Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 12 views

    Becker, W. C. (1992) - Direct Instruction A Twenty-Year Review

    Uploaded by

    Ana Pieretti

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Becker, W. C. (1992) - Direct Instruction A Twenty-Year Review

    Uploaded by

    Ana Pieretti
    12 views38 pages

    Original Title

    Becker, W. C. (1992). Direct instruction A twenty-year review

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    12 views38 pages

    Becker, W. C. (1992) - Direct Instruction A Twenty-Year Review

    Uploaded by

    Ana Pieretti

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 38
    Direct Instruction: Twenty Year Review ‘Wesley C. Becker, University of Oregon ® este ca ee cd 0 gt Bc SPSS ee moe fate a S.C Bete Soe Peg EUG Una Sap age 7m Selection ‘The central visible atures of DI instruction sr small-group instruc- ‘ion, with equent responding bythe studens, steachers and abdes follow scripts nan active, patcpaion-vinted classroom. Underlying the visible feauresisa procedural structure built aroand the ule “Teach more in less time.” Procedures are favored which reduce wasted time and hasten the teaching of given objectives. Some procedures help to increase stent contact time with adults (aides, small-group teaching, tight scheduling). Some procedures help to increase the effective use of that hme (scripted ‘resentation of pretest lessons which focus on generl-case teaching. {eacher training on program celevant skils, and monitoring with eierion- referenced 18), ‘Atte core ofthe mode! are a set of principles and assumptions whic Provide the bass for specific program detals. We appeal moder bei Jor theory fr principes to guide teaching stateies and to set constrains Inthe design ofa program. Most disincive in DI, however i «focus oo Ihe logical analysis of knowledge sets and weaching examples, In developing this chapter, I will begin with an overview ofthe more luique aspect of DL With these underpinnings we can then lookback ens see where they came from, and examine the research support of thee effectiveness, ‘The Design of Direct Instruction Programs ‘Tounderstan whats involvedin the design instruction for cognitive learning, itis necessary to make tre analyses. Pit, the ANALYSIS OF [BEHAVIOR seeks empirically based principles that provie the basis fo teaching any task. How to motivate and get steno, how to present examples, howto secure stadentresponses, andow to renforc and correct student response. Second the ANALYSIS OF COMMUNICATIONS used Inteaching seeks peiaciples for the lopicaldestgn of sequences so that hey ‘ill effectively transmit knowledge. This analysis focuses onthe Ways = ‘which sets of stimuli are te same and how they are diferent (Le, what discriminations must be taught). Third, te ANALYSIS OF KNOWL- EDGE SYSTEMS is concerned with denying samenesses across appz nly diferent pieces of knowledge Seletion I DI design stratepes are presented in detail in the book, Theory of ‘esrution, by Engelmann and Carine (1982). The design sratepes are ‘380 covered specially for reading in Direct Instruction Reading by ‘Carine and Silber (1979) and fr math in Direct Instruction Mathematics by Sibert, Carine, and Stein (1981), Cognitive Knowledge Forms Thc amlyis ote suucur of knowledge fom uneties Engelmann sax Carmine's theory ofinstracton. This analysis as two goals: (1) the Semncaon of types of seuctures whose members en be aught With a hours 4371 By learning wo entity te rte nit in problem 3 Comets Per fe mint) tan be writen as Kx > meant By learning to Ment he preset of workin problem 4 aati predict Crowes) goes on op, the work (hours x orders) onthe boom (or ce YE. tows _ 8 a Fours x workers Tx4 > ~ 93 .Todopobiem She dent simply esha iste se asthe cess ‘ap=Tis the sameas3()=7 aly the peroeat problem i solved by knowing tat’ parent of omeshng i five nares 7) of someting. SO: 5 net ‘Additional Principles ‘Some addtional pincipes fr designing problem-solving routines te (a) teach component skills before using them in a problem-soving route; {@) make all steps overt st, ater fade the steps so tal they become covet, {G) present example first in a simplified context, ltr we more complex Fact Systems {A fina ilastration of DI teaching stratepies wil focus on fac systems. ‘A oof what ciren ear in grades four, fve, sand ater, ar fats about ‘ur history, tbe world, our government, and ature. By rguniing related ‘acts ino grape presentations which show the relaions oft facts teach Cer learning and retention canbe facia Figure 2.5 (from Engelmann ‘& Carine, 1982, p. 25) shows some fat related to factories. teaches ‘Sctpt would go long with such charts to guide te presentation, Aer group ‘exponre and verbal practice on the acts, dhe students work witha char jst ‘ike that in Figure 25, but without he words, and pay a game filing in the facts, Tis helps to motive the practice needed for mastery. In the past 17 years, these eas have been wed to ull 49 yer-ong ‘sexpid- program sequences, incuding the nine crginal DISTAR programs {and thelr revision), Corrective Spelling Through Morphcgraphs, ve levels of Mastery Spelling, ix levels of Reading Mastery, series of Math ‘Modules covering rates 396 (and remedial classes in praes 7-9), Love Library Books, Expressive Writing Your World of Facts (1 and'2, Cursive Wiring, six Corrective Reading programs, and 3 home reading progr called Teach Your Child o Rei in 100 Easy Lessons. Selection ‘Some Historical Background Siegfried Engelmann Tn its cureat form, Diet Instruction i primarily the product of he cetfors of one man SlegfiedEngetmann,altwough many oters have aided ‘hm. Engelmann’ volvement with education began in 1960 when he end fs wife had cen and fl te ned wo teach them base cogitiv sks [usted (othe book Give Your Child a Superior Mind (Exgsinann & Engcimana, 1966) Intis book, which reflects Engelnana’s hiking fom {cary sis, one ca find many of he dea hat cumenly distinguish Di fom other educational approactes. The environment isthe teacher. The physical environment is most consent and persistent teacher of mow sil. The ative intervention of peopl nthe social environment ‘seen learning verblcopntve sil. In reviewing eal stuies on fhe effects of eavionmental enrichment on ntellecial development, Engelmann poins ou a corelation Between the degree of active pare {suction and estimated 1Q's of such famous persons as Pascal, Goethe, tnd John Stat Mill Engehmann was facinated with JS. Ml. He had Studied Mill's works as an underpraiuae pilosophy major at Tins. Engelmann writes: From Mill's account you receive the picture of abo) —not ‘a machine-who learned Greek at 3 and Latin at 8 (Granted his performance i god, but notice the charac. teristics of hs environment, videntfrom Mil's quote. The ‘environment works throughout the childs walking hows: ft aes pains 10 enture thatthe child has learned is lessons: t carefully reduces the possibilty of mistakes: i stablses clear pattern for asin what is learned: it Jorces the chd when necessary: itestalishesfirm models Jor him to fll. This is an environment hat wil succeed ‘oi amy healthy infant” (Engelmann & Engelmann, 196, ph ‘Authough Engelmann hid ead books oa learning theory and he re specedthe importance of reinforcement in Iain, he was nt, and 88. 2° Skinnerian. Butitislso ler tat, ke Skinner, e knew the importance Selection “of dealing with she observables demonstrated to conto Tearing oucomes ese ginner he teacher was viewed asa behavioral engineer: He as ns athe beaming proess involved taking “oe sepa a ime.” wrvceetestod ta mportat Tearing involves “rues” (fey need mot be eal coded, but ic helps when they ar)- Rules reflect what common Wrinrcat examples ofthe same hing He understood that generalization tose mples involves Kenifying the samenesses that fe common 1) ‘poreaching examples. He understond at he cil doesn'tmerely “lear but learns specific facts and relations In his presentation to parents on how to present examples t tac sameneoes one ean see the roments of Theory of Instruction. “The ‘attention designed leat the concept rom ielevant aspects of be aan” Negaive examples ac selected to hei rule out misinterpreta- ‘Now, let ws fra moment jump forward to 1980 when Engelinann ws completing Theory of Instruction. Ae Gveoping tis massive te Wit Hee Carin he mnie was over 900 page), Engelmann exaie ‘Pe tixophic underplanings his wor, Cleary, be sw hms ene eine pragmatic aspects of behaviorsm. He learned lt of formal and THittanght behavior theory hough teaching chikren and contacts with Doug Carnie and myself. ‘Engelmann wits; “eres soshing wrong wih behaviors a fo 38 sx goorbutwEngsimana jst does nog farenouge, Wists abortogy rae anmal esearch, has rciedtoheavily onthe empiri analysis aeifevior and neglected te importance of logical analysis of simul andy ere generally, knowledge. According to Engelmann, the gos! of insruc, $95. 1844) wit his own pinipes for he efficient design of instruction ‘Man's prints of Agreement, of Difference, Meod of Residues, and aaa sspitant Variaton are sow to parallel Engelmann's principles for Coneinetmmenes,acieenesatransormasin sequence, and coelated features o facts. ‘Engelmann noes that Mis work ould have been taken aba asi for satnec of ration for 140 yeas, butt was not Engelmana also notes Selection I ‘athe i not refer to Mis work in producing his theory of struction, He nod the similares afer he fact, Good 1g, il td the est of tine Engslmann’s sameness principe sales: ‘To show sameneses across examples, jexapose examples Tht are greaty dierent and indicate that the examples have the seme label (Engelmann & Carine, 1982, p. 39) Mats principle of agreement estate to esac clay) sas: “1 samples ie feet except fer a common feature, nde outcome = exams fr all tance, the only possible cause ofthe outcome is Ue fete”. 367, In modern beiavioal esearch is pine is Sted replication aros ferences in subjects, places, an time, ‘Engelmann'sdiference principe sates To show diferences benveen examples ustapose exam ‘les that are minimally differen and treat the examples Tliferenty (p. 39). postive and negative examples of 8 sari arethe sae inal ws but one hat dfeence must pertain wo aerial concept feature. a sprincipt of ference (again estate) states “Ife positive ans seguiveeuamples of given outcome are the same inal fetes but oh arsngle feature muse eset tothe outcome” (p39) Mail's pinile aa tence when applied tbeavira research meanssimply thats anal variable, change only oe hing in changing experimental conde “Thus the loge for knowing aout causes in basic research is closely elated the Tope fr learning from examples and provides in part a basis forte efficient design of insirvction. ‘Bereiter, Hecker & Carmine ‘ne interest of space, I must skip the contributions of Cat Berets. ‘ous Carine, ad mysel But must mention the erste Engehmans aon te fall of 1968, Bereler decided 10 give up stadis of raeidal preschool ciktren Because he fund that no spect strategies idmrrging,Inscad, appears at whatever he chose to teach could Selection I be taught. Te problem became one of deciding what teach and develop- {nga program fo teach it Beret, 1967) Engelmann joined with Beiter in 1964 to help develop the preschool with financing from the Carnegie Foundation “Twelve low income cfildren who spent two years in te preschool (tore hours a day) averaged a 26 pont gan in Binet 1Q (from 95 o 121) fand performed at mid-second grade in feading and math atthe end of preschool Tese promising rests led to Engelmann being asked in 1967 to participate nx nallonwide experiment to "see what works i eaching economically disadvantaged chien in kindergarten through third grade, ‘This enperiment became known asthe Follow Through Projet, a sequel 10 effort in Head Start. ‘Before the tart of Follow Tarugh in te 1967, Berit ef inst take @ positon atthe Ontario Intute for Studies in Education, Since Engeimann di not have a PhD. and a faculty appoiatmea, Be needed faculty member to serve as sponsor fr the Camepie rant. agreed to il this oe, When the opportunity to cia he Follow Through Project arose in ‘December, 1967, berame an active participant with Engelmann, Douglas CCamine, who had been an undergraduate National Science Foundation Fellow in Psychology wit be, jolned wit Engelmann about this ime t ‘work onthe DISTAR Arithmetic sexes Research Background of Direct Instruction “There a four kinds of esearch findings which can be viewed a supporting DI: (1) basic behavioral esearch (2) studies of fective each- ing practices (3) studies ofthe outcomes of I instruction, and (4) studies fof design principles and specte DI teaching practices. Space restrictions equie me to restrict this review primarily oa tif coverage of de Tat wosreas. shoud be noted ist, however, that D was no developed onthe basis of any ofthese research findings, except pezhas ina general way from behavior theory. Rate, rew nally from logical analyses of what was to be taught and how to teach it. The analyses wore then used to generate lesson scrips which were este to see if they were eficiat. The ultimate test was wheter the procedures produced the learing intended. This a Selection ayy day eld texting andthe analysis of eros provided was day 2 efor DL. Again, this paral to Stnne's ace, Stns au saying, "Lette pigens each you.” agetmann et » ‘Outcome Research on Direct Instruction ‘Research on Effective Teaching Practices Rocent research on effective teaching practices has seve 19 conn ‘ne Rane ofthe base structure of Diet Instruction prcties: Stacy i 19s anameroFtnvestiator nctoding Bloom. Bry, EVEN, Gnd, Korie, Stallings, eave cerelationally and expeneS” rape tober aching practices fo stent outcomes, Roem tay ree mer of summaries of hese stadles (Rosenehine, 1976 aa oe Benet, 1978 Rsenstie, 1980) He tees tha he Rosen acest doses te pstiveccones: Resenstie se ieee caching avis fused on academic ales We ine arte dentine lat friatructonSutiC a conte covereds extensive, set pecformancs monitors aunty of questions have acest cl igh o€W0RS ANSE, PONS ae rs responses. and feedhack o students immediate A 9 ny eciened The teacher conros the insiactonl goa, owes a opiate forth ede Tevel and paces the ech nach {sstructired, but ively and fu, not austrian. se rc for teaching cen since it was no secretes, fadividualzed nor focused on afletive OuEOMeS Selection I ‘Head Start and Follow Through, ‘Asaplanned-yariationfeldexperiment Follow Through began in 1968 and ened in 1976. Asa service program t sil continues. By 1970, the Dt “Model was responsible or9,000chiren each year, inkinderarten trough, ‘thir rade, in 20 communities allover the US. The ethic groups involved ‘included Native Americans, Hispanics, urban and rural Blacks, and rural ‘Whites. By 1970, 20 diferent educational models were working in 170, ‘communities, with total of 75,000 eld cach year, This waste arpest. ‘educational experiment ever undertaken, While there have been atiacks on Ue statistical analyses (eg, House, Glass, Me.ean& Walker, 1978) there ‘is much agreement that the DI Model peformed the best of aay Bereter ‘& Kurland, 1981; Stebbins, St Pierre, Prope, Anderson & Cerva, 1977; ‘Wiser, Burn, Iwamoto, 1978), ‘TheDI Model in Follow Taough wasevaluated using he children who started in 1970 and 1971. The Mod! was also evaluated in Head Start in tree communities for 1969, 1970, and 1971. The Head Start evlustion ‘compared eight models and showed tht the DI Model and the Kancas [havior Analysis Model had the most postive achievement outcomes (Weisberg, 1974), ‘The data inthe Abt Report (Stebbins, ta, 1977 show the DI Model ‘o have more significant pastive outcomes than any other model on asc skill measures (Word Koowledge, Spelling, Math Computation, and Lan ue). comprehension measures (Reading Comprehension, Math Con- ‘cepts, Math Problem Solving), and the afective measures Selt-steem and [Locus of Contra) In terms of normative levels of performance on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT) at the end of third grade, DI students who started Follow Through in kindergarten performed the highest ‘ofthe nine major sponsors on Tot Reading, Total Mathematics, Spelling, and Language: Most immpertantis th fact ha the students were performing at of near the Sth percetle on all academic measures, Tis provides ‘rong demonsiration that compensatory education can work. Figure 2.6 shows the normative performance using our own data on lose 103,000 clea from 13 commuaiues over sx starting yeas (Becker & Carine, 1980). Our own daa on the MAT are nearly idesticalt those Independently coleted as part of he national evaluation. In aan, our ‘own data show disadvantaged childenreating onthe Wide Range Achieve- ‘ment Testa the S2nd percentile (5.2 rade equivalents at the end of third ww ippasee sue ecto # Ornate Dan fae i li Selection I ‘rade. The Wide Range assesses the hldren's bitty to decode (rl word ‘eading), wile the Metropolitan assesses reading comprehension. Clearly, ‘disadvantaged children donot have ofall in school. (Our own data also show that twas beter to start ermal teaching ia Kindergarten (five-year ols) than fst grade (-year olds) clear van lage of about 7 grade equivaleats was preset athe end of third prade. TQ ins were found averaging 7 poins overall and 18 points fo cilien ‘Starting with Q's under $0 (mean 1Q of 72; the 18 pol pain is acted for ‘egrssion artifact) (Becker & Engelmann, 1978), ‘An analysis ofachievernet gain by Q levels ofthe children shows that lower 1Q students start lower in reading abd mat and end up ower, ‘but gain as mack on almost every measure (Geren, Becker, Heiry, & ‘White, 1984), Lower IQ chularen canbe taht Follow-up studisin Sthand 6th grade showed thatthe DI chien were significandy beter in reading and math on 50% ofthe comparisons made, bout there was some oss against national norms (in eading comprehension ‘and math, but not decoding) probably duc to the inadequacies of the Programs afer the cilren lt Follow Through (Becker & Gersen, 1982). ‘We have recenily examined the fst high school graduates (18-year ‘lds several communes, Results show tat there were fewer retentions, fewer dropouts, and more high schoo! graduates among the DI Follow ‘Through students than non Follow Through comparison students. ‘The hardest task faced in Follow Through was bulding reading com- prehension skills (Becker, 1977) Ublive ths was because ofthe voabn- lary learning load face by children growing up in homes where the adult ‘caretakers were not well educated and/or id 80tspeak English well In ‘homes with reasonably edocated parents, cilden ae constantly learning new words. Tiss les ikely to oceurla homes of the disadvantaged. Much ‘School learing asumer knowledge of vocabulary. ‘The Australian Studies ‘Since 1972, Alex Mages and his sudo ns have confucted more than 30 studies ofthe effectiveness of DI programs on a varity of normal and special populations. Tei states have included eight of the nine DISTAR Programs, two Corrective Reading Programe, snd MorphographicSpel- Selection ing. In ation wo his work at Macquarie Universty (Spey), there hes been along series of studies with Dow's Syndrome crea by Cues Ross and his wife, an student tthe Preston Insti in Melbourne, These ‘Austalian studies are summarized in Lockey and Mages (1982). One sty was cared out by Maggs and Morath (1976) with 28 ‘moderately and severely reared children who had been insttutonalizes teas five years. The children were randomly assigned ether a DISTAR Language groop wsing behavicrl teaching techniques o 1 a Peabody ‘Language Kit group. nsruction was povided for one hour a day ove wo calendar yews. Independent testers (Did to groups) tested the children before and afer the two years of instucton, Te result re summarized in Thale2, ‘The results show the DISTAR group dd beter on all measures of ‘ogaitive functioning. The last ine in Table 21 (Omega Squared) shows the percent of variance atrbuable to experimental teatnens. These ae ‘powerful eects, The 1Q gains show thatthe DISTAR Language ! group ————— ‘TABLED ‘Mean Gain Scores on Six Tests Hepat | suntes. Senate om (itm) "ae | ea | ‘aa | rl ot | seste | See) | Sar) | So) Fr cumwsquet | oe | oe | on | ae | me |e Selon I guined 225 moots in 24 months, while the Peabody Language Kit roup {gained only 7S moath in 24 moni. The DISTAR group galed a lost § normal rate. The Peabody group guied atthe rat to be expected from tose with an average TQ inthe how 30's (hich is where the cilen stared). na study by Booth, Hewit, Jenkins, and Mages (1979), 12 moderately ‘retarded children with IQ’ saveraping abou 40 were followed for five year DISTAR Language was startet te firs yea and Reading was SSeS aM Language I as complete (18 oaths late). The cilren wee in begin- hing Reading 11 when ested. While there was no pretest on reading, the ilcen were reading a he eary-third grade level on posts. Their mean 1Q's ad risen from 419 10 $0.6 (p<001) (Gesten & Maggs, 1982). LLockery and Mapes conclude thir review by indicating that DE has hanged approaches 1p teaching both retarded and normal chien in ‘Asalia and that the work strongly supports the eated findings in the United States. ‘Studies with Bilingual Students Four of our Follow ‘Through sites (E. Las Vegas, NM, Dimi, TX, ‘Uvalde, TX, and San Diego, CA) hadhigh percentages of Spanish speaking student. Our approach in hese seings was fst 0 get English speech and ‘eaing strong, an then a oral Spanish followed by reading im Spanish. ‘This approach was qute succesful in reducing the typical “Texmex™ confusions of many bilingual eins, ‘A recent study fom the Marina Det Mar schoo! ia Monterey, CA, (Gersten, Brockway & Henares, 1983), gives further support othe use of DDISTAR Reading and Language programs, 38 well ste Corrective Read- ing Programs, i lingual stings, (Cis van Rensburg (1982) aidan experimental comparison of DIS- ‘TAR with two other programs in South Afica sing random assignment groups of al childenin rst grade five schools, The eiren wee from Tk and bilingual, and the schools had aster of high fll rates. Me DISTAR students achieved significantly higher scores onal est (deco ng, comprehension, speling, and writing), Selection Suuctured-immerson approaches (as the DI program is) have bees ‘ound superce 0 tudtonlbiagual approaches instdesby Lambert an “Tucker (1972) and Bark, Swain and Nwanunobi (1977. ‘Weisberg’ Preschool Studies Paul Welsberg (1984) has run a preschoo! for poverylevel stan since 1970 at be Univesity of Alabana. From the begining, De was ‘concerned wit reading skis, At fist, his staf focused onthe tational “readiness” skills ‘going to the book area, holding a book right side-up. fuming the pages property, looking at pictres and dis- ‘issing then listening to stories and learning about plo land soon. We soon dcovered that reading did not magi- ‘aly evolve fom these ‘prereadin” actives We subsequently adopted @ whole-word, meaning-empha- ‘isapprodch which incorporated many basa reader meth- ods a recognition vocabulary of 40 to 69 words was possible, but onl forthe highest performers... However, ugh withou reliable prompt (ples, redundant sy- Tactic and semantic sentences), guessing of became the Chiren's major word-attch soaegy. . They had trouble with ilar words suchas ion, no-no, rar. favs... When reading simple sentences, they readily ‘nitinied boat for ship, ator Kiter, wate for wel, and 900 “Weisberg goes on to esenibe the other problems his students ad in teaming base conceps. He needed something beter. In mid 1975, we observed a DISTAR Reading program it dtvuralall-Black choo. The teacher's taining consisted ‘faweckend workshop. Her pacing was marginal and she Spoteina monotone, hardly ever challenging the cilren We worried abouall hose signals an dil and teaching from sripted materia. Yet, the children didn’t seem to ‘mind and. to cur astonishment, they energetically ond ‘Carefly sounded outeach word (Weisberg 1984 pp. 1-2). Selection I About tis tine, Weisberg was also impressed by a movie ofthe Kis fiom the Bereiter-Engeimann Preschool and by some erly data on DI in Follow Tough (Becker, Engelmann & Thomas, 1973). In 1976, Pa and his wife Roberta spent their sabbatical year atthe University of Oregon fearing about and teaching DISTAR, Upon retwaing to Alabama, the ‘preschool was converted to DI methods (and subsequently, Roberta ino- ‘oced DISTAR into several schools in Tuscaloosa), ‘The data collected inthe next seven years is truly remarkable, Pat's teachers (three per class) ad their poverty-level chien all day in & {falar rogram (oot haf day for nine mont), He wed the coninaoss [progress tests developed by Becker and Engehmann for Follow Through ‘monitor stage and teacher progress. His data shows scores on these tests ange from 85% comec (unfamiliar word reading) (097% comec (Sound Idenificton). Duriag 1980, he gahered comparative data on similar chien from a Head Stat preschool, the University Home Economics preschool and entering kindergarten and first grade cildeninoca schools to hd not had preschool. These comparison groups dd not ifr from ach oer on the achievement ess and therefore were combined by Be ‘roups(K Starting Age and Is Starting Age)- Four-year olds afer one year frecalledK Staring Age by Weisbergand ater two years, Ist Starting Age. ‘Weisberg carefully documents the entry comparability Of his groups and ‘bei sl deficits On he Slosson Inieigence Tes over the pas fur yeas, ‘58 students in his preschool had averaged IQ's of87, with only 19% higher ‘than 10, Figure 27 shows outcomes on the Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT, The Di-tained Int Stating Aged group was consistendy above {he 98th percentile G4 grade equivalents) (v0 standard deviations above the Nalonal average)! Those with two yeas of DI (N = 31) averaged 38 ‘rade equivalens The K Agodstudeatsaveraged between the T7dvand 98th percentile across program years In comparison to prior stuces of children ‘vith two years of DISTAR in preschool, these arth highest performances Yetobiained. He Bereiter-Engeimann Preschool chien eached 2.6 rae {quivaleats (GE) in their second group and Anderson (1971) reached 26 ‘GE. wit slightly shove average cen. The ade time in Wesbers's ‘preschool was obviously Wed advange. Cldrea staying fortwo years {ypically completed Level If Reading and Language, and at east half of Arithmetic Il. Those staying one year complete Level I Reading and Lan- ‘guage and three fous of Arithmetic * FIGURES? WRAT ending cos rogtm years: Dat ate plot in gu Pecenticantions desbmant screech A sushi analysis of tie WRAT shows where the performance citer noes come from. On the sbslsirelevan to reading (Labeling Two Letiers im Name, Leter Matching, and Lester Naming) Di and non DI _100ns are comparable. But on Word Reading, the Dl stidensencelled (A ‘Stung Age: DL=9.1,non-DI= 2; Is Stating Age: DI= 28, non Dl 2.20n number of words read), Comprehension sls were tested using end offs grade tests, The (Gates-MacGinte Test (Primary A, Form 2) was used in 1977, andthe “Metropolitan Achievement Test(MAT) (Primary Level derealtr Median Grade Bguvalents across rogram years onthe MATT fr Is Staring Aged children were + Word Knowledge 2.1 + Word Anaiysis 30 ‘+ Reading Seatences and Sores 24 + Tota Reading 22 ‘+ NomDI groups performed ata chance-evel 10 Selection I ‘A comparison of Ist Starting ge children wit one (N = 12) vesis| two years (N= 31 gear of Df, show mean Teal Reaing rade equivalent scores fo be 15 and 24, respocively. Weisberg concludes by pointing out that two years of DISTAR are noededto be tly fonctional readers. “Tis sudy i truly a remarkable demonstration of what canbe doe in teaching povery-leve chen Other DISTAR Studi would be imposible fo cover al ofthe studs of DI programs that have occrted in the past 15 yes, The best we can doi to meniona few ofthe beter ones. Early sumares of ver 25 sues, mostly noom-eer- fenced, ean be found in Gordon (1971) apd Kim, Berger & Krotcetvl (1972), Sates by Richard and Marilyn Crozier (1974) demonstrated he effectiveness of DISTAR programs with educable mentally retarded cil- ten inthe Edmonton Pubic soools, Antony Branvtite (1982) compared the use of DISTAR for remedial reading stdeats in England. The same teacher taught ooh programs. After 11 weeks, the conventional remedial program group bad gained sx month and the DISTAR group had gale 12 montis. LE Stein and Goldman 1980) compared the effectiveness of DISTAR Reading and the Palo Alo Reading Program, anoter phonics based pro ‘gram. The stadeats were sit-to-ipht year-olds with reading problems, bat bad average IQ's, and were sid to have “minimal brain dysfunction.” Psttesting onthe Peabody Individualized Achievement Test PLAT) nine months ater, the DISTAR group had galned 15 months and the Palo Alto [troup seven months. Differences were present for boch decoding and comprehension Engelmann and Carnie (1976) stoi the progres of 28 middle-class second graders who had been in DISTAR in ist grade (he top hal ofthe {otal ist grade), Twolow performing children were also addedintbe group. University student in DI tinng tat acing and math to he groups 30 minutes dy, and were supervised by anexcelent teacher anda University DI supervise (nthe Sanford Achievement Test Total Reading (comprehension), the 230 students averaged 4.6 grade equivalents (only two students were below 27, te two low performers aed othe class Were at 2.6). On the Wide Selection ‘Range (decoding) the class averaged 5.1 grad equivalents, On Teal (Stanford) they averaged 3.4 grad equivalents, andon SAT Science ( is much of the subject mater of te Reading 1 program), they a 240, A questionnaire fr the studens showed very posiveatindes reading and sel. Like behavior andysis and other anovatons in education, the Di approach has often ben tacked a being inconsistent with humanistic ani ‘the philosopies of education, From our experiences in Foiow Throuph, sve knew tha for 99 out of 100 teachers the Feelings of philosophic clas ‘Ssappeared in tree to ix months as the teachers gained competence, and tespetally as they saw chile learning who had filed with ether methods ‘Serving as an independent contacter, Croain (1980) documented thous “Theough Stes. “Although there were several Cohort and imited- first-year teaches hone “ols” educational plosopy ad nally clase with (Ghat they had perceived as DISTAR's less ‘humanistic’ approach 1 ‘aching all ofthese teachers now found DISTAR to be compatible Wit their educational plosophy” (23). ‘About half ofthe teachers cited the dramatic changes in progress by theirtandergarien and first rade students asthe basis for change in atta, ‘Many reported that Black and Chicano students were performing at Teves hey had thooght impossible afr ten years of teaching experience. One vicdeher sessed the importance of teaching DISTAR before an accurate appeal of ts underying philosophy could be made (Cronin, 1980, p B ‘Studies with Other Programs Corrective Reading and Morphographic Spelling have alsobeen eval ‘ated Laer versions of each consisted of One program: fatter versions ‘Signa the marber of levels and poalsinvolved. Most but nota) of te ‘Sbarh son the earlier programs. In genera, wo months or more gain for ‘aan mont of insrvtion has been typically found using a variety of tests. Selection TL Studies of Design Principles and Specific Teaching Practices ‘Chapters 29 and 30 of Theory of Instruction Eagelmann & Canine, 1989) summarize many ofthe specific studies of DI theories and practices. ‘Many ofthese statis ar sls reviewed in Beck and Canine (1980) and eter, Packer, and Weisberg (1981. I will highlight few ofthe stdies to lose their characte, Positive Examples Only [Negative examples ae necessary 10 rue out the misinerretations posible om use of onl positive examples, This assumption was ested By Willams and Carine (1981), A hypothetical concept "Gertie" angles oaween and 110 depress) vas tnught to 28 subjects, Half received 12 postive examples andthe eral eight psives and fur negatives, The af test nctaded oth positives and mepatives. The postive-only UP “Tad 0% and the positives-plus-ngatives group secred 88%. ‘Sameness Principle “The sameness principe sats: "Show the range of postive examples by jntaporing widely dlfering examples and labeling them inthe sae asepery sven stdenis Wid knowledge of rats, Dut not decimal, Ne premtbe came numberof examples of how to convert factions of 100, Jo deta The numerator fr Group One was always 2 cps for Group ‘Ruoltwas 12,or3 digits Tests inlodedall tree types. Group Twoscored ‘30% and Group One scored 36% (Carine, 19800). Sprague and Horner (1961) sie the sameness principle sing vending smachhosy and severely relardedhigh schoo stdent. Ten different varieties sr macnes were ellced, Tailng on one machine or on thee highly Simular machines didnot lead to generalization to the other, Teining Oo 1981) was cared out ina sheltered workshop, Severely retarded high Show student were to attach 20 different kinds of Biaxle capacitors 1 Selection I ciroltbords. Tring on one example edo no transfer. Training on hee ‘tance sclece to sample the ange produced generalized performance [An Ielevant Samencss ‘landers (1978) followed the procure wed by Ges (1968) tte a generized se of pla low performers, Two sameneses {0 {esching procedure followed by Guess were hypothesized cause mises {obe learned. The examples in one group alays had one objet and ‘Sr apo. The proup of two was aays of te sme las an abel lander ound that when cil was presente these proups—{1) do, om: td (2) og, dog op—the cid tended to respond to the smaller group == Singular When sted with (1) dog and (2) dog, cat—the second group Wat ‘aed poral (eer “dogs” or "cals", A corected teaching Sequence ‘Siminuing the inappropriate sameness, led to camect responding appropriate test als. Many hers ave ste the eet ofirelevant sameness in ear tng aciminations, ‘The resus clearly flow the ue, “ITH logical possible, learning wil ecu." Minimum-

    You might also like