Direct Instruction

An interesting research paper that came out comparing a constructivist math program (Invitation to Mathematics) against a Direct Instruction math program (Connecting Math Concepts).

Essentially 2 classroom teachers taught one or the other programs. This research, in my opinion, had some advantages for the constructivist math. The teacher had taught programs like it for 11 years. The other teacher attended a 4 hour workshop on how to teach the Direct Instruction program that she had never taught. In fact, she had never taught a scripted program that required students to answer in unison. Her teaching sounded pretty sub par but nevertheless, she persisted.

It turns out that in standardized tests, both tested about the same with a slight lead in DI. What was interesting was the other tests that were designed for each of the curriculum. Both tests were given to both classes. You would think that the test designed for the constructivist program would result in lower scores for the Direct Instruction students. No. In fact, the DI students out performed the constructivist students on both curriculum based test by a wide margin.

Some discussion and further review of the study can be found here:
http://us5l.oypio.com/Effective-Mathematics-Instruction-The-Importance-o...
http://d-edreckoning.blogspot.com/2007/04/effective-mathematics-instruct...

A story on Up & Coming Magazine entitled Do the Programs Work looks at Head Start and the lasting effects of early intervention to alleviate achievement gap in poor children.

Far too many policymakers have seen early-childhood intervention as a way for the government to inoculate disadvantaged students against the adverse effects of poverty, bad parenting and shoddy schooling. It won't work. Parenting is by far the largest factor affecting student success - and is largely outside of the control of government, at least in a free society. The other large factor is the quality of schooling, which policymakers can and should address.

In other words, the problem is not - as the education establishment prefers to frame it - that children don't spend enough years in government programs. The problem is that the years our children do spend in government schools are not being used productively.

Alternative policies do exist and offer a realistic prospect of much larger gains than preschool intervention. For example, enough solid research is now present to conclude that certain teaching approaches, such as phonics-based reading programs and Direct Instruction, work best to reduce achievement gaps. Enough solid, experimental research also demonstrates that poor children, at least, benefit significantly from choice programs involving public and private schools.

http://us6l.oypio.com/Good-Research-Poor-Terminology/

The blog above brings a good point to the research behind teaching by inference vs teaching by direct instruction. Direct Instruction does not equate to direct instruction nor does one equate to the other in reverse.

During the inference trial, Brinster showed the youngsters both familiar and strange objects (for instance, a ball and a plumber’s “T” connector). After saying a nonsense word (”blicket,” for instance), she would ask them to either point to or grab hold of the “matching” item. Since a ball is a “ball,” the children might conclude that the unfamiliar object ? the “T” ? was the “blicket”.

In the direct instruction trial, the child was simply shown an unfamiliar item and heard the nonsense word.

You see, in Direct Instruction, you would go one step further. You teach what an object is and what an object is NOT. So, technically, the research did not use Direct Instruction, maybe crappy direct instruction.

http://urbanmamas.typepad.com//urbanmamas/2007/04/thoughts_on_art.html

Some comments, all glowing, on Arthur Academy Direct Instruction charter schools in the Portland, Oregon areas. I suspect many parents really like the program. Of interest is how many of the parents actually spent time to research what Direct Instruction is. One parent sounds like she has a gifted child and she was very happy with the program.

Understanding U.S. History is a two part textbook series that teaches students a general strategy for analyzing historical events, processes, and periods by analyzing the problem-solution-effect. The strategy is then applied to U.S. history using original materials. The program contains concept maps and interspersed questions (to foster higher-order thinking) and a variety of writing projects. The texts are written by Carnine, Crawford, Harniss & Hollenbeck in 1994.

The texts include:
Understanding U.S. History, Volume 1 - Through 1914 (formerly through the Civil War)
Understanding U.S. History, Volume 2 - Reconstruction to World Leadership

The titles may seem confusing because there is some overlap between the two books. Volume 1 has chapters 15-21, which are repeated in Volume 2.

The texts are now published by University of Oregon. Available from the University of Oregon Bookstore Warehouse, Attention Mail Order Department, 462 East 8th, Eugene, OR, 97401, Phone: 541-345-8805 or 1-800-352-1733. Contact Chris Davis at 800.352-1733 to make orders. Volume 1 costs $30 per text and Volume 2 costs $25 per text.

Aramita Coleman has written a paper on the texts:

Coleman, Araminta (1998) How Well Understanding U.S. History Addresses The California State History-Social Science Standards-Grade 8
http://idea.uoregon.edu/~ncite/documents/coleman.pdf

NEEDED: Copyright Attorney interested in probono work, Direct Instruction, or effective curriculum

Wikibooks are free books developed by a group of people or even a single person. There aren't many out there but what is interesting is what COULD be out there. As a homeschool parent, teacher, school, or district, one of the bigger costs is textbook adoption. This includes picking a curriculum, textbook company, and teaching methodology/pedagogy.

Well, what if there was a FREE direct instruction curriculum based on scientifically-validated teaching methods? What if competent and motivated individuals (teachers, parents, paras, aides, college students) could help develop this curriculum in order to continually develop it, make it better, and ensure that it stays FREE? I always wonder if Oregon would actually adopt direct instruction curriculum if it were FREE.

Please note, even a good curriculum requires teacher/school/district buy in, training, and coaching. Many schools often cut their costs in adoption by cutting training and completely opting out of coaching.

Well I've started an area to develop a reading curriculum: Free Direct Instruction Reading 1 . I've also started an area to develop science curriculum: Free Direct Instruction Science 1. In no way is it usuable or barely started, but one might have to wonder if the idea is intriguing. It could take anywhere from 1 to 5 years to develop each module (reading kit, math kit, language, etc) but the benefits might just be worth it:

By placing curriculum into an electronic media you gain the following benefits:

Direct Instruction (DI) is an instructional design and teaching methodology originally developed by Siegfried Engelmann and the late Wesley C. Becker of the University of Oregon. Although they came from different backgrounds--Engelmann was a preschool teacher while Becker was a trained researcher from the University of Illinois--both sought to identify teaching methods that would accelerate the performance of historically disadvantaged elementary school students.

The DISTAR (Direct Instruction System for Teaching Arithmetic and Reading) program gained prominence during Project Follow Through (1967-1995), the largest federally funded experiment in public education.

Features of DI include:

• Explicit, systematic instruction based on scripted lesson plans.
• Ability grouping. Students are grouped and re-grouped based on their rate of progress through the program.
• Emphasis on pace and efficiency of instruction. DI programs are meant to accelerate the performance of students; therefore, lessons are designed to bring students to mastery as quickly as possible.
• Frequent assessment. Curriculum-based assessments help place students in ability groups and identify students who require additional intervention.
• Embedded professional development/coaching. DI programs may be implemented as stand-alone interventions or as part of a schoolwide reform effort. In both instances, the program developers recommend careful monitoring and coaching of the program in order to ensure a high fidelity of implementation.