DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 481 699 CS 512 512

AUTHOR Tarver, Sara G., Ed.

TITLE Direct Instruction News: Effective School Practices, 2002.

INSTITUTION Association for Direct Instruction, Eugene, OR.

ISSN ISSN-1068-7379

PUB DATE 2002-00-00

NOTE 81p.; Published semi-annually. Some articles are copyrightedfrom other sources and are not available from ERIC. For theVolume 1 (2001 issues), see ED 467 298.

AVAILABLE FROM 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.

PUB TYPE Collected Works Serials (022) -- Reports Research (143)

JOURNAL CIT Direct Instruction News ; v2 n1-2 Spr-Fall 2002

EDRS PRICE EDRS Price MF01/PC04 Plus Postage.

DESCRIPTORS Case Studies; *Classroom Techniques; *Educational Practices;Educational Research; Elementary Secondary Education;*Instructional Effectiveness; *Reading Instruction; *TeachingMethods

IDENTIFIERS *Direct Instruction; Goodman (Kenneth)

ABSTRACTThe mission of the Association for Direct Instruction is to

promote the improvement of effective educational methods. This journal,"Direct Instruction News," is their publication. The Spring 2002 issue(Volume 2, Number 1) contains the following articles: "Same? Different? BothSame and Different" (Sara G. Tarver); "Cookie Cutter Curricula" (Bob Dixon);Responses to Article by Alan Borsuk; "Scores Soar at Siefert School with Aidof Structured Lessons: What's That Slapping Sound?" (Alan J. Borsuk); "Alex'sStory" (Gary Shmerler and Karen Shmerler); "Does Direct Instruction inPhonics Benefit Deaf Students? If So, How?" (Beverly Trezek); and "Mythversus Science in Educational Systems" (Charles Baxter) . The Fall 2002(Volume 2, Number 2) issues contains these articles: "DI Successes Despitethe Obstacles" (Sara G. Tarver); "Reading First, Phonics, Phonemic Awareness,and the Analysis of Content" (Bob Dixon); "Eshelman Avenue Elementary: AProfile of Success" (Kip Orloff and Therese Snyder); "When Direct Instruction'Doesn't Work'" (Carrie Amberge); "Rhetoric and Revolution: Kenneth Goodman's'Psycholinguistic Guessing Game'" (Martin A. Kozloff); "Three-Cueing System:Help or Hindrance?" (Kerry Hempenstall); and "Statement to the MPS SchoolBoard" (Mark C. Schug) . (NKA)

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

CTN

00

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS

BEEN GRANTED BY

. G6,cfLin

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educahnnal Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it.

Minor changes have been made toimprove reproduction quality.

Points of view or opinions stated in thisdocument dr, not necessarily representoffcial OERI pp:salon or policy.

c-1

kr)

cl)()

Direct Instruction News: Effective School Practices,2002.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

2

Direct InstrucA TIT Effective School Practices

Same? Different?Both Same and Different!

In his "View From Askance" column inthis issue of DI News, Bob Dixonreveals the fallacies in the myth thatDI (the "cookie cutter") produces stu-dents (the "cookies") who are all thesame. To put that old myth anotherway, DI stifles teachers' creativity (byproviding them with a cookie cutter)and students' individuality (by makingthem identical products of the cookiecutter). Bob explains that DI doestreat students as though they are thesame in some ways but also treats themas different in other ways.

Students are the same in that they alllearn if provided with a well designedcurriculum and a teacher who presentsthe lessons effectively. Students differin what they have learned prior totheir first exposure to a DI curriculum(let's call that prior learning prerequisiteskills and knowledge, not readiness).

That's why we give placement tests todetermine the different starting pointsfor different students. Students differalso in rate of learning and rate of pro-gression through a curriculum. That'swhy we emphasize ongoing assessmentof individual progress and flexiblehomogeneous grouping.

In short, learners must pay attentionto both sameness and difference. Eventhe simplest discriminations requireattention to both. The young childwho is asked to "put all the red blocksin one pile" must pay attention tosameness of color (what IS red) and, atthe same time, pay attention to differ-

ences of color (what IS NOT red).Sameness and difference are two sidesof the same coin. Fortunately, we canhelp children learn by structuringtasks to communicate critical same-nesses and differences. DI curriculaare designed to do just that. This par-ticular aspect of DI is most apparentin the DI language programs and LevelA of the Corrective ReadingComprehension program in the lessons inwhich children are taught that thingsare the same in some ways yet differ-ent in others. Too bad some educatorsnever learned those basic same/differ-ent lessons.

Schools, like individual students, alsoshare important samenesses or similar-ities even though they differ alongmany dimensions. Schools that imple-ment DI with fidelity are the same inthis way: their students' academicachievement improves tremendously.To be sure, schools may differ in levelof academic achievement before andafter DI implementations. They mayalso require different DI curricula withdifferent emphases. For example,teachers in low performing schoolsoften spend more time on DI languageinstruction, relative to DI readinginstruction, in kindergarten and/or firstgrade, whereas teachers in high per-forming schools are likely to spendmore time on DI reading instruction.Also, low performing schools maychoose to implement 4 particular DIreading program (e.g., Reading Mastery)while high performing schools may

3

CSTR012.3 C-S

choose to implement a different DIreading program (e.g., Horizons).

The body of evidence supporting theclaim that DI implementations lead toimprovements in academic achieve-ment continues to grow. Highlighted inthis issue of DI News are two reprints ofMilwaukee Journal Sentinel (MJS) articlesthat report the success stories of ClarkeStreet Elementary School and SiefertElementary School in Milwaukee.

Both are inner city schools in highpoverty neighborhoods. As reported inthe MJS articles, authored by AlanBorsuk, the academic gains of both

continued on page 3

SPRING 2002, Volume 2, Number 1

In this issue

46

10

12

13

1416

18

24

A View from Askance

Great Expectations,Greater Results

Responses to Articleby Alan Borsuk

What's That Slapping Sound?

Giant Leap in Learning

On-Line Staff Development

Alex's Story

Direct InstructionWith Deaf Students

Myth Versus Science

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

ADI Publication EditorsDirect Instruction NewsSara TarverUniversity of Wisconsin, MadisonMadison, Wisconsin

Journal of Direct InstructionNancy Marchand-MartellaEastern Washington UniversityCheney, Washington

Timothy SlocumUtah State UniversityLogan, Utah

Board of DirectorsBob DixonClassical LearningOlympia, Washington

Susan HannerCo-AuthorCreswell, Oregon

Gary JohnsonCo-Author/Independent ConsultantPortland, Oregon

Nancy Marchand-MartellaEastern Washington UniversityCheney, Washington

Milly SchraderElk Grove School DistrictElk Grove, California

Timothy SlocumUtah State UniversityLogan, Utah

Don SteelyOregon Center for Applied ScienceEugene, Oregon

The DI Nem is published semiannually bythe Association for Dircct Instruction. Themission of the Association for DirectInstruction, as stated in the by-laws, is COpromote 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 Section50I(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: AD!, 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.; 830 (U. S. currency) Canada; $40EuroPc; $60 airmail to.Europe.

(ISSN 1068-7379).

Managing Editor: Amy Griffin

Publisher: The Association for DirectInstruction

http://www.adihome.org

Layout and Design: Beneda Design,Eugene, OR

2

Contribute to DI News:

DI News provides practitioners, ADI members, the DI community, and those newto DI, with stories of successful implementations of DI, reports of ADI awards,tips regarding the effective delivery of DI, articles focused on particular types ofinstruction, reprints of articles on timely topics, and position papers that addresscurrent issues. The News' focus is to provide newsworthy events that help usreach the goals of teaching children more effectively and efficiently and commu-nicating that a powerful technology for teaching exists but is not being utilizedin most American schools. Readers are invited to contribute personal accounts ofsuccess as well as relevant topics deemed useful tb the DI community Generalareas of submission follow:

From the field: Submit letters describing your thrills and frustrations, prob-lems and successes, and so on. A number of experts are available who may beable to offer 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 manu-script. Indicate the name of the word-processing program you use. Save drawingsand figures in separate files. Include an address and email address for eachauthor.

Illustrations and Figures: Please send drawings or figures in a camera-readyform, 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.

4 Spring 2002

Same? Different?...continued from page 1

schools are remarkable. To expandupon the information provided inBorsuk's article, we have included atable showing percentage of studentsscoring at proficiency or advanced lev-els on the Wisconsin Knowledge andConcepts Examination (Grade 4) in1997, (prior to DI implementation)1999, 2000, and 2001 (after DI imple-mentation). As the table shows forReading, the percentages increased by46, 49, and 50 points for Clarke Streetand 32, 47, and 46 points for Siefert.For Language, the percentagesincreased by 61, 71, and 71 points forClarke and 47, 54, and 62 points forSiefert. For Social Studies, percent-ages increased by 66, 70, and 63points for Clarke and 48, 55, and 52points for Siefert. Obviously, Clarkeand Siefert are the same in one way:Both made tremendous improvementsin Reading, Language, and SocialStudies after implementing DI.Congratulations to Clarke and Siefert(whose Principal, Sarah Martin-Elamwas recipient of a 2000 Excellence inEducation award from ADI) for out-standing accomplishments!

It's great to see DI getting some goodpress in Wisconsin these days (good-

ness knows it's long overdue). Buteven the good press usually containssome of the same old not-good stuff.And Alan Borsuk's MJS article aboutClarke Elementary is an example of thegood being contaminated with the not-good, for the sake of "balance" I sup-pose. David Ziffer and JohnShewmaker, two frequent contributorsto the DI listserv, wrote letters toBorsuk objecting to his inclusion ofinvalid criticisms of DI (the "not-good"). Apparently Borsuk chose not topublish the Ziffer and Shewmaker let-ters for they have not appeared in MJS.However, I think those letters will beof interest to readers of DI News and, as

editor, I made the decision to publishthem in this issue. They followBorsuk's article about Clarke.

Direct Instruction News

Also reprinted in this issue is aBaltimore Sun article that reports thetremendous turnaround of CitySprings Elementary in Baltimore,Maryland. Under the direction ofPrincipal Bernice E. Whelchel (recipi-ent of a 2001 Excellence in Educationaward from ADI), the school has madegains sufficient to get it removed fromthe state's list of low performingschools that are in danger of takeoverby the state. It is one of only fourschools ever to have been removedfrom that list. City Spring's percentageof children performing satisfactorily onthe Maryland Student PerformanceAssessment Program changed from6.5% in 1996-97 (before DI imple-mentation) to 42.4% in 2001. That42.4% figure is considerably above thecity average of 22.5% and just belowthe state average. Once again, hats offto Bernice and the City Springs staffl

It should come as no surprise to any-one that a key factor in the success ofCity Springs and other Baltimoreschools is the teacher training. Gettingresearch-based teaching practices intothe hands (and minds) of large num-bers of teachers is a major challenge ofthe day. In response to this challenge,Melissa Hayden and Muriel Berkeley,both of whom have played key roles inthe Baltimore Curriculum Project,developed an on-line course and fieldtested it with 23 teachers from innercity Baltimore. As you will see whenyou read their article in this issue, theresults are very encouraging. Greatwork, Melissa and Muriel!

DI success stories continue to mountfor individual students also, many ofwhom have disabilities. One heart-warming story is that of Alex, reportedby parents Gary and Karen Shmerler inthis issue. This is a story of how acharter school that uses DI is helpingAlex to learn like other childrendespite significant handicaps.

I find it particularly amazing that DIhas been used successfully with deafand hard-of-hearing students. Thefall, 2001, issue of DI News contained areport of a study in which the per-

5

formance of high school deaf and

hard-of-hearing students improvedgreatly after they were taught with DIprograms in reading comprehension,

spelling, and writing. Decodinginstruction was not a part of the inter-vention. Of course not, you might say,

because deaf children can't benefitfrom phonics instructionthey can'thear sounds! But perhaps you, like I,will be surprised to learn that deafand hard-of-hearing students can ben-efit from explicit phonics instruction.In her paper in this issue of DI News,

Beverly Trezek presents research on

this topic and attempts to explain howdeaf and hard-of-hearing studentsbenefit from phonics. In that paper,she includes the results of her ownpilot study in which she usedCorrective Reading Decoding with fourhigh school students who are deaf.

Interesting results!

For the most part, DI News will publish(a) success stories that show what is

possible when DI is implemented withfidelity and (b) papers describing thepractices that are entailed in success-

ful implementations. We'll include atad about the political and philosophi-cal hassles that folks go through as

they attempt to initiate and carry outDI implementations. And we also wantto include a few papers that enlightenus about the basic principles of DI andstimulate us to think more deeplyabout philosophical undergirdings.Chuck Baxter's "Myth vs. Science"paper (in this issue) is such a paper.

He begins by stating three basic prin-ciples that determine logical scientificprocess and goes on to show how these

principles relate to the DI mantra "Ifthe student hasn't learned it, theteacher hasn't taught it."

Hope you enjoy reading this issue as

much as I enjoyed editing it. Please

send your reactions, stories, questions,

and technical tidbits so that they canbe shared with others. Mg.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE3

BOB DIXON

4iL4WWCookie Cutter Curricula

Direct Instruction programs comprisea cookie cutter curriculum. At leastthat's what I've heard for years andyears. More recently, I've heard thatSuccess for All is also a cookie cuttercurriculum. I've even heard that CoreKnowledge is a cookie cutter curricu-lum, although I didn't know that CoreKnowledge was any type of curriculumat all.

Normally, I react to "cookie cutter cur-riculum" about the same way I react to"rote learning," which is to say, barelyat all. There seem to be several phras-es many educators use to communi-cate the same message: "I may notknow anything about instruction, but Iknow what I don't like."

But tonight, I'm sitting in a hotelroom, drinking the world's mostexpensive Canada Dry Ginger Ale(from the room refrigerator), with a lit-tle time on my hands. At moments likethis, I can get very analytical about themost mundane things.

For instance, my first question abouta "cookie cutter curriculum" iswhether we're talking about ametaphor or an analogy. I supposethat depends on how we phrasethings. Direct Instruction is to chil-dren as cookie cutters are to cookies.That's clearly an analogy, so onepressing question is answered.

But in what ways is DI like a cookiecutter, and in what ways are the prod-ucts of DI like cookies? Given that Ididn't make up this analogy myself, Ican only guess. I think whoever didmake up the analogy was trying to saysomething like, "DI treats all kids as ifthey were the same."

4

Now, that doesn't bother me a lotbecause I know for a fact that a majorintent of Direct Instruction programsis that of treating kids as if theywere all the samein some ways.But to explain how that can be bothtrue and positive, I have to considerbriefly this corollary statement: Allkids are different.

I've actually heard people say this outloud, and heard people say it proudly,as if they were saying somethingentirely unique and profound. But toobserve aloud that all kids are differ-ent is about as profound as observingout loud that the Yankees buy goodplayers. Yeah? Really? Wow! Rocket sci-ence. Of course all kids are different.Would anyone ever suggest otherwise?Show me any two kids in the worldand I'll show you two kids who differfrom one another in many, many ways.

When I hear someone actually stateout loud that all kids are different, Iwant to scream out: Yeah? So what? Weall know that. What's your point?

Of course, I know their point. If allkids are different, then they must allbe taught differently, and treated dif-ferently, and "respected as individualhuman beings," and a bunch of stufflike that. Minor league political cor-rectness. I suppose that if all kids dif-fered from one another in every waypossible, and were not the same as eachother or similar to each other in anyways whatsoever, then maybe wewould have to teach them all differ-ently. And what a nightmare thatwould be. We might pull that off, withsome success, if we could manage aratio of about three teachers to everyone child.

I'm going to take a wild guess at some-thing. The person who says out loud,right in front of people, that all kidsare different is probably a person whodoes not give a lot of thought to all theways kids are the same as, or very simi-lar to, one another. If we were to "saythe whole thing," I think we'd have tosay: All kids differ from one another inmany, many ways, and all kids sharesome similarities or likenesses or"samenesses." Otherwise, what wouldbe the basis for classifying kids as"kids." (Please don't get on me aboutthe word "kid." Yes, you can use thatword to refer to a baby goat, but youcan also use it to refer to a child,which is what I'm doing.)

We cannot classify instances of any-thing, whether dogs or humans,except upon the basis of similarities orshared characteristics. That's whatconcepts are all about. If we're inter-ested in teaching kids something,then our interest is in specifying theways in which kids differ, and the like-nesses they share, and then sortingout which characteristics influencelearning and instruction.

I think that if we spent a lot of timecontemplating that question, we'dhave to conclude that at least the vastmajority of differences among kidshave little or nothing to do withinstruction and learning. Most obvi-ously, physical characteristics have lit-tle to do with instruction. We cansafely use cookie cutter curricula withkids who have different hair colors anddifferent sizes and different noses,and so on. We might start to arguewhen we consider more psychologicaldifferences, such as different inter-ests. But that's pretty easy to settle, Ithink. There is neither a credible ana-lytical argument nor empirical evi-dence of any sort to support thecultish belief that accommodating theinterests of different children, instruc-tionally, makes any difference when itcomes to instruction and learning.

Spring 2002

Content, it seems to me, is independ-ent of a child's interests. Let's saythat I'm a young boy who is interest-ed in sports. The nature of reading,rather than the boy's interest, dictatesabout 90% or so of what has to betaught to that boy. Content, and thenature of content, doesn't changeaccording to the interests of children,nor according to any other characteris-tic of children. If we were trying toteach a gorilla to read, the nature ofreading wouldn't change. Obviously,when it comes to the nature of con-tent, differences among learners don'thave much to do with anything.

If we accept that the fundamentalnature of content does not changeaccording to differences among learn-ers, then perhaps the nature of /earners,independent of content, dictates differ-ences in instruction. But are learnersreally more alike in the way they learnor more different? Well, lots of folkslike to think that all kids learn differ-ently, but it's difficult to pull hard,specific examples from them. How,exactly, do differences in the way kidslearn influence learning some categoryof knowledge, such as concepts? I'venever seen any such specific examples,probably because they can't happen.On the other hand, top notch DIinstructional designers, such asEngelmann and Carnine and Steely,could come up with unlimited exam-ples of how very different kids canlearn various concepts all through asingle teaching presentation. That canhappen, and does happen, and it istherefore easy to come up with exam-ples, and pretty easy to prove drnpiri-cally, and impossible to disprove,because it's true.

One way of illustrating the way a singleteaching presentation on a concept canproduce uniform learning of that con-cept is through the use of a DI parlortrick, in which we design a teachingpresentation with the intent of ensur-ing that everyone misinterprets thepresentation and does not learn theconcept being taught. But why waste

Direct Instruaion News

the time on such parlor tricks, whenthere is such a pressing need for kidsto learn accurately, and efficiently?

The point is that all kids (andhumans) share some characteristicschat are useful for learning, and, there-fore, instruction has to accommodatethose samenesses among learners,rather than the many differencesamong them. Learning styles and"intelligences" and student interestsand modalities couldn't possibly havetoo much influence on learning, notwhen the nature of content doesn'tvary among learners, and not whensome of those things that make us allhuman are so central to learning.

For example, a child with

a reading learning disability,

from a poverty home, might

still be impoverished after

finishing Reading Mastery I,

but might no longer qualify

for havinga learning disability.

The cookie cutter analogy breaksdown for me in one sense. Yes, everycopy of Reading Mastery I looks prettymuch the same. And if all your cookiecutters happen to be the same, andyou always use the same recipe, thenall your cookies are going to turn outabout the same. But after widelyvarying kids successfully completeReading Mastery I, guess what: they alldiffer from one another mostly in thesame ways they differed from oneanother before they started the pro-gram. There might be a few differ-ences, but we can live with changingkids in some ways. For example, achild with a reading learning disabili-ty, from a poverty home, might stillbe impoverished after finishingReading Mastery I, but might no longer

qualify for having a learning disabili-ty. But otherwise, kids end up pre-serving most of their differences.They don't look like a sheet of cook-ies in that respect.

On the other hand, such kids mightend up looking like a sheet of cookiesin another respect. After a goodteacher teaches Reading Mastery I to abunch of differing kids, there is apretty good chance that every one ofthem will end up the same, in thatthey will all be well on the road tobecoming literate, and they'll all beroughly at the same mile post on thatroad. In that, I'll concede, the cookiecutter analogy might not be too bad.Do DI programs comprise a cookiecutter curriculum? Yes, I guess insome respects, they do.

That is why I said early on here that amajor intent of Direct Instructionprograms is that of treating kids as ifthey were all the samein some way.Put another way, the DirectInstruction programs make every effortto communicate the essential natureof content to all learners (because it isthe same for all learners), and theymake every effort to take full advan-tage of the ways all humans generalizemore accurately and efficiently. Here'ssomething a little funny: it isn't thateasy to do! The work and effort andthinking and analysis required fortreating all kids the same is extreme.It's easy to treat all kids differently.Anyoneabsolutely anyonecandesign instruction that does not resultin highly uniform, cookie-like achieve-ment across widely varying students.If anyone really wants kids to emergeat very different achievement levelsfrom an instructional program, basedupon the notion that all kids are dif-ferent, then they can do it, and theycan do it as easily as falling off of a log.I think we could come up with a lot ofanalogies to describe the resultinginstructional program, but "cookie cut-ter" wouldn't be one of them. That'stoo flattering. A-11".

5

Percentage of Students Scoring At Proficiency or Advanced Levelson the Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Examination (Grade 4):

Clarke Street Elementary School1997 1999 2000 2001,

Siefert Elementary School1997 1999 2000 2001

Reading 42 88 91 92 Reading 22 54 69 68Language 22 83 93 93 Language 6 53 60 68Social Studies 28 94 98 91 Social Studies 14 62 69 66

Dear Mr. Borsuk and Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Editors:

I was gratified to see your web site publish Mr. Borsuk's article on Direct Instruction (November 1, "GreatExpectations, Greater Results" at www.jsonline.cominews/metro/nov01/clarke18111701a.asp). Many peOple, bothwithin and outside of Milwaukee will tell you that with Direct Instruction you can "do what is being done as a wholeat Clarke Street, and you get results, year after year, test after test," as Mr. Borsuk so aptly points out..

I was however distressed to see that Mr. Borsuk apparently went out of his way to solicit the opinion of Alfie Kohn,who was quoted as describing Direct Instruction as "rigid, harshly punitive, competitive, characterized by low level'bunch o' facts' teaching," and who put forth the opinion that Direct Instruction "should be avoided like the plague."

No doubt Mr. Borsuk was following some sort of requirement that he produce a "balanced" report, a mandate whichseems to compel education columnists to seek out the most outrageous contrary opinions and insert them, withoutrhyme or reason, into the midst of otherwise reasonable stories. Indeed, I cannot recall ever reading any article aboutDirect Instruction in the popular press that did not use precisely this same technique to contrive a sense of contro-versy (presumably to increase readership?).

I would guess that Mr. Borsuk is unaware that asking Alfie Kohn for a contrary opinion on Direct Instruction is aboutas original and interesting as collecting Beanie Babies or displaying a "Baby On Board" sign in your car window. It'sgotten to the point where I can predict with certainty at the start of any Direct Instruction article that the authorwill make a point of cleverly inserting this worn-out device, using either Mr. Kohn or one of his peers, people whoapparently make their livings by stoking the imaginations of the most extreme and irrational elements of the educa-tional community.

Of course there is nothing wrong with controversy. It's just that true controversy requires that the opposing view comefrom a credible source. To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Kohn is neither currently nor formerly involved in the imple-

.mentation of any school reform program that raises the achievement level of any group of children anywhere by anyobjective standard. Since Mr. Kohn cannot supply us with any tangible evidence that he knows what he's talking about,it seems strange to me that you would solicit his opinion.

As a practitioner who uses Direct Instruction almost every day, I can tell from Mr. Kohn's comments that he is almosttotally ignorant about both Direct Instruction and of the effects that it has upon children, and so it would seem thatyou have assisted him in disseminating misinformation about subjects he doesn't understand. I recommend that youdo your readers a service in the future by leaving Mr. Kohn out of your stories on Direct Instruction until such timeas he can demonstrate his involvement in an educational reform effort that competes favorably with it.

If you were to publish an article about the latest discovery in astrophysics, and for the sake of introducing controver-sy you sought out the opinions of the Flat Earth Society, readers would regard you as ignorant. So too when youquote the opinions of demagogues who have apparently achieved nothing in the field ofeducation. I hope yourcolumnists will use better judgment in the future.

Sincerely, David Ziffer

1 0 3 Spring 2002

Dear Mr. Borsuk:

It is not necessary in writing an information article about what's Good to give equal voice and moral authority to the Bad.

We do not, for example, give Mr. Osama bin Laden much newspaper or television space for his views on how theUnited States in particular and the Western World in general are morally corrupt, incompetent, selfish, and present abad model for others to follow. His views may or may not be objectively correct, but we arc not about to listen to himpreach on the subject, and no newspaper and no reporter in this country is obliged in the name of impartiality to giveMr. bin Laden column space, whether those views are, in the eye of God, some Muslims, or anyone else, correct orincorrect.

Direct Instruction has much genuine statistical support for its accomplishments, perhaps more than you may beaware. The congruence of the various independent studies, done over 30 years, favorable to Direct Instruction is out-standing. It is that congruence which is particularly persuasive. A single study is one thing, but the consistent resultsof dozens of studies says something important. If you would like to know more, I suggest you talk to the manage-ment of P.R.E.S.S., which is a Wisconsin organization with lots of information available. You can find it at:

http://www.execpc.com/presswis/index.html. I attended its last meeting, and it is an impressive bunch of folks,folks who have children to educate and are not easily taken in by Hoopla and Noise.

Mr. Kohn is scarcely a lone voice crying in the wilderness: He represents the views of many professors of education,many teachers, many principals, and even many superintendents, the very people who have brought us the presentmess and perpetuate it, and especially does Kohn represent, in almost its purest form, the teachings of John Deweyand the Columbia School of Education and all its myriad followers, who have pretty well ruined the public schoolsthroughout the entire country over the past century.

Mr. Kohn certainly does not reflect the views of parents anxious to get their children to learn CO read, write, and doarithmetic. If you have any doubt on this, please do as I did, and purchase Mr. Kohn's books and read them carefully.They have a superficial plausibility, and that is all. They are utterly one-sided.

But not only have people who think like Mr. Kohn ruined the schools (see: The Schools We Need and ['Pry we Don't HaveThem, by E. D. Hirsch), they may inadvertently put you personally on the street without a job. "How so?" you maywell ask.

Fewer and fewer people read newspapers, and this correlates well, albeit inversely, with the number of people whoeither do not know how to read or can't do it very well. The fewer the people who read and care to read, the fewernewspaper readers there are, and the fewer the number of daily newspapers. The wasteland of TV is not the prob-lem. Enough good regular readers to sustain a paper is the problem.

Educational methodologies and curricula are fairly complex topics worthy of your consideration as a reporter, and weare glad you addressed them in this case, but there is much much more to be written.

.

You could have, for example, addressed the real difficulties of installing and maintaining the Direct Instruction cur-. L.

riculum in a particular Schoul. This is nor an easy trick to accomplish, and there are emerging data that indicate thatit may be easier to install Direct Instruction throughout an entire district than simply on 'one school. This would be a

helpful thing to study and write about. Mr. Kohn's demagogic views are not, however, usefUl in such a context.

Those of us who have been searching desperately for systematic, replicable, educationally sound and verifiable meansto fix the atrocious mess of the public schools, need good, well-researched stories about what really works. NVe do notneed to hear quoted off-the-wall.apologists forthe current mess trumpeting again and again the latest buzzwords cel-ebrating as suctesses the continuing ruinous failures of the last century. Mr. Kohn spouts words of outrage and fury,but he has yet to offer a means to teach children well and truly. His views should not be put in the limelight underthese circumstances. He may be a "constructivist" critic, be he is scarcely a constructive critic.

Yours, John Shewmaker

Direct Instruction Naos 11

GARY and KAREN SHMERLER, Verona, Wisconsin

Alex's Story

Our story begins in 1992 with thebirth of our first child Molly, a perfectbaby. Molly was a delightful baby girlwho learned to talk at a very early age.By the time she was a year old, shecould already speak in complete sen-tences. It was easy to see that Molly'sdevelopment was well within the aver-age range. She was the joy of our lives!In 1994, we added another bundle ofjoy to our family. His name was Alex.From the start, Alex's entry into theworld was not so easy. From theminute he was born, he had problems.First, Alex could not breathe when hewas born. We found out that Alex wasborn without nasal passages in theback of his throat. This is calledChoanal Atresia. Alex was placed inthe ICU with an oral airway in hismouth. Our hospital did not have aPediatric Ear, Nose, Throat expert onstaff, so a specialist from theUniversity Hospital was sent for.Surgery was necessary and the doctor

1 6

assured us that she had performedthis surgery before. So, at 9 days ofage, the specialist operated on Alex.At 20 days of age, Alex was again hav-ing difficulty. It was at that point thatwe discovered the specialist per-formed the surgery incorrectly.Needless to say, we do not know howlong Alex went without the properoxygen levels in his blood or if some ofthe problems he has today were dueto this surgery. In attempts to correctthe mistakes, the specialist performed15 more surgeries on Alex. It was atthat point that we realized we neededto take Alex elsewhere to get himproper care. As parents, we realizedthat we were the only voice for ourbaby. If we didn't stand up for him,who would? Now, we have to live withour stupidity and our choices that'wemade for Alex for the rest of our lives,and his. We learned that parents mustalways search for the right answer andif you are still unsure, then you have

10

to make a decision and hope it's thebest one you could make at the time.

At 7 months of age, we found out thata part of Alex's brain was missing sincebirth. This is called Agenesis of thecorpus callosum (ACC). ACC is a rarecongenital abnormality in which thereis a partial or complete absence in thearea of the brain which connects thetwo cerebral hemispheres. It is actuallythe fiber network that connects thetwo sides of the brain and allows thetwo hemispheres to talk to each other.Kids can be perfectly normal or severe-ly delayed. At this point, we asked forearly childhood intervention. We paidfor outside therapies for Alex to givehim the best chance to succeed. Wewere committed to searching out theright answers for him in terms of ther-apy and education in order to give himthe best shot at life.

By the time Alex was 2 years old, hehad already gone through 37 surgeries.His life experiences had been filledwith challenges to say the least. At 3years of age, Alex was eligible to

Spring 2002

attend Early Childhood classes in apublic school system. We had heardthat a neighboring school system hadthe best program for working withkids with disabilities. So, after check-ing into the program, we moved tothat district.

It was now fall of 1997; Molly wasstarting kindergarten and Alex EarlyChildhood classes in this new schooldistrict. The school appeared to be atraditional educational system, but wewere immediately disappointed withMolly's progress. We became painfullyaware that our child was a victim of aclassic school paradigm of passing kidsthrough with little regard to perform-ance. The lack of curriculum accounta-bility was so bad that a teacher hadprepared comments for Molly's reportcard without accurate knowledgeabout her learning experience. Theprincipal had no answer and affectedno change to rectify the situation. Aperfect example of a system construct-ed around mediocrity. So, we looked atother school systems and found a char-ter school right within our own schooldistrict that offered Direct Instruction(DI) and Core Knowledge. We knewnothing about either DI or CoreKnowledge, but again we did someresearch. We were told that at thischarter school they teach the basicsand worked on a foundation to buildlearning skills. The district centraloffice told us that DI was the "old"way of learning and that it providedlittle flexibility and creativity for stu-dents. They also said that it requiredlittle flexibility and creativity from theteaching staff as well. We decidqd toobserve the program and saw some-thing completely different. The kidsseemed to like the energetic style ofteaching and they received a consis-tent teaching message. We were alsotold by educators outside of the char-ter school that the DI method ofteaching wasn't for everyone. Wecouldn't understand why, seeing ashow in the classrooms we observedevery child appeared challenged, yetsuccessful. The kids also seemed

Direct Instruction News

happy. We thought that this type ofinstruction was exactly what Mollyneeded. There was only one problem.You could only get into this charterschool by a mail-in lottery system. Yourapplication had to be sent in and post-marked after midnight on a certaindate. We believed so strongly thatDirect Instruction was what Mollyneeded that we completed 72 applica-tions. Beginning at midnight on thedesignated date, we proceeded to mail72 applications at various post officesaround the city. Molly's applicationwas drawn first in the lottery, whichplaced her first on the waiting list!

That was in December. It wasn't untilright before school started in August ofthe next school year that a family fromthat school moved out and there wasnow an opening in first grade forMolly. So, Molly was in. We decided tohold Alex back one more year in theEarly Childhood program.

We became painfully aware

that our child was a victim

of a classic school paradigm

of passing kids through with

little regard to petformance.

Throughout that year, and given all ofthe specialists and observations, we

came to the understanding that Alex'sdisability is a neurocognitive disorderassociated with a significant language

disorder, severe constructional apraxia,

which greatly interferes with thedevelopment of cutting, coloring, past-ing, and handwriting, significant right-left disorientation, gross motor delays,visual impairments, difficulty graspingthe relevance of time, and severe

delays in all basic academic skills.Alex's diagnosis is actually not specific

to any one category, but is one thatappears a mixture of many difficulties.We were all too well aware of the chal-lenges Alex would face in school. We

also recognized that his gregarious,

socially interactive personality would

be his greatest asset in trying to over-come his learning disability.

Upon Alex reaching kindergarten age,

we needed to make a decision about

educational programs for him. Again,the district central office encouraged usto put Alex in the traditional setting sothat he "wouldn't fall behind." Wefound that interesting, given the factthat their traditional setting had failedto teach our daughter Molly. We hadalready concluded that their traditionalsetting was consistent with a programdesigned and built around mediocrity.We knew that the DI programs taughtat the charter school were working wellfor Molly. We did more research andbelieved that DI was exactly what Alexneeded too. Therefore, contrary to thecentral office position, we decided toenroll Alex in the same charter schoolas his sister Molly. This time there wasno need to fill out 72 applications andmail them at midnight. Alex was auto-matically enrolled in the charter schoolbecause he had ExceptionalEducational Needs (EEN) and was asibling. (Enrollment preferences weregiven to EEN children and siblings.)Given Alex's learning disability, we setup biweekly meetings with his IEPteam. At first, Alex made very littleprogress. We then realized that the cen-tral office had provided an EEN teacherfor Alex who had no DI background. Atour family's own expense, we hired aDI consultant to train the EEN teacherand had some success. However, we

later found that the EEN teacher didnot always follow the specifics of theteaching method and inserted her owntraditional teaching ideas after all. Alexprogressed, but very slowly. It wasn'tuntil after hiring one of the school'strained DI teachers to tutor Alex duringthe summer months that we saw unbe-lievable progress!

It is only October of Alex's first-gradeyear. He is successfully reading storiesto us from his reading book. He isbeginning spelling instruction. He cancount to 40, recognize numbers, addand subtract, and is beginning to

1 7

understand math concepts. Alex iseager to go to school everyday. We

are able to track his progress in avery measurable way. The staff has

been creative in coming up withways to accommodate Alex's learning

needs while keeping to the DImethod of instruction. What a team,

what a program, what a fine youngman Alex will be able to become!

In closing, oui- family is grateful tohave this educational approach tolearning. DI has been successful forboth of our children. We learned whenAlex was only 7 months old that we,as parents, need to always search for

the right answers for our kids.

Whether you search for medical advice

or for proven educational systems, we

encourage all parents to seek out the

research for yourselves. Your children's

future depends on it. We searched for

the right answers in education, and

we found it in DI! AD!.

BEVERLY TREZEK, University of Wisconsin, Madison

Does Direct Instruction in PhonicsBenefit Deaf Students? If So, How?

Address correspondence to BeverlyTrezek, 4710 Regent St., Apt. 81A,Madison, WI 53705. Electronic mailmay be sent to jtrezek@yahoo.com.

The National Reading Panel (2000)was established in response to a1997 congressional directive. In April2000, the panel published a reportthat represents the most compre-hensive review of existing readingresearch to be undertaken inAmerican education. The panelidentified more than 100,000research studies completed since1966 and subjected them to rigorouscriteria for review. From its review ofthe scientific literature, the paneldetermined that effective readinginstruction must teach children (a)to utilize phonemic awareness skills;(b) to apply phonics skills; (c) toread fluently with accuracy, speed,and expression; and (d) to applyreading comprehension strategies toenhance understanding and enjoy-ment of what they read.

In the field of deaf education, twoviews exist regarding reading instruc-tion for deaf individuals. The domi-nant view is that deaf individualslearn CO read using essentially thesame processes as hearing individu-als. The opposing view is that deafindividuals learn to read using differ-

18

ent processes (Musselman, 2000).Adopting the dominant view of read-ing development among deaf indi-viduals, along with the findings ofthe National Reading Panel, itappears as though deaf individuals,like hearing individuals, must"develop phonological processingcapabilities in order to becomeskilled readers" (Musselman, p. 13).Leybaert (1993) concluded that ourfailure to address the phonologicalcomponents of reading instruction isprecisely what underlies the readingproblems of deaf individuals.

It is well documented in the litera-ture that deaf students who graduatefrom high school are significantlydelayed in their reading achievementwhen compared to their hearingpeers. The Gallaudet ResearchInstitute recently reported perform-ance on the Stanford AchievementTest for a national sample of deafstudents. Results indicated that theaverage reading level for 18-year-old

deaf students was fourth grade(Traxler, 2000). These findings areconsistent with data collected overthe past 70 years (Pintner &Patterson, 1916; Myklebust, 1960;Holt, 1994).

12

This paper presents a brief summaryof the communication philosophydebate in the field of deaf educationin order to appreciate the impactcommunication philosophies have onthe type of reading instruction deafchildren have received. The founda-tion of the alphabetic writing sys-tem of English and phonologicalknowledge will also be explored todetermine the role of phonologicalknowledge in reading for deaf indi-viduals. The evidence that deafreaders have access to phonologicalinformation and are able to gain thisaccess by means other than hearingwill be summarized. Finally, studiessupporting phonological instructionfor deaf students will be presentedand discussed.

Communication

PhilosophiesUntil the 1960s, instruction for deafchildren was primarily auditory-oral.The development of spoken lan-guage, the use of residual hearingand the acquisition of speechreadingskills were primary goals of thismethod. A better understanding ofthe linguistics of American SignLanguage (ASL), coupled with thefailure of the auditory-oral methodfor many deaf children, led to theintroduction of the TotalCommunication method. TotalCommunication incorporates ges-tures, fingerspelling and sign lan-guage to support deaf children's use

Spring 2002

of residual hearing and speechreading.In practice, Total Communication gen-erally refers to the simultaneous use ofspoken language and English-basedsigns (Stewart, 1993).

The distinction between ASL andEnglish-based signs is an importantone. ASL is a natural language with itsown vocabulary and syntax. Signs inASL correspond roughly to words inspoken English. The order of signs inASL, although different than the orderof words in spoken English, conveyssyntactic information. Unlike spokenEnglish, however, syntactic informa-tion in ASL is also transmitted throughbody movements and facial expres-sions (Meier, 1991).

The English-based sign system, on theother hand, can best be described as amanual code of spoken English.Approximately 70% of the signs usedin the English-based sign systemderive from ASL but, unlike ASL,signs are arranged in English wordorder. In addition, artificial signs werecreated to represent function wordsand the inflectional morphemes ofEnglish. Despite this attempt to repli-cate English in a manual form, theEnglish-based sign system failed toincrease reading levels in deaf children(Stewart, 1993; Stokoe, 1975).

By the 1990s, several leaders in thefield of deaf education began to pro-mote the use of ASL, arguing that itwas the natural language of deaf people.Advocates insisted that ASL shouldreplace the English-based sign systemand become the primary communica-tion method for educating deaf children(Sacks, 1989). Johnson, Liddell, andErting (1989) strongly endorsed a bilin-gual/bicultural approach for educatingdeaf children in their landmark paper,"Unlocking the Curriculum."Bilingual/bicultural programs incorpo-rate both ASL and English, but empha-size English primarily in written form.Socialization in both the Deaf and hear-ing cultures is also stressed in a bilin-guaVbicultural model.

Direct Instruction News

Despite the implementation of manybilingual/bicultural programs, thedebate surrounding communicationmethods for deaf children continuesand literacy levels among deaf childrenremain well below those of their hear-ing peers. Regardless of the communi-cation philosophy adopted, the answerto improving reading achievement indeaf children may be found in thefoundations of the alphabetic writingsystem of English and the associatedimplications for reading instruction.

lb learn to read, 4ildren

must first develop an

awareness ofphonemes

and utilize this awareness

to developphonological

decoding strategies

(National ReadingPanel, 2000).

Foundation for the AlphabeticWriting System of EnglishIn all alphabetic systems, printencodes spoken language. By design,alphabetic systems "build graphic-phonological mappings into writingsystems at the subword level" (Perfetti& Sandak, 2000 p. 34). For example,when a hearing child is presented withthe printed word man, the child is ableto use their knowledge of spokenEnglish to form a link between thewritten letters rn-a-n and the corre-sponding sounds In otherwords, the hearing child is able to forma link at the subword level.

When presented with the same task ofreading the printed word man, a deafchild must often rely on their knowl-edge of ASL or the English-based signsystem to form a link. The link estab-lished by the deaf child between theprinted word man and the sign for manoccurs at the word, rather than sub-word, level. Even if a link is estab-

13

lished between the printed letters m-a-n and the letters rn-a-n in the manualalphabet, the deaf child remains at adisadvantage because there is no rela-tionship between the formationalparameters (handshape, placement,movement, etc.) of the manual alpha-bet and the alphabetic code (Leybaert,1993). Essentially, a mismatch existsbetween the type of link establishedby the deaf child when reading andthe phonological link required forreading an alphabetic writing systemsuch as English. This mismatch is fur-ther supported by program evaluationstudies (Rogers, Leslie, Clarke, Booth,& Horvath, 1978; Geers & Moog,1989) indicating that orally educateddeaf children achieve higher levels ofreading skills than those educatedusing sign language. One possibleexplanation for the higher levels ofachievement is that orally educateddeaf students have acquired phonolog-ical knowledge.

Phonological KnowledgePhonological knowledge is an impor-tant prerequisite to reading acquisi-tion. Phonemes are the abstract build-ing blocks of the phonological system.To learn to read, children must firstdevelop an awareness of phonemes andutilize this awareness to developphonological decoding strategies(National Reading Panel, 2000). Inother words, learning to read Englishinvolves learning that letters corre-spond to speech sounds. Children whoare successful readers use this knowl-edge and can apply it to reading tasks.

The crux of the problem for the major-ity of deaf readers, for whom ASL orthe English based sign language istheir first or primary language, is thatthey have not acquired strong skills inspoken English, and hence, have prob-ably not developed phonologicalknowledge. If phonology forms thefoundation for learning to read, a deafchild who lacks phonology is facedwith a tremendous obstacle whenlearning to read.

1 9

In examining this obstacle, there aretwo general areas to explore. First, theinformation available regarding the useof phonological processes by successfuldeaf readers must be examined todetermine if deaf readers are able toutilize phonological information inreading. Second, it is important todetermine if access to phonologicalinformation can be achieved through amode other than hearing.

Evidence of DeafReaders' Access

to PhonologicalInformationRecently, several authors have summa-rized the evidence indicating that deafreaders have access to phonologicalinformation despite the inability togain this information auditorially (seeLeybaert, 1993; Musselman, 2000; andPerfetti & Sandak, 2000 for reviews).Several of the reviewed studies reliedon rhyming and lexical decision mak-ing tasks to measure phonological pro-cessing by deaf readers. In one suchstudy, Conrad (1964) assessed theability of orally educated deaf adoles-cents to remember sets of writtenwords. One set of words containedphonologically similar (rhyming) wordswhile the second set contained visuallysimilar words. Conrad suggested thatthe type of errors made by the deafsubjects would indicate how they werecoding the words internally. Hehypothesized that subjects codingwords phonologically would havegreater difficulty remembering the setof rhyming words because they wouldbe easily confused. Similarly, subjectscoding words visually would havegreater difficulty remembering the setof visually similar words. In examiningthe responses, Conrad found that themajority of his deaf subjects mademore errors with the phonologicallysimilar set than with the visually simi-lar set. He also noted that phonologi-cal coding was associated with higher

20

levels of reading comprehensionamong his subjects.

Although the subjects of Conrad'sstudy were educated orally, similarfindings have been obtained with stu-dents educated utilizing sign language.Kelly (1993) investigated the presenceof phonological encoding by deafteenagers using a lexical decision task.In this study, deaf teens educated in aTotal Communication environmentwere presented with strings of lettersthat were either phonologically andorthographically similar or orthographi-cally similar only. Participants wereasked to determine if the strings ofletters constituted words. Kelly con-cluded that the deaf teens' faster reac-tion time for word pairs that werephonologically and orthographicallysimilar compared to pairs that wereonly orthographically similar indicatedan access to phonological information.

Due to the control for

spelling, these results infer

that deaf participantsaccessed and applied

phonological information to

this reading task.

Several studies involving deaf collegestudents with profound hearing losses,unintelligible speech, and for whomASL was their first language, providesfurther evidence that deaf individualsdemonstrate knowledge of phonologi-cal information (Hanson & Fowler,1987; Engle, Cantor, & Turner, 1989;Hanson & Lichtenstein, 1990;Hanson, Goodell, & Perfetti, 1991;Hanson, 1982). Hanson and Fowlercompared the performance of collegeage deaf and hearing students on theirability to identify rhyming words.Participants were presented with pairsof written words and were asked todetermine which pairs rhymed. Thetask was constructed so that partici-pants were unable to rely on ortho-

14

graphic similarities alone when makingtheir decision. All pairs of words usedin this task were orthographically simi-lar, but not all were phonologicallysimilar (wave/save, have/cave).Although the deaf participants wereless accurate in their ability to identifyrhyming words than their hearingpeers, both groups were able to makelexical decisions for rhyming wordsmore quickly than for nonrhymingpairs. Due to the control for spelling,these results infer that deaf partici-pants accessed and applied phonologi-cal information to this reading task.

Hanson et al. (1991) conducted anexperiment comparing the ability ofdeaf and hearing college students tomake semantic acceptability judg-ments of printed sentences, half ofwhich were tongue-twister sentences.Results indicated that both groupsmade more errors on the tonguetwister than the control sentences.Furthermore, prior to reading sen-tences, participants were required toread a list of digits and then recall thelist after reading a sentence. When thelist of digits were phonetically similarto the tongue twister sentence, (10,12, 20Tom and Tim talked togeth-er), both deaf and hearing participantsmade more errors than when the digitsto be recalled were phonetically differ-ent from the words in the sentence.

Leybaert and Alegria (see Leybaert,1993) supplied the first account ofdeaf readers using phonological codingduring actual reading tasks. In a seriesof studies requiring participants toread aloud, deaf participants were ableto pronounce words and pseudowords(word-like strings of letters withoutmeaning) in a manner similar to hear-ing participants. Results indicated thatpseudowords containing simplephonology and regular words were easi-er for the deaf participants to decodethan pseudowords containing complexphonology and irregular words.Therefore, it appears that deaf readersare able to use phonological informa-tion during oral reading.

Spring 2002

The majority of studies providing evi-dence that deaf readers have access tophonological information have beenconducted with adolescents and col-lege students. This has led someresearchers to conclude that, for deafreaders, "phonological encoding is anoutcome of learning to read rather thana prerequisite" (Musselman, 2000, p.13). A study by Hanson, Liberman, andShankweiler (1984) is one of the fewconducted on beginning deaf readers.The authors of this study comparedshort-term memory for sets of lettersunder three conditions; phoneticallysimilar (B C P V), manually or dactyli-cally similar (M N S T) and visuallysimilar (K W X Z). The sets of letterswere presented repeatedly to begin-ning deaf readers educated in a TotalCommunication environment. Basedon standardized measures of readingachievement, the students were divid-ed into two groups: good readers andpoor readers. Improved performance inthe participants' ability to rememberletters in one condition over anotherwas used as evidence of encoding.

Results of this study indicated thatthe deaf children classified as goodreaders used both phonetic and manu-al codes in short-term retention ofprinted letters. On the other hand, thedeaf children classified as poor readersdid not demonstrate the use of eitherof the linguistically based codes inrecall. Neither group relied on visualcues as a strategy for recall. Theauthors concluded that "the success ofdeaf children in beginning reading,like that of hearing children, appearsto be related to the ability to establishand make use of linguistically recodedrepresentations of the language"(Hanson, Liberman, & Shankweiler,1984, p. 378).

The existing data support the hypoth-esis that skilled reading by deaf indi-viduals, like that of hearing individu-als, involves phonological coding.Phonological coding is traditionallythought to be a function of hearingand speech. Leybaert (1993) suggest-

ed that acquisition of phonologicalinformation is not dependent on theuse of residual hearing for deaf individ-uals. Evidence indicates that deafreaders may be able to gain access tophonological information by meansother than hearing.

The existing data support

the hypothesis that skilled

reading ky deaf individuals,

like that of hearing

individuals, involves

phonological coding.

Alternatives to Accessing

PhonologicalInformationMany deaf individuals must rely onsources other than audition in order togain access to phonological informa-tion. Deaf individuals use informationprovided by speechreading, CuedSpeech, and articulatory feedback todevelop knowledge of the phonologicalcharacteristics of English.

SpeechreadingOne alternative source for gainingaccess to phonological information isspeechreading. Researchers hypothe-size that deaf individuals are able tolink the speech that is visible on themouth to printed letters and words.While reading, hearing readers connectletters to phonemes and retain themin acoustic storage. Deaf individuals,on the other hand, connect letters toarticulatory movements retaining themin visual-spatial storage (Chalifoux,1991). Anecdotal evidence supportingthis hypothesis comes from observa-tions of deaf children engaged in tasksevaluating short-term memory Theseobservations revealed that deaf chil-dren tend to mouth words when askedto respond to stimuli (.Chincotta &Chincotta, 1996). A potential problem

with using speechreading as a sourcefor gaining phonological information isthat a particular mouth movement mayrepresent more than one phoneme(i.e. /p/, /b/, and /m/) and somephonemes are not visible on the lips(/k/ and le resulting in an incompleteor ambiguous phonological representa-tion (Alegria, 1998; Leybaert, 1998).Cued Speech (Cornett, 1967) is a sys-tem designed to differentiate visuallysimilar phonemes.

Cued SpeechCued Speech is a visual communica-tion system developed by Dr. OrinCornett in 1966 in an effort to raiseliteracy levels among deaf students.Cued speech employs eight hand-shapes representing the consonantsounds with four locations near themouth representing vowel sounds. Aspeaker using Cued Speech makeshand cues that correspond to each spo-ken syllable thereby conveying thesame sequence of consonant-vowelcombinations as spoken English. UsingCued Speech, deaf learners haveaccess to the phonemes of English viaa sensory channel rather than theimpaired auditory channel. CuedSpeech also enables the deaf learnerwith no residual hearing equal accessto the phonology of English. Finally,unlike speechreading, Cued Speechprovides unambiguous access toEnglish phonology. Unfortunately,Cued Speech is not widely used in theeducation of deaf students and there-fore students may need to rely onarticulatory feedback as a means ofacquiring phonological knowledge.

Articulatory FeedbackAnother possible route for gainingphonological information is feedbackfrom articulation. LaSasso (1996) sug-gested that deaf readers are able touse a tactile-kinesthetic feedback sys-tem to successfully utilize phonics as atool for reading. The tactile-kinesthet-ic system refers to mouth movementsand vocal sensation (e.g. voiced orunvoiced) and functions similarly tothe auditory feedback system used by

Direct Instruction News 21

15

hearing readers. Using this system,deaf readers use knowledge of howvarious words are pronounced andreview possible pronunciations for thesequence of letters. Like hearing chil-dren, deaf children analyze whetherthe series of sounds, mouth move-ments, and vocal sensations are similarto a word in their experience. Deafchildren are likely to recognize a wordif the sensations produced in the vocaltract have previously been vocalized orsubvocalized and meaning has beenattached to the vocalization or subvo-calization. Moreover, a tactile-kines-thetic system is not dependent ondeaf children's ability to pronouncethe resulting word accurately.However, it is dependent on their abil-ity to consistently use the appropriatemouth movement and tactile sensationfor each letter-sound correspondence.

Several authors have argued that theacquisition of phonological informationby deaf individuals relies on the com-bination of sources such as the writtenword, fingerspelling, speechreading,and articulation rather than onesource. Because deaf individuals mayhave limited ability to hear speech, theprimary means of accessing phonologi-

cal information, several sources may beneeded for deaf individuals to gainaccess to the phonological informationnecessary for successful reading

(Leybaert, 1993). Despite the evi-dence that deaf individuals are able toacquire access to phonological informa-tion, relatively few studies haveaddressed teaching deaf children toutilize phonological information tolearn to read.

Studies SupportingPhonological Instructionfor Deaf StudentsIn a recent study conducted bySchimmel, Edwards, and Prickett(1999), basic phonic skills were taughtto 48 deaf elementary students at theMississippi School for the Deaf.

22

Results indicated that most partici-pants mastered the 21 consonants andconsonant blends, short and long vowelsounds and 16 vowel combinations.They concluded that consistent teach-ing of the letter/sound correspondenc-es was an important factor in the stu-dents' success.

Despite their limitations, they

gained more than a gradelevel given less than a year of

Direct Instructionprogramming in reading

Direct Instruction programs provideconsistent teaching of skills throughunique curricular design and specificteaching techniques. A recently con-ducted pilot study provides the firstevidence that Direct Instruction pro-grams can address the phonological

needs of deaf readers. In this pilotstudy, four deaf high school studentsreceived instruction in levels B2 and Cof the Corrective Reading, Decoding pro-gram. After 7 months of instruction,students gained between 1.2 to 2.5grade levels on standardized measures

of basic reading and reading compre-

hension (Trezek, 2000). Pretest scoresindicated that, prior to this study,those same students had gained only0.2 CO 0.3 grade level per year in

school. These pretest findings are con-sistent with the averages for the17,000 deaf students reported by DiFrancesca in 1972.

The students in the Trezek (2000)pilot study were described as having

severe hearing losses and varying

degrees of aided residual hearing,

speechreading abilities, and intelligiblespeech. Despite their limitations, theygained more than a grade level givenless than a year of Direct Instructionprogramming in reading. Of course,modifications in the delivery of DirectInstruction lessons were required.

16

Additional time was needed to presentlessons in order to practice pronuncia-tion of newly presented sound combi-nations and words, engage inspeechreading and auditory trainingactivities related to sounds and words,to establish appropriate signs for vocab-ulary words, to review previously pre-sented concepts, and provide pictorial(photographs, graphics, videos, etc.)representations of new vocabulary.

A computer-based program is currentlybeing developed to assist in teachingthe "phonics elements found in theCorrective Reading, Decoding A to deafstudents. Using Baldi (a computergenerated face with transparent skinand lips), deaf students will be taughtthe important points of articulation forall speech sounds. This is particularlyimportant when teaching sounds thatare not visible on the lips or for thosethat are difficult to describe (i.e. /k/and /O. The computer program willalso include a component that willallow a teacher to say a sound into amicrophone and have the computerproduce a graph of the sound. Deafstudents can then monitor their ownproduction of the sound by trying tomatch the teacher's graph. Finally,words presented in the Decoding A pro-gram are generally phonetically regularwords (i.e. hen, cot, cast, mast, shed,etc.) that may be unknown to manydeaf students. Preteaching the vocabu-lary through a pictorial glossary includ-ed in the computer based program willprovide deaf students with a strongerEnglish language base to associatemeaning with words they are beingtaught to decode (Oregon Center forApplied Sciences, 2001).

Summaryand ConclusionsAccording to the findings of theNational Reading Panel (2000),phonological skills such as phonemicawareness and phonics are essentialcomponents of effective readinginstruction for hearing students. The

Spring 2002

evidence of poor reading achievementamong deaf students may be directlyrelated to the lack of instructionfocusing on these essential skills.Research indicates that skilled deafreaders have access to phonologicalinformation and are able to apply thisknowledge to reading tasks. Themethods deaf readers use to acquirephonological information may differfrom hearing individuals, yet researchfindings indicate that deaf individualscan use multiple routes to gain accessto critical phonological information.Although limited, studies indicatethat students receiving instructionspecifically designed to teach phono-logical skills have been successful.With proper modifications, DirectInstruction reading programs can besuccessfully implemented with deafstudents. Future research should focuson the implementation of CorrectiveReading, Decoding with larger numbersof students. In addition, studiesshould be conducted on the use ofDirect Instruction reading programswith younger deaf students. ADJ.

ReferencesAlegria, J. (1998). The origin and functions of

phonological representations in deaf peo-ple. In C. Hu !me & R. M. Joshi (Eds.),Reading and spelling: Development and disor-

ders (pp. 236-286). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Chalifoux, L. M. (1991). The implications of

congenital deafness for working memory.American Annals of the Deaf 136, 292-299.

Chincotta, M., & Chincotta, D. (1996). Digitspan, articulatory suppression, and thedeaf: A study of the Hong Kong Chinese.American Annals of the Deaf 141, 252-257.

Conrad, R. (1964). Acoustic confusion inimmediate memory. British Journal ofPsychology, 55, 75-84.

Cornett, 0. (1967). Cued Speech. American

Annals of the Deaf 112, 3-13.Engle, R. W, Cantor, J., & Turner, M. (1989).

Modality effects: Do they fall on deafears? Quarterly Journal of ExperimentalPsychology. 41A, 273-292.

Geers, A., & Moog, J. (1989). Factors predic-tive of the development of literacy in pro-foundly hearing-impaired adolescents.Volta Review, 91, 69-86.

Hanson, V L. (1982). Short-term memoryrecall by deaf signers of American SignLanguage: Implications for order recall.

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,Memory, and Cognition, 8, 572-583.

Hanson, V, & Fowler, C., (1987).Phonological coding in word reading:Evidence from deaf and hearing readers.Memory and Cognition, 15, 199-207.

Hanson, V L., Goodell, E. W, & Perfetti, C.A. (1991). Toungue-twister effects in thesilent reading of hearing and deaf collegestudents. Journal of Memory and Language,

30, 319-330.Hanson, V L., Liberman, I. Y, & Shankweiler,

D. (1984). Linguistic coding by deaf chil-dren in relation to beginning reading suc-cess. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,

37, 378-393.Hanson, V L., & Lichtenstein, E., (1990).

Short-term memory coding by deaf sign-ers: The primary language coding hypoth-esis reconsidered. Cognitive Psychology, 22,

211-224.Holt, J. (1994). Classroom attributes and

achievement test scores for deaf and hardof hearing students. American Annals of the

Deaf 139(4), 430-437.Kelly, L. P (1993). Recall of English function

words and inflections by skilled and aver-age deaf readers. American Annals of the

Deaf 138(2), 288-296.Johnson, R. E., Liddell, S., & Erting, C.

(1989). Unlocking the curriculum:Principles for achieving access in deafeducation. Gallaudet Research InstituteWorking Paper 89-3. Washington, DC:Gallaudet University.

LaSasso, C. (1996). Fonicks for deff tshil-drun? Yoo beddzah! Perspectives in Education

and Deafness, 14(5), 6-9.Leybaert, J. (1993). Reading in the deaf: The

roles of phonological codes. In M.Marschark & M. D. Clark (Eds.),Psychological Perspectives on Deafness (pp.269-309). Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.

Leybaert, J. (1998). Effects of phoneticallyaugmented lipspeech on the developmentof phonological representations in deafchildren. In M. Marsschark & M. D. Clark(Eds.), Psychological Perspectives on Deafness

(pp. 103-130). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Marmor, G., & Pettito, L. (1979).

Simultaneous communication in the class-room: How well is English grammar repre-sented? Sign Language Studies, 23,99-136.

Meier, R. (1991). Language acquisition bydeaf children. American Scientist, 79, 60-79.

Musselman, C. (2000). How do children whocan't hear read an alphabetic script? Areview of the literature on reading anddeafness. Journal of Deaf Studies and DeafEducation, 5(1), 9-31.

Myklebust, H. (1960). The psychology of deaf-

ness. New York: Grune & Stratton.National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching

children to read: An evidence-basedassessment of the scientific research liter-

ature and its implications. [On-line].

Available: http://www.nationalreadingpan-

el.org

Oregon Center for Applied Sciences. (2001).

Decoding program for deaf and hard-of-hearing

students. NICHD grant #40697-01.

Perfetti, C. A., & Sandak, R. (2000). Reading

optimally builds on spoken language.

Implications for deaf readers. Journal of

Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5(1), 32-50.

Pintner, R., & Patterson, D. (1916). A meas-

ure of the language ability of deaf chil-

dren. Psychological Review, 23, 413-436.

Rogers, W T, Leslie, P T, Clarke, B. R.,

Booth, J. A., & Horvath, A. (1978).

Academic achievement of hearing

impaired students: Comparison among

selected subpopulations. B.C. Journal of

Special Education, 2, 183-213.

Sacks, 0. (1989). Seeing voices: A journey into the

world of the deaf Berkeley, CA: University

of California Press.

Schimmel, C. S., Edwards, S. G., & Prickett,

H. T (1999). Reading?...Pah! (I got it!)

Innovative reading techniques for success-

ful deaf readers. American Annals of the Deaf

144(4), 298-308.

Stewart, D. (1993). Bi-bi to MCE? American

Annals of the Deaf 138, 331-337.

Stokoe, W. C. (1975). The use of sign lan-

guage in teaching English. American Annals

of the Deaf 120, 417-421.

Traxler, C. B. (2000). The Stanford

Achievement Test, 9th edition: National

norming and performance standards for

deaf and hard-of-hearing students. Journal

of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5(4),

337-348.

Trezek, B. (2000). New answers to old problems:

Deaf children can learn to read. Unpublished

manuscript, University of Wisconsin,

Madison.

Direct Instruction News 2 3

17 EST COPY AVAILABLEIrk

Myth Versus Sciencein Educational Systems

Presently in education, a subsystem ofour culture, we have acquired a philo-sophical view of human learningbehavior that has a foundation basedon myths. These myths have infiltrat-ed most all western psychologies, ourlanguage, and even our very way ofthinking. Of all the systems in our cul-ture that have been most detrimental-ly affected by these belief systems isthe foundation of the belief structuresthat guide the educators thinking ineducating our children. Most signifi-cantly affected by these myths are thelives of those children who experiencethe greatest difficulty in learning.What are these myths and how havethey infiltrated our thinking in theunderstanding of human learningbehavior, especially in teacher/learningsystems? And how does one discrimi-nate between a philosophical view oflearning based on myth and a scientificinvestigation that provides a betterunderstanding of learning behavior?

There are three basic principles thatdetermine logical scientific process:

1. Only observable behavior, that canbe identified by anyone, is accept-

'able. No one has ever seen visualprocessing, auditory sequential pro-cessing, or any labeled processing.These are all constructs that havebeen imposed on real observableevents possessing time and spacecoordinates.

2. Psychological behavior is an interac-tion. It should not be hard to findagreement that humansand non-human animals as wellrespond toobjects and contexts around them.People might also concur that howwe respond to something dependson the situation in which it occurs.

24

For instance, a smile in a joyous cir-cumstance is perceived as happy,but a smile in a more tragic orpainful setting would be apt to beperceived as sadistic or evil. An indi-vidual's interactive history is also aninfluencing factor in how an individ-ual perceives situations. Forinstance, the loud voice of the sixth-grade teacher is apt to be perceivedas frightening to the boy of a loudverbally abusive father, while theboy of a big and loud, but loving andbenevolent, father might find thesame teacher's voice reassuring andsupportive. For all intents and pur-poses, humans interpret and under-stand things on the basis of inter-preted "sameness" relating the newexperience to previous experience.

3. Descriptive constructs are onlyvalid and useful when they arederived from directly observedevents possessing time/space coor-dinates. Traditionally, educatorsexpect the process of behavioralinterpretation to be a kind of mys-terious exercise, where the expertinterpreter (psychologist/specialist)identifies, defines, and explainsbehavior, usually by some diagnostictool, and labels it by the use ofsome invented construct. It is anactivity of connecting preestab-lished labels to people and theirbehavior, independent of any specif-ic contextual interactive event.

When the practitioner imposes unob-servable labels on events, reality is lostin specialist interpretation. This usual-ly victimizes the learner with createdinformation that is unscientific, mis-leading, and a waste of time. For exam-ple, when Billy is distracted from hisindependent seat work when Arnold

18

Schwartznegger walks into the room,this is real. But to diagnose Billy as

A.D.D. as a result of a set of diagnostictools is not real. When we notice thatBilly is a smart speller in compositionwriting, this is real. But to say thatBilly is an intelligent boy on the basisof an IQ test or some other multipleintelligence construct test is not real.Or when Billy learns to read quicklywhen exposed to the whole wordmethod in his first grade readinggroup, this is real. But to say that Billyis a visual learner based on some diag-nostic tool is not real. Imposing theseconstructs on events, where it isimplied that these invented labels liesomewhere inside the learner, is thecommon practice in attempting tosolve student behavioral problems inour schools.

There is another myth that arises fromthe use of traditional diagnostics. Thatis the presumption that descriptivelabels somehow imply explanation.Constructs are descriptive but do notexplain. As Bertrand Russell said,"Electricity is not a thing, like SaintPaul's cathedral; it is the way thingsbehave. When we have told how thingsbehave when they are electrified, andunder the circumstances they are electri-fied, we have told all that there is totell" (quoted by Cole, 1983).

A child is not distractible because of alabeled attention deficit disorder. Theterm only refers to distractibility andother behaviors that sometimes clusterwith it under certain circumstances. One of

the most misleading aspects of labelsis their presumed independence fromcontext. To say that one is L.D., or isA.D.D., or that one is a visual learner,or it any other invented construct,implied to be housed in the learner,independent of a specific interactiveobservable event, leads to spuriousthinking and serves as worthless infor-mation to the classroom teacher insearch of solutions.

Spring 2002

To begin with: What is a construct? Aconstruction or "construct" is as thename indicates, something that is con-structed rather than observed. It is aninvention, an abstraction, a contrivance.This is not to say that constructs haveno place in science. Quite the contrary,scientific work is mostly a matter ofconstructions. But this does not meanthat hypothetical entities may be arbi-trarily created. Descriptive constructsare most valid and useful when theyderive directly from contact withevents. The manipulation of constructs,to be scientific, can be validated only ifsecurely connected to events.

The field of education is replete withcognitive (construct) process tests thatare used to impose mythical constructson teaching events. The moment thisis done reality is all but lost, and thetest serves only as worthless informa-tion to the teacher.

What are the scientific criteriafor constructs?There are explicit standards for regu-lating scientific constructs. The fol-lowing list from Kantor (1957, 1978,1981) consists of standards consistentwith scientific advancement:

Distinguish carefully betweenconstructs of all types and theoriginal events.

For instance, saying that Billy isA.D.D. is a construct. But whenBilly was observed independentlydoing six problems in single digitaddition in his sixth-grade class-room, and he was distracted by thenoise of the other classmates whowere enthusiastically involved in amore interesting project, it was anoriginal event.

Avoid all constructs derivedfrom traditional cultural philo-sophical sources.

For example, psychological constructsthat start with, "The student is ...intelligent, L.D., a visual learner,

A.D.D., E.H., etc., etc.," arederived from prejudiced views thatare philosophical and cultural over-generalizations. These overgeneral-izations are of no practical value insolving educational/learning prob-lems, and when imposed on learn-ing events are misleading, and usu-ally result in victimizing the learner.These constructions also act toimmobilize the classroom teacher,preventing an effective efficientteaching process, especially forthose learners that need to be care-fully taught.

Learning events become

of concern when the student

fails to learn to a given

standard

When means for obtaining criti-cal information is lacking, keepconstructs extremely tentativeand never base them on unob-servables. Note that only con-structs derived directly fromobserved events have the poten-tial for validity.

For instance, when the student ishaving difficulty keeping up withhis/her classmates in first-grademath, any construction or hypothe-sis other than those developed fromthe specific observation of the origi-nal teacher/learner, math-contextinteractive event is of little or novalue as a remedy to the student'sdifficulty learning math. Traditionalconstructs that are imposed onevents, such as spatial associationdeficits, auditory sequential memo-ry problems, or a plethora of otherprocess learning constructs onlyserve CO mark the student as dis-abled without identifying theaspects of the disabling event.

Take an adequate sample ofevents so that the interrelation-ships of events may be observed.

Learning events become of concernwhen the student fails to learn to agiven standard. Under this circum-stance the learner is observed mak-ing one of three kinds of mistakesin the context of a specificallydefined event. The learner eithercould not do it, would not do it, orwas confused. These three types ofmistake events are describedrespectively as performance mis-takes, compliant mistakes, ordiscrimination mistakes.

There are two types of discrimi-nation mistakes: When the learnerovergeneralizes by viewing two dif-ferent but similar concepts/contextsas the same, the mistake is called adifference mistake. But when thelearner undergeneralizes by viewingtwo concepts/contexts as differentthat are in fact the same the mis-take is called a sameness mistake.

In example #1: If a first grader con-fuses the short sound symbol match"e" for "a" in decoding the word"bed" in reading group, this isdescribed as a difference mistake.But for this to be an adequate sam-ple of the mistake typeso thatthe interrelationship of the eventsmay be observed to be consistentthe learner needs to consistentlyconfuse the short "e" sound for theshort "a" sound in a number ofreading contexts.

When this interactive teacher/learn-er event is consistently observedthroughout an adequate samplesupporting the construct hypothe-sis of a difference mistakearemedy is accordingly implied:teaching similar but different con-cepts far apart, showing difference.

In example #2: If the first graderdemonstrates fluency in the basalreader in reading group, but doesnot recognize or generalize thosesame sound symbol matches inother readers outside of the basalreaders, this is described as a same-

Direct Instruaion News 25

19

ness mistake. But again for it to bean adequate sample of the interrela-tionship of the specific events, thelearner must consistently fail togeneralize from the basal readingcontext to other reading contextswhich are both made up of thesame sound symbol matches.

If this event is consistentlyobserved, where the learner under-generalizes, supporting the con-struct hypothesis of a samenessmistake, then a remedy is accord-ingly implied: placing the two con-texts side by side and showingsameness. The above examples,where constructs are an outgrowthof specifically observed context;interactive events are demonstra-tions of a logical process ofteacher/learner remediation as a sci-entific process.

Begin all investigations withobservations from which con-structs may be derived; avoidstarting with constructs andinterpreting results in terms ofthose constructs.

Mythical constructs that areimposed on events lead to spurious,unscientific thinking. When thefirst-grade student, who exhibitsreading difficulty, is referred to theschool specialist for testing, ic isusually done to confirm theteacher's suspicion of a specificlearning disability. The course ofevents that typically takes place isas follows. The formal referral ismade. A number of predesignedconstruct diagnostic tests are givenby the school psychologist, whichare later imposed on theteacher/learner interactive readinggroup event. And finally, a constructor label is assigned to the learneraccording to standardized scores ofthe tests given. Mind you, this isusually done with little or no criticalobservation of the teacher/learnerinteractive event of concern.

26

This kind of diagnostic activity canresult only in misleading the teacherin regard to explanation; conse-quently, it serves as useless informa-tion resulting in victimization of thelearner. The pursuit of an analysis oflearning failure, as an authentic nat-ural scientific process, must firststart with the specifically observedteacher/learner interactive eventoccurring within unique time spacecoordinates, incorporating the learn-er's biological and learning history.

The systems analysis process

is quite different than the

traditional approach tolearning problems in

education.

All learner failure and the degree offailure may be defined by the typeof mistake the learner makes andthe degree to which (s)he makesthat mistake. The frequency of mis-takes defines the degree of failure.In any given teacher/learner event,if the learner is not making morethan 5% to 10% error in learning,there is no failure to diagnose oranalyze. Consequently, by any rea-sonable standard there is no learn-ing problem. Or, to state it moreconstructively, by the teacher'sstandard of successful learning,where all are making the minimumof mistakes (within the 5% to 10%range), all are constructively learn-ing. When learning failure isobserved, the definition of that fail-ure, the degree of the failure, andthe explanation of observed failureall lie within the context of theinteractive event being observed.

The sole purpose of a systemsanalysis of learning events is tospecifically investigate mistaketypes according to and within thecontext they were made. Then,according to the mistake type

20

made, modify the format of theteacher/learner interactive event. Itis only when the specialist developsconstructions on the basis of thedetails of the interactive event ofconcern does the remedial processmeet the standard of a natural sci-entific process.

The systems analysis process is quitedifferent than the traditionalapproach to learning problems ineducation. Traditional procedures ineducation follow a standard followedby most western psychological sys-tems (Cognitive, Humanistic, andDevelopmental Psychologies, tomention a few). First, a mythical,unobservable construct or a set ofconstructs is developed. Second,construct tests are developed, inde-pendent of real events, to measurethe degree to which the construct(s)may be imposed on some designatedevent in which the learner is experi-encing failure. And third, at theexpense of the learner, an unobserv-able and mythical label is assigned tothe learner implying cause.

Keep interpretive constructsconsistent with the eventsobserved; do not base them onother constructs.

When the learner confuses two sim-ilar but different concepts in read-ing group, where the short "e"sound is decoded as the short "a"sound, a difference mistake hasbeen made. When the learner con-fuses two similar but different con-cepts in reading group, by decodingthe word "then" as "the," a differ-ence mistake has been made again.But while the two mistakes that thelearner made are the same, the tworeading events are different, sepa-rate, independent, and have no nec-essary relationship. This is particu-larly important information for thereading specialist. The general out-line of the remedy: the modificationof the contextual teacher/learnerinteraction (separating the two con-

Spring 2002

cepts in teaching and showing dif-ference) is the same, but the detailsof the two events, that determinethe specifics of the modification aredifferent. At no time are the detailsof one event helpful in resolvingthe learning confusion of a differentcontext interactive event.

Anchor all constructssuch asintelligence, motivation, and atti-tudesin observed referents andavoid giving them independentexistence as things or causes.

John is an intelligent writer. Janedemonstrated an excellent attitudeabout how it is not about winningand losing, but how you play thegame, when in the game last nightafter losing by only one point, shewent over and congratulated theopposing team. After a long dayswork, Bill was tired and not motivat-ed to finish painting his room.

In the above examples, three con-structs, based on apparent observa-tion, were used to describe real con-text-interactive events. But to statethat John is an intelligent person,that Jane has an excellent attitude,or that Bill is not a motivated person,is giving constructs an independentexistence, usually implying cause.

When statements are made like, "Joehas been diagnosed as learning dis-abled due to whatever process orbrain dysfunction," they are made onthe basis of three false assumptions:

I. That psychological behavior isorganocentric (the view that behav-ior is housed in the subject/organ-ism). In reality psychological behav-ior is noncentric. It is a contextualinteraction between things.

2. That the label L.D. is a reified con-struct (that it exists as a real livething). Labels like learning dis-abled, attention deficit disorder,and emotionally disturbed are not

Direct Instruction News

real live things like appendicitis,they are abstract notions.

3. That an unobservable, abstract con-struct can logically and scientificallypass for an explanation or cause.Constructs, even in the most rea-sonable circumstances, do not serveas explanation, they can onlydescribe.

When invented labels are createdand imposed on learning events ofconcern, reality is lost and all activitybecomes a practice of scientificallyirresponsible, jargonistic nonsense.

Constructs, even in the most

reasonable circumstances, do

not serve as explanation,

they can only describe.

Use only constructs which arecorrigible.

Constructs used appropriately aredescriptions of circumstantial inter-behavior; they describe the organ-isms/subjects response to con-cepts/contexts under a specific setof circumstances. If relevant inter-active factors of the circumstancechange, in all probability, the sub-jects interactive response willchange. With remedial events, if theinteraction is effectively correctedor modified, the response/constructwill be corrected.

Mythical constructs such as "lowintelligence," "attention deficit dis-order," and "learning disability," tomention a few, are treated in con-ventional diagnostics as if they wereincorrigible realities. But in naturalscientific systems these constructsare inventions that are not real, andtherefore can not be fixed entities.For instance, there is much evidenceto show that with early educationalintervention, IQ scores can improveas much as 30 to 40 points. In anoth-

21

er instance, it is clearly recognizedby most professionals that childrenwho have been diagnosed with anattention deficit disorder are onlydistractible under specific circum-stances. In school building circum-stances where children have beendiagnosed as emotionally disturbed,the label is frequently known as thesix-hour syndrome. And in respect tothe construct described as learningdisability, the label would be moreaccurately described as a learningdisabling situation. It has frequentlybeen shown in education that if youeffectively correct or modify theinstructional interactional event, youwill correct the labeled disability.

Avoid turning participating con-ditions, or those that may benecessary for the event, intodetermining conditions. If thebrain causes human actions, whatcauses brain actions? Is the brain apatriarch, itself uncaused, issuingcommands, determinant of perceiv-ing? We have no evidence that any-thing in the universe is self-caused.

Brain as a Necessary but Not a SuffickntCondition. Much of the attribution ofbehavior to brain is a confusion ofnecessary and sufficient conditions.That is, the brain is necessary for allorganismic events, but it does notcarry out the action alone. It is notsufficient. In other words, the brainparticipates in all actions but doesnot determine them. It is only onepart of a complex of events thattogether make up causation.

The brain is better understood notas an autonomous and self-causedBoss, but as a complex coordinatingorgan, one condition that enablesand participates in the occurrenceof such psychological events asattending, perceiving, generalizing,and so on.

The proponents of a scientific con-text-interactional view of the braingive full accord to the participation

EST COPY AVAILABLE

27

of biology But it is only one partici-pating condition. Full accord is alsogiven to personal history socialinfluences, the situation, and otherobserved participants. Cause of theentire event is not attributed to anyone of these factors. In such a view,

a psychological event is not some-thing in the head, in the mind, inneurons, in process centers, in DNAmolecules; it is comprised of thetotal interactional complex. Onlythat total complex = causality =sufficient conditions = the psycho-logical event.

Recognize the different levels oforganization of things and eventsand keep explanatory constructsconsistent with this recognition.

An important educational tool is theteaching of any concept by a set ofexamples. The organization of thoseexamples is a crucial aspect of theeffective and efficient success ofteaching of that concept. Poorlyorganized presentation of theseexamples can accordingly result in aparticular mistake type.

The following are examples of thekinds of mistakes that some learn-ers will make due to poor organiza-tion; that is, the juxtaposition, orthe absence of presented positiveand negative examples in teachingformats.

1. In teaching a number of conceptsover a period of time, if theteacher attempts to teach similarbut different concepts closetogether, some learners will

become confused and will over-generalize by making differencemistakes.

This is a common confusionespecially of the naive learner.An example of this is when thesounds of short vowels that havesimilar sounds are taught tooclose together.

28

2. In teaching any concept, if theexamples of the concept, or the

contexts.in which the concept is

being taught is not broad enough

to cover the full range of theconcept, some learners will

undergeneralize by making same-

ness mistakes. An example of

this is when learners do well on

spelling tests on Fridays, but

spell poorly in the context ofcomposition writing.

An important educational

tool is the teaching ofanyconcept by a set of examples.

3. In teaching any concept, learners

need varied practice in achieving

mastery Some learners may need

little or no practice, while theremay be some that need 7 to

1,400 repetitions. If learners donot receive enough uninterrupt-

ed practice they will make per-

formance mistakes by failing to

demonstrate mastery.

4. In teaching any concept, learners

need varied feedback in the formof organized, meaningful rein-

forcement to remain motivated.

The general rule for teachers is

three parts positive feedback to

every one part organized correc-

tive feedback in order to be suf-

ficiently reinforced. If learnersdo not receive sufficient

amounts of organized reinforce-

ment in learning a concept, some

learners will make compliant

mistakes, by demonstrating in

one form or another that they

don't want to do or participate inthe task.

Distinguish between the knowerand the thing known and avoidmerging them.

22

Psychology would be of little inter-est if it did not attempt to advanceknowledge. In educational systemsthis translates to the advancementof the understanding ofteaching/learner systems and to cre-ating more effective and efficientteaching for all children.

Presently, modern education is heav-ily indoctrinated with an organocen-tric notion which sees behaviorhoused within the organism. Thisview, which has played a major rolein cognitive psychology emphasizesinnate organizing capacities forknowledge. It contends that there isno outside, impartial viewpointcapable of analyzing individual

knowledge independent of the indi-vidual exhibiting this knowledge...knowing, consciousness, construct-ing, and all other aspects of thehuman experience are seen from thepoint of view of the experiencingsubject. We can perceive the realityin which we live only from withinour perceiving order.

Gergen (1994) has attacked thisposition for implying that if werespond to our perceptions of theworld instead of to the world itself,we have no way to begin hypothesistesting or other methods of inquiryThe field of Ontology asks if anexternal world exists and, if so, howwe can know what it is like andwhether scientific findings of regu-larity and laws in nature are cre-ations of humans rather than reflec-tions of nature. These questionsaddress cultural constructs ratherthan observable events. Kantor(1962) takes a no-nonsenseapproach to such questions:

Such problems however, cannever arise from the study of thescientist's work which plainlyreveals that knowledge dependsupon things, not things uponknowledge. To achieve knowledgeand attain exact descriptions andexplanation we must improve our

Spring 2002

contact with events.... The spu-rious problems of "reality" andthe existence of an external worldarise from the simple confusionof things with reactions to them.When observations are difficult,when contexts are ambiguous,when observers are deficient(color blind), when relationsbetween things observed andobservers vary, those who aredominated by philosophic tradi-tion conclude that observationscontribute to the existence ofthings. (pp. 17-18)

The domination of philosophic tradi-tion has also been apparently responsi-ble for the conventional diagnosticnotion that presumes that the knoweror the constructivist invents realityaccording to the constructivist's innerworld view. Constructivist's notionshave infiltrated educational thinkingthrough diagnostic practices in specialeducation systems. Accordingly, con-structs are created. Tests are construct-ed to specifically measure the construe-tivists invention, and to the degree agiven subject has been stricken withthe invented disease. This confusionbetween a kind of created "reality" oflabels of the knower and true reality ofthe known is a major deterrent to edu-cation's progress in becoming a legiti-mate science.

It is imperative, for the progress ofteaching as a responsible profession,that the knower-specialists, with alltheir bags of construct tests andinvented labels, are unveiled fOr whatthey are. We must replace this voodooexercise with an authentic natural sci-entific process of analyzing eventswith time and space coordinates.Description and explanation of stu-dent learning must be attainedthrough the observations of teacher/learner interactional context events.

Derive postulates from observa-tion.

1. Behavior is event interdepend-ent. It is not minds, or informa-tion processing, or other con-structs that psychology studiesscientifically, but the concreteevents of organisms interactingwith objects, events, or otherorganisms. These interbehavioralfields in teacher/learner situa-tions range from the learner per-ceiving sameness of any conceptacross a broad range of contextsto the mastery of doing any per-formance act, to subtle reasoningin problem solving.

This confusion between a

kind of created "reality" of

labels of the knower and

true reality of the known is

a major deterrent toeducation's progress in

becoming a legitimate science.

2. All events encompass a mediaof contact interactional histo-ry, and setting. In addition toorganisms and objects, psycho-logical fields include media ofcontact (sound waves for hearingand light for seeing), interaction-al history, and setting conditions(i.e. the student comes to schoolwith a cold).

3. Psychological behaviorinvolves the performance ofentire organisms, not specialorgans or tissues. The multi-plex field precludes confiningthe activity to the brain or theentire organism as the sole causeof the event. The locus of thepsychological event is in the fieldrather than in the organism.

4. Explanation for behavior is inthe situactivity. Psychologicalbehavior is noncentric.Explanation for psychological

behavior has no center.Contextual events occur withoutany internal or external determi-nants. Naturalistic descriptions ofobservable field events replace allconstructed internal events, suchas consciousness, mental states,drives, instincts, brain powers,and information processing, aswell as external events such asenvironment.

5. Psychological events are onto-genic. Psychological events arehistorical or developmental. Theaction of an individual is not iso-lated. Every action influencesother actions, and these succes-sions of mutual influences devel-op into organized patterned waysof performing that form a unity.That unity is personality.

6. Constructs are not real liveevents with time space coordi-nates. Scientific constructs aredeveloped on the basis of theunique observed event. But theconstruction itself is not real.

7. Learning is the process ofgeneralizing sameness on thebasis of the familiar. All learn-ers generalize sameness on thebasis of the familiar. They inter-polate, stipulate, and extrapolatein accord with presented positiveand negative examples.

Use only those constructs thatare observable at least in princi-ple, for it is only through obser-vation that science is possible.

The scientist as a serious investiga-tor must be able to first distinguishbetween what is observable andwhat is not observable. And second,the scientist must investigate andconstruct hypotheses only on thebasis of the observable. No one hasever seen minimal brain dysfunc-tion, high or low intelligence, audi-tory or visual sequential memory, orother internal processes like the

Direct Instruction News 29

23

brain seeking sameness, mind, con-sciousness, and self.

In some contexts "self," a particu-larly prominent expression inhumanistic psychology, has becomea term for "mind."

Unobservables become more con-crete, at least in principle, whenreferring to psychological events asparticiples or verbals: sensing ratherthan sensation, knowing rather thanknowledge, thinking rather thanthought. Mind is a cultural con-struct, an abstraction possessing nointernal power. The brain is a nec-essary coordinating organ, but is notan internal determinant or rulerimplying cause. Whenparticiples/verbals are used it helpsavoid reification (making abstrac-tions into real live things). But theaction (i.e. sensing, thinking, imag-ining, etc.) still fails to indicate thatthe action is an interaction; that iswhen we think, we think aboutsomething. Along the same lines, con-sider the following: Do "peopleexperience visual images" (Kosslyn,1995, p. 6), or do people imagine?Does the brain seek sameness or dopeople seek sameness? Does it takea keen mind to solve complex prob-lems, or does it take a bright per-son. Does Ann use her imagination,or does she imagine something? DoesTom's personality cause problems,or is his behavior inappropriate? In'the examples shown, the first refersto constructs and the second toevents. In short, do we give the per-son credit or do we invoke animpersonal construct to carry outthe action?

In medicine, for many centuries blood-letting (a process of applying leechesto the human body) was considered atried-and-true remedy for certain con-ditions. It was recommended forfevers, inflammations, a variety of dis-ease conditions, and (ironically) forhemorrhage. Although it fell in and outof favor, it persisted into the 20th cen-

30

tury and was recommended by SirWilliam Os ler in the 1923 edition ofPrincip/es and Pregtice of Medicine. Today

such practices are for the most partviewed, within the medical field andthroughout our culture, as totally unac-ceptable nonscientific witchcraft. Thefield of medicine, as of the mid 20thcentury, has become a legitimate fieldof science.

One of the major

shortcomings of our traininginstitutions and school

systems regards taking

responsibility for teaching

all children to a givenstandard

Education now stands somewhat inthe same position, as a science, as didmedicine close to 100 years ago. Onehundred years ago people bled todeath due to ignorance. Today, in edu-cation, innocent children's lives arebeing destroyed, also by ignorance.Disturbingly, the present circum-stance in education seems more cal-lous and lethal. This seems so becauseof the way we in education choose tohang onto ineffective, inefficient,unscientific teaching practices thathave been instituted by the politicallycorrect to maintain, for thousands ofchildren, an educationally abusive irre-sponsible system. There is a trendregarding myths in education: oldhoaxes never die, they just get a newlife cycle. This is not to say thatteachers generally are not dedicated.Many, and maybe even most, teachersare dedicated people. But to be dedi-cated does not mean that the teacheris necessarily responsible. To be dedi-cated is a choice, but to be responsi-ble requires in-depth training in thescience of teaching/learning events.

2 4

One of the major shortcomings of ourtraining institutions and school sys-tems regards taking responsibility forteaching all children to a given stan-dard. Consequently, few teachers areequipped to accept the responsibilityfor student learning failure. Totalacceptance of this responsibilityequates to the saying, if the student did

not learn it the teacher did not teach it. In

order for training institutions to impartthis level of responsibility to their stu-dent tpachers, the field of educationmust first teach the student teacher torecognize the difference between phi-losophy and science. And second, itmust become a system whose practicesare embedded in a natural scientificviewpoint. Not until these two stepsare taken can all children be effective-ly, efficiently, and responsibly taughtto a given standard. ADI.

ReferencesCole, K. C. (1983). The forces of nature.

Discover (August), 32-33.

Cergen, K. J. (1994). The limits of pure cri-tique. In H. W Simons & M. Billig (Eds.),After Post-modernism: Reconstructing ideology

critique. London: Sage.

Kantor, J. R. (1957). Events and constructs inthe science of psychology; Banished andrecalled. Psychological Record, 7, 55-60.

Kantor, J. R. (1962). The logic of modern scknce.

Chicago: Principia Press.

Kantor, J. R. (1978). Cognition as events andas psychic constructions. Psychological

Record, 28, 329-342.

Kantor, J. R. (1981). Interbehavioral psycholo-gy and the logic of science. Psychological

Recoal, 31, 3-11.

Kosslyn, S. M. (1995). Image and Brain: Meresolution of the imagery debate. Cambridge,

MA: MIT Press.

BEST COPYAVARABLE

Spring 2002

Register with ADI as a Referenced Consultant

There is a great deal of interest in Direct Instruction programs today, and along with that interest there is ahigh demand for quedified consultants. We are quite certain that there are many great DI trainers out there thatwe do no know about. To help gather and disseminate this information, ADI is establishing a database of DirectInstruction program consultants (trainers). This data will be distributed via an ADI-published directory, theADI web site, and used for any telephone referrals calls that come to ADI.

In order to have some quality control, we have devised the following requirements to be listed as a ReferencedDI Consultant:

1. You must have a current membership with ADI.

2. You must provide us with three letters of reference or recommendation. These letters can be fromschool personnel, SRA personnel, etc.

3. You must complete the survey below and on the back of this page.

4. Send ADI a $25.00 fee to cover the costs of building and maintaining the database.

If you have any questions about this program, please contact Bryan Wickman at 1-800-995-2464.

ADI Direct Instruction Consultant/Coach Information Survey

Name

Street

City

State/Province Zip/Postal Code

Home Phone Work Phone

Email Address

Pager FAX

Please check the appropriate boxes.

Reading Mastery I-Ill (And Fast Cycle)0 Information Presentation (e.g., one-hour presentation to adoption committee)

0 Coaching (do demonstration lessons in classrooms, watch teachers, and give feedback)

CI Training (stand-up training groups of people to use programs)

continued on next page

Reading Mastery IV-VI

Information Presentation

O Coaching

O Training

Corrective Reading,Comprehension A-CO Information Presentation

O Coaching

CI Training

Reasoning & Writing DFO Information Presentation

O Coaching

O Training

Corrective Reading, DecodingA-CO Information Presentation

O Coaching

O Training

Reasoning & Writing ACO Information Presentation

O CoachingO Training

Horizons A & BInformation Presentation

O Coaching

O Training

Connecting Math ConceptsA-CO Information Presentation

O Coaching

Training

Spelling Mastery A-F &Corrective Spelling throughMorphographsO Information Presentation

O Coaching

Training

Connecting Math Concepts

D-F (And Bridge)

O Information Presentation

O Coaching

O Training

Expressive Writing I & II

O Information Presentation

O Coaching

O Training

DISTAR Language I & II

O Information Presentation

CI Coaching

O Training

Please list the titles of any other Direct Instruction-related workshops or presentations you do, and attach brief descrip-tions of each. (e.g., seatwork, a keynote-type of talk, supervision, training coaches, etc.)

In there anyone you WILL NOT work for? (This information will remain confidential.) Any geographic area in which youWILL NOT work?

Please tell us as much as possible about your availabilityor anticipated availabilityfor work as a Direct InstructionConsultant/CoachrfrainerrInformation Presenter." For example, do you teach full time? Can you work five days a month?Ten?

Do you have experience implementing one or more levels of one or more Direct Instruction programs throughout a school?Please tell us about that, if applicable.

Everyone likesgetting mad...

ADI maintains a listserv discussion group called DI. This free

service allows you to send a message out to all subscribers to

the list just by sending one message. By subscribing to the DI

list, you will be able to participate in discussions of topics of

interest to DI users around the world. There are currently

500+ subscribers. You will automatically receive in your email

box all messages that are sent to the list. This is a great place

to ask for technical assistance, opinions on curricula, and hear

about successes and pitfalls related to DI.

To subscribe to the list, send the following messagefrom your email account:

To: majordomo@lists.uoregon.edu

In the message portion of the email simply type:

subscribe di

(Don't add Please or any other words to your message. It will

only cause errors. majordomo is a computer, not a person. No

one reads your subscription request.)

You send your news and views out to the list sub-scribers, like this:

To: di@lists.uoregon.edu

Subject: Whatever describes your topic.

Message: Whatever you want to say.

The list is retro-moderated, which means that some messages

may not be posted if they are inappropriate. For the most part

inappropriate messages are ones that contain offensive lan-

guage or are off-topic solicitations.

27

Summer 2002Direct InstructionTrainingOpportunities

The Association for DirectInstruction is pleased toannounce the followingintensive DI trainingconferences. These eventswill provide comprehensivetraining presented by someof the most skilled trainersin education. Plan now toattend one of theseprofessional developmentconferences.

The 5th Southeast DIConference & InstitutesJune 18-21Orlando, Florida

The 9th MountainStates DI ConferenceJuly 8-10Colorado Springs, Colorado

28th National DIConference & Institutesat Eugene '

July 21-25Eugene, Oregon

The Mid-AtlanticConference & InstitutesJuly 31August 2Durham, North Carolina

The 7th Midwest DIConferenceAugust 7-9Chicago, Illinois

-COPY AVAILABLE

Asagilaukrnilli 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 reinforcelive training. The motivational tapes are keynote presentations from past years of the National Direct InstructionConference.

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 strate-gies. 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, WesleyElementary School in Houston, Texas, demonstrates approach. Principal, Thaddeus Lott, and teachers are interviewedand classroom footage is shown. Created by Houston Independent School District in collaborative partnership withProject Follow Through. Price: $10.00 (includes copying costs only).

Direct Instructionblack 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 Elements of Effective Coaching was developed by EdSchaefer and Molly Blakely. The video includes scenarios showing 27 common teaching problems, with demonstrations ofcoaching interventions for each problem. A common intervention format is utilized in all scenarios. Print material that detailseach teaching problem and the rationale for correcting the problem is provided. This product should be to used to supple-ment live DI coaching training and is ideal for Coaches, Teachers, Trainers. Price...$395.00 Member Price...$316.00

DITVReading Mastery 1, 2, 3 and Fast-Cycle Preservice and Inservice TrainingThe first tapes of the Level Iand Level II series present intensive preservice training on basic Direct Instruction teaching techniques and classroomManagement strategies used in Reading Mastery and the equivalent lesson in Fast-Cycle. Rationale is explained. Criticaltechniques are presented and demonstrated. Participants are led through practical exercises. Classroom teachingdemonstrations with students are shown. The remaining tapes are designed to be used during the school year as inset-vice training. The tapes are divided into segments, which present teaching techniques for a set of of upcoming lessons.Level III training is presented on one videotape with the same features as described above. Each level of video trainingincludes a print manual.

Reading Mastery 1 (10 Videotapes) $150.00Reading Mastery 11 (5 Videotapes) $75.00Reading Mastery III (1 Videotape) $25.00Combined package (Reading Mastery I-111) $229.00

Corrective Reading: Decoding Bl, B2, C (2-tape set) 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 a decodinglesson, information on classroom management/reinforcement, and demonstration of lessons (off-camera responses). Price$25.00.

23 continued on next page

Conference KeynotesThese videos are keynotes from the National Direct Instruction Conference in Eugene. These videos are professional qual-ity, two-camera productions suitable for use in meetings and trainings.

27th National Direct Instruction KeynotesLesson Learned...the Story of City Springs, Reaching for Effective Teaching, and Which Path to Success? 2Tapes, 2 hours total. In the fall of 2000 a documentary was aired on PBS showing the journey of City SpringsElementary in Baltimore from a place of hopelessness to a place of hope. The principal of City Springs, BerniceWhelchel addressed the 2001 National DI Conference with an update on her school and delivered a truly inspiringkeynote. She describes the determination of her staff and students to reach the excellence she knew they were capableof. Through this hard work City Springs went from being one of the 20 lowest schools in the Baltimore City Schoolssystem to one of the top 20 schools. This keynote also includes a 10-minute video updating viewers on the progress atCity Springs in the 2000-2001 school year. In the second keynote Zig Engelmann elaborates on the features of success-ful implementations 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?-95minutes. 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. During thattime he turned the school into one of the best in the nation, despite demographics that would predict failure. He is aninspiration to thousands across the country. The second presentation by Siegfried Engelmann continues on the theme thatwe know all we need to know about how to teachwe just need to get out there and do it. This tape also includesEngelmann's closing remarks. Price: $30.00.

State of the Art & Science of Teaching and Higher Profile, Greater Risks-50 minutes. This tape is the openingaddresses from the 1999 National Direct Instruction Conference at Eugene. In the first talk Steve Kukic, former Director ofSpecial Education for the state of Utah, reflects on the trend towards using research based educational methods and researchvalidated materials. In the second presentation, Higher Profile, Greater Risks, Siegfreid Engelmann reflects on the pastof Direct 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 educatingour inner city youth and the high expectations we must communicate to our children and teachers if we are to succeed inraising student performance in our schools. Also included on this video is a welcome by Siegfried Engelmann, SeniorAuthor 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 apply researchfindings to educational practices. He supplies a definition of what research is and is not, with examples of each. His styleis 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 with kidsin 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 have been 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, 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, stu-dents and our future. Price: $15.00

aimed on next page2 EST COPY AVA I LAB Lr

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 a sys-tem 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 Homer, Professor, Universityof Oregon, speaking on "Effective Instruction for All Learners:" Zig Engelmann, Professor, University of Oregon, speak-ing on "Truth or Consequences." Price: $25.00

Keynote Presentations from the 1994 20th Anniversary Conference-2 hours. Titles and speakers include: JeanOsborn, 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 protégés 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

Use this chart to figure your shipping and handling charges.

If your order is: Postage & Handling is:$0.00 to $5.00 $3.00$5.01 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

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

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

ADl B, PO ox 1hfax

0252, Eugene, OR97440also

Phone 1.800.995.2464 Fax 541.683.7543

Qty. Item Each Total

Please charge my Visa Mastercard Discover in the amount of $

Card #

Signed

Name:

Address:

Shipping

Total

Exp Date

City: State: Zip:

Phone:

BEST COPY AVMLABLE

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

Corrective ReadingSounds Practice Tape

CORRECTIVE READINGSOUNDS PRACTICE

Am,PO Box 10252 Eugene, OR 9744014:0495-2464

ASSOCIabOrl Dna Instruction

g

7,

Dear Corrective Reading User,

A critical element in presenting CorrectiveReading lessons is how accurately and consis-tently you say the sounds. Of course, whenteachers are trained on the programs theyspend time practicing the sounds, but oncethey get back into the classrooms they some-times have difficulty with some of thesounds, especially some of the stop sounds.

I have assisted ADI in developing an audiotape that helps you practice the sounds. Thistape is short (12 minutes). The narrator sayseach sound the program introduces, gives anexample, then gives you time to say thesound. The tape also provides rationale andrelevant tips on how to pronounce the soundseffectively.

Thanks for your interest in continuing toimprove your presentation skills.

Siegfried EngelmannDirect Instruction Program Senior Author

Order Form: Corrective Reading Sounds Tape

Use this chart to figure your shipping and handling charges.

If your order is: Postage & Handling is:

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

ADI, PO Box 10252, Eugene, OR 97440$0.00 to $5.00 $3.00 M You may also phone or fax your order.$5.01 to $10.00 $3.75 Phone 1.800.995.2464 Fax 541.683.7543$10.01 to $15.00 $4.50$15.01 to $20.99 $5.50 Qty. kern Each Total$21.00 to $40.99 $6.75 Corrective Reading Sounds Tape 10.00$41.00 to $60.99 $8.00$61.00 to $80.99 $9.00 Shipping

$81.00 or more 10% of Subtotal Total

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

Please charge my Visa Mastercard Discover in the amount of $

Card # Exp Date

Signed

Name:

Address:

City: State: Zip:

Phone:

31 BESTCOPYAVAILABLE

A71T.,. Association for Direct Instruction

PO Box 10252, Eugene, Oregon 97440 541.485.1293 (voice) 541.683.7543 (fax)

What is AM, 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 TheJournal of Direct Instruaion (JODI), Direct Instruaion 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 whodo not use Direct Instruction programs have joined ADI due to their interest in receiving our semiannual publications, TheJournal of Direct Instruction and Direct Instruction News. JODI is a peer-reviewed professional publication containing new andreprinted research related to effective instruction. Direct Instruction News focuses on success stories, news and reviews ofnew programs and materials 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 spon-sored events and on materials sold by ADI).

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

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

$150.00 Institutional Membership (includes 5 subscriptions to ADI publications and regular membership privi-leges for 5 staff people).

$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 Discover in the amount of $

Card # Exp Date

Signed

Name:

Address:

City: State: Zip:

Phone:

School District or Agency:

Position:

e-mail address:

32

A TITzw.A. Books Price ListThe Association for Direct Instruction distributes the following Direct Instruction materials. Members of ADI receive a20% discount on these materials. To join ADI and take advantage of this discount, simply fill out the form and include yourannual dues with your order.

Title & Author Member Price List Price Quantity Total

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

Use this chart to figure your shipping and handling charges.

If your order is: Postage & Handling is:80.00 to $5.00 $3.00$5.01 to $10.00 $3.75$10.01 to $15.00 $4.50$15.01 to 820.99 $5.50$21.00 to $40.99 $6.75$41.00 to 860.99 $8.00861.00 to 880.99 $9.00$81.00 or more 10% of Subtotal

Outside the continental U.S , add $3 more

Subtotal

Postage & Handling

ADI Membership Dues

Total (US. Funds)

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

Please charge my Visa Mastercard Discover in the amount of $

Card # Exp Date

Signed

Name:

Address:

City: State: Zip:

Phone:

School District or Agency:

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

I 7-1 y Association for Direct Instruction#0. PO Box 10252

Eugene, OR 97440

Thank you to our Sustaining Members

Non-Profit OrganizationUS Postage PAIDPermit No. 122

Eugene, OR

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.

Anayezuka AhidianaAnita ArcherJason AronoffJerry Jo BallardCynthia BartonRoberta BenderMuriel BerkeleySusan BestGeorge BrentLarry ChamberlainJim CooperNancy & Del EberhardtTara EbeyDebbie EganBabette EngelDale FeikDavid GiguereRose Ila GivensRichard GraeyArdena HarrisBetty-Jane HartnettStephen HoffeltCarol Hollis

Christy HolmesSusan HornorDebbie JacksonGary W. JenningsDr. Kent JohnsonSophia JohnsonShirley R. JohnsonStacey KasendorfDiane KinderChangnam LeeAngus LloydJohn W. LloydJohn L. LotzKathy MadiganMary Lou MastrangeloElaine MaurerProvidencia MedinaMary NardoDoreen NeistadtKip OrloffDavid ParrK. Gale PhillipsLarry Prusz

3 4

Peggy RoushRandi SaulterSherry ScarboroughCarolyn SchneiderPam SmithFrank SmithJonita SommersKaren SorrentinoRandy & Marilyn SprickGeoff St. JohnLinda StewartSara G. TarverLucinda TerryErnie TerryVicci TucciScott Van ZuidenMaria VanoniTricia Walsh-CoughlanAnn WatanabeCathy WatkinsPaul WeisbergSheri WilkinsLeslie Zoref

Direct InstrucEffective School Practices

DI Successes Despite the Obstacles

The accomplishments of the 2002 ADIawards recipients are amazing. Theirstories, summarized by Amy Griffin inthis issue, encourage us all to workharder to achieve what they haveshown to be possible. It is gratifying toknow that these phenomenal successstories are representative of a largerand ever growing body of successesacross the nation. Through their sto-ries, the recipients share what theyhave learned in their persistent effortsto implement DI with integrity.

Not all attempts to implement DI areas successful as those of the awardsrecipients. Fortunately, we can learnfrom our failures as well as our success-es if we study them with open minds.Muriel Berkeley and Carrie Ambergehave done that and, in this issue, theyshare their insights into the variablesthat must be in place to ensure maxi-mal success with DI. In her papertitled, "When Direct InstructionDoesn't Work," Carrie Arnberge focus-es on classroom variables that areunder the control of the teacher. Byjuxtaposing what happens when DIdoes not work against what happenswhen DI does work, she shows clearlywhat teachers can do to ensure thattheir students learn.

In her article on the BaltimoreCurriculum Project, Muriel Berkeleydiscusses a variety of outside-school fac-tors that mitigate against successfulimplementations as well as some impor-tant within-school factors that areessential to success. She does an out-standing job of communicating the type

of disciplined adherence to the modelthat is characteristic of highly success-ful implementations. This is a mustread article for those who are involvedor plan to be involved in schoolwide ordistrict-wide implementations of DI.

One of the major obstacles that we allface in our DI work is this: We have todeal with the barrage of misinformationand outright untruths promoted bysupporters of whole language and/orother approaches that are not researchbased (e.g., Reading Recovery). As DIsuccesses have received more and morefavorable press in recent years, thewhole language attacks have becomemore and more intense and vociferous.Allington's (2002) paper titled, "Whatdo we know about the effects of DirectInstruction on student reading achieve-ment?" (www.educationnews.org) is aperfect example of the rhetoric filledwith untruths that characterizes thewhole language camp. Zig Engelmannand Gary Adams's letters of rebuttal toAllington's false allegations against DI(www.educationnews.org) are reprintedin this issue. One by one, Zig lays outthe fallacies in Allington's "logic."Adams presents convincing evidencethat Allington had not even read thereport of DI research that he critiquedso vehemently.

The arguments put forth by Allingtonand others in favor of reading approach-es that do not work are not new. Theyhave been around for a long time.Although the terminology employed inthe rhetoric and the names of the rec-ommended teaching approaches have

CSTR.C S Oat+

changed in some instances, the sub-stance of what they say and do has notchanged. The issues brought up indebates of today are strikingly similarto those that were aired in the last halfof the 20th century when researchshowed again and again that whole lan-guage and whole language-likeapproaches to beginning readinginstruction simply don't work. It's time

continued on page 3

FALL 2002, Volume 2, Number 2

In this issue

48 2002 Excellence in Education

Awards

13

16

17

28 A Response to Allington,Siegfried Engelmann

32 A Response to Allington,Gary Adams

3442 The Three-Cueing System:

Help or Hindrance?

51

53

A View From Askance

Eshelman Avenue Elementary:A Profile of Success

When Direct Instruction"Doesn't Work"

Disciplined Adherence to theEducational Reform Model

Rhetoric and Revolution...

Statement to the MPSSchool Board

Responses toKenneth Goodman

BESTCOPY AVAILABLE

ADI Publication EditorsDirect Instruction NewsSara TarverUniversity of Wisconsin, MadisonMadison, Wisconsin

Journal of Direct InstructionNancy Marchand-MartellaEastern Washington UniversityCheney, Washington

Timothy SlocumUtah State UniversityLogan, Utah

Board of DirectorsBob DixonClassical LearningOlympia, Washington

Susan HannerCo-AuthorCreswell, Oregon

Gary JohnsonCo-Author/Independent ConsultantPortland, Oregon

Nancy Marchand-MartellaEastern Washington UniversityCheney, Washington

Milly SchraderElk Grove School DistrictElk Grove, California

Timothy SlocumUtah State UniversityLogan, Utah

Don SteelyOregon Center for Applied ScienceEugene, Oregon

The DI News is published semiannually bythe Association for Direct Instruction. Themission 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 tiled by AOl 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 2002Association for Direct Instruction.

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

(ISSN 1540-0026).

Managing Editor: Amy Griffin

Publisher: The Association for DirectInstruction

http://www.adihome.org

Layout and Design: Beneda Design,Eugene, OR

2

Contribute to DI News:

DI News provides practitioners, ADI members, the DI community, and those newto DI, with stories of successful implementations of DI, reports of ADI awards,tips regarding the effective delivery of DI, articles focused on particular types ofinstruction, reprints of articles on timely topics, and position papers that addresscurrent issues. The News' focus is to provide newsworthy events that help usreach the goals of teaching children more effectively and efficiently and commu-nicating that a powerful technology for teaching exists but is not being utilizedin most American schools. Readers are invited to contribute personal accounts ofsuccess as well as relevant topics deemed useful t6 the DI community Generalareas of submission follow:

From the field: Submit letters describing your thrills and frustrations, prob-lems and successes, and so on. A number of experts are available who may beable to offer 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 manu-script. Indicate the name of the word-processing program you use. Save drawingsand figures in separate files. Include an address and email address for eachauthor.

Illustrations and Figures: Please send drawings or figures in a camera-readyform, 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.

3 6 BEST COPY AVAILABLE Fall 2002

DI Successes...continued from page 1

for us to put this old debate to rest sothat we can move on to asking reallyimportant questions such as thoseposed by Bob Dixon in his View FromAskance column in this issue (e.g.,questions about the role that phonemicawareness plays, or doesn't play, inbeginning reading instruction).

Although most of us old-timers knowwell the whole language/DirectInstruction debate of the last half-cen-tury, newcomers to DI may not. In thebelief that knowledge of that historycan help us to confront today's obsta-cles more effectively, the debate isrevisited in this issue. Martin Kozloff,in his own unique and analytical style,exposes the flawed logic and therhetorical devices that Goodman usedto launch the whole language move-ment. He critiques Goodman's 1967and 1976 papers that portray readingas a "Psycholinguistic Guessing Game"and the miscue analysis that portrayserrors as nonerrors. He cites studieswhich showed that Goodman's concep-tualization of reading as a"Psycholinguistic Guessing Game" isjust dead wrong.

Kerry Hempenstall's critique of thethree-cueing system ties Goodman'searly work to whole language as weknow it today. The system's overem-phasis on semantic and syntactic cues(i.e., meaning cues) at the expense ofgraphophonic cues (i.e., lettersoundcorrespondences) is simply anotherway of misconceptualizing reading asguessing and errors as indications thatthe learner has constructed meaning.Hempenstall makes the importantpoints that the "running records"employed by today's Reading Recoveryteachers (a) provide information simi-lar to that provided by Goodman's mis-cue analysis, and (b) are based on thesame flawed conception of reading.The current emphasis on "ReadingRecovery" is but one example of how a

Direct Instruction News

flawed approach can change its namewithout changing its substance.

"Balanced Literacy" is another termthat is used today to cloak the sameold practices that failed as whole lan-guage. In my home state of Wisconsin,for example, balanced literacy is beingpromoted by the state department ofinstruction and various school boards.Teachers are strongly encouraged, ifnot "required," to attend training inbalanced literacy instruction. In Mayof 2002, Professor Mark Schug of theUniversity of Wisconsin, Milwaukeespoke against the balanced literacyprogram proposed for the MilwaukeePublic Schools. His presentation ispublished in this issue in the hopethat it will be helpful to others in thestate and around the nation as theywork to oppose the continued use ofwhole language under the guise of bal-anced instruction. Another must readfor DI advocates is Louisa Moats'paper titled, "Whole Language Liveson as Balanced Instruction"(http://www.edexcellence.net/library/wholelang/moats.html).

The February 13, 2002, issue ofEducation Week carried a letter by

Goodman in which he compared him-

self to Galileo and likened his critics to

Galileo's enemies. He charged that"current efforts to narrowly define what

constitutes scientific research in litera-cy and more broadly in education, and

to decide whose results are to be incor-porated into law, are clearly motivated

by the same kind of political agendas

that motivated Galileo's enemies." LisaLeppin and David Ziffer, two frequentcontributors to the DI listserv, wrote

letters to the editor which tell howGoodman got it backwards. The fact;

that their letters were published inEducation Week (February 27 issue) is an

encouraging sign. The Leppin and

Ziffer letters (reprinted in this issue)serve as examples of the kinds of things

that each of us can do to contribute tocurrent efforts to move education in

the right directions. As Editor of DINews, I encourage your involvement and

look forward to hearing about it. A.

ADI ConferencesSave these dates

6th Southeast DIConference and InstitutesJune 10-13, 2003'Adams's Mark, Florida MallOrlando, Florida

8th Mountain StatesDI ConferenceJuly 7-9, 2003Antlers Adam's MarkColorado Springs, Colorado

29th National DirectInstruction Conferenceand InstitutesJuly 20-24, 2003Eugene Hilton andConference CenterEugene, Oregon

8th Midwest DirectInstruction Conferenceand InstitutesAugust 6-8, 2003Holiday Inn Mart PlazaChicago, Illinois

37 _ABLE 3

BOB DIXON

ACW--*-- WilktReading Fi rst, Phonics, PhonemicAwareness, and the Analysis of Content

Lately, I've pinched myself upon awak-ening every morning. The ReadingFirst Initiative. Is it real, or did I justdream it? The critics of this incrediblepiece of bi-partisan legislation arecoming out of the woodwork, so Iguess it's real.

Briefly, states apply to the Departmentof Education for grants to improve K-3reading, in the areas of phonemicawareness, phonics, fluency, vocabu-lary, and comprehension. Critics call ita "phonics" program, apparentlybecause it includes phonics at all, butcertainly not because phonics is thesole focus of the initiative. Most of themoney will go to schools and/or dis-tricts with the highest poverty levelsand lowest achievement levels.

The ongoing and possibly growing crit-icism of phonics really does astoundme. The reason it astounds me somuch is this:

Phonics is not a teaching method.Phonics is not instruction.

Rather, phonics is (rather obviously, Ithink) a description of the relationshipbetween English language, which (justas obviously) is oral, and Englishorthography, which isn't. To be"against" phonics is like being againstsubjectverb agreement. The relation-ship between English language andorthography simply exists. Each lan-guage with an orthography has someidentifiable relationship to thatorthographysome relationship thatsimply exists. Some writing systemsare "more phonemic" than English,which is to say, they more regularlyreflect symbolsound correspondences.Some writing systems are alphabetic,

but don't use the Roman alphabet.Some writing systems are logographic(such as Chinese). Some are syllabic(such as Japanese).

Phonics per se is not a universal predis-position toward a given approach toreading content. Quite obviously,analyses of other languages and theirwriting systems yield other descrip-tions of relationships, many of whichare not very "phonemic" in nature.Descriptions of other phonemicorthographies, obviously, are differentfrom descriptions of English symbol-to-sound relationships. It is an accu-rate description to say that the sound forX is /k/, if we're describing Greek.

A description of the relationshipsbetween English letters andphonemes, per se, has no particularimplications for instruction. In fact, achallenge for most of us would be thatof developing such a description ini-tially without looking through instruc-tion-colored glasses. (We can find pret-ty exhaustive descriptions at thelibrary. Some are tainted with instruc-tion and others are not.)

This requirement of looking at con-tent objectively before making instruc-tional decisions is a basic tenant ofDirect Instruction design. When wetalk about "analysis" in conjunctionwith Direct Instruction, we are assum-ing that we first have some instruc-tion-free content to analyze.Otherwise, why do analysis? If wealready know how we're going to teachsomething (meaning we're probablygoing to do what everyone else does),what would be the point of analysis?(As something of an aside, the tradi-tional notion of "task analysis" is not

part of the design of DirectInstruction. DI tasks derive from ananalysis of content. Nothing derivesfrom an analysis of tasks.)

The critics of "phonics" focus uponletter-to-sound relationships that are"irregular" in some sense, to somedegree. A critic would point out thatwhen we see the letter "t," we say onesound; when we see the letter "h," weeither say one sound, or no sound at all(e.g., hour); and when we put themtogether, sometimes we say the twoseparate sounds (e.g., outhouse), butmost of the time, we say one of twocompletely different sounds, thevoiced and unvoiced "th sounds" (as inthin and then).

The fact that someone is criticizingthese relationships involving "t" and "h"belies an instructional bias from thebeginning. As a description of how "t" and"h" work in English orthography, thereis neither anything to favor nor anythingto oppose. The only real question withrespect to a description is whether thedescription is thorough and accurate. Ifit is, then as a descnfition, it is a "good"description. The idea of "opposing" agood description simply doesn't makeany sense. We don't oppose gooddescriptions of syntax, or phonemics(sounds, but no letters).

For the instructional designer (in a DIapproach to design), a good descrip-tion is the critical point of departurefor content analysis. Generally speaking,the goal of content analysis is to iden-tify bases for generalization. (Good old"rote DI" is more obsessed with gen-eralization than any approach toinstruction I'm aware of.) In thecourse of doing an analysis of practical-ly anything, even math, potential barri-ers to generalization are inevitable.There is never a question aboutwhether there will be obstacles toovercomesuch as the business of "t"and "h" described previously. Never.

Here is why the critics are so quick todismiss phonics based solely upon a

4 3 8 BESTCOPYAVAILABLE Fall 2002

thorough and accurate description ofletter-to-sound relationships: the criticssimply don't have an arsenal of knowl-edge of instruction for overcominginevitable barriers to generalization.They are clueless. Thus, we get incred-ibly egocentric statements from criticsof phonics, saying in effect, "There areirregularities in phonics, and I personal-ly don't know how to overcome them toensure that students generalize accu-rately, and if I don't know how, then Isuppose no one knows how, and there-fore, I have to conclude that phonics isa poor content approach to beginningreading instruction."

No kidding. Two people look at exactlythe same thorough and accuratedescription of letter-to-sound relation-ships. One can't figure out how to getaround problems, and that one punts.The other is a genius at figuring outways to get around inevitable obsta-cles, and does so, and ends up effec-tively teaching beginning reading,using phonics as the content basis fordoing so. The first one isn't even inter-ested in how the second one pulled offsuch an incredible accomplishment.Basically, the "critics of phonics"(which, as I've said now more thanonce, doesn't even make sense) giveup at the point of describing the content.

They don't even know what they don'tknow. They are unaware of even thepossibility that someone smarter thanthey are can effectively deal with allthe problems inherent in the content.

Any reader familiar with DISTARReading and Reading Mastery has seen

some remarkable, ingenious ways ofdealing with a host of challenges thatEnglish phonics does, in fact, present.You probably know that those programsinitially "regularize" "th" and otherdigraphs by tying them together andtreating them as if they were a singlegrapheme. The "tie" gradually fadesaway. The outcome is accurate decoding.(The critic seems to hold the beliefthat instruction begins with outcomes, and

therefore objects to temporary devicesthat help students move graduallytoward an outcome at the end.)

Direct Instruction News

The voiced and unvoiced "th" are rela-tively easy. Teach the more common ofthe two, and teach it thoroughly. Thenintroduce the other, after the first isfully mastered. This is in contrast tothe inexplicable "instructional prac-tice" of introducing things like this (orthere, they're, and their) all at thesame time. The "silent h" in "hour" isjust an easier example of the samething. The "th" in "outhouse" is anexample of how morphology interactswith phonemics in English, and howthat interaction is represented in print.Technically, the "th" digraph crosses a"morphemic boundary" between "out"

Here is why the criths are

so quick to dismiss phonics

based solely upon a thorough

and aaurate descriptionof letter-to-sound

relationship: the critics

simply don't have an arsenal

of knowledge of instruction

for overcoming inevitable

barriers to generalization.

They are clueless.

and "house." Other examples of "mor-phemic boundaries" interacting withphonemics in English include situa-tions such as: act + ion = action.When we cut all the jargon, we end upwith a way of demonstrating thatsomething that appears to be irregularat first blush might not be, if we look alittle harder and dig a little deeper.

Ironically, this "DI approach to analy-sis" is more critical than the critics.For instance, the critics don't citepotential confusion among d, b, p, andq as "problems with phonics."Becauseto understate the facts abitthe critics tend not to be veryinstructionally oriented, they can'teven identify all the genuine chal-

39

lenges of teaching beginning readingeffectively, never mind efficiently.

In a previous "Askance" column, Iwrote about poor phonics instruction.Unfortunately, I guess I used anaughty word in the title, and the col-umn got itself published anyway. I'llbriefly reiterate what I thought wasthe central message of that column,and which I think is still a centralissue with respect to "phonics."

On one extreme, we have phonics assimply a description of orthography,apart from any instructional consid-erations. At the other extreme, wehave "really good phonics instruc-tion." Although we can look at anyinstruction analytically and makesome fair predictions about effective-ness, the bottom line on "really goodphonics instruction" is high begin-ning reading achievement, and highremedial reading achievement,brought about efficiently.

Either analytically speaking or empiri-cally speaking, we have to recognizethat somewhere between theextremes is phonics instruction thatisn't so hot. I won't say that terriblephonics instruction is worse thanwhole language, but I will say thatpoor phonics instruction is probably agreater threat to the long-term healthof really good phonics instruction. Theunhappy fact is that people aren't thatdiscriminating. If a critic points topoor phonics instruction and rightfullycriticizes it, both that critic and who-ever listens are more than likely togeneralize the criticism to all phonicsinstruction. That's just a reality.

We can't stop people from jumping onthe phonics bandwagon. What we cando, though, is always talk about phonics

instruction, rather than "phoMcs." Thatis a strength of Put Reading First. Itisn't a blanket endorsement of "phon-ics," divorced from instruction.Although severely limited by space,Put Phonics First discriminates among"types" of phonics instruction (syn-thetic, analytic, embedded, etc.). Itemphasizes "explicit systematic"

BEST COPY AVAILABLE 5

phonics instruction (in keeping withresearch findings). We should all makea similar effort, in casual conversationsor workshops or speeches or publica-tions, to avoid talking about "phonics"as if phonics per se was anything morethan or less than a description oforthography. Simultaneously, of course,we can advocate "really good, system-atic, explicit, phonics instruction."That's really what we mean, anyway.

Perhaps "hotter" than phonics thesedays is "phonemic awareness." This isa topic that drives me sort of nuts. Isuppose I have a predisposition againstthe label itself. In DI circles, we don'ttalk much about making kids "aware"of various things. That sounds a lot tome like "exposure" or "covering top-ics." It's a little on the abstract side.We're interested in outcomes that area bit more tangible. What can the kidsdo, and is it worth doing? In the mostliteral sense, it is difficult to imagineanyone without severe sensory difficul-ties not having some sort of phonemicawareness. The fact that a nativespeaker behaves differently to "cat"and "cats" is some indication of aware-ness, if completely subconscious.

Again, Put Reading First does a good job

of translating an abstraction into actualtasks. The tasks are pretty clear. Therationale for the tasks in general, andsome of the specific tasks, is less clearto me. In general, it is said (in PutReading First and elsewhere) thatphonemic awareness is a prerequisiteto beginning reading, or possibly con-comitant with beginning reading, atthe very beginning.

Here's a question that must come tothe mind of every teacher who usedDISTAR Reading and its successors

before phonemic awareness got realpopular: if phonemic awareness is aprerequisite to learning to decode,how was I able to teach so many kidsto decode without it?

I'm venturing into an area where Ihave some strong feelings that Icouldn't prove (at the moment) if mylife depended on it. Having excusedmyself for being responsible for what Isay, here's what I think: SOME phone-mic awareness tasks are PROBABLYdesirable but not strictly NECES-SARY as prerequisites for teachingbeginning reading.

The potential usefulness of somephonemic awareness tasks dependscompletely on the method we're goingto use to teach beginning reading. Theoral onsetrime types of tasks make

In DI circles, we don't talk

much about making kids

"aware" of various things.That sounds a lot to me like

"exposure" or "covering

topics." In a little on theabstract side. We're

interested in outcomes that

are a bit more tangible.

some sense only if we're using patternswith changing first sounds in ourinstruction. Otherwise, such taskswould no doubt promote "awareness"in some sense, but there would be nocausal chain linking the oral task toreading instruction.

What about a task like this: I'll say aword, and you tell me the last sound inthe word? Sounds sort of good, and

phonemic, and seems to promoteawareness, but I have to wonder about

the causal links that connect this taskto the reading instruction. Put anotherway, when during the reading instruc-tion do we deal with the last sound in aword, and only the last sound in a word?

I shouldn't even get started on sylla-bles. I hate syllables. They are about as

inconsequential in English languageand orthography as anything I canthink of. (I don't hate syllables in thebroad picture: they're pretty usefulwhen teaching a syllabic writing sys-tem, such as Japanese.) "Work on syl-lables" has been around for a longtime. Only recently has such uselesspractice been elevated through a looseassociation with phonemic awareness.

On the other hand... oral blending.I don't think we must teach oral blend-ing as a prerequisite to beginning read-ing. When blending is a critical part ofexplicit, systematic phonics instruc-tion, the students learn oral blendingas a by-product of the instruction. Andoral blending isn't a goal, so I wouldn'tget too excited about this particular by-product of good instruction. On theother hand, the causal links from oralblending to blending are clear as a bell.If kids are taught oral blending (well)before they start decoding, can thathelp? I would think so. My guess isthat the blending in the reading pro-gram would come about a little easi-erand maybe a lot easier for somekidsif the students can already blendorally. But if the kids are going to learnto read anyway, just how much timewould be devoted to oral blending priorto reading instruction? My guess is: nottoo much. If the kids are ready to learnoral blending to mastery, then they'realso ready to learn how co read. Thebiggest questionan empirical oneishow to deal with oral blending andreading the most efficiently. In my mind,that's the only question.

I seriously doubt that this is an either-or question. Guessing again (and I'llstop saying that nowyou know I'mguessing), the most efficient andeffective practice might be to beginwork on oral blending slightly beforereading instruction begins, and then tocontinue it for a little while in con-junction with reading instruction.'

1 Note that DISTAR Reading et al. taught a form of "oral blending" from the beginning, wherein kids learned to say things like "iccceeecreeeeeam" fast. Yes, ice and cream happen to be syllables, but the activity doesn't "teach syllables." It teaches oral blending.

64 0 BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Fall 2002

(This is a freebie for grad studentslooking for a dissertation topic.)

Amidst all this speculation, we haveplenty of extant empirical evidenceshowing that kids can learn to blendwithout having first gone through thephonemic awareness variety of phone-mic blending. The scientists in us arecurious about the possibility of doinganything more effectively but especial-ly more efficiently. But if we're goingto tinker with something that isn't bro-ken, we ought to be cautious about it.

What about segmenting? The linkbetween phonemic segmenting anddecoding is not as direct as thatbetween oral blending and blending,but there is a link. One way of lookingat segmenting is that it is teaching oralblending "backward and forward,"which is a lot like saying that we'reteaching oral blending really thoroughly.

The most obvious benefit of segment-ing shows up in spelling. Mastery ofsegmenting does not even begin toensure accurate spelling. Rather, mas-tery of segmenting reduces the likeli-hood that a substantial number of"types" of error will occur. For instance,students who can orally segment areless likely to transpose letters that rep-resent sounds in the oral word.

When students listen to individualsounds in DISTAR Reading et al. andcome up with the word that thosesounds comprise, they are orally seg-menting. Segmenting and oral blend-ing are very old news in DirectInstruction. They didn't derive initial-ly from an examination of research, butfrom a rational, logical analysis df whatstudents needed to know in order toreach certain important outcome goals.

Put Reading First makes this state-ment: "Children who receive instruc-tion that focuses on one or two typesof phoneme manipulation makegreater gains in reading and spellingthan do children who are taught threeor more types of manipulation. Onepossible explanation for this is thatchildren who are taught many differ-

Direct Instruction News

ent ways to manipulate phonemes

may become confused about which

type to apply" (p. 7).

The Put Reading First document doesn't

list types of phonemic manipulation

tasks in an order of priority, probably

because the authors restricted them-

selves to findings from the National

Reading Panel. My own take has proba-

bly emerged: just teach one or two

types of phonemic manipulation if you

teach oral phonemic manipulation at

all, and make oral blending the first

priority, and segmentation the second.

Yes, we should "start easy"

and work our way along,

but that doesn't mean we

have to do different tasks

that happen to be easier

than the tasks we really

want to teach. The

beginning instruction on

oral blending can, of course,

be designed to be very easy.

I don't agree with one recommenda-tion from Put Reading First, the idea ofteaching "easier" types of phonemicmanipulation first, then "harder" typeslater. That advice does sound intuitive,and it might be the best the NationalReading Panel could find in empiricalstudies. Beyond that, though, it does-n't make any sense. "Ease of learning"doesn't have much to say about "use-fulness of the tasks." That latter cate-gory is all we really care about.

Yes, we should "start easy" and workour way along, but that doesn't meanwe have to do different tasks that hap-pen to be easier than the tasks wereally want to teach. The beginninginstruction on oral blending can, ofcourse, be designed td be very easy.

41

Start with a word that just has twosounds. Make them both nonstopsounds. Make sure they are easy topronounce. (We won't start with "or.")Model the blending. Model it again.Lead students through it. Model itagain. Check the students out. Checkthem out again, a bit later. If we haveto, model it again. Lead the kidsthrough it again. Do that as manytimes as necessary. Don't talk to themabout phonemes and the distinctivecharacteristics of phonemes and allo-phones and all that stuff someonemight talk about during some sort ofodd inservice. If they learn to blendthat first word "by rote," don't lose anysleep. Do a different word like that:Ifyou started with a vowelconsonantword, switch to a consonant vowelword. Maybe use one sound in com-mon to the two words.

That's easy. Over time, there arenumerous ways to make it more diffi-cultnot because we have an a prioridesire to make things more difficult,but because the outcome for the skillis much more difficult than this. Thisis not rocket science. This is the rela-tively easy part of designing instruc-tion. (The hard part was analyzingcontent for generalization. I've seenZig Engelmann do that, and itseemed more difficult to me thanrocket science. Lots of people arerocket scientists.)

In addition to phonics instruction andphonemic awareness instruction, PutReading First (and the NationalReading Panel) focuses on fluency,vocabulary instruction, and compre-hension. I won't discuss any of thatnow. I've just stayed with phonics,phonics instruction, and phonemicawareness because of the vast, mis-guided, vitriolic criticism of phonics ingeneral, and the National ReadingPanel findings, as summarized andreflected in Put Reading First.

If I sound a bit zealous in my defenseof certain aspects of phonics instruc-tion, I plead guilty. But I hope no onemistakes that for the almost religious

7

fanaticism with which too many in theeducational community exercise uponthe basis of some obscure belief sys-tem, incomprehensible not only topeople in the DI choir, but, as it isbecoming more clear, to a vast numberof educated, rational adults outside ofthe field of education.

I really do have to pinch myself everyday. Nonetheless, I guess an unrelent-ing vein of cynicism runs through me.Will the dream turn into a nightmare

-

at some point? While we're ridinghigh, is there anything we can andshould be doing to prevent, or at least,delay a nightmare? If there is, weshould take a rest from enjoying thetriumphs and spend more time doingand promoting rationalism, first, andthe scientific investigation of genuinequestions, real inquiry showing empiri-cally far more than we havedespitebeing at the head of the pack in thisareathat what we already have isn'tbroken, as well as cautious, well rea-

2002 Excellence in Education Awards

At times it seems the world of educa-tion is rife with bad news and nega-tive commentary. Students aren'tlearning, teachers aren't teaching,political agendas and bureaucracieshave priority over effective method-ologies, and there is a general dis-agreement about what really works toteach ALL children.

There are, however, many positiveexamples of success in schoolsthroughout the country, and each year,the Association for Direct Instructiongets a glimpse of those successesthrough a call for nominations in thecategories of Excellence in Education,The Wayne Carnine Most ImprovedStudent Award, The Wesley BeckerResearch Award, and The WesleyBecker Excellent School Award. Wereceive nominations from throughoutthe country, and the Board of Directorsof ADI has the most challenging taskof selecting the award recipients. Thenominations prove that the work beingdone in the field with DirectInstruction is indeed fruitful, and theyshow what is possible when the onlyagenda one works under is the onethat puts students first and ensures

8

that students indeed experience suc-cess and learning in the classroom.

What follows is a brief introduction tothe Award Recipients of 2002, andsome examples of their excellence inthe field of education. The ExcellentSchool award appears as a separatearticle, following this article.

Excellence in EducationGary Kolumbic,TeachingGary Kolumbic isthe Literacy Coachfor EshelmanAvenue School inLomita, California.He is responsiblefor bringing ReadingMastery and otherDI curricula toEshelman school, which eventually ledto the school winning a National TitleI Distinguished School Award in 2001.Principal of Eshelman, WinnieWashington, shared the genesis of thechanges that took place in theirschoolhe went to Eshelman because

Gary Kolumbic

A 9

soned inquiry aimed at broadening ourcollective knowledge.

In truth, I'm already having night-mares. In the midst of the dreamtheintent of the No Child Left Behind Act,and movements associated with itIsee a child out there oblivious to allthis excitement, someone who isn'tbenefiting from any of this, someonewhose status is far less than that of apawn in a huge political game. That'sthe nightmare. And I'm awake. AIM.

the principal of his previous schoolwould not allow him to continue touse phonics with his Special Educationstudents. "In the spring of 1992, Garycame into my office seeking to fill avacant position in an Upper LearningHandicap classroom stating that 'allstudents can learn' despite the chal-lenges they face and only desired anopportunity to make his vision a reali-ty. That opportunity was immediatelyprovided and Gary became a part ofEshelman the following semester. Itwasn't long before his vision became a'reality' and it became obvious to ourstaff that his reading program,SRACorrective Reading was not onlyproviding effective results with hisstudents, but could be proven benefi-cial for ALL of our students."

The letters of nomination from his col-leagues give Gary Kolumbic credit forthe turn around Eshelman School hasmade. The teachers and paraprofes-sionals are grateful to Gary for his ded-ication and vision. Gary not only pro-vided the vision of what was possible,but also the time and labor it takes tomake implementation a success: man-aged and secured the private fundgrants dedicated to the DI programincluding the planning, scheduling,and monitoring of teacher training inEugene, OR; he set up reading classesbased on reading ability rather than

BEST COPY AVAILABLE Fall 2002

age or grade; established an orderlyand easily maintained schoolwidereporting system that each week tracksthe reading progress of every child;and oversees the remedial programthat provides extra reading instructionfor any child that drops below expect-ed performance level.

The following words by teacherChristian Mendez echo what manyothers feel about the contributions ofGary Kolumbic to Eshelman School."Gary works tirelessly to ensure thatthe schoolwide reading program runssmoothly and effectively. Mr. Kolumbicis always available to help teachers inany way he can. Gary has demonstrat-ed and shared with me more effectiveteaching techniques. He has assistedme with properly grouping students bytesting them to find their individualreading levels. Whenever a student ishaving a difficult time, Gary is there togive advice and suggestions to helpthat student. Gary is not only an out-standing Reading Coordinator, but aninspiring role model to the studentsand teachers he works with."

David Parr, Teaching

One thing that stands out about thenomination packet for David Parr isthat each of the nomination letterswas written by parents who are affili-ated with the School Site Council(SSC) or the Parent, Teacher, StudentAssociation (PTSA) of PresidioMiddle School in San Francisco. Davidis a teacher at Presidio Middle School.It seems that a majority of support forhis use of DI comes not from withinthe district administration, but fromthe parents, the SSC, and the PTSA.Boots Whitmer, one of David's nomi-nators, provided this rationale, "Hedeserves this award not only becauseof his teaching skill and dedication tohis students' success, but because hehas steadfastly refused to use curricu-la inferior to Direct Instructiondespite intense pressure from theunenlightened San Francisco UnifiedSchool District."

Direct Instruaion News

The letters describe David Parr astotally dedicated to improving theschool and the performance of his stu-dents, and giving quite liberally of histime for after school tutoring, parentmeetings, and PTSA meetings. In1999 Presidio Middle School receivedan Academic Performance Award fromthe State of California for improve-ment in STAR9 test scores. While reg-ular performing students retained theirstatus or made slight gains, the mostunderperforming students made majorstrides. The SSC realized it was thework of David Parr that had madethose gains possible. Mr. Parrdescribed his first introduction toDirect Instruction as life changing, andhas since continued to used DI in hisclassroom despite refusal by otherteachers to engage the program andpressure from within the school sys-tem to eliminate the use of DI.

Colleagues have viewed the studentsuccesses as "one-trick wonders" or"flukes" even though the gains areconsistent. Others are beginning totake notice though, and are interestedin replicating success. At a meetingearlier this year, an InstructionalReform Facilitator from one of the dis-trict's lowest performing schools tooknote of Mr. Parr's track record andafter classroom visits, that underper-forming school will have six DI classesthis school year.

And true to the Direct Instruction phi-losophy, Boots Whitmer closed her let-ter with these words, "If the judges ofthis award see fit to bestow it on Mr.Parr, the prestige of this award willgive him the additional ammunitionand credibility to see that DirectInstruction gets greater use in the SanFrancisco Unified School District. Thereal winners, then, will be our stu-dents, and that is the way he wouldwant it!"

Maggie Hanohano,Staff DevelopmentMaggie Hanohano is the ReadingCoordinator for the Pihana Na MamoProject of Hawaii. From the many let-

4 3

ters in support of thenomination ofMaggie, it is apparentthat her efforts anddedication to improv-ing the academic per-formance of Hawaii'sstudents have trulymade a significantdifference in not onlythe educational com-munity, but for entirecommunities. As Dr.Gloria Kishi stated inher letter, "Maggiehas been crucial insupporting Hawaii'sschools in theirimplementation ofsound, research-basedprograms in the areaof reading. Because ofher efforts, Hawaiiis beginning to see improved results inreading."

David Parr

Maggie Hanolzano

Maggie's has brought DI trainers andcurriculum developers to Hawaii, andas Dr. Kishi wrote, "Her vision has alsoled to the development of a core oflocal, Hawaii-born and raised DirectInstruction trainers and coaches whoseskills and knowledge have led to over40 schools in Hawaii implementingDirect Instruction programs and strate-gies. This work is being done in someof the most challenging of schoolswhere long-term failure in readingachievement had often led to discour-aged and disheartened teachers, fami-lies, and administrators. Several ofthese schools are now becoming bea-cons for other schools, with teachers,administrators, families and studentsrenewed and reenergized by their suc-cesses." Of course, all this is accom-plished through an unwavering dedica-tion to doing what's right regardless ofthe amount of hours required to makethe mission a success.

Maggie ensures that schools and per-sonnel receive adequate staff develop-ment, funding, training, and curricu-lum services, enabling schoolsstatewide to implement Direct

9

Instruction with the required fidelity.Maggie Hanohano is a model of totaldedication to her profession and to thelives she impacts through her work.Kathleen Dowd shared these wordsregarding Maggie, "Without Ms.Hanohano's vision, dedication, andbravery in promoting DirectInstruction strategies and programs,many of Hawaii's schools would nothave coherent plans for readinginstruction and would not attain theirreading goals. This is truly a casewhere one person made a differencefor students, families, teachers,schools, communities, and our state."

Kip Orloff, Staff DevelopmentThe letters of support for Kip'sacknowledgement of Excellence inEducation tell a story of a woman whodiligently works with the only goal inmind of all students learning and thegoals that are inherent in that process:of inciting excitement in teacher's toembrace a particular curriculum thatthey may not want, of acting as a part-ner to schools to reach their goals, andof knowing what works so that childrenlearn and not stopping until each per-son involved is fulfilling their role. Kipis an Educational Consultant who hasbeen involved with DI for over 30 years.In the 21 letters that were written tosupport Kip, the theme in each of theletters is that Kip works selflessly, trulyunderstands DI curriculum and how toteach others so they also understand, istotally knowledgeable, professional, sin-cere, and an inspiration to many.

I will let the words of those who knowand have worked with Kip describe theimpact she has had on their lives andthe schools in which she's worked.

"Kip Orloff is a terrific DirectInstruction consultant. Add to thatfact she is a warm and wonderful per-son, and you have qualities of someonewho can accomplish good things inschools. It has been my privilege towork with Kip in a variety of settings,including teacher training workshopsand implementations in schools. Kip ismethodical in any effort she under-

10

takes. She is meticulous about thedetails of training, such as the wordingof formats, steps in exercises, correc-tion procedures, and the sequence oftraining events. In implementations atschools, she attends carefully to theendless details that are necessary for aschool to be successful."Dr. GaryJohnson, Co-Author, IndependentConsultant

"Kip entered into a difficult and chal-lenging situation when she arrived atLindbergh. She brought with her a lov-ing and caring spirit that understoodthe challenges we faced. She sawthrough the years of academic strug-gles and disappointments that teach-ers faced year after year, the newteacher's challenges, and the district'sfailure to clearly state its role and posi-tion in the DI process. She was able tocreate a vision (the big picture) andcapture the sincere concerns anddesires of the teachers to provide acurriculum that would ensure studentmastery and achievement."Katherine Brown, Charles A.Lindbergh Elementary

"Kip firmly believes that poor andminority children will achieve at thesame high levels as other students ifthey are taught at those levels. Inother words, high expectations cou-pled with good schools and goodteachers really do make a differ-ence."Therese Snyder, EducationalConsultant

Dr. Benjamin Lignugaris/Kraft,University Teaching andResearchA crucial role in the education of chil-dren is the education that teachersreceive in preparation for the classroom.

Dr. Lignugaris/Kraft is a professor inthe College of Special Education andRehabilitation at Utah StateUniversity. He teaches courses oneffective instruction, conductsresearch on teaching and teacherpreparation, and coordinates theDirect Instruction reading and lan-guage arts practicum. He has also

4 4

written numerouschapters and refereedjournal articles, andprovided workshopsand presentationswith the focus ofeffective instructionfor students with dis-abilities. Dr. TerryMiller of Idaho StateUniversity providedthis rationale, "Dr.Lignugaris/Kraft'shigh educational stan-dards and his dedica-tion to effectiveinstruction for all stu-dents are an inspira-tion to his universitystudents and fellowcolleagues. Hisresearch and work inteacher education,collaborations with educators acrossthe country, and involvement withparent education programs promoteand sustain the use of DirectInstruction and other research-basedpractices in public schools."

Kip Orloff

Dr BenjaminLignugaris/Kraft

Dr. Marion Tso of Eastern WashingtonUniversity affirms the depth of qualityunder which Dr. Lignugaris/Kraftoperates. "One of the most importantthings I learned from Dr.Lignugaris/Kraft was to always move astep further than what was required.Ask questions, find the answers, andask more questions. This is theprocess that keeps education movingin a positive direction. I now teach atthe university level. I use strategiesthat I learned from Dr.Lignugaris/Kraft. My hope is that Ican teach these strategies to universi-ty students so that they in turn willuse them to teach the many childrenthey will be responsible for in theirteaching careers. Thus, the educationof more and more children continuesto improve because of the contribu-tions of Dr. Lignugaris/Kraft."

Don Stenhoff, a graduate researchassistant at Utah State described someattributes of working with Dr.

Fall 2002

Lignugaris/Kraft as a mentor, such ashis advocacy for the students withwhom he works, the opportunity heprovides for students to teach andwork with him in classes, the succinct-ness of his writing and guidance heprovides for students, and the overallthoroughness of his approach to teach-ing. "As a major professor, Ben modelsseveral aspects that are desired in amentor. One quality is Ben's passionfor research. During student researchstudies, Ben guides students throughthe necessary steps in understandingthe logic of design and implementa-tion of a study. He meets frequentlywith his students and spends the timeneeded in order to understand out-come measures. There were severaltimes that he and I met at 7:30 in themorning to discuss the data collectedduring the week. Though busy withseveral other responsibilities we wouldsit at the table until all aspects of thedata were looked at and analyzed and adirection for the coming week wasdecided. These sessions also served asa learning experience for me. Benwould discuss out loud the process heused to analyze the data. As the studyprogressed that discussion was shiftedto me and we both conversed aboutthe analysis of the data."

The picture painted of Dr. Lignugaris/Kraft by those who supported his nom-ination is one of determination andadmiration. They made it apparentthat he operates under strict guide-lines of quality and excellence.

Dr. Cathy Watkins,University Teachingand Staff DevelopmentDr. Cathy Watkins is a professor of spe-cial education at California StateUniversity, Stanislaus and the Directorof the Center for Direct Instruction atthe university In a letter of support forCathy, Frank Smith and LindaYoungmayr said that, "Dr. Watkins isboth an academician and a practitioner.She works tirelessly in the name of edu-cational success for all students. DirectInstruction is lucky to have her as itsadvocate, as she has stayed the course,

Direct Instruaion News

through many educational trends,relentlessly promoting the use ofresearch validated educational practicesand programs." From the letters bythose who have worked with Cathy, herdedication to effective instruction onmany levels is apparent. She not onlypromotes effective tools to the studentsshe teaches at the university level, butshe also goes into the field and consultsand trains in schools desiring a DirectInstruction implementation.

Kenneth Stangl shared this experienceof working with Cathy in the field.

"Dr. Cathy Watkins is the best partnerin education that Keyes ElementarySchool has ever had.

"While serving at Keyes ElementarySchool as principal, I was introduced toDr. Watkins by a county schools admin-istrator who knew that I was interestedin implementing a Direct Instructionreading program. She systematically andpatiently explained the pros and cons ofa schoolwide implementation to thesuperintendent and me. She preparedand presented a presentation to theschool board using researched baseddata. She cautioned the school boardthat the board's support and the sup-port of the administration are crucial tothe success of the program. Once shewas convinced that the district wascommitted to providing the support,the staff training, and the materials foreffective implementation, she agreed tocoordinate our implementation.

"Unlike other consultants that I haveworked with, Dr. Watkins did not limitherself to one-day workshops andphone conversations. She immediatelybecame a presence on the school cam-pus. She coordinated trainings,ordered materials, helped with assess-ment and set up the student groupswith their teachers for the fall." Stanglcontinues with an account of her pres-ence in the school in the fall modelinglessons, coordinating testing andplacement, and working with theteachers and administration throughthe implementation process.

4 5

This particular sce-nario is highlightedhere to show therange of work thatCathy does. In theletters written onbehalf of Dr. Watkins,her work at theuniversity is equallyin-depth.

These words werewritten in the rationalefor Cathy's nomina-tion, "Finally, when allthe documentation isexamined as a whole,it is clear that Dr.Watkins considers herwork to be more thanjust a glorified voca-tion. Her dedicationto the education of all students isclear. She produces the extra effortthat can only occur when an individualsees a greater purpose to her work.Ultimately, this is the most compellingevidence supporting her nomination."

Dr Cathy Watkins

Brittany Dale Martin

Wayne Carnine StudentImprovement AwardThe Wayne Carnine StudentImprovement award is granted to nom-inated students who have shownimprovement academically, behavioral-ly, or a combination thereof. The stu-dents receive a cash reward for theiraccomplishments.

Brittany Dale MartinThe winner of this year's award isBrittany Dale Martin from the RogerBacon Academy in Leland, NorthCarolina. Brittany is under the custodyof her grandparents, who enrolled herin the Roger Bacon Academy with aca-demics as the top priority. Brittanyenrolled in the Academy as a secondgrader, testing into Reading Mastery I,lesson 11. She knew her sounds, buther reading was below grade level.Brittany fast tracked through ReadingMastery I and finished second grade atReading Mastery II, lesson 130. In third

1 1

grade, Brittany placed into HorizonsCID. In March of this year, Brittanywas in Horizons CID, lesson 105 andpassed the Reading Mastery V place-ment test. She will enter fourth gradein Reading Mastery V

In North Carolina, third-grade stu-dents are required to take the NorthCarolina Department of PublicInstruction End-of-Grade test. At thebeginning of third grade, students aregiven a pre-EOG test, and studentsscoring at III or IV demonstrate mas-tery of subject matter and skills thatindicate they are prepared to do third-grade work. Brittany scored at achieve-ment level IV She scored at or above90% of students in North Carolina whotook this test.

Amidst this success, at one pointBrittany's grandparents were forced tomove from Leland and moved to alocation that placed them 45 minutesaway from the Academy, one way.Because Brittany was experiencing somuch success and the excitement andconfidence that went with her accom-plishments, her grandparents droveBrittany and her sister to the Academyeveryday, nonetheless. Mark Cramer,Headmaster of the Roger BaconAcademy commented that, "With theproper teaching techniques and theuse of Direct Instruction ReadingMastery, Brittany blossomed. OnceBrittany learned to read there was nostopping her. Brittany gained the self-confidence she needed to be success-ful. With her acceleration in readingthis only boosted Brittany to excel inall subject areas. She gained a love forreading and a love for school.""Throughout the summer Brittanyattended the local Library ReadingProgram. At the end of the programBrittany received an award for readingthe most books. In only four weeksBrittany had read 150 books."

Daniel SheaDaniel Shea is a runner-up for theStudent Improvement Award. Danielis a student at Martin Kellogg MiddleSchool in Newington, Connecticut. Dr.

1 2

Christopher Banach, a special educa-tion teacher at Kellogg who nominatedDaniel, said Daniel's reading abilityhad plateaued by seventh grade. Dr.Banach attended a presentation ofSRA reading materials and he began apilot program with a small group ofidentified special education studentsusing Corrective Reading. He beganinstruction in January 2001. Dr.Banach stated that the students werepleased with the program and maderapid progress.

In the fall of each year, Connecticutstudents are tested with theConnecticut Mastery Test. One compo-nent of the test is the Degree ofReading Powers (DRP). In the fall ofhis seventh-grade year Daniel's DRPscore was 29. Four months later he wasretested and his score was 39. Dr.Banach stated that, "Typical gain scoresfor students with a full year of instruc-tion average between 3 to 5 morepoints but Danny gained 10 pointswith just 4 months of instruction."

Dr. Banach's words describe the pro-found changes that can occur when astudent begins to experience some-thing differentsuccess. "While num-bers in terms of scores are an impor-tant measure of progress or lack ofsame, what is of paramount impor-tance is the transformational effect ofDirect Instruction's impact on Danny'ssense of well being. Danny no longerhas behavioral episodes of complainingabout school, stating a desire to quitschool or questioning the worth ofattending school. Instead he hasdemonstrated more initiative, compe-tency and most importantly a strongsense of self-satisfaction with his newfound ability to read."

Patrick VinsonPatrick Vinson of Brentwood HighSchool in Brentwood, Tennessee is alsoa runner-up for the StudentImprovement Award. Patrick's mother,Linda Vinson, a former DirectInstruction teacher, nominatedPatrick. Patrick was adopted at birthand over the years has been diagnosed

with a variety of dis-abilitiesFetalAlcohol Effects,Traumatic Brain Injury(damage to the brainstem), Bell's palsy,Learning Disabled,and MentallyHandicapped. Hismother said, "Atpoints in Patrick's 17years, all of the abovelabels have academi-cally and behaviorallydescribed Patrick.What those labels donot describe is thereal Patrick!"

In her letter, Lindadescribed some ofPatrick's struggles toaccomplish tasks that often come easi-ly to others, such as crawling, sitting,talking, and learning. At one timePatrick was enrolled in a special educa-tion program that utilized the wholelanguage approach. His mother even-tually moved him to the school whereshe taught, which utilized DI. "Notonly did he achieve, he excelled!"Linda credits the use of ReadingMastery, Corrective Reading, and Language

for Learning as the programs that dif-ferentiate her son's experience fromthe "countless other Special Educationstudents who have not had the privi-lege of Direct Instruction programs."

Daniel Shea

Patrick Vinson

Linda provided the following achieve-ment information. He will enter the12th grade in August 2002. "His cur-rent classification is 'Other HealthImpairments,' and he is served in reg-ular education classes, as well as spe-cial education classes. His current IQis a full scale 69. Before moving fromFlorida, he passed the 'Florida Writes'test and has a documented 11th gradereading level. At Brentwood HighSchool Patrick is enrolled in 11thGrade English, Pre-Algebra, WorkStudy, Innovations and Inventions andresource special education classes.Along with his classes, he works at a

4 6 BESTCOPYAVAILABLE Fall 2002

bagel shop for on-the-job training. Hehas passed the required TCAP in read-ing, and is working to pass the TCAPin math. When he passes the TCAPMath, Patrick will graduate with a reg-ular diploma. You have to admit, this ispretty remarkable for a young man

who the doctors, psychologists, neurol-ogists, behavioralists, and many teach-

ers all said he would not learn to read,write, compute or, for that matter,walk or talk."

Wesley Becker

Research AwardThe Research Award went to leadauthor Gregory J. Benner from theUniversity of Nebraska, Lincoln.Contributing authors were Alexandra

Trout, Philip D. Nordness, J. RonNelson, and Michael Epstein from theUniversity of Nebraska, Lincoln, andMaria-Louisa Knobel, Alice Epstein,Ken Macguire, and Rodney Birdsellfrom Beatrice Public Schools. Theirpaper is entitled, "The Effects of theLanguage for Learning Program on

Receptive Language Skills ofKindergarten Children." The studyassesses the effects of the Language for

Learning program on the receptive lan-guage skills of a general sample ofkindergarten children, and the resultsindicate that Language for Learning pro-duced both statistically and educa-tionally significant effects on thereceptive language skills of children.The full text appears in the Journal ofDirect Instruction, Vol. 2, No. 2, Summer

2002, pp. 67-74 or is available online atwww.adihome.org.

Beacons of light in thesometimes dim worldof educationlightthat others can follow.The aforementionedindividuals represent aspectrum of experi-ences that of them-selves indicate thevalidity of DirectInstruction. Perhapsthese brief summaries provide a moralebooster for those already engaged inthe battle for effective instructionaltools, and as a bit of proof for thosewho are not only speculative about DI,but those who adamantly oppose it.The Association thanks those whoanswered the call for nominations forsharing a part of these lives, and wecongratulate the recipients. MM.

Gregory J. Benner

KIP ORLOFF and THERESE SNYDER

2002 Excellent School Award

Eshelman Avenue Elementary:A Profile of Success

"Come to the edge," he said.They said, "We are afraid""Come to the edge," he saidThey came.

He pushed themAnd they flew.

Guillaume Apollinaire

What is the genesis of change? Is therea catalytic event, a need, a leader whogenerates action, an opportunity forrisk-taking, timeliness, or a person ofvision who sees what is possible?Perhaps all of these elements make forchange and help to produce eventsthat forever affect lives.

Direct Instruction News

The School CommunityThe lives that are forever changed arethe ones that are part of EshelmanAvenue Elementary School in Lomita,California. This successful school sitsin the middle of an urban commercialarea with a diverse and densely popu-lated neighborhood not far fromLomita Naval Station. Lomita has anever-changing population of immi-grants from Mexico, Central and SouthAmerica, Asia, the Middle East, andAfrica. Like most of the schools in theLos Angeles Unified School District,the majority of the 726 studentsattending Eshelman are Hispanic.There are eight additional languages

4 7

spoken at the school which finds 24%of the student body classified asEnglish Language Learners (ELL).The majority of the students comefrom low-income disadvantaged fami-lies with 73% of them qualifying forfree and reduced lunch.

Eshelman began to see a need forchange in 1996 when the academicscores had gradually begun to decline.A Special Education Teacher Trainerfor LAUSD had been including DirectInstruction curriculum training as partof the staff development for all SpecialEducation teachers new to the district.

SRA provided training and one of theteachers participating was Mr. GaryKolumbic. Gary began using CorrectiveReading with his Special Day Class(SDC) at Eshelman. Gary, a caring,thorough, and committed teacherbecame enthusiastic about the suc-cess he achieved with his students.His success generated interest in

1 3

using additional Direct Instructionprograms to address the academicdecline at the school. SRA agreed tosupply materials for an extensivepilot. Winnie Washington, the princi-pal, was ready for a challenge and achange, and perhaps a little competi-tion with the surrounding schools inDistrict K of LAUSD. Dr. RichardVladovic, superintendent of District Kis quoted as saying, "Winnie some-times doesn't ask, she just does."Eshelman, with Winnie's leadership,had become a LEARN school whichmeans that teachers, parents, andcommunity members share the deci-sion-making process for the school. A"school family" was created with aclear academic mission where the fac-ulty took ownership and pride in theirwork and the school. Dr. Vladovicrecalls that Winnie told him, "Give ustime and we will deliver." The planfor change had begun.

Looking atAccomplishmentsBeginning in 1998 and over the courseof the past 5 years, Eshelman hasremained focused on its academic mis-sion. The school has benefited finan-cially from consistently meeting andsurpassing the California API(Academic Performance Indicator)

Stanford 9 Test Scores:

ReadingGr. 1998 1999 2000 20011 36 34 56 77

2 30 35 38 563 34 36 48 524 23 37 37 585 38 31 46 41

LanguageGr.

1

2

3

45

1998 1999 2000 200132 31 40 6428 35 36 5637 44 58 61

32 47 49 6339 33 48 56

14

goals set by the state. The API is usedto compare schools to each other andto gauge each school's improvement. In1999, the State of California began torank schools within the state based onthe school's API using a scale from 1 to10. A rank of 10, for example, meansthat the school's API fell into the top10% of all schools in the state based onthe SAT 9 tests taken by Californiastudents. In 1999 Eshelman wasranked 4 compared with all Californiaschools and 6 when compared withschools with similar demographic pro-files. In 2001, Eshelman was ranked 6compared with all California schoolsand 9 when compared with schools ofsimilar demographics.

The rise in student achievement hasbeen documented on national norm-ref-erenced assessments as well as state-specific assessments. The SAT 9 datafrom 1998 to 2001 indicate that stu-dent achievement scores in reading,language, spelling, and math have madeimpressive increases. In 1998 only 18%of the fourth graders were at or abovethe national average in reading. In2001-2002 54% of the fourth gradersare performing above the national aver-age, 7 points ahead of the state averageand 25 points ahead of Los AngelesUnified fourth grade average.

Whether comparing grade level growthor looking at groups of students movingfrom grade to grade, the achievementis impressive. Equally impressive arethe scores at Eshelman in comparisonto scores in Los Angeles Unified(LAUSD), Los Angeles County(LACthis includes hundreds ofschool districts that are not part ofLAUSD), and the State of California.In 2001 Eshelman students outper-formed average scores in LAUSD, LAC,and in California in reading and lan-guage in Grades 1 through 4. Grade 5outperformed LAUSD and LAC andfell just below the average in California.

In addition to having great pride instudent achievement, the teachers inthe "Eshelman family" have benefitedfrom Direct Instruction. They havegained insights into the use of power-

4 3

ful DI strategies to enhance dailyinstruction. They have learned toalign students to the correct pro-grams, teach students to mastery, ana-lyze student performance, and makedata-driven decisions. Joanne Vegher,a Kindergarten teacher, expressedreservations about a script stifling hercreativity and undermining her abilityto adjust instruction to her pupils'needs. Mrs. Vegher now believes com-pletely in Language for Learning andReading Mastery. "It has structure butwithin that structure there is a greatdeal of flexibility," and "If childrenneed to move up or down, its easy tomove them gracefully," she declares.Teachers report that they are ener-gized for work each day and thatworking together on a clear academicmission has enhanced their profes-sional development.

In thc past few years this school hasincreased student achievement,refined instructional teaching strate-gies, greatly reduced student misbe-havior, and been recognized for suc-cess. Newspaper articles in the LosAngeles Times and the communitynewspaper, The Daily Breeze havepraised the school for its academicachievements and for the individuali-ty of the curriculum choices theyhave made to assure student success.This school is the only school inLAUSD using DI as the instructionalcurriculum for all students.

In the spring of 2002, the school wasnotified that it would be recognizedas one of California's Title IAchieving Schools. Soon after, it wasannounced that Eshelman was select-ed as a national Title I DistinguishedSchools Award winner! Change canbe a very good thing!

How They Did It!Change is integral to the continuingsuccess of the school and the expand-ing vision for excellence. Much of thesuccess at Eshelman is due to key ele-ments of the DI implementationdesign, including a full-time literacy

Fall 2002

coach, development of a coachingcadre, consistent monitoring of stu-dent progress, grade-level collabora-tion, and administrative support.Under the strong leadership of Mrs.Washington, and the Literacy Coach,Mr. Kolumbic, the teachers havereceived intensive and consistentinservice training, classroom coaching,and follow-up advanced DI workshops.Block scheduling, homogeneousgrouping, small-group instruction, ade-quate time allocated, pacing sched-ules, and performance benchmarkswere set.

Direct Instruction TrainingThe implementation grew from Mr.Kolumbic's Corrective Reading experi-ences with his SDC students. SRAprovided initial training for the schoolwith limited follow-up during thepilot. Los Angeles County developedan Applied Research Program with thehelp of Doug Carnine and JerrySilbert. The schools were to use aresearch-based curriculum. SinceEshelman was currently using DI cur-riculum and had expanded the pilot toinclude all the staff, they chose to bean ARP school. Los Angeles CountyOffice of Education (LACOE) provid-ed support to the school with off-sitetraining, technical assistance, and con-sulting services. Mrs. Washington, Mr.Kolumbic, and many of the teachershave attended the DI Conferences inEugene. Staff members have visitedother DI schools in California andWesley Elementary School inHouston, Texas.

Maximized ResourcesWith a change in administration atLACOE, the ARP was dropped andEshelman applied for and received twogrants from private foundations. Thesegrants enabled the school to plan forconsulting services on a regular andexpanded basis. The school draws on avariety of resources to support theimplementation, including FederalTitle I funding, state and local funds,grants and private funds, and servicesfrom parents and community volun-teers. The school allocated resources

Direct Instruction News

for training instructional assistants inDI so that they could deliver instruc-tion to small groups of children underthe supervision of teachers. Theseassistants are included in the system-atic, on-going training and coachingsupport at the school.

Site-Based ManagementThe first step taken to increase itsinternal capacity for change was themove to become a LEARN schoolwhich focuses on greater site-basedmanagement and shared decision-mak-ing. To facilitate communication, col-laboration, and coordination through-

Much of the sucass atEshelman is due to key

elements of the DI

implementation design,

including a full-time literagcoach, development of a

coaching cadre, consistent

monitoring of student

progress, grade-levelcollaboration, and

administrative support.

out the school, a Literacy Coach posi-tion was created for Gary Kolumbic.He facilitates the use of DI curricu-lum, monitors program and instruc-tional quality, manages materials, mon-itors student progress, administerstests to students, and works withancillary people in the school. Garyand the coaching cadre provide sup-port across three tracks to all grades atthis year-round school.

Professional DevelopmentPrior to the DI implementation, thepredominant method of staff develop-ment at Eshelman was listening to afeatured speaker at a short one-dayworkshop. Topics covered did not nec-essarily relate to actu'al instructional

4 9

activities taking place in the classroomor to the needs of the students andteachers. When California implement-ed class-size reduction, there was aninflux of teachers having no teachingexperience, no student teaching, andlimited college classes dealing witheducational methods or curriculum. DItraining assisted new staff members inlearning how to be effective readingand language teachers. The staff haselevated their skills and teachingexpertise to expect mastery learning tooccur. Initial training, in-class coach-ing, extensive on-going inservice, anddevelopment of supportive and coordi-nated activities to reinforce readingand language lessons has added polkerto the excellent instructional deliveryof the DI lessons. Now teachersexchange ideas and share informationwith one another and apply new solu-tions to identified problems.

Now that the school has built aninternal structure, the staff is devel-oping the expertise necessary tobecome self-sustaining. For externalassistance Eshelman has relied prima-rily on DI consultants.

Parent and CommunityCollaborationThe "school family" works with the"home families" by including them inthe decision-making process for theschool. The parents are informed aboutthe DI curriculum, grading process, stu-dent progress, school management, andthe vision for the school. Mr. Kolumbichas held parent education classes whichteach parents how to be effective using7eaching Your Child to Read in 100 Easy

Lessons. Community volunteers serve inthe school and private foundations andcommunity service groups lend finan-cial and material support.

How Success is MaintainedThe consistent collection of data assiststhe teachers in evaluating studentprogress and mastery. The focus on stu-dent mastery, weekly lesson progresscharts, and continuous progress moni-toring helps Mr. Kolumbic, the coaches,

1 5

consultants, and the teachers keep the

mission on track!

Additionally, five specific practicessupport the school's success:

articulation and maintenance of aclear vision that the staff carries out,

goal setting in line with the vision,

allocation of adequate instructionaltime and resources,

providing time for on-going profes-sional development, and

flexibility and openness to change.

Change has enveloped this successfulschool and has been encouraging toeveryone involved. Fear and trepidationhave been replaced with confidenceand skill. They were given the time byLAUSD, and they did deliver indeed!

The teacher said to the students,"Come to the edge."

They replied, "We might fall..."The teacher said again, "Come

to the edge."

And they replied, "It's too high."

"Come to the edge!" the teacher

demanded.

And they came... and she

pushed them...And they flew!

From: Eshelman Avenue Procedural

Manual

With thanks from Wesley

Elementary School A.W.

CARRIE AMBERGE, University of Florida

When Direct Instruction "Doesn't Work"

"The Direct Instruction creed is if thestudent has not learned, theteacher has not taught" (Adams &Engelmann, 1996). The methodologybehind Direct Instruction is to providea sequence of skills to all students inan accelerated manner, through theteaching of generalizations. As a begin-ning teacher, I have found it very diffi-cult to gain respect as a competenteducator among those who are more

experienced. A hierarchy exists, and asa graduate student, I have realized andcome to accept my position at the bot-tom. At the same time, I know that I,too, have a voice and experiences tosupport it. I have become quite theadvocate for Direct Instructionbecause I know it works, I have seen itwork, and I understand why it works.My frustration has grown immenselybecause I see so many of these experi-enced teachers use Direct Instructionincorrectly, altering the possibility ofamazingly successful outcomes.

A complete set of Reading Mastery

books sits on a shelf in a teacher'soffice collecting dust in a D-ratedschool. "They tried those last year and

they didn't work." This same teacherpicks up a Corrective Reading book on

occasion and randomly selects a por-tion of a lesson as a "fun activity," dis-regarding the intent and function ofthe program.

Two third-grade males are workingtogether on the same Corrective Reading

level. The first student is able to readapproximately 120 correct words perminute. The second student readsapproximately 50 correct words perminute. The teacher explains that thesecond student has no phonologicalawareness, yet she does not under-stand why he is constantly frustratedand gives up while attempting to com-plete the lessons in a book that doesnot address his specific needs orappropriate level. The first student isbored and reads ahead instead of work-

ing at his peer's slower pace. Neitherof the students was given a placementtest, and the teacher is unaware ofwhat programs were used with thesestudents the previous year.

Another teacher says, "We don't havetime to repeat sections when students

make two or more errors. They make

so many mistakes; it would take forev-er to complete one lesson!" This

teacher was also surprised when she

saw how well my student was doing inthe same math program she was using

in her classroom.

One teacher's philosophy on Direct

Instruction is, "I've been doing thislong enough, so I know which parts are

good and what doesn't work. I just do

it the way I want to, and ignore thescript." She has not established any

rules and does not use specific praise

to build on the students' self-esteemas learners. For these reasons, the stu-

dents are rarely on-task and have no

desire to learn. The same teacher gets

frustrated with the students, and does

not understand why they performpoorly on the mastery tests.

To reiterate, Direct Instruction trulydoesn't work when:

1. The students are not given place-ment tests to determine the appro-priate program and level.

2. It is not used consistently in theorder presented.

3. The teacher does not repeat a sec-tion until the students are firm.

1 6 50 Fall 2002

4. The teacher alters the program, andchooses not to follow the script.

5. The students are not given specificpraise to build their confidence intheir own abilities.

One of the largest educational studiesever conducted by the Department ofEducation is known as Project FollowThrough. It began in 1968 and wascompleted in 1976. Costing almost $60million, the study examined 79,000

children in over 180 communities. Thepurpose of this research was to analyzewhich teaching methods worked bestwith disadvantaged children in theareas of basic skills, higher-order think-ing skills, and self-esteem as learners,which are known as the affectiveresults (Lindsay, 2001). DirectInstruction was consistently proven tobe most effective in all three areas.

Direct Instruction works when:

1. Children are placed into a programat their performance level.

Direct Instruction News

2. The teacher establishes a positivelearning environment with clearlydefined rules.

3. The teacher follows the program'sscript, uses appropriate signals, andrepeats items until firm (at least80% mastery).

4. The students are given specific pos-itive praise, building on theirstrengths and motivating them tosucceed.

As a young reacher, I tend to be ideal-istic. I believe that through teaching, Ican change the world. When presentedwith a new curriculum, every teacheris a skeptic. The first time I went to atraining seminar, I was very hesitant toaccept this unfamiliar teachingmethod. What people do not seem tounderstand is that using a script doesnot mean losing your own voice. Thewriters have already discovered scien-tifically the natural progression ofskills being taught. The script allowsyou to concentrate on how you are pre-

51

senting the material, and focus moreon the students and giving them thesupport they need. For educators, themost important thing to understand isthat Direct Instruction works for a rea-son. All of the intricacies within theprogram serve a purpose, and it isunderstanding that purpose thatmakes a strong Direct Instructionteacher. It is not questioning the valid-ity of the program, but instead ques-tioning our own teaching practices toensure that all students are learning totheir fullest potential. Ar41-

ReferencesAdams, G., & Engelmann, S. (1996). Research

on Direct Instruction: 25 years beyond

DISTAR. Seattle, WA: EducationalAchievement Systems.

Lindsay, J. (2001). Direct Instruction: Themost successful teaching model. RetrievedNovember 25, 2001, from http://www.jefflindsay.com/EdcuData.shtml

1 7

MARTIN A. KOZLOFF, University of North Carolina, Wilmington

Rhetoric and Revolution:Kenneth Goodman's"Psycholinguistic Guessing Game"

IntroductionPromoters and teachers of whole lan-

guage argue that:

1. Whole language is more effective

than other forms of reading instruc-

tion.

2. This alleged superiority reflects

specific features of whole language;

e.g.,

34

a. "Implicit" instruction that is lessfocused on precise learning objec-tives, involves less teacher direc-

tion, and requires students to con-struct knowledge of phonic andspelling rules (Goodman, 1986).

b. Much instruction on specific skills(e.g., phonics) is given as needed,

during mini-lessons.

c. There is an emphasis on learning inwhat are called "authentic con-

52

texts"; e.g., learning phonics (whichsounds go with which letters) andvocabulary during independentreading and when watching and lis-

tening to the teacher read books(Smith, 1985).

3. These design features flow from amore adequate understanding oflanguage and reading (Daniels,

Zemelman, & Bizar, 2000; Powell &Hornsby, 1993).

Recent research on reading and assess-

ments of whole language challenge theclaim of greater effectiveness.

Specifically,

1. Controlled longitudinal experimen-tal research shows that instruction

on phonemic awareness, decoding,

Fall 2002

reading fluency, spelling, and com-prehension that focuses on specificskills, involves explicit communica-tion of rules and strategies by theteacher, is precisely and logicallysequenced, and provides systematicdistributed practice is reliably supe-rior for a wider range of studentsthan implicit (less focused) instruc-tion that requires students to con-struct their own knowledge(Fletcher & Lyon, 1998; Foorman,Francis, Fletcher, Schatschneider, &Mehta, 1998; Gough, 1993;Liberman, 1999; National ReadingPanel, 2000).

2. Evaluation research at state andcounty levels shows that achieve-ment of students taught with wholelanguage and Reading Recoverythe remedial branch of whole lan-guageis not as high as claimed bywhole language proponents and isless reliably effective than instruc-tion provided by field tested curricu-la involving focused, teacher-direct-ed instruction (Chapman, Tunmer,& Prochnow, 1999; Heibert, 1995;Moats, 2000; San Diego UnifiedSchool District, 1999; Stahl,McKenna, & Pagnucco, 1994).

It is important as well to examine theconceptual apparatus of whole lan-guage. What assumptions are made?How is reading understood? How aremethods of assessment and instructionderived from the conceptualization ofreading? If the assumptions and/orconceptualization of reading areflawed, then whole language assess-ment and instruction derived from aflawed foundation are likely them-selves to be flawed. If so, this mayhelp to explain the (at best) uneveneffectiveness of whole language.

Goodman'sGuessing GameWhole language proponents citeKenneth Goodman's 1967 paper("Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing

Direct Instruction News

game") as one of the first in theircanonthe paper that fostered thewhole language movement, or revolu-tion (Goodman, 1976) and continuesto guide and legitimize whole languageactivities (Pappas & Pettegrew, 1998).Goodman clearly saw the paper thesame wayas offering "a more viablescientific alternative" to what hedubbed "preexisting, naive, commonsense notions" about reading that"interfere with the application of mod-ern scientific concepts of language andthought to research on reading"(Goodman, 1967, p. 126). Let us takeGoodman at his word. Let us examine

If the assumptions andlorconceptualization of reading

are flawed, then whole

_language assessment and

instruction derived from a

flawed foundation are likely

themselves to be flawed

his "more viable scientific alternative"to see how he crafted a new founda-tion for reading research and instruc-tion; to determine whether it satisfiesthe criteria for a viable or even scien-tific alternative; and to understandbetter how his ideas were so easilyaccepted and spawned the whole lan-guage movement.

In simplest terms, Goodman presentsa conception of reading as a guessinggame. He provides no logical, empiri-cal, or commonsensical support for thisconception. He then presents a highlyselective set of passage misreadings bya child. These misreadings are notcalled errors; they are "miscues."These misreadings are interpreted in away that fits Goodman's guessing-game formulation (although otherinterpretationsfrom the phonic andword centered approaches he dispar-agesare more obvious and reason-

5 3

able). Goodman then uses the mis-reading examples as verification of hisconception of readingalthough theonly credible use of the exampleswould be a demonstration that it ispossible to interpret misreadings thatway. The paper ends by suggestingthat the implication for instruction isteaching children to play the guessinggame more skillfully. Following is acloser examination of the logical struc-ture of Goodman's paper.

The Opening GambitGoodman's paper begins with a com-mon rhetorical devicecaricature of. aself-created adversary. Specifically, hecreates a binary opposition of then cur-rent conceptions of reading and theirassociated methods of teaching: "phon-ic centered" and "word centered." Hereduces these approaches to a fewstatements that would lead readers toagree with Goodman that these concep-tions are simplistic and must be wrong.For example,

...the common sense notion Iseek here to refute is this:'Reading is a precise process. Itinvolves exact, detailed, sequen-tial perception and identificationof letters, words, spelling pat-terns and larger language units.'In phonic centered approachesto reading, the preoccupation iswith precise letter identification.In word centered approaches,the focus is on word identifica-tion... (p. 126).

Goodman then writes, "In place ofthis misconception, I offer this..."his allegedly "more viable scientificalternative" foreshadowed in thepaper's abstract.

Note the artful way that Goodman setsup the reader.

1. He labels the phonic and word cen-tered approaches "common sensenotions," despite the great deal of

35

scientific research done in supportof each oneespecially theapproach that advocated teachingphonics in a systematic way duringbeginning reading. Yet, he does notcite this research or even hint thatthere was any. These approaches arenot presented as bodies of knowl-edge that may have some flaws.Rather, in contrast to his self-val-orized "scientific alternative," read-ers are to consider them mere com-mon sense notions.

2. In contrast to standard practice inscience, Goodman presents no datathat the phonic and word centeredapproaches do not work. He con-ducts no experimentsindeed, hecites no research at allshowingthat whole language instruction(derived from his guessing gameformulation of reading) is moreeffective than the phonic centeredand word centered approaches hewishes to replace. And, although hecalls them "misconceptions," hedoes not analyze the intellectualapparatus behind the phonic cen-tered and word centered approach-es (e.g., their theories of reading) toshow they are logically flawed.

In other words, Goodman does nothingto (in his own words) "refute" thesecommon sense notions. His only claimto readers' attentionand the onlywarrant for his "scientific" alterna-tiveis an unsubstantiated openingpitch that there are two preexistingalternatives; that these alternatives aremerely common sense notions; andthat they are misconceptions.

The New ModelGoodman then presents his "scientif-ic" alternative.

... I offer this: "Reading is a selectiveprocess. It involves partial use ofavailable minimal language cuesselected from perceptual input on thebasis of the reader's expectation. Asthis partial information is processed,

36

tentative decisions are made to beconfirmed, rejected, or refined asreading progrOsses." More simplystated, reading is a psycholinguisticguessing game. It involves an interac-tion between thought and language.Efficient reading does not result fromprecise perception and identificationof all the elements, but from skill inselecting the fewest, most productivecues necessary to produce guesseswhich are right the first time. Theability to anticipate that which will beseen, of course, is vital in reading, justas the ability to anticipate what has

In contrast to standardpractice in science, Goodman

presents no data that thephonic and word anteredapproaches do not work.

not yet been heard is vital in listening(pp. 127-128).

That is Goodman's new conception ofreadinghis more viable scientificalternative. Goodman's conceptionconsists of the following proposi-tionstaken from his initial statement(above) and from the summary of his"model" at the end of the paper.

1. "Efficient reading does not resultfrom precise perception and identi-fication of all the elements."

2. Reading "involves an interactionbetween thought and language."

3. "Reading is a selective process."

4. This selecting process "involvespartial use of available minimal lan-guage cues..."

5. Efficient reading results "from skillin selecting the fewest, most pro-ductive cues..."

6. These cues are at first graphic cues(p. 135).

5 4

7. These cues are "selected from per-ceptual input on the basis of thereader's expectation." They are"guided by constraints set upthrough prior choices, his languageknowledge, his cognitive styles andstrategies he has learned" (p. 135).

8. These cues provide "partial infor-mation."

9. The reader "forms a perceptualimage using these cues and hisanticipated cues" (p. 135).

10. The reader "searches his memoryfor related syntactic, semantic, andphonological cues."

11. This memory search "may lead toselection of more graphic cues andto reforming the perceptualimage" (p. 135).

12. These cues are "necessary to pro-duce guesses which are right thefirst time."

13. The reader then "makes a guess ortentative choice consistent withgraphic cues. Semantic analysisleads to partial decoding as far aspossible" (p. 135).

14. This partial information "isprocessed, tentative decisions aremade to be confirmed, rejected, orrefined as reading progresses."

15. "If no guess is possible, he checksthe recalled perceptual input andtries again" (p. 135).

16. "If a guess is still not possible, hetakes another look at the text togather more graphic cues" (p. 135).

17. "If the tentative choice is notacceptable semantically or syntac-tically, then he regresses, scanningfrom right to left along the lineand up the page to locate a pointof semantic or syntactic inconsis-tency" (p. 135).

18. "When such a point [semantic orsyntactic inconsistency. MK] isfound, he starts over at that point"(p. 135).

Fall 2002

19. "If no inconsistency can be identi-fied, he reads on seeking some cuewhich will make it possible to rec-oncile the anamolous [sic] situa-tion" (p. 135).

20. "If the choice is acceptable,decoding is extended, meaning isassimilated with prior meaning andprior meaning is accommodated, ifnecessary" (p. 135).

21. "Then the cycle continues" (p.135).

22. The above propositions enable oneto see reading as a "psycholinguis-tic guessing game."

Metorical Devicesand Logical Fallaciesin Goodman'sGuessing GameGoodman's new conception of readingis unsatisfactory in several ways.

It is speculation, not science.

A defining feature of science (in con-trast to metaphysics, opinion, fantasy,and madness) is that propositions,arguments, theories, and conceptualschemes are judged viable and scien-tific not because proponents say so,but on the basis of empirical evidenceand sound reasoning. Science alsorequires that writers define termsespecially when terms are new or maybe misunderstood. However,Goodman's version of scienceat leastin his articleappears not to requireany empirical evidence or effort atclear definition. He offers no datawhatever to support his assertionsthat, for example,

1. Reading does not result from "pre-cise perception and identification ofall the elements."

2. Readers "select" "productive cues,"and then guess at what words sayand mean.

Direct Instruction News

3. "Readers utilize not one, but threekinds of information simultaneous-ly" (p. 131).

Nor does he explicate the meaning of"cue," "guess," "thought," "language,"or even "reading."

The absence of evidence and clear definition

weakens Goodman's claim that he offers a

vthble scientific alternative conception of

reading. Still, Goodman managed tohelp fashion a new definition of sci-encea science with neither data norreasoning nor defined concepts, a sci-ence indistinguishable from specula-tion and wishful thinking. However,

Howevei; Goodman's version

of scienceat /east in hisarticleappears not to

require.any empirizatevidence

or effort at c/ear definition.

this revisionist science well servedlater whole language teachers, writers,researchers, and advocates who (guid-ed by Goodman) no longer feltobliged to abide byor even acceptthe legitimacy oftraditional scien-tific rules about external verificationof claims via tests available to otherpersons (Moats, 2000). In theabsence of empirical evidence, we canonly assess the adequacy ofGoodman's new guessing game con-ception of reading by examining thelogical adequacy of his propositions,as shown below.

Goodman's conception of readingcommits the fallacy of hasty gener-alization, or converse accident.Goodman's paper implies that his newconception embraces all of reading.He does not say that only certain ele-ments of reading, at some times, forsome readers are part of a guessinggame. Rather, "(R)eading is a psy-cholinguistic guessing game." It is forall readers a process of selecting cues,

BEST COPY AVAILABLE 55

and then guessing, confirming, reject-ing, or refining tentative decisionsabout what sounds letters make, whata word says and means, what a periodand comma imply, how words arespelled. However, such guessing, cueselecting, and decision makingarguably apply only to (a) beginningreaders; (b) older readers who havenot been taught to read and under-stand text based on solid knowledge(and the automatic application) ofsound/symbol correspondence, punctu-ation, spelling, subject/predicate,cause/effect, and so forth; or (c)skilled readers who have run into anew and difficult word. Considerpropositions 13-21. Is it reasonable toassert that these activities apply to allreaders? Is there any evidence thatskilled readers guess at every wordasif reading (fluent reading) were aseries of tentative choices?

Another example of hasty generaliza-tion is Goodman's use of readingerrorscalled "miscues"as the onlyevidence that all reading is guessing.Goodman's paper does not providesamples of fluent reading to substanti-ate his propositions about selectingand guessing. This may be because fluent

reading provides no evidence of guessing. In

summary, it is likely that Goodman'sguessing game conception of readingapplies only to poor readers, beginningreaders, or good readers who aredecoding unfamiliar words. In otherwords, all that is new inGoodman's new conception is theunwarranted generalization that allreaders guess all the time.

The massive irony, here, is thatGoodman's followers created amethod of reading instructionwholelanguagethat reversed the polari-ty of guessing. Rather than some-thing to be overcome because it signi-fied lack of skill, guessing was nowconsidered a natural and good thing,and therefore was to be encouraged.Systematic instruction on phonemicawareness, sound/symbol relationships

37

(m says mrnm), word attack, andspelling was now unnaturala badthing to be discouraged. Whole lan-guage teachers therefore explicitlyand systematically taught new read-ers the guessing strategy used by poorreaders for making errors, and calledit fine.

Goodman's conception of readingas a guessing game commits thefallacy of reification, or hypostati-zation. In other words, Goodmantreats abstract terms ("reconcile theanamolous [sid situation," assimila-tion, accommodation) and metaphoricfictions ("searches his memory for...cues," "he checks the recalled percep-tual input") as if they were concreteobjects or events (Thompson, 1995).Recall that Goodman's new formula-tion hinges on rejection of the "com-mon sense" notions that (a) readinginvolves an almost instantaneousrecognition of whole words, or (b)reading involves an almost automatic"perception and identification of let-ters, words...." Note that whole wordand phonic processes are ordinary,readily observable, mundane actions.The reader sees and properly orimproperly identifies letters andwords. Most observable identificationerrors have straightforward, ordinary,mundane implications for instruction;e.g., at sounding out words. ButGoodman will offer nothing attrac-tive to potential followers unless heconjures a radical shift of readingfrom the mundane to the esoteric.Something as cornmonsensical as mereskill instruction will not do.Henceforth, reading processes andreading instruction will no longer beeasily seeable and teachable. Instead,reading processes will be located inthe mind: reading will involve "aninteraction between thought and lan-guage." Goodman now invents a men-tal apparatus to account for readingskill and errorthe psycholinguisticguessing gameand it consists ofselecting, deciding, guessing, confirm-ing, rejecting, and refining.

38

There are two logical problemswith Goodman's reified mentalguessing garrie apparatus. First, incontrast to what we ordinarily expectof a viable scientific account, there isno way to test whether Goodman'shypothesized mental apparatus existsat alli.e., whether readers in factperform the elaborate guessing rou-tineor whether the hypothesizedapparatus operates just as Goodmanproposes. After all, many models of

thought processes can be generated toaccount for the same reading behav-iorjust as demonic possession once

Goodman now invents a

mental apparatus to accountfor reading skill and

errorthe psycholinguisticguessing gameand it

consists of selecting, deciding,

guessing, confirming,

rejecting, and refining.

provided a coherent account of psychi-atric symptoms.

Second, Goodman transforms similes and

metaphors (asif) into objectsthoughtprocesses. However, all anyone (with ascientific orientation) can reasonablysay about a fluent reader's perform-ance is, "Her eyes scan the words andshe speaks them as written." And allanyone can say about a strugglingreader's halting, error-filled perform-ance is, "It is as if she is guessing."Yet, Goodman's "scientific" formula-tion would have us believe that read-ers (skilled and unskilled) actually seewords, select cues, make a guess,check the guess, reject the guess,make another guess, confirm theguess, and then say the word correctlyor incorrectly. If the guessing game isnot a convenient fiction enablingGoodman to make sense of reading,

56BEST COPY AVAILABLE

but is considered a realitysomethingreally happeningthen a readerenacting the psycholinguistic guessing

algorithm (propositions 5-20 above)would be carrying on an internal dia-logue, as follows.

"James said... Hmmm, that t h lookslike it might be there. Okay, I'll say

there... There lion... Wait... Thatdoesn't work. Okay, I'll try them...Them lion... Nope... Maybe it'sthisL. This lion... Yeah, that soundsright. This lion..."

But we rarely see anything likethis guessing process. Even whenreaders make a high rate of errors,reading is so fast it is hard to imaginethat somewhere in their subvocalthinking they perform the mentalguesswork. The only thing availableto the observer of the above readingsample is the reader saying, "James

said, (three-second pause) This lion."Which is the more reasonable accountof the three-second gap between"said" and "This" (and every othererror or pause in a passage)? (a) Thereader naturally (with no instruction)repeatedly enacts multistep guessingroutines in milliseconds, or (b) Thereader simply needs someone to tellhim, "That word is this... Spell this...t h i s... What word?... this. Good.

Start the line again... James said, Thislion is big."

In other words, Goodman's psycholin-

guistic apparatus (which, for science,

would be considered reified fictions, or

hypothetical constructs) is either: (a)incapable of any sort of test; and/or (b)

simply impossible as an actual activity

in real time. At best, his psycholinguistic

guessing game can only be treated as a

metaphorin which case one asks f a

metaphor is the right foundation for actual

reading assessment and instruction.

Fall 2002

Whole language

and upward mobilityGoodman's hypothetical multistepmental guessing apparatus had andcontinues to have strong appeal. Asmentioned, Goodman helped to movereading and reading instruction out ofthe mundane world of common,observable skills and into the world ofesoterica. Even simple decoding oftext was now a complex mental activi-ty involving higher order thoughtprocesses such as selecting, testing,confirming, and revising. Readinginstruction would now require specialskills giving teachers access to therealm of thought where the hypothe-sized higher order guessing game wasplayed. Special courses, textbooks,conferences, and education professorswould be needed.

In other words, Goodman was notmerely offering an alternative to thephonic centered and word centeredapproaches. He was creating an invidi-ous status distinction. He was offeringprestige. This may have been appealingto education professors long known tooccupy positions of low status andprestige in the university community,and to school teachers whose longhours, lack of appreciation, and lowsalary also connoted low status andprestige. By making reading and read-ing instruction esoteric processes,Goodman's paper helped foster theidea that traditional reading instruc-tion was only for commonsense-mind-ed technicians interested in observableskill. Whole language teachers and pro-fessors would be much more than this;they would be theoreticianscertainlya higher class of people. This clarifiesthe facile denigration of systematicinstruction, planned practice, teachingformats, field tested materials, script-ed lesson plans, mastery tests, and ingeneral accountability by whole lan-guage teachers and education profes-sors. Reading instruction was to be an art;

and the reading teacher an artiste.

Direct Instruction News

Miscue analysis and

the quasi-therapeuticAs noted earlier, the only empiricalevidence that Goodman presents insupport of (as examples of) his guess-ing-game model are reading errorsmade by children. Goodman callsthese errors "miscues in order to avoidvalue implications" (p. 127). For exam-ple, the story text reads,

"So, education was good! I opened thedictionary and picked out a word thatsounded good. 'Philosophical'. I yelled.

As mentioned, Goodman

helped to move reading and

reading instruction out of the

mundane world ofcommon,

observable skills and into the

world of esoterica.

Might as well study word meaningsfirst. 'Philosophical: showing calmnessand courage in the face of ill fortune."

What the child read was,

"So, education was good! I hoped a dic-tionary and picked out a word thatsounds good. PH He yelled. Might aswell study what it means. Phizo Phisolsooph-

kal: showing calmness and courage in hisface of ill fort future futshion."

Goodman states, "His expected [i.e., cor-rect. MK] responses mask the process of

their attainment [That is, how he readcorrectly. MK], but his- unexpected respons-

es [i.e., errors, or miscues. MK] havebeen achieved through the same process, albeit

less successfully applied" (p. 127). This is a

very interesting statement. Goodman issaying that when readers are fluent, wedo not see how they do it; i.e., we donot see any guessing game. It is onlywhen they err that we can make a casefor guessing. And then, with no

5 7

rationale at all, Goodman statesthat reading well and making errorsare done via the same process. Howcould he possibly know that?

But as to incorrect reading itseff, Goodman

still has no direct, empirical evidence of guess-

ing or any other activity in the elaborate

guessing game apparatus. He does not ask

readers to, for example, say outloudwhat they are doing as they try to read.All he has are interpretations of allegedcovert guessing processes. Goodman'sinterpretations (miscue analysis) revealthat he is willing to avoid the mostobvious interpretation of errors in favorof the guessing hypothesis. For exam-ple, Goodman says, "The substitutionof hoped for opened could again beregarded as careless or imprecise iden-tification of letters. But if we dig beyond[italics added] this common senseexplanation, we find (a) both are verbs(b) the words have key graphic similar-ities. Further, there may be evidence ofthe reader's bilingual FrenchCanadianbackground here, as there is in subse-quent miscues (harms for arms, shuckledfor chuckled, shoose for choose, shair for

chair)" (p. 128).

It is clear that despite what Goodmanmakes of them, these errors are bydefinition examples of the "impre-cise identification of letters"andthis imprecision rests very much onthe child's lack of sufficient instruc-tion on how to sound out familiarand unfamiliar words based onknowledge of sound/symbol corre-spondence. It seems that Goodmangoes out of his way to avoid the obvi-ous account of reading errorsthechild has not been taught word attackskillsso that Goodman can "digbeyond" the obvious and provide amore interesting guessing game inter-pretation for which there is not a shredof direct evidencenot when personsread well and not even when theymake errors.

In summary, Goodman uses miscuesas a resource for making interpreta-

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

39

tions about thought processes in away that suits his guessing gamemodel. There is nothing in the mis-cues themselves that suggests anythingabout thought processes. But there iseverything in the miscues that pointsdirectly at poor instruction. Ironically,if Goodman's approach were in fact sci-entific, he would provide a panel ofimpartial observers with a set of miscueexamples and ask the panel to makesense of each error or miscue, and thencompare his interpretation with theirs.In this way he could determine thereliability of his interpretations.

Goodman's entire guessing gamemodel commits the fallacy ofaffirming the consequent. Goodmanbegan his paper with the claim that hismodel would be an example of sci-encenot mere common sense.However, his orpiment commits per-haps the most fundamental error thatthe scientific method is devised toavoid; namely, the fallacy of affirmingthe consequent. This fallacy can bedepicted as follows.

If P, then QQ (Affirming the consequent)

Therefore P

For example,

If there is frustration, then there'will be aggression.

There is aggression.

Therefore, there is frustration.

The logical problem is that aggressionmay be the result of many thingsbesides frustration. That is why sci-entific researchers try to identify alter-native explanations (e.g., models ofaggressive behavior, reinforcement foraggressive behavior, a history of physi-cal abuse) and see if these alternativescan be disprovedleaving the original

40

proposition (If frustration, then aggres-

sion) intact for the time being.

Goodman's argument can be summa-

rized as follows.

If reading is a psycholinguistic

guessing game, then readers will

make certain kinds of errors

miscues.

Readers do make these kinds of

errorsmiscues.

The prediction is that

students who are taught to

guess (and who do not know

when a guess is correct) will

make many more errors.

Therefore, reading is a psy-cholinguistic guessing game.

I have pointed out that miscuesthemselves are not direct evidenceof any mental guessing game activi-ty. Goodman has simply interpretedthem that way. And there is no way to"dig" into anyone's thought processesto determine whether Goodman isright or wrong. Even so, there areother explanations for these miscuesbesides an hypothesized mental guess-ing game. The strongest candidatealternative is poor instruction. Atleast that is a plausible rival explana-tion (Hempenstall, 1999). A studentmakes half a dozen errors trying tosound out "philosophical" because hewas not taught exactly how to sound itout. He is not firm on eachletter/sound combination; he is notfirm on sounding out a letter or blend,holding the sound and scanning theword for the next letter or blend. Hesays "hoped" instead of "opened"because, again, he is not firm on thesounding out strategy, and because he

has not had a teacher who systemati-cally juxtaposed similar lookingwordshoped/openedand demon-strated again and again that they aresounded out differently.

In summary, it may be that many readingerrors are NOT the result of guessingassome sort of natural processbut aretaught. A student reads a passage andsays "fort" rather than "fortune." Theteacher or tutor simply (and improper-ly) tells the student, "fortune." Thestudent repeats "fortune" and goes onwith the passagenever really learn-ing to sound out the difficult word.Predictably, when the student sees"fortune" again, she says "fort"because that is what she has "prac-ticed" so many times before. Or, whenthe student says "fort" rather than"fortune," the whole language teachertells the student to think of a wordthat might go therein other words,the teacher encourages guessing. The stu-dent casts about and tries "future" and"futshion." Predictably, when the stu-dent runs into "philosophical," thestudent will not sound out the word,but will do as she was taughtshe willcast about for likely possibilities"phizzo," "physical," "physicacol." Inother words, the student's errors do notreflect a natural guessing game apparatus.

They are direct effects of explicit

(mal) instruction on guessing and failure to

receive proper instruction on how to sound

out words.

The scientific test of the above rivalhypothesiserrors represent how stu-dents are mistaught; they do not rep-resent an innate guessing gameisrelatively easy to perform. Identify thesorts of errors made by students taughtwith whole language vs. the sorts oferrors made by students taught withmore focused instruction in each read-ing skill, in which errors are not cor-rected by having students guess but byfirming up the sound-it-out strategy.The prediction is that students whoare taught to guess (and who do notknow when a guess is correct) willmake many more errors.

5 3 BEST COPY AVAILABLEFall 2002

SummaryKenneth Goodman's 1967 article helped

to foster the whole language movement,which for several decades was the pre-

dominant approach to reading instruc-tion in many schools of education,school districts, and states. However,recent experimental research has shown

that many of the defining (and alleged-ly revolutionary) design features ofwhole language (e.g., attempting toteach elemental reading skills-such asphonemic awareness, sound/symbol cor-

respondence, word identification, andspelling-in the context of complexreading and writing activities thatrequire these very skills) are at oddswith what is known about effectiveinstruction. In addition, evaluationresearch shows that whole language is

often less effective than its advocatesclaim, and is specifically less effectivethan field-tested curricula that providesystematic, explicit, comprehensive,precisely planned and logically progres-sive instruction on all of the elementaland complex skills in reading.

This paper examined the "viable" and"scientific" model of reading proposedby Kenneth Goodman-a model thathas guided both the methods used inwhole language (e.g., implicit, as-need-ed instruction; miscue analysis) andthe ways whole language advocates

legitimize and valorize their actions.The examination of Goodman's "psy-cholinguistic guessing game" modelrevealed that Goodman:

1. Provides no data that adequatelysupport his presumption that thereis any such guessing game appara-

tus. This may be because the guess-ing game is in fact a metaphor.

2. Uses a small and selective sample ofreading behavior (errors, or "mis-cues") as evidence that readers usethe psycholinguistic guessing game.

3. Interprets these errors in a way thatsupports the guessing game model,but fails to consider plausible alter-native interpretations and offers no

Direct Instruction News

evidence of interobserver reliabilityof his interpretations. (SeeHempenstall 119991 for a reasonedand extensive critique of miscueanalysis.)

4. Commits the fallacy of hasty gener-alization by asserting that his inter-pretations of some readers' guessingerrors imply that all readers use theguessing apparatus.

5. Commits the fallacy of affirmingthe consequent when he reasonsthat errors signify the existence of apsycholinguistic guessing apparatus,when (and more reasonably) errorssignify poor instruction.

In summary, it appears that the wholelanguage movement-with all of itspublications, assessment instrumentsand devices, conferences and organi-zations, college courses, classroommethods, and consequences for youngreaders-rests on a mere metaphor(the psycholinguistic guessing game)supported by assorted logical fallacies.An interesting sociological questionis, what cultural circumstances dis-posed so many education students,administrators, college professors,boards of education, and veteranteachers to so easily and so thorough-ly accept Goodman's psycholinguisticguessing game as a premise for theirreading curricula? AM-

ReferencesChapman, J. W, Tunmer, W. E., & Prochnow,

J. E. (1999). Success in Reading Recoverydepends on the development of phonolog-ical processing skills. The Plains, VA: TheNational Right to Read Foundation.[Online]. Available: http://www.nrriorg/rr_study_chapman.htm

Daniels, H., Zemelman, S., & Bizar, M.(2000). Whole language works: Sixty yearsof research. Educational LeadershiP, 57(2),

32-37.Fletcher, J. M., & Lyon, G. R. (1998).

Reading: A research-based approach. In W.M. Evers (Ed.), What's gone wrong in

America's classrooms (pp. 40-90). Stanford,

CA: Hoover Institution Press.Foorman, B. R., Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M.,

Schatschneider, C., & Mehta, P (1998).The role of instruction' in learning to read:Preventing reading failure in at-risk chil-

dren. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90,

37-55.Goodman, K. (1967, May). Reading: A psy-

cholinguistic guess game. Journal of the

Reading Special:St, 126-135.

Goodman, K. (1976). Manifesto for a readingrevolution. In E V. Gollasch (Ed.),Language and literacy: The selected writings of

Kenneth S. Goodman (pp. 231-241).

London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Goodman, K. (1986). What's whole in whole lan-

guage. Portsmouth, NH: HeinemannEducational Books.

Gough, P (1993). The beginning of decoding.Reading and Writing: An Interdisdplinary

Journal, 5, 181-192.Hempenstall, K. (1999). Miscue analysis: A

critique. Effective School Practices, /7(3),

85-93.Hiebert, E. H. (1995). Reading Recovery in

the United States: What differences (Inesit make to an age cohort? Educational

Researcher, 23(9), 15-25.

Liberman, A. M. (1999). The readingresearcher and the reading teacher needthe right theory of speech. Scientific Studiesof Reading, 3,95-111.

Moats, L. C. (2000). Whole language lives on:The illusion of "balanced" reading instruc-tion. Washington, DC: Thomas B.Fordham Foundation. [Online]. Available:http://www.edexcellence.net/library/wholelang/moats.html#foreword

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching chil-dren to read. National Institute of ChildHealth and Development. Washington,DC: US Department of Health andHuman Services.

Pappas, C. C., & Pettegrew, B. S. (1998). Therole of genre in the psycholinguistic guess-ing game of reading. Language Arts, 75(1),

36-44.Powell, D., & Hornsby, D. (1993). Learning

phonks and spelling in a whok language class-

room. New York: Scholastic Professional

Books.

San Diego Unified School District (1999).Reading Recovery Research Project. Office of

the Board of Education: San Diego, CA.[Online]. Available: http://www.nrrf.org_sd/rrrp.htm

Smith, E (1985). Reading without nonsense. New

York: Teachers College Press.

Stahl, S., McKenna, M. C., & Pagnucco, J. R.(1994). The effects of whole instruction:An update and reappraisal. EducationalPsychologist, 29(4), 175-185.

Thompson, L. J. (1995). Habits of the mind.New York: University Press of America.

5 9 BEST COPY AVAILABLE41

KERRY HEMPENSTALL, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Victoria, Australia

The Three-Cueing System:Help or Hindrance?

The three-cueing system is an estab-lished element in most preservice andinservice teacher training courses. Itoffers an explanation of how skilledreaders comprehend written language,and a direction for the role of teachersin literacy education. It is one of thosebelief systems the origin of which isdifficult to establish, and the wide-scale and uncritical acceptance ofwhich is surprising to those anticipat-ing an empirical foundation. Perhapsthe system is popular among teachersbecause it appears to reconcile theconflict between a phonics-emphasiscurriculum and a literature-based cur-riculum. There has long been a ten-sion between the two approaches, andthe apparent reasonableness of thethree-cueing conception of skilledreading may reduce such tensionaspirit of compromise prevailing over adetermination to establish the reality.When there are two apparently polaralternatives, seek the comfort of themiddle ground.

Wouldn't it be convenient if there werenumerous equally effective means ofmaking sense of print? That thereweren't essential elements that everyreader must master? Many teachersexpress the view that differencesamong the learning styles of childrenmake any single approach to literacyinstruction problematic. They observethat for some children the early stagesof reading have already been masteredprior CO school entry, for others devel-opment is rapid and stress free, requir-ing only minimal assistance.

Whilst this observation actually con-cerns variations in the degree of litera-cy preparedness of students, a fre-quent conclusion is that studentstherefore require different instruction-

42

al emphases rather than simply differ-ent instructional entry points. A fur-ther assumption may be that there aremany qualitatively different ways ofskillfully extracting (or constructing)meaning from print. Perhaps, they rea-son, one student may benefit most byfocusing on the meaning of printrather than its structure, and so bene-fit most when exhorted to employ con-textual cues. A student may have astrong visual memory for words, whilstanother appears more sensitive to thesounds in words, and yet anotherseems to respond to a focus on the tac-tile or kinaesthetic senses.

The belief such observations mayengender is that attention to phone-mic awareness and/or phonics for allstudents is a forlorn attempt to shoe-horn different learners into only one ofnumerous possible reading methodsindeed one that may not suit their per-sonal (neurological?) style or prefer-ence. Perhaps this perception explainsthe ready acceptance of many differentmethods, including the three-cueingsystem which offers the apparent uni-fication of diverse approaches.

Ultimately, however, what constitutesthe effective teaching of reading is anempirical question, and the decisionabout instructional focus shoulddepend not on belief, but upon knowl-edge of the processes underlyingskilled reading, and the means bywhich skilled reading is most effective-ly pursued. In the USA, the recentnational and state education billsinformed by the results of theNational Reading Panel (2000) havehighlighted a momentum shift fromreading viewed as a natural processunique to each child to reading as adifficult skill that is developed more

effectively under some educationalconditions than others.

The ready acceptance of the three-cue-ing model should not be treated lightlybecause beliefs about the readingprocess determine what should andshould not occur in the beginning read-ing classroom. The implications formthe very core of literacy instruction,and if the conception of reading devel-opment is mistaken then the activitiesof teachers employing its recommenda-tions may subvert the reading progressof students, and in particular, of thosestudents who do not readily progresswithout appropriate assistance.

In fact, the three-cueing system is aseriously flawed conception of theprocesses involved in skilled reading,and the practices flowing from its mis-conception may have contributed tothe problems experienced by an unac-ceptably large number of students.Not only are the practices flowingfrom the system ineffective for pro-moting beginning reading, they actual-ly deflect students away from the pathto reading facility. Sadly, many parentsdo not discover until about Grade 4that their children have been taughtmoribund reading strategies, and totheir dismay, that recovery is unlikely(Chall, Jacobs, & Baldwin, 1990;Lewis & Paik, 2001; Spear-Swerling &Sternberg, 1994).

In developing an understanding of therise to popularity of the three-cueingsystem it is necessary to consider thecontext in which it occurred. Duringthe past two decades, an approach toeducation with strong philosophicalunderpinnings, whole language,became the major model for educa-tional practice in many countries.

The whole language movement itself isrefractory to detailed examination, so isbest examined through its underpin-nings, its philosophical assumptions andits visible manifestations, that is, its

6 0 BESTCOPY AVAILABLEFall 2002

instructional features. The whole lan-guage approach had its instructionalroots in the meaningemphasis, whole-word model of teaching reading. Thisemphasis on whole words was a compar-atively recent shift; the phonic tech-nique of teaching component skills, andthen combining those skills had beenthe norm until the mid-NineteenthCentury (Adams, 1990). It followed asequence of teaching upper-case andlower-case letter names, two-letter andthree-letter combinations, monosyllabicwords, multisyllabic words, phrases,sentences, and finally, stories. Phonicsis an approach to teaching reading thataims to sensitize children to the rela-tionships of the spelling patterns of awritten language to the sound patternsof its corresponding oral language. It isnot a single pathway, however, as deci-sions need to be made regarding thetiming of its introduction, the methodof delivery, whether explicitly or implic-itly taught, whether correspondencesare presented in isolation, or solely inthe context of literature, how many cor-respondences, and which (if any) rulesare appropriate.

In 1828 Samuel Worcester produced aprimer that borrowed a European ideaof teaching children to recognize wholewords without sounding them out.

It is not very important, perhaps,that a child should know the let-ters before it [sic] begins to read.It may learn first to read wordsby seeing them, hearing thempronounced, and having theirmeanings illustrated; and after-ward it may learn to analyse themor name the letters of which theyare composed. (Crowder &Wagner, 1991, p. 204)

Support for this view came from JamesCattell in 1885 in his assertion thatwhole word reading was more econom-ical (Davis, 1988); and later, from theGestaltists who considered that theoverall shape of the word (rather thanthe summation of the sound-parts)should provide the preeminent cluefor young readers.

Direct Instruction News

An assumption behind this approachwas that beginning readers should betaught to read in the way skilled read-ers were thought to do. Given thebelief that skilled readers associatedmeaning directly onto the whole-wordimage, it followed that showing begin-ners how this was achieved would savetime. The alternative view was thatreading should be viewed as a develop-mental process in which the earlystages of developing the alphabeticprinciple are necessary for laterskilled-reading, even though thoseearly skills may be rarely needed at thelater stages. This alternative perspec-

Phonns is an approath toteaching reading that aims

to sensitize children to the

relationships of the.spelling

patterns of a writtenlanguage to the sound

patterns of its correspondingoral language.

tive fell from favor until its recent res-urrection through the interest inphonological processing.

A further assumption of what becameknown as the whole-word approachwas that the knowledge oflettersounds would naturally followonce whole-word recognition wasestablished (Smith, 1978). It was notuntil some time later that doubt beganto be expressed about the effects onsome children.of this whole-word ini-tial emphasis. Unfortunately for manyat-risk children, the consequence ofthe primacy of the whole-word methodis an inability to decode unfamiliarwords (Tunmer & Hoover, 1993), aproblem that becomes more pro-nounced as the student meets a dra-matically accelerating number of newwords during the late primary and intothe secondary grades.

61

The whole-word model involvedintroducing words through theirmeaning as the words are presentedin stories. Words are to be recognizedby sight, using the cue of their shapeand length. A secondary strategyrelies on deducing meaning fromother contextual clues, such as accom-panying pictures or through guessesbased upon the meaning derived fromsurrounding words (Chall, 1967). In awhole-word approach, phonic strate-gies are considered potentially harm-ful, and to be employed as a lastresort. Even then, they are intendedto provide only partial cues, such asobtained by attention to a word's firstor last letters. Systematic teaching ofphonic strategies was antithetical tothe holistic nature of such meaning-oriented approaches. Because teach-ing should not take as the unit ofinstruction anything other than mean-ingful text, any phonic skills devel-oped by students is likely to be self-induced and idiosyncratic.

Goodman (1986) described whole lan-guage as an overarching philosophyrather than as a series of prescribedactivities, and one not to be simplyequated with an instructionally-basedstrategy such as the whole-wordapproach. In his view, the teacher aimsto provide a properly supportive, ratherthan directive, environment thatencourages children to allow the natu-ral development of literacy at theirown developmentally appropriate pace.

There is a strong emphasis on princi-ples, such as, the benefits of a naturallearning environment (Goodman,1986) and of exposure to a literateenvironment (Sykes, 1991). The pro-ponents of the approach also insistthat reading and writing are naturalparts of the same language processthat enable the development ofspeech. In this view, learning to readand write would be equally effortlessand universal if only the reading taskwere made as natural and meaningfulas was learning to talk. Goodman(1986) argued that it is the breaking

BEST COPY AVAILABLE43

down of what is naturally a holisticprocess into subskills, to be learnedand synthesized, that creates a dispari-ty in some children's ease of acquisi-tion of speaking and of reading.

Whilst whole language offers solely aphilosophical rationale rather than theinstructional underpinnings offered bythe whole-word method, the negativeresponses of each model to the empha-sis on the alphabetic principle inphonics instruction are very similar.

Whole language advocates have con-ceptualized reading development asthe gradual integration of three-cueingmechanisms (semantic, syntactic, andgraphophonic). The term integration isimportant because it is made clear thatthe three strategies are not intended tobe employed in isolation, but so quick-ly that they appear simultaneous. Inthis view, skilled readers make continu-ous use of the cues as required. Theyare engaged in a continuous process ofprediction and confirmation as theyconstruct meaning from the text.

Semantic, syntacticand graphophonic cues.Semantic cues involve enlisting themeaning of what has just been read toassist with decoding words about to beread, that is, the next (unknown)word should make sense in the con-text of the reader's ongoing interpre-tation of the text meaning. For exam-ple, in the sentence The rodeo riderleaPed onto the bad of his , thereader's integrated three-cueing sys-tem enables him to produce a wordthat maintains the sense of the sen-tence. "I don't recognize this word,but what would make sense to me? Inthe context of the sentence and myexperience with the world, it wouldmake sense if it were horse."

Syntactic cues arise because of the logicof our system of sentence construc-tionwords and their position in asentence are constrained by the rulesof grammar. Word order, endings,tense, intonation, and phrasing are

44

each elements of syntax. Thus, theword chosen in the previous examplemust be a noun,-it couldn't be a par-ticiple such as horsing. "So, the word Ichose (horse) is appropriate in that it issyntactically acceptable." In order toshow students how to make use of thiscue, teachers are likely to encouragestudents to skip the word, and read onuntil a clue becomes available, derivedfrom the structure of the rest of thesentence. This is usually called theread-ahead strategy.

Syntactic and semantic cues are broadlydescribed as context cues, as they may

It is also likely that they

will be discouraged from

employing sounding out as

an initial strategy fordetermining the

pronunciation of anunknown word.

be used to name a word withoutrecourse to visual inspection. When stu-dents self-correct their reading errorsbased upon such cues, teachers are like-ly to be pleased, as it indicates to themthe operation of contextual cues.

Graphophonic cues refer to the corre-spondence between graphemes (thesymbols in print) and phonemes (thespeech sounds they represent). In thethree-cueing system, the graphophoniccues are employed as a backup ele-ment, to help confirm the choice ofwords. "Yes, the word I chose (horse)begins with an h so it meets thedemands of graphophonic suitability."

According to the advocates of thisinterpretation of skilled reading, theprocess outlined occurs so rapidly as tobe virtually instantaneous. That it isthe integration of the three processesthat produces meaning is indicated bythe familiar overlapping circles of the

6 2

diagram below. Comprehension is indi-cated by the area shared by the threeintersecting circles.

Semantic Syntactic

Graphophonic

This representation is similar to thatshown in Pearson (1976).

The instructional implication of thisassertion about skilled reading is thatbeginning readers and those strugglingwith the reading process should con-sciously master the self-questioning inorder to become adept at reading inthis three-cueing manner. For example,teachers may cover up key words insentences, prompting students topractice making use of contextualclues to predict the hidden words, andthey may encourage students to seekmeaning from an accompanying pic-ture and produce an appropriate word.Students may have the three-cueingsequence modelled to them wheneverthey request teacher assistance withan unknown word. It is also likely thatthey will be discouraged from employ-ing sounding out as an initial strategyfor determining the pronunciation ofan unknown word. Apart from thoseteacher decisions, there is little else inthe way of clearly delineated advice toteachers to ensure such a seeminglycomplex set of orchestrated processesdoes occur.

In the three-cueing approach, thethree systems are not considered to beequally useful; the graphophonic sys-tem labelled the least helpfulevenpotentially disruptive when reliedupon by readers (Weaver, 1988).Reading should entail as little empha-

BEST COPY AVAILABLEFall 2002

sis as possible on each word's letterconstruction. Rather, skilled reading isperceived as a process of continuousprediction of target-words, this predic-tion based primarily upon semanticand syntactic cues, followed by confir-mation that the chosen word is consis-tent with the context (and possiblythe target word's initial letters).

"In turn (the reader's) sense ofsyntactic structure and meaningmakes it possible to predict thegraphic input so he is largelyselective, sampling the print toconfirm his prediction"(Goodman, 1973, p. 9).

However, if a struggling reader can'tpronounce most of the words on apage, there is no useful context tointerpret. Yet, the so-called "integrat-ed" use of the system actually involvesemploying them sequentially (even ifrapidly), with the graphophonic cuesto be the last in the sequence. Whatadvice should a teacher give to a stu-dent when word identification prob-lems arise prior to any context beingestablished? Even if the graphophonicsystem is recommended as a lastresort, how will the students knowhow to use it productively? Further,will they be motivated to do so, iftaught that it is largely unhelpful?

Students are disadvantaged becauseproponents of whole language haveinvariably been uncomfortable withinstructional attention being devotedto within-word structure. The respons-es of whole language protagonists havetaken several forms.

One approach has been outright rejec-tion of word structure:

"Focus on the subsystems of lan-guage results in useless, time-wasting and confusing instruc-tion" (King & Goodman, 1990).

"The rules of phonics are toocomplex,... and too unreliable...to be useful" (Smith, 1992).

Direct Instruction News

Submerge phonics"Phonic information.., is mostpowerfully learned through theprocess of writing" (Badger,1984, p. 19).

Argue that phonics knowledge requiresno instruction.

"Children can develop and usean intuitive knowledge of let-tersound correspondences[without] any phonics instruc-tion [or] without deliberateinstruction from adults" (Weaver,1980, p. 86).

Students are disadvantagedbecause proponents of whole

language have invariably

been uncomfortable with

instructional attention

being devoted to within-

word structure.

"Children must develop readingstrategies by and for themselves"(Weaver, 1988, p. 178).

Routman takes this position further inarguing that only by learning to readdoes phonics information become use-ful. In other words, reading facilityprecedes the capacity to learn phonicstrategies (Routman & Butler, 1988).

Argue that phonics approaches empha-size accuracy to the detriment ofmeaning.

"Accuracy, correctly naming oridentifying each word or wordpart in a graphic sequence, is notnecessary for effective readingsince the reader can get themeaning without accurate wordidentification.... Furthermore,readers who strive for accuracyare likely to be inefficient"(Goodman, 1974, p. 826).

Goodman (1976) argued that phonicskills should only develop within thecontext of three-cueing systems usedto extract meaning from print. In thisview, the graphophonic system is con-sidered a fallback position to be usedwhen semantic and syntactic systemsfail (Weaver, 1988).

"The first alternative and prefer-ence isto skip over the puz-zling word. The second alterna-tive is to guess what theunknown word might be. Andthe final and least preferredalternative is to sound the wordout. Phonics, in other words,comes last" (Smith, 1999).

A decidedly unconventional approach,intended to ensure that phonicsinstruction does not become widelyaccepted, involves ad hominemattacksaccusing those supportive ofphonics instruction of ulterior motives:

"Ultraconservatives advocatephonics teaching because it isauthoritarian," Weaver says, andserves to socialize "nonmain-stream students, especially thosein so-called lower ability groupsor tracks... into subordinateroles" (Weaver, 1994).

"At a meeting of theInternational ReadingAssociation 4 years ago KenGoodman attacked MarylinAdams [a phonics advocate] as a'vampire' who threatened the lit-eracy of America's youth"(Levine, 1994, p. 42).

In contrast to recent consensus amongempirical researchers about the impor-tance of teaching phonics explicitly(Lyon, 1999; National LiteracyStrategy, 1998; National ReadingPanel, 2000), some whole languageadvocates have argued that phonics isrelevant but can only be exploredimplicitly in the context of authenticliterature. The concern about theimplicit model relates to the risk itcreates for students unable to benefit

6 3 BEST COPY AVAILABLE

45

from occasional exposure to importantintraword features.

What is the evidence

supportive of the viewof skilled readinginherent in the three-cueing system?Goodman (1976) described skilledreading as a "psycholinguistic guessinggame" (p. 259). He sees reading as asophisticated guessing game drivenlargely by the reader's linguisticknowledge, and as little as possible bythe print. Smith (1975) expressed thisview succinctly. "The art of becominga fluent reader lies in learning to relyless and less on information from theeyes" (p. 50).

The rationale for asserting that con-textual cues should have primacy inskilled reading was based on a flawedstudy by Goodman (1965). Goodmanfound a 60-80% improvement in read-ing accuracy when children read wordsin the context of a story rather than ina list format. He argued on the basis ofthis study that the contextual cuesprovided marked assistance in wordidentification. There has always beenacceptance that context aids readers'comprehension, but despite con-tention in the literature overGoodman's finding concerning contex-tual facilitation of word recognition,his study is still regularly cited asgrounds for emphasizing contextualstrategies in the three-cueing system.

The study was flawed in two ways.The design was not counterbalancedto preclude practice effects. That is, alist of words taken from a story wasread, and then the story itself wasread. Secondly, the study ignored indi-vidual differences in reading ability, soit was not possible in the Goodmanstudy to determine whether good, orpoor, readers (or both categories)derived benefit from context.

46

Replication studies by a number ofresearchers including Nicholson (1985,

1991), Nicholsoh, Lillas, and Rzoska

(1988), Nicholson, Bailey, and

McArthur (1991) have discreditedGoodman's argument, and found thatgood readers are less reliant on contextclues than poor readers. A more recentstudy by Alexander (1998) producedsimilar outcomes. Results consistentwith those above were reported instudies by Goldsmith-Phillips (1989);Leu, Degroff, and Simons (1986); andYoon and Goetz (1994), cited inAlexander (1998).

Poor readers attempt to usecontext only because they

lack the decoding skills

of the good readers.

Poor readers attempt to use contextonly because they lack the decodingskills of the good readers. As a conse-quence of these studies, Nicholson(1991) argued that encouragingreliance on contextual cues only con-fuses children, directing their atten-tion away from the most salient focus(word structure), and helpingentrench an unproductive approach todecoding unknown words.

A further problem involves the accura-cy of contextual guesses. In a study byGough, Alford, and Holley-Wilcox(1981), well educated, skilled readers,when given adequate time, couldguess correctly only one word in fourthrough contextual cues. Gough(1993) pointed out that even this lowfigure was reached only when theprose was loaded with fairly pre-dictable words. Interestingly, althoughgood readers are more sensitive co con-text cues to elicit the meaning of unfa-miliar words, they do not need to usecontext to decode unknown words(Tunmer & Hoover, 1993). They soonlearn that word structure more reliably

6 4

supplies the word's pronunciation thandoes context; unfortunately, it is poorreaders who are more likely to investattention on such context guesswork(Nicholson, 1991). The error made bywhole language theorists is to confusethe desired outcome of readinginstructiona capacity to grasp themeaning of a textwith the means ofachieving that end. In order to com-prehend meaning, the student mustfirst learn to understand the code(Foorman, 1995).

An additional problem was highlightedby Schatz and Baldwin (1986). Theypointed out that low frequency wordsand information-loaded words are rela-tively unpredictable in prose. That is,the words least likely to be recognizedare those that contain most of theinformation available in the sentence.As students progress through theschool years, texts provide less and lessredundancy from which to derive con-textual cues, and the strategy becomeseven more moribund.

It had also been argued (Cambourne,1979) that the speed of skilled readingcould not be accounted for if the read-er looks at every word. In his view, thecontinuous flow of meaning should befaster than word-by-word decoding.Cambourne also asserted that goodreaders used contextual cues to pre-dict words initially, and then confirmthe word's identity using as few visualfeatures as possible.

These are empirical questions that havebeen answered through the use of eyemovement studies. It has been demon-strated that the fluent reader recog-nizes most words in a few tenths of asecond (Stanovich, 1980), far fasterthan complex syntactic and semanticanalyses can be performed. Eye move-ment studies have not supported theskipping/skimming hypothesis.

These studies (see reviews in Rayner,Foorman, Perfetti, Pesetsky, &Seidenberg, 2001,2002; Rayner &Pollatsek, 1989; Stanovich, 1986) using

BEST COPY AVAILABLE Fall 2002

sophisticated video cameras and com-puters indicate that skilled readers doprocess all the printthey do not skipwords, nor do they seek only some fea-tures of words.

Thus, the techniques of contextualprediction that are emphasized inwhole language classrooms, are basedupon an unsustained hypothesis aboutthe techniques representative ofskilled reading. It is unsurprising thatRayner and Pollatsek (1989), perhapsthe most notable of the researchersusing eye movement techniques, con-sider that the major failing of wholelanguage is its lack of recognition thatgraphophonic cues are "more central orimportant to the process of learning toread than are the others" (p. 351).

More recently Pressley (1998) summa-rized,

"The scientific evidence is sim-ply overwhelming thatlettersound cues are moreimportant in recognizing wordsthan either semantic or syntacticcues" (p. 16).

Bruck (1988) reviewed research indi-cating that rapid, context-free auto-matic decoding characterizes skilledreading. She too had noted that theword recognition of skilled readers pro-vided them with the text meaningeven before contextual informationcould be accessed. It is predictionrather than scanning words that is tooslow and error-filled to account forskillful reading. As Wren (2001) notes,it is only under conditions of insuffi-cient graphophonic information,thatcontextual strategies are employed forword identification.

Rayner and Pollatsek (1989) observedthat it is only beginning and poor read-ers who use partial visual cues and pre-dict words. This view was echoed byStanovich (1986) and by Solman andStanovich (1992) providing a stronglist of supportive studies. This is alsothe position recently endorsed inGreat Britain in the National Literacy

Direct Instruction News

Strategy (National Literacy Strategy,1998), in the National Reading Panel(2000) findings, and in the extensive,large scale, longitudinal research ema-nating from the National Institute ofChild Health & Human Development.

NICHD and substantial non-NICHD research does not sup-port the claim that the use ofcontext is a proxy for applyingdecoding strategies to unknownor unfamiliar words.... The strat-egy of choice among well devel-oping good readers is to decodeletters to sound in an increasing-ly complete and accurate man-

Thus, the techniques of

contextual prediction that

are emphasized in whole

language classrooms, are

based upon an unsustainedhypothesis about the

techniques representative of

skilled reading.

ner, which is dependent uponrobust development of phonemicand phonics skills (Lyon, 1999).

Finally, psychometric studies haveindicated that measures of alphabeticcoding ability rather than of semanticand syntactic ability are the strongpredictors of word identification andcomprehension facility (Vellutino,1991). Whole language theorists hadassumed the converse to be true. Thefinding regarding comprehension isparticularly damning to the argumentfor psycholinguistic guessing, with itsunfailing focus on meaning.

Two inescapable conclusionsemerge: (a) Mastering the alpha-betic principle (that writtensymbols are associated withphonemes) is essential tobecoming proficient in the skillof reading, and (b) methods that

teach this principle are moreeffective than those that do not(especially for children who areat risk in some way for havingdifficulty learning to read)(Rayner et al., 2001).

Thus the presumption that skilledreaders employ contextual cues as themajor strategy in decoding is not sup-ported by evidence. There is, howev-er, no dispute about the value of con-textual cues in assisting readers gainmeaning from text (Stanovich, 1980).The comprehension of a phrase,clause, sentence or passage isdependent on attention to its con-struction (syntax) and also to themeaning of the text surrounding it(semantics). The critical issue here isthe erroneous assertion that the useof contextual strategies is beneficialin the identification of words, and thatskilled readers make use of thesestrategies routinely.

Does it matter how the processis conceptualized?Yes, it is crucial. For one reason, a testdeveloped expressly to assess students'usage of the three-cueing system isfrequently employed to ensure stu-dents are in fact using this flawed sys-tem. The significance of any readingerrors is thus superimposed on thereading behavior through the adoptionof the three-cueing system conceptionof reading. "... the model of readingmakes the understanding of miscuespossible" (Brown, Goodman, & Marek,1996, p. vii).

Miscue analysis is a very popularapproach to assessing reading progressby attempting to uncover the strate-gies that children use in their reading.Goodman and his colleagues in the1960s were interested in the processesoccurring during reading, and believedthat miscues (any departure from thetext by the reader) could provide apicture of the underlying cognitiveprocesses (Goodman, 1969). He usedthe term miscue, rather than error,reflecting the view that a departure

65 BESTCOPYAVAILABLE47

from the text is not necessarily erro-neous (Goodman, 1979). Readers' mis-cues include substitutions of the writ-ten word with another, additions,omissions, and alterations to the word

sequence.

Consistent with this view of skilledreading, the Reading MiscueInventory (RMI) and its update areconcerned largely with errors thatcause a loss of meaningthe numberof errors being less important thantheir immediate impact on compre-hension (Weaver, 1988). There are dif-ferences in the acceptability of variousmiscues. Good miscues maintainmeaning and are viewed as an indica-tion that the student is using meaningto drive the reading process, andhence, is on the "correct" path. Badmiscues are those that alter meaning.Whether the word the student readscorresponds to the written word maynot be important in this conception(Goodman, 1974).

A teacher using the RMI will examinethe nature of the errors the studenthas made in chosen passages. Consider

this text The man rode his horse to town,

and a reader's response, substitutingpony for horse:

Child # 1: The man rode his pony totown.

Asking the specified nine questionsrei,eals that the miscue (comparedwith the target word) has grammaticalsimilarity, syntactic acceptability,semantic acceptability, does notchange meaning, and the miscue doesnot involve dialect variation, an intona-tion shift, graphic similarity, soundsimilarity, or self-correction. Such anerror is considered an acceptable mis-

cue. Readingpony for horse is indicativeof the student using contextual cuesappropriately and a signal for satisfac-tion about reading progress. Theteacher would be content with thiserror, as meaning has been more or lesspreserved.

48

"Often substitutions of wordslike a for the, by for at, in for into,do not cause.a change in mean-ing... substitutions like daddy for

father, James for Jimmy... are gen-erally produced by proficientreaders and are not reading prob-lems" (Goodman & Burke, 1972,pp. 101-102).

According to the whole language con-ception of skilled reading, studentsmust make many miscues during theprogressive integration of the three-cueing systems in order for reading todevelop. It is argued that these errorsare not necessarily a cause for interven-

According to the whole

language conception of

skilled reading, students

must make many miscues

during the progressiveintegration of the three-

cueing systems in order for

reading to develop.

tion but a positive sign of a reader pre-

pared to take risks. Teachers should

expect and even be pleased with mean-

ing-preserving errors. Additionally, they

are exhorted to avoid corrective feed-

back regarding errors as it is risky, likely

to jeopardize the student's willingness

for risk-taking.

"... if these resulting miscuespreserve the essential meaning

of the text, or if they fail to fitwith the following context butare subsequently corrected by

the reader, then the teacher has

little or no reason for concern"

(Weaver, 1988, p. 325).

Suppose another student reads house

for horse:

Child #2: The man rode his house to town.

Asking the same nine questions revealsthat the miscue (compared with thetarget word) has graphic similarity,some degree of sound similarity, gram-matical similarity, syntactic acceptabil-ity, and the miscue does not involvedialect variation, an intonation shift.Further, it does not include self-correc-tion, is not a semantically acceptablechange, and the miscue creates mean-ing change. This response is consid-ered an unacceptable miscue because

it changes the meaning.

"Proficient readers resort to anintensive graphophonic analysisof a word only when the use ofthe syntactic and semantic sys-tems does not yield enoughinformation to support selectiveuse of the graphophonic system"(Goodman, Watson, & Burke,1987, p. 26).

Despite the closer graphemic similari-ty of the response house to the targetword, children who make errors basedon graphemic similarity, such as house

for horse, are considered problematicand over-reliant on phonic cues. Wholelanguage theorists argue that good

readers' miscues display less grapho-

phonemic similarity to target wordsthan do those of poor readers (Weaver,

1988), and readers-in-training shoulddo likewise.

Thus, the remedy the teacher chooses

for Child #2 is to encourage increasedreliance on context and less attention

to letter patterns. However, according

to the research-based consensus, this

directive is more likely to result inpoorer reading than in better reading.

Adams (1991) argued that to improvethis child's reading, the teacher shouldprovide instruction that evokes close

inspection of the letters and their posi-tion in the word, the opposite of thatrecommended in the RMI. Importantly,Adams found that good readers' mis-

cues displayed more graphophonemic

similarity to target words than did those

of struggling readers.

6 6 BEST COPY AVAILABLE Fall 2002

In fact, most nascent readers' miscuesshift over time, from early errors basedupon contextual similarity to thosebased upon graphemic similarity; andthis shift is now recognized as function-al and a characteristic of progress. Thestudent's dawning understanding of thepreeminence of a word's graphemicstructure encourages close visualinspection of words, a strategy thataccelerates the progressive internaliza-tion of unfamiliar spelling patterns, thatis, it leads ultimately to whole-wordrecognition. That some teachers mayunwittingly subvert this process, withwell-meaning but unhelpful advice tobeginning or struggling readers, is anunfortunate outcome.

"Scaffolding errorswhen anerror shares some or most of thesounds of the target word (e.g.,'bark' misread as 'bank') is astrong predictor of reading suc-cess. Errors that retain meaningbut not initial and finalphonemes ('people' for 'crowd')were not correlated with accu-rate word reading ability"(Savage, Stuart, & Hill, 2001).

Thus, according to current knowledge,the house response is a preferable errorto the pony substitution. It may be asign that the student is in the processof acquiring the alphabetic principle;however, corrective feedback shouldbe provided, as house is an erroneousresponse. Through the error correc-tion, the student's attention is direct-ed toward the letters in the writtenword and the sound usually made bythe lorl combination. The responserecommended to teachers through theRMI, that of directing the student'sattention away from the letters in theword towards context cues, providesan alarmingly unstable and counterpro-ductive rule for students.

Child #1 is arguably in greater needof instruction that directs his atten-tion CO the letters in the words. Child#1 might equally have substitutedbicycle for horse. The substitutionmakes sense but is far from that which

Direct Instruction News

the author intended. The child whoseprimary decoding strategy is driven bysemantic and syntactic similarity maybe unaware that bicycle bears nographemic similarity to horse. Theinstructional message to the studentis that, despite the student's errorsbeing directly attributable to the inap-propriate method of guessing, thestrategy is nevertheless the correctone. The student is thereby encour-aged to continue using a strategy thatis unhelpful, and is dissuaded fromattending to the major cue that wouldimprove his readingthe word'sstructure. According to current evi-

According to current

evidence, regardless of the

type of miscue, students who

make errors need to focus on

the letters in the word to

improve their decoding

dence, regardless of the type of mis-cue, students who make errors need tofocus on the letters in the word toimprove their decoding.

The RMI also encouragesother counterproductiveinstructional strategies.Within the RMI, a student's self-cor-rections of errors are considered signif-icant, and they are recorded for analy-sis. Self-corrections are errors that arecorrected without another's interven-tion, usually because the word uttereddoes not fit in the context of the sen-tence. Within the whole languageframework, self-corrections are a clearand pleasing sign that meaning andsyntactic cues are being integratedinto the reader's strategies. Clay(1969) asserted that good readers self-corrected errors at a higher rate thandid poor readers. She considered highrates were indicative of good textcueintegration, which in turn was a meas-ure of reading progress.

6 7

This view of the significance of self-correction was questioned by Share(1990), and Thompson (1981, cited inShare, 1990). They found that self-cor-rection rates had been confoundedwith text difficulty. When text difficul-ty was controlled in reading level-matched designs, the rates of self-cor-rection became similar among goodand poor readers. That is, when text ismade difficult for any readers, they aremore likely to make errors and therebyincrease their rate of self-correction.So, an increased rate of self-correctionis better interpreted as an indicator ofexcessive text difficulty rather than asreflective of reading progress. Thisinterpretation based on difficulty lev=els also raises concerns about unrelia-bility in the assessment of self-correc-tion rates. The conclusion that there isno direct support for self-correction asa marker or determinant of readingprogress makes the activity of record-ing such ratings for students of ques-tionable value.

The RMI was designed to provide a"window on the reading process"(Goodman, 1973, p. 5). However, theanalogy with a window is a misleadingone as it implies a direct and transpar-ent medium. The picture of readingobtained through the RMI involves aninterpretation of that which is viewedthrough this window. What is actuallydisplayed by a student is overt behav-ior (spoken or written words)thesubsequent analysis of miscuesinvolves making inferences aboutunobservable processes based uponassumptions about the reading process.With this instrument, the picture iscolored by a discredited conception ofreading. Additionally, the instrumenthas other weaknesses described byHempenstall (1999).

The RMI has had considerable influ-ence in instructional texts and in class-rooms (Allington, 1984), and remainsinfluential among whole language theo-rists and teachers (Weaver, 1988). Arevised versionRMI: AlternativeProcedures (Goodman, Watson, &

49

Burke, 1987) offers four analysisoptions of varying complexity for class-room use. The rationale is unchanged"... it is best to avoid the commonsense notion that what the reader wassupposed to have read was printed inthe text" (Goodman et al., 1987, p.60), and the Alternative Procedures aresubject to the same criticisms as earlierversions. Although the RMI has been avery popular test, many teachers (forexample, in Reading Recovery) havebeen trained to use an informal proce-dure of maintaining "running records"(Clay, 1985) with their students, a pro-cedure that provides similar informa-tion on types of errors and self-correc-tion rates, and that is based on a simi-larly flawed conception of reading.

The three-cueing system and its asso-ciated assessment tool, the RMI, arenot beneficial to the understanding ofthe important elements in readingdevelopment, and for teachers, provideunsound directions to guide instruc-tion. The approach is responsible formany children being stranded, withoutadequate tools to meet the literacydemands inescapably and increasinglyinherent in education, the workplace,and the wider community. Aix-

ReferencesAdams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking

& learning about print. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.

Adams, M. J. (1991). Beginning to read: A cri-.tique by literacy professionals and aresponse by Marylin Jager Adams. TheReading leacher, 44, 370-395.

Alexander, J. C. (1998). Reading skill andcontext facilitation: A classic study revisit-ed. The Journal of Educational Research, 9,

314-318.Allington, R. L. (1984). Content coverage and

contextual reading in reading groups.Journal of Reading Behaviour, 16, 85-96.

Badger, L. (1984). Providing experiences forreading development. In Early LiteracyInservice Course (Unit 5, pp. 19-25). SouthAustralia: Education Department of SouthAustralia.

Brown, J., Goodman, K. S., & Marek, A. M.(1996). Studies in miscue analysis: Annotated

bibliography. Newark, DE: IRA.

50

Bruck, M. (1988). The word recognition andspelling of dyslexic children. ReadingResearch Quarterly, 23, 51-69.

Cambourne, B. (1979). How important is the-ory to the reading teacher? AustralianJournal of Reading, 2, 78-90.

Chall, J. S. (1967). The great debate. New York:McGraw Hill.

Chall, J. S., Jacobs, V. A., & Baldwin, L. E.(1990). The reading crisis: Why poor children

fall behind. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Clay, M. M. (1969). Reading errors and self-correction behaviour. British Journal ofEducational Psychology, 39, 47-56.

Clay, M. M. (1985). The early detection of readingdiffuulties (3rd ed.). Auckland, NZ:Heinemann.

Crowder, R., & Wagner, R. (1992). The psychol-ogy of reading: An introduction. New York:

Oxford University Press.Davis, A. (1988). A historical perspective. In

J. Estill Alexander (Ed.), Teaching reading(3rd ed., pp. 532-553). USA: Scott,Foresman & Co.

Foorman, B. R. (1995). Research on "theGreat Debate"-Code-oriented versusWhole Language approaches to readinginstruction. School Psychology Review, 24,

376-392.Goodman, K. S. (1965). A linguistic study of

cues and miscues in reading. ElementaryEnglish, 42, 639-643.

Goodman, K. S. (1969). Analysis of oral read-ing miscues: Applied psycholinguistics.Reading Research Quarterly, 5,9-30.

Goodman, K. S. (1973). Miscue analysis:Applications to reading instruction. Urbana,

IL: National Council of Teachers ofEnglish.

Goodman, K. S. (1974, September). Effectiveteachers of reading know language andchildren. Elementary English, 51, 823-828.

Goodman, K. S. (1976). Behind the eye:What happens in reading. In H. Singer &R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and

processes in reading (pp. 470-496). Newark,DE: International Reading Association.

Goodman, K. S. (1979). Reading: A psycholin-guistic guessing game. In H. Singer & R.B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models andprocesses of reading (pp. 259-271). Newark,DE: International Reading Association.

Goodman, K. S. (1986). What's whole in whole

language. Richmond Hill, Ontario:Scholastic.

Goodman, Y. M., & Burke, C. L. (1972).Reading Miscue Inventory: Manual and proce-

dures for diagnosis and evaluation. New York:

MacMillan.

Goodman, Y. M., Watson, D., & Burke, C.(1987). Reading Miscue Inventory: Alternative

procedures. New York: Richard C. Owen.

Gough, P B. (1993). The beginning of decod-ing. Reading and Writing. An Interdisciplinary

Journal, 5, 181-192.Gough, P B., Alford, J. A. Jr., & Holley-

Wilcox, P (1981). Words and contexts. In0. J. L. Tzeng & H. Singer (Eds.),Perception of print: Reading research in experi-

mental psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: ErlbaumAssociates.

Hempenstall, K. (1999). Miscue analysis: Acritique. Effective School Practices, 17(3),85-93.

King, D. F., & Goodman, K. S. (1990). Wholelanguage: Cherishing learners and theirlanguage. Language, Speech, and HearingServices in Schools, 21, 221-227.

Levine, A. (1994, December). The greatdebate revisited. Atlantic Monthly, 38-44.

Lewis, L., & Paik, S. (2001). Add it up: Usingresearch to improve education for low-income

and minority students. Washington: Poverty& Race Research Action Council. [On-Line]. Available: http://www/prrac.org/additup.pdf

Lyon, G. R. (1999). The NICHD research pro-gram in reading development, reading disorders

and reading instruction. [On-Line].Available: http://www.ld.org/Research/keys99_nichd.cfm

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching chil-dren to read: An evidence-based assessment of the

scientific research literature on reading and its

implications for reading instruction.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofHealth and Human Services. [On-Line].Available: http://www.nationalreadingpan-el.org

Nicholson, T (1985). Good readers don'tguess. Reading Psychology, 6, 181-198.

Nicholson, T (1991). Do children read wordsbetter in context or in lists? A classicstudy revisited. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 82, 444-450.

Nicholson, T, Bailey, J., & McArthur, J.(1991). Context cues in reading: The gapbetween research & popular opinion.Reading, Writing & Learning Disabilities, 7,

33-41.Nicholson, T., Lillas, C., & Rzoska, M. A.

(1988, October). Have we been misleadby miscues? The Reading Teacher, 6-10.

Pearson, D. (1976). A psycholinguistic modelof reading. Language Arts, 53, 309-314.

Pressley, M. (1998). Reading instruction thatworks: The case for balanced teaching. New

York: Guilford.Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (1989). The psychol-

ogy of reading. Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice Hall.

Rayner, K., Foorman, B. R., Perfetti, C. A.,Pesetsky, D., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2001).How psychological science informs theteaching of reading. Psychological Science inthe Public Interest, 2, 31-74. [On-Line].

6 8 BEST COPY AVAILABLE Fall 2002

Available: http://www.psychologi-calscience.org/newsresearch/publications/journals/pspi2_2.html

Rayner, K., Foorman, B. R., Perfetti, C. A.,Pesetsky, D., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2002,March). How should reading be taught?Scientific American, 286, 84-91.

Routman, R., & Butler, A. (1988). Transitions:From literature to literacy. Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann Educational Books.

Savage, R., Stuart, M., & Hill, V. (2001). Therole of scaffolding errors in reading devel-opment: Evidence from a longitudinal anda correlational study. The Brita Journal ofEducational Psychology, 71, 1-13.

Schatz, E. K., & Baldwin, R. S. (1986).Context clues are unreliable predictors ofword meanings. Reading Research Quarterly,21, 439-453.

Share, D. L. (1990). Self-correction rates inoral reading: Indices of efficient reading orartifact of text difficulty? EducationalPsychology, 10, 181-186.

Smith, E (1975). Comprehension and karning: Aconceptual framework for teachers. New York:

Richard C. Owen.Smith, E (1978). Understanding reading. New

York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Smith, E (1992). Learning to read: Thenever-ending debate. Phi Delta Kappan, 74,432-441.

Smith, E (1999). Why systematic phonics andphonemic awareness instruction consti-tute an educational hazard. Language Arts,77,150-155.

Solman, R., & Stanovich, K. E. (1992).Information processing models. In N.Singh & I. Beale (Eds.), Learning disabili-ties: Nature, theory & treatment. New York:

Springer Verlag.Spear-Swerling, L., & Sternberg, R. J. (1994).

The road not taken. An integrative theo-retical model of reading disability. Journalof Learning Disabilities, 27(2), 91-103.

Stanovich, K. E. (1980). Toward an interac-tive-compensatory model of individual dif-ferences in the development of readingfluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 26,

32-71.Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in

reading: Some consequences of individualdifferences in the acquisition of literacy.Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360-406.

Sykes, S. (1991). A whole language perspec-tive on reading and writing. AustralianJournal of Remedial Education, 23(2), 23-27.

Tunmer, W E., & Hoover, W. A. (1993).Phonological recoding skill and beginningreading. Reading & Writing. An

Interdisalinary Journal, 5, 161-179.Vellutino, E R. (1991). Introduction to three

studies on reading acquisition:Convergent findings on theoretical foun-dations of code-oriented versus whole-lan-guage approaches to reading instruction.Journal of Educational Psychology, 83,

437-443.Weaver, C. (1980). Psycholinguistics and reading.

Cambridge, NM: Winthrop.Weaver, C. (1988). Reading process & practice:

From socio-psycholinguistics to whole language.

Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann EducationalBooks.

Weaver, C. (1994). Reading process and practice.

Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Wren, S. (2001) Reading and the three-cue-

ing systems. Southwest EducationalDevelopment Laboratory. [On-Line].Available: http://www.sedl.org/reading/topics/cueing.html

MARK C. SCHUG, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee

Statement to the MPS School Board

May 20, 2002

I'd like to express my views regardingthe Balanced Literacy program pro-posed for the Milwaukee PublicSchools. My main point will be toencourage the MPS Board of SchoolDirectors to reject the BalancedLiteracy approach and substitute aresults-oriented, incentives-basedreading initiative.

Several schools within the MPS havehad success in improving readingscores. These include Clarke Street,Dover, Elm, Honey Creek,Morgandale, Riley, Siefert, WestsideAcademy II, and several others. Thereare other schools, often nearby thesesuccessful schools, that are not suc-cessful. What could explain these dif-ferent results?

Direct Instruction News

We know from several national studiesthat some approaches to readinginstruction are more successful thanothers. Research spanning severaldecades (see for example, Chan,Learning to Read The Great Debate, 1967and Ehri, Nunes, Stahl, and Willows,Review of Educational Research, 2001)

shows that systematic phonics instruc-tion helps children learn to read betterthan all other forms of instruction.Moreover, we know from dozens ofstudies, some including very large sam-ple sizes and others using "effect size"analysis, that students who participatein a program called Direct Instruction,an approach associated with the workof Professor Siegfried Engelmann atthe University of Oregon, learn to readbetter than students in other readingprograms. Yet the success of DirectInstruction is ignored or aggressively

excluded from consideration at thehighest policy levels in Wisconsin,within the MPS, and at the Universityof Wisconsin, Milwaukee. Why suchgroups actively resist a reading programthat is marked by school-based successstories, has strong supporting research,and is unusually effective with disad-vantaged students, is a mystery.

Forecasting FailureHere are six danger signs you shouldconsider as you decide on approvingthe Balanced Literacy program:

Resist implementing a reading pro-gram when it is difficult to define.Balanced Literacy is a collection ofappealing words (e.g., deep thinkingand collaborative reading) that, whencombined mean very little. The bestone can say is that this collection ofvague terms reflects a philosophy ofteaching reading. This philosophy isclosely associated with the whole lan-guage approach that has already failed

69 BEST COPY AVAILABLE

51

large numbers of young peoplethroughout Wisconsin and in otherstates, most notably California.

Resist implementing a reading pro-gram that has no body of research.Balanced Literacy is a term that isnearly absent from the research litera-ture regarding the teaching of reading.Common sense suggests that we oughtto resist implementing any readingprogram until a body of credible litera-ture (e.g., 25 to 50 empirical studies)exists. We should resist experimentingwith MPS students who are often indanger of failing.

Resist implementing a reading pro-gram when it is nearly impossible totrain average teachers to use it.Because Balanced Literacy is a mud-dled concept, teachers cannot be welltrained in how to use it. BalancedLiteracy is not a curriculum, it is anideology. Teachers cannot be trained touse an ideology. Teachers can betrained to use a curriculum. But, litera-cy coaches and classroom teachers arenot curriculum developers. They mustwork with students everyday.Curriculum development needs to bedone by others. Balanced Literacyshould not be considered by MPSuntil a complete program has beenproduced, successfully implemented,and evaluated elsewhere before it istried here.

Resist implementing a reading pro-gram where parents have not beenheavily involved . The proposedBalanced Literacy program is primarilythe result of MPS curriculum leader-ship and the Milwaukee PartnershipAcademy. Parents were not involved inthe process until relatively late.Balanced Literacy is not somethingadvocated by large numbers of parents,teachers, or principals. Most of themseem puzzled by what BalancedLiteracy is. It seems clear that theBalanced Literacy program is a "topdown" initiative.

52

Resist implementing a reading pro-gram that has no chance of reducingcosts. The number of students beingclassified as Learning Disabled isgrowing rapidly. Exceptional educationprograms as well as other remedialprograms are expensive to operate.They drain resources from regulareducation. MPS could reduce its costsif children learned how to read thefirst time reading was taught. Thefailure to get it right the first timeresults in a growing number of stu-dents being classified as LearningDisabled or being referred to expen-sive remedial programs.

Balanced Literacy is not a

curriculum, it is an ideology.

Teachers cannot be trained to

use an ideology. Teachers can

be trained to iise a curriculum.

Resist implementing a reading pro-gram where the advocates are notaccountable for the results. Groupssuch as the University of Wisconsin,Milwaukee, the MetropolitanMilwaukee Association of Commerce,the Department of Public Instruction,and the Private Industry Council maybe great community partners butthese organizations are not the onesthat Milwaukee parents, the mayor,the legislature, the governor, or theU.S. Department of Education willhold accountable for failure. While itis true that the organizations advocat-ing Balanced Literacy have goodintentions, they will not be the oneswho are punished when BalancedLiteracy fails.

Another Way to Take Action

Is there another way? I think there is.I propose that the funds about to beused to hire 150 Literacy Coaches beused differently. Here are some stepsto consider:

0

Define MPS schools that have success-ful reading programs in terms of spe-cific results. So, for example, schoolswhere 75% of the students are profi-cient or above at Grade 4 might beclassified as successful.

Reward now the schools that haveestablished a track record of success.Offer them increased funds to trainmore teachers and expand their pro-grams to serve more students.

Define MPS schools that have failedreading programs in terms of specificresults. So, for example, schools whereless than 75% of the students are pro-ficient or above at Grade 4 might beclassified as failing.

Offer strong financial incentives toassist failing schools that are willing tomake changes. Principals and teachersin these schools should be invited tostudy the programs at successful MPSschools to see what these schools aredoing right. The failing schools shouldbe provided with the resources toallow them to implement the programsthat have a track record of local suc-cess. If these schools become success-ful, then they too should be eligiblefor additional funding to expand theirprograms. If they fail after some speci-fied period of time (e.g., 2 years?),they should be closed.

ConclusionWe know a great deal about the teach-ing of reading. We know that someprogramssuch as DirectInstructionare more successful thanothers. Hiring 150 Literacy Coaches isnot likely to produce success. BalancedLiteracy is an ideology that is appeal-ing to many progressive educators. It isnot a curriculum CO be implemented.Instead, the MPS should implement aclearly targeted, results-oriented,incentives-based reading initiative thatfocuses on how to multiply the suc-cesses already achieved by several localschool principals and teachers. ADI-

Fall 2002

Classical LearningTeaching Beyond the Tests

Do you recognize these scenarios?

Your students read well, but don't demonstrate their mastery on tests ...

Comprehension achievement isn't as high as early decoding achievement ...You'd like to improve students' transfer of their comprehension skill ...

Then you should preview Reading Success, Level A, byBob Dixon et al.

Reading Success is an 80-lessonsupplementary reading comprehensionprogram for any student who decodesat a fourth grade level or higher. Mostlessons take about 15 minutes. ReadingSuccess complements DI readingprograms. We have thoroughly fieldtested the program in sites where DIreading programs are used.

However, Reading Success does notreplace any parts of any DI readingprograms. Students apply theircomprehension knowledge in a rangeof formats, increasing their ability totransfer knowledge to tests and otherapplications.

Reading Success is not a test preparation program. Rather, it teaches legitimatereading comprehension strategies thoroughly, in a variety of applications. Abenefit of this approach is that students can then demonstrate their achievement ina wide variety of ways, including performance on many tests.

FREE TRIAL FOR YOU: Check our web site for more details on the program.Download the teacher's guide, or the first 15 lessons of the program. Try it out withyour students. Contact us with any questions you may have. Then decide if yourstudents would benefit from Reading Success, Level A.

www.classicallearning.com 1-800-969-7234

71.

Register with ADI as a Referenced Consultant

There is a great deal of interest in Direct Instruction programs today, and along with that interest there is ahigh demand for qualified consultants. We are quite certain that there are many great DI trainers out there thatwe do not know about. To help gather and disseminate this information, ADI is establishing a database ofDirect Instruction program consultants (trainers). This data will be distributed via an ADI-published directory,the ADI web site, and used for any telephone referrals calls that come to ADI.

In order to have some quality control, we have devised the following requirements to be listed as a ReferencedDI Consultant:

1. You must have a current membership with ADI.

2. You must provide us with three letters of reference or recommendation. These letters can be fromschool personnel, SRA personnel, etc.

3. You must complete the survey below and on the back of this page.

4. Send ADI a $25.00 fee to cover the costs of building and maintaining the database.

If you have any questions about this program, please contact Bryan Wickman at 1-800-995-2464.

ADI Direct Instruction Consultant/Coach Information Survey

Name

Street

City

State/Province Zip/Postal Code

Home Phone Work Phone

Email Address

Pager FAX

Please check the appropriate boxes.

Reading Mastery I-Ill (And Fast Cycle)

0 Information Presentation (e.g., one-hour presentation to adoption committee)

0 Coaching (do demonstration lessons in classrooms, watch teachers, and give feedback)

0 Training (stand-up training groups of people to use programs)

continued on next page

72

Reading Mastery IV-VI

0 Information Presentation

0 Coaching

O Training

Corrective Reading,Comprehension A-C

O Information Presentation

CI Coaching

CI Training

Reasoning & Writing D-FO Information Presentation

O Coaching

CI Training

Corrective Reading, DecodingA-CCI Information Presentation

CI Coaching

O Training

Reasoning & Writing A-CCI Information Presentation

O Coaching

LI Trai ning

Horizons A & BO Information Presentation

CI Coaching

CI Training

Connecting Math ConceptsA-C0 Information Presentation

O Coaching

CI Training

Spelling Mastery A-F &Corrective Spelling ThroughMorphographsCI Information Presentation

CI Coaching

0 Training

Connecting Math Concepts

D-F (And Bridge)

CI Information Presentation

CI Coaching

0 Training

Expressive Writing I & II

CI Information Presentation

CI Coaching

CI Training

DISTAR Language I & II

0 Information Presentation

CI Coaching

CI Training

Please list the titles of any other Direct Instruction-related workshops or presentations you do, and attach brief descrip-tions of each. (e.g., seatwork, a keynote-type of talk, supervision, training coaches, etc.)

Is there anyone you WILL NOT work for? (This information will remain confidential.) Any geographic area in which youWILL NOT work?

Please tell us as much as possible about your availabilityor anticipated availabilityfor work as a Direct InstructionConsultant/Coach/Trainer/ "Information Presenter." For example, do you teach full time? Can you work five days a month?Ten?

Do you have experience implementing one or more levels of one or more Direct Instruction programs throughout a school?Please tell us about that, if applicable.

7 3

Everyone likesgetting mail...

ADI maintains a listserv discussion group called DI. This free

service allows you to send a message out to all subscribers to

the list just by sending one message. By subscribing to the DI

list, you will be able to participate in discussions of topics of

interest to DI users around the world. There are currently

500+ subscribers. You will automatically receive in your email

box all messages that are sent to the list. This is a great place

to ask for technical assistance, opinions on curricula, and hear

about successes and pitfalls related to DI.

To subscribe to the list, send the following messagefrom your email account:

To: majordomo@lists.uoregon.edu

In the message portion of the email simply type:

subscribe di

(Don't add Please or any other words to your message. It will

only cause errors. majordomo is a computer, not a person. No

one reads your subscription request.)

You send your news and views out to the list sub-scribers, like this:

To: di@lists.uoregon.edu

Subject: Whatever describes your topic.

Message: Whatever you want to say.

The list is retro-moderated, which means that some messages

may not be posted if they are inappropriate. For the most part

inappropriate messages are ones that contain offensive lan-

guage or are off-topic solicitations.

Summer 2003Direct InstructionTrainingOpportunities

The Association for DirectInstruction is pleased toannounce the following inten-sive DI training conferences.These events will provide com-prehensive training presented bysome of the most skilled trainersin education. Plan now to attendone of these professional devel-opment conferences.

Save these dates

6th Southeast DIConference andInstitutesJune 10-13,2003Adams's Mark, Florida MallOrlando, Florida

8th Mountain StatesDI ConferenceJuly 7-9,2003Antlers Adam's MarkColorado Springs, Colorado

29th National DirectInstruction Conferenceand InstitutesJuly 20-24,2003Eugene Hilton andConference CenterEugene, Oregon

8th Midwest DirectInstruction Conferenceand InstitutesAugust 6-8,2003Holiday Inn Mart PlazaChicago, Illinois

7 4 BEST COPY AVAILABLE

le.4°14 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 reinforcelive training. The motivational tapes are keynote presentations from past years of the National Direct InstructionConference.

Informational Tapeswhere 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 strate-gies. 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, WesleyElementary School in Houston, Texas, demonstrates approach. Principal, Thaddeus Lott, and teachers are interviewedand classroom footage is shown. Created by Houston Independent School District in collaborative partnership withProject Follow Through. Price: $10.00 (includes copying costs only).

Direct Instructionblack 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 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 teaching problems, with demonstrations ofcoaching interventions for each problem. A common intervention format is utilized in all scenarios. Print material that detailseach teaching problem and the rationale for correcting the problem is provided. This product should be to used to supple-ment live DI coaching training and is ideal for Coaches, Teachers, Trainers. Price...$395.00 Member Price...$316.00

DINReading Mastery 1, 2, 3 and Fast-Cycle Preservice and lnservice TrainingThe first tapes of the Level Iand Level II series present intensive preservice training on basic Direct Instruction teaching techniques and classroommanagement strategies used in Reading Mastery and the equivalent lesson in Fast-Cycle. Rationale is explained. Criticaltechniques are presented and demonstrated. Participants are led through practical exercises. Classroom teachingdemonstrations with students are shown. The remaining tapes are designed to be used during the school year as inser-vice training. The tapes are divided into segments, which present teaching techniques for a set of of upcoming lessons.Level III training is presented on one videotape with the same features as described above. Each level of video trainingincludes a print manual.

Reading Mastery I (10 Videotapes) $150.00Reading Mastery II (5 Videotapes) $75.00Reading Mastery I II (1 Videotape) $25.00Combined package (Reading Mastery $229.00

Corrective Reading: Decoding Bl, B2, C (2-tape set) 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 a decodinglesson, information on classroom management/reinforcement, and demonstration of lessons (off-camera responses). Price$25.00.

75continued on next page

Conference KeynotesThese videos are keynotes from the National Direct Instruction Conference in Eugene. These videos are professional qual-ity, two-camera productions suitable for use in meetings and trainings.

28th National Direct Instruction Conference KeynotesNo Excuses in Portland Elementary, The Right Choice Isn't Always the Easiest, and Where Does the BuckStop? 2 tapes, 1 hour, 30 minutes total. Ernest Smith is Principal of Portland Elementary in Portland, Arkansas. TheFebruary 2002 issue of Reader's Digest featured Portland Elementary in an article about schools that outperformedexpectations. Smith gives huge credit to the implementation of DI as the key to his students and teacher's success.In his opening remarks, Zig Engelmann gives a summary of the Project Follow Through results and how these resultstranslate into current educational practices. Also included are Zig's closing remarks. Price: $30.00

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 the2001 National DI Conference with an update on her school and delivered a truly inspiring keynote. She describes the deter-mination of her staff and students to reach the excellence she knew they were capable of. Through this hard work CitySprings went from being one of the 20 lowest schools in the Baltimore City Schools system to one of the top 20 schools.This keynote also includes a 10-minute video updating viewers on the progress at City Springs in the 2000-2001 schoolyear. In the second keynote Zig Engelmann elaborates on the features of successful implementations 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?-95minutes. 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. During thattime he turned the school into one of the best in the nation, despite demographics that would predict failure. He is aninspiration to thousands across the country. The second presentation by Siegfried Engelmann continues on the theme thatwe know all we need to know about how to teachwe just need to get out there and do it. This tape also includesEngelmann's closing remarks. Price: $30.00.

State of the Art & Science of Teaching and Higher Profile, Greater Risks-50 minutes. This tape is the openingaddresses from the 1999 National Direct Instruction Conference at Eugene. In the first talk Steve Kukic, former Director ofSpecial Education for the state of Utah, reflects on the trend towards using research based educational methods and researchvalidated materials. In the second presentation, Higher Profile, Greater Risks, Siegfreid Engelmann reflects on the pastof Direct 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 educatingour inner city youth and the high expectations we must communicate to our children and teachers if we are to succeed inraising student performance in our schools. Also included -on this video is a welcome by Siegfried Engelmann, SeniorAuthor 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 apply researchfindings to educational practices. He supplies a definition of what research is and is not, with examples of each. His styleis 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 with kidsin 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 have been 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, 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

7 6continued on next page

EST COPY AVAILABLE

47.1.51.10` Videotapes on the Direct Instruction Model...continued

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, stu-dents and our future. Price: $15.00

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 a sys-tem 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 Homer, Professor, Universityof Oregon, speaking on "Effective Instruction for All Learners:" Zig Engelmann, Professor, University of Oregon, speak-ing on "Truth or Consequences." Price: $25.00

Keynote Presentations from the 1994 20th Anniversary Conference-2 hours. Titles and speakers include: JeanOsborn, Associate Director for the Center for the Study of Reading, University of Illinois, speaking on "DirectInstruction: Past, Present & Future:" Sara Tarver, Professor, University of Wisconsin, Madison, speaking on "I Have aDream That Someday We Will Teach All Children"; Zig Engelmann, Professor, University of Oregon, speaking on "So WhoNeeds Standards?" Price: $25.00

An Evening of Tribute to Siegfried Engelmann-2.5 hours. On July 26, 1995, 400 of Zig Engelmann's friends, admir-ers, colleagues, and protégés assembled to pay tribute to the "Father of Direct Instruction." The Tribute tape featuresCarl Bereiter, 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

Use this chart to figure your shipping and handling charges.

If your order is: Postage & Handling is:$0.00 to $5.00 $3.00$5.01 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

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

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

ADI, PO Box 10252, Eugene, OR 97440N III0. You may also phone or fax your order.

Phone 1.800.995.2464 Fax 541.683.7543

Qty. Item Each Total

Please charge my Visa Mastercard Discover in the amount of $

Card #

Signed

Name:

Address:

City: State: Zip:

Phone:

Shipping

Total

Exp Date

7 7

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

Corrective ReadingSounds Practice Tape

uumo.uu.,aupeuu.

CORRECTIVE READING

SOUNDS PRACTICE

AD.I.1:0 10142 Eugene OR 97411)

AUCKM11011 for Med Instrucnon

Dear Corrective Reading User,

A critical element in presenting CorrectiveReading lessons is how accurately and consis-tently you say the sounds. Of course, whenteachers are trained on the programs theyspend time practicing the sounds, but oncethey get back into the classrooms they some-times have difficulty with some of thesounds, especially some of the stop sounds.

I have assisted ADI in developing an audiotape that helps you practice the sounds. Thistape is short (12 minutes). The narrator sayseach sound the program introduces, gives anexample, then gives you time to say thesound. The tape also provides rationale andrelevant tips on how to pronounce the soundseffectively.

Thanks for your interest in continuing toimprove your presentation skills.

Siegfried EngelmannDirect Instruction Program Senior Author

Order Form: Corrective Reading Sounds Tape

Use this chart to figure your shipping and handling charges.

If your order is: Postage & Handling is:$0.00 to $5.00 $3.00$5.01 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

il v% v ADI, PO Box 10252, Eugene,:lio You may also phone or fax your

card number to:

OR 97440order.

541.683.7543JLAL..j.

Phone 1.800.995.2464 Fax

Qty. Item Each Total

Corrective Reading Sounds Tape 10.00

Shipping

Total

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

Please charge my Visa Mastercard Discover in the amount of $

Card # Exp Date

Signed

Name:

Address:

City: State: Zip:

Phone:

78 BEST COPY AVAILABLE

AlitJj Association for Direct InstructionPO Box 10252, Eugene, Oregon 97440 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

Journal of Direct Instruction (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 whodo not use Direct Instruction programs have joined ADI due to their interest in receiving our semiannual publications, TheJournal of Direct Instruction and Direct Instruction News. JODI is a peer-reviewed professional publication containing new andreprinted research related to effective instruction. Direct Instruction News focuses on success stories, news and reviews ofnew programs and materials 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 spon-sored events and on materials sold by ADI).

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

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

$150.00 Institutional Membership (includes 5 subscriptions to ADI publications and regular membership privi-leges for 5 staff people).

$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 Discover in the amount of $

Card # Exp Date

Signed

Name:

Address:

City: State: Zip:

Phone:

School District or Agency:

Position:

e-mail address:

7 9

/I FIT Books Price ListThe Association for Direct Instruction distributes the following Direct Instruction materials. Members of ADI receive a20% discount on these materials. To join ADI and take advantage of this discount, simply fill out the form and include yourannual dues with your order.

Title & Author Member Price List Price Quantity Total

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

Use this chart to figure your shipping and handling charges.

If your order is: Postage & Handling is:$0.00 to $5.00 $3.00$5.01 to $10.00 $3.75$10.01 to $15.00 $4.50$15.01 to $20.99 $5.50821.00 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

Subtotal

Postage & Handling

ADI Membership Dues

Total (US. Funds)

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

Please charge my Visa Mastercard Discover in the amount of $

Card # Exp Date

Signed

Name:

Address:

City: State: Zip:

Phone:

School District or Agency:

Position:

e-mail address:

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

Order online at www.adihome.org

EST COPY AVAILABLE 80

11 pi y Association for Direct Instruction0. PO Box 10252

Eugene, OR 97440

Thank you to our Sustaining Members

Non-Profit OrganizationUS Postage PAIDPermit No. 122

Eugene, OR

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.

Anayezuka Ahidiana

Rose Alford

Anita Archer

Jason Aronoff

Marvin Baker

Jerry Jo Ballard

Roberta Bender

Susan Best

Judith Carlson

Larry Chamberlain

Debbie Egan

Babette Engel

David Giguere

Richard Graey

Mary P Gudgel

Ardena Harris

Betty-Jane HartnettLee Hemenway

Kelly Henderson

Stephen HoffeltChristy Holmes

Susan Hornor

Debbie Jackson

Sophia Johnson

Shirley R. Johnson

Christopher Jones

Diane Kinder

John W. Lloyd

John L. Lotz

Amy McGovern

Mary Nardo

Kip Orloff

David Parr

K. Gale Phillips

Larry Prusz

Janet ReinhardtsenPeggy Roush

Randi Saulter

81

Ed Schaefer

Carolyn Schneider

Pam Smith

Jonita Sommers

Karen Sorrentino

Randy & Marilyn Sprick

Geoff St. John

Linda Stewart

Sara G. Tarver

Vicci Tucci

Scott Van Zuiden

Maria Vanoni

Tricia Walsh-Coughlan

Cathy Watkins

Paul Weisberg

Sheri Wilkins

Leslie Zoref

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 512 512

Title:

Direct Instruction News

Author(s):

Corporate Source:

Association for Direct INstruction

Publication Date:

2002

II. REPRODUCTION RELEASE:

In order to disseminate as widely as possible timely and significant materials of interest to the educational community, documentsannounced 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 given to the sourceof 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 signat 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

daleTO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES

INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

oE

Level 1

Check here for Level 1 release, permittingreproduction and dissemination In microfiche orother ERIC archival media (e.g., electronic) end

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

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

Level 2A

Check here for Level 2A release, pemitting reproductionand dissemination in microfiche and in electronic media for

ERIC archival collection subscribers only

The sample sticker shown below will beaffixed to all Level 28 documents

2B

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN

MICROFICHE ONLY HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

Level 28

Check here for Level 2B release, permitting reproductionand dissemination in microfiche only

Documents will be processed as Indicated provided reproduction quality permits.If 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 documentas indicated above. Reproduction from the ERIC micmfiche or electronic media by persons other than ERIC employees and its systemcontractors requires permission from the copyright holder. Exception is made for non-proft reproduction by libraries and other service agenciesto satisfy information needs of ducators in response to discrete inquiries.Signature: Printed Name/Position/Title:

.Amy Griffin/Managing EditoxOrganization/Address:

ssociation for Direct InstructionP.°. Box 10252

TIN5T995,2464 FAX: 510 . 683 .E-Mall Address:

smv@ndihnmA.nroDate:

6/6102hugene, int y

75)+3

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,please provide the following information regarding the availability of the document. (ERIC will not announce a document unless it ispublicly available, and a dependable source can be specified. Contributors should also be aware that ERIC selection criteria aresignificantly more stringent 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: info@ericfac.piccard.csc.comWWW: http://ericfacility.org

EFF-088 (Rev. 2/2003)