaltimoreCurriculum Project stated that, "Fiveyears ago City Springs was a school outof control. Children followed theirwhims out of classrooms, out of thebuilding. The faculty ran around in cir-cles from one crisis to another.Children did not respect adults andadults did not respect children.Children were not learning."

Gary Davis, NIFDI Project Director,has been involved with City Springssince the inception of DI in theirschool. He describes the situation assuch, "City Springs is a 100% low-income school set in a high povertyinner-city neighborhood. The vastmajority of students come from one ofthe lowest income housing projects inthe nation."

So what happened in City Springs thatfive years later they are being recog-nized as an excellent school? The fac-ulty investigated DI curricula anddecided to try it. Under the leadershipof the Principal, Ms. BerniceWhelchel, the staff at City Springs hasrisen to many challenges and expecta-tions, the most difficult being that allchildren must learn.

A paragraph by the NIFDIImplementation Manager, LauraDoherty, describes the absolute turnaround the school has experienced.

"I had what can only be described as atrue 'high' the other day during themath period. As a consultant, I'm con-stantly on the lookout for problemsand always listen to whatever instruc-

12

don is going on, even if I'm just walk-ing by. As I walked from one end ofthe hall to the other while on my wayto the office, I heard classroom afterclassroom of what can only bedescribed as great teaching and stu-dents learning. Classroom after class-room of good pacing, unison responses,

4t air point the majorny ofCity Springs students are

performing above or atgrade/eve/ in reading and the

CTBS/5 results have shown

thwnatic increases in theyears 108-2001.

and praise. Then I was struck at hownormal it was at City Springs for virtu-ally every student in the school to beactively engaged in good instruction,hour after hour, day after day. Thepower of this realization was intoxicat-ing."

At this point the majority of CitySprings students are performing aboveor at grade level in reading and theCTBS/5 results have shown dramaticincreases in the years 1998-2001. JerrySilbert gave a breakdown of the testscores as follows. In 1998 median stu-dent performance on the CTBS inreading was below the 30th percentile.In 2001 the first grade median was atthe 82nd percentile. For math firstgrade students were below the 10thpercentile in 1998 and in 2001 thefirst grade scores were at the 60thpercentile.

The consensus is that City Springs isnow not just a model DI school, but amodel school. Not only has studentand teacher behavior transformed, butthe school has the data to verify theiracademic achievements.

Hampstead Hill Elementary, also inBaltimore, is in its fifth year of DIimplementation. Hampstead Hill hasreceived Outstanding Achievement

Awards based on its MSPAP andCTBS scores. It has adopted a serious,rigorous all-school DI model, and givenits achievement on the standardizedtests, it is apparent that the model isworking well. Hampstead Hillachieved the highest Maryland StatePerformance Assessment Programcomposite score in the school's historyon the 2000 MSPAP.

Hampstead Hill fully implements thereading, language, math, and spellingprograms in grades k-5. In his letter ofrecommendation for Hampstead Hill,Project Director Gary Davis supplieddemographics which give context tosome factors with which the schoolmust contend. Hampstead Hill is alow-income school with 560 studentswith 90% qualifying for free or reducedlunch. The transient rate is just over30%. In spite of these figures, as GaryDavis notes, "Hampstead Hill is some-what unique as inner-city schools go.The physical plant is in excellentshape due to a remodel shortly beforethe implementation of DI. As expect-ed, the students were truly low per-forming academically; however, theschool was not full of behaviorally outof control students. The staff was aveteran one and very entrenched."

The dedication of the staff members isa leading contributor as to whyHampstead Hill has made such greatgains. They have been self-motivatedin establishing afternoon practice ses-sions once a week, developing theirown data notebook for all teachers tomaintain, and establishing grade levelteams. By the second year of imple-mentation they were independentlyable to regroup grade-wide based onthe mastery tests and independentwork. This has led to the developmentof a core of excellent coaches whowork with new teachers and teachersand students who have problems.

Percentile charts show that students inthe first, second, and fifth grades areslightly above the 50th percentile inreading. At least 20% of students in

42 Fail 20N

grades 1-6 are reading at least one pro-gram level above grade level, and oftenmore. Math scores have shown increas-es over the last four years. "The overalltrend as one would expect is increasedlesson progress for groups in the firstthree grades. This acceleration in les-son progress is due to the increase inthe staff's ability to teach the pro-grams," comments Davis.

And from the perspective of someonewho has worked with the staff ofHampstead Hill since the introductionof DI into the curricula, Mr. Davisadds that, "Hampstead Hill is a modelDI school. A stroll through the halls ora quick visit to any classroom wouldtell you this. The staff has put in anincredible effort and time to becomeone of the best. I think they haveearned the recognition that this awardwould give them."

"There are no excuses. All studentscan learn." That is the policy that RonCosta, Principal, and his staff devel-oped at Rio Altura Elementary inRiverbank, California in order to gofrom the "weakest link" two years agoto a nine out of ten ranking comparedto similar schools throughout thestate. "Rio Altura has been a modelschool in our county. Through theimplementation of DI programs, RioAltura has demonstrated that effectiveteaching assures that all children canlearn. A schoolwide effort to train andcoach staff members was initiatedafter collecting and analyzing data forthe 1998-1999 school year. The datademonstrated significant gains inreading (both decoding and compre-hension) for students involved in apilot study of Readthg Mastery andCorrective Reaa'ing. After schoolwideimplementation, Rio Altura's APIscores showed a growth of 143 pointsproving the difference DI makes instudent achievement." These wordscome from Reading ProgramCoordinators from Rio Altura, PatElston and Cyndi Fletcher.

Direct lastraction News

Frank Smith and Linda Youngmayr ofthe Stanislaus County Office ofEducation have this to say about RioAltura. "During the last two years, RioAltura has developed a statewide repu-tation for outstanding improvement inits educational program. The State ofCalifornia's STAR Testing program

"They have truly shout/ what

possihle to accomplish who/

you aim high, take

respousiMty for studentperformauce, and providelustre/a/o,/ that is designed

to el/sure student success."

identified Rio Altura as one of the 10most improved schools for the2000-2001 academic year." "Rio Alturais truly an outstanding school. Thestaff is motivated to assure the highestpossible academic attainment for everystudent. This fact is reflected in allthat they do. The atmosphere of theschool demonstrates true caring forchildren and a commitment to accom-plish what is best for them. It is thisfact that makes our county so eager tosend other sites to witness what theyhave accomplished."

In 1999, 30% of 2nd graders were per-forming at or above the 50th per-centile. A year later, 51% of 2ndgraders were at the norm. With a sig-nificant number of students at RioAltura being English LanguageLearners, only 13% performed at the50th percentile in 2nd grade in 1999,while in 2000 38% of ELL studentswere at or above the national norm.The last few years at Rio Altura repre-sent a time of continual and significantgrowth and improvement. The gains atthe school were so impressive thatthey made the front page of the localnewspaper. And as Dr. Cathy Watkinsemphasizes, "They have truly shownwhat is possible to accomplish when

you aim high, take responsibility forstudent performance, and provideinstruction that is designed to ensurestudent success."

Wayne CarmileMost hi/provedSiudoa zlioara'Six students were chosen this yearfrom a pool of inspiring examples ofstudent improvement.

Amanda Bhirdo's condition wasdescribed to her parents as develop-mentally delayed, explaining why shewas two years behind her peers in herability to walk, talk, and otherwisedevelop age-related skills. At four yearsold Amanda was placed into a specialeducation head-start program to helpprepare her for kindergarten. Amandastruggled through kindergarten withthe help of a loving teacher althoughshe was academically unprepared for1st grade. While in 1st grade theschool placed her permanently intothe special education program. After adiscouraging conversation with theschool psychologist in which the psy-chologist predicted a bleak future forAmanda academically and socially,Amanda's mother, Marsha Rodman-Green, determined to dedicate her lifeto her daughter's success and to otherchildren with learning disabilities.

Marsha contacted Rodney Kerr ofSRA/McGraw-Hill who helped providetraining and material for Marsha to usewith Amanda. Marsha's knowledge ofDI originated seven years earlier whenit was used with her son, and taughthim to read.

Amanda is now eight and in theprocess of completing Reading Mastery Iand Laquagefor Learning. She isenrolled in a regular education kinder-garten program and is on task andreading. Direct Instruction has trulychanged Amanda's life. Amanda hassince been diagnosed with infantile

3 13

autism, replacing the developmentallydelayed diagnosis. The doctor whomade this diagnosis was so amazedwith the skills Amanda had acquiredthat he told Marsha she had workedher daughter out of autism andencouraged her to continue what shewas doing with Amanda.

Amanda has gone from a depressedchild with little confidence to onewith enthusiasm as she has now expe-rienced the feelings of success andlearning and her attitude of "I can't dothis" has turned over to represent hernew skills and abilities. Marsha hasnoticed other growth concurrent withher language skills, such as riding herbike, playing hopscotch using the cor-rect feet and not falling down, dressingherself and her dolls. She no longerhides under the table when it is timefor her lessonshe doesn't need tohideshe knows she can tackle thetasks at hand.

Marsha attended the EugeneConference with the knowledge thatAmanda's school, Island ChristianSchool in Islamorada, Florida, hashired her as the. Reading Specialist toassist children with their reading skills.Marsha was able to personally thankZig Engelmann for authoring the pro-grams that indeed change lives andAmanda exemplifies the possibilitieswhen a dedicated instructor unwilling toaccept failure uses an effective program.

Donte Brooks entered CollingtonSquare Elementary in Baltimore,Maryland as a non-reading third grad-er. His prior school experience includ-ed being told that he was "stupid" andthat he would "never learn to read."Needless to say Donte had come toview school as a negative place andhimself as someone incapable of learn-ing. In third grade Donte scored toolow for placement in Decal/fig A, lead-ing the Curriculum Coordinator,Brenda Griffin, to begin Fast (WeIwith him.

14

The transition to Direct Instructionwas not easy for Donte. He did notlike being corrected (atallsays Ms.Griffin) and he consistently said toMs. Griffin, "I hate you. I want to goback to my old school." NonethelessDonte and Ms. Griffin worked togeth-er and did 8-10 lessons per week. ByOctober they had reached the first sto-

rea(§tig increased more

.than three years with me year

ofDf in a tietorial settiNg two

to three hours per week.

rybook. Donte's concept of readingwas starting to change. The "I hateyou" comments stopped and in Mayhe placed into Decoding .81. Heachieved two years growth in readingin 10 months. Donte now knows andfeels that he can learn and was over-heard telling a new student, "Yeah, Icouldn't read before, but Ms. Griffintaught me, and now it's just in myhead." Donte now experiences a welldeserved sense of pride and representswhat is meant by the term "StudentImprovement."

Daniel Cahill of South Plantation Highin Plantation, Florida entered KoalaLearning Center for reading assistancetwo to three hours per week as a six-teen year old with a reading level of athird grader. Daniel was labeled asdyslexic/learning disabled and hasbeen in special education classes sincethe early elementary grades.Throughout his school career he hasreceived intense full time services andhis parents have spent thousands ofdollars in private programs including aprivate LD school, and intensive one-to-one remediation with one of thearea's prominent reading specialists.Despite these efforts Daniel was onlyat a third grade reading level by thebeginning of his ninth grade year.

At the Koala Learning Center Danielhas been instructed with Corrective

4I

Reading, Decoding. Marvin Silverman,Director of Koala commented that,"Despite a decade of failure, frustra-tion, disappointment, and not beingable to reach a literacy level, Danielwas cooperative and did not complainabout this last effort to try to improvehis reading. He persevered with ourcenter's teacher and never complainedabout having to attend these remedialsessions." Within a year Daniel hadreached the end of level C and testedout on a middle school word recogni-tion level and a high school compre-hension level. His reading increasedmore than three years with one year ofDI in a tutorial setting two to threehours per week. Mr. Silverman pointsout that, "With DI, he showed asmuch growth in 105 hours of instruc-tion as he did with eight years of effortprior to DI."

Mr. Silverman commends Daniel for"his willingness to try anotherapproach despite all of the frustrationand lack of success in the past." It isindeed a pleasure for the Associationfor Direct Instruction to recognize thetremendous improvement achieved byDaniel and to reward his perseveranceas he strives to become a better read-er.

Following are the words that Mrs.Daniela Greco, Academy Coordinatorfor Beach Channel High School inRockaway, New York, used to describeNatanael Lozado in her letter of nomi-nation for the Most Improved Student."I have had the pleasure of knowingNatanael Lozado for the past threeyears. I first became acquainted withNatanael when he was a student in my82 Decoding- class. As I worked withhim, I began to realize what a fineyoung man he is to both his teachersand fellow classmates. I knew that oneday I would nominate him for themost improved student. This day hasfinally arrived."

Daniel is sixteen and serves as a modelof appropriate behavior for his peers.He is energetic and helpful while suf-fering with asthma in the winter and

Fall 2001

allergies in the summer. Those ail-ments do not stop him from helpingMrs. Greco in her office, tutoring otherstudents in decoding during hislunchtime, and helping his Spanish-speaking parents with English.Natanael's classroom participation andpoliteness have yielded positiveteacher reports regarding class workand relations with peers and facultymembers. In 1999 Natanael'sWoodcock Johnson scores were: W.I.:3.4, W.A.: 1.7, Comp.: 3.9. Natanaelattributed these low scores to frequentabsences in junior high due to his asth-ma. Bilingualism may also have con-tributed to these scores. With thecombination of coaching from Mrs.Greco and sheer determination on thepart of Natanael, his 2001 WoodcockJohnson scores were W.I.: 7.7, W.A.:12.7, and Comp.: 10.7. Natanaellearned perseverance from his experi-ence. He has been self-motivating andhe has reaped high rewards as a resultof his determination, laying the pathfor future success.

Sacrifice and perseverance are two ofthe characteristics that describeHadley Quintard and his ability tomake great gains during the 1999-2001school years. Hadley's mother askedthe reading teacher, Ms. JonitaSommers to tutor Hadley using DI cur-ricula starting in November 1999. As aseventh grader at Big Piney MiddleSchool in Big Piney, Wyoming Hadleytook the Gates MacGinitie ReadingTest in November 1999 and fell intothe following percentiles: Vocabulary:9th (4.0 grade level); Comprehension:8th (3.4 grade level); Total: 8th(3.7grade level). These results showed hisperformance significantly behind gradelevel and struggling desperately. ForHadley the following months consistedof intensive tutoring coupled with anactive extracurricular schedule thatincluded basketball and track. Hadleywas tutored four mornings a week andrequested 7:30 a.m. sessions to allowhim to be in basketball practice afterschool. January through March Hadleydid not have any after school sports and

Direct lartractioff Alms

went to tutoring four to five days aweek for an hour each day and nevermissed a scheduled day. During schoolvacations Hadley took the Decoding- Cbook home and did the lessons with hismother. During the summer break of2000 Hadley's mother drove him toMs. Sommers' ranch 45 minutes out oftown twice a week and Ms. Sommersmet them in town once a week. Hadleyhelped his grandfather in the hayfieldeveryday, so he came early in themorning when the dew was on duringhaying. He also gave up some nights ofteam roping so he could be tutored.When school started that year Hadleyand Ms. Sommers worked togetherfour days a week at 7:30 a.m. withHadley always on time and sometimesearly. In that time he one day broughthis eighth grade physical science bookto tutoring to get help reading andcomprehending, but he didn't evenneed the help. As Ms. Sommers said,"All he needed was some success,which gave him much needed confi-dence."

In May 2001 Hadley took the GatesMacGinitie Reading Test for the thirdtime. His scores were in the followingpercentiles: Vocabulary: 14th (5.0grade level); Comprehension: 31st (7.7grade level); Total: 27th (6.1 gradelevel). Overall he has gained 2.4 yearson the Gates MacGinitie Reading Testafter 1.5 years of instruction using DImaterial. Hadley has not had a failinggrade since he began working with theDI programs.

Ms. Sommers has used DI programsfor twenty years and has never seen astudent work so hard or give up somuch of his own time so he couldlearn to read. Of Hadley she said, "Ihave had students gain as much asHadley or more and even in a shortertime span, but no one has put in theday after day effort he has done with-out complaining or trying to get out ofit. Reading was hard for him, but withthe Direct Instruction programs andhis perseverance, Hadley has learnedhow to read!"

45

Patrick McFadden spoke with greatenthusiasm in his nomination letter forTony Tran from Charles CarrollBarrister Elementary in Baltimore,Maryland. Tony was born in Vietnamand moved to Baltimore when he wasthree. Tony's parents have limitedEnglish speaking skills thus Tony wasplaced into the school's ESOL programwhen he entered kindergarten. Becauseof his limited English Tony did not dowell in kindergarten. Tony began DI inkindergarten and by 2nd grade hescored in the 99th percentile in bothlanguage and math on standardizedtests and tested out of the ESOL pro-gram. As Mr. McFadden stated, "Hetotally embraced the DI system."

"In addition to the amazing amount ofacademic improvement Tony hasmade in the last two years, he alsoserves as a positive example of how tobehave in a classroom. He follows therules of Direct Instruction, fromanswering on signal to checking andcorrecting his work. His behaviorproves the adage that academicachievement is the key to discipline."Those words from Mr. McFaddensummarize the awesome achievementsTony has made with the combinationof his own will and his school's use of aresearch-based program that has againproven effective.

The preceding summaries offer only aglimpse of these outstanding individu-als and the contributions they aremaking nationwide. It is clear to seehow the cycle comes full-circle. Theschools make the decision to utilizeDirect Instruction, allowing the oppor-tunity for dramatic improvement. Inthe classroom the teachers reach excel-lence as a result of personal persist-ence and dedication combined with aneffective tool which allows students togrow. And the students are given achance to realize their full potentialand to understand the excitement oflearning and mastery. Perhaps as thesestories make more headlines and morelives are affected as such, the dream ofmore children truly learning will berealized. ADI.

15

t - :

Teaching Method Makes the Grade

In the recent flurry of news aboutschool testing locally and nationally,one accomplishment might have beenmissed, and it's worth noting: DirectInstruction passed the five-year test inBaltimore with flying colors.

In the 1990s, when the highly script-ed, phonics-based program began mak-ing waves in Baltimore, there weremany doubters. Direct InstructionDI, for shortwent against the teach-ing practices recommended by muchof the education establishment. It wasconsidered too regimented. Teachershated it.

Under another name (DISTAR), ithad been tried here in the 1970s buthad not lasted. And, like an earlierplan to install the private CalvertSchool curriculum at a Baltimore pub-lic school, it had the disadvantage ofhaving been introduced, promoted andpartially funded not by the folks whorun the school system, but by well-meaning outsiders.

Give us five years, said DI's sponsors.That's the minimum that should beafforded any school reform. If we can'tshow sustained progress by 2001, weshould fold our tents and go away.

Well, we're still lacking fifth-yearresults from this spring's Marylandstate school performance testing, butthe five original DI elementaryschoolsHampstead Hill, RolandPark, City Springs, General Wolfe andArundeldon't have to leave camp.According to results of a national stan-dardized test released last week, theyhave half a decade of growth to bragabout, and the 12 other DI schools inthe city are pulling ahead of citywideaverages on those same tests.

16

In reading, all five of the original DIschools outpaced citywide averages onthe Comprehensive Test of BasicSkills, taken in March, and in four offive grades, their kids scored above thenational median. (The fourth grade,for reasons no one can explain, is aproblem everywhere.)

City Springs Elementary, smack in themiddle of one of the city's poorestneighborhoods, is a case in point. IfBaltimore schools in general have donewell on the CTBS, City Springs hasperformed even better, improvingreading scores by 54 percentage pointsin the first grade and 53 points in thefifth since Direct Instruction arrived.During the same period, citywidemedian percentile scores increasedby 29 and 25 percentage points,respectively.

"The proof is in the pudding," saysBernice E. Whelchel, completing hersixth year as City Springs' principal.And she's not just talking about testscores, which these days fly aroundlike spring pollen. Even those of uswho are crazy enough to watch scoresclosely become overwhelmed. Is aschool to be judged "good" or "bad"strictly on the basis of how its pupilsscore on the Maryland School Perform-ance Assessment Program or CTBS?

No, the way to judge the difference atCity Springs is to visitand toremember five years ago. The city hasimploded the nearby East Baltimorehigh-rise projects since then, andenrollment is down from the high 300sto 290. That's helped, but it doesn'tfully explain the new atmosphere: Outof chaos, there is order and respect.Many more parents are participating.Upstairs, a U.S. history class is eagerlydiscussing a recent field trip to


Monticello, President ThomasJefferson's home in Virginia.

One of the raps against DI is thatwhile it might do a good job at teach-ing the mechanics of reading with itshighly scripted instruction, it fallsdown when it comes to comprehension.

I saw no evidence of that among thefifth- and fourth-graders in the stuffyU.S. history classroom. They had donetheir reading with understanding; theyknew about the Lewis and Clark expe-dition, about slavery and even aboutJefferson's gardens. I've heard first-graders at City Springs reading withevident understanding, but that hasn'tsilenced the critics who charge that DIis simply "rote learning."

The program's founder and leader,Siegfried "Ziggy" Engelmann, says hebelieves that children fail to learnwhen instruction is unclear or poorlyorganized. So DI is systematic andhighly structured. It's a "step-by-stepprocedure," says Whelchel, "so that nochild can possibly fall through thecracks. You have to be a purist as far asimplementing Direct Instruction."

Given the success of DI at CitySprings and elsewhere, you wouldthink that city school officials wouldembrace it enthusiasticallyand youwould think wrongly. Other programs,after all, also are working in cityschools, and these allow more teacherflexibility. Moreover, success amongthe DI schools is uneven.

If DI were to lose foundation support,it might go the way of so many otherpromising city school reforms. ButWhelchel isn't worried about that justnow: "Next year, we're going to knockthe socks off the... tests again."

Reprinted with permission from M e BaltimoreSun, May 27, 2001.

/ 200i

41 Dozen Suggestions to Make DIBeginning Reading ImplementationsProduce 1k/ore Student Learning

Jerry Sam' is co-author of the college text,Direct instruction Reading ana' DirectInstruction Mathematics. He a /so co-

authored Levels C D of Reasoning andWriiitig and leo& ee Expressive

Writing. In the past decade he has been

involved in the implementation of the DI

model in a minder of chools throughoutthe US

This paper is addressed to educatorswho are using the Direct Instructionprograms Reading Mastery, Language forLearning and Language for Thinking as a

beginning literacy program with at-riskpopulations and to advocates for chil-dren in communities in which DirectInstruction is being used.

There are numerous schools through-out the nation in which DirectInstruction is being used to make verysignificant gains in student achieve-ment. The challenge now is to createimplementations in which all schoolsin a district using Direct Instructionproduce very large gains in studentachievement.

Below are 12 suggestions that I believecan lead to greater and more uniformstudent achievement gains in DIimplementations.

Suggestion 1.More Focus on BringingChildren to Grade Levelby End of First GradeThe success of the Direct InstructionModel in producing large gains in stu-dent achievement is dependent onwhat happens before the end of firstgrade. Bringing children to grade levelstatus by the end of first grade is


essential if children are to be success-ful and score well on tests in firstgrade and in future grades.

At-risk children who master the con-tent of Reaaing 'Plastery /and Hand thecontent of the first two levels of theDirect Instruction language programs,Language for Learning and Language forMild/mg, by the end of first grade scoreat or above grade level on standardizedtests. Children who just completeLevel I by the end of first grade willgenerally score very poorly on the stan-dardized tests and not improve signifi-cantly in their scores in later grades.

The goal of having virtually all chil-dren complete and master the firsttwo levels of the Reading Mastery andLanguage programs by the end of firstgrade is not easy to reach, but hasbeen achieved in a number of schoolsin high poverty areas and is thereforepossible.

Suggestion 2.More Emphasis on TeachingDI in Kindergartenand Pre-KindergartenA quality DI program in kindergartenis essential to have all children reachgrade level by the end of first grade.The DI programs must be implement-ed in kindergarten with a sense ofurgency to have most children com-plete and master the content of thefirst levels of the reading and languageprograms.

Full-day kindergartens, low teacher-student ratios, adequate time forinstruction and a high quality andquantity of training for the teachers,

not only in Direct Instruction tech-niques but also in classroom organiza-tion and management contribute toreaching this goal.

Pre-kindergarten classes during whichLanguage forLearningis taught to allchildren and the DI reading program istaught to more advanced students canplay an important role in reaching thegoal of bringing all children to gradelevel by the end of first grade.

Suggestion 3.More Emphasison the Direct InstructionLanguage ProgramsThe Language for Learning program andits sequel Language for Thinking, for-merly DISTAR Language I and II,play a critical role in preparing chil-dren to be good comprehenders.Language for Learning teaches i mpor-tant fundamental language conceptsand vocabulary that many childrenhave not mastered upon enteringkindergarten. Both levels teach impor-tant analytical and deductive reason-ing skills that help students compre-hend sentences and passages.

The DI language programs must betaught in a high quality manner withthe students' performance carefullymonitored to ensure mastery. Ideallystudents will master the content ofboth levels by the end of first grade.

Suggestion 4.More Instructional TimeIf at-risk children are to be able to per-form at the same level as their moreprivileged peers who receive a gooddeal of instruction at home, the at-riskchild must receive a good deal moreinstruction at school. Just a "businessas usual" attitude will not get the kindof gains that are possible.

Below is a brief overview of timerequirements that appear to be need-ed in order to achieve grade level per-

4 "7 BEST COPY AVAILABLE17

formance for virtually all children bythe end of first grade.

In kindergarten a 90-minute a.m. peri-od and a 60-minute p.m. period devot-ed to-teaching Direct Instructionappear necessary to enable all childrento reach desired levels. Each instruc-tional group should receive a full 30-minute period for reading instructionevery day. For the average and lowerperforming groups an additional 15-30minute DI reading period in the after-noon is needed in order to facilitatemaking the lesson progress needed tocomplete and master the 160 lessonsof Reading Mastery/by the end of theschool year. The same time allocationwould ideally be provided for Language

for Learning. Providing this level ofinstruction will be much easier if anextra person such as an aide or auxil-iary teacher is made available to teachthe language groups. DI languageinstruction should begin the first weekof school. DI reading instructionshould begin by the second week forhigher performers and by the end ofthe third or fourth week of school fornearly all the other children.

In first grade and higher, a 90-minutea.m. period and a 90-minute p.m. peri-od are needed for language artsinstruction. At the beginning of theschool year, each instructional groupshould receive a 30-minute DI readingperiod in the morning and a 30-minuteDI reading period in the afternoon. Asthe school year proceeds, when a groupis at a stage in the Reading Mastery pro-gram at which they will easily be ableto complete Readthg Mastery II by theend of first grade with just one perioda day, the teacher can utilize the after-noon period to have children read insupplementary reading materials. Forexample, it is the 60th day of theschool year and the group is at lesson80 in RA1/1. There are 120 school daysleft in the year and only 80 more les-sons to be covered in RA/1/. Theafternoon period could be devoted toreading in other materials. In additionto reading instruction each instruction-

18

al group should have at least 30 min-utes a day of language instruction withmore time scheduled if needed tocomplete the second level of languageby the end of first grade.

For some children, full morning andafternoon periods will not be suffi-cient. Extra time after school and dur-ing the summer may need to be sched-uled if the goal of having children fin-ish Rilfilby the beginning of secondgrade is to be reached.

In kindergarten a 90- minute

a.iu period and a 60-matep.m. period devoted to

teaching Direct his/ruction

appear Necessary to euahle all

children to read desiredlevels. Each instructional

group should receive a full50-miNute perioa' for reading

instruct/oil every day.

In grade two and above, the languagearts instruction should include thea.m. and p.m. reading periods.Students who are in Reading Mastery Hiwould receive reading instruction insupplementary reading materials dur-ing the afternoon period.

Suggestion 5.More Emphasis on MonitoringStudent Mastery

DI is based on mastery teaching. Thecontent taught in the early lessons isprerequisite for success in later les-sons. If children are not taught to mas-tery in early lessons, progress in laterlessons will be slowed.

In-program mastery tests in readingand language need to be administeredand the results recorded. In reading,emphasis should be placed on fluencyas well as accuracy. Teachers need toprovide the remediation exercises

48

specified in the teacher's guide whenstudents fail a mastery test. Childrenhaving difficulty (not passing two con-secutive mastery tests or performingpoorly in daily lessons) need to beidentified in a timely manner and solu-tions planned and implemented imme-diately to enable them to be successful.

The principal of a school must be surethat the DI mastery tests are beingadministered correctly and that thedata reports are reliable. A systemthrough which someone other than theteacher periodically tests students todetermine their level of masteryshould be established with more fre-quent testing by someone other thanthe teacher in classrooms in which stu-dent performance is poor or data sub-mitted was not reliable.

Suggestion 6.More Focus on Implementing theDI Data Management System

The DI Data Management Systemincludes: (a) frequent examination bya school leadership team of the lessonprogress and mastery test performanceof students in the DI programs, (b)identifying situations in which studentprogress and performance are atdesired levels and providing positivefeedback to teachers, (c) identifyingsituations in which student progressand/or performance are inadequateand planning and implementing solu-tions to problems causing inadequateperformance or progress, and (d) mon-itoring the effectiveness of proposedsolutions.

More specifically:

1. Each week or second week, theprincipal, coach(es) and grade levelteachers meet to examine (1)reports on student performance onthe DI mastery tests and (2)reports on the number of lessonsthat have been taught to each groupduring the current period.

Fag 2001

2. The performance of every child andevery group is examined to deter-mine:

a) individual students who are notat acceptable performance levels,

b) particular skills which morethan 25% of students are havingdifficulty with,

c) groups in which more than25% of students are not at satis-factory performance levels,

d) groups that have not madeacceptable progress in terms oflesson progress towards finishingReadthg Mastery /by the end ofkindergarten or towards finishingReaak -Mastery / /by the end offirst grade.

3. The principal, coach and grade levelteachers, with the input of a seniorDI trainer, plan solutions toimprove student learning whenmastery test performance and/orlesson progress are not at desiredlevels.

4. The principal assigns a coach tomonitor solutions for individual stu-dents. The principals monitor solu-tions for groups in which more than25% of the students are failing thein-program mastery tests andgroups that are not making desiredlesson progress.

5. Each meeting includes a follow upon solutions already implementedin previous weeks to make surethe solutions are effective. If solu-tions devised at previous meetingshave not been successful, modifi-cations should be planned andimplemented.

Suggestion 7.More Inservice Sessions Devotedto Training and Role PlayingPractice.

In a DI implementation, the qualityand quantity of inservice and in-classcoaching provided to teachers and


assistants make a significant differencein determining how much studentswill learn.

Teachers must learn a number of newtechniques throughout the school year.On-going inservice training sessionsthroughout the school year, presentedby a qualified DI trainer, followed bypractice sessions in which teacherspractice the techniques together andreceive feedback, need to be providedto all teachers and assistants whose

AN /Ivor/a/I/part of a DIimplementation is to locate

these exemplary DI teachers

and prepare them to coach

other teachers. Districts that

have teen usiNg D I for more

than a year will most

proha* have teachers whohave reached prof levels.

performance is not at high levels ofproficiency. Practice sessions can beled by exemplary teachers who havereceived training in how to conductinservice sessions. There needs to beadministrative monitoring to ensurethat the training and practice sessionsare productive.

Inservice training and role-playingpractice need to occur more frequentlyearly in the school year since the mostcritical part of DI programs are the ini-tial lessons. The early lessons of DIprograms establish the foundation forfuture learning. Ideally during the firstweeks of the school year, teacherswould practice 2-3 times a week for30-45 minutes and thereafter justonce or twice a week. Teachers mustbe brought to high levels of proficiencyas early as possible so that they canteach the early lessons well.

49

Suggestion 8.More In-Class Coaching

In-class coaching is a critical elementof the DI Model. In most school dis-tricts, during the first year(s) of imple-menting Direct Instruction, the dis-trict will rely on outside consultants.While there are many excellent indi-vidual consultants and consulting firmsthat provide proficient training, out-side consultants alone generally cannotprovide the quantity of coaching need-ed to bring all teachers to high levelsof proficiency. In high poverty schoolsthere are often a significant proportionof teachers who will need more fre-quent coaching than an outside con-sultant who visits monthly can pro-vide. In order to provide this frequentcoaching, local exemplary DI teacherswill need to be trained to serve ascoaches to initially supplement andeventually take over the coaching pro-vided by outside consultants.

An important part of a DI implementa-tion is to locate these exemplary DIteachers and prepare them to coachother teachers. Districts that havebeen using DI for more than a yearwill most probably have teachers whohave reached proficient levels.

One model that appears to have greatpotential for providing an ideal quanti-ty and quality of coaching is based onthe work of the RITE project inHouston. Exemplary DI teachers areselected to fill DI coach positions withabout one coach for each. 15-25 teach-ers for first year schools and one coachfor 30-40 teachers in schools withmore than one year experience withDI. These coaches receive on-goingtraining in how to coach from seniorDI trainers and are supervised by asenior trainer as they coach teachers.

A second model is to train severalexemplary teachers in a school to becoaches and use substitutes to freethem to coach their peers. Thisschool-based systerri is suitable for lesshigh needs schools in which teachers

19

are readily willing to accept feedbackfrom peers and competent substitutesare available.

An important challenge in creating acoaching support structure is to ensureit is performance oriented. The per-formance of coaches must be moni-tored to ensure that they are effectivein helping teachers and raising studentachievement.

Whatever system is used, a districtshould ensure that there is sufficientcoaching available to bring all teachersto acceptable and then proficientlevels in a timely manner.

Suggestion 9.More Training and Supportfor Building PrincipalsThe principal must be familiar enoughwith the details of Direct Instructionto ensure that the elements of the DIModel: professional development,placement, grouping, scheduling, class-room teaching, administration ofassessments and data analysis are inplace and are being well implementedin the school. The principal mustensure that the teachers are receivingsufficient training and encouragementto reach high levels of proficiency inimplementing all components of DI intheir classrooms.

Principals need on-going training.Ideally, the principal should attendthe inservice training for teachers andactually teach a DI group for severalweeks and receive coaching. Thisexperience would only require 30 min-utes a day of the principal's time.

Principals need to receive inservicebefore the school year on organizingthe school for DI, and during theschool year for on-going elements suchas making classroom visits, implement-ing the data management system, andproviding assistance to teachers andstudents having difficulty. In additionto inservices, principals should visitschools in which DI is well imple-

20

mented and receive mentoring at theirschool from a DI principal who hassuccessfully implemented DI in a sim-ilar school.

More help should be provided for prin-cipals of schools in which undesiredstudent behavior is interfering withinstruction.

1 program to encouragechildren to read at homeindependently should also

he estahlished. The materials

a child is to readindependently should he atthe student's instructional

level. Parents ideally would6e involved, listening to their

children read and taiingsteps to encourage the child

to read at home.

Suggestion 10.More Focused District LevelLeadership on Raising StudentAchievement

School districts place a number ofdemands on principals. Like anyemployee, a principal will devote moretime to demands that receive the mostattention from one's supervisor, in thecase of school districts, the principal'ssupervisor is generally a regional super-intendent.

Some districts with multiple schoolsusing DI often create DI coordinatorpositions. However, because these"coordinators" do not have evaluativeauthority, their suggestions often donot receive priority from principals. Toprovide a clearer communication of thedistrict's priority in improving stu-dent's reading achievement, ideally,the district should place a districtleader who has authority over princi-pals in charge of a DI implementation.

50

This administrator's job evaluationideally would be dependent in part onthe achievement gains of the studentsin the grades in which DI is beingtaught. The district leader shouldreceive training in the implementationof DI. Ideally a district leader wouldbe a DI principal who has been suc-cessful in using DI to produce biggains in achievement. The DI coordi-nator would be under the authority ofthis district leader.

The district leader demonstrates tothe principal and teachers where dis-trict priorities are placed by meetingon a regular basis (monthly) with theprincipal and school leadership teamto examine and review the lessonprogress and student mastery testreports in DI programs. By examiningthe data, providing positive feedbackto those producing desired learning,and following up on the status of inter-ventions taken in response to inade-quate student progress or perform-ance, the district leader will demon-strate to principals the priority of thedistrict in utilizing time and resourcesto facilitate increased achievement.

The district leader supports schoolpersonnel by ensuring that theyreceive a sufficient quality and quanti-ty of professional development supportand providing the school with clearauthorizations on prioritizing budget-ing and time usage to support animplementation which can bring allchildren to grade level.

Suggestion 11.More Supplementary Reading

At-risk children need to learn a greatdeal more at school than their moreprivileged peers. Teaching children toread early enables children to use read-ing as a tool to learn more information.Ideally, with good kindergarteninstruction, children will reach a pointin the DI programs early in first gradewhere they can begin reading materialsfrom a variety of other sources.

Fall 2001

Reading in additional material canbegin once children have progressedfar enough in the Reaa'ing Mastery IIprogram to read traditional print, thisis about lesson 80 in ReadiNg illasteryFor higher performing children, extrareading materials can be incorporatedsomewhat earlier.

Structured supplementary readingshould be done in materials that arecarefully coordinated with the intro-duction of skills introduced in theReading Mastery program. The teacher'sguides for the Reading Mastery programscontain suggested reading material.Instruction in reading this supplemen-tary material needs to be structuredwith difficult words, new vocabularyand comprehension skills explicitlytaught. District coordinators can helpteachers by having exemplary teachersselect materials and make lesson plansthat can be shared with other teachers.

A program to encourage children toread at home independently shouldalso be established. The materials achild is to read independently shouldbe at the student's instructional level.Parents ideally would be involved, lis-tening to their children read and tak-ing steps to encourage the child toread at home.

Suggestion 12.Use HomogeneousConstruction of Classroomsto Accelerate Performanceof Students.

Acceleration of student progress iscritical in schools serving at-risk stu-dents. Teaching children to read inkindergarten and first grade is the firststep. In addition, a sense of urgency


needs to be maintained in later grades.School staffs must keep in mind thegoal of preparing children to competewith their more advantaged peers.Even with the higher performing stu-dents, there must be a sense ofurgency to maximize student learning.

Constructing classrooms so

that the ski / level span in

classrooms is not great/nabs it more possible to

accelerate children, as such

grouping arrangementmakes more effickm` use of

the time during the entire

school a'ay possihle.

Constructing classrooms so that theskill level span in classrooms is nottoo great makes it more possible toaccelerate children, as such groupingarrangement makes more efficient useof the time during the entire schoolday possible. When the children in aclassroom are at the same level, theteacher can provide whole classinstruction which is at the instruc-tional level of all students in the classfor spelling and writing, supplemen-tary reading, and for content areainstruction in areas such as scienceand social studies.

Classrooms can be constructed to con-tain instructional groups that are nearthe same lessons in the reading pro-gram. For example, in a school withfour second grades, one second grademight have the two highest performinggroups and one classroom the lowest

51

performing groups with the middlegroups divided between the other twoclassrooms. The class with the highestperformers would have the most stu-dents. The class with the lowest per-formers would have fewer students.Help from extra teaching personnelwould focus on the class with thelower performers.

A Closag NoteWhen high poverty schools begin usingDirect Instruction, it is common tofind many children even in first or sec-ond grade who are a year or two belowdesired levels. For example, it is notunusual for almost half the secondgraders in a low-income school begin-ning DI to be placed somewhere inRearnng iliastay I. These children aretwo years below desired levels. Theimplementation of DI for these chil-dren must be designed to significantlyaccelerate their progress. Simply com-pleting one level of the DI programs ayear is not enough. The students willneed two full periods a day, an afterschool period, peer tutoring and sum-mer school. The goal is for children tomaster significantly more than one les-son a day. Without a high level ofurgency, there may be very little gainin test scores with children who beganDI in first or second grade rather thankindergarten. This low test score gaincan be very discouraging to staff andthreaten the eventual success of DI inthe school. More importantly withoutthe additional instruction, these chil-dren will not be provided with ampleopportunity to reach the high levels ofachievement that will be demanded ofthem in later grades. AIX.

21

JESSICA THOMPSON, University of Oregon, Eugene

How to Achieve Excellence

Defining Excellence

in Ea'ucation'In any profession excellence and dis-tinction are based on individual per-formance. When an individual hasaccomplished.a feat and experiencedsuccess, he/she has achieved excel-lence. Similarly, in education, teachingperformances provide the foundationfor excellence. Distinction, acknowl-edgement, and merit are warrantedwhen students have achieved to theirfullest potential.

It is evident that student progress,success, and achievement are positiveindicators of excellence. Teachers andstudents have not achieved excellenceif students are not progressing orachieving to their potential. On theother hand, if students are successfulin acquiring new skills, excellence isthe reality. It is apparent in educationthat the achievements of excellenceand student progress/success are oneand the same.

Achieving ExcellencePoliticians, administrators, and edUca-tors have long contemplated theessential ingredients necessary to fos-tering student progress and excel-lence. Little do they know that achiev-ing excellence (and student success)simply requires two essential compo-nents. The first is a structured, field-tested, research based curriculum. Thesecond is a highly qualified and skilledteacher who is able to deliver the cur-riculum in an effective manner.

The First ComponentA well-designed and effective curricu-lum provides the foundation for theachievement of excellence. Many edu-cators feel that any curriculum, whentaught well, will foster excellence andgive students success. However,research and field-testing have proventhat this is not the case. The quality ofthe curriculum contributes to the rateof student progress in attaining essen-

The Susie Wayne Scholarship

Susie Wayne was a friend to many in the Direct Instruction Community,and to many students in the Greater Seattle Area. She was an outstand-ing researcher, supervisor, and teacher. Her tireless spirit and great senseof humor were all the more remarkable because of critically serious med-ical problems that resulted in her death in 1996. In memory of her dedi-cation to effective education for all students, the Association for DirectInstruction Board of Directors established The Susie Wayne Scholarship.The annual award of $500 cash goes to a graduate level student majoringin Education.

The basis for the award is an essay competition. Qualified candidatesmust write a 1,000 word essay titled "How to Achieve Excellence," andmust be related to Direct Instruction. The winner for 2001 is Jessica

.Thompson of Eugene, Oregon who is'a student of Special Education atthe University of Oregon.

22 BEST COPY AVAILABLE52

tial skills. Students are able to achievemore, in a shorter amount of time,with Direct Instruction. This is evi-dent in numerous research articlespublished on the effectiveness of DIand on a classroom and student level.

Direct Instruction (DI) incorporatesall of the essential ingredients thatpromote student progregs. First, in DIcurriculum, children are placed at theirappropriate instructional level.Appropriately placing students helpsensure individual success during groupinstruction. Secondly, DirectInstruction introduces skills in asequenced and structured manner. Astructured and well-sequenced cur-riculum promotes learning at an opti-mum rate. Thirdly, DI requires stu-dents to review previously learnedskills. Students build upon previouslyacquired knowledge. Review alsoensures that students have masteredpreviously taught skills. Finally, DIprovides ways for teachers to measureexcellence and student progress.Teachers can collect useful data withreading rate graphs, independent workcharts, and mastery tests.

The Second ComponentA highly skilled teacher is also neces-sary in the achievement of excellence.It is impossible to overstate the impor-tance of teachers. When it is taughtsloppily or incorrectly, DirectInstruction loses its effectiveness. Onthe contrary, when in the hands of amaster teacher, DI's effectiveness iscompounded.

Since time is a commodity in the class-room, teachers must make everyinstructional minute count. In orderfor learning to take'place at an opti-mum rate, the classroom must be astructured learning environment. Askilled teacher has clear expectationsand classroom rules. Thus, ensuringthat more learning and fewer disrup-tions take place. Similarly, a teacher

Fall 2001

must deliver/teach DirecQnstruction.effectively. First, he/she should delivera quick-paced lesson. This engagesstudents and helps diminish off-taskbehavior. Secondly, the teacher mustbe enthusiastic about teaching andacknowledge positive student behav-ior. Enthusiasm and positive com-ments promote children's self-esteemand motivate them to achieve more.Third, the educator must be able tofollow the DI lesson procedures. Thisinvolves preparing/pre- reading the les-

son, following a script (format), and

correcting student mistakes. Finally,

the teacher must use data (readinggraphs, mastery tests, independentwork) to guide instructional decisions.

If a student is not doing well, theteacher could provide extra practice

and review, or place the student in alower group. However, if a student is

achieving well-above expectations, the

teacher can skip lessons or place the

student in a higher group.

SummaryIn sum, teachers must define excel-lence in terms of their students' suc-cesses. Teacher distinction and stu-dent excellence is only warrantedwhen students achieve to their fullestpotential. Direct Instruction and high-ly-skilled educators are necessary to,the achievement of excellence. Bothcomponents promote student success;which, in turn, makes teacher and stu-dent excellence attainable. Mg.

JEAN KRAEMER, SCOTT KRAMER, and HARTLEY KOCH, University H.S. D/HH, Irvine, California. KATHY MADIGAN,National Council on Teacher Quality, Boston, Massachusetts. DON STEELY, Oregon Center for Applied Science, Eugene, Oregon

Using Direct Instruct/0N Programsto Teach Comprehension and LaNguageSkills to Deaf aNa' Hard-of-lieariNgStudeNts: 41 Six-Year Study

ABSTRACT: Over a six year period,teachers at the University HighSchool Deaf and Hard-of-HearingProgram in Irvine, California haveused Direct Instruction programs inreading comprehension, spelling, andwriting with their students. Theseprograms were designed for andhave been effective with regular edu-cation and remedial hearing stu-dents. This six-year study demon-strates that if certain adaptations aremade in how the programs aretaught, the performance of deaf andhard-of-hearing students can begreatly increased.

IntroductionResearch has shown that deaf andhard-of-hearing students have veryserious problems with reading (Lovitt& Horton, 1991), fluency (Cawley,Miller, & Carr, 1990), and text struc-ture (Parmar & Cawley, 1992). Deafstudents have particular difficulty with(a) figurative English such as idioms, .

Direct A/art/aimNews

similes and metaphors (Hughes,Brigham, & Kuerbis, 1986; McAnally,Rose, & Quigley, 1987); (b) Englishsyntax such as verb systems, negation,conjunctions, complementation, andquestion structures (Kretschmer &Kretschmer, 1978; Quigley & Paul,1984; Quigley, Power, & Steinkamp,1977); (c) pragmatics such as topicmaintenance and choice (Brackett,1983; M. Nichols, personal communi-cation,.1993); and (d) cohesive devicessuch as pronominalization, temporaladverbs, ellipsis, articles and synonyms(DeVilliers, 1988; Hughes & Moseley,1988; Kretschmer, 1989). This delayin development of English language,especially in the areas of vocabularyand syntax, interferes with learning toread (Johnson & Evans, 1991; Quigley& Paul, 1989). As a result, most deafstudents do not become proficientreaders by the time they leave highschool, plateauing at about the fourthgrade level (Quigley & Paul, 1986).

53

Students with more profound hearinglosses perform at lower levels,'as dohearing-impaired Hispanic andAfrican-American students (Holt,1993). Furthermore, contextual infor-mation, which is gained from under-standing English structure and syntax,has been found to be even moreimportant for less skilled readers(Stanovich, West, & Freeman, 1981;West & Stanovich, 1973). Researchhas also shown that limited vocabularyis a serious problem for deaf students(Karchmer, Milone, & Wolk,,1979;LaSasso & Davey, 1987; Silverman-Dresner & Guilfoyle, 1972), particular-ly those dealing with English functionwords and common content words(McAnally, et al., 1987).

A review of the research literatureshows that there has been limited suc-cess in teaching English language todeaf students, regardless of the modal-ity used (Quigley & Paid, 1984):English programs for, school age deafstudents should include a concurrentfocus on all forms of communication,systematic teaching of linguistic com-petence in semantics, syntax, andpragmatics, and continuous evaluationof progress (Power & Hollingshead,1982). However, the majority of cur-rently available programs focus on veryspecific areas of language instruction,most notably syntax or grammar.


Takemori and Snyder (1972) foundthat few of the programs used withdeaf students were actually designedfor deaf children, and, more important-ly, none were evaluated when usedwith deaf students. More recently,Wathum-Ocama (1992) surveyedinstructional English programs usedwith deaf students and found thatnearly all teachers found age- andinterest-appropriateness problems.Nearly half of the teachers noted aserious lack of emphasis on the appro-priate English skills.

The effects of poor language-compre-hension and vocabulary skills are exac-erbated when these students workwith other disciplines, such as scienceand history. For example, 70% of thecontent and activities in science aredrawn from general science textbooks(Raizen, 1988). Tyson and Woodward(1989) labeled these science textbooksas "encyclopedic" compendiums oftopics, in which the average hearingsixth grader confronts 300 new vocabu-lary terms (Armbruster & Valencia,1989), and the average tenth grader isfaced with up to 3,000 new words(Hurd, 1986). For deaf and hard-of-hearing students, language and vocab-ulary skills provide the key not only toreading comprehension, but also to vir-tually all other academic school subjects.

Two print programs have been devel-oped specifically for teaching Englishto deaf studentsthe /SA SyntaxProgram (Quigley & Power, 1979),which uses reading and writing activi-ties to deduce grammar rules in ninedifferent areas, and Communicate withMe: Cm/versa/YON Strategies for Deaf

Students (Deyo & Hallau, 1983), whichuses role playing and pictures to focuson conversation skills. A number ofcomputer-assisted specific skill lan-guage programs designed for hearingstudents, such as Figurative Language(Abraham, 1984) and Word s am/Concepts / /(Wilson & Fox, 1990), havealso been used with deaf students.Other programs designed for deaf stu-dents utilize computers, computer

24

networks, videotapes, and videodiscsto teach specific aspects of languageskills. The ALPHA computer system(Prinz, Pemberton, & Nelson, 1985)attempts to increase conversationbetween students and teachers. Aninteractive videodisc program used atthe California School for the Deaf atRiverside (Brawley & Peterson, 1983;Osaka, 1987), allows teachers to tailorgrammar lessons around a videodiscstory. The Electronic Network forInteraction, developed at Gallaudet

By the eNdofthe 96-97school year, data were

availahle for two cohorts ofstudents who had heat

involved in the progratu for

four years. The results show

that the approach hasproducea' greatly improved

student achievement.

University (Bruce, Peyton, & Batson,1993), provides opportunities to usewritten English in communicatingwith other students on a computernetwork. The Hands ON (Hansen &Padden, 1990) program uses avideodisc and computer to simultane-ously present English captioning andASL in various formats such as readinga story, answering questions, writing astory, and captioning a story. None ofthese programs have been formallyevaluated to prove their effectivenessin teaching English semantics, syntax,or pragmatics to deaf students, andnone represent an integrated languageprogram as suggested by Power andHollingshead (1982).

Direct Instruction programs andmethodologies were utilized in theOrange County Department ofEducation Deaf and Hard of Hearing(OCDE D/HH) program. Both theprograms and methodology are com-monly accepted as effective for use

54

with all types of hearing students,including low-performing, bilingual,and learning disabled. DirectInstruction programs and methodshave a long list of general studies vali-dating their effectiveness with hearingstudents (Becker, 1984; Brophy &Evertson, 1976; Gersten, Woodward,& Darch, 1986; Haynes & Jenkins,1986; Lockery & Maggs, 1982;Mathes & Proctor, 1988; Moore, 1986;Silbert, Carnine, & Alvarez, 1994;White, 1988). The most recent cumu-lative analysis of Direct Instructionprograms (Adams & Engelmann,1996) shows that in a simple compari-son of mean scores, 87% of the nearly40 studies analyzed favored DirectInstruction. In a comparison of statis-tically significant differences, 64% ofthe studies favored Direct Instructionwhile only 1% favored non-DirectInstruction programs. The analysis ofeffect sizes (Cohen, 1988) showedthat Direct Instruction programs hadan average effect size of .83 (.75would be considered large and rare ineducational research). Prior to theOCDE D/HH program, there hadbeen no documented usage of DirectInstruction programs with deaf andhard-of-hearing students.

Six years ago, the OCDE D/HH pro-gram made a radical change in instruc-tion for 90% of their high school stu-dents in self-contained classrooms.This change involved using DirectInstruction programs to teach compre-hension, spelling, and language. Inprevious years, OCDE D/HH achieve-ment scores were typically above thenational average for the deaf and hard-of-hearing population, but those scoresrepresented the composite of bothmainstreamed and self-contained stu-dents. When the data for self-con-tained students were analyzed sepa-rately, it became apparent that theirperformance was plateauing at thelower levels expected for self-con-tained students. Plateauing achieve-ment trends, conflicting concernsbetween IEP mastery and achieve-ment levels, and parental dissatisfac-

Fall 2001

tion with student performance were atthe heart of this change in teachingmethods and materials. By the end ofthe 96-97 school year, data were avail-able for two cohorts of students whohad been involved in the program forfour years. The results show that theapproach has produced greatlyimproved student achievement.

Program Description

Direct Instruction programs differfrom conventional programs in what istaught and how it is taught. Thedevelopment of critical skills, con-cepts, and processes in each subjectarea are meticulously mapped out.Every necessary sub-skill or concept ina subject area, regardless of how small,is directly and precisely taught andconsistently reviewed. Each skill istaught in a manner that allows it to becarefully blended into more complexskills and concepts. The amount ofteacher direction and prompting iscarefully controlled so that studentsbecome increasingly independent inapplying the skills. Students learnnearly all new skills in teacher-direct-ed situations. Students apply the skillsorally, and then practice the skillsindependently.

The most observable aspect of DirectInstruction programs is how they aretaught. Students are taught in smallhomogenous groups. Student respons-es are very frequent and usually donein unison on a teacher's signal. Thisincreases the practice each studentgets and makes the most efficient useof instructional time. Individualresponses are commonly used to checkif particular students have mastered askill or concept. The pacing is rapid inorder to keep student attention. Theperformance criterion for each exerciseis high.

The specific Direct Instruction pro-grams used at UHS are the ScienceResearch Associates Corrective ReadiugSaksThinking _Basics, CompreherisIouShills, and ComeptAppneatious(Engelmann, Osborn, & Hanner,

Direct far/ruction Yews

1989), the klorphographk Spelling

SethsCorrective Spelling Through

ilimphographs (Dixon & Engelmann,

1979) and Spelhug vliasiery Level F

(Dixon, Engelmann, Steely, & Wells,

1990), and the Expressive Writing

Program, Levels /and 2 (Engelmann &

Silbert, 1985). Except for Expressive

Writing, all the programs used are

designed as remedial programs for use

with hearing students in approximate-

ly grades four through eight.

The development of critical

concepts, aud processes

in each subject area are

meticulously mapped out

The problem skill areas that ThiahiNgBasics addresses for hearing students

are the same problem skill areas thatmost deaf students have. These prob-lem areas include poor argument andlogic analysis skills, deficits in vocabu-lary and common information, poorskills in following directions, and poorstatement analysis skills (which areparticularly troublesome for studentstrying to read and retain information).The specific skills taught in ThiuliNgBasks include analogies, deductions,inductions, statement inference, basicevidence, and/or, true/false, syn-onyms/opposites, classifications, defi-nitions, descriptions, and basic infor-mation. Additional levels of the seriesbuild on these skills.

The skills that illorphographieSpelliug

effectively addresses for hearing stu-dents are many of the same skillsimportant for deaf students. The mostsignificant issue is that of having aneffective rule-based approach that gen-eralizes spelling beyond specific wordlists. The benefit of the morphograph-ic approach, in addition to providing arule-based approach, is the potentialimpact to improve vocabulary knowl-edge, both for hearing students(Becker, Dixon, & Anderson-Inman,

55

1980; Chomsky, 1970; Chomsky &Halle, 1968; Dixon, 1991; Simon &Simon, 1973; Venezky, 1970), and fordeaf students (Hanson, 1993; Hanson& Feldman, 1991; Hanson,Shankweiler, & Fischer, 1983; Hanson& Wilkenfeld, 1985). In addition,Morphographic Spelling effectively dealswith the problems of adequate prac-tice, corrective feedback, and cumula-tive review. Additional levels of theseries build on these skills.

The Expressive Writing program pro-vides a sequence of basic skills andactivities that are common to allexpressive writing. Students learn towrite basic declarative sentencesbefore learning how to modify thosesentences with the use of clauses, pro-nouns, and phrases. Skills includebasic mechanics, sentence writing,paragraph and story writing, and editing.

illethoa'sThe Orange County Department ofEducation Deaf and Hard of HearingProgram was established in 1977. It isa regional special day-class programencompassing grades 6 through 12 atDeerfield Elementary, Venado MiddleSchool, and University High School inIrvine, California. All classes are locat-ed on public school sites within IrvineUnified School District. The 1996-97enrollment was approximately 160 stu-dents. The ethnic breakdown is 42%Caucasian, 36% Hispanic, and 22%Asian. Approximately 40% of the stu-dents qualify for the free and reducedlunch program.

The 1996-97 OCDE D/HH instruc-tional staff consisted of one FTEMainstream Resource Teacher, one .6FTE Career Specialist, 2.8 FTESpeech/Language Specialists, 15teachers, 17 interpreters, and 17instructional assistants. Non-instruc-tional staff included one high schoolprincipal, one FTE psychologist, andone counselor, with secretarial, audio-logical, nursing, mobility, vision andAPE services at each school.

25

The students involved in this studywere those deaf and hard-of-hearingstudents at the University High Schoolwho were not mainstreamed (approxi-mately 60%). Complete data wereavailable for 15 students in the cohortthat began in the 92-93 school yearand 27 that began in the 93-94 schoolyear. Data from students who began inthe 91-92 school year (the first year ofDirect Instruction) was too incom-plete to include in the data analysis.

In the years 1991-93, all high schoolteachers of the mainstreamed studentsparticipated in the Direct Instructionimplementation. In the remainingyears, typically two or three teachersdeclined to participate. The turnoverof teachers participating in the imple-mentation has averaged one teacherper year.

In the fall of 1991, after approximatelyone week of inservice training, theUHS D/HH program began implemen-tation of Direct Instruction in theareas of reading comprehension, lan-guage and writing. Some of the teach-ers began implementing DirectInstruction immediately while othersheld off for 3 to 4 months. Some of theteachers taught Direct Instructionevery day, while others taught it onlyonce a week or once every other week.During the first year, the teacherswere monitored approximately onceevery two weeks by a DirectInstruction teacher trainer or the prin-cipal, who had also gone through theDirect Instruction training along withthe staff. During the second and thirdyears, teachers were observed approxi-mately once a month. Training in sub-sequent years involved several days ofafter-school inservice training and oneor two classroom observations, both doneby teachers who had taught the programsince its initial implementation.

ModificationsDuring the second and third year ofimplementation, teachers began toexperiment with different aspects ofthe programs to make them more effi-

26

cient with deaf and hard-of-hearingstudents. Some adaptations weremade in how the programs weretaught. Adaptations to the groupresponse format were made to reduceoff-task behavior. A group responsefrom deaf/hard-of-hearing studentsinvolves signing/fingerspelling at dif-ferent rates. Teachers developed sev-eral strategies for monitoring multiplerate responses, but frequent repeti-tion of both group and individual

Additional moaKcationswere made to provide more

ina'ividual tarns, to use more

modeling of desiredstudent

responses, and to aalust the

rate of student responses.

responses was still necessary andrequired strategies for reducing off-task behavior during repeatedresponses. Additional modificationswere made to provide more individualturns, to use more modeling of desiredstudent responses, and to adjust therate of student responses.

The most difficult modifications inhow the program was taught had to dowith deciding which signing system touse. The OCDE D/HH program, likemost, endorses SimultaneousCommunicationsigning and speechused simultaneously. However, therewas confusion and disagreement overwhich signing system to use with theDirect Instruction programs. Researchalso is unclear on whether it is moreeffective to use American SignLanguage (ASL) or some form of man-ually coded English (MCE) (Brasel &Quigley, 1977; Corson, 1973; Vernon& Kohl, 1971; Weisel, 1988). AlthoughASL can represent the entire range oflanguage capabilities and constraints(Lillo-Martin, 1986; Padden, 1988;Padden & Perlmutter, 1987; Supalla,1985), its utility in teaching English isvery problematic, and its efficacy in

56

doing so has not been formally evaluat-ed. The attempts to force ASL intoEnglish grammatical form (ASL signsand invented forms representing affix-es and other grammatical elementsproduced in English word order) havealso been problematic and have notbeen rigorously evaluated. ASL andsome of these MCE forms (SEE andCASE) omit function words, such as"a" and "the," and omit some affixes.Conceptual inaccuracies in some MCEforms present serious misconceptionswhen teaching about English syntaxand semantics. In SEE II, the samesign can be used for very different con-cepts if that sign meets two of threecriteria (written the same, pronouncedthe same, or signed the same), thusresulting in visual homophones. As aresult of these criteria, the SEE II signfor dresser can refer both to a personor a piece of furniture.

Additionally, there has been criticismof MCE forms in general from ASLproponentsthat MCE forms violatestructural rules of ASL (Charrow,1975; Marmor & Petitto, 1979), andthat certain English elements are notlearnable (Gee & Goodhard, 1985;Johnson, Liddell, & Erting, 1989;Supalla, 1991). The fact that manydeaf adults are fluent in writtenEnglish would discredit the latterclaim. In relation to violating thestructural rules of ASL, acknowledgingASL as a first and preferred languagefor the deaf does not lessen the needfor an adequate internalization of theEnglish language system in order tounderstand written English. Certainlythere are violations of ASL structure inEnglish, but students must be able toliterally translate and rememberEnglish sentences in order to under-stand them, especially when dealingwith such grammatical structures assimiles and metaphors.

The approach taken by the teachers inthe University High School study hasbeen to utilize a combination of ASLand CASE. Each has specific strengthsand weaknesses for representing and

Fall 2001

explaining particular concepts andword functions in English. Some tasks,particularly in comprehension, requireCASE for absolute word for wordfidelity, while other tasks are moreconceptual and can utilize ASL. Ifcareful attention is paid to conceptaccuracy and sign consistency, ASLand CASE can be used effectively toteach English language skills while stillmaintaining the preeminence of ASLfor general communication.

In addition to modification of how theprograms were taught, modificationswere also made in what was taught.Wording of student directions waschanged CO meet the needs of deafand hard-of-hearing children. Themost significant modification was gen-erating and adding pre-lesson vocabu-lary lists for reading comprehensionlessons in order to avoid time consum-ing vocabulary explanations in themiddle of a lesson. Prior to enteringthe University High School program,the students had been exposed to dif-fering amounts of instruction in ASL,CASE, and SEE II. Consequently,approximately five minutes of vocabu-lary work and review was needed atthe beginning of each lesson to bringall students to a common level of flu-ency. This vocabulary componentincluded ASL signs that were unfamil-iar or difficult for the students (orteachers), invented signs (such as thesign for "morphograph"), and theunique signing utilization of CASE.

ResultsData for all students in the UHSD/HH program are from theComprehensive Test of Basic Skills(CTB/McGraw-Hill, 1989). Althoughthis is a commonly used test, it has notbeen normed for the deaf population.Comparisons in this section are madeto the Stanford Achievement Test(The Psychological Corporation,1989b), a similar test which has beennormed for the deaf population.Results of tests of significance are only

Direr/ lastrudion Naas

given for comparisons within the UHSD/HH population.

Performance Levels Attained

The usage of these Direct Instructionprograms with deaf students producedgrade-level gains greater than the aver-age for students in self-containedclassrooms. Twelfth grade students inself-contained classrooms who hadspent four years in the program aver-aged 5.7 in reading comprehension, 7.0in spelling, and 7.2 in total language.These grade-level averages are abovethe national averages for deaf studentsin self-contained classrooms by 2.8years, 2.2 years and 4.4 years respec-tively (as reported by Holt, Traxler,and Allen [1992] of the GallaudetCenter for Assessment andDemographics[CADS]). The DirectInstruction averages are also above theCADS averages for all deaf and hard-of-hearing students (including main-streamed) by 1.2 years, .9 years, and2.7 years respectively. Figure 1 dis-plays these results.

Gain Scores

Gain scores for students in the DirectInstruction programs were also greaterthan gains for the comparison groups.Compared to end-of-year testing inthe 8th grade (baseline), 12th grade

UHS students in self-contained class-rooms averaged gains of 2.5 years inreading comprehension, 3.8 years inspelling, and 3.0 years in total lan-guage. Gains over the same period forCADS self-contained students were .0years, 1.3 years and .0 years respective-ly. Gains for all CADS students(including mainstreamed) were .4years, .9 years and .3 years respective-ly. Figure 2 shows these gain compar-isons.

Importance of Teacher Trainingand ImplementationThe importance of teacher training inDirect Instruction programs and meth-ods has been noted in situations thatrequire changes in classroom practices(Becker, 1986; Gage, 1985), changes inteacher attitudes (Gersten et al.,1986), and field-based experiences(Welch & Kulic, 1988). Of particularimportance to implementing DirectInstruction programs is the observeddifficulty of training teachers to imple-ment good pacing (Gersten, Carnine,& Williams, 1982; Marchand-Martella& Lignugaris/Kraft, 1992). An addi-tional concern in using DirectInstruction programs with deaf stu-dents is the burden placed on theteacherhaving to watch five or morestudents signing and fingerspellinganswers at different rates and having

Figure 1

ilverage grade level performance hy grade in schoolaNa' sahject area for the Direct Instruction students for all deaf

aNd hara'-ot-hearing studeNts in self contained classrooms8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

U.H.S.

121

U.H.S.DI

CADSself cont__U.H.S.

DI_

CADSself cont

DI

CADSself cont

8 10 11 128 10

Comprehension

II 12

Reading.

8 10 11 12

TotalLanguage

8110 11 12,8 10 11 8 10)11 12,

Spelling

5727

Average cumulative gam'Direct Instruction students

students in

4.0

Figure 2

s 6y grade level andana' all a'eaf a/la'

self contained classrooms.

suhie. ct area forhara'-of-hearth g

porit.

12th

3.5 sten 12th

slejnoprit-1:3 3.0a)c 2.5 11th030 SVV,--gt.

12th11th_2.0

P.

a15CADS

self cont...-

11th---10ttt_Ilth_12t10th

1.0CADS 10th

10th

CADSself cont.

.5 self cont.10th ii

_loth_ ija-r----12th

Reading Comprehension Spelling

1 h

Total Language(mechanics & expression)

to read scripted instructional presenta-tions and translate those presentationsconsistently to students in an Englishsigning system. These additional bur-dens make training teachers of thedeaf and hard-of-hearing to use theseprograms not only more difficult, butmore important.

In the University High School study,teacher training and program imple-mentation were critical variables. Foryears in which most teachers were notsufficiently trained (no inservice orpreservice training or no follow-up

observations), program implementa-tion was weak (less than 50% of theteachers taught the DI programs threeor more times per week); experimentalstudents showed greater gains than90-91 UHS students (baseline), butnot at a significant level. For years inwhich teacher training and implemen-tation met the minimum levels, exper-imental student gain scores were sig-nificantly greater than the 90-91 UHSstudents (.001 level). Over the lastfive years, when UHS students fromwell-implemented classrooms withwell-trained teachers are compared to

Figure 3

Average grade level performance by grade in school andsubject area for Direct instruction students with well-trained

teachers, Direct instruction students with poorly trainedteachers, and for all deaf and hara'-o/hearing students in

self contained classroom s

8 CADS self-cont.7 DI with poor training

DI with good traininga) 6a)

02 4

3

2-1-

10th gr. 11th gr 12th gr. 10th gr. 11th gr. 12th gr. 10th gr. 11th gr. 12th gr.

-Reading Comprehension Spelling Total Language

students from poorly implementedclassrooms with poorly trained teach-ers, students from the well-imple-mented and trained classrooms alwaysperform at a higher level (significant atthe .02 to .001 levels). Figure 3 showsthis comparison.

DiSCIISSIONAlthough 12th grade students in theDirect Instruction programs performmuch better than national averages, agreat proportion of their gains come inthe last year of instruction (11th to12th grade). In the first two years ofhigh school, the UHS students outper-form CADS averages for self-containedclassrooms but usually do not outper-form CADS overall averages (includingmainstreamed students). A great partof this trend is probably due to thefact that the UHS deaf and hard-of-hearing students typically completeless than one-half an instructional les-son each school day and are typicallytaught the Direct Instruction programsonly three days a week. It is notuncommon for students to spend morethan two years covering just the intro-ductory level program in a series. Theintroductory levels of the programstypically focus on basic-level compo-nent skills. It is often not until themiddle of the second program of aseries that these component skillshave been developed and practicedenough that they can be broughttogether into broadly generalizableoperations. Many of the studentsinvolved in the UHS program do notget to these programs until sometimein their 11th grade year.Consequently, the full impact of theDirect Instruction programs is not asobservable until the last year ofinstruction. By the end of 12th grade,students in the DI programs outper-form the CADS overall averages for alldeaf students.

A solution at the high school level is toincrease the student's exposure toDirect Instruction to five days a week.Another perhaps more desirable solu-tion might be to begin using the

5 828 Fall 2001

Direct Instruction programs much ear-lier. To test this latter solution, a sam-ple of both fourth grade and seventhgrade students from UHS D/HH feed-er schools will begin working withthese same Direct Instruction pro-grams during the 1997-98 school year.

As is apparent in Figure 3, teachertraining and good classroom imple-mentation (widespread usage at leastthree times per week) make an enor-mous difference in student perform-ance. Initially, teachers complainedthat teaching DI programs seemedawkward, unnatural, robotic, and bor-ing. They said there were too manyhands to monitor for correct finger-spelling and signed responses. Manydid not see the point of utilizing ascripted lesson presentation. For allteachers, there were problems adapt-ing directions and tasks written forhearing students. Generally, teachersfelt it was not until the third year ofthe implementation that sufficientmodifications had been made to makethe DI programs work smoothly andmost effectively.

Although program and technique mod-ifications have solved many of the orig-inal training and implementation prob-lems, there remains the significantproblem of having all teachers, espe-cially new teachers, consistently followthe common set of practices that hasbeen developed and that has proveneffective. This point is particularlytrue for the conventions regardingwhen to use ASL and CASE and whatsign conventions to use for many ofthe vocabulary words. These are criti-cal aspects because they directly affectlesson pacing and mastery.

The implementation of DirectInstruction programs, whether withhearing or deaf students, requires sig-nificant changes in how teachersteach. Implementations with teachersof the deaf and hard-of-hearing require


additional modifications and additionalemphasis to ensure consistency ofsigning conventions. The data showthe effect of good training and imple-mentation. To ensure good trainingand implementation with teachers ofthe deaf and hard-of-hearing, on-goingteacher observation and training areneeded. A preliminary research studyhas recently been completed which

Direct instruction programsin comprehension, spelling,

and oriiing have been shown

to produce considerable

test-score gains for deaf

and hard-of-hearing highschool students in

se (-contained classrooms.

shows the feasibility of using a comput-

er teaching and training program to pro-

vide such training while simultaneously

presenting lessons to the students.

ConclusionDirect Instruction programs in com-prehension, spelling, and writing havebeen shown to produce considerabletest-score gains for deaf and hard-of-hearing high school students in self-contained classrooms. To make theseprograms work efficiently with deafand hard-of-hearing students, adapta-tions must be made in how the pro-grams are taught and how to mosteffectively combine usage of ASL andCASE. Teacher training and wide-spread consistent usage of the pro-grams are necessary to obtain thegreatest impact. Although the highschool student gains reported in thisstudy are impressive, earlier and moreconsistent use of these programs andtechniques has the potential of pro-ducing students who can attain muchhigher levels of performance.

59

References

Abraham, W. (1984). Figurative language. [com-

puter program]. Dimondale, MI: HartleyCourseware.

Adams, G., & Engelmann, S. (1997). Research

reralts.. 25 yeeay after D/STIR. Seattle, WA:

Educational Achievement Systems.

Armbruster, D., & Valencia, S. (1989, March).

Do hart/ / read* programs proare chrldrea for

readiNg sdeace terthaaci Paper presented to

annual meeting of American Educational

Research Association, San Francisco.

Becker, W. C. (1986). Applied psychology for

teachers. Chicago: Science Research

Associates.

Becker, W. C. (1984). Direct Astructioftiltoemy-year review. Paper presented at the

Annual Banff International Conference on

Behavioral Science.

Becker, W. C., Dixon, R., & Anderson-Inman,L. (1980). Morphographic and root word

analysis of 26,000 high frequency words

(Tech. Rep. No. 1980-1). Eugene:

University of Oregon, Follow ThroughProject.

Brackett, D. (1983). Group communicationstrategies for the hearing impaired. VoltaReview, 85(5), 116-128.

Brasel, L., & Quigley, S. (1977). Influence ofcertain language and communication envi-

ronments in early childhood on the devel-

opment of language in deaf individuals.

Jalawa/ of Speech eau/ Real* Research, 26 1),

95-107.

Brawley, R. J., & Peterson, D. A. (1983).

Interactive videodisc: An innovativeinstruction system. American Anna /.r of the

Deaf, 685-700.

Brophy, J. E., & Everston, C. N. (1976).

I...ear/J*11-am teachiag. Boston: Allyn &

Bacon.

Bruce, B., Peyton, J. K., & Batson, T. (1993).Network-based classrooms: Promises and

realities. New York: Cambridge University

Press.

Cawley, J., Miller, J., & Carr, S. (1990). Anexamination of the reading performance ofstudents with mild educational handicaps

or learning disabilities. Journal of Zzaming

Dirahilith,s, 23(5), 284-290.

Charrow, V. A. (1975). A linguist's view ofmanual English. Proceed/figs of the VDth

World Congress of the World Federation of the

Deaf (pp. 78-82). Washington, D.C.Chomsky, C. (1970). Reading, writing, and

phonology. Harvard Educational Reviero,

247-309.

Chomsky, N., & Halle, D. (1968). The sow&pattern of Eaglirh. New York: Harper and

Row.

29

Cohen, J. (1988). Statirtical power analyth for

the sock,/ sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceEarlbaum Assoc.

CTB/McGraw-Hill. (1989). Comprehensive test

of hasi c sh/h. New York, NY: Author.

Corson, H. (1973). 6omparing deaf eh/kir(/' of

oral deaf parents and deaf parents using /mutual

communication with deg/children of hearing

parents on acacia,* sonal atm' communicative

functions. Doctoral dissertation, Universityof Cincinnati.

DeVilliers, P. A. (1988). Assessing English

syntax in hearing-impaired children:Eliciting production in pragmatically-motivated situations. JA RA Monograph

Supplement, 2, 41-71.Deyo, D., & Hallau, M. (1983). Communicate

with me: Conversation strategies for deals/ti-

de/its. Washington, D.C: GallaudetUniversity Pre-College Programs.

Dixon, R. C., (1991). The application ofsameness analysis to spelling. Journal ofLearning DiSakkies, 24(5), 285-291.

Engelmann, S., & Silbert, J. (1985).Expressive Writing / &2 Chicago: Science

Research Associates.

Engelmann, S., Osborn, S., & Hanner, S.

(1989). Corrective reading: Comprehension

WA: Chicago: Science Research

Associates.

Gage, N. L. (1985). Hard gains in the softsciences: The case of pedagogy. Phi Delta

Kappan.

Gee, J., & Goodhart, W. (1985). Nativization,linguistic theory, and deaf language acqui-sition. Sign Language Studies, 49, 291-342.

Gersten, R., Carnine, D., Zoref, L., & Cronin,D. (1986). A multifaceted study of changein seven inner-city schools. The Elementary

Schoollourna4 86, 257-276.Gersten, R., Woodward, J., & Darch, D.

(1986). Direct Instruction: A research-based approach to curriculum design and

teaching. Exceptional Chi/ reit, 53, 17-31.

Gersten, R. M., Carnine, D. W., & Williams,P. B. (1982). Measuring implementationof a structured educational model in anurban school district: An observationalapproach. Educational Evaluation and Po lUy

Analysis, 4, 67-79.

Hanson, V., & Padden, C. (1990). Computersand videodisc technology for bilingualASL/English instruction of deaf children.In D. Nix, & R. Spiro (Eds.), Cognition,

education, and multimetha: Exploring thas in

high-technology (pp. 49-63). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Hanson, V. L., & Feldman, L. B. (1991).What makes signs related? SO LanguageStudies, 70, 35-46.

Hanson, V. L., & Wilkenfeld, D. (1985).Morphophonology and lexical organization

30

in deaf readers. Language & Speech, 28,

269-280.

Hanson, V. L. (1993). Productive use ofderivational morphology by deaf college

students. hidletin of the PorhononM- Satiety,

31(1), 63-65.

Hanson, V. L., Shankweiler, D., & Fischer,F. W. (1983). Determinants of spellingability in deaf and hearing adults: Access

to linguistic structure. Cognition, II,

323-344.

Haynes, M. C., & Jenkins, J. R. (1986).Reading instruction in special education

resource rooms. American Educational

Research Journal, 23, 161-190.

Holt, J., Traxler, C., & Allen, T.(1992)Interpreting the scores: A user:r guid, to the 8th

edition standard achievement test for educators

of deaf and hard-ofhearing students. Centerfor Assessment and Demographic Studies,

Gallaudet Research Institute. Washington,

D.C.Holt, J. A. (1993). Stanford achievement test-

8th edition: Reading comprehension sub-group results. American Annals of the Deaf

/3, 172-175.

Hughes, M. C., Brigham, E. T., & Kuerbis, T.(1986) Approaches to teaching figurativelanguage to hearing impaired adoles-

cents/adults. Mini-seminar presented atASHA Convention, Detroit, MI.

Hughes, M. C., & Moseley, M. J. (1988). Adescriptive pragmatic inventory for deafadolescents: Implication for intervention.ASHA, 30, 10,83.

Hurd, P. (1986). Analysis of biology texts.

Unpublished manuscript, StanfordUniversity, Palo Alto, CA.

Johnson, R., Liddell, S., & Erting, C. (1989).Unlocking the curriculum: Principles forachieving access in deaf education.

Gallaudet Research Inst. working Paper

89-3, Dept. Linguistics and Interpreting.Johnson, S. B., & Evans, L. D. (1991).

Psychoeducational assessment of hearing

impaired students (pp.28-30). Austin, TX:Pro-Ed.

Karchmer, M. A., Milone, M. N., Jr., & Wolk,S. (1979). Educational significance ofhearing loss at three levels of severity.

American Annals of the Deaf, 124, 97-109.

Kretschmer, R. E. (1989). Pragmatics, read-

ing, and writing: Implications for hearingimpaired individuals. TLD, 9(4) 17-32.

Kretschmer, R. R., & Kretschmer, L. W.

(1978). Language development and intervention

with the heating impaired. Baltimore:

University Park Press.

LaSasso, C., & Davey, B. (1987). The rela-

tionship between lexical knowledge and

reading comprehension for prelingually,

profoundly hearing-impaired students.Volta Review, 89, 211-220.

Lillo-Martin, D. (1986). Two kinds of nullarguments in American Sign Language.

Natural language and LingthtiC Theory, 4,

415-444.Lockery, M., & Maggs, A. (1982). Direct

Instruction research in Australia: a tenyear analysis. Educational Bycholosy, 2,

263-288.Lovitt, T., & Horton, S. (1991). Adapting

textbooks for mildly handicapped adoles-cents. In G. Stoner, M. R. Shinn, & H. M.Walker (Eds.), Interventions for achievement

and hehavior prohkms. (pp.439-472). SilverSpring, MD: National Association forSchool Psychologists.

Marchand-Martella, N., & Lignugaris/Kraft,B. (1992). Preservice teacher performance

in a Direct Instruction practicum usingstudent teachers and university personnel

as supervisors. Direct Instruction News,

11(3), 2-8.Marmor, G., & Petitto, L. (1979).

Simultaneous Communication in theclassroom: How well is English grammar

represented?. Sign Language Studies,23.

Mathes, P. G., & Proctor, T. J. (1988). DirectInstruction for teaching "hard to teach"students. Reading Improvement, 25, 92-97.

McAnally, P. L., Rose, D., & Quigley, S. P.(1987). Language /earning practices with deaf

children. Boston: College-Hill.Moore, J. (1986). Direct Instruction: A model

of instructional design. EducationalPsychology, el, 201-229.

Osksa, R. S. (1987). When computers talk tovideodiscs. In A. Abrams (Ed.), Your

Computerized Classroom: living Computers with

Nearing Impaired Students. Washington,

D.C.: Pre-College Outreach, GallaudetUniversity.

Padden, C. (1988). The interaction of morphology

and syntax m American Sign Language. NewYork: Garland Press.

Padden, C., & Perlmutter, D. (1987).American Sign Language and the architec-

ture of phonological theory. NaturalLanguage and Linguigic Theoly, 3, 335-375.

Parmar, R., & Cawley, J. (1992). A compari-son of story and science reading perform-

ance on a curriculum-based reading task.

Unpublished manuscript.Power, D. J., & Hollingshead, A. (1982).

Aspects of a communication curriculumfor hearing-impaired pupils. Report of the

Secom / National Workshop on Language

Curriculum Development. Australia: Brisbane

College of Advanced Education.Prinz, P. M., Pemberton, E., & Nelson, K. E.

(1985). The ALPHA interactive micro-computer system for teaching reading,

Fall 2001

writing, and communication skills to hear-ing-impaired children. AmetU-an Annab of

the Dee; 444-461.

Quigley, S., & Paul, P. (1986). A perspective

on academic achievement. In D. M.

Luterman (Ed.), Deafness it perspective

(pp.55-86), San Diego, CA: College-HillPress.

Quigley, S. P., & Paul, P. V. (1984). Language

and deafness. San Diego, CA; College-HillPress.

Quigley, S. P., & Paul, P. V. (1989). English

language development. In M. C. Wang, M.C. Reynolds, & H. S. Walberg (Eds.),

Handhooh of Special Education: Research and

Practice, 3,3-21. New York: Pergamon

Press.

Quigley, S. P., Power, D. J., & Steinkamp,

M. W. (1977). The language structure ofdeaf children. Volta Review, 73-84.

Raizen, S. (1988). Increasing educational pro-

ductivity through improving the science

curriculum. Washington, D.C.: The

National Center for Improving ScienceEducation.

Silbert, J., Carnine, D. W., & Alvarez, R.

(1994). Beginning reading for bilingual

students. Educational 1.eaderrhO, 2.

Silverman-Dresner, T., & Guilfoyle, G. R.

(1972). Vocahulary Norms for deaf chi/ ren

Washington, D.C.: Alexander Graham Bell

Association for the Deaf.

Simon, D., & Simon, H. (1973). Alternativeuses of phonemic information in spelling.

Review of Educational Research, 73, 115-137.

Stanovich, K. E., West, R. F., & Freeman,

D. J. (1981). A longitudinal study of sen-tence context effects in second-grade chil-

dren: Tests of an interactive-compensa-

Direct instruction Neus

tory model. Journal of Exp etimemal ChildPsychology, 32, 185-199.

Supalla, S. J. (1991). Manually coded English:

The modality question in signed languagedevelopment. In P. Siple & S. D. Fischer(Eds.), Theoretical inner M sign language

research. Vol 2 Psychology (pp.85-109).Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Supalla, T., (1985). The classifier system inAmerican Sign Language. In D. Craig(Ed.), Noun clatrijkatthn and categothation(pp. 181-214). Philadelphia, PA:Benjamin.

Takemori, W., & Snyder, J. (1972). Materialsand techniques used in teaching languageto deaf children. Amerian Annalr of theDeaf, 455-458.

The Psychological Corporation. (1989b).

Standford Achievement Test Series, 8thEd. San Antonio TX. Harcourt BraceJovanovich.

Tyson, H., & Woodard, A. (1989). Why stu-

dents aren't learning very much from text-books. Educational Leaders4o, 4'7, 14-17.

Venezky, R. L. (1970). The structure ofEnglish orthography. The Hague: Mouton.

Vernon, M., & Koh, D. (1971). Effects of oralpreschool compared to early manual com-

munication on education and communica-tion in deaf children. Ameman Atmair of the

Deal; 116, 569-574.

Wathum-Ocama, J. C. (1992). A survey of the.appropriateness of instructional language

materials used with deaf students.American Almait o / the Dec / 137(5),

420-424.

Weisel, A. (1988). Parental hearing status,

reading comprehension skills and social-emotional adjustment. Afilethrm/1/mair ofthe Deg/ 133,356-359.

61

Welch, M., & Kukik, S. (1988). Utah's

response to critical issues and needs: An

experimental filed-based preparation pro-

gram for teachers of mild to moderately

handicapped students. Teacher Education

am / Special Education, 11, 172-175.

West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (1973).

Automatic contextual facilitation in read-

ers of three ages. Child Development,

717-727.

White, W. A.T. (1988). A meta-analysis of the

effects of Direct Instruction in special

education. Education and _Treatment of

Children, 11(4), 364-374.

Wilson, M. S., & Fox, B. J. (1990). Words. and

come,oir W. [computer program]. Winooski,

VT: Laureate Learning Systems, Inc.

Author Note

The University High School Program

utilizing Direct Instruction is currently

in its eighth year and has expanded to

include similar programs at feeder

schools. An ongoing research study,

funded by NICHD, is examining theefficacy of a computerized teacher train-

ing and lesson presentation program.

Correspondence concerning this articleshould be addressed to Don Steely,Oregon Center for Applied Science,1839 Garden Avenue, Eugene, OR

97403. Electronic mail may be sent [email protected]. A .941;

31

DONNA HUNT, DIANE WOOLLY, Arkansas School for the Blindand ANN MOORE, Arkansas Department of Education, Special to Counterpoint

Arkansas School for the BlindAdopts More Effective Curriculum

In the spring of 1999, Arkansas Schoolfor the Blind (ASB) staff, with supportfrom the Arkansas Department ofEducation (ADE) special educationstaff, developed a grant proposal aspart of a strategic planning effort.

ASB has been extensively involved inthis effort since the fall of 1997, whenthe staff came together, along withseveral parents, alumni, local schoolspecial education supervisors, andcommunity leaders to rethink thevision and mission of ASB. After exten-sive training in the strategic planningprocess, several study groups wereformed to explore and research areas ofneed, as determined by surveys anddiscussion groups.

These groups conducted a variety ofactivities including computer searches,a nationwide letter and telephone sur-vey of curricula at schools for theblind, visitations to schools (in and outof Arkansas), and research of servicesavailable to children with visualimpairment or blindness.

An identified critical area of need wasa more effective curriculum, one thatwas structured, detailed, consistentfrom grade, to grade and reinforcingto students.

Additionally, the curriculum shouldaddress needs for remedial and accel-erated learning; include higher order .thinking skills; teach beginning phon-ics, as well as advanced comprehensionskills, that would allow students toread and understand secondary text-books; and teach them how to transferthose skills to future learning.

32

That was a big challenge. However,the staff, after extensive research,decided to go with Direct Instruction(published by Science ResearchAssociates) as the foundation for theirnew curriculum. In the fall of 1998,ASB staff learned about theComprehensive School ReformDemonstration or, CSRD grants, thatwould shortly be available toArkansas. The group worked diligent-ly and received a grant award in thefirst round.

This grant, which provided $50,000 foreach of the next three years, allowedthe staff to begin the extensive effortneeded to achieve comprehensive cur-riculum reform.

ASB serves students from pre-kinder-garten through 12th grade. Some stu-dents attend ASB for most of theirschool years. Many others transfer induring their upper elementary and sec-ondary years. These students have avariety of challenges to overcome.

The ASB staff must meet these needsto help students catch up in manycases, and also help them advance to alevel of independence that will, in justa few years, allow them to be produc-tive citizens in our communities.

Several ASB staff attended ArkansasSmart Start training in 1998 and, recog-nized that Arkansas was truly promot-ing inclusion of all students and sup-porting curricular programs that wouldmake a difference, not just providerhetoric for the press. ASB staff deter-mined the program which best fit theneeds of their students was Direct


Instruction. Presentations on this pro-gram were made to the staff and ASBboard. All agreed that something hadto change and soon. Students werecoming into secondary classes thatcould not read the text or completehomework assignments, even if thematerial was presented orally. Thiswas not just a vision problem; itreflected a lack of basic skills develop-ment.

When the staff was notified it hadbeen awarded the CSRD grant, thingshappened quickly. Students weregiven a placement test so materialscould be ordered over the summer andinservice training could be planned.The initial implementation concen-trated on the Reaciitig- Mastery Program

for 1st -6th grades, with kindergartenbeing added during the second semes-ter. The secondary grades applied theCorrective Reading, Decoa'iNg and

Comprehension Programs to either accel-erate or remediate the performancelevels of many 7th-12th grade students.

Staff recognized that reading affectedall other skills areas, including math.However, as staff began to learn moreabout the Direct Instruction curricula,they decided not to wait to also addthe elementary math program(Cot/Nett/Ng Math Concepts) in the 1st,2nd and 3rd grades. Later, theArithmetic I and the Lang=ge for

Learning curricula were added inkindergarten and in the LearningCenter (multi-disability) areas. Otherteachers wanted to pilot the Spelling

Reprinted with permission from Coftwerpothi.Copyright 2001 by LRP Publications, 747Dresher Road, P.O. Box 980, Horsham, PA19044-0980. All rights reserved. For more infor-mation on products published by LRPPublications, please call 800-341-7874, ext. 275or visit Education Administration OnlineLRPPublications' electronic network of educationresourceSto order online at www.lrp.com /ed.

Fall 2001

Mastery and the Morphographic(Corrective) Spell* programs.

Now, the Direct Instruction curriculahave expanded to include ConnectingMath Concepts in 4th, 5th and 6thgrades. Secondary teachers are alsousing Corrective Math (through pre-algebra) programs with older students.

During the initial phase, teachersbegan to determine which studentsneeded to use Braille, large print orstandard print. Most beginning DirectInstruction programs are already writ-ten in larger than standard print andwould, therefore, work for several stu-dents with little adaptation. Mostteachers, however, had to learn toadapt the Direct Instruction visualcues and information for the Braillereaders, while others worked mostlywith users of print. Even at that veryearly stage (first semester, 1999), suc-cess stories abounded for both Brailleand print students.

To share their success stories, ASBstaff and Ann Moore of the ArkansasDepartment of Education SpecialEducation Office, have conducted pre-sentations at several conferences spon-sored by various professional organiza-tions, including the Arkansas Councilfor Exceptional Children, or CEC, in1999 and 2000, the ADE's SpecialShow 2000 and the Association forEducational Rehabilitation of theBlind and Visually Impaired.

The CSRD grant received by ASB hascurriculum reform at its heart, but italso incorporates character develop-ment, parent involvement, and adaptivetechnology. Some of ASB's CEC pre-sentations have included panel discus-sions on the Direct Instruction curric-ula and adaptations for Braille readers.

These panels also included teachersfrom Clinton, Portland and ValleySprings elementary schools. Othergroup presentations have emphasized

Direa kart/aim Nerds

the Character Development Program(WOW, CoRT Thinking and SixThinking Hats) and use of adaptivetechnology.

The presenters are always wellreceived and get high marks on thesession evaluations. (Let us know ifyou would like more information or toschedule a presentation.)

"It is work, " as one teacher

puts it, "hut ifs fork thatoath for students/"

Several ASB staff had the privilege ofjoining over 780 educators from allover the world (including several

Learning 24/7 staff who work withArkansas' Smart Start Initiative) whoattended the National Association forDirect Instruction (ADI) conferencein Eugene, OR, over the summer.Other Arkansans attending includedstaff members from the Corning andDrew central school districts. All wereable to update their skills and sharewith other educators the successesthey have had with their studentsusing Direct Instruction.

ASB's Direct Instruction coach, CindyPaxton, from Ruidoso, NM, alsoattended the ADI conference. She par-ticipated in an institute on traininghigh school students to tutor otherhigh school students for college credit,using the Direct Instruction CorrectiveReading Program.

Paxton will apply this information inexpanding the use of structured peertutoring at ASB. Other Arkansas sites

that implemented the DirectInstruction curricula this school year,including the Gateway Charter Schooland the Mt. Judea School District, willbenefit from other ideas she acquiredat the conference.

63

Direct Instruction has been directlylinked to improving test scores andreducing behavior-related disciplinereferrals in many sites in Arkansas, asexperienced elsewhere around thenation.

The curriculum does require intensiveteacher training and dedicated teach-ers who are willing to follow the high-ly structured program that incorpo-rates extensively researched effectiveschool practices. "It is work," as oneteacher puts it, "but it's work thatworks for students!"

That also seemed to be the impres-sion of former U.S. Secretary ofEducation, Richard Riley, as he touredseveral Delta area schools on August25, 2000. Two of those schools wereWilmot and Portland ElementarySchools in the Hamburg SchoolDistrict. Those schools gained out-standing student achievementthrough the use of the DirectInstruction curricula. During the tour,Secretary Riley, Arkansas Gov. MikeHuckabee, and ADE Director RaySimon, all expressed appreciation forthe efforts of staff and parents atthose two schools, which havereceived national recognition for theiraccomplishments.

The ASB staff realizes it has a longway to go, but is confident it is on thebest track possible. Administrators,teachers and parents can already seeresults in many areasstudents whoare better readers, more attentive lis-teners, better at following directions,better able to apply these strategiesoutside of the classroom, and betterable to think!

The Arhaasas School forthelIlrndimvitesyor<

to cal /or come ant I see them itz action. Article

compiled by Dolma Hum, Diane Woolly

(ASE) mai Atm Moore (ADE). For/ler/her

Mkt-Natio, call ASA' at (501) 296-1812 Jim

Hill is. the sr/pent/10mPa at ASB.

33

Videotapes on the Direct Instruction Model

ADI has an extensive collection of videos on Direct Instruction. These videos are categorized as informational, training, ormotivational in nature. The informational tapes are either of historical interest or were produced to describe DirectInstruction. The training tapes have been designed to be either stand-alone training or used to supplement and reinforce livetraining. The motivational tapes are keynote presentations from past years of the National Direct Instruction Conference.

Informational Tapes

Where It All Started-45 minutes. Zig teaching kindergarten children for the Engelmann-Bereiter pre-school in the 60s.These minority children demonstrate mathematical understanding far beyond normal developmental expectations. Thisacceleration came through expert teaching from the man who is now regarded as the "Father of Direct Instruction," ZigEngelmann. Price: $10.00 (includes copying costs only).

Challenge of the 90s: Higher-Order thinking-45 minutes, 1990. Overview and rationale for Direct Instruction strategies.Includes home-video footage and Follow Through. Price: $10.00 (includes copying costs only).

Follow Through: A Bridge to the Future-22 minutes, 1992. Direct Instruction Dissemination Center, Wesley ElementarySchool in Houston, Texas, demonstrates approach. Principal, Thaddeus Lott, and teachers are interviewed and class-room footage is shown. Created by Houston Independent School District in collaborative partnership with ProjectFollow Through. Price: $10.00 (includes copying costs only).

Direct Instruction--black and white, 1 hour, 1978. Overview and rationale for Direct Instruction compiled by Haddox forUniversity of Oregon College of Education from footage of Project Follow Through and Eugene Classrooms. Price:$10.00 (includes copying costs only).

Training Tapes

The Elements of Effective Coaching-3 hours, 1998. Content in The Elemewis ofEffictive Coadifigwas developed by Ed Schaeferand Molly Blakely. The video includes scenarios showing 27 common teaching problems, with demonstrations of coachinginterventions for each problem. A common intervention format is utilized in all scenarios. Print material that details eachteaching problem and the rationale for correcting the problem is provided. This product should be to used to supplementlive DI coaching training and is ideal for Coaches, Teachers, Trainers. Price...$395.00 Member Pride...$316.00

DITVReading Mastery 1, 2, 3 and Fast-Cycle Preservice and Inservice TrainingThe first tapes of the Level I and Level II series present intensive preservice training on basic Direct Instruction teach-ing techniques and classroom management strategies used in /leading Mastery and the equivalent lesson in East -Ocie.Rationale is explained. Critical techniques are presented and demonstrated. Participants are led through practical exer-cises. Classroom teaching demonstrations with students are shown. The remaining tapes are designed to be used duringthe school year as inservice training. The tapes are divided into segments, which present teaching techniques for a setof of upcoming lessons. Level III training is presented on one videoMpe with the same features as described above.Each level of video training includes a print manual.

Readihg Mastery:I (10 Videotapes) $150.00

Readifig Mastery If (5 Videotapes) $75.00Reading Mastery ffl (1 Videotape) $25.00Combined package /Reading Mastery /-111) $229.00

Corrective Reading: Decoding Bl, B2, C-4 hours, 38 minutes + practice time. Pilot video training tape that includes anoverview of the Corrective Series, placement procedures, training and practice on each part of a decoding lesson, infor-mation on classroom management / reinforcement and demonstrations of lessons (off-camera responses).Price: $25.00 per tape (includes copying costs only).

84

Conference KeynotesThese videos are keynotes from the National. Direct Instruction Conference in Eugene. These videos are profesSionalquality, two camera productions suitable for use in meetings and trainings.

27th National Direct Instruction Keynotes

Lesson Learned...the Story of City Springs, Reaching for Effective Teaching, and Which Path to Success? 2 Tapes,2 hours total. In the fall of 2000 a documentary was aired on PBS showing the journey of City Springs Elementary inBaltimore from a place of hopelessness, to a place of hope. The principal of City Springs, Bernice Whelchel addressed .

the 2001 National DI Conference with an update on her school and delivered a truly inspiring keynote. She describesthe determination of her staff and students to reach the excellence she knew they were capable of. Through this hardwork City Springs went from being one of the 20 lowest schools in the Baltimore City Schools system to one of thetop 20schools. This keynote also includes a 10-minute video updating viewers on the progress at City Springs, in the2000-2001 school year. In the second keynote Zig Engelmann elaborates on the features of successful implementa-tions such as City Springs. Also included are Zig's closing remarks. Price: $30.00

Commitment to ChildrenCommitment to Excellence and How Did We Get Here... Where are We Going?-95 min-utes. These keynotes bring two of the biggest names in Direct Instruction together. The first presentation is byThaddeus Lott, Senior. Dr. Lott was principal at Wesley Elementary in Houston, Texas from 1974 until 1995. Duringthat time he turned the school into one of the best in the nation, despite demographics that would predict failure. Heis an inspiration to thousands across the country. The second presentation by Siegfried Engelmann continues on thetheme that we know all we need to know about how to teachwe just need to get out there and do it. This tape alsoincludes Engelmann's closing remarks. Price: $30.00.

State of the Art & Science of Teaching and Higher Profile, Greater Risks-50 minutes. This tape is the opening addressesfrom the 1999 National Direct Instruction Conference at Eugene. In the first talk Steve Kukic, former Director of SpecialEducation for the state of Utah, reflects on the trend towards using research based educational methods and research vali-dated materials. In the second presentation, Higher Profile, Greater Risks, Siegfreid Engelmann reflects on the past ofDirect Instruction and what has to be done to ensure successful implementation of DI. Price: $30.00

Successful Schools... How We Do It-35 minutes. Eric Mahmoud, Co-founder and CEO of Seed Academy/HarvestPreparatory School in Minneapolis, Minnesota presented the lead keynote for the 1998 National Direct InstructionConference. His talk was rated as one of the best features of the conference. Eric focused on the challenges of educat-ing our inner-city youth and the high expectations we must 'communicate to our children and teachers ifwe are to suc-ceed in raising student performance in our schools. Also included on this video is a welcome by Siegfried Engelmann,Senior Author and Developer of Direct Instruction Programs. Price: $15.00

Fads, Fashions & FolliesLinking Research to Practice-25 minutes. Dr. Kevin Feldman, Director of Reading and EarlyIntervention for the Sonoma County Office of Education in Santa Rosa California presents on the need to applyresearch findings to educational practices. He supplies a definition of what research is and is not, with examples ofeach. His style is very entertaining and holds interest quite well. Price: $15.00

Moving from Better to the Best-20 minutes. Closing keynote from the National DI Conference. Classic Zig Engelmanndoing one of the many things he does well... motivating teaching professionals to go out into the field and work'withkids in a sensible and sensitive manner, paying attention to the details of instruction, making sure that excellenceinstead of "pretty good" is the standard we strive for and other topics that have been the constant theme of his workover the years. Price $15.00

Aren't You Special-25 minutes. Motivational talk by Linda Gibson, Principal at a school in Columbus, Ohio. Successfulwith DI, in spite of minimal support. Keynote from 1997 National DI Conference. Price: $15.00

Effective Teaching: It's in the Nature of the Task-25 minutes. Bob Stevens, expert in cooperative learning from PennState University, describes how the type of task to be taught impacts the instructional delivery method. Keynote from1997 National DI Conference. Price: $15.00

One More Time-20 minutes. Closing from 1997 National DI Conference. One of Engelmann's best motivational talks.Good for those already using DI, this is sure to make them know what they are doing is the right choice for teachers,students and our future. Price: $15.00

continued oft Next page

435

Videotapes on the Direct Instruction Model...continued

Keynotes from 22nd National DI Conference-2 hours. Ed Schaefer speaks on "DIWhat It Is and Why It Works," anexcellent introductory talk on the efficiency of DI and the sensibility of research based programs. Doug Carnine's talk"Get it Straight, Do it Right, and Keep it Straight" is a call for people to do what they already know works, and not toabandon sensible approaches in favor of "innovations" that are recycled fads. Siegfried Engelmann delivers the closing"Words vs. Deeds" in his usual inspirational manner, with a plea to teachers not to get worn down by.the weight of asystem that at times does not reward excellence as it should. Price: $25.00

Keynotes from the 1995 Conference-2 hours. Titles and speakers include: Anita Archer, Professor Emeritus, San DiegoState University, speaking on "The Time Is Now" (An overview of key features of DI); Rob Horner, Professor,University of Oregon, speaking on "Effective Instruction for All Learners;" Zig Engelmann, Professor, University ofOregon, speaking on "Truth or Consequences." Price: $25.00

Keynote Presentations from the 1994 20th Anniversary Conference-2 hours. Titles and speakers include: Jean Osborn,Associate Director for the Center for the Study of Reading, University of Illinois, speaking on "Direct Instruction: Past,Present & Future;" Sara Tarver, Professor, University of Wisconsin, Madison, speaking on "I Have a Dream ThatSomeday We Will Teach All Children"; Zig Engelmann, Professor, University of Oregon, speaking on "So Who NeedsStandards?" Price: $25.00

An Evening of Tribute to Siegfried Engelmann-2.5 hours. On July 26, 1995, 400 of Zig Engelmann's friends, admirers,colleagues, and proteges assembled to pay tribute to the "Father of Direct Instruction." The Tribute tape features CarlBereiter, Wes Becker, Barbara Bateman, Cookie Bruner, Doug Carnine, and Jean Osbornthe pioneers of DirectInstructionand many other program authors, paying tribute to Zig. Price: $25.00

Order Form: ADI Videos



$0.00 to $5 .00 $3.00$5.01to$10.00 $3.75$10.01to$15.00 $4.50$15 .01to$20.99 $5.50$21.00to $40.99 $6.75$41.00to $60.99 $8.00$61.00to $ 80.99 $9.00$ 81 . 00ormore 10% of Subtotal

Outside the continental U.S., add $.3 mare

Send form with Purchase order, check or Charge card number to:ADI, PO Box 10252, Eugene, OR 97440You may also phone or fax your order.Phone 1.800.995.2464 Fax 541.683.7543

MAIIem Each Total

Shipping

Total


Card # Exp Date

Signed

Name:

Address:

City: State: Zip:

Phone:

6 6. BEST COPY AVAILABLE

.14T1 Y..K.A Association for Direct Instruction

PO Box 10252, Eugene, Oregon 97.440 541.485.1293 (voice) 541.683.7543 (fax)

What is ADI, the Association for Direct Instruction?ADI is a nonprofit organization dedicated primarily to providing support for teachers and other educators who use DirectInstruction programs. That support includes conferences on how to use Direct InstructiOn programs, publication of The Journalof DirectInstruction (JODI), Direct Instruction News (DI News), and the sale of various products of interest to our members.

Who Should Belong to ADI?Most of our members use Direct Instruction programs, or have a strong interest in using those programs. Many people who donot use Direct Instruction programs have joined ADI due to their interest in receiving our semiannual publications, The Journalof DirectInstruction and DirectInstruction News. JODI is a peer-reviewed professional publication containing new and reprintedresearch related to effective instruction: Direct Instruction News focuses on success stories, news and reviews of new programs andmaterials and information on using DI more effectively.

Membership Options$40.00 Regular Membership (includes one year subscription to ADI publications, a 20% discount on ADI sponsoredevents and on materials sold by ADI).

n $30.00 Student Membership (includes one year subscription to ADI publications, and a 40% discount on ADI spon-sored events and a 20% discount on materials sold by ADI).

n $75.00 Sustaining Membership (includes Regular membership privileges and recognition of your support in Direct

Instruction News).

n $150.00 Institutional Membership (includes 5 subscriptions to ADI publications and regular membership privilegesfor 5 staff people).

n $30.00 Subscription 4 issues (1 year) of ADI publications.

Canadian addresses add $5.00 US to above prices.

For surface delivery overseas, add $10.00 US; for airmail delivery overseas, add $20.00 US to the above prices.

Contributions and dues to ADI are tax deductible to the fullest extent of the law.

Please make checks payable to ADI.

Please charge my Visa Mastercard in the amount of $ .

Card # Exp Date

Signed

Name:

Address:

City: State: Zip:

Phone:


Position:

e-mail address:

New from the Association for Direct InstructionA tool for you...

Corrective ReadingSounds Practice pe

CORRECTIVE READING

SOUNDS PRACTICE7

AD.1.110 "°995' 721E2;Eugene, OR 97440

02000 Association for Direct Instruction

itt's

OZZLECC.1

areatraiairtr7-nera.,,,ra-

Dear Corrective Reading User,A critical element in presenting

Corrective Reading lessons is how accuratelyand consistently you say the sounds. Ofcourse, when teachers are trained on theprograms they spend time practicing thesounds, but once they get back into theclassrooms they sometimes have difficultywith some of the sounds, especially someof the stop sounds.

I have assisted ADI in developing anaudio tape that helps you practice thesounds. This tape is short (12 minutes).The narrator says each sound the programintroduces, gives an example, then gives youtime to say the sound. The tape alsoprovides rationale and relevant tips on howto pronounce the sounds effectively.

Thanks for your interest in continuingto improve your presentation skills.

Siegfried EngelmannDirect Instruction Program Senior Author

Order Form: Corrective Reading Sounds Tape



$0.00 to $5.00 $3.00$5.01 to $10.00 £3.75$10.01to $15.00 $4.50$15.01to $20.99 $5.50$21.00to $46.99 $6.75$41.00to $60.99 $8.00$61.00to $80.99 $9.00$81.00or more 10% of Subtotal

Outside the continental U.S., add $3more

Send form with Purchase order, check or charge card number to:ADI, PO Box 10252, Eugene, OR 97440You may also phone or fax your order.Phone 1.800.995.2464 Fax 541.683.7543

Qty Item Each Total

Corrective Reading Sounds Tape 10.00

Shipping

Total


Card # Exp Date

Signed

Name:

Address:

City: State: Zip:

Phone:

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

68

.A.M. Books Price ListThe Association for Direct Instruction distributes the following Direct Instruction materials. Members ofADI receive a 20%discount on these materials. To join ADI and take advantage of this discount, simply fill out the form and include your annualdues with your order.

Tide & Author Member Price list Price Quantity Totol

Teach Your Children Well /1998)Michael Maloney $13.50 $16.95

Preventing Failure in the Primary Grades (1969& 1997)Siegfried Engelmann $19.95 $24.95

Theory of Instruction (1991)Siegfried Engelmann &Douglas Carnine $32.00 $40.00

.

Teach Your Child to Read in 100 Easy Lessons (1983)Siegfried Engelmann, Phyllis Haddox, &Elaine Bruner $16.00

,

$20.00

Structuring Classrooms for Academic Success (1983)S. Paine, J. Radicchi, L. Rosellini, L. Deutchman, &C. Darch $11.00 $14.00

War Against the Schools' Academic Child Abuse (1992)Siegfried Engelmann $14.95 $17.95

.

Research on Direct Instruction (1996)GaryAdams &Siegfried Engelmann $19.95 $24.95


If your order ?s: Postage & Handling is:

$0.00 to $5.00 $3.00$5.01 to $10.00 $3.75$10.01 to $15.00 $4.50$15.01 to $20.99 .$5.50$21.00 to $40.99 $6.75$41.00 to $60.99 $8.00$61.00 to $80.99 $9.00$81.00 or more 10% of Subtotal


Subtotal

Postage & Handling

ADI Membership Dues

Total. (U.S. Funds)

Make payment or purchase orders payable tothe Association for Direct Instruction.


Card #

Signed

Name:

Address:

City: State: Zip:

Phone:


Position:

e-mail address:

Send to ADI, PO Box 10252, Eugene, OR 97440You may also phone in your order with VISA or Mastercard. Phone 1.800.995.2464

Order online at www.adihome.org

Exp Date

9BEST COPY AVAILABLE

.7:

r, y Association for Direct Instruction.. PO Box 10252Eugene, OR 97440

Thankyou to our Sus/aimNg ffemhers

NONPROFIT ORGUS POSTAGE

PAIDEUGENE OR

PERMIT NO. 122

The ADI Board of Directors acknowledges the financial contribution made by the following individuals. Their generosity

helps our organization continue to promote the use of effective, research-based methods and materials in our schools.

Anita Archer

Jason Aronoff

Jerry Jo Ballard

Cynthia Barton

Roberta BenderMuriel Berkeley

Susan Best

George BrentJim CooperNancy & Del EberhardtDebbie EganBabette EngelDale FeikJanet FenderDavid Giguere

Rosella Givens

Ardena Harris

Stephen HoffeltCarol Hollis

Christy Holmes

Gary W. Jennings

Kent Johnson

Shirley Johnson

Sophia Johnson

Stacy Kasendorf

Diane Kinder

John Lloyd

John L. LotzMary Lou MastrangeloElaine Maurer

Mary Nardo

Doreen NeistadtKip Orloff

David Parr

K. Gale Phillips

Larry Prusz

Peggy Roush

Carolyn Schneider

Pam SmithFrank, Smith


Jonita Sommers

Karen Sorrentino

Randy & Marilyn

Geoff St. John

Sara G. Tarver

Ernie Terry

Lucinda Terry

Vicci Tucci

Scott Van Zuiden

Maria Vanoni

Tricia Walsh-Coughlan

Ann Watanabe

Cathy Watkins

Paul Weisberg

Mary Anne Wheeler

Sheri Wilkins

Laura Zionts

Leslie Zoref

Sprick

I.

U.S. Department of EducationOffice of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)

National Library of Education (NLE)Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)

REPRODUCTION RELEASE

DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION:

(Specific Document)

CS 511 241

Title:Direct Instruction News

Author(s):

Corporate Source:

Association for Direct Instruction

II. REPRODUCTION RELEASE:In order to disseminate as widely as possible timely and significant materials of interest to the educational community, documents

announced in the monthly abstract journal of the ERIC system, Resources in Education (RIE), are usually made available to users in microfiche.

reproduced paper copy, and electronic media, and sold through the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). Credit Is givento the source

of each document, and, if reproduction release is granted, one of the following notices is affixed to the document.

If permission is granted to reproduce and disseminate the identified document, please CHECK ONE of the following three options and sign

at the bottom of the page.

The sample sticker shown below will beaffixed to all Level 1 documents

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS

BEEN GRANTED BY


XX

Level 1

Check here for Level 1 release, perrilitfin8reproduction and dissemination In microfiche orother ERIC archival media (e.g., electronic) and

paper copy.

The sample sticker shown below will beaffixed to all Level 2A documents

2A

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN

MICROFICHE, AND IN ELECTRONIC MEDIAFOR ERIC COLLECTION SUBSCRIBERS ONLY,

HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

ditto140


Level 2A

Check here for Level 2A release, permitting reproductionand dissemination In microfiche and In electronic media for

ERIC archival collection subscribers only

The sample sticker shown below will beaffixed to all Level 2B documents

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN

MICROFICHE ONLY HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

2B

e


Level 2B

Check here for Level 28 release, permitting reproductionand dissemination In microfiche only

Documents will be processed as Indicated provided reproduction quality permits.It permission to reproduce Is granted, but no box Is checked, documents will be processed at Level 1.

I hereby grant to the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) nonexclusive permission to reproduce and disseminate this document

as indicated above. Reproduction from the ERIC microfiche or electronic media by persons other than ERIC employees and its systemcontractors requires permission from the copyright holder. Exception is made for non-profit reproduction by libraries and other service agencies

to satisfy information needs of educators in response to discrete inquiries.Signature: Na Poltiorimoe

rVirlrin/Managing Editor

Organization/Address: ssociatio for. Direct Instruction

R.O. Box 10252", es", ni-vhhp,

elephone:

2464FAX:

541E ss:a"Orkihome.org

,A83.Date:

6/6/027543

III. DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY INFORMATION (FROM NON-ERIC SOURCE):

If permission to reproduce is not granted to ERIC, or, if you wish ERIC to cite the availability of the document from another source, pleaseprovide the following information regarding the availability of the document. (ERIC will not announce a document unless it is publiclyavailable, and a dependable source can be specified. Contributors should also be aware that ERIC selection criteria are significantly morestringent for documents that cannot be made available through EDRS.)

Publisher/Distributor:

Address:

Price:

IV. REFERRAL OF ERIC TO COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION RIGHTS HOLDER:

If the right to grant this reproduction release is held by someone other than the addressee, please provide the appropriate name andaddress:

Name:

Address:

V. WHERE TO SEND THIS FORM:

Send this form to the following ERIC Clearinghouse:

However, if solicited by the ERIC Facility, or if making an unsolicited contribution to ERIC, return this form (and the document beingcontributed) to:

ERIC Processing and Reference Facility4483-A Forbes BoulevardLanham, Maryland 20706

Telephone: 301-552-4200Toll Free: 800-799-3742

FAX: 301-552-4700e-mail: [email protected]: http://ericfacility.org

EFF-088 (Rev. 2/2001)

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be ... · PDF file(Toll Free); Web site:...

Documents

Transcript of Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be ... · PDF file(Toll Free); Web site:...