DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 481 700 CS 512 513

AUTHOR Tarver, Sara G., Ed.

TITLE Direct Instruction News: Effective School Practices, 2003.

INSTITUTION Association for Direct Instruction, Eugene, OR.

ISSN ISSN-1068-7379

PUB DATE 2003-00-00

NOTE 78p.; Published semi-annually. Some articles are copyrightedfrom other sources and are not available from ERIC. ForVolume 2 (2002 issues), see CS 512 512.

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; v3 n1-2 Spr-Fall 2003

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; Engelmann (Siegfried)

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 2003 (Volume 3,Number 1) contains the following articles: "Implementing DISuccessfully" (Sara G. Tarver); "Textbooks: What?" (Bob Dixon); "Introductionto Implementation Companies"; "Seeing Is Believing versus Believing IsSeeing: The Fundamental Problem in Education" (Martin A. Kozloff); "Top TenTeaching Errors" (Don Crawford); "Successfully Decoding Unknown Words: What'sthe Teacher's Role?" (Don Crawford); "Amanda's Story" (Linda Carnine); and"Review of the 'Reading Mastery Training Series'" (Kathleen M. Waldron-Solerand Angela Przychodzin-Havis) . The Fall 2003 (Volume 3, Number 2) issuecontains these articles: "Formula for Success: A No-Excuses-for-FailureAttitude, Competent Curriculum Development, and Technical Proficiency" (SaraG. Tarver); "2003 Excellence in Education Awards" (Amy Griffin); "How toAchieve Excellence?" (Richard Russell); "An Administrator Who Really Is anInstructional Leader" (Curtis D. Jasper); "City Springs Sets theStandard...Again" (Kurt Engelmann); "Technical Proficiency, DirectInstruction, and Educational Excellence" (Martin A. Kozloff); "What to DoWhen Students in 'Reading Mastery III' Have Comprehension Problems" (DonCrawford); "Response to 'Time' Magazine's Report on Dyslexia" (ZigEngelmann); "Emos Thuogths on Dydlexai" (Bob Dixon); "The Failures of aTeacher Education Program: A Need for Change" (Tina Errthum); and "Mastery--Why and How" (Dale Feik) . (NKA)

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

Direct Instruction News: Effective School Practices,2003.

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS

BEEN GRANTED BY

A G44,A

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

1

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

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

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

0 Minor changes have been made toimprove reproduction quality.

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

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Direct InstrucA T1 T Effective School Practices

Implementing DI Successfully

In this issue of DI News, we recognizeindividuals and groups of individualswho have contributed to successfulimplementations of DI in significantways. First and foremost, we recognizethe contributions of Zig Engelmann.As all of us old-timers know, DirectInstruction was born of his creativity,analytical genius, and devotion to chil-dren's learning. The kind of intelli-gence, integrity, and fortitude that Zighas displayed across the years is rarein the field of education. As seniorauthor of more than 100 instructionalprograms, his productivity is unparal-leled. Without those instructionalprograms, there would be no DirectInstruction as we know it today.Although Zig has received a number ofawards in the past, his work has notyet received the recognition that itdeserves from the mainstream of edu-cation. The fact that he was the 2002recipient of the Council of ScientificSociety Presidents' prestigious Awardfor Achievement in EducationResearch is indicative of growingawareness and appreciation of hiswork (see announcement in thisissue). Congratulations, Zig!

With increased emphasis on accounta-bility has come increased demand forinstruction that works. With increaseddemand for instruction that works hascome increased demand for DirectInstruction. To meet the need for moreDirect Instruction implementationsacross the country, experts have formedcompanies that provide comprehensiveprofessional development and consulta-tion. Four companies that are recog-

nized by ADI are described in thisissue. Each of them has played criticalroles in successful implementations.What these companies are accomplish-ing is critical to the continued growthof Direct Instruction. To the manydedicated individuals in these compa-nies, we say "Congratulations, and bestwishes for continued success!"

We know that intensive teacher train-ing in specific teaching techniqueshaving to do with classroom organiza-tion and teacher presentation of les-sons is essential to successful DIimplementations. A series of video-tapes that can be used to communi-cate the techniques used in thebeginning level of Reading Mastery isreviewed in this issue. When I usedthese videotapes in my methodsclasses last semester, I found them tobe a great help in teaching undergrad-uates about signaling, pacing, correct-ing, etc. The five expert teachers whoserve as models on those tapes do anoutstanding job. Congratulations tothose teachers! Thanks to PalfremanFilm Group for producing the tapes,Juniata Foundation for funding, andSRA for distributing the tapes. Andthanks to Kathleen Waldron-Soler andAngela Przychodzin-Havis for review-ing the tapes for DI News.

Hundreds, if not thousands, of teach-ers who want to use DI programs findthemselves in the unfortunate positionwhere neither professional consulta-tion nor training matefials (such astraining videotapes) are available tothem. Fortunately, the teaching manu-

3

Q S oc stZ.

als that accompany published DI pro-grams contain a wealth of informationthat the new teacher can study to getstarted. Beyond this, however, there ismuch to be learned. Knowledge of thekinds of errors that many teachersmake as they are getting started canserve to prevent many of those errors.In this issue, Don Crawford describessuccinctly the 10 most frequentlyoccurring teaching errors that he hasobserved in his teacher training experi-ences. Moreover, he also shows how

continued on page 3

SPRING 2003, Volume 3, Number 1

In this issue

3A View From Askance

6Siegfried Engelmann ReceivesAward

8

15

19

21

23

26

28

New American SchoolsWelcomes NIFDI

An Introtluction toImplementation Companies

Martin's Musings

Top Ten Teaching Errors

Successfully DecodingUnknown Words:What's the Teachers' Role?

Amanda's Story

Review of the ReadingMastery Training Series

Little Rock Success Story

ADI Publication EditorsDirect Instruction News

, Sara IlirverUniversity of Wisconsin, MadisonMadison, Wisconsin

Journal of Direct InstructionNancy Marchand-MartellaEastern Washington UniversityCheney, Washington

Mmothy 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 non-profit, tax-exempt corporation under Sec-tion 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Codeand is a publicly supported organization asdefined in Sections 170(b)(1)(A)(ii) and509(a)(1). Donations are tax-deduCtible.

A copy or summary of the current financialstatement, or annual report, and registra-tion filed by ADI may be obtained by con-tacting: ADI, P.O. BOX 10252, Eugepe, OR97440 (541-485-1293). ADI is registeredwith the state of Oregon, Department ofJustice, #79-16751. Copyright © 2003Association for Direct Instruction.

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

(ISSN 1540-0026).

Managing Editor: Amy Griffin

Publisher: The Association for DirectInstruction

http://www.adihome.org

Layout and Design: Beneda Design,Eugene, OR

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 to 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, Regu-lar 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-tested and empirically validated.

Tips for teachers: Practical, short products that a teacher can copy and useimmediately. This might be advice for solving a specific but pervasive 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 uldress 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.

2 Spring 2003

4

DI Successes...continued from page I

the errors are intertwined, such thatone error results in another error, andso on. Careful study of this short arti-cle is recommended for all inexperi-enced (as well as experienced) DIteachers. In another article in thisissue, Don helps us to understand therole that the teacher plays in teachingstudents to decode unknown wordsand, in the process, he debunks thefaulty teaching practices of whole lan-guage and/or its descendant called"balanced reading instruction."Thanks, Don, for sharing theseinsights that can be so helpful to themany teachers who have to "go italone" in their struggles to becomesuccessful implementers of DI.

Too few principals take an active lead-ership role in implementing DI anddisseminating results that show suc-cess. Karen Sullards is an exception. AsPrincipal of Scott Elementary inPulaski County in Little Rock,Arkansas, she proudly submitted glow-ing test results after only 1 year of a DIimplementation. Those results are

included in this issue. We hope thatother principals will follow Karen's leadand let us know of their successes.

Some of the most successful DI imple-menters are parents of children whohave the most difficulty learningchil-dren with disabilities of one kind oranother. The story of Amanda and hermother, Marsha, is a particularly inspir-ing story of what their psychiatristcalled a "miracle" (in this issue, sub-mitted by Linda Carnine). Such storiesof miracles with individual children areas important as stories of great successin schoolwide implementations, forthey demonstrate that even the mostdifficult-to-teach children can learn toread at or above grade level if providedDirect Instruction by someone who iscommitted to learning to use DirectInstruction properly. They also showthat our schools' expectations for suchchildren usually have been much toolow. Amanda and Marsha are represen-tative of many who have had similarexperiences. Also printed in this issueis a letter from the grandmother of astudent in Pearl, Mississippi, whoseability to read has transformed with the

use of Direct Instruction. We recognizeand congratulate all and encourage allto share their stories with the readersof DI News.

And thank goodness for Bob Dixon'sability to communicate educationalabsurdities through entertaining andilluminating satire. In this issue hedescribes his thoughts about the non-instruction in his daughter's mathtextbook (as well as other textbooks).Thanks, Bob, for providing us with anoccasion to chuckle at the sad state ofmany of today's textbooks.

I'm happy to announce that MartinKozloff, a long time advocate of DI,'has agreed to contribute a column toeach issue of DI News. Martin is one ofthe few individuals I know who knowsthe tiniest details of DI practices andalso understands the "big picture" hav-ing to do with politics and educationalwars. In this issue, Martin shares hismusings about skirmishes, battles, andwars. If you'd like to respond to Mar-tin's column or any other article in thisissue, please pen a letter to the editorand send to ADI. API.

BOB DIXON

*4111WekTextbooks: What?

Every so often, I sit back and look at atextbook, and wonder, has someonegone completely nuts? If that's thecase, then it's an epidemic. Textbookslook back at me and scream, "I thinkyou're an idiot!" They say that to me,to the teachers who use themanyonewho looks at them.

I'm not exaggerating. My daughter'ssixth-grade math book has a wordproblem involving Mt. Everest. Right

Direct Instruction News

above the problem is a picture of Mt.Everest. Someone associated with thepublisher had to first find the picture,then submit the paperwork to get per-mission to use the picture, and thenmake sure the picture got creditedproperly and legally in the textbook.All this is a lot of trouble, given espe-cially that the mother companies ofmost textbook publishers have verydeep pockets. A little,mistake on thecredits could cost a gCnuine fortune.

What, exactly, is the contribution ofthe picture of Mt. Everest to the text-book? Well, it helps,edd more pages,which in turn helps create the illusionthat the book has value (because it hasvolume). It adds to the cost of thebook. It creates a nice little breakbetween problem 23 and problem 24.

I can't even begin to imagine theinstructional value of that picture inthat book. It contributes nothing toteaching math. I don't believe kids evenlook at it, and if they do, they're justbeing distracted from the tasks at hand.

Speaking of "contributes nothing tomath," my daughter's math text hassome good examples of taking politicalcorrectness to its furthest extremes. It

3

sticks in cultural passages and pictureshere and there, with no attempt what-soever to connect the passages withmath. One passage, for example, isabout Bessie Smith. There isn't theslightest doubt (in my view) thatBessie Smith's contribution to music inthe twentieth century was extraordi-nary, and not limited solely to blues. I'dabsolutely put her at the top of my listwhen it comes to music history, musicappreciation, and musicology in general.

I suppose the passage is in a math bookbecause Bessie was an African Ameri-can. I have a suggestion for the pub-lisher: if its editors are sincerelyinterested in doing sompthing positivefor any group of child:ten, includingespecially low socioeconomic childrenof any descriptionpublish a textbookthat teaches kids how to do math.Start there, then add frills, as youdeem necessary, to market the thing.

This same textbookwhen it comes tomathdoes something that convincesme that the editors aren't really thatconcerned about the well-being of kids.In any set of practice problemsanyset at allthe last few problems in theset require kids to do math that the bookhasn't taught them how to do! This "fea-

ture" of the text must be one put inconsciously (to use the term "con-sciously" loosely). I suppose the ration-ale is based on complete ignorance ofthe concepts of generalization andtransference: kids can, through magic,generalize outside of the range of ageneralization they have been taught.

And speaking of asking kids to dosomething they haven't been taught,"critical thinking" problems are a regu-lar part of the text. Those problemsare much like the ones we'd see in abook of brainteasers. Here's one:"Work with a partner. [Good idea,especially if your partner is an adultwho knows how to do problems likethis.] Arrange the digits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,7, and 8 into two decimals so thattheir sum is as close to 1 as possible.

Use each digit only once. The sumcannot be equal to or greater than 1."

This is the same book that tries veryhard to make math "authentic." Andinterdisciplinary. "Maureen has a leafcollection. She has 15 willow leaves,10 oak, 7 maple, 11 dogwoods, and 17miscellaneous leaves. Make a bargraph showing this data." This prob-lem is clearly labeled as "science." Isthis authentic, because a kid has aleaf collection, just like my daughterand all the other kids in the class, oris it showing the relationship betweenscience and math? None of the above.

Do the authors or editors

of this- textbook want

to do something to really

improve the future prospects

and choices for Hispanic

kids? Erst, teach themto do math.

If they took the "science" label off ofthe problem, I'd say it was as good asanything for practicing bar graphs.Doesn't seem very authentic to me,though: wouldn't a really good leaf col-lection have one really good example ofmany varieties of leaves, includingespecially rare ones? That's what Iwould recommend, with the leavesarranged in some way that highlightsvarious classes of leaves. Maybe thebest thing about such a collection isthat it would be really easy to show iton a bar graph.

They have these "critical thinking"problems along the lines: "Jane is 7years older than her brother, and thesum of their ages, plus 5, multiplied by4, is the age of their house. How old iseveryone and everything?" The peoplewho author these books are the sameones who look back derisively at mymathematics education because we

had to figure out when a couple of

trains, leaving opposite coasts andgoing different speeds, would meetup. The problem wasn't all thatauthentic, but I think the algebra forsolving it was. I have nothing againstthe "Jane is 7 years..." problem per se.If you've taught the algebra for solv-ing...just about anything...then noproblem. But in my daughter's text,"critical thinking" means "somethingrelatively difficult to do that wehaven't taught anyone how to do,mostly because we don't know how todo that."

Ah ha! Here's one of those culturalpassages that relates to mathematics.It's about the former Treasurer of theUnited States, Katherine DavalosOrtega. She supervised over 5,000employees. Five thousand: that's math,right? Do the authors or editors of thistextbook want to do something toreally improve the future prospectsand choices for Hispanic kids? First,teach them to do math.

It's very difficult to open this book atrandom and not find something ridicu-lous. Just about every assignment has aportfolio...something or other. I don'tknow what to call these things.They're numbered, like 1 through 25are problems adding fractions withunlike denominators, and number 28 is"Portfolio: Identify a problem fromthis chapter that you found particu-larly challenging, and put it in yourportfolio." WHAT!?!?!? (Honestly, I'mnot making any of this up.) Forstarters, nearly all the problems in thechapter are challenging because thebook doesn't give teachers anything tohelp teach the math. I'd put the wholebook in my portfolio, and then I'd finda special place for the whole portfolio:an inflammable place.

Are these types of problems limited tomath textbooks? Not hardly. (I sup-pose, technically, that "not hardly" is adouble negative, so...) Hardly. One ofmy "favorite" examplesmeaning avery painful onewas in a science

4 6 BEST COPY AVAILABLE Spring 2003

text. It was in a chapter on convec-tion, a very good concept to teach in ascience text. The particular part I waslooking at dealt with convection onvolcanoes. There was, on one of thosepages, a small box with a suggestionfor an activity for special educationstudents: have them make a volcanoout of paper mache. Convection is acritical concept in several branches ofscience, and it can be difficult for theaverage student. I don't quite see howremoving special education kids from

instruction can really help them learnand master this critical concept.

Here's a couple of interesting exam-ples of noninstruction from a languagearts program, sixth-grade level. Thetitle of the program is, "If it's on YourAdoption List, We Teach it." Well,there is little doubt in my mind that ifsomething in language arts is on youradoption list, this program "covers" itor "touches on" it or something likethat. Teaches it?

There is a chapter in the book on pro-nouns. That itself is interesting atsixth grade: most native speakers ofEnglish use all the English pronounsby the time they hit kindergarten, orearlier. For non-native speakers, thischapter isn't going to cut it. Withrespect to most students in mostschools, the most interesting instruc-tional challenge is teaching kids to usepronouns correctly that they are likelyto use incorrectly. Native speakers don'tagonize over "I" versus "me" in sen-tences such as: like candy. On theother hand, sixth-grade native speak-ers and many adult native speakersmight get confused with: If you givethe package to Jake and , we'lldeliver it for you.

If we're going to teach that, then...we'd have to teach it, as in providingsome instruction such that studentslearn when to use I and me and weand us and she and her and that sortof thing. Back to "Something forEveryone," there is one lesson on"Personal PronounsObjective Case."

Direct Instruction News

Exercise 1 of that lesson has studentschoose between nominative and objec-tive pronouns: 15 sentences. In mostof the 15 sentences, the pronouns arein compounds, which is good, consid-ering that's the only time they're aproblem for anyone. That's the upside. It is also true that the answer toevery exercise is the objective form ofpersonal pronouns, which are conve-niently listed on the page. In short,students can do this exercise withouta clue about nominative and objectivecase of pronouns. (I'm not talkingabout the grammatical terminology.

Publishers spend huge

amounts of money developing

this stuff, where instruction

is the least of their concerns,

if a concern at all.

I'm just talking about learning whichform of a pair of pronouns to use.)

The book offers teachers a suggestionfor this Exercise 1. It's in a little sec-tion of its own, in the margin of theteacher's edition. Among otherthings, it says: Remind students thatnominative case pronouns are used assubjects and subject complements,whereas objective case pronouns areused as objects. First, I don't thinkreminding the students of this is nec-essary, given that certainly not onegot it the first time it was men-tioned. Second, as I said above, stu-dents can ignore that stuff and justselect the pronouns that are listed onthe same page as the exercise. Andpersonally, I'm not entirely sure I'dchoose "subject complements" as oneof my highest priority language artscontent items. Let's just say theysucceeded in teaching kids to say, forexample, "This is she" when some-one calls, asking for ;Judy. It's just myguess that Judy might get beat up

7

the next day at school. I wouldn'twant to be party to that.

People who think of DI in terms ofscripts are welcome to go ahead andturn this thing into DI. The introduc-tion might look a little like this:

1. THE NOMINATIVE CASE PRO-NOUNS ARE USED AS SUB-JECTS AND SUBJECTCOMPLEMENTS.

2. EVERYBODY, TELL ME WHATTHE NOMINATIVE PRONOUNSARE USED FOR. (Pause, possiblyfor a very long time.) GET READY.(Signal) "Subjects and subject com-plements."

Doesn't really help much, does it?Garbage in, garbage out. Scriptingwouldn't save this book, by a long shot.Well, it could help a little. One instruc-tion in the book says, "Invite volun-teers to write their four questions onthe board." An advantage of a DI-typescript, if we're consistent with all DIprograms, is that no one gets any invita-tions. The book doesn't say anywherewhat to do if students happen torespectfully decline the invitations.

So what's my point? That textbooksaren't very good? You already knowthat, I'm sure. Concrete examplesjust make the idea more humorousand more depressing. Publishersspend huge amoul>ts of money devel-oping this stufftWhere instruction isthe least of their concerns, if a con-cern at all. At the very tippy top oftheir list is political correctness.Words like fat and man and cat seemlike pretty good beginning readingexamples to me, but they are allpotentially problematic, in terms ofpolitical correctness, or more pre-cisely, in terms of political correct-ness gone berserk. "Fat" might offendsomeone overweight (like me). "Cat"might offend dog lovers, or, possibly,beatniks. "Man" is inherently sexist,although it seems we can get aroundthat last one if we (a) have 49% ofthe characters in a book be male and

5

51% be female, and (b) always showthe men putting flowers in a vase orcooking or having a baby.

Don't send notes about this (to me),please. I'm well aware that not thatlong ago, we had instructionally worth-less textbooks with illustrations ofwhite people only, such as Dick andJane, and even mostly white dogs(Spot). Even the white people weren'trepresentative of all white people. Inreality, I don't object at all to politicalcorrectness, especially when it hasn'tgone berserk. It's an easy thing toaccommodate. It doesn't require amind like Zig Engelmann's. Basically,all it requires is the ability to count.

Actually, it might be more challengingthan that. It isn't easy to both at thesame time (a) make the textbooksauthentk, and to (b) create an idealizedvision of society that doesn't exist now

and probably won't ever. I don't knowhow to do that, myself.

All I'm really interested in here is thepriorities that govern the content oftextbooks. If a textbook is, first andforemost, instructionally sound, andeffective, and efficient, and otherwise isa highly sophisticated tool for teachersto use, then what the heck: buy rightsto some nice photographs. But no num-ber or quality of photographs or essays

or pictures of minorities (racial or oth-erwise) or invitations or cooperativelearning suggestions or anything likeany of these things is going to make atextbook instructionally more sound.No number or quality of noninstruc-tional prioritieseven very importantonesadds up to good instruction.Even scripts and choral responding arepretty stupid if the instruction underly-ing this isn't pretty good.

Siegfried Engelmann Receives Awardfor Achievement in Education Research

The Council of Scientific SocietyPresidents (CSSP), the country's lead-ing science leadership developmentinstitute and advocate of policy on sci-ence, has named University of OregonProfessor of Education Siegfried (Zig)Engelmann the 2002 recipient of theCSSP Award for Achievement inEducation Research. Engelmann, cre-ator of Direct Instruction and founderand Director of the National Institutefor Direct Instruction (NIFDI), is thefifth person to receive the award sinceits inception in 1998. The award isgiven annually for education researchthat has been shown to improve chil-dren's learning and understandingmeasurably. Engelmann received theaward at the national meeting of the

6

CSSP in Washington, DC inDecember, 2002.

In notifying Engelmann of the award,CSSP's President, Dr. Martin Apple,wrote that Engelmann was selected"because of the high qualityof...research designs, high quality ofresearch execution, innovative discov-eries, and measurable impact on thelearning of students."

Engelmann is the senior author of morethan 100 instructional programs. He isthe author or co-author of more than100 articles and chapters of professionalbooks, and more than a dozen profes-sional books and monographs. He servedas the co-director of the University of

The most practical application of anyof this is in reference to textbookadoption. I'm a bit cynical, however,when it comes to adoptions. I'veseen many sets of adoption criteria in

which the notion of children learningwas not a part. I've seen cases where"having blending" scores the samenumber of adoption points as "havinghigh quality photographs." And thenthere is the idea of a "current copy-right." That's some stupid require-ment that schools voluntarily imposeupon theimelves, thereby ensuringthat schools will always have tospend substantially more on text-books than necessary.

Among the many recommendations ofthe whole language guru's at onepoint was that of dispensing withtextbooks altogether. That mighthave been as close as they ever got togiving good advice. AD".

Oregon's Direct Instruction FollowThrough model, which outperformedall other comparison models in acceler-ating the performance of at-risk childrenin Grades K-3. In 1997 he foundedNIFDI, a not-for-profit corporation thatassists schools implementing DirectInstruction schoolwide. In a study of24 instructional approaches publishedby the Educational Research Service in1999, the comprehensive model ofDirect Instruction was found to be onlyone of two comprehensive reformmodels with a strong record of improv-ing the performance of students atthe elementary level. The NationalInstitute for Direct Instruction has beenendorsed by New American Schools asone of the country's top providers ofcomprehensive school improvementdesigns. NIFDI joined the NewAmerican Schools collective of affili-ated organizations in October 2002.

CSSP was founded in 1973 to providea forum for communication and joint

Spring 2003

action by the country's leading scien-tists. CSSP is composed of the presi-dents, presidents-elect and immediatepast presidents of nearly 70 scientificsocieties and scientific federations,whose combined membership numbersexceed one million. CSSP's interest in

the quality of public education hasgrown in recent years. In his messageto U.S. President George Bush inNovember 2000, CSSP President Dr.Apple identified education reform asone of the country's top policy issuesaffecting science.

9

For more information on CSSP, visitits web site at www.mdsg.umces.edu/CSSP/home.html. For more informa-tion on the National Institute forDirect Instruction (NIFDI), visit itsweb site at www.nifdi.org or call1-877-485-1973. Mg--

An Introductionto Implementation Companies

Professional development companiesprovide experience and expertise inimplementing effective, research-based strategies for improving schoolperformance. The following informa-tion is an introduction to four of thesecompanies and their characteristics.

The Center for AppliedResearch in Education(C.A.R.E.)Founded by Bonnie Grossen of theUniversity of Oregon, the focus ofC.A.R.E. is to provide initial training,in-class coaching, support, and consul-taiion that will give educators theknowledge and assistance necessary forthem to implement DI programs andresearch with integrity in upper ele-mentary, middle school, and remedialhigh school. The instructional pro-grams utilized by C.A.R.E have 30years of experimental comparisonresearch supporting the remedial com-ponents and 20 years supporting thestandards-based programs. C.A.R.E. islisted as an implementer approved onthe national Good Schools list of theNorthwest Regional Laboratory. Inaddition to instructional programs,schoolwide systems for managing the

8

discipline and behavior of the school(the Positive Behavior Support Model)is generally a component of a C.A.R.E.implementation. C.A.R.E. has been inoperation for 3 years, has the capacityto work with 20 school districts, uti-lizes the services of 30 consultants,and currently works with schools anddistricts located in Florida, California,Hawaii, Kansas, and Oregon.

By guiding the school in establishingand coordinating a progress-monitoringsystem for setting goals and problemsolving to remove obstacles on a con-tinuous basis, C.A.R.E. will help aschool, or a district, achieve theirgoals. The C.A.R.E. professional devel-opment model utilizes side-by-sidecoaching with teachers from initial cur-riculum training to follow-up withteachers in the classroom to improvethe technical delivery strategies. Thisresults in a very efficient trainingmodel and immediately "makes it rele-vant" for the participants. Theinvolvement of actual students, com-pleting the lesson they were on thatday, sets the C.A.R.E. training modelapart from the rest. C.A.R.E. offers acomprehensive progress-monitoring

10

piece that accompanies each of the fol-lowing DI curricula: Corrective Reading,Expressive Writing, Reasoning and Writing,

Spelling Through Morphographs, and Con-

necting Math Concepts.

C.A.R.E. lists the following advantagesfor working with their network toimplement DI in the middle grades:

1. Sustained academic growth.

2. Sustained professional growth forteachers. Teachers have opportuni-ties to become host coaches, work-shop presenters, site coordinators,and leaders in the state and thenation.

3. Progress monitoring process for sus-taining the quality of the imple-mentation, troubleshooting, andsolving problems formatively.

4. Group-administered placement testfor resource-efficient placement ofstudents into groups (requires oneclass period and electronic scoring).

5. Access to knowledge gained fromexperience and data gathered inlarge-scale implementations.

6. Culture of data-based decision-making at the classroom level,school level, and national level.

7. Shared expertise of a highly experi-enced team of teachers, trainers,researchers, and leaders.

When selecting an implementationcompany, C.A.R.E. suggests that a

Spring 2003

school/district should consider howwell the company works with the indi-vidual schedules, academic needs, andconcerns pertaining to each school andits staff.

An additional component of theC.A.R.E. approach is the "BeaconSchool" Professional DevelopmentModel. A "Beacon School" is an imple-mentation with a system for replicat-ing itself. One or more schools(intermediate and/or high school level)are selected to work with C.A.R.E toimplement the evidence-based pro-grams with the Beacon system of train-ing. These selected schools willreceive a greater share of the resourcesavailable for such an implementation.In return for receiving a greater shareof the resources, the Beacon schoolstaff will agree to "pay forward" thebenefits of these resources by sharingwhat they learn through the Beaconschool training model. For example,teachers in the Beacon school willallow teachers who are just learningthe model to come into their class-rooms to work with them and theirstudents as the teacher trainees learnhow to respond to the specific needs

of students and follow the specific pro-cedures prescribed by the model.

Advantages of the "BeaconSchool" training model1. Initial training emphasizes practice

with students in the classroom.

2. Intensive in-class coaching withinitial training brings greater com-petence.

3. A focus on student performance infollow-up coaching brings higherachievement.

4. Initial wave of teachers trainedbecome the host coaches and train-ers for subsequent waves.

5. A districtwide and statewide imple-mentation can proceed with grow-ing internal support in a verycost-effective manner.

6. Teachers receive opportunities foron-going professional growth andleadership within the district.

Several schools that have worked withC.A.R.E. have received recognition fortheir improved performance. The fol-lowing schools in California had teach-ers who received cash awards fordoubling their target gain scores: Ray-

mond Cree Middle School, PalmSprings; Apple Valley Middle School,Apple Valley; Starr King Middle Schooland Natomas High School, Sacramento.In Florida, teachers from Lincoln Mid-dle School in Gainesville received$1000 cash for student performance.

For additional information aboutC.A.R.E. including articles related toimplementation at the middle andhigh school level, contact informationfor model schools working withC.A.R.E., and establishing cost and ini-tiating implementation, contact:

Anna Judan292 West 12th Ave.Eugene, OR 97401Phone: 541.686.9185Fax: 541.345.2090E-mail: ajudan@hotmail.com

Educational Resources, Inc.(ERI)

ERI was incorporated in 1998 andwill begin its sixth year in the fall of2003. The founding partners are PaulMcKinney, Molly Blakely, and EdSchaefer, and the company maintainsa cadre of 21 consultants. ERI is

ERI Table 1

Tippens Elementary SchoolGCRCT

(Scores include ALL students: Special Education, ESOL, etc.)

4th Grade

% ofTotal Students

' 2000Reading

2001 2002Language Arts

2000 2001 2002Mathematics

2000 2001 2002

Did Not Tippens 60 50 18 43 50 35 80 64 29Meet State 35 26 20 29 26 23 38 38 34

Meets Tippens 30 33 44 57 40 59 15 32 59State 37 42 41 55 58 62 51 51 53

Exceeds Tippens 10 17 38 0 10 6 5 4 12State 28 32 38 16 16 15 11 12 13

Meets + Tippens 40 50 82 57 50 65 20 36 71Exceeds State 65 74 79 .72 74 77 62 63 66

Direct Instruaion NewsI I_

9

presently partnered with 60 school-wide implementations in 22 statesand Canada. The total populationincludes over 29,000 students in vari-ous large urban and small rural areas.The company maintains solid rela-tionships with both public and char-ter school organizations. ERI has noset limitations on the type or localeof the schools with which they part-ner, and the schools they are cur-rently working with represent thegeographic range of the country.

ERI has a wide range of implementa-tion types. The type of implementa-tion is dependent on the experiencethe school brings to the project.Schools new to Dirci' Instruction arerequired to implement Reading Mastery

beginning in kindergarten, Corrective

Reading beginning in third grade alongwith Reading Mastery, and Language for

Learning in Pre-K and kindergarten.The Language sequence expands each

successive year and Spelling Mastery is

suggested for the second year at allgrade levels. It has been the experi-ence of ERI that it is more effectivewhen teachers develop sound instruc-tional strategies over time with contin-ued supportive supervision.

ERI provides ongoing supervisorytraining for site administrators and DICoordinators. They host an ongoingAdministrators Academy where sitesupervisors are updated on new pro-grams and procedures relevant to theirschool project.

ERI maintains a product line tailoredto fit the needs of any DI site. Materi-als include training video sets in Read-

ing Mastery and Reading Mastery Plus,

Language for Learning, Corrective ReadingDecoding and Comprehension; AdvancedTraining and Supervision; and Sounds,Signals, Corrections, and Pronuncia-tion for Reading Mastery and Corrective

Reading. They also market DataMaster,a comprehensive data collection andreporting program; Report Writer, acomputerized program for creatingformal observation reports; Assess-ment Forms for teachers to compileconcise, consistent assessment data onall students; and Writing Extensionactivities for Corrective Reading Decoding

A, BI, and B2.

ERI assists schools with grant writingactivities to ensure that all the neces-sary components of the grant applica-tion process are addressed with the

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

ERI Table 2

4th Grade Reading: MeetslExceeds GCRCT Standards

Spring 2001 Spring 2002

Years of DI & ERI

10

most comprehensive information anddata available.

The conviction of ERI is that theresearch on staff development is clear:college coursework, inservice workshops,

and after school meetings alone will havelittle impact on a schoolwide implemen-tation. Effective continuous staff devel-opment must take place in classroomswith administrators, teachers, and stu-dents. This is the essence of "coaching"which constitutes an absolute requisiteelement of any successful schoolimprovement effort. The USDOE rec-ommends that schools secure "high-quality external support and assistancefrom comprehensive school reformentities with experience in schoolwidereform and improvement."

Recently, two schools working with ERIhave been designated as Title I Schoolsof Excellence, and a third school was

identified as a New Jersey Blue RibbonSchool for Student Achievement.

The Assistant Superintendent of Pick-ens County School District in Jasper,Georgia, Dr. Kathryn Floyd, offers thesecomments about working with ERI.

"Personalized, site-tailored, context-sen-sitive, professionalall of these termsdescribe the quality of training andcoaching provided to those who con-tract with Educational Resources, Inc.

"ERI ensures fidelity of implementa-tion of Direct Instruction with positiveoutcomes in student performance andstaff morale.

This team is stellar, absolutely stellar."

For information on working with ERI,visiting a model school, and costs asso-ciated with working with ERI, contact:

Paul McKinney, Vice-President,Director of OperationsEducational Resources, Inc.821 Forest Ave.

Fulton, NY 13069Phone: 315.598.9662Fax: 315.592.9236

E-mail: dismac@aol.com

IT nnr)v AVA-!1 ABLESpring 2003

J/P AssociatesJ/P Associates has been serving schoolssince 1989, and the president, JanieFeinberg, has been instrumental inteaching, training, and implementingDI for over 30 years. Currently, J/P isworking with over 100 schools inapproximately 25 districts across thecountry. J/P is committed to helpingall schools achieve success, regardlessof location, type, or size. J/P employs24 full time consultants.

The philosophy of J/P is that in orderfor a site to be truly successful theymust eventually be able to functionwithout the help of the implementa-tion company. This means that everyperson involved must be able to com-petently execute the many detailsassociated with a successful imple-mentation. They have a systematicmethod for helping schools achieveindependence and success, labeled the"Five Stages to Independence." Fol-lowing is a summary of the stages.

Stage One: Modeling and IntensiveProfessional Development: all staffmembers receive intensive training inthe DI programs and J/P consultantsfocus on developing a strong Instruc-tional Leadership Team led by thePrincipal and DI Coordinator. Inaddition to instructional methodol-ogy, each J/P consultant is trained inclassroom management and behav-ioral techniques.

Stage Two: Leading and Navigation:J/P consultants focus on getting repre-sentatives of all levels of school staffinvolved in the Instructional Leader-ship Team. The individuals chosen forthe team will be trained to plot theirschool's success, and will lead theschool to maintaining academicachievement once J/P has left.

Stage Three: Testing and Growing:J/P consultants test themselves andtheir sites to ensure that the consult-ants have successfully taught theInstructional Leadership Team how toadminister placement tests, group,

Direct Instruction News

analyze pacing guides, back-test, andtest for acceleration.

Stage Four: Approaching Independence:J/P tests the critical elements of theimplementation. Principals are involvedin monitoring and feedback, DI Coor-dinators and cadre are coaching andgiving feedback to teachers, the Lead-ership Team has developed a commonvision of instructional excellence, andhas clearly defined roles for all staffmembers in achieving that goal.

Stage Five: Independence: J/P testsall areas of implementation. Princi-pals are consistently monitoring andgiving feedback to staff, with the goalof being in DI classrooms 90 min perday. Cadre are coaching staff mem-bers on a regular basis and giving

written feedback in terms of support-ive supervision. DI Coordinators arefirm in the role and monitor class-rooms regularly.

After completing all five stages at mas-tery, J/P will provide the site with aMaintenance Contract. The goal is toenable a site to:

1. Have a clear academic focus andmissionall children can learnwhen teachers have the appropriatetools.

2. Have consistent and structuredstaff development relevant to theresearch-based program.

3. Have continuous supportive super-vision to enable all teachers to betechnically proficient and mastersof instruction.

J/P Table 1

Pre and Post NCE Data as Indicated for Woodcock ReadingMastery Tests for Jacksonville Sample for DI Schools (n=427)

70

60

Z 30

20

10

Pre TestPost Test

WordIdentification

WordAttack

WordPassage

Woodcock Reading Mastery TestsRevisedJacksonvilleDI SchoolsA Sample Subtests Word Identification,Word Attack, and Passage ComprehensionFour hundred twenty-seven children in Jacksonville DI Schools were adminis-tered three subtests in reading from the test indicated in the title. In WordIdentification the child is asked to give the correct pronunciation of variouswords in a list. The chart demonstrates the progress made by students in DIschools. The pretest was administered in August 1999 and the posttest in April2000. Instruction covered 8 months. Students in DI schools made significantprogress in only 8 months of instruction with J/P training and coaching.

13 11

4. Develop strong instructional leaderswho focus on literacy, develop anefficient instructional leadershipteam, and ensure a safe and effec-tive environment for all students.

The following components areincluded in J/P implementations ateach stage in the plan for independ-ence: effective research-based meth-

ods and strategies; comprehensivedesign for effective school functioning,from scheduling to management totraining, so that all children will beacademically successful; professionaldevelopment, prior to the beginning ofthe school year and ongoing trainingthroughout the implementation;benchmark standards and lesson pac-

ing monitoring; staff support forimplementation; comprehensive Par-ent Involvement program; supportivesupervision with monthly coaching for

all instructors and consistent feedbackto the staff; and data analysis.

J/P also provides grant writing assis-

tance to their sites. An experiencedgrant writer works with staff at thesite to prepare grant applications forgrants such as the CSRD and ReadingFirst. They have assisted schools insecuring thousands of dollars of grant

money, translating into higher studentachievement. J/P's experience with DIimplementations has given them a per-

spective from which to assess commonchallenges DI schools face. As gaps in

the instructional tools have emerged,

J/P has filled those gaps through thedevelopment of new instructional tools

and materials.

J/P schools have been recognized for

their improvement. Portland Elernen-

70

60

50

40

30

2

10

0

J/P Table 2Pre and Post NCE Data as Indicated for Woodcock

Reading Mastery Tests for Oceanway

WordIdentification

WordAttack

WordPassage

Woodcock Reading Mastery TestsRevisedOceanway,Jacksonville, FLSubtests Word Identification,Word Attack, and Passage ComprehensionOne hundred forty-three children at Oceanway Elementary School were admin-

istered three subtests in reading as indicated in the title. The chart demon-strates the significant progress made by students at Oceanway in a period of 8

months of reading in Direct Instruction. All scores are expressed in NCE's. Insummary, not only do students at Oceanway identify and attack words, but

they also understand what they have read at a high level of proficiency.

12 14

tary in Hamburg, Arkansas hasreceived national recognition as a Dis-

tinguished Title I School, A HeritageFoundation "No Excuses" school, andwas highlighted in the February 2002

issue of Reader's Digest. Whitten Ele-mentary in Lee County, Arkansas, wasalso recognized as a DistinguishedTitle I School, and in the 2001 AnnualReport of the Baltimore City PublicSchool System, George Kelson Ele-mentary was recognized as one of six

excellent schools.

For additional details about J/P's model,information about model schools anddata, and assessing cost, contact:

Kendra Feinberg, Vice President

284 East Chester AvenueValley Stream, NY 11580Phone: 516. 561.7803

E-mail: kfeinberg@jponline.com

The National Institute forDirect Instruction (NIFDI)Founder, Zig Engelmann, startedNIFDI in 1997. NIFDI typicallyworks with 25 schools at one time,but has the capacity for much largerimplementations. They work withurban and rural schools across thecountry. There are no limitations interms of location or type of school aslong as the school adheres to theNIFDI model and can support allaspects of the model. The organiza-tion prefers to work with clusters ofschools rather than isolated schools asthis decreases cost and logistics oftraining and implementation. NIFDIemploys two project directors, nineimplementation managers, and fivecoaches' trainers.

NIFDI is endorsed by New AmericanSchools. In an analysis of NIFDI, itwas stated that, "After undergoing arigorous review, the National Institutefor Direct Instruction was invited COjoin the New American Schools (NAS)collective of affiliated organizationsdedicated to turning around low per-forming schools." The review ensuresthat the model is comprehensive and

Spring 2003

that NIFDI has the capacity for imple-menting the model on a large scale.NIFDI is also listed as the DI CurrentService Provider in the catalog ofSchool Reform Models.

NIFDI's mission is twofold: (a) tohelp schools and districts make thesystemic changes needed to achievethe highest student performance pos-sible with DI schoolwide (or at leastgrade-by-grade, which could buildinto a schoolwide implementation),and (b) to help schools and districtsbuild the capacity to sustain theimplementation at a high level and/orexpand the implementation of DI toother schools.

NIFDI implementations adhere to theDeveloper's Guidelines, a comprehensiveset of implementation componentsauthored by Zig Engelmann. TheGuidelines cover all major factors thataffect student performance at schools.NIFDI guarantees a successful trans-formation of lower performing schools

to higher performing schools if theGuidelines are followed.

Low performing schools seeking tobecome high performing schools face adifficult challenge. They requireextensive professional development,management support, capacity build-ing, and other types of support inorder to achieve and sustain a success-ful transformation. The Guidelines pro-vide a more detailed account of thecomponents that NIFDI provides asan integral approach to implementa-tion. These components include:

Full Participation: All staff and stu-dents of agreed-upon grades and theadministration participate in a NIFDIimplementation. On the staff side, thisincludes paraprofessionals and "spe-cials" (e.g., physical education andmusic). On the student side, thisincludes all students. All students areincorporated into DI groups and theDI instructional sequence, includingEnglish Language Learners and the

mildly mentally retarded. All staff andstudents must be included or studentperformance progress will be uneven,and some students will not learn theconcepts and skills they will need infuture years.

A Comprehensive CurricularApproach: For model schools, NIFDIimplements DI in all major subjectareas, including reading, language,spelling, mathematics, and cultural lit-eracy. For schools seeking assistance inreading only, NIFDI implements DIreading and language programstogether. The DI language trackincludes Language for Learning, Lan-guage for Thinking, and Reasoning and

Writing. Without the full languagetrack, student performance on readingcomprehension will suffer, especiallythe performance of at-risk students.

Scheduling: NIFDI develops schedulesthat devote a near-optimal amount oftime to DI, including a second readingperiod for all students below grade level.

NIFDI Table 1CTBS Reading Scores in NIFDI Baltimore Schools

1st Grade

Iou

90

80

70

g 6056) so

g 40§

30

20

10

19982002

-

Arundel Barrister CitySprings

Col ling.Square

DickeyHill

FederalHill

GeneralWolfe

Ilamp.Hill

L.Hughes

MargaretBrent

RaynerBrowne

1998 10 15 19 9 1 18 16 26 25 30 46 I I

2002 61 69 91 80 69 68 33 73 93 88 59

Direct Instruction New

151 3

The efficient use of time is critical foraccelerating student performance.

Two Levels of Consultants: For everyschool, NIFDI provides an Implemen-tation Manager, who is on site for anaverage of 24-32 days a year, and a Pro-ject Director, a senior consultant whooversees multiple implementationsand is on site at least three times ayear. The Implementation Managerand Project Director both participatein weekly conference calls.

Coaches' Training: Teachers are identi-fied as peer coaches (usually one pergrade level) and they go through athree-level training sequence in whichthey learn how to gomplete writtenrecords, analyze data, make observa-tions, and identify and remediateproblems of instruction and behavior.

Off-site Data Analysis and Monitoring:Teachers record lesson progress andmastery data, which NIFDI consult-ants review off-site during the weeks

they are not on site. The school man-agement team (lead administrator,building coordinator, and coaches) par-ticipates in weekly conference callswith NIFDI consultants to reviewprogress and problems and determinethe tasks for the coming week.

DI Curricular Solutions to SpecificProblems: NIFDI includes the seniorauthors of the DI programs who cancreate specialized materials to solveparticular instructional problems,including teacher and student prepmaterials for standardized tests.

Schoolwide Behavior Management:Schoolwide behavior managementand motivation procedures may beput in place that help eliminate neg-ative behaviors and reinforce appro-priate behaviors.

Building Capacity at the District:NIFDI works with the district to buildits capacity to oversee and support theDI implementation in schools.

A Focus on Acceleration: All of thecomponents listed above lead eitherdirectly or indirectly to the accelera-tion of student performance, whichallows for a low performing school tobe transformed into a higher per-forming one.

One of NIFDI's schools, City SpringsElementary in Baltimore, MD, was oneof the lowest performing schools inBaltimore until it implemented theNIFDI model. Before working withNIFDI, no students at City Springshad ever passed the state assessmentexam. In 2001, after working withNIFDI for 4 years, 42.4% of the stu-dents passed the exam, nearly doublethe city average of 22.5%. Between2000 and 2001 the school's scoresincreased by 23.5 points, the largestincrease in the city, and an increaselarger than the city's average score. In2002 City Springs became the secondBaltimore school ever to be removedfrom the state's list of low performingschools. The Principal of City Springs,

NIFDI Table 2GTBS Math Scores in NIFDI Baltimore Schools

1st Grade

100

90

80

70

"C1)

F.. 501)

o..

L40g5

30

10

0

19982002

.

7/7.I >

.:i

._,

I !

Arundel Barrister CitySprin.gs

Coiling.Square

DickcyHill

FederalHill

GeneralWolfe

H amp.Hill

L.Hughes

MargaretBrent

RaynerBrowne

1998 9 8 8 32 23 25 20 13 26 17 11

2002 43 44 79 72 65 80 44 64 77 79 53

1 4 16 Spring 2003

Bernice Whelchel, has since testified

to the U.S. House of RepresentativesCommittee on Education and theWorkforce on the importance of imple-menting a research-based curriculum.Most recently, she was one of eightprincipals honored by President Bushat the anniversary celebration of thesigning of the No Child Left BehindAct at the White House on January 9,2003. Principal Whelchel received the

ADI Excellence in Education Award in

2001, and City Springs and Hamp-stead Hill (another NIFDI school inBaltimore) received the ADI ExcellentSchool Award the same year.

To learn more about NIFDI, theDeveloper's Guidelines, costs associated

with working with NIFDI, and addi-tional details associated with theirmodel, contact:

Kurt Engelmann,Administrative DirectorPO. Box 11248Eugene, OR 97440Phone: 877.485.1973Fax: 541.683.7543E-mail: kurt@nifdi.org

ADI thanks the individuals at each ofthe aforementioned companies forcompleting the surveys and providingthe information for this piece. AA=

MARTIN A. KOZLOFF, University of North Carolina, Wilmington

Mart iN'S MuSiNgSSeeing is BelievingVersus Believingis Seeing: The Fundamental Problemin Education

Folks in the know about family sys-tems say that trivial arguments at din-ner ("I ask five times before shepasses the salt!") are about somethingbiggerfor example, one person's will-ingness to satisfy another person'sneeds. In other words, skirmishes arenested within battles, and battles arenested within wars. That's the case ineducation, which is divided betweentwo main camps:

1. The current education establish-mentso-called "progressive"educators (constructivists, wholelanguagists, advocates of "develop-mentally appropriate practices,"postmodernists) who occupy posi-tions of power and influence.

2. The education anti-establish-mentso-called traditionalists or"instructivists" (Finn & Ravitch,1996) who advocate focused, logi-cally progressive, teacher-ledinstruction aimed at mastery of

Direct Instruction News

classical ideas and skills, and whochallenge the ideas underlying pro-gressive education and offer clearfield-tested alternatives. Instruc-tivists include advocates of DirectInstruction (commercial curricula),direct instruction (Rosenshine,1986; Rosenshine & Stevens, 1986),applied behavior analysis, and Preci-sion Teaching.

What sorts of conflicts are therebetween these two camps?

First, there are skirmishes aboutdetails of teachingfor example,whether students should be taught tosound out words as the primary strat-egy (instructivists), or taught to usecontext cues (the shape of a word, theplacement of a word in a sentence) toguess what words say (construc-tivists). Or, in math, whether studentsshould first master elementary skillsbefore they try to solve problems thatrequire the elementary skills (instruc-

tivists), or learn the elementary skillsin the context of solving problems(constructivists)which means thatstudents have to learn both elemen-tary skills and problem solving strate-gies at the same time.

These skirmishes are embedded inlarger curricular battles. For exam-ple, traditionalistinstructivists seereading and math, for example, asknowledge systems that contain mean-ings and truths independent of whatindividuals may think, and thereforeregard education as a means of bring-ing students into those systems viateacher-directed instruction. Construe-tivists, in contrast, see reading (litera-ture) and math as having no truths ormeanings apart from individuals; themeaning of a novel is constructed byreaders; mathemattcal truths are mat-ters of group negotiation. Therefore,the teacher's role is not to transmitmeanings and truths (which are said tohave no independent existence) but tohelp students to construct these.

Curricular battles over reading, math,history, science, and other bodies ofknowledge are embedded in a largerwar over social agendas and thesocial functions of education. Forexample, "progressive educators"believe that education in a demo-cratic, technically advanced, affluentsociety should be about (a) self-devel-opment for both teachers and stu-dents, fostered in a quasi-therapeutic,

1 7 BEST COPY AVAILABLE1 5

"student-centered" environment; (b)the promotion of (their vision of)social justice; and (c) liberation of theindividual from the allegedly repres-sive and self-stifling coercive force ofsocial institutions and external bodiesof knowledge.

In contrast, instructivisttraditionalistsbelieve that education in a democratic,technically advanced, affluent societymust be about the preservation andperfection of democratic social institu-tions and the intellectual and moraldevelopment of the individual (the twobeing inseparable) by ensuring thatindividuals acquire the knowledge sys-tems required for their society's func-tioning, and that pvs'ons learn how tothink skillfully (reason) so that they(knowing how to judge the adequacy ofinformation and argumentation) will beable to make wise and morally goodpersonal and societal choices.

Yet, it would be a mistake to think thatthe skirmishes (about method), battles(over curricula), and war (over thefunctions of education) are merely dif-ferences in the research bases used,instructional styles preferred, or per-sonal and group opinions and philoso-phies of the two campsdifferencesthat could perhaps be reconciled withmore reading, more research, and morediscussion. The two camps are opposedin a more fundamental way; namely,the quality of intellect itself as thatintellect is directed towards investigat-ing and communicating about realityand knowledge. Indeed, the evidencewill show that at this level differencesbetween traditionalistsinstructivistsand progressivistconstructivists can beaccurately rendered by the opposingterms rational versus irrational, reason-able versus unreasonable, coherent ver-sus incoherent, metaphysically healthyversus metaphysically demented. Let'ssee some of the evidence.

The World as FactVersus FancyOne mark of maturity (and sanity) isrecognizing and acting on the assump-tion that the worldrealityhas fea-

1 6

tures independent of what we maybelieve and wish those features to be.Here we see the,,first clear differencein intellect between traditionalistinstructivists and progressivistcon-structivists. The traditionalistinstruc-tivistwhether a teacher, schoolprincipal, district administrator, educa-tion professor, or member of a statedepartment of public instructionreads the announcements, legislation,regulations, and grant proposal formsfor No Child Left Behind and ReadingFirst, and then (treating these asimmutable facts) adapts his or herbehavior accordingly by (a) determin-ing the real-world consequences of, for

One.mark of maturity (and

sanity) is recognizing and

acting on the assumption

that the wOrldrealityhasfeatures independent of

what we may believe and

wish those features to be.

example, writing a Reading First pro-posal that conforms to the guidelinesversus does not conform to the guide-lines; (b) improving teacher training,evaluation, and supervision to meetthe requirements of No Child LeftBehind; and (c) collecting objectivedata (i.e., data capable of assessmentby others besides the data collector)on student achievement.

In marked contrast, the progressivistconstructivist school principal, districtadministrator, education professor, orstate department of public instructionofficial who (resembling a petulantchild) feels his or her power threat-ened by the external authority of NoChild Left Behind and Reading First,responds by (a) thinking wishfullythat these will simply go away andtherefore may be ignored; (b) writesgrant proposals that fly in the face ofthe requirements of the funding agen-

EST COPY AVAILARL E 1 8

cies, but believes this will not benoticed (akin to a mad person whobelieves his tin foil hat makes himinvisible); and (c) changes the defini-tions of wordsas if doing so doesnot violate their common meanings.For example, "scientific research" forthe progressivistconstructivist doesnot mean controlled, experimental,quantitative, replicated research usingvalidated instruments, but insteadmeans qualitative notetaking, becausethis definition enables the progres-sivistconstructivist (in his or hermind) to make no changes in how heor she thinks and acts.

Action Reasonably Fittedto CircumstancesWe consider it reasonable (and sane) tosmash a fly with a flyswattera cheap,tested implement that is focused onthe task at hand. We consider it mad-ness if a person burns down his houseto get the fly. The same judgment ofreasonableness applies in education.For example, the traditionalistinstruc-tivist educator (a) knows there is muchbasic and applied research on reading;(b) reads a good sample of thatresearch; (c) learns there are fieldtested programs consistent with thepreponderance of research, and thateffectively teach the "big ideas" inreading (phonemic awareness,soundsymbol relationships and decod-ing, fluency, vocabulary, and compre-hension); and therefore (d) uses theseprograms in his or her school, district,or state. This is called reasonable,morally responsibleand sane.

In stark contrast, the progressivistcon-structivist educator (not in touch withor not accurately depicting reality) (a)does not know or does not care thatthere is much basic and appliedresearch on reading; (b) does not readthis research, or only reads a self-servingsample (so that his or her belief systemis unchallenged); (c) fails to see thatthere are field tested programs consis-tent with the preponderance ofresearch, or rejects these programs(with contempt and hauteur) becausehe or she does not like them; and (d)

Spring 2003

instead of using these programs in his orher school, district, or state (irrational),requires teachers with no training inthese matters to invent their own cur-ricula (unreasonable) using an ersatzassortment of basal readers, nondecod-able text, qualitative assessments notaligned with what is taught, spellingbooks, and made up lessonsthat is, a"curriculum" that is unsystematic,untested, redundant, and has glaringcurricular holes. However, the immoral-ity and fundamental dementia in all thisis disguised behind words such as"teacher empowerment," "ownership,"and "professional development."

CircumspectionA sane person checks his clothingbefore entering a room, notes that hispants are open, and fixes it up. Anintellectually insufficient personchecks his pants by touching his hat,walks into the room and hears snickersof persons who notice the open pants,and says to himself, "They'll nevernotice." A similar thing exists in edu-cation. Rational and sane educationschools (rare as bronze Spartan swordsfrom 500 BC)somehow blessed witha squad of traditionalistinstructivistprofessors who have managed to gettenure and do not fear offending con-structivistprogressivist colleagues,and are aware of the low status of edschools on college campuses, superfi-cial teacher training and faddish ideas,and current threats posed by alterna- -tive certificationexamine the edschool curriculum in light of the criti-cisms and threaten and systematicallychange core beliefs, research base, mis-sion, rules for judging what is credible,curricula, and assessment of graduates.

Not so in education schools domi-nated by progressivistconstructivisteducators who (a) are not aware of thecriticisms and threats, or believeeveryone else is wrong ("We need toget the word out about how good weare." In psychiatry, this is considered adelusion of grandeur.); (b) hire newfaculty who sustain the school's pro-gressivistconstructivist orientationdespite the fact that this orientation

Direct Instruction News

is the root cause of low level of schol-arship, ill-preparation of new teachers,and threat to the existence of edschools; and (c) create even more fan-ciful portraits of themselves both forin-school self-celebration (self-delu-sion) and public presentation; e.g.,calling themselves "flagships ofreform," "stewards of America's chil-dren," "champions of social justice,""fostering life-long learning andreflection." At this point, dementedthinking is well beyond silly andapproaches suicidal.

We consider a person

rational, sane, andcompetent who assumes that

words and utterances signify

real things and who speaks

and writes in a way thatcoherently describes or

explains the real world.

Word Salad and OtherPossible Symptomsof DementiaA last clear difference between tradi-tionalistinstructivists and progres-sivistconstructivists is theirconnection to and communicationabout reality. We consider a personrational, sane, and competent whoassumes that words and utterances sig-nify real things and who speaks andwrites in a way that coherentlydescribes or explains the real world. Incontrast, we consider a person irra-tional, insane, and/or incompetent whoassumes that words and utterancesrefer to (mean) whatever he or shewants them toor to nothing at alland whose speaking and writing arephantasmagoric, dream-like, dis-jointed, and bear little relationship tothe external world. The more onereads progressivistconstructivist jour-nal articles and books, course syllabi,and ed school documents (such as mis-sion statements and program descrip-tions), the more one is forced to admit

that these writings bear many marks ofpsychiatric disorder, as described athttp://216.239.39.100/search?q=cache:OKPpTR7hhyEC:mindmelt.co.uk/trickcyclists/docs/Descriptive%2520Psychopathology.doc+hebephrenic+word+salad&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Examples include

1. Delusional thinking, or "a fixed, (usu-ally) false or fantastic idea, held in theface of evidence to the contrary..."

2. Loose associations.

3. Palilalia, in which a perseveratedword is repeated with increasingfrequency.

4. Paragrammatism, or a disorder ofgrammatical construction.

5. Neologisms, or made-up, nonsensi-cal words.

6. Repeated use of stock words andphrases.

7. Driveling, or "the muddling of ele-ments within an idea to the extentthat the meaning is totally obscuredto the listener."

8. Word salad, or "an apparently ran-dom and illogical mixture of soundsand words."

The following quotations taken fromthe writings of progressivistconstruc-tivists show strikirrg similarities to thesymptoms of serious psychiatric disor-der listed above. I am not saying thatthese writers are mentally ill; I ammerely saying that their writing (a) issimilar to examples of symptoms ofpsychosis found in psychiatric litera-ture, and (b) makes as much sense(and is as useful educationally) as thewritings of persons suffering fromsevere psychiatric disorder.

The quotations immediately followingare from the writings of whole lan-guage advocates, and seem to showsignificant detachment from the real-ity (the facts at hand) known to mostsentient personsthe reality of how

19 BEST COPY AVAILABLE1 7

children learn to read and how theyare best taughtas depicted by thepreponderance of empirical (in thereal, external world) research.

"Learning is continuous, sponta-neous, and effortless, requiringno particular attention, consciousmotivation, or specific reinforce-ment" (Smith, 1992, p. 432).(This may be an example ofneologism. Smith has reinventedthe meaning of "learning" or issimply inventing a fantasticalvision of what learning is. Eitherway, his statement has little con-nection with factual reality.)

"Reading without guessing is notreading at all" (§mith, 1973).(Another example of a fancifulvision, this time applied to read-ing. The statement appears to berooted firmly not in the world ofexternal facts but in the innerworld of incredible imagery andword play.)

"Reading by `phonics' is demon-strably impossible (ask any com-puter)" (Smith, 1986). (Denial ofobvious fact. "See that bumblebeeflying over there? It's not flying.")

"To the fluent reader the alpha-betic principle is completelyirrelevant. He identifies everyword (if he identifies words atall) as an ideogram" (Smith,1973). (Most folks do not claimto know the moment to momentworkings of another person'sthought processesto readminds as it were. Other personsapparently do think they canread minds. Some of these per-sons are receiving treatment.)

The next samples are consistent withdescriptions of disordered thoughtprocesses. Again, I am not saying thatthe writers are disordered, just that theirwriting lends itself to that suggestion.

"We cannot understand an indi-vidual's cognitive structure with-out observing it interacting in a

1 8

context, within a culture" (Fos-not, 1996, p. 24). (The crucialword is "it." Fosnot seems to beasserting that a cognitive struc-ture is a real thingnot a conven-ient fictionand that this thingactually does things, such asinteracting in a context. Whatdoes it mean when a person treatsfictions as if they were things?)

"From this perspective, learningis a constructive building processof meaning-making that resultsin reflective abstractions, pro-

(Another slice of the

collective mental processesat

a college of education. Note

the repeated use of stock

phrasesas a substitute for

saying anything sensible.)

ducing symbols within amedium" (Fosnot, 1996, p. 27).(This sentence appears to be astring of loosely connected wordsthat are grammatically correctbut are nonsenseat least that'sthe way it appears. In what waysdoes it differ from the quite madstatement, "Learning is a consti-tutive process of affect-organiz-ing that results in an inductivesubstratum of signs and symbolswithin a knowledge trajectory"?)

"Meaning is constructed whenawareness is created by observing

and gathering information..."(Another bizarre assertion, thistime from a college of educationwebsite. It appears to assert thatawareness is a kind of thing thatcan be createdas if it were abird house or a sandwichandthat this creation depends onfirst observing and gatheringinformation. But doesn't thatdepend on awareness? What dowe think of the mental processes

0

of people who get dressed andthen take a showerin otherwords, do it in reverse order?)

"Professional knowledge isadvanced by the human need toengage in inquiry." (Also from acollege of education website. Ithas the earmarks of "driveling"defined above. Forget whetherhumans have a need to engage ininquiry. The idea that profes-sional knowledge is advanced bythat,alleged need is surely drivel.)

"Participation at the social orinterpersonal plane involvessocial interaction between two ormore people to coordinate activ-ity face-to-face or at a distance."(This sentence, from an edschool website, is (a) a clearexample of driveling; (b) shows apoverty of ideas [as if it were abig insight that social interactioninvolves two or more people];and (3) asserts bizarre notions;e.g., that the purpose of socialinteraction is to coordinate activ-itywhen social interaction ISthat activity.)

"Our student-centered profes-sional development model ispredicated on the belief... Ourstudent-centered professionaldevelopment model rests on thefollowing assumptions... Ourstudent-centered professionaldevelopment model emphasizesthe dynamic nature... Our stu-dent-centered professionaldevelopment model emphasizesthe types of knowledge..."(Another slice of the collectivemental processes at a college ofeducation. Note the repeateduse of stock phrasesas a substi-tute for saying anything sensible.)

"meaning is constructed"..."meaning making"..."constructand share their own learning"...

reflection"..."reflectionon their own practice"..."outletsfor reflection"..."make subjectmatter meaningful to students"...

Spring 2003

"creates learning experiences"..."meaningful learning experi-ences"..."managing the learningenvironment"..."reflective,inquiry-oriented"..."engage ininquiry"..."reflection and inquiryinto their own practices"..."criti-cal, reflective, inquiring learn-ers"..."teacher preparation...isreflective"..."Think reflec-tively"...(More from ed schoolwebsites, showing perseverationand palilalia in the use of thesame words and stock phrases.)

"The Lubyanka College of Edu-cation (not the real name) isdedicated to preparing you toteach in the real world." (Thiswins the prize for the most dis-connected from reality.)

Contrast the above driveling, palilalic,perseverative, loosely connected andotherwise bizarre assertions with a fewlines from the works of traditionalistinstructivist writers.

"Teachers should make explana-tions brief and concise." (Stein,Silbert, & Carnine, 1997).

"The essential characteristic ofany good signal is its clarity"(Stein, Silbert, & Carnine, 1997).

"Because simple facts have butone example, namely them-selves, there can be no actual

PEI '11 -

range of examples." (Kameenui& Simmons, 1990).

"The overt sound blendingphase continues until the readeraccurately and consistentlydecodes words at a rate of oneletter per second." (Kameenui &Simmons, 1990).

"Decodingis the central skillin initial reading." (Engelmann,Haddox, & Bruner, 1983).

"After each teacher presentation,students should be asked tomodel positive examples for eachbehavioral rule." (Walker, Colvin,& Ramsey, 1994).

I believe we are able to make the fol-lowing generalization: In marked con-trast to the writing of traditionalistinstructivist educators, progressivistconstructivist writing (and probablythinkingas that is what is written) isoften incoherent, illogical, disconnectedfrom the external world in which asser-tions can be tested, and is in many waysdescribable with a list of symptoms ofpsychiatric disorder. Several implicationsfollow. (a) It is no use reasoning withthese persons and groups. They havecreated and live within a different and adream-like reality, with different rules ofverification and falsification. (b) Just asdangerous mental patients should nothave the keys to the drug locker, these

Top Ten Teaching Errors

In my experience all kids, not mentallyhandicapped, can learn from one passthrough the DI materials, but only ifthe teaching is top notch. The lessable the students the better the teach-ing must be. Here's my top 10 list oferrors that I see teachers make mostfrequently. Teachers can become topnotch by avoiding these errors.

Direct Instruction News

10. Kids not answering together onsignal the first time all of thetime. Low performers beingallowed to "chime in" late sayingthe same thing the "leaders" saidwithout being able to do it the firsttime themselves. (Dead give awayis when the "leaders" give a wronganswer and everyone else says it

persons and groups should not beallowed to miseducate children, mis-train teachers, or infect educationalpolicy with their delusional system. AD:.

ReferencesEngelmann, S., Haddox, P, & Bruner, E.

(1983). Teach your child to read in 100 easy les-sons. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Finn, C. E., & Ravitch, D. (1996). Educationalreform 1995-1996. A report from the Educa-tional Excellence Network. Retrieved May 2,1998, from http://www.edexcellence.net/library/epciv.html

Fosnot, C. T. (Ed.). (1996). Constructivism:Theory, perspectives, and practice. New York:Teachers College Press.

Kameenui, E. J., & Simmons, D. J. (1990).Designing instructional strategies: The preventionof academic learning problems. Columbus, ;OH: Merrill.

Rosenshine, B. (1986). Synthesis of researchon explicit teaching. Educational Leadership,43,60-69.

Rosenbliine, B., & Stevens, R. (1986). Teach-ing functions. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.),Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.)(pp. 376-391). New York: McMillan.

Smith, E (1973). Psychology and reading. NewYork: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Smith, E (1992). Learning to read: Thenever-ending debate. Phi Delta Kappan, 74,432-441.

Smith, J. (1986). Essays into literacy. Exeter,NH: Heinemann.

Stein, M., Silbert, J.,& Carnine, D. (1997).Designing effective mathematks instruction.

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.Walker, H., Colvin, G., & Ramsey, E. (1994).

Anthocial behavior in school: Strategies and bestpractices. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Weaver, C. (1988). Reading process & practice:From socio-psycholinguistics to whole language.

Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

too!) Even when teachers repeatevery time that students don't allanswer together, it means nothingbecause parroting an answer some-body just said is easy. Low per-formers in this situation are notlearning the material; they are onlymindlessly parroting what the"leaders" are sayingso they don'treally learn. This often happenswhen the teacher lets the higherperformers set the pace ofresponding. Instead the teacher

BESTCOPYAVAILABLE 19

must make kids hold the answer intheir head until the signal is given.(See also #5.)

9. Slow pacing. The teacher takesup more time between kidresponses than he/she should.Teachers add extra talk, take timeto read the script, stop too long forcomments on behavior (especiallycriticizing bad behavior) and thekids are left to sit and wait forsomething to do. Many teachersthink that as long as they keep upa patter that the kids are benefit-ing from their "show." More effec-tive groups spend more time withkids answeringand the kids aregetting to an4er from 10 to 20questions per minute, everyminute of the lesson. Slow pacingon the teacher's part reliably pro-duces a lot of off-task foolingaround and interruptions from thekids. But more importantly, theless able students are more likelyto stop paying attention and willmiss more of the lessons when pac-ing is slow. See #8.

8. Low performers not payingattention to the lesson and nointervention in place to ensurethat they do pay attention. Notpaying attention leads to nonpar-ticipation which leads to #7.

7. Low performers not participat-ing and not being asked to par-ticipate. Kids with a lot of priorschool failure often enter instruc-tion with a mindset that "I can't doit, so I won't try." If teachers don'tget past that initial reluctance andshow such learners they can learnTHIS stuff then these reluctantlearners will "sit out" of the lessonsand will not progress as needed.Less able students MUST partici-pate in order to learn this material.

6. Not part firming. Errors occur, orkids don't answer, and the teachermay or may not correct the mis-

20

take, but then just goes on in thelesson. Part firming requires thatthe teacher go back and re-do anypart where there was an error sothat the kids get a chance to do it100% correct. The responsibility ofthe students is to get it 100% cor-rect. The teacher's job is to givethem the chance to repeat the partuntil they do. Everyone should beclear on that mission.

5. Not enough "think time" or"wait time" for the less ablestudents in the group. Teacherswho are trying to move at a briskpace sometimes shortchange the"think time" between the focuscue, "Next word" and the voicecue, "What word?" The faster kidsin the group can answer but theslower ones don't answer on sig-nalnot because they aren't try-ingbut because they can't thinkof the answer that quickly. Typi-cally the teacher repeats the ques-tion (because not everyoneanswered) and the second timethey all answer together. Theteacher will say, "Now everyoneanswer on signal next time." Butthe problem continues. Veryquickly the slower thinkers learnto wait to answer until the secondtimeand then they are no longergenerating their own answers orlearning the materialthey arejust parroting what the other kidssaid on the first try. Just a slightincrease in think time and theywill all be able to generate theanswer and then repetitions can belimited to times when they justdon't know the materialwhichshould happen less than 10% ofthe time!

4. Letting the low kids "slide,"not holding them accountablefor giving the correct answerevery time. This starts with akid who is unmotivated (seeabove) or is misplaced "becausewe don't have another group forhim." Misplaced kids can't be

22

held accountable for being firmon each part as you gobecausethey're misplaced. Unmotivatedkids often aren't held accountablebecause they put up too much ofa fuss. Then you develop theproblem of not being able to holdthe whole group accountablebecause of that one kid. Soon theteacher behavior spreads to othergroups and you have several kidswho "slide" through the lessonswithout really learning.

3. Repeating parts all the time as astandard response to kids notpaying attention rather than asa response to what ought to beunusual incorrect responsesfrom students. The kids aren'tpaying attention so someone makesan error or some don't answernearly every time. So the teacherjust repeats and repeats almostevery part of the lesson. Everyonegets bored and so they pay lessattention and make more errorsand the problem continues. Theteacher must increase studentmotivation for getting it right thefirst time, get the kids to beclearer about their answers, andavoid unnecessary repetition ifthey all know it.

2. Repeating parts all the timebecause the teacher is in doubtabout whether the studentswere answering correctly sothey repeat the part. Theresponses get better only becausethe kids are saying the same thingfor the second or third time. Theteacher must increase studentmotivation for getting it right thefirst time, get the kids to beclearer about their answers, andavoid unnecessary repetition ifthey all know it. Sometimes indi-vidual turns rather than a grouprepetition are better if the teacheris unsure of whether they all "gotit" or not.

Spring 2003

1. Compromises on all of theabove due to weakness inbehavior management. Teachersdon't teach the way they shouldbecause the kids are resistant andthe teachers don't have the skills

to overcome that resistance. Sothey compromise on corrections,part firming, clear responses, andunison responses, etc. The groupsare reduced to "going through themotions" of the lessons without a

clear sense of the mission for learn-ing. More able kids still learn thematerial, but the less able kidsdon't because they didn't partici-pate and try and get the correctivefeedback they needed. AD."

DON CRAWFORD, Otter Creek Institute

Successfully Decoding Unknown Words:What's the Teacher's Role?

"Let's all work together toavoid the phrase, 'sound itoutr admonition in trainingmaterials put out by CaliforniaState University San Bernardino

The "balanced" reading programs thatare the descendants of whole languageprograms are designed around childrenreading silently and independentlyfrom the very early stages of readinginstruction. Little time is spent readingin teacher-directed groups. Instead,children spend most of their readingtime reading silently to themselves inself-chosen, but leveled books. In thisarrangement teachers are unable topreteach all the words children willencounter. Instead of teaching words,they are attempting to teach "strate-gies" for the children to decodeunknown words without assistance.This is a difficult task indeed, mademore difficult by the widespread adher-ence to the "three-cueing system."

In comprehending text it is rightlyunderstood that readers combine infor-mation from semantics (word mean-ings), syntax (word order), and thegraphophonemic system (letters andsounds) to make ultimate sense of apassage. However, this idea has beenincorrectly taken to mean that onecould rely on syntax or semantic cluesto determine the correct identificationof a word. As Marilyn Adams (1997)noted, "If the original premise of the

Direct Instruction News

three-cueing system was that the rea-son for reading the words is to under-stand the text, it has since been oddlyconverted such that, in effect, the rea-son for understanding the text is inorder to figure out the words."

The net result is that the strategiesbeing recommended by teachers fordecoding unknown words are counter-

productive because they direct stu-dent's attention away from the lettersand towards the context and otherspurious clues. One might summarizethem as, "Try anything but lookingcarefully at the word." Figure 1 shows

a typical set of prescriptions for par-ents to use with their children from

Figure 1Common recommendations for decoding unknown words.

http://www.misd.wednet.edu/joannajrank/jn//ztm//resources.htm/

Efficient readers can use all three-cueing systems. Weak readers tend toover rely on just one cueing system. Since no single strategy works all thetime, weak readers have a harder time figuring out unknown words.

Encourage your child to use a variety of strategies. Some strategies may be moreappropriate than others, depending on the situation.

Graphophonemic strategies

Break the word into parts. Look for word families, knortsuffixes, syllables.

Match letters and letter combinations with the sounds they make.

Syntactic strategies

Ask the question, "Do the words sound right, as if I were talking?"

Semantic strategies

Use the story's illustrations.

Make a meaningful substitution, e.g., say "home" for "house." Warning: If achild makes too many substitutions, that child is not reading the story.

Skip the word and come back to it. Then reread the sentence and use thecontext of the story to figure out the mystery word.

Ask the question, "Is what I'm reading making sense?"

Ask the question,:"Does the word work in the story?"

04 J21

the Mercer Island, Washington, schooldistrict website.

The key to understanding why thesestrategies will not help the strugglingreader to decode words independ-ently lies in the second box where theschool district cautions, "Some strate-gies may be more appropriate thanothers, depending on the situation."For example, if the reader is trying todecode the word "them," using thestory's illustrations won't be muchhelp. If the rest of the sentence tellsyou what the word ought to be thenskipping the word and coming back toit might work. For example, "Lookingthrough his xxx, the astronomer gazedat the stars." Unf9rtunately in a lot ofsentences context does not work(Mary gave Bill a xxx). However, ifthe teacher is helping the child andknows that the word xxx is in the pic-ture at the top of the page where itshows Mary giving it to Bill, theteacher might suggest, "Try looking atthe picture." Conversely, if theteacher knows the word is not in thepicture, she might suggest a differentstrategyone "more appropriate tothe situation." In fact, the choice ofwhich strategy to use is not depend-ent upon the situationit's depend-ent upon already knowing the word'sidentity! In theory children could rundown the list of possible strategiesuntil they find one that worksbutagain, if the children truly do notknow the word, what's to preventthem from using one of the strategiesto get an incorrect answer?

In Direct Instruction programs we usestrategies designed to help childrenremember a word's identity ratherthan to discover it. We know that look-ing at the letters and usingsoundsymbol relationships is the onlyreliable way to remember which wordis which. A word's identity is notdependent upon either the context orthe syntax or its semantics. A word's

identity is defined by the letters andtheir sequence'

However, and here's the rub, kids can-not reliably "sound out" all words fromthe most common sounds of the 26letters in our alphabet. There aresound combinations which sometimesapply and sometimes don't. There aremany rules and they all have excep-tions. There are many word analogiesand patterns to be learned that aren'treadily summarized by tidy rules. Sowe can't teach a kid a reasonable num-ber of phonics strategies and turn himloose in some trade books to imple-

In Direct Instructionprograms we use strategies

designed to help children

remember a word's identity

rather than to discover it.

ment these strategies for "independ-ently decoding unknown words."That's where the "balanced literacy"reading specialists are right when theysay phonics don't workbecause theyexpect phonics to enable children toread independently without assistancein identifying new words. Even phon-ics don't work consistently enough forchildren to be able to figure out all thewords on their Own, especially thecommon words which tend to be irreg-ular, and especially in the beginning oflearning to read.

However, there is a strategy that isabsolutely critical for later successfulindependent reading. Looking at andattending to all the letters in eachword to determine its identity is astrategy we need to develop to thepoint of automaticity in readers. Evenif "done" and "bore" are not sounded

out exactly the same, it is only by look-ing carefully at the letters that thereader can tell which is which, everytimeeven in the absence of any con-text clues.

So what should teachers do for helpingchildren to decode unknown words?We recommend directly teaching eachand every word ahead of time, inteacher-led instruction, so that theright strategy can be used to remem-ber the word's identity. In the verybeginning (Reading Mastery I) we pres-ent and then "sound out" regularwords blending the most commonsounds of each letterwhichsoundsymbol relationships, have ofcourse, been previously taught. Laterwe present words with sound combina-tions, using cues (connected letters insome programs, underlined letters inothers) to help children rememberthat there is a sound combination inthe word.

What about irregular words? Over timeirregular words are handled differently,which makes clear the intent of ourprocess. In the beginning we teachchildren to say the most commonsounds in the irregular wordsandthen remember that the actual pro-nunciation is "funny." For example"said" is "sounded out" as sssaaaaiiiid(pronouncing all the letters) but,"Here's how we say the wordsed."When I first read the instructions todo it that way, it seemed to me like arisky way to teachone that wouldlikely lead to confusion. Nevertheless,I tried it exactly as written. A coupleof weeks later, I remember listening inamazement as my lowest reader cameto the word "said," and intoned, "Ssss-aaaa-iiii-d." (Back then I didn't knowthey weren't supposed to stopbetween sounds.) Then she paused asecond and then called out, "Oh. Said"(pronouncing it correctly). Why didthat work? Then I realized that therewas no way for her to be confused-

1 Yes, it is true that a very few sets of letters (such as b-o-w) can be more than one word. Almost all the time, however, the identity of any word can be

known by its letters.

22 2 4BEST COPY AVAILABLE

spring 2003

there was only one "ssss-aaa-iiii-d" inthe universe and it was always pro-nounced as "sed." By making the chil-dren "sound-out" the word each time,they develop the habit of looking at allthe letters before deciding the iden-tity of the word. This, ultimately, isthe critical behavior.

A slightly different strategy is usedafter the names of the letters havebeen learned by Reading Mastery III orin programs like Corrective Reading thatassume that children know the namesof the letters. In those lessons theteacher tells the children what theword is, and then the children areasked to spell the word while looking

LINDA ARNI E

at it. In other words, we ask them tosay the names of the letters whilelooking at them. And then we ask,"What word did you spell?" This pro-cedure is used for introduction of new,unknown words as well as for correc-tions. Clearly the point is to direct thestudent's attention to the letters ofthe wordafter reminding the childof the word's identity. By the timestudents have learned a couple hun-dred regular and common words it isno longer necessary or productive torequire students to "sound out" eachword, especially if one were to rely onthe single most common sound ofeach letter. And by then, if we havetaught well, they have what Virginia

Berninger (2002) calls a ReadingBrainthey can learn new words eas-ily with very few repetitions. Andalthough they can often get close tothe correct pronunciation independ-ently, even good readers still benefitfrom the teacher telling them theidentity of an "unknown" word.Teaching works!

ReferencesAdams, M. J. (1997). The three-cueing sys-

tem. Retrieved March 12, 2003 fromhttp://www.readbygrade3.com/readbygrade3col3cue.htm

Berninger, V. W, & Richards, T L. (2002).Brain literacy for educators and psychologists.

San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Amanda's Story

The main purpose of this article is toprovide a teaching examplea modelfor what a parent can do to enhancethe capabilities of a child. This storyresults from the legacy of two pioneersin education, Siegfried (Zig) Engel-mann and Wes Becker. Years ago WesBecker wrote Parents are Teachers, whichlaid the foundation for how parents, asa child's first teachers, can providepositive, effective instruction at home.Meanwhile, his colleague, Zig Engel-mann, and his support staff haveworked for the last 35 years to developinstructional programs that are effec-tive with all types of learners, particu-larly diverse learners with cognitivechallenges, such as Arnanda.

Amanda, at the age of 8, won the 2001Wayne Carnine Most Improved Stu-dent Award showing the greatestimprovement in Direct Instructionlearning over that year. Amanda's storycan serve as a model for how commit-ted parents, teaching children withdisabilities at critical stages of devel-opment, can actually restructure thechild's learning capabilities and greatly

Direct Instruction News

widen their intellectual horizons.Through patience, persistence, andthe use of Direct Instruction curricula,Amanda's mother, Marsha, taughtAmanda how to learn. If parents wantto enhance the learning capabilities oftheir child with disabilities beyondwhat teachers are able to do in school,this story will provide a road map forhow that can be accomplished.

Blond-haired, blue-eyed Amanda wasborn with what is vaguely termed"developmental delays." According toher mother, she did not hit any of themilestones that all parents brag aboutto their friends. She did not walk, talk,or sing at the age other children did.She never questioned what occurredaround her, never asked the usual"why?" that most children utter end-lessly. Amanda was always 2 yearsbehind her peers, but, thought hermother, what does it matter? When sheturns 18 no one will know or care howold she was when she took her firststeps or learned to talk: Delays arenothing in the larger scheme of things.

25

When Amanda was 4she was placed in aspecial educationHeadstart program.Although Headstartostensibly targets aca-demics, some evi-dence suggests thatchildren leavingHeadstart know lessin some academicareas than when theyentered the program.Amanda finished herfirst year in Headstartwell behind her peel'sand was encouragedby her teacher to stayanother year. Whenshe entered first gradeshe was still academi-cally and socially farbehind her peers. According to hermother, "First grade was a disaster."

-

Amanda Bhirdo

Marsha Rodman

Typically, when children like Amandaare placed in special education,whether mainstreamed or self-con-tained, they often make only modestacademic gains. There is simply notenough instructional time to providethe systematic, explicit instruction in

23

all academic areas to allow those withspecial needs to catch up, let alonekeep up, with their peers. If thesechildren are mainstreamed, they usu-ally end up receiving separate individ-ual instruction from a paraprofessionalin a whole class setting. This is not acriticism of special education instruc-tion in the public schools; there aremany talented and committed specialeducation teachers. But no matter howskilled, committed, or talented a spe-cial education teacher may be, he orshe simply cannot make the sameprogress for a special needs child thatone determined and skilled caregiverlike Marsha can. There are simply notenough minutes in the school day for ateacher to devote to the intensive, sys-tematic direct instruction that Marshagave her daughter for several years.

When the school evaluated Amandaher IQ was estimated at 63, and shewas diagnosed with Infantile Autism.The school psychologist offered thesediscouraging words to her parents."You don't seem to understand. She ismildly mentally retarded, and she willnever be a rocket scientist or an engi-neer. All you can hope for is yourdaughter to get a mediocre job whenshe is an adult. She might peak outmentally as an 11-year-old, with areading capability of maybe a thirdgrader." But the psychologist's candidprognosis did not deter Marsha.Instead, these became "fightin' words"to Amanda's determined mother.

Marsha had heard about the effective-ness of the Direct Instruction curricu-lum for low-performing children. Shecontacted a McGraw-Hill, SRA repre-sentative, Rodney Kerr, who providedher with beginning Direct Instructionmaterials and the training needed toimplement the instruction withAmanda. By this time Amanda wasfloundering in second grade special edu-cation. She was easily frustrated and dis-couraged with lessons. Amanda wouldcome home from school and go directlyto bed. She spoke in a monotone voiceand rarely smiled. Halfway through theschool year, Marsha pulled Amanda out

of second grade and enrolled her in aprivate kindergarten class. Even thoughAmanda was 2 years older than theother children, kindergarten affordedAmanda an opportunity to continuedeveloping socially at her own level.

Amanda now spent mornings inkindergarten and afternoons with hermother in an intensive home schoolingprogram. Marsha began intensive, sys-tematic instruction using DI Reading

Mastery I and Language for Learning.Amanda's first attitude was, "I can't dothis!" Amanda at times would hideunder the table and Marsha would

After several weeks, Marsha

noticedArnanda's confidence

and enthnsiasm tOward" the

instruction dramaticallyincreasing because she was

given tasks that she could

peiform successfully.

have to force her out to do the pro-gram. Marsha didn't give up. Never-theless, Marsha estimated that it tookaround 1,000 repetitions to teachAmanda the first few sentence formsin the Language for Learning program.

Starting with simple sentences inresponse to the identification question,"What is this?" Amanda learned to pro-duce identity sentences such as, "Thisis a table" (clock, desk, pencil, orange,tree, vehicle). She then moved to moreinvolved syntactic patterns in actionstatements such as, "We are standingup," "He is touching his nose," andmuch later, "You are clapping yourhands and tapping your foot." Amandalearned higher-order thinking in basicconcepts of partwhole relations (apencil has a point; a pencil has a shaft;a pencil has an eraser). She alsolearned hierarchical thinking by classi-fying objects, another higher-orderthinking skill. This also allowed her toexpand her vocabulary with various

objects in the categories of vehicles,containers, animals, clothing, food,buildings, and furniture.

Probably one of the most difficult ini-tial concepts for Amanda to learn wasthe individual sounds various lettersmake. It took Amanda over 3 years tobe able to recognize letter sounds. Shecame into the DI program knowing twoto three soundletter correspondences,but consistent recall was limited. Start-ing with easily discriminable letters,(m, s, a, t, e), Marsha had to correcthundreds of errors Amanda made con-fusing these squiggles. But after a fewweeks in Reading Mastery I, Amandabegan remembering enough of thesecorrespondences accurately in order tostart reading simple words. Repetitionalong with short, frequent opportuni-ties to practice identifying and usingthe sounds during the daily lesson inthe Reading Mastery materials allowedAmanda to build this retention. Marshabegan seeing the same progress in earlylessons of Connecting Math Concepts

where Arnanda now had to identify thesquiggles as numerals under 10.

None of this progress came easily atfirst. It required maximum patience onMarsha's part, and firm persistence. Atfirst Amanda would work for only aminute or two. Then Marsha wouldgive her a tangible reward, a small pieceof food and stickers for her stickerbook. Gradually these were phased outto points on a chart to earn rewards.She provided frequent, specific praisefor Amanda's performance of the tasksin the programs. Marsha also employedmulti-sensory techniques learned fromMichigan Dyslexia Institute, Lin-damood-Bell Learning Processes, andWilson Reading Programs, which shefelt contributed to increasing Amanda'sattending behavior.

After several weeks, Marsha noticedAmanda's confidence and enthusiasmtoward the instruction dramaticallyincreasing because she was given tasksthat she could perform successfully. Bycarefully teaching the Reading Mastery

program, Marsha taught Amanda thephonological skills necessary for begin-

24 2 6 BESTCOPYAVAILABLE Spring 2003

ning reading, and the phonics skills forsounding out words using the carefullysequenced lessons. Amanda's languageskills also improved and she started tounderstand some abstract concepts inLanguage for Learning such as, "later,""before," and "only." The languagerepetition tasks continued to be themost difficult for Amanda to master,which is typically the case. Yet thework that Marsha did with her toenable Amanda to repeat complex syn-tactic forms was essential for Amanda'slater growth in reading comprehension.

The early math concepts proved to beeasier for Amanda to grasp. In math shemastered the subskills of counting andnumber recognition more easily andprogressed to performing two-digit col-umn addition and subtraction problemsbefore the end of the year. She waseven able to figure out mental mathproblems such as 45 + 3 and 20 + 30.

The transformation in Amanda's atti-tude toward learning new things wasalso dramatic. She no longer nappedwhen she got home from school.Amanda began drawing pictures thatwere vibrantly colorful and detailed.Earlier, the occupational therapist hadset a goal for Amanda to include threeobjects in her drawings. Amanda's newartwork far surpassed this goal. Thetransformation occurred not only inacademic and psychological areas, itaffected her socialization as well. Shedeveloped many friendships, wasalways smiling, loved going to school,and was happier at home.

Along with the social skills, Amanda'sphysical skills also took a leap forward.As Marsha reported, "Somehow afterDirect Instruction rewired her brainfor language, it also kicked into gearher sensory integration struggles." Shehas learned to play hopscotch, ride abike with training wheels, and tie hershoes. In fact, just last month shewent to see her occupational therapistfor a 1-year reevaluation. The OT(with 25 years experience) was sur-prised at the progress. She said, "I amtruly amazed! I've never seen suchimprovement in a child after 1 year.

Direct Instruaion News

Her body protection issues have sub-stantially diminished; her balance andcoordination have improved. She isstronger, more focused, less hyper. Shehas developed good listening and com-prehension skills, and can sit quietlyand attentively. She is not the samelittle girl I started with."

Marsha filled out a nomination for theWayne Carnine Student ImprovementAward for the 2001 Direct Instructionconference. In the application Marshadescribed the incredible improvementAmanda had made since she had beenlearning in the Direct Instruction pro-grams. Marsha explained that the psy-

The transformationin Amanda's attitude

toward learning new things

was also dramatic.

chiatrist, who had originally diagnosedAmanda with Infantile Autism, wasspeechless when he completed theevaluation. He said, "I've been in thepractice for over 30 years and I'venever seen anything like it. It appearsyou just worked your daughter out ofInfantile Autism. Whatever you aredoing, I suggest you do more of it.Miracles don't happen every day."

At the psychiatrist's suggestion, Mar-sha continued to work with Amandausing Direct Instruction. The follow-ing year she decided to continue homeschooling Amanda and complete atleast two levels of the Direct Instruc-tion programs in 1 year. They com-pleted Reading Mastery I and Language

for Learning. Then they continued withReading Mastery H, Language forThinking, Spelling Mastery A and B, Rea-soning and Writing A and B, and Connect-ing Math Concepts A and B. It tookAmanda and her mother 6 to 8 hoursof intensive, systematic daily instruc-tion in order to do this.

When they reached the middle ofReading Mastery II , Amanda announced,

27

"Mom, I don't need you any more. Ican read." Not only did she announceit, she demonstrated it as well. Accord-ing to her mother, Amanda "marchedinto her bedroom" and began to readnonstop. Within 4 days she had readover 800 pages. "That was such anexciting week," said Marsha, "She wasreading for over 6 hours a day, and itdidn't matter what she read. Herabsolute favorite books were my oldDick and Jane books. In fact, I got oneBay and found her the entire Dickand Jane readers. These are chapterbooks and she is reading at a secondgrade level."

Amanda's favorite program is Reasoningand Writing and she wants to do thatsubject first. She has more difficultywith Spelling Mastery and the Languagefor Thinking. She continues to strugglewith repeating complex sentences, butis successful with effort. Her attentionspan, which averaged about 3 minutesat the beginning of the school year, isup to 1.5 hours without a break.

All of this anecdotal information sug-gests that Amanda has learned a greatdeal. But there is also documentedevidence of her academic success.Amanda was recently administered theStanford Achievement Test for Grade1. She performed above the nationalaverage, at the 59th percentile forreading comprehension. On the con-tent cluster analysis, Amanda wasagain above average on the Short Pas-sages (Cloze) anciperage on all otherclusters except riddles. Her math per-formance is below average, but she hasclearly improved, performing at the19th percentile on problem solvingand the 14th percentile on procedures.

Marsha knew Amanda could performwell with one-on-one instruction, butthat wasn't good enough anymore. Thequestion was whether she could sur-vive in a classroom setting outside ofthe special education program. Duringthe last quarter of the school year,Amanda was placed back into firstgrade at Plantation Key ElementarySchool. Her report card also confirmedAmanda's progress. She made progress

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

25

in all academic areas and receivedcommendations in art, music, physicaleducation, Spanish, study skills, andcitizenship. Amanda was awarded theSuperintendent's Young Reader'sAward in May 2002. She had read over6,000 pages on her own by this time.Now Amanda is able CO perform withher grade level peers and has beenassimilated into their social culture.

In summary, the "road map" pioneeredby Amanda and her mother consists of:

I. Participation in preschool and kinder-garten with emphasis on oral lan-guage and vocabulary development;

2. Additional academic tutoring for 1to 2 hours/day during kindergarten;

3. Home schooling with intensity dur-ing first grade (6-8 hours/day);

4. Reintroduction into school settingduring latter quarter of first gradewith child performing on grade levelcurriculum and participating longwith peers; and

5. Continuation in second grade withcontinued support in DirectInstruction tutoring at home.

Amanda's story is not unique. Otherparents have followed this roadmap.Amanda's mother began additionalhome teaching when she observed herchild not thriving academically andsocially. Initially it was a struggle toget Amanda to work every day, but

when Amanda started succeeding atthe academic tasks, her success startedto change her lOrning curve. She basi-cally began to learn how to learn.

The critical message is that if a parentwants to make a significant differencein the learning curve for their handi-capped child, the extra effort muststart early. It must be intensive andpositive to result in accomplishmentssuch as Amanda's. Now Amanda is alife-long learner. As Marsha remarked,"Amanda may be like a barge in water,slowly plugging along, but she issteady and she will succeed."

* Marsha Rodman graduated from theUniversity of Michigan in CivilEngineering in 1982 and worked 18years as a civil engineer in southernCalifornia. Once Marsha deter-mined she had children with learn-ing challenges, she refocused herenergies on special education. Sheis now the owner and director ofSwan Learning Institute specializ-ing in reading, math, and languagedevelopment for individuals withdyslexia, autism, ADHD, and otherlearning difficulties. If you have fur-ther questions about how to imple-ment Direct Instruction programsin a home tutorial setting, you maycontact Marsha Rodman at her web-site: www.swanlearning.org

Author NoteThe author would like to thank Mar-garet Ashworth for her editing assistancein the preparation of this article. ADI

A letterfrom the fieldThis letter was sent to the A DI Board

of Directors in May 2002.

Dear Board,

I ani the Grandmother of athird-grade student at Pearl(MS) School. My Grandson,Tate White, has struggled inreading since the first grade. Heworried all the time that he wasnot as smart as all the other kidsbecause of his reading. I amproud to say this reading pro-gram has turned his life around.I have lunch with Tate everyTuesday. His reading teachercame co me after Christmas andtold me Tate was reading on athird-grade level. I am so proudof his power, yes power, nowthat he can read! Thank you somuch for if nothing else, theprogram has reached this child.

Sincerely,Cindy East

KATHLEEN M. WALDRON-SOLER and ANGELA PRZYCHODZIN-HAVIS, Eastern Washington University

Review of theReading Mastery Training Series

The Reading Mastery Training Series is a

new package of 12 videotapes pub-lished by Science Research Associates(Reading Mastery VHS Training Series:

ISBN # 0-07-584122-3, $129.00).Within an hour, viewers can watch thefirst four videotapes to learn about the

26

basic philosophy of Reading Mastery,general teaching practices that facili-tate student success in the program,and teacher prerequisite skills thatmust be learned before programimplementation. The next sevenvideotapes offer viewers the opportu-

23

nity to watch teachers model various

formats and signals with small groups

of students. Viewers can then practice

the formats and signals along with the

videotape. The training series ends

with a videotape of examples of the

implementation of various workbook

and storybook formats.

The following sections provide a sum-

mary of each videotape and a critique

of the Reading Mastery Training Series.

Spring 2003

Videotape SummariesVideotape #1:The Paths to LiteracyThis videotape provides an introduc-tion to the Reading Mastery program andan explanation of the following key pro-grammatic elements used to ensuresuccessful beginning readers in theprogram: (a) instructional groups, (b)signals and unison responding, and (c)sounds and blending. Five kindergartenteachers using the Reading Mastery pro-gram relate their personal experienceswith the implementation of the pro-gram. These teachers guide viewersthrough the remainder of the series asthey learn how to use the sounds, sig-nals, and scripts of Reading Mastery.

Videotape #2:Why Is Reading So Hard?This videotape provides a brief, buthighly informative explanation of theprocess students go through whenlearning to read. The videotape beginswith a comparison of how written textmust look to a young child versus a lit-erate adult. The narrator explains thatwhat initially looks like "squiggles onpaper" to young children must berelated to something they alreadyknowspeech. Viewers learn of theimportance of phonemic awarenessinstruction in a beginning reading pro-gram and examples of phonemes in theEnglish language are given. The factthat some letters have multiple soundsassociated with them and the confu-sion this can cause when learning toread is discussed. Viewers learn thatReading Mastery changes the look ofsome of the letters to help reduce theconfusion of which sounds are associ-ated with certain letter symbols. View-ers are shown that Reading Masteryinitially focuses on teaching the soundsassociated with 40 sound symbols, butthat by the end of 1 school year highperforming students are able to readcomplex stories with normal text.

Videotape #3: Anatomy of aReading Mastery ClassroomThis videotape explains and showsexamples of the following eight class-

Direct Instruction News

room practices used in the ReadingMastery program to help teachersachieve success: (a) managing behavioreffectively, (b) using praise not criti-cism, (c) setting up reading groupscarefully, (d) using signals to elicit uni-son responding, (e) mastering scriptsthoroughly, (f) monitoring closely andcorrecting immediately, (g) firmingevery child to mastery, and (h) makingit fun for the kids. The five teachersintroduced in The Paths to Literacy pro-vide explicit guidelines and tips forimplementing each of these eightclassroom practices.

Videotape #4:Countdown to Lesson OneThis videotape reviews three skillsthat teachers must master beforebeginning the Reading Mastery program:(a) the pronunciation and blending ofthe 40 phonemes used in the program;(b) the use of hand signals, presenta-tion book signals, and workbook andstorybook signals; and (c) responseerror correction procedures.

Videotape #5: PracticeJunction: Practice the SoundsThis videotape models the correct pro-nunciation and mouth formation of the40 sounds used in the program. View-ers hear one model of the sound andare then directed to "Say Along."Viewers are then asked to practice "ByYourself." During this sequence, thewords "Get Ready" are flashed on thescreen followed by a visual of the let-ter/letter combination. Finally, a verifi-cation of the sound is presented.

Videotape #6: PracticeJunction: Sounds Review/Practice BlendingThis videotape provides a review of thesounds practiced in Practke Junction:Practice the Sounds and practice blendingsounds together. Blending is initiallypracticed with eight words made up ofcontinuous sounds. Viewers are thenintroduced to words with continuousand stop sounds. To practice each listof words, viewers are asked to say thecorrect blending along with the video-tape. Viewers are then asked to blend

2 9

the sounds by themselves. Once a listof words has been practiced, a randomreview of the words is provided. View-ers are asked to blend the sounds ofthe word and verification of the appro-priate blending is given.

Videotapes #7-10: Signaland Scripts Lessons 1-8;Signal and Scripts Lessons19-29; Signal and ScriptsLessons 37-56; Signaland Scripts Lessons 57-96These four videotapes provide practiceof tasks from lessons 1 through 96 inReading Mastery I . Viewers are asked tofollow a three-step practice sequencefor each task: (a) watch and listen, (b)follow along, and (c) say along. During"Watch and Listen," a teacher modelsthe lesson task with a small group ofstudents. During "Follow Along," thewords "Follow Along" are flashed onthe screen and the task is presentedagain with a visual of the teacher's sig-nal and the directions the teacher issaying aloud are flashed on the screen.The teacher's directions and studentresponses can also be heard. During"Say Along," the words "Say Along" areflashed on the screen and viewers seethe same visual of the teacher's signaland hear the directions she is saying tothe students as presented in the "Fol-low Along" sequence.

Videotape #11: PracticeJunction: Correction Proceduresfor the Early:LessonsThis videotape provides practice ofthree correction procedures for variousstudent response errors: (a) mispro-nunciation, (b) misidentification, and(c) stopping between the sounds. Theerror correction procedure is modeledand then viewers are asked to "SayAlong" with the videotape.

Videotape #12: SampleWorkbook and StorybookFormatsThis videotape presents examples of theimplementation of various workbook andstorybook tasks from lessons 19 through96 with small groups of students.

27

Critique of the ReadingMastery Training SeriesSome concerns are evident across thetraining series. First, viewers are nevertold that the training series onlyfocuses on Reading Mastery I. Second,although the videotapes refer to Read-ing Mastery I and II, viewers are neverprovided information about all the lev-els of the program. Third, althoughthree signals are reviewed, the differ-ence between an audible and visualsignal is never explicitly described.Fourth, although corrections forresponse errors are provided, correc-tions for nonattending, nonresponding,and signal errors arp not discussed.Finally, it is difficult to hear many ofthe kids on the last videotape, SampleWorkbook and Storybook Formats.

Two changes to videotapes 7-10 wouldmake them more useful during train-ing sessions. First, viewers should beprovided with explicit directions aboutwhat they are supposed to do duringthe "Follow Along" and "Say Along"

practice sequences. Second, a work-book including copies of the teacherpresentation book tasks practiced onthe videotapes should be provided toviewers. This would allow viewers toactually practice the signals and readthe script as they will need to do dur-ing implementation of the program.Viewers are currently asked to say thescript along with the videotape. Thevalue of this is questionable.

The teachers demonstrated a varietyof delivery errors at various timesacross the 12 videotapes: (a)mouthing sounds while students areresponding, (b) failing to provide cor-rections for student errors, (c) holdingthe teacher presentation book on thewrong side of the body, (d) signalingand speaking at the same time, (e)targeting one student during an errorcorrection, (f) failing to make clearpull-offs from the page when signalingsounds, (g) forgetting to say "Getready" before signaling, (h) adding asnap to the hand drop signal, and (i)presenting the hand signal with thefist facing towards the students.

Little Rock Success Story

Kiren Sullards, Principal of Scott Ele-mentary in Pulaski County SpecialSchool District, Little Rock, Arkansas,

submitted this impressive DI successstory. After only 1 year of a DI readingimplementation, the percent of stu-

Table 1Percent of Students Scoring Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advancedon the Primary Benchmark lest in 2001 (Before DI Implementation) and

2002 (After I N'ar of DI Implementation) on Literacy and Math

Literacy2001 2002 Change

Math2001 2002 Change

Below Basic 64 18 -46 Below Basic 73 41 -32Basic 27 35 +7 Basic 9 12 +3Proficient 9 47 +38 Proficient 9 41 +33Advanced 0 0 0 Advanced 9 6 -3

28 3 0

There is also some questionable pro-nunciation of sounds by the teachers.Although these errors may only beapparent to an individual experiencedwith the implementation of ReadingMastery, it is unfortunate that noviceReading Mastery teachers may observeand practice inappropriate implemen-tation procedures.

Despite some of the concernsdescribed above, this training seriesprovides an excellent introduction toReading Mastery I and the basic teach-ing techniques required to run theprogram. The series will be a valuableasset to initial Reading Mastery I train-ing sessions. The teachers demonstrat-ing the implementation of ReadingMastery I are sincere in their testimo-nials about the effectiveness of theprogram and demonstrate the use ofReading Mastery with "real" students.Viewers are able to see what the Read-ing Mastery materials look like, observethe unique ways in which each teacherimplements the program, and witnessthe positive reactions students have tothe Reading Mastery program. ADt .

dents scoring below basic on the Liter-acy subtest of the state's PrimaryBenchmark Test dropped significantlyand the percent scoring at basic andproficient increased significantly.Karen reports that Math scores alsoimproved because it was the first timethat the students could read the test.The numbers in Table 1 show themagnitude of the changes in Literacyand Math.

The school is now in its 2nd year ofimplementation in reading and its 1styear of implementation in languageand spelling. Mg-

Spring 2003

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.

Direct Instruction News 31

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 DI Con-ference and InstitutesJune 10-13, 2003Adams's Mark, Florida MallOrlando, Florida

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

29th National DirectInstructiori' Conferenceand InstitutesJuly 20-24, 2003Eugene Hiiton and Confer-ence CenterEugene, Oregon

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

29

Agra 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 Direct Instruc-tion. The training tapes have been designed to be either stand-alone training or used to supplement and reinforce live train-ing. The motivational tapes are keynote presentations from past years of the National Direct Instruction Conference.

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 9,0s: 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, Wesley Elemen-tary School in Houston, Texas, demonstrates approach. Principal, Thaddeus Lott, and teachers are interviewed and class-room footage is shown. Created by Houston Independent School District in collaborative partnership with Project FollowThrough. 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 Schae-

fer and Molly Blakely. The video includes scenarios showing 27 common teaching problems, with demonstrations of coach-ing interventions for each problem. A common intervention format is utilized in all scenarios. Print material that details eachteaching problem and the rationale for correcting the problem is provided. This product should be to used to supplementlive DI coaching training and is ideal for Coaches, Teachers, Trainers. Price...$395.00 Member Price...$316.00

DI1VReading 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 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 III (1 Videotape) $25.00Combined package (Reading Mastery IIII) $229.00

Corrective Reading: Decoding B1, 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 decod-ing lesson, information on classroom management/reinforcement, and demonstration of lessons (off-camera responses).Price $25.00.

3 0 32 Spring 2003

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 in Balti-more from a place of hopelessness to a place of hope. The principal of City Springs, Bernice Whelchel addressed the 2001National DI Conference with an update on her school and delivered a truly inspiring keynote. She describes the determi-nation of her staff and students to reach the excellence she knew they were capable of. Through this hard work City Springswent from being one of the 20 lowest schools in the Baltimore City Schools system to one of the top 20 schools. Thiskeynote also includes a 10-minute video updating viewers on the progress at City Springs in the 2000-2001 school year. Inthe second keynote Zig Engelmann elaborates on the features of successful implementations such as City Springs. Alsoincluded 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 by Thad-deus Lott, Senior. Dr. Lott was principal at Wesley Elementary in Houston, Texas from 1974 until 1995. During that timehe turned the school into one of the best in the nation, despite demographics that would predict failure. He is an inspi-ration to thousands across the country. The second presentation by Siegfried Engelmann continues on the theme that weknow all we need to know about how to teachwe just need to get out there and do it. This tape also includes Engel-mann'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, Siegfried 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 Instruction Con-ference. His talk was rated as one of the best features of the conference. Eric focused on the challenges of educating ourinner city youth and the high expectations we must communicate to our children and teachers if we are to succeed in rais-ing student performance in our schools. Also included on this video is a welcome by Siegfried Engelmann, Senior Authorand 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 tau& impacts the instructional delivery method. Keynote from1997 National DI Conference. Price: $15.00 continued on next page

Direct Instruaion News3 3 BEST COPY AVAILABLE

31

01.111111.1116 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 Horner, 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, Associke Director for the Center for the Study of Reading, University of Illinois, speaking on "Direct Instruc-tion: Past, Present & Future"; Sara Tarver, Professor, University of Wisconsin, Madison, speaking on "I Have a DreamThat Someday 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, 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 97440You may also phone or fax your order.Phone 1.800.995.2464 Fax 541.683.7543

QtY Item Each Total

Shipping

Total

Please charge my Visa Mastercard Discover in the amount of $

Card # Exp Date

Signed

Name:

Address:

City: State: Zip:

Phone:

323 4

Spring 2003

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

Corrective ReadingSounds Practice Tape

CORRECTIVE READINGSOUNDS PRACTICE

POBoll 2 97440I-6004954W

As400.41709 for Dina Ingniale0

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

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

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

A BDI, PO ox 1hfax

0252, Eugene, OR97440

Phone 1.800.995.2464 Fax 541.683.7543

Qty. Item Each Total

Corrective Reading Sounds Tape 10.00

6hipping

Total

Please charge my Visa Mastercard Discover in the amount of $

Card # Exp Date

Signed

Name:

Address:

City: State: Zip:

Phone:

Direct Instruction News

3 5 BESTCOPYAVAILABLE33

/I 7"Association for Direct Instruction

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

What is AD!, the Association for Direct Instruction?Am 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 Jour-nal of Direct Instruction (JODI), Dfrect 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% discounton ADI sponsored events and on materials sold by ADI).

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

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

$150.00 Institutional Membership (includes 5 subscriptions to ADI publications and regular membershipprivileges for 5 staff people).

1/ 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.

s/ 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:

34

Phone:

School District or Agency:

Position:

e-mail address:

36 Spring 2003

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 $24.95 $29.95

Use this chart to figure your shipping and handling charges.

If your order is: Postage & Handling is:$0.00 to $5.00 $3.0085.01 to $10.00 83.75810.01 to 815.00 84.50815.01 to $20.99 85.50821.00 to $40.99 $6.75$41.00 to 860.99 $8.00$61.00 to $80.99 89.00$81.00 or more 10% of Subtotal

Outside the continental U.S , add $3 more

Subtotal

Postage & Handling

ADI Membership Dues

Total (U.S. 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:

Direct Instruaion News

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

37 35

Association for Direct InstructionPO Box 10252AJILJA. 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 foliowing individuals. Their generosityhelps our organization continue to promote the use of effective, research-based methods and materials in our schools.

Anayezuka Ahidiana Babette Engel John L. Lotz Karen Sorrentino

Rose Alford David Giguere Amy McGovern Randy & Marilyn Sprick

Alvin Allert Dick Glatzmaier Mary Nardo Geoff St. John

Anita Archer Mary P. Gudgel Doreen Neistadt Linda StewartJason Aronoff Ardena Harris Kip Orloff Sara G. TarverMarvin Baker Melissa Hayden Jean Osborn Vicci TucciJerry Jo Ballard Lee Hemenway David Parr

Vicky VachonRoberta Bender Kelly Henderson K. Gale Phillips

Frank ValentiSusan Best Christy Holmes Larry Prusz

Scott Van ZuidenMolly Blakely Susan Hornor Janet Reinhardtsen

Tricia Walsh-CoughlanJudith Carlson Debbie Jackson Thomas Rollins

Corene Cassel le Shirley R. Johnson Peggy RoushRose Wanken

Maria Collins Sophia Johnson Randi Saulter Ann Watanabe

Gail Coulter Christopher Jones Ed Schaefer Cathy Watkins

Jim Cowardin Diane Kinder Carolyn Schneider Paul Weisberg

Donna Dressman John W. Lloyd Pam Smith Gayle Wood

Debbie Egan Pat Lloyd Jonita Sommers Leslie Zoref

38

Direct InstrucA 1-1 Effective School Practices

C S 012.1

SARA G. TARVER, Editor, University of Wisconsin, Madison

A Formula for Success:A No -Excuses-For-Failure Attitude,Competent Curriculum Development,and Technical Proficiency

This issue of DI News is packed withstories of success when using DI. AmyGriffin's report of the 2003 ADI awardscontains several stories, each of whichprovides valuable insights into theingredients of the successes. GaryHanneman, recipient of the Excel-lence in Education Award, refused toaccept failure as an option for studentsin his special education classroom. Theteachers and administrators at Ever-green Elementary in Spokane, Wash-ington, and Abraham Lincon MiddleSchool in Gainesville, Floridathetwo schools that received ExcellentSchool Awardsshowed strong com-mitment to DI and untiring efforts todeliver DI with integrity and help oth-ers to learn to deliver DI withintegrity. Richard Russell, a fifth-gradeteacher who received the Susie WayneScholarship, tells how the DirectInstruction Model (including the DIprograms published by SRNM'cGraw-Hill) provided the tools that helpedhis students achieve excellence.

Two additional success stories arereported for Eastside Charter School inWilmington, Delaware, and VictoryCharter School near Atlanta. Accordingto a staff reporter for The News Journal,Eastside "has outdone every school inthe state this year, maybe in the historyof standardized testing in Delaware."In a report of Victory Charter School'sacademic gains in reading, Curtis

Jasper highlights the importance of anadministrator who assumes the impor-tant role of instructional leader.

Perhaps the most phenomenal DI suc-cess story is that of City Springs Ele-mentary in Baltimore. For the past 5years, we have been amazed by theacademic gains at City Springs as aresult of a DI implementation byNIFDI. The 6th-year (2003) testscores are even more amazing (see thearticle contributed by Kurt Engelmannin this issue). Percentile ranks of 99 inBOTH Reading and Math for firstgrade! I'd find this unbelievable if Iwere not fully aware of the power ofDI. And the fifth-grade percentileranks of 87 in reading and 79 in mathain't bad either. Once again, hats off toBcrnicc Whelchel, Principal, and theentire teaching staff at City Springs.

How are such phenomenal successesachieved? By magic? No. By wishfulthinking? No. By technical proficiencyand competent curriculum develop-ment says Martin Kozloff in his articlein this issue. To communicate clearlythe differences between competentcurriculum development and incompe-tent curriculum development, he jux-taposes negative and positiveexamples of technically proficient cur-riculum developmeni. Obviously, Mar-tin knows that juxtaposing negativeand positive examples helps students

to grasp complex concepts, and hemakes use of that knowledge to helpus understand some of the complexi-ties of curriculum development.

In his troubleshooting article in thisissue, Don Crawford details eightthings that teachers should checkwhen their first-grade students areready for Reading Mastery III yet seemto have trouble "comprehending."Knowing what to do, he says, is the

continued on page 3

FALL 2003, Volume 3, Number 2

In this issue

3

8

910

12

16

22

242629

The Failures of a TeacherEducation Program

32Why I Attended "MasteryWhy and How"

2003 Excellence in EducationAwards

Susie Wayne Scholarship

Eastside Sets the Standard

An Administrator Who ReallyIs an Instructional Leader

City Springs Sets theStandard...Again

Martin's Musings

When Students in ReadingMastery III HaveComprehension Problems

Response to Time Magazine

A View From Askance

3 9BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Direct Instruction NewsEditorSara TarverUniversity of Wisconsin, Madison

Editorial BoardKerry HempenstallRoyal Melbourne Institute of TechnologyVictoria, Australia

Martin KozloffUniversity of North Carolina, Wilmington

Vicki SniderUniversity of Wisconsin, Eau Claire

ADI Board of DirectorsBob DixonClassical LearningOlympia, Washington

Susan HannerCo-AuthorCreswell, Oregon

Gary Johnson ---------- _ _

Co-Author/IndependenkonsultantPortland, Oregon

Nancy Marchand-MartellaEastern Washington UniversityCheney, Washington

Milly SchraderElk Grove School DistrictElk Grove, California

Timothy SlocumUtah State UniversityLogan, Ift

Don SteelyOregon Center for Applied ScienceEugene, Oregon

The DI Nem 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 non-profit, tax-exempt corporation under Sec-tion 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Codeand is a publicly supported organization asdefined in Sections 170(b)(1)(A)(ii) and509(a) (1). Donations are tax-deductible.

A copy or summary of the current financialstatement, or annual report, and registra-tion filed by ADI may be obtained by con-tacting: ADI, PO. BOX 10252, Eugene, OR97440 (541-485-1293). ADI is registeredwith the state of Oregon, Department ofJustice, #79-16751. Copyright iSD 2003Association for Direct Instruction.

ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION RATES: $25U. S.; $30 (U. S. currency) 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 AD! 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 to 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, Regu-lar 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-tested and empirically validated.

Tips for teachers: Practical, short products that a teacher can copy and useimmediately. This might be advice for solving a specific but pervasive 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 PublicationsP.O. Box 10252

Eugene, OR 97440

Acknowledgement of receipt of the manuscript will be sent by email. Articles are

initially screened by the editors for placementin 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 her

article appears.

4 0 BEST COPY AVAILABLE Fall 2003

Formula for Success...continued from page I

key to avoiding the age-old excusesthat the children are "too young" or"not developmentally ready."

Zig Engelmann, in his response to aTime article of 7/28/03, dispels themyth that "dyslexia" is a valid excusefor reading failure. He explains clearlythe flaws in interpretations of MRIbrain research that attribute readingfailure (or "dyslexia") to brain activitypatterns that are "different." BobDixon, in his "View From Askance,"

expands on this issue to explain clearlythat so-called "causes" of poor readingare irrelevant to the real solutions tosuch problems. I really wish that thescientists who are studying "dyslexia"would read this article and "get it."

As we DI die-hards know, the mostlikely cause of reading failure is "dys-teachia" (sometimes called "dyspeda-gogia"). And, unfortunately, most ofthe teacher-training programs in ouruniversities actually contribute to therampant dysteachia that we are seeingin our schools. Tina Errthum, in this

issue, describes vividly the disillusion-ment and disappointment that sheexperienced as a student in a teacher-training program at a university in theMidwest. She is taking steps to informadministrators of that university thather teacher-training program failed toteach her what and how to teach.Tina's article reminds us of somethingthat we all knowour system of train-ing teachers must be reformed if weare to achieve true educational reform.

Happy reading and a happy 2003-2004school year! ADI.

AMY GRIFFIN, Association for Direct Instruction

2003 Excellence in Education Awards

Each year the Association for DirectInstruction issues a call for nomina-tions in the categories of Excellencein Education, The Wesley BeckerExcellent School Award, The WesleyBecker Research Award, and theWayne Carnine Student ImprovementAward. Members of the Board ofDirectors of ADI select the recipients.During the National Direct Instruc-tion Conference held each summer inEugene, Oregon an awards dinnertakes place during which the awardsrecipients are presented with theiraward and given an opportunity tocomment on the factors which led totheir success, as well as thank othercontributors to their success.

ADI is proud to recognize the 2003recipients for the efforts they havemade in utilizing Direct Instruction toimprove student learning and perform-ance. Unfortunately, we did notreceive any nominations this year forthe Wayne Carnine Student Improve-ment award. Sadly, an opportunity wasmissed to recognize the achievementof a studentthe nature of the awardis to recognize a student for academic

Direct Instruction News

achievement and that recognition is soimportant to students, especially stu-dents who had grown accustomed tofailure and then find that through aneffective program and teaching, failureneed not be their course, they canmake gains, move to grade level, passthe standardized tests, and obtain theconfidence that all students deserve.The awards nomination forms will besent to our membership in February;please take the time to acknowledgethe achievement of not only the stu-dents, but your peers who are not justfollowing fads, but are utilizing effec-tive tools to ensure that the classroomserves its purpose: teaching studentsnot just how to read, but truly givingthem a skill that should be consideredstandard procedure in school, but alltoo often is not.

Excellence in EducationGary Hanneman, TeachingGary Hanneman is a self-containedspecial education teacher at BackmanElementary in Salt Lake City, Utah.The Direct Instruction programs thatGary currently uses include Corrective

Reading Decoding, Read-

ing Mastery, Connecting

Math Concepts, Spelling

Mastery, CorrectiveSpelling Through Mor-

phographs, Reasoningand Writing, ExpressiveWriting, and Cursive

Writing. The repertoireof DI programs thathe has utilizedthroughout his career is also quiteextensive.

Gary Hanneman

Gary teaches Grades 4 through 6. Theprincipal at Backman, Fern Wilkerson,described Gary's students and theirperformance level as such, "Generally,the students that Gary receives arenonreaders. Due to hard work and hisunwavering belief that all students canlearn and learn well if the conditionsare right, Gary has a very high successrate. He teaches nonreaders to readfluently. Gary creates those conditionsof success: a warm, caring environment,a place where all students are treatedwith respect and dignity, and instruc-tional skills second to none. At the coreof Gary's instructional strategies is hisstrong commitment to Direct Instruc-tion. He is a master of his trade, andstudent success is the proof of his abili-ties. In Gary's classroom, failure is notan option."

4 1BEST COPY AVAILABLE

3

A colleague of Gary's, Shelley McMur-rin, shared how she came to know Garyand Direct Instruction. "I met Gary 23years ago when I graduated from col-lege. He was the other resourceteacher where I had been hired atStansbury Elementary School in WestValley City, Utah. I knew nothingabout Direct Instruction until I metGary. I walked into his classroom andthe students would be answering inunison after Gary said something. Hesnapped his fingers and was alwayssaying 'get ready.' It was all prettyamazing and quite foreign to me. Ithought he was crazy at first, the wayhe carried on that DI was the best andonly way to teach. He was passionateabout DI and eventually convinced methat it works."

Shelley continues with, "Students inGary's classroom are highly engagedand have no time to misbehave. Acad-emic growth is made by all students inall areas. It is not unusual for a stu-dent to make more than a year'sgrowth in reading. Students make aca-demic gains as well as social gains inhis classroom...He believes all stu-dents can learn and has been an advo-cate for DI. He converted me to DIwhen I was a young teacher which Iam very grateful for. We used to jokeabout 'dysteachia.' It wasn't the stu-dents' fault they weren't learning. Itwas because their teachers sufferedfrom 'dysteachia.' They didn't teacheffectively, but we did because weused Direct Instruction."

Included in the nomination packet forGary was a copy of a Writing Assess-ment of one of Gary's former students,Joshua Hall. The title of the assess-ment is "Lifes Exeperiences." It is athree-page essay describing Joshua'sacademic career and experiences inschool. At one point he describes thebeginning of his academic trouble inelementary school.

"As the weeks went on there were sev-eral things we learned to do, painting,

4

singing, reading and such. The onlyproblem was that I was failing, all myclass work. I was so behind that myparents were starting to worry.

"They called in specialists in speachand comperhention. The specialistsaid that I was born with DobhalDislexys, meaning that words andnumders switch arround in my headwith out me knowing it. This problemwould hold me back for a long time.

"It got so bad that I was scared tospeak to anybody at school. Mean

Students in Gary'sclassroom are highly

engaged and have no time

to misbehave. Academic

growth is made by all

students in all areas. It isnot unusual for a student

to make more than a year'sgrowth in reading.

teachers and frustated parents did nothelp the situation. I became sociallyisolated and my self-esteem dropped.

"Then in 1996 my famly moved toSalt Lake to be closer to work andfamly. That would turn out to be thebest move I've ever made.

"I attended Backman Elimentary andmy life turned around thanks to GeryHadamen. He and mis Bard were myhelp to sucess, alawys pushing mewith love and care: they ran me throghthe basics and helped me socialize. Ilearned how to play baskitball, read,and undersand.

"After that, my life turned arround andin 1998 I recieved the Academic

4 2

Routey award. Only one is given out inUtah every eary.

"Now I'm in West High and have a 3.1GPA. I'll never know/and, I'll neverforget those people how helped me toacheive this success.

In conclusion life is a challenge, and ifyou never give up and always seek helpno calleneg is too big or too small tohandlee."

Gary Hanneman exemplifies what ismeant by the term Excellence in Edu-cation. Congratulations, Gary, andthank you for your contribution to stu-dent success and improvement.

Wesley Becker Excellent

School AwardThis year two schools have been recog-nized as Excellent Schools. Each of theschools received a $500 cash award.

Evergreen Elementary,Spokane, WashingtonOne hundred percent of students atEvergreen use Direct Instruction pro-grams, and Reading Mastery has beenutilized in Grades K-3 for 4 years.Evergreen currently uses Spelling Mas-tery, Reading Mastery, Language for

Learning, Connecting Math Concepts, Rea-

soning and Writing, and Corrective ReadingDecoding and Comprehension. Awards,

Citations, and Recognition given tothe school include: listed in Washing-ton State's Top 100 Schools, twoteachers awarded ADI Direct Instruc-tion Teachers of the Year, one teacherawarded Washington State ASCDStatewide Recognition Award, and oneteacher awarded Eastern WashingtonUniversity/Q 6 Television StationTeacher of the Month.

In her rationale describing why Ever-green Elementary should be recog-nized as an Excellent School, Dr.Nancy Marchand-Martella from East-ern Washington University wrote,

Fall 2003

"Evergreen Elementary serves as theDirect Instruction hub for the inlandNorthwest. Three universitiesEast-ern Washington University, GonzagaUniversity, and Whitworth Collegeall place students at Evergreen whenthey want their students to experi-ence the best in Direct Instruction.The teachers at Evergreen are tirelessin their pursuit of excellence. Theyprovide guest talks at local universi-ties, teach college courses and super-vise student teachers and practicumstudents, allow classroom observationsat any time, and serve as a model-demonstration school for those inter-ested in seeing what DirectInstruction is all about. EvergreenElementary supports research endeav-ors and has received numerous acco-lades for its teachers and for howstudents perform."

In a success story shared by SRA, itwas reported that, "Evergreen Ele-mentary students consistently scoreabove the state standard on the read-ing portion of the Washington Assess-ment of Student Learning (WASL). Infact, after Grade 3 students experi-enced 1 year of Reading Mastery, 83% ofthem met/exceeded the WASL read-ing state standard as Grade 4 studentsin 1999. By 2002, the high percentagecontinued-82% of Grade 4 studentsmet or exceeded the state standard.Of those Grade 4 students who stud-ied Reading Mastery for 3 or more years,

90.2% of them met or exceeded thestate standard."

Dr. Betty Fry Williams from WhitworthCollege contributed that, "EvergreenElementary provides an outstandingmodel of effective teaching strategiesthrough their use of Direct Instructioncurricula. As an education faculty mem-ber at nearby Whitworth College, I amespecially grateful for Evergreen's pres-ence in our neighborhood and for theirconstant support and training of ourteacher education and special educationstudents in Direct Instruction methods.

Direct Instruction News

"I would especially salute LindaMcGlocklin and Susan Hornor whoinitiated the use of Direct Instructionin their first-grade classrooms. Theirsuccess in teaching students at allachievement levels provided momen-tum for other grade levels to adopt theDirect Instruction curricula as well.Their principal, Becky Cooke, recog-nized the power of this approach andencouraged its use in general educa-tion, in special education, and in theschool's reading tutorial program. Ihave heard many Evergreen parentscredit Direct Instruction for the con-

Evergreen Elementaryprovides an outstandingmodel of effective teaching

strategies through their use

of Direct Instruction

curricula.

siderable academic growth their chil-dren made. The programs are enthusi-astically endorsed by the communitythe school serves.

"In addition, numerous teacher prepa-ration students intern in Evergreen'sclassrooms, work as tutors, or carryout interventions with children inspecial education. Future teachersdevelop skills and attitudes thatrespect the Direct Instructionapproach as effective and valuable forchildren. The classroom teachers havealso made presentations within ourcourses and even encouraged theorganization of a local Direct Instruc-tion chapter. All of this has helped todisseminate information about DirectInstruction in a number of otherschool districts in our area."

Dr. Randy Williams from Gonzaga Uni-versity has been teaching undergradu-ate and graduate coUrses in Direct

Instruction for over 20 years. Hestated that, "Because of their adoptionand extensive utilization of DirectInstruction curricula, coupled withhighly trained teachers who can trainand coach their colleagues, I viewEvergreen Elementary School as themost effective elementary school inthis region." Dr. Williams adds that,"The last 3 years show an outstandingincreasing trend (58%, 66%, and 70%)in the percent of students meeting orexceeding the national average on theIowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS). Thisis truly remarkable since the ITBS hastraditionally not been sensitive to aphonetic/decoding approach to tea,ch-ing reading."

Evergreen Elementary is exceptionalin that the school is not only raisingthe achievement levels of its own stu-dents, but is also introducing futureteachers to the effectiveness of DirectInstruction. What a positive force notonly for the current and future stu-dents at Evergreen, but for the manylives that will be affected in the futurebecause teachers in practice are giventhe opportunity to experience aneffective school first hand and carrythat information to other schools inwhich they will work upon graduation.

Abraham Lincoln MiddleSchool, Gainesville, FloridaThe following write-up was composedby Claudia McKnight, SeniorCoach/Trainer from the Center forApplied Research in Education(C.A.R.E.), Eugene, Oregon.

Abraham Lincoln Middle School inGainesville, Florida serves a highpoverty neighborhood in their majorprogram. Of the major-program stu-dents, approximately 90% are AfricanAmerican, and 85% receive free orreduced lunch. All of the major-pro-gram and special education students inGrades 6-8 are in Direct Instructionprograms. For the past 3 years LincolnMiddle School has received "A' scores

4 3 BEST COPY AVAILABLE

5

from the state of Florida for studentperformance. How was this achieved?

Lincoln's rating was a "C" during the1998-1999 school year. At that time itwas decided to bring in Corrective Read-ing using the Goals 2000 MiddleSchool reading grant. It was one of theoptions offered to schools in Floridawith high levels of low achievement.The only reason Lincoln was not ratedlower than a "C" was due to its mag-net program for academically talentedstudents, the Lyceum. Then came thechallenge of raising the academic per-formance of the major-program andspecial education students who alsoattended Lincoln.

Two teams consisting of a teacher andan administrator went to visit schoolsin neighboring counties that wereusing Corrective Reading. Based on theirobservations and discussions, CorrectiveReading was implemented during the1999-2000 school year. The followingsummer, based on our students' per-formance on the FCAT, Lincoln wasrated an "N: school. That 1st year ofimplementation, Lincoln used bothDecoding and Comprehension. They havecontinued to use those programs withgreat success.

During the 2000-2001 school year twomath teachers piloted Connecting MathConcepts. In the spring of 2001, Dr.Bonnie Grossen from the University ofOregon and the Center for AppliedResearch in Education (C.A.R.E.) pro-vided a grant to Lincoln that allowedthe school to expand the DirectInstruction program into language arts,math, and social studies. In addition,the grant supported a full-time, on-site, Direct Instruction coach andadditional training for the staff.

The 2001-2002 school year saw theexpansion of DI into sixth- througheighth-grade math in both the majorprogram and special education and theimplementation in the eighth grade ofthe Understanding U.S. History text. Inaddition, Comprehension C was used for

6

all sixth- and seventh-grade languagearts classes.

With C.A.R.E.'s ongoing technical andfinancial support, this year (2002-2003)we are a full scale implementation. Allthe sixth- through eighth-grade lan-guage arts classes began the year withinstruction in Expressive Writing II,then transitioned into Reasoning andWriting. Sixth graders are beinginstructed in level D, seventh gradersin E, and eighth graders in F We justreceived our FCAT writing scores;they are the highest in AlachuaCounty! Of the 124 major-program

We just received our

ECAT writing scores; they

are the highest in A/achua

County! Of the 124 major-

program students in the

eighth grade who took the

test, 97.6% passed.

students in the eighth grade who tookthe test, 97.6% passed. (The Lyceumstudents are not included in thistotal.) Of the 61 eighth-grade ESEstudents who took the test, 57%received a passing score or higher.Note that several of the special educa-tion classes had to begin with Expres-sive Writing 1 and then went on to I I .They had not begun Reasoning andWriting before the FCAT writing testwas given.

The struggling readers are doubleservedone class of Decoding and oneof Comprehension daily. The plans fornext year reflect this commitment tocontinue to move those studentsstruggling in reading and/or mathquickly to grade level by offering twoperiods in each subject per day. It hasbeen and will continue to be the goalof the Lincoln staff to have all eighth

4 4

graders on grade level in each aca-demic area. They are getting close!

That is the level of commitment atLincoln, and look at the payoff in stu-dent performance.

Here are some highlights from the2002 FCAT results:

63% of the lowest quartile madeabove normal gains in FCAT reading,

67% of all students made above nor-mal gains in FCAT reading, and

96% of all students passed theFCAT writing assessment.

Of the staff, 35% of the regular pro-gram teachers teach one or more DIclasses; 90% of the ESE teachers areteaching one or more DI classes. Thetotal staff teaching one or more DIclass is 41%.

With Dr. Grossen's guidance, progressmonitoring and in-class coaching wereput in place. The daily progress moni-toring and monthly summaries areinvaluable when assuring that eachstudent is progressing. The first majorimpact of the progress monitoring wasshowing the staff how often instruc-tion was interrupted. Immediately anew field trip policy was put in place,and a shortened day did not mean anoninstruction day. Now every deci-sion is weighed by asking how it willimpact instruction.

The key issues of attendance andbehavior have been taken up by thestudent support committee whichmeets weekly. These are noninstruc-tional support staff: administrators,counselors, deans, and the nurse. Theyreceive a report monthly on the DIstudents' progress and any studentsthere are concerns about. The groupthen explores ways to aid the student.As a school they have dealt with thetwo main reasons students are not atmasteryattendance and discipline.The discipline referrals to the Dean'soffice are infrequent during the DIclasses. However, the students whoreceive in-school suspensions for

Fall 2003

behavior during another class areexcluded from their DI classes thatday also. The faculty and supportteams are working on a policy of allow-ing the student to attend her/his DIclasses and then return to detention.

The on-site coordinator ensures thatthe students are placed properly, pro-vides in-class coaching, has a position

on the student support committee,and chairs the monthly DI teachersmeeting. All incoming students, from18 feeder schools, are tested in readingand math each spring so there isenough lead time for scheduling andordering materials. New enrollees aregiven placement tests in both readingand math prior to any scheduling oftheir classes. They are placed with a"Bulldog Buddy" for the day andreceive their schedule at the end ofthe day. Their student buddy ensuresthe new student will be familiar withthe physical layout of Lincoln and therules and procedures of the school.The delay of 1 day offers the DI sitecoordinator and the counselor to bothcorrectly place the student in readingand math, and to also make sure noclasses become too large, especially

the ones at the lowest levels.

C.A.R.E. has sponsored a series of

Open Houses at Lincoln over the pastyear and a half. The purpose of thesegatherings is twofold. First, to providegeneral research-based knowledgeregarding the things that work to raisescores for low performers, includingstudents with disabilities. Secondly, tosee first hand, through classroom visi-tations, what children from low-income neighborhoods are capable of,even if they start middle school wellbelow the norm. We have had hun-dreds of visitors from North Carolina,Georgia, and throughout Florida. Thefollowing is a sample of commentsfrom visitor evaluations:

"The classrooms were amazing. All thestudents were engaged and seemedpleased to show us what they could do.

Direct Instruction News

The teachers kept the pace and did awonderful job."

"I was impressed to see so manystudents working hard and beingsuccessful."

"Everyone was excellent!"

C.A.R.E. has collaborated with Lincolnin conducting DI trainings. Using Dr.Grossen's training model, which inter-sperses training sessions with class-room practicums, the Lincoln studentshave both welcomed and shown unlim-ited patience with trainees as they try

The Lincoln Middle School

staff must be commended

for accepting their students

at their instructional level

and then workingtaith athpitIly

moveSthein towardthe

.itateSiandards:

out their very newly acquired skillsteaching that day's lesson.

The Lincoln Middle School staff mustbe commended for accepting their stu-dents at their instructional level andthen working with a curriculum thatrapidly moves them toward the statestandards. They have taken on thechallenge with patience, eagerness,and heart. Staff morale at Lincoln is atan all time high! The staff collabora-tion, regardless of position, is a tributeto Lincoln's focus on the students;they truly are "all our kids."

Wesley Becker

Research AwardADI is proud to prorriote and publishresearch articles abotit Direct Instruc-

tion, adding to theexisting body ofresearch literature.Two awards weregiven this year for theresearch award. Eachof the lead authorsreceived a $500 cashaward. Each of thearticles will appear inVolume 4, Number 1of the Journal of Direct

Instruction to be published in Januaryof 2004. The cowinners are leadauthors Michelle A. McKenzie andAngela M. Przychodzin-Havis both ofEastern Washington University.

Angela M.Przychodzin-Havit

The coauthors with Michelle A.McKenzie were Nancy E. Marchand-Martella, Marion E. Tso, and RonaldC. Martella, all from Eastern Washing-ton University. The title of the articleis, "Teaching Basic Math Skills toPreschoolers Using Connecting Math

Concepts Level K." The article investi-gates the effects of teaching basicmath skills to 16 children in an inte-grated university preschool using Con-

necting Math Concepts Level K.

The coauthors with Angela M. Przy-chodzin-Havis were Nancy E. Marc-hand-Martella, Ronald C. Martella, andDiane Azirn, from Eastern WashingtonUniversity. The title of the article is,"Direct Instruction Mathematics Pro-grams: An Overview and ResearchSummary" The study provides anoverview and research summary ofDirect Instruction mathematics pro-grams, specifically DISTAR Arithmetic I

and II, Corrective Mathematics, and Con-

necting Math Concepts.

ADI thanks the people who nominatedthis year's awards recipients, and wecongratulate the winners. Again, wewould like to encourage you to con-tinue to support the awards programby nominating and recognizing theschools, teachers, administrators, stu-dents, and others who are realizingeffective educational practices throughthe use of Direct Instruction. 4-cms-

4 5 BEST COPY AVAILABLE

7

RICHARD RUSSELL, Center Academy, Flint, Michigan

How to Achieve Excellence?

The Susie Wayne

ScholarshipOur national reform goal is to achievesuperlative standards. The initial wordthat best describes the impact DirectInstruction has on an effective educa-tion is excellence. What word? Excel-lence! According to the Association forDirect Instruction (ADI), SiegfriedEngelmann developed a theory ofinstruction, the Direct Instructionmodel, at the University of Illinois in1968. Susie Wayne demonstrated acertain passion for Direct Instructionas a teacher in Seattle, Washington,and ADI celebrates her life with theSusie Wayne Scholarship. As describedby ADI, the main goal of the DirectInstruction model is to improve aca-demic performance considerably overcurrent performance levels. Becausethe goal of Direct Instruction is tomove students to mastery as swiftly aspossible, a portion of tutorial time isspent on rapid paced teacher-directedinstruction, interjected by unmitigatedrhythmic responses and individual stu-dent responses. Therefore, academicexcellence can be achieved by using aDirect Instruction model.

As maintained by ADI, the DirectInstruction model integrated profes-sional development and organizationalcomponents intended to make best useof reading, language arts, and mathe-matics programs. Through significanttraining and in-class coaching, teacherslearn to identify tasks clearly, teachconcepts and skills, work toward morecomplex concepts, impart extremelyinteractive lessons to large and smallgroups, obtain frequent oral responses,guarantee teacher praise for responsesat a high rate, monitor and correcterrors immediately, and periodicallyreview skills and concepts. Masterytests, given every few lessons, helpteachers directly track student per-formance. Students are placed inappropriate instructional groups basedon performance. Grouping may takeplace across the curriculum verticallyand horizontally. Students who progressfaster or slower than expected are re-grouped accordingly. Those with spe-cial needs are included in regularclassrooms except in the most extremecases. B. E Skinner's influence isexceptionally apparent in methods thatcan be classified under direct instruc-tion or explicit teaching. One of themost acknowledged principles to be

The Susie Wayne ScholarshipSusie Wayne was a friend to many in the Direct Instruction community, and tomany students in the greater Seattle area. She was an outstanding researcher,supervisor, and teacher. Her tireless spirit and great sense of humor were all themore remarkable because of critically serious medical problems that resulted inher death in 1996. In memory of her dedication to effective education for allstudents, the Association for Direct Instruction's Board of Directors establishedthe Susie Wayne Scholarship. The annual award of $500 cash goes to a gradu-ate-level student majoring in education.

The basis for the award is an essay competition. Qualified candidates mustwrite a 1,000 word essay titled, "How to Achieve Excellence," and it must berelated to Direct Instruction. The winner for 2003 is Richard Russellof Flint,Michigan, who is a student at Marygrove College in Detroit..

--

8 4 6

applied in the reme-dial treatment of chil-dren with learningdisabilities is directinstruction. Haringand Bateman (1977)make the argumentthat children withlearning disabilities donot learn by osmosis,as other children seemto. Rather, they needdirect, ihtensive, and systematic inputfrom, and interaction with, the teacher.

Richard Russell

Academic excellence can be definedby reading, writing, and arithmetic.Although these are fundamental to anexcellent education, as a fifth-gradeteacher, the task to achieve academicexcellence is arduous. It requires thestudent to work harder than they everthought they could and to achievemore than they ever thought theywould. It sets objectives and high stan-dards of achievement and measureseach individual's work against thosestandards. It does not show partiality,but requires the same assignments ofeveryone allowing each student's effortand ability to determine his/her indi-vidual status.

As a fifth-grade teacher, the DirectInstruction model has proven to be acredible instructional tool, and it hasaccelerated the learning of the at-riskstudents in my classroom. At present,Center Academy, Flint, Michigan, hasimplemented Direct Instruction as asupplement to standard instruction. Byusing the SRA/McGraw-Hill DecodingStrategies series, the curriculum materi-als and instructional sequences havestimulated most of my students thatoperated below grade level to grade-level mastery in a short period of time.From my readings, Direct Instructionprograms are generally successful withlow-income and at-risk children. TheDirect Instruction model integratesteacher development through exten-sive training and in-class coaching.Joyce Chivari, DI Consultant, Chicago,IL, observes my classroom once a

Fall 2003

month. Mrs. Chivari monitors theclassroom and is available to assist withany problems, and she occasionallytakes over a part of the lesson to modelpedagogical procedures.

A certain procedure for the DirectInstruction model is situated on interjnal program quality of student per-formance such as the number oflessons completed and mastery ofmaterials learned. Also, Decoding Strate-gies prepare students for standardizedtests and other measures of accounta-

bility. Besides, ADI provides materialsthat prepare students to take majorstandardized tests. As well,SRA/McGraw-Hill has aligned the cur-riculum between the Direct Instruc-tion programs and the State ofMichigan Standards and Benchmarks.

Furthermore, academic excellenceteaches children to be responsible.Through graded daily homeworkassignments and dated research assign-ments, students learn that they areaccountable for completing the work

4 7

assigned to them. They develop studyhabits and learn to prioritize and man-age their time to ensure the comple-tion of assigned tasks. They learn tobe dependable and responsible indi-viduals that can achieve academicexcellence as a result of the DirectInstruction model. A-Df-

ReferencesHaring, N. G., & Bateman, B. D. (1977).

leaching the /earning disabley/ child Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

CURTIS D. JASPER, Director of Curriculum and Instruction, Victory Charter School

An Administrator Who ReallyIs an Instructional Leader

In less than 3 short years, VictoryCharter School has endured thegrowing pains of start-up, relocationto a new building, and changes inleadership to develop an effectivecoaching model for Direct Instruc-

10

tion. With a student population of

close to 450 students and half of

those qualifying for free and reduced

meals, inner-city Fulton County,

Georgia's first charter school has

4 8

made significant academic gains withDirect Instruction in reading.

On last year's statewide assessment(Criterion Reference CompetencyTest), the school showed a gain of17% in the percentage of fourthgraders that reached the meets the stan-dard or exceeded the standard proficiencylevels in reading. At sixth grade, theseproficiency levels were met by 81% ofthe students. Our goal for sixth

Fall 2003

graders this year (2003-2004) is 90%.For the 2nd year in a row, 100% ofkindergartners scored at a level ofachievement that requires no assis-tance moving into first grade on theGeorgia Kindergarten Assessment Pro-gram Test. Eighty-four percent of allteachers agree that the educationalprogram offered to our students atVictory Charter School is of high qual-ity, as rated by the National Study ofSchool Evaluation.

How has Victory Charter Schoolachieved these results? They chose aDirect Instruction curriculum andadopted a model of leadership thateffectively monitors and enhances thecurriculum. Curtis D. Jasper, Directorof Curriculum and Instruction, hasworked as head administrator andinstructional leader of Victory CharterSchool since the middle of the school's1st year. He designed and imple-mented an organizational structurethat utilizes what he refers to as the 5Classk Treasures: Expect, Value, Moni-tor, Train, and Celebrate. The VictoryCharter School academic leadershipteam consists of a dean of students,two instructional coordinators, and fivelead teachers. Together, they imple-ment Jasper's classic treasures.

ExpectExpectations must be presented fre-quently, and must be unchanged, inorder to lead the institution to highstandards and student achievement.The school administrator must assumethe role of instructional leader and beresponsible for communicating thehigh expectations. Teacher, student,colleague, and parent expectations willrise or fall based on the administrator'sability to communicate the school'sexpectations clearly.

The head administrator's number onepriority must be the instructional pro-gram. Everyone is expected to adhereto the chosen DI curriculum. All teach-ers are expected to teach to mastery atleast a lesson per day. Students are

Direct lastruction News

expected to achieve a high level ofmastery and demonstrate theirachievement on any and all standard-ized assessments. Parents are expectedto deliver their children on time everyday. Instructional coordinators and thedean of students are expected toobserve, coach, mentor, and support atleast 10-15 teachers every single week.Lead teachers are expected to holdpeer coaching sessions every week dur-ing their after school planning times.The head administrator is expected tosupport the entire curriculum andinstructional program at all costs.

All teachers are expected to

teach to mastery at least a

lesson per day. Students are

expected to achieve a high

level of mastery and

demonstrate theirachievement on any and all

standardized assessments.

ValueThe instructional leader must demon-strate values-driven behavior. Students,teachers, and parents will not value theschool's reading program if the instruc-tional leader does not. He or she mustmodel appropriate values, lead teachersand parents to those values, and testhimself and teachers to ensure thatthey are living up to those values.

The instructional leader's values mustbe uncompromisable, undebatabletruths that drive and direct the behav-ior of all teachers and all students.The values must be motivationalthey must provide reasons for what wedo. The values must also be restric-tivethey must place boundariesaround behavior. Administrators mustbecome the kinds of leaders that peo-ple will follow voluntarily, even if theyhad no title or position.

MonitorAt Victory Charter School, our directorof curriculum and instruction and ourtwo instructional coordinators monitorthe instructional program on a dailybasis. All three team members are inand out of all classrooms every singleday. We are challenging our teachers tomaximize the time on task by adheringto strict schedules across all grade lev-els. All voices at Victory CharterSchool come on at 8:15 a.m. Sharp! Noannouncements, assemblies, visitors,or parents are allowed to interrupt thereading block from 8:15-9:30. Theinstructional coordinators are chargedwith supporting and monitoring thecurriculum by observing and coachingteachers, collecting lesson plans andlesson gain charts, and analyzing theresults of all mastery tests, checkouts,and pacing charts. A dean of studentsis charged with supporting all pro-grams by working with teachers onbehavior management.

Our two instructional coordinators werechosen because they were considered byall stakeholders to be the absolute bestDirect Instruction teachers. Because oftheir expertise and success at producinghigh student achievement 2 consecutiveyears while they were in the classroom,they were appointed as in-housecoaches who could "bring out the best"in their colleagues.

The director provides training for theinstructional coordinators and the deanof students and gives them the auton-omy to coach without interference.The director also monitors their per-formance by shadowing them duringclassroom observations and requiringmonthly reports and copies of allobservation forms. At Victory CharterSchool, the instructional coordinatorsand the dean of students form a "win-ning team" that is motivated to meethigh expectations long before theinstructional leader comes around todo his monthly observations. By thetime Mr. Jasper comes around to con-

BEST COPY AVAILABLE4 9

11

duct his formal observations, it is"show-off time."

Many of our new teachers, althoughthey had taught at other schools, werenot accustomed to our coaching modelthat requires unannounced classroomobservations by others. However, themodel requires that administratorsmonitor the teachers' performance inthe same way the teachers monitortheir students' performance. Allteachers are now accustomed to thismodel and our staff functions like onebig DI classroom!

TrainNo train, no gain! Victory CharterSchool has a highly,trained staff, duelargely to the coaching model and Mr.Curtis Jasper's expertise and experi-ence with schoolwide implementationsof DI programs. Mr. Jasper is a formerDI consultant and trainer. He came toVictory Charter School after he and hiswife moved from Chicago to Atlanta inthe winter of 2000. Prior to moving,Mr. Jasper had worked as a consultant

with over 25 schools around the coun-try. He is a former DI teacher and nowa school administrator. He has beencommitted to DI since 1994.

Mr. Jasper is committed to training histeachers at every opportunity. Staff/fac-ulty meetings are,not social gatherings.Nor or they devoted to lectures. Theyare occasions for training one anotherin all of our DI programs, discussingchallenges, and celebrating teachersuccess and student achievement.

The school's budget is prioritized toaccommodate professional develop-ment and the purchase of curriculummaterials. We understand the benefitsof supplementing our own training bysending teachers out of the building tobe trained by other experts in otherareas. All teachers are required to per-form a professional development train-ing in front of their peers and to goout of the building to be trained atleast once. All new teacher candidatesare asked to demonstrate a task fromone of the DI programs during theirfinal interview.

CelebrateStudent achievement is celebratedwithin Victory Charter School through-out the entire school year. Any class-rooms or groups that pass a masterytest or checkout or any other assess-ment with at least 90% mastery are

recognized during the morning

announcements. In addition, student

achievement is recognized and cele-

brated within a number of readingincentive programs that support our

DI mainframe.

Although Victory Charter School has

achieved significant success in a short

period of time, we have a long way to

go. Currently, the school goes up to the

seventh grade, but the plans are to add

a grade,each year until 12th grade. AM-

Curtis Jasper has worked as an independent

consultant since 1998. He has extensive

training experience with many DI programs

as well as schoolwide DI implementations.

His most profound area of experthe is work-

ing with school administrators and other

instructional school leaders with curriculum

and instruction. If you have any questions or

are interested in working with Mr Jasper

please contact him at 770-856-6906 or email

at cjasper@acninc.net

KURT ENGELMANN, National Institute for Direct Instruction (NIFDI)

City Springs Sets the Standard...Again

Take a school in a high-poverty area of

a large U.S. citya school that hasexperienced years of utter failureandimplement the full-immersion modelof Direct Instruction faithfully for morethan 6 years, and what are the results?

Possibly the most dramatic turn-around

of a school from failure to success in

the history of the United States.

From the Bottom to the TopUntil Baltimore's City Springs Ele-mentary started implementing thefull-immersion model of DirectInstruction in 1996, the school wasconsidered to be the epitome of fail-ure. Ninety-five percent of the stu-dents were (and still are) eligible forfree or reduced lunch. Academic per-

formance was at subbasement levels.

City Springs was one of the very low-est performing schools in the city ofBaltimore out of nearly 120 schools. At

one point, no students in the school'sthird or fifth grades passed the Mary-land State test, the MSPAP, in eithermathematics or writing. School climatewas just as poor as academic perform-

ance. Students ran the halls, and

teachers locked classroom doors in

order to control their students...andkeep others out.'

I Principal Bernice Whelchel described the chaotic nature of the school before implementation of Direct Instruction in her keynote address at the 27thannual National Direct Instruction Conference in Eugene in 2001 (available on video from ADO, and the 2000 PBS documentary, "The Battle of CitySprings," captured the difficulty of transforming the school during the 2nd year of DI implementation, 1997-1998.

1 2 5 0 REST noPv iiVAILABLE Fall 2003

Fast forward to 2003 and the school isthe epitome of excellence. The hallsare clean and orderly. Students arewell behaved. Most important, studentperformance has "shot through theroof!" The school scored highest in thecity in first-grade reading, first-grademath, and fifth-grade reading on the2003 Terra Nova test. The medianscore for first-grade reading and first-grade math was at the 99th per-centilethe highest possible score.Fifth-grade scores were also veryimpressivethe 87th percentile inreading and the 79th percentile inmathup from the 14th and 9th per-centiles, respectively, in 1998.

Many of the dozen or so other high-poverty schools in Baltimore imple-menting Direct Instruction have alsoexperienced strong achievement gains,though not as large as those of CitySprings. Four of the top five first-gradereading scores in Baltimore in 2003were from DI schools. These schools'scores ranged from the 92nd percentile(Roland Park) to the 99th percentile(Langston Hughes). Three of the topfirst-grade math scores were also fromDI schools (Roland Parkthe 94thpercentile, and Langston Hughesthe93rd percentile, in addition to CitySprings). But, with the exception ofRoland Park, which is from a higherincome area, City Springs outper-formed the other DI schools in theupper grades by a considerable margin.For example, the median fifth-grademath score for Roland Park matchedthe score for City Springs (the 79thpercentile), while the next highestscore by a DI school was at the 62ndpercentile (Langston Hughes), whichis still very respectable.

Why City Springs Is the LeaderWhat accounts for City Springs' unpar-alleled upsurge in student performance?Simply put, City Springs is the firstlow-income urban school in the U.S. tofully implement the Direct Instructionfull-immersion model long enough torealize its full effects in the upper

Direct Instruaion News

100

e 90C.)

to 80

03 70

riS 600:1

C-3 50cl)

a) 40

30

20

10

0

City Springs First-Grade Reading Scores 1998-2003

99

91

80

37

28

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Academic Year Ending

2003

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

City Springs First-Grade Math Scores 1998-2003

99

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Academic Year Ending

2003

51

13

100

90

City Springs Fifth-Grade Reading Scores 1998-2003

87

65 64

41

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Academic Year Ending2003

City Springs Fifth-Grade Math Scores 1998-2003

100

90

80 79

70

60 58

50 50

40

47

30

20

10 913

01998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Academic Year Ending

14

grades. City Springs has consistentlyfollowed the Developer's Guidelines, acomprehensive set of implementationparameters outlined by DI creator andfounder of the National Institute forDirect Instruction (NIFDI), Siegfried"Zig" Engelmann.2

Dr. Muriel Berkeley, President of theBaltimore Curriculum Project, noted inher 2002 article in The Journal of Educa-tion for Students Placed At Risk (JESPAR)

that City Springs implemented thefull model with more fidelity thanother Baltimore schools.'

The full-immersion model includesthe following components

Adequate time to accelerate chil-dren's performance. Morning andafternoon reading periods arescheduled and implemented for allstudents in kindergarten, first, andsecond grades, and extra readinginstruction is provided to studentswho are behind in Grades 3 andabove.

The full DI curriculumthe read-ing, language, writing, spelling, andmath programs. No competing pro-grams are allowed that teach a dif-ferent strategy that might confusechildren.

Teaching to mastery. Staff membersstrive to bring all students to mas-tery on all tasks in every lesson.

Appropriate placement. Studentsare placed appropriately in theinstructional sequence at the startof the year. Groups are re-groupedand re-placed formally at least threetimes a year and informally through-out the year based on student per-formance.

2 The Developer's Guidelines are available viathe Data and Issues section of the NIFDI webpage, www.nifdi.org.

3 Her article also appeared in the Fall 2002 issueof the DI News.

Fall 2003

Classroom support. In addition toin-class coaching from the external

support provider (NIFDI), teachersreceive support from school-basedpeer coaches who go through athree-level advanced training series.

Frequent assessment. Teachers

record lesson progress and masterytest data, which the external supportprovider and the school's manage-ment team (the principal, assistantprincipal, building coordinator, and

peer coaches) analyze weekly.

Problem solving. The school man-agement team participates inweekly problem-solving sessionswith the external support providerto review progress and problemsand determine the tasks for thecoming week.

A crucial component of the model is tohave a principal who is an effectiveinstructional leader, and Principal Ber-nice Whelchel of City Springs fulfillsthis role to a T Principal Whelchel con-sistently attends teacher and coachestrainings. She knows the DI programsvery well, and she frequently takes overinstructional groups in order to assess

student mastery and enable teachers tovisit other classrooms. She is in class-

rooms much of the day observing stu-

dents and teachers. She sets downclear expectations for students andteachers, and she follows up to make

sure that her expectations are met.When students work hard and achievePrincipal Whelchel let's them knowthey've done a good job. She is the

leader in celebrating student success.

The full-immersion model places greatemphasis on accelerating studentsthrough the primary levels of readingand math in kindergarten and firstgrade. At City Springs, nearly all chil-dren who enter the school in kinder-garten complete Reading Mastery IIduring first grade, and a significantproportion of first graders move well

into Reading Mastery III by the end of

the year. Kindergarten and first-gradestudents also complete the first levels

of the language track (Language for

Learning and Reasoning & Writing). Thisacceleration continues through themiddle grades so that about half of thechildren who entered in kindergartencomplete level VI of Reading Mastery by

the end of fourth grade.

The strong DI implementation in theprimary grades at City Springs hasmade it possible for the school toimplement the upper levels of the DIprograms in fourth and fifth grades.

DI is highly effective at the

upper elementarygradelevels, which dispels the myth

that DI is only effective with

lower-grade learners.

These upper-level programs teach

sophisticated reasoning, writing, com-

prehension, and vocabulary Most chil-

dren in City Springs are placed in a

Direct Instruction U.S. History text-book in fifth grade.'

In this program, students learn a great

deal of sophisticated vocabulary (e.g.,

words such as "accommodate," "capac-

ity," "resources," "dominate," "eco-

nomic"), learn a great deal of

important general knowledge on social

studies and geography, and do a wide

variety of writing tasks (e.g., compar-

ing the War of 1812 and the Revolu-

tionary War).

Implications of the CitySprings ExperienceThe extraordinarily high student per-formance at City Springs has several

implications for transforming failed

schools. The school's experienceimplies that

I. DI is highly effective at the upperelementary grade levels, which dis-pels the myth that DI is only effec-tive with lower-grade learners.Much of the research on DI fromProject Follow Through, a K-3rd-grade project, and other sourcesfocuses on the effects of DI on pri-mary-grade children or remediallearners. The preponderance ofresearch in these areas has led many

to conclude that DI is only effectivewith younger populations "develop-mentally," or older students "reme-dially" but not with older students"developmentally." The high per-formance of City Springs' upper-grade students dispels these myths.

2. The "fourth-grade slump," whichasserts that at-risk studentsinevitably fall behind their moreprivileged peers in the upper ele-mentary grades, is also a myth.

Highly at-risk students can con-tinue to excel and outperform theirmore privileged peers in the upperelementary grades if the full-immersion DI model is applied rig-orously for 5 years or more. Theperformance of at-risk studentsdoes not need to "slump" dramati-cally in the upper grades.

3. All of the components of the full-immersion model are necessary for

maximizing student achievement.City Springs has implemented thefull-immersion model with the mostfidelity and has achieved the great-est gains. The degree to which otherschools in Baltimore have been able

to accelerate student performancereflects the degree to which theyhave followed the Developer'sGuidelines. This relationshipbetween fidelity of implementationand performance holds true for theother schools NIFDI has worked

4 Understanding U.S. His-tory by Douglas Carnine, et al., is available via the Univ&sity of Oregon Bookstore, 800.352.1733.

Direct Instruaion News 15

53

with across the United States. So tomaximize student performance,schools need to receive comprehen-sive supportincluding substantialon-site coaching, off-site data analy-sis, and frequent problem-solvingsessionsand the school staff needsto fulfill specific rolesincluding aprincipal who is the instructionalleader of the school.'

Will Policy-Makers Use CitySprings as a Model?If policy-makers at the district andstate levels are serious about improv-ing student performance, they shouldexamine the experience of CitySprings and determine how to repli-cate the school's experience at otherschools. Ironically, City Springs servesmore as a national model than as alocal model. Principal Whelchel andCity Springs have received accoladesat the federal level, including recogni-tion by the U.S. House of Representa-

tives Committee on Education and theWorkforce, U.S. Secretary of EducationRod Paige, and President and Mrs.Bush at the anniversary of the signingof the No Child Left Behind Act.6

Baltimore officials, on the other hand,have largely ignored the success ofCity Springs and other Baltimore DIschools. Mike Bowler describes thislack of attention in his column in TheBaltimore Sun ("An Urban Oasis OfFlowing Hope," June 15, 2003):

It's getting to be a brokenrecord, but City Springs Elemen-tary, one of Baltimore's poorest,led the city again in this year'sTerrallova testing, results ofwhich were announced lastweek. The east-side school'sscores have been surging for 5straight years in both math andreading, surely proving thatDirect Instruction, the scripted

curriculum used at the school, isa success. Four of the top fivecity schools in first-grade scoringuse Direct Instruction. Yet thecurriculum is seldom credited bythe school system's leaders. Onewonders why.

City Springs should indeed serve as alocal AND national model of how toachieve academic success with at-riskstudents, and the school could serve asa training center for other schoolsimpleMenting Direct Instruction. Toignore the experience of City Springs,to dismiss its success as an anomaly, orto attribute its success to a single fac-tor (e.g., the relatively small size ofthe school) is to obscure informationneeded by others who are tryingearnestly to learn how to improve theacademic performance of at-risk stu-dents and thereby improve the lives ofchildren greatly. AD,t

5 A session that is part of the annual National Direct Instruction conference in Eugene, A Full-Immersion Model for Implementing DI, describes the compo-nents needed to maximize student performance.

6 The school also received the Excellent School Award from the Association for Direct Instruction in 2001.

MARTIN A. KOZLOFF, University of North Carolina, Wilmington

MartiN's MuSiNgSTechnical Proficiency, Direct Instruction,and Educational Excellence

How many excellent teachers, courses,

or lessons have you had in your life?

Orbeside yourselfhow many excel-lent teachers have your students had

in their lives? I mean, how often could

you describe instruction as follows?

1. Students were carried along by the

teacher's brisk presentations and by

1 6

class discussions. Students wantedto grasp (get) everything theteacher was trying to teach. Theywere so engaged they had little urgeto pester their neighbors or look outthe window.

2. The subject matter (things to learn)was presented in a logicalsequence. The teacher taught the

tools needed (e.g., vocabulary words,basic strategies) on time, beforestudents needed them. What stu-dents learned every lesson was builton and used in the next lessons.

3. The teacher's demonstrations(models), explanations, and exam-ples were clear and on target(focused on the objective at hand)so that students grasped newmaterial (e.g., a definition, or howto conjugate a new verb) quicklyand without a lot of struggle, con-fusion, and errors. Even whenmaterial was hard, students madesteady progress.

4. Not only did students get newmaterial, they were able to apply itskillfully (accurately and quickly)

54BEST COPv AVAILARI. F Fall 2003

to new tasks and examples, andthey retained skill despite the pas-sage of time.

No doubt you and your students have

had very few teachers, courses, or les-

sons as described above. It doesn't have

to be that way. But what makes the dif-

ference between ordinary instruction(boring, plodding, confusing, not muchis learned and still less is retained) and

the rare instruction (common to DirectInstruction) described above?

It's All About TechnicalProficiencyMany golfers club the ground moreoften than the ball. Few are experts,who regularly hit the ball a mile downthe fairway. What's the difference that

makes the difference in outcome?Not motivationgood AND poorgolfers want to do well. Not intelli-gencegood and poor golfers areequally bright. Not effortduffers tryjust as hard to hit the ball well. The

difference that makes the differencein outcome is...technical proficiency,or know-how.

Some nurses take three or four tries toget the needle in your vein. Othernurses effortlessly hit the vein the firsttime. What's the difference that makesthe difference in outcome? Technicalproficiency.

The same applies to cooking, dancing,carpentry, archery, poetry, and any

other activity you can think of. Thedifference that makes the differencein outcomes (petformances) that are (a)

clumsy, inadequate, and full of errors,versus (b) smooth and effective

is...technical proficiency.

Technical proficiency in education isrequired on at least two levels: (a)schoolwide or districtwide curriculumdevelopment (e.g., pre-K-6 reading,math, and science), and (b) instruc-tional design. The principles and

Direct Instruction News

methods of Direct Instruction makesignificant contributions to technicalproficiency at both levels. Let's look ateach one in turn.

Schoolwide orDistrictwide CurriculumDevelopmentFollowing are negative and positiveexamples of technically proficient cur-riculum development. Unfortunately,the negative example (under the aegis

of progressive, child-centered, con-structivist education) has been domi-nant for a long time.

A Model of IncompetentCurriculumDevelopmentI. Planners (e.g., school or district

administrators) begin with vaguebut emotionally appealing phrases

as guiding principlesphrasessuch as developmentally appropri-ate practices, best practices, thewhole child, multiple intelli-gences, learning styles, learningcommunity, diversity, studentsconstruct knowledge. Their pre-sumption is that curriculainspired by these phrases (whoselack of sense is unnoticed) will beeffective. In other words, valueorientations and magical incanta-tions are more important thandesign principles based on experi-mental research.

II. Planners select commercial curric-ula (or find curriculum ideas andactivities in textbooks, journalarticles, and conference work-shops) that are consistent withtheir vague guiding phrases. Plan-ners don't determine if there is abody of experimental researchthat confirms the long-term effec-tiveness and efficiency of the cho-sen curricula and activities. Inother words, they ignore their

Table 1Steps in the Frame-Model-Lead-ThstICheck-Verification Format

Frame. The teacher states the learning task at hand.

Model. The teacher provides information (e.g., reveals the logicalstructure of a verbal association, concept, rule relationship, orcognitive strategy, or shows how to apply this knowledge) ver-bally or through demonstration. If needed, the teacher repeatsthe model to make sure all students heard or saw it.

Lead. The teacher and students say the information or perform theroutine togetherseveral times if needed to ensure that allstudents do it correctly; that is, are firm.

Test/Check. Students perform the task independently, several times ifneeded to do it correctly. This is a test or check of whether thestudents have gotten it. It tells the teacher whether she com-municated clearly, whether the students' preskills were firmbefore this task, and whether the students were properlyattending and trying.

Verification. The.teacher provides specific praisestating what the stu-den'ts learned.

5 51 7

moral responsibility not to risk

harming children.

III. Planners don't determine exactlywhat each curriculum or activityteachesin the form of "stu-dents do..." statements. Nor doplanners create instructionalobjectives in the form of "stu-dents do..." statements. Instead,instruction is planned aroundfuzzy phrases such as, "Students

will become attentive to environ-mental print." "Students willappreciate different literary gen-res." "Students will be able toidentify the different sounds inwords." Yet, this fuzziness is func-tional; it provides for a wide rangeof student behavior that will sat-isfy the vague definitions of atten-tiveness, appreciation, and sounds

identification. This way, almostany program or method can bemade to look effective.

IV Planners don't ask whether thecurricula and activities are consis-tent with what is known abouteffective instructionissuestaken for granted in DirectInstructionsuch as (a) big ideas

as organizers; (b) strands; (c) logi-cal progression of tasks; (d)strategic integration; (e) a littlemassed practice, or repetition, atfirst and distributed practice later;(f) careful attention to fosteringacquisition/accuracy, fluency,assembling elements into wholes,generalization/discrimination,retention, and independence; (g)error correction; (h) group andindividual responding; (i) precor-rections; (j) using positive andnegative examples to teach same-

ness and difference; (k) immedi-ate and delayed testing; (I) quickpace; (m) precise wording; (n)review; (o) reteaching if needed;(p) movement from more to lessteacher directed.

V Planners don't assess students'repertoires (skill sets) as a way todetermine who will benefit fromcore, supplemental, and interven-tion programsfor example, inreading and math. Instead, theyuse trial and errortacking onand later dropping "innovations"such as longer class periods, extra

teaching assistants, computer-based instruction, and coopera-

Table 2How the Frame-Model-Lead-TestICheck-Verification

Format Provides Scaffolding

1. It provides information in small, learnable amounts.

2. It moves from more teacher directed (the model plus prompts, such aspointing and exaggerating gestures and voice) to less teacher directed(students respond independently).

3. It quickly moves from getting knowledge to using knowledge.

4. It provides sufficient practice on a physical routine, verbal association, con-cept, rule relationship, or cognitive strategy (one or more steps) to ensurethat students are "firm" before the teacher adds more material.

5. It moves at a brisk pace, which captures and sustains attention and facili-tates recall.

6. Students' familiarity with this format orients and guides their behaviorattention, cognitive rehearsal before acting, persistence until they all getit.

18 5 6

tive learning. This makes itimpossible to evaluate any onepart of a curriculum but it doesenable administrators to claimthat they are always improvingthe curriculum.

VI. Planners use unvalidated assess-

ment methods and instruments,generally qualitative (teachernotes and portfolios of students'"products"), to make a case thatthe curriculum is working wellenough with enough students.Administrators explain studentfailure as an example of theeffects of poverty or lack of familyinvolvement or insufficient fundsfor materials.

Fortunately for many children, the cur-ricular guidelines, scientific tenets,and moral positions advanced by NoChild Left Behind, Reading First, andcurrent consumer and scholarly cri-tiques of teacher training, publicschool curricula (e.g., whole languageand fuzzy math), and low studentachievement are fostering a more

rational approach to curriculum devel-opment, as outlined below.

A Model of CompetentCurriculumDevelopmentI. Planners begin with an assessment

of students' needs, as determined

by (a) screening assessments, (b)

what research says about the back-

ground knowledge and learning

needs of different populations, and(c) pretests for different subjects.

Planners add to this their knowl-edge of what students will beworking on later in school (fromstate and district curriculumguides and from general knowl-edge about effective sequences ofinstruction). For example, if stu-dents will be expected to compre-hend grade-level text and to read

Fall 2003

at 90 WCPM in Grade 2, then (inGrade 1) planners know they mustensure that students have mas-tered phonemic awareness,soundsymbol relationships, and

decoding/sounding out; are fluentat grade level text to about 60WCPM; have a Grade 1 vocabu-lary; and can answer beginningreading comprehension questions.

II. As much as possible, plannerstranslate information from step Iinto instructional objectives in theform of do-statements. That is, ifa state course of study identifies

Table 3Additional Features of the Frame-Model-Lead-Test/Check-Verification Format

1. The teacher makes sure all students are paying attention before she provides the model. "Everyone, look." Or, "Ihave to see everyone looking up here at the board...Thank you." The teacher uses a variety of prompts to ensurestudents are attending to and getting precisely the right information throughout the interaction. For example, theteacher moves her finger beneath each letter she is sounding out to make sure students look at each letter themoment the teacher says its sound.

2. The teacher prepares students to hear, see, and act by stating the type of knowledge task they are working on."Here's a new sound," or "The next thinking operation is statement inference."

3. Wording is clear, precise, and to the pointto ensure understanding. For example, all important concepts are pre-taught: Before defining democracy as a political association involving rule by the people, the teacher would teachthe concepts of political association, rule, and people. There is no unnecessary verbiage. The same wording is usedwhen teaching the same sort of task. "First word (points to word on a word list). What word? Malleable. Next word.What word? Convince. Next word. What word? Divulge."

4. The teacher repeats any of the frame-model-lead-test/check steps if needed so that all students have attendedand responded firmlythat is, they seem to have gotten the communicationbefore she goes on.

5. The teacher uses a gesture to signal students to respond when it is their turn. If students are looking at theteacher (e.g., the teacher is at the board), the "do it" signal could be a "hand drop"; that is, the teacher's hand israised when she says, "Your turn to read these words the fast way. Get ready..." Then she drops her hand and stu-dents start reading.

However, if students are not looking at the teacher (e.g., they are reading passages from a book), the teacher couldtap on her book to give the "do it" signal. For example,

Teacher: Everyone, what's the name of the figure of speech in the line, "And what rough beast, its hour comeround at last, Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born"? Think about it...Get ready... (Taps her bookto signal "do it.")

Students: Metaphor.

Teacher: Yes, metaphor. (Verification.) How do you know? (Asks for the definition previously taught.)(Think...Get ready...Taps her book.)

Students: A metaphor is a word or phrase that usually has one meaning and is used to talk about another thing,but the comparison is not directly stated.

Teacher: Yes, the comparison is not directly stated. Excellent definition of metaphor.

6. These signals help students respond quickly to (i.e., act on) new information (which aids getting it) and help stu-dents respond as a group, as discussed next.

7. The teacher first calls on the whole group to respond as one. "Your turn to state the rule about pressure and temper-ature. Get ready." Choral responding enables the teacher to determine that each student has gotten the commu-nication. If she called on students individually, she could not tell if a student were merely copying the students whocame before. Choral responding also makes instruction move quicker (imagine how long it would take to check eachstudent), so that more is covered. Finally, choral responding gives students the sense of both individual and groupmastery, which fosters an obligation to try to do well and not disrupt the group's learning.

8. After group turns, the teacher calls on individual studentsespecially students who made errors during the choralresponding.

Direct Instruction News

57 BEST COPY AVAILABLE

1 9

Table 4leaching a Simple Fact With the Frame-Model-Lead-TestICheck-Verification Format

Frame:Yesterday we studied the Battle at Marathon. Every-one. Who fought in the Battle at Marathon?

Get ready? (Signal)

The Greeks and Persians.

Yes, the Greeks and Persians.

What was the date of the Battle at Marathon?Julian.

490 BC.

Excellent. 490 BC.

Who won? Amelia.

The Greeks.

Correct again. The Greeks. This class is so smart.Now we will study another great battle in the Per-sian Wars. The Battle at Thermopylae.

Model:Everyone, listen. (Pause) Here's a new fact. TheBattle at Thermopylae was fought in 480 BC.

Lead:Say that fact with me. Get ready. (Signal)

The Battle at Thermopylae was fought in 480 BC.

Test/Check:When was the Battle at Thermopylae? Get ready.(Signal)

480 BC.

Verification:Yes, the Battle at Thermopylae was fought in 480BC.

(Later, students would learn about the size andcomposition of each army, battle strategy, theimmediate outcomes, and the role of the battle inthe larger historical context.)

Note that this format simply and quickly taught thelogical structure of a fact; it firmly taught the associa-tion between a date and an event. However, theteacher must provide opportunities for students toapply this knowledge; for example, when comparingand explaining the outcomes of the Battle at Marathon(which the Greeks won), the later Battle at Thermopy-lae (where the Greeks were overrun), and the later Bat-tle at Platea (which the Greeks again won).

Here is another example.

Teaching a Concept (Granite) With the Frame-Model-Lead-TestICheck-Verification Format

Granite is a higher-order concept (it is embedded inlarger concepts, such as things that consist of minerals,rocks, and igneous rocks). Therefore, we have to teachit using both verbal definitions and examples thatenable students to see the defining features. (I freelyadmit that there may beundoubtedly aremanyshortcomings in the design below. So, consider it to bean opportunity to sharpen ydur own skills.)

Exercise 1Framing:

We have been studying igneous rocks. Here's ourdefinition. Igneous rocks form from the crystal-lization of minerals in magma. Everyone, say thatdefinition of igneous rocks.

Igneous rocks form from the crystallization of minerals inmagma. (Note, the students are advanced enoughthat the teacher leaves out the lead step. Also, theconcepts mineral, magma, and crystallization havealready been taught.)

Yes, igneous rocks form from the crystallization ofminerals in magma. Today we will examine anigneous rock called granite. Everybody, if graniteis an igneous rock, what else do you knowabout it? Think...(Signal.)

It forms from the crystalAzation of minerals in magma.(Teacher asks students to make a deduction aboutgranite given the definition of igneous rocks.)Excellent deduction!

Model:Here's the definition of granite. Granite is anigneous rock consisting of the minerals quartz,feldspar, and mica. Again, granite is an igneous rockconsisting of the minerals quartz, feldspar, and mica.

Lead:Say it with me. Get ready. (Pause...then signal.)Granite is an igneous rock consisting of the minerals quartz,

feldspar, and miCa. (The teacher probably could haveleft out the lead.)

Test/Check:By yourselves. (Signal.)

Granite is an igneous rock consisting of the mineralsquartz, feldspar, and mica.

Verification:Excellent saying that definition with so much enthu-siasm.

5820 Fall 2003

phonemic awareness as an earlyobjective, planners state thisobjective in the form of studentperformance. For example,

1. "When the teacher modelsonset rhyme with mat, hat,and cat, students create newexamples that rhyme with at."

2. "When the teacher modelsthe first sound in rim, ram,sit, fit, and man, students saythe first, middle, and lastsound in these words."

III. Planners are guided by researchon sound curriculum design andeffective instructionissuestaken for granted in DirectInstructionsuch as (a) big ideasas organizers; (b) strands; (c) logi-cal progression of tasks; (d)strategic integration; (e) a littlemassed practice, or repetition, at

first and distributed practicelater; (f) careful attention to fos-tering acquisition/accuracy, flu-ency, assembling elements intowholes, generalization/discrimina-tion, retention, and independ-ence; (g) error correction; (h)group and individual responding;(i) precorrections; (j) using posi-tive and negative examples toteach sameness and difference;(k) immediate and delayed test-ing; (1) quick pace; (m) precisewording; (n) review; (o) reteach-ing if needed; (p) movement frommore to less teacher directed.

IV Planners examine experimentalresearch on design features (e.g.,the effects of different instruc-tional sequences) and evaluativefield tests (of whole programs) toselect programs and methods forteaching the objectives.

V. Planners select valid and reliableinstruments for screening, diag-nostic, ongoing, and summativeassessment.

VI. Administrators routinely collectquantitative assessment informa-tion about teacher proficiency, stu-dent engagement, progress, andsummative achievement. Data areused to decide what to change andwhat to sustain in the curriculum.

Instructional DesignSome features of effective instruc-tional design include the items listedin III above. This section describesone more featurea format for clear,precise, and effective communication;namely, the frame-model-lead-test/check-verification format. Thisgeneral formatfound in many DirectInstruction curriculamay be used in

Table 4 continuedleaching a Simple Fact With the Frame-Model-Lead-TestICheck-Vertfication Format

Exercise 2

Framing:Now, we have already learned the minerals quartz,mica, and feldspar. (Teacher reviews the verbal defi-nitions for each one, shows examples of each one,and has students discriminate among examples ofthese minerals and other minerals. She uses the for-mat, "Is this quartz?...How do you know?...Is thisquartz?...How do you know?...Is thisfeldspar?...How do you know?")

Now I'll show you examples of granite.

Model:(Teacher holds up or shows slides of granite andlabels each one as granite.)This is granite...Notice the mica, feldspar, andquartz...This is granite...Notice the mica, feldspar, andquartz...(The examples differ in size, shape, andcolor of minerals; e.g., pink and gray quartz. But theyshare the essential and defining featuresquartz,mica, and feldspar. Next the teacher juxtaposesexamples of granite and nongranite and labelsthem.)

This is granite. Notice the mica, feldspar, andquartz...This is not granite. Notice that it has no quartz...This is granite...

Test/Check:(Now the teacher presents examples of granite andnongranite and asks students to discriminate andidentify them.)Everyone. Is this granite?

Ns.

How do you know?

There is mica, feldspar; and quartz.

Excellent! Is this granite?

No. How do you know?

It has no quartz.

Correct!

Verification:(After each example, above, the teacher verifies andpraises accurate answers.)(Throughout, she calls on the whole group and thenon individual students.)

Direct Instruction News

5 9

21

any subject and for teaching any formof knowledge: (a) physical routines(handwriting), (b) verbal associations(the names of the 13 original coloniesin America), (c) concepts (/m/ saysmmtn, democracy), (d) rule relation-ships ("First multiply the numbers inthe ones column." "No democracywith uneducated citizens can longendure."), and (e) cognitive strategies(multiplication, sounding out words,writing papers). It is highly focusedon the knowledge task at hand. Itmoves at a brisk pace. It provides suf-ficient learning opportunities for stu-dents to get the knowledge beingtaught. Later, during expandedinstruction, it is used to help studentsapply knowledge. Finally, this format

fosters high engagementbecause itfocuses attention, moves quickly, and

ends with firm.itnowledge.

Steps in the frame-model-lead-

test/check-verification format areshown in Table 1.

Table 2 shows how the frame-model-lead-test/check-verification format pro-vides effective scaffolding.

Table 3 describes additional features

of the frame-model-lead-test/check-verification format.

Table 4 gives an example of theframe-model-lead-test/check-verifica-tion format.

The recent creation of important pro-grams such as No Child Left Behind,Reading First, Early Reading First, andothers, is an historic opportunity toplace education on the sound footingof data and logic, leading to soundercurricula and wiser decisions. However,I don't think that federal and statemandates, position papers, and grantfunding requirements alone will changethe culture of education, which has fora long time supported nonlogical cur-ricula and program selection based not

on data but on the emotional appeal ofeducation jargon. The culture of educa-tion will change only to the extent thatwe conspicuously and consistentlydemonstrate logical thinking and tech-nical proficiency. Mg.

DON CRAWFORD, Otter Creek Institute

What To Do When Studentsin Reading Mastery IIIHave Comprehension Problems

When we start Reading Mastery Fast

Cycle in kindergarten, many of us havestudents who are ready for Reading

Mastery III in first grade. Yet some ofthose students appear to have trouble

"comprehending." It seems as thoughthe workbook tasks are a bit much forthem. Is it possible that these firstgraders are too young and should not

be expected to do so much work?

In Direct Instruction we learn thatkids can learn what we teach themclearly, regardless of their age, if theyhave been taught the prerequisiteskills. DI folks tend to avoid the "tooyoung" rule generally, as it smacks ofthe notion of "developmental readi-ness" which can lead to loweredexpectations. When children encounterdifficulties, unenlightened educatorsfall back on the notion that the chil-

22

dren are "too young" or they are notdevelopmentally ready. Instead,enlightened educators know to look formissing prerequisite skills that weneed to teach. If children test into RMIII and are experiencing difficultydoing the workbook, here are eightthings that I'd want to check first tosee what might be the problem.

1. Children can test into Reading Mas-

tery III by reading a 136-word pas-

sage in 1.5 min for a minimum rateof 90 words per minute. If decodingis not at least 90 words per minuteor better, then the effort of decod-ing might still be interfering withcomprehension and may need to beimproved as a first priority. And I'dpersonally say that although 90 is aminimum, if their rate is below 110per minute, then some work on

6 0

improving decoding skill would helptheir comprehension significantly.

2. The simple printing skills may bethe culprit. First graders generallyprint from 15-20 letters per minute,while average third graders writebetween 45 and 50 letters per minute(Graham, 1999). So with no betterthan average skills we can antici-pate that the workbook will takethree times as long for first gradersto complete than third graders.

We also know that if printing manu-script skills are not fluent and areslow and laborious, then the effortof writing the letters will interferewith thinking about the answersstudents are composing (Berningeret al., 1997). How slow is too slow?Fewer than 15 letters per minutefor sure, and if a student's writing isabove 40 per minute it may not be aproblem. My clinical sense is that ifthe students print much below 30letters per minute this will makethe workbook an onerous chore forthem. Manuscript printing skillswould need to be a focus of instruc-tion until they are improved.

Fall 2003

3. The end of RM II and Fast Cyclehave those great stories about "TheLand of Peevish Pets"and allthose rules to learn, etc. Those aredemanding and were designed asgreat preparation for rule basedcomprehension, which is a focus ofRMIII. If those stories and ruleswere skipped, it might be a goodidea to go back and do those stories.

4. How well does the teacher followthe script? I often find teacherswho, to save time, skip some of thecomprehension questions duringstory reading. But many of thosequestions are designed to preparestudents for the workbook. Thestudents are to "get" the answers inthe midst of reading the story whilethe information is fresh. Anotherway to say this is that the teacher is"activating" children's knowledge ofthe key information in the story.Later, the exact same questions areasked in the workbook, and the kidsare just supposed to be remember-ing the answers they had previouslydiscussed (activated). It is ironic tohear a teacher, who's skipped theopportunity for the children tolearn the information, claim that it'sthe children's fault when they can'tanswer the workbook questions thatweren't covered.

5. Is the teacher doing the secondreading, where they go back andreread the story and ask more ques-tions? A lot of teachers hate to dothis, because they feel it is redun-dant. However, a second readinghelps comprehension tremendously.We know clearly, from tons o'fresearch, that at this level of decod-ing skill, children fail to compre-hend fully because decoding stillrequires the bulk of their mentalattention. So reading a passage asecond time makes the decodingeasier for the kids, thus allowingmore attention to focus on compre-hending the passage.

And if this weren't enough, it turnsout that there are new and different

comprehension questions to askduring the second reading. Duh! Soif a teacher skips the second read-ing they miss the opportunity toactivate some of the informationneeded for the workbook.

6. If the teacher is asking all the ques-tions as they are interspersed, is sheor he "part-firming" all the missedquestions? That is, does the teachergo back and repeat questions thatthe students had trouble withtomake sure everyone remembers theanswer now? If teachers don't part-firm the questions as they go

It is ironic to hear a teacher

who's skipped the

opportunity for the children

to learn the information,

claim that it's the children's

fault when they can't answer

the wOrkbook questions that

weren't covered.

alongis it any wonder the kidsdon't know the answers to the ques-tions later in writing?

7. Does the teacher know how to cor-rect a missed comprehension ques-tion? A teacher shouldn't just tellthe kids the answerbecause thepoint is for them to learn how theanswers came out of what they justread. The procedure is to have thestudents do each of these steps tosee if, after doing the step, they cannow answer the original question.

1. Ask the child to read the ques-tion (sometimes they don't!) orreread it. Then if he or she still can't

answer, go on to the next step.

2. Ask the child to paraphrase thequestionand if they can't, askthem to reread .the questionuntil they can paraphrase it.

Sometimes the comprehensionfailure occurs on the questionrather than the story. Once thechild understands the questionyou may get the "Oh!" look andthey'll suddenly know theanswer. But if he or she still can't

answer the original question, go on to

the next step.

3. Don't expect children at this ageto skim back to find theanswerthey can't yet, they'restill reading word by word.Instead, show the child the sen-tence where the answer is andhave him or her read it aloud.(After a while you can point outthe sentence before the sen-tence where the answer issothe child has to read two sen-tences to get the answer.) If youdon't get the "Oh!" look at thispoint, the kid's forgotten thequestion. So if he or she still can'tanswer the original question, go on to

the next step.

4. Ask the child to reread the ques-tionand then you read theanswer-containing sentencealoud to them. (Then if he or shestill can't answer after that, you've got

a real problem! I've never had it get

that far , unless they were missing some

essential prior "world" knowledge or

English vocabularyand a percep-(ive teacher will know from the nature

of the question what might be confusing

to the child.)

8. Did the teacher do all the work-book questions orally with the stu-dents, as the script says toformany lessons, before asking thekids to write answers? There are atleast 10 to 20 lessons of that kindof teaching where the kids practiceanswering all the workbook ques-tions orally and then go back anddo all the same questions in writingat the start of RA/ III. This teachesthe kids how to get the answers tothe questions before having to dothe questions on their own, andfirst graders who've never done

Direct Instruction News 23

61

workbooks before really need thisstep. This is essential instructionwhich is often skipped by teach-ersto save timeand then laterthey're disappointed when kidsdon't know how to answer ques-tions on their own.

So first check and/or fix all of theseeight things. If the children were stillunsuccessful at the workbooks,

although you couldn't say they were"too young," you could say theylacked the needed prerequisite skillsto do RM III. Of course, as you canimagine, this is about as likely as KenGoodman endorsing DI, but, hey, itcould happen. ADI-

ReferencesBerninger, V. W, Vaughan, K. B., Abbott, R.

D., Abbott, S. P., Rogan, L.W, Brooks, A.,

et al. (1997). Treatment of handwriting

problems in beginning writers: Transfer

from handwriting CO composition. Journalof Educational Psychology, 89(4), 652-666.

Graham, S. (1999). Handwriting and spelling

instruction for students with learning dis-abilities: A review. Learning Disabilities

Quarterly, 22(2), 78-98.

ZIG ENGELMANN

Response to Time Magazine'sReport on Dyslexia

There are lots of problems with thequasi-scientific analysis of dyslexiareported in Time, titled, "The New Sci-ence of Dyslexia." Basically what theydiscovered using MRIs was that theproblem was not "visual," but associ-ated with language. From this informa-tion, they launched into a daisy chainof inferences, none of which are verysensible because they still believe indyslexia. Here's the major problemwith the analysis: If it's true that stu-dents in places like the worst slums inBaltimore and rural Mississippi taughtwith DI have 100% of the childrenreadingnot guessing or memoriz-ingby the end of kindergarten, some-thing is seriously wrong with theportrait of dyslexia. After all, these stu-dents exhibit all of the "warning signs"referred to in the analysis. When theycome into kindergarten, they can'trhyme, they can't alliterate, they can'tblend orally presented words, and theyhave lots of problems figuring outunique sound patterns (such as repeat-ing something like 4, 4, 4, 4 and yet areable to repeat four or more random dig-its). So they should all be dyslexic, andindeed historical performance recordsshow that virtually all of them hadbeen greatly retarded in reading, withthe average fifth grader stumbling

24

about on a weak second-grade level.Some of the schools that currently haveno nonreaders coming out of K histori-cally had end-of-first-graders scoring atthe 6-9th percentile on standardizedachievement tests. Yet, the new sci-ence tells us that we can expect 1/5 ofthe population to have dyslexia. That'sa 20% failure rate to teach reading in afat-cat suburb where parents careabout and influence the schools, andwhere they are lavishly funded withaides, material, and whatever.

The second major problem has to dowith their data on early interventionand what works. Shaywitz asserts,"The data we have don't show any oneprogram that is head and shouldersabove the rest." Obviously, Shaywitzneeds more accurate and extensivedata, like that from City Springs wherethe average/median first grader in 2003scored at the 99th percentile onachievement tests. And fifth gradersreach the 87th, making City Springsthe number one school in reading inBaltimore in both the first and fifthgrade. It certainly couldn't be becauseCity Springs has 99% blacks and over90% free lunch, or because 6 years agoit was the 117th school in a district of117 schools, or that the kids scored

6')

below the 10th percentile in readingand math in all grades, or because notone student in Grade 3 or Grade 5passed the Maryland state readingtest. What then caused this amazingchangethe water, a prayer campaign,or some form of multi-vitamin diet?

More to the point, because this kindof improvement has only beenachieved by Direct Instruction, andbecause it has been done in more thanone school, and in fact, in any schoolthat implements according to thenumbers, there does seem to be oneprogram that is head and shouldersabove the others.

Stated differently, I'll bet the authorsof the new science of dyslexia, andShaywitz $100,000 that they can't pro-duce one 5-year-old child who is pre-judged to be in the normal IQ rangethat can't be taught to read in a timelymanner. They can submit as many as100 virgins (kids who have not beenscrewed by learning that Obuh is forbaby). These folks can use whateverscreening methods they seem to thinkpredicts "dyslexia." I'm dead seriousabout this bet.

Third, and perhaps most relevant, theneurological evidence sucks. Shay-witzthe same Shaywitz that assertsthere is no "superior" programalsoasserts, "The good news is we reallyunderstand the steps of how youbecome a...skilled reader." That's

Fall 2003

impossible. Unless you understandthe task facing the naive learner, youcouldn't possibly understand the vari-ous functions that would have to bein place. The MRI e.i,idence does notreveal the task. It just generates thecorrelations, which in turn generatefragmented and often stupid interpre-tations. In other words, the "scien-tists" play this game: We know thatthese kids are "dyslexic" and thoseother guys are normal. Let's findsome correlations based on our MRIdata and from those data infer what itall means." That last part is wheresome form of miracle must occur. Theactivity in different parts of the brainhas nothing to do with the contentthat is processed by the brain, onlythe loci of activity. Nobody's disput-ing the MRI evidence. It's the inter-pretation that sucks.

The notion that the kid's mind musthear the sounds of the word cat arepartly true and partly fabrication. Ifour language were like Italian, withonly a few exceptions, a case could bemade for this simplistic idea. In fact,the process must be far more sophisti-cated given that by the end of the firstgrade the kid will be expected todecode these words: of is, was, who,were, you, have, front, school, etc. None ofthese are "regular." The set of morecommon words used to compose themost elementary sentence are repletewith irregulars. Try to make up a sim-ple story in which words are composedexclusively of letters that make thesame sound.

These cats have no spots. The following

letters have more than one sound inthis sentence: t, h,e, o,s. Note that thee makes no sound in two words.

Shaywitz's observation that some poorreaders had their phoneme analyzer,word analyzers, and automatic detectormore strongly linked to their memoryprocessors than to language centers isinterpreted to mean that they spendmore time memorizing words than nor-

Direct Instruction News

mals do. The "classic" dyslexic, in con-trast, had an overactive phoneme pro-ducer and an underactive wordanalyzer and automatic detector. Sowhat? Is this a cause of dyslexia or aneffect of instruction that failed?

Equally important, if the activity pat-tern is different, there must be somedifference in the "content" that thebrain is representing. In other words, ifthe activity is more extensive, whatthe kid is doing when trying to figure

More to the point, because

this kind of improvement has

only been achieved by Direct

Instruction, and because it

has been done in more than

one school, and in fact, in

any school that implements

according to the numbers,

there does seem to be one

program that is head andshoulders above the others.

out the word involves more steps orconsiderations than the kid who knowsthe game of decoding English words.The brain is not goofy. The kid's logicis. The poor little guy may be trying tofigure out whether the word is babybecause some jerk told him that b isfor baby, and he sees a b, right there inthe word. Or is it a d? If it's a d, theword must be dog, but it's not shapedlike dog. Is there a picture somewherethat shows what that word is? Whatdid the teacher say? She talked aboutthis word, or I think it was this word.It was some word and she said some-thing about a bowel sound.

But given that the "scientists" don'tunderstand the nature of the contentor how it precisely correlates withbrain patterns, they are left with theage-old scientific procedure for filling

6 3

in the space between what the correla-tion shows and what it all meansmake it up as you go along.

Here's what they would need to know(in addition to some facts about theextent to which dyslexia can be elimi-nated) before making the kind ofproclamations about nonreaders thatthey make.

1. The behavior of the brain with nor-mal children as they are learningspecific things associated withbeginning reading. Here's whatthey'll find. The normal kid initiallyhas the whole brain activated whenlearning new things. The reason'issimple. The kid doesn't knowwhich relationships are the keys toreading, and the brain is doing itsthing and trying out a large numberof possibilities. There would be nodifference between the dyslexic andthe normal during this period. Lateron, the kid who will later learn toread adequately will not have any-where near as much activity inlearning new material than thedyslexic because this guy has theright information foundation. Thesteps she uses to analyze the wordswork. She identifies words correctly.The dyslexic has to keep searching.

2. The behavior of deaf children wholearn to read but who are unable tospeak. Whatever their behavior is itwould tend to thrash some of theassumptions about "phonemes." Ifthe kid doesn't hear or speak butlearns to read, the patterns of brainactivation would be very revealingabout what we're really talkingabout and what the language centerson the left side of the brain (most ofthem) are actually analyzing.

3. The changes in the brain of "youngdyslexics" (those in possibly Grades2 or 3 who have the "classic" pro-file) when they are taught with ahighly effective program, a laDirect Instruction, which will tendto induce a high percentage of cor-

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

25

rect responses from the beginningrather than the kind of behavior yousee when teachers are using sloppyphonics programs. This data, corre-lated with data about specificchanges in reading behavior, wouldyield good information aboutexactly what misconceptions aboutreading the kids had and how thechanges in the MRI pattern werecorrelated with specific details intheir word-reading behavior.

In summary, the MRI scientists' inter-pretation of brain-function data iswhat is logically referred to as a falsedilemma or an argument from igno-

rance. The scientists observe a correla-tion between brain patterns and notlearning to read.,,

The possibilities are:

1. The brain pattern caused the non-learning.

2. The nonlearning caused the brainpattern.

3. The interaction of a third variablecaused both the nonreading and thebrain pattern.

These scientists apparently don't con-sider possibilities 2 or 3, but proclaim

that the brain pattern causes the non-learning. There is no question thatthere are individual differences in read-

ing performance; however, if the kid can

find his way into the right classroom and

follow simple directions, he can betaught to read in a timely manner.

An interesting footnote about the MRIdata is that it is related to sounds andmanipulation of sounds. Phonemic

awareness is now a big dealeven forthese scientistsbut DI had it in1968. That's one, but only one, of the

reasons it worked in 1968. ADI.

BOB DIXON

VPHRRMEmos Thuogths on Dyslexai

The medical community has recentlybrought its high-tech gadgets into thefield of reading, with a special empha-sis on poor reading. A hot topic of lateis "Dyslexia and MRIs." 7ime had afeature on dyslexia (July 28, 2003). ZigEngelmann wrote a pithy responsethat is printed in this issue.

A friend of mine is an emergency roomphysician. I was telling him a littleabout this MRI stuff related to read-ing. He couldn't picture the value ofan MRI for studying reading behavior.I can't either. On the one hand, I don'tknow squat about what you can andcan't do with an MRI. I thought thatMRIs revealed physiological anom-aliestumors and the like. What I doknow is that relating behavior to neu-rological behavior is a very tricky busi-ness. Finger and Stein, in their bookBrain Damage and Recovery, forcefully

conclude that the minority of data sup-port any sort of brain theory revolvingaround localization of function. Put

26

another way, the data point toward thenotion that manyvery, VERY manyparts and different regions of the braininteract in unknown ways, in associa-tion with any given behavior. Researchon sea slug neurology strongly supportssomething like a "holographic" modelof even the most simple and observ-able neurological systems.

I'm way out of my league here withMRIs and CAT scans and electroen-cephalographs and the like. Stayingcloser to home, I'd like to focus ondyslexia from a purely analytical pointof view. As Engelmann and Carninepoint out in Theory of Instruction, DirectInstruction is a rationalistempiricistapproach to instruction. This is prettymuch the same as plain old science.Empiricism alone, although it soundsscientific, is like throwing mud againstthe wall to see what sticks. First, thingshave to make sense. It's possible (and

common, I'd argue) to invest a greatdeal of time and effort in an interven-

6 4

tion study that makes no sense what-soever to begin with. We often seestudies that "show" something can'tbe true, logically. When we dig a little,we find all sorts of errors and weak-nesses in research design.

That's a rather long way of saying thatI don't take much research on dyslexiavery seriously because it doesn't makeany sense.

Dyslexia is defined like this:

Dyslexia is a neurologicallybased, often familial disorderthat interferes with the acquisi-tion of language. Varying in thedegrees of severity, it is mani-fested by difficulties in recep-tive and expressive language,including phonological process-ing, in reading, writing, spelling,handwriting, and sometimesarithmetic. Dyslexia is not theresult of lack of motivation, sen-sory impairment, inadequateinstructional or environmentalopportunities, but may occurtogether with these conditions.(Orton Dyslexia Society, 1994,now called the InternationalDyslexia Association.)

Fall 2003

One obvious problem with this defini-tion is the notion of "inadequateinstructional or environmental oppor-tunities." Poor instruction can't causedyslexia, according to this definition.Therefore, poor instruction causestons of reading problems that can't becategorized as dyslexia (becausedyslexia is a neurological impairment).Poverty can't cause dyslexia. As it hap-pens, poverty is about the only thingthat really correlates well with readingfailure, but all that failure can't causedyslexia. The definition above sug-gests that a poor child could also havedyslexia: apparently, a severe doublewhammy.

The International Dyslexia Associationclaims that about 4% of kids havedyslexia. If that were true, then therewould be massive numbers of poorreaders without dyslexia. Although stillshying away from medicine, I'd becurious to see the differencesMRI,CAT, etc.between the majority ofpoor readers and those neurologicallyimpaired dyslexic kids. Mostly whatI've seen is discussions of how MRIschange as a child changes from being avery poor reader to a good reader.Maybe I'm naive, but wouldn't wepretty much expect the electrochemi-cal behavior of the brain to change insome way as a person goes from strug-gling hopelessly with a highly complexcognitive activity to mastering it?

If dyslexia is a neurological impairmentthat causes reading difficulties thatdiffer from those caused by poorinstruction or exacerbated by poverty,then what are those differences in dif-ficulties. The Dyslexia folks don't tellus what the differences are, but theyat least list the difficulties thatdyslexic kids have:

I. early difficulties in acquiringphonic skills

2. a high proportion of errors in oralreading

Direct Instruction News

3. difficulty in extracting the sensefrom written material without sub-stantial rereading

4. slow reading speed

5. inaccurate reading, omission ofwords

6. frequent loss of place when reading

7. an inability to skim through or scanover reading matter

8. a high degree of distractibilitywhen reading

The International DyslexiaAssociation claims that

about 4% of kids have

dyslexia. If that were true,

then there would be massive

numbers of poor readers

without dyslexia.

9. perceived distortion of text (wordsmay seem to float off the page orrun together)

10. a visually irritating glare from whitepaper or whiteboards.

I'm hazarding a guess that numbers1-8 are common among many poorreaders who don't have a neurologicalimpairment. There is no way I canthink of to differentiate dyslexic kidsfrom other poor readers based on thesebehaviors. (Numbers 2 and 5 seem abit redundant to me.) Number 10 isprobably not unique to poor readers atall: Under certain circumstances, Isuppose anyone could find white paperor whiteboards a bit irritating, visuallyspeaking. I suppose. It sounds fishy.

Number 9 seems to me to be the onepotentially differentiating behaviorand probably the one that inspired thenotion of a neurological impairment tobegin with. My earliept recollections ofexamples of dyslexic behavior didn't

have much to do with "floating words,"but a lot to do with what I guess wecould generally call "reversal." Theexamples involved "seeing" letters (ornumbers) backward, seeing letterstransposed, and seeing words reversed.While normal children look at a capitalletter R and see R, dyslexic kids arepurported to see 51. Normal childrensee receive; dyslexic children seerecieve. Very little of this screwed upperception would actually manifestitself very directly in reading. If areader actually sees fled, for instance,that child is most likely to say /rred/. Ifthe child "sees" 51 and thinks it's Rthat's not going to cause a decodingproblem. If a child sees Sleb, thatcould cause a decoding problem, butmost letters, written backward, arejust backward letters.

Similarly, if the only problem is that areader looks at receive and "sees"recieve that alone isn't going to causeany reading difficulty. Look at all thepeople who write recieve but whothink they've spelled the word right,and can certainly read what they wrote.

I suspect strongly that the only time areversal of letters results in a readingerror is when both versions are them-selves words, such as angle and angel.If ,that is due to a neurological impair-ment, then we're all neurologicallyimpaired, one time or another. (Doneurological impairments come and gosporadically? Not likely.)

That leaves us with reversing words asone potential discriminator of the neu-rologically impaired dyslexics and justplain, ordinary poor readers. If a childcomes across was, and truly sees it inreverse, then, granted, the child willsay saw. Same thing with no and on,not and ton, and even desserts forstressed. It seems, though, too muchof a coincidence that the examplesgiven of "seeing words backward" arewords that actually spell something,backward or forward: saw and was,and so on.

65 BEST COPY AVAILABLE27

If a reader literally sees words back-ward (and I'd call that a neurologicalproblem any day), then wouldn't wesee kids trying to decode lots of otherwordswords that don't spell any-thing backwardvery frequently? Ithink we would.

Here is a kid who is a very poor reader.Let's say that means, minimally, thatfor starters, the kid is strugglingmightily with just decoding. Underthose circumstances, I think we'd allagree that comprehension is likely tobe extremely low. If such a child liter-ally sees words backward, then why,during oral reading, doesn't she look atthe and decode it as /eth/? She wouldhave to do that if she has a neurologicalperception problem that causes her tosee words backwards. Has she justmemorized an association: When yousee "e-t-h," say the? I suppose that'stheoretically possible. And she memo-rized, when you see "e-m-o-s," saysome. But that would mean that shehas done so for nearly every word sheencounters. She has an incrediblememory, not only because the vastnumber of words she has memorized,but because there are no alpha-phone-mic clues whatsoever to help masterthe associations. Someone has proba-bly told her time and time again thatwhen she seeswhatever, flor Rshe should say /rr/. But somehow,when she sees "d-e-r," she says red. I'llbet she doesn't ever say der when shesees red. Not only are these incredibleassociations without phonemicprompts, they're actually completelyloaded with false prompts.

And before she made these fantasticassociations, would there not havebeen a period where she did say ethfor the, emos for some, and der forred? In short, if a child sees letters inreverse, that usually doesn't causereading problems, and if a child seesletters transposed, that doesn't causeany reading problems except in thesense that it causes all of us problemsfrom time to time (e.g., angel and

28

angle). If a child sees words in reverseand reads practically anything at allcorrectly, that's a notable miracle. Interms of reading, dyslexic kids can'tpossibly be "seeing" what they are (orhave often been) purported to see.

Kids make other reading errors that aredifficult to attribute to a neurologicalimpairment. Kids confuse were andwhere. All poor readers, predictably,do the same, and so do I, from time totime. It's nonsense to postulate on aneurological impairment that accountsfor both "not seeing" something that isthere (when a reader says were but

Words that are very similar

to one another are easy for

anyone to confuse, just as any

two things in the universe

that are very similar to one

another are also easy to

confuse: certain dogs and

wolves, for instance.

the word is where), and moreover, for"seeing" something that isn't there(when a reader says where but theword is were). The latter would be acousin of hallucination. (Maybe this iswhat the dyslexia people mean by"floating words." Random words floatonto and off of the page.)

Words that are very similar to oneanother are easy for anyone to confuse,just as any two things in the universethat are very similar to one another arealso easy to confuse: certain dogs andwolves, for instance. If the word is ele-phant and the oral reader says ship,then I'm betting on pretty severe butidiosyncratic brain dysfunction. Or amiddle-school kid jerking my chain.

The dyslexia people say that dyslexickids demonstrate "inaccurate reading,

including omission of words." I agreethat omitting words is a subcategory ofinaccurate reading. "Inaccurate read-ing" seems like a pretty broad categorythat could even include adding wordsthat aren't there. More hallucination.Literally "not seeing" a word that isactually there is a lot like "not seeing"a letter that is actually there.

Maybe someone is using spellingexamples to support the "reversal"hypothesis and then generalizing themto reading. For instance, one mightpostulate that a kid who writes"receive" as "recieve" sees lettersreversed. Sometimes the simplestexplanation is the best: The kid can'tspell the word, period. Generalizingfrom spelling to reading is highly ques-tionable in general, as well. Lots ofpeople, including many adults, canread "receive" without any difficultybut struggle with spelling it. I'd saythe same is true, only more so, for"mnemonics."

A kid who writes letters backward justhasn't learned to write them forward.Doing so usually isn't a reading prob-lem and it isn't a spelling problem: It'sa problem with learning that direction-ality is a critical discriminating featurefor precious few concepts in the uni-verse, including letters and numbers.Well, at least it's a problem of learningthe conventional way to write lettersand numbers. Reversing letters like i-eand e-i is a challenge for nearly every-one because both are legitimate andcommon spellings for le/. If there is alot of evidence that dyslexic kids spellreceive as erceive or recevie, then Ihave to give a little thought to thepossibility that someone is seeing let-ters transposed and then transferringthat to spelling. I wouldn't give itmuch thought, though.

In short, if dyslexic kids routinely seeletters backward, letters reversed, orwords backward, or if words routinelyfloat on and off the page, then itwould, in fact, occur routinely (and ran-

66 BEST COPY AVAILABLE Fall 2003

domly), not predictably, as it does.Why would kids always make errorsthat can very easily be explained interms of normal concept learning andalmost never make errors that can't be?

There is no analytical basis for postu-lating a neurological impairment fordifferentiating some poor readers fromothers, except when a kid verifiablyhas a brain dysfunction. That beingthe case, there is no firm theoreticalbasis upon which one might baseempirical studies. I think it is fair tocharacterize this opinion as one wellfounded in Direct Instruction theory.I can imagine a lot of well designedexperiments that would contradict thenotion that a neurological impairmentdifferentiates some poor readers from

all the rest, but why bother? I, person-ally, like the idea of saving the incredi-ble resources associated with scientificexperimentation for helping us answerquestions for which we don't knowthe answers.

Right here, at the very end of this arti-cle, I have to confess that not only theTime article and all other current inter-est in dyslexia are much ado aboutnothing, but that this article is as well!It's not like the question of how toteach nonreaders and poor readers howto read well is a big mystery. Far fromit. As a practical matter, the causesthemselves of poor readingrealthings like poverty or fanciful thingslike dyslexiadon't matter. Although,personally, I'd like to see poverty elim-

inated, it isn't going to be in my life-time, and poverty isn't a direct cause ofpoor reading, anyway. While people aresitting around talking about causesme included, by virtue of this articlesome kids are out there this momentbenefiting from the solutions to readingproblems and underlying language -deficiencies, and millions more oughtto be. Agr.

ReferencesEngelmann, S., & Carnine, D. (1993). Theory

of instruction: Principles and applications (2nded.). Eugene, OR: ADI Press.

Finger, S., & Stein, D. G. (1982). Brain dam-age and recovery of function: Research and clini-

cal implications. New York: Academic Press.

TINA ERRTHUM, Cheyenne Mountain Charter Academy, Colorado Springs, Colorado

The Failures of a Teacher EducationProgram: A Need for Change

As a recent graduate of Great MidwestUniversity's* (GMU) teacher educa-tion program, I am compelled toexpress my concerns regarding the edu-cation preservice teachers receive atGMU and how (I feel) the programneglects training preservice teachers tobe both effective and efficient teachers.

My story starts like that of most pre-service teachers. I knew I wanted to bea teacher and chose GMU because ofits reputation of having a strong educa-tion program. The College of Educa-tion at GMU is typically characterizedas one of the best in the country andone from which school districts from allover seek graduates. As a Ist-year stu-dent, I had confidence in andentrusted my college education to thisprogram. I had the simple and reason-able expectation that if I invested mv

Direct Instruction News

time, hard work, and money in thisestablishment, I would graduate know-ing what to teach and how to teach it.Now that I have completed the coursework, finished two very different stu-dent teaching experiences (one ofwhich I had to "discover" on my own),and acquired a teaching job, I realizethat GMU's teacher education programfailed to meet my expectations.

As a recent student and now an educa-tor, I am aware of many of the factorsinvolved in educating a group of learn-ers, and I have heard the many excusesas to why a child may or may not beable to learn (home life, socioeconomicclass, a learning disability, etc.). I havecome to believe, however, that regard-less of the excuse, the bottom line isthis: If a child fails to:learn, a teacherhas failed to teach. le is the teacher's

67

job to teach the students. Thus, it isthe teacher education program's job toteach the preservice teachers how toteach in order to maximize studentlearning. Just as teachers must be heldaccountable for students' learning inthe classroom, so must the teachereducation program be held account-able for preservice teachers' learning inthe teacher education program. Untilsuch responsibilities are recognizedand teacher trainers are held account-able, excuses for teacher's shortcom-ings will continue.

I do not regret receiving my educationat GMU. I learned a lot both in andoutside of the classroom that has mademe the person I am today. But Ibelieve that GMU's teacher educationprogram failed to teach me the thingsI needed to know to teach effectivelyand efficiently. I cannot help thinkingabout how much more confident andcapable I could have been when goinginto my first classroom had my course-

*fictitious name

BEST COPY AVAILABLE29

work actually taught me what Ineeded to know. I do not feel that Iam alone in recognizing the shortcom-ings of the teacher-training program atGMU. Furthermore, I do not feel thatGMU's teacher education program isunique in its shortcomings. Rather, theshortcomings seem to be typical ofmany teacher education programs

around the country.

As I neared the end of my college edu-

cation program, I (like many others atthis point in their teaching careers)realized that the courses I was

required to take failed to prepare mefor my professional career as a teacher.

If GMU is to maintain its "one of thebest" reputation, change must occur.

Student Teaching

ExperiencesAs stated earlier, I had two very differ-ent student teaching experiences.The first came as a result of my disap-pointment in the training I wasreceiving at GMU. I had questionsabout education that were not beinganswered in my courses at GMU.Therefore, I sought answers elsewhere

and did not stop until I found them.My research led me to seek a studentteaching placement other than thatarranged through the teacher educa-tion program at GMU. That atypicalplacement is described below as myfirst student teaching experience. Thesecond student teaching experience

(also described below) is a typical stu-dent teaching experience arrangedthrough GMU.

My first student teaching experiencewas in a second-grade classroom at a

school in which Direct Instruction isused in combination with Core Knowl-edge (Core Knowledge Charter Schoolin Verona, Wisconsin). Direct Instruc-tion is a highly structured approach

that is grounded in research (Adams &

Engelmann, 1996). Skills and content

30

are carefully sequenced and presented

in scripted formats. It entails the useof flexible abil4 grouping, frequentassessments, and teaching at an accel-

erated pace to ensure the mastery ofbasic skills. In this school, DirectInstruction programs were used forreading, spelling, writing, and math.The Core Knowledge curricula wereused for social studies, science, andsome language arts instruction. TheCore Knowledge Sequence (Hirsch,

1995) tells teachers what to teach,but it does not tell teachers how toteach that content; therefore, teachersapplied what they knew about Direct

BY the:end of my first

student teaching experience,

I had witnessed the positive

effects coherent,

well-sequenced curricula

using research-based

methods.

Instruction methods to teach the CoreKnowledge sequence. Both the DirectInstruction programs and the CoreKnowledge curricula are sequenced so

that new knowledge builds on previousknowledge. In the Core Knowledgesocial studies curriculum, for example,students are taught to locate the sevencontinents on the map in kinder-garten. In first grade, students aretaught to locate the major oceans and

the countries of North America. Insecond grade, they learn the geo-graphic location of all 50 states. As asecond-grade teacher, I did not deviatefrom the second-grade sequence.

Even though this was my first studentteaching experience, I was incrediblyconfident in my teaching because I wasgiven, in specific terms, the contentthat I was to teach. In no way did I feelthis stifled my "creativity," nor did Ifeel it was an insult to my capabilities

6 3

as a teacher. Being an inexperienced

teacher, and having had no course atGMU that informed me of what consti-tutes a quality second-grade curricu-lum, I needed to be told what secondgraders are expected to learn. Withspecific curricula and research-based

methods of teaching, I was able toteach effectively and efficiently. Thestudents were motivated to learnbecause the content was interestingand challenging, and they could relatewhat they were learning at any giventime to what they had learned earlier.

I realized through this first studentteaching experience that my job is toteach, not to spend hundreds of hourstrying to develop a curriculum appro-priate for this particular classroomand ONLY this particular classroom(as I had been taught at GMU). Areactors expected to write their ownscripts? Are farmers expected to buildtheir own tractors? Why should ateacher be expected to create his orher own curriculum?

By the end of my first student teach-ing experience, I had witnessed thepositive effects of teaching coherent,well-sequenced curricula usingresearch-based methods. I assumed

that every school and classroom wouldhave similar instructional tools. But, asmy second student teaching experi-ence began, I quickly realized that myassumption was wrong.

My second student teaching experi-ence took place in a fifth-grade class-room in a "typical" elementary school.It was the type of experience, I feel,that GMU attempts to prepare its pre-service teachers for. In theory, itsounded like it should have been astudent teacher's dream come true.My cooperating teacher let me teachwhat I wanted, how I wanted, and asmuch as I wanted. I was given com-plete control of the classroom withminimal guidance because she wanted

me to "develop my own style of teach-ing." I hit the ground running but

Fall 2003

received an early and severe shock tothe system when I realized what "com-plete control" and "minimal guidance"really meant. Not only was I responsi-ble for the well being of each child,but I was also expected to teachthemto decide what they needed tolearn, to figure out what they alreadyknew, develop units, lesson plans, andtools for assessment. In addition, I wassupposed to be developing "my ownstyle of teaching." But where was Isupposed to begin? I had no idea whatfifth graders knew, were expected toknow, or what I should teach them. Istarted by asking myself the obviousquestion, "What concepts and skills doI need to teach?" I remembered frommy first student teaching experiencethat my answer would come in theform of a curriculum. I asked my coop-erating teacher, one of the best teach-ers in the school according to a fellowstaff member, for a curriculum guide to"guide" me in developing units andlesson plans. She thought for amoment and replied, "1 haven't seenone of those in years." She went on toadmit that the district curriculumguides are of little value to the class-room teacher because they are so gen-eral. She said that a teacher couldmake any lesson match a "guideline" (Ido remember learning that at GMU).

All I wanted was some guidance, some-one or something to tell me what toteach. How can one school not deviatefrom a curriculum, while anotherplaces little value on having one? Myteacher did not like teaching withtextbooks, but had no supplementalmaterial for me to use. Once again, shewanted me to "develop my own" cur-riculum and method of instruction(also known as "reinventing thewheel"). The lack of guidance andconsistency in what to teach and howto teach became very exhausting andfrustrating. I realized that each teacherin the building taught different, self-created curricula that were notrequired to be sequential with mine or

Direct Instruction News

with each other's. Some students hadalready been exposed to the content Idecided to teach, some students hadabsolutely no prior knowledge about it,while still others may have beentaught a great deal about the contentsuch that my self-created curriculumjust repeated everything they hadalready learned. Like any 1st yearteacher, I expected to be exhausted bythe demands of planning. But theoverwhelming feeling of frustrationwas a direct result of never having con-fidence in what I was teaching andhow I was teaching it. I realized that ifinstruction is to be effective and effi-

Once again, she wanted me

to "develop my own"

curriculum and method of

instruction (also known as

"reinventing the wheel").

cient, it must be sequential. Knowl-edge builds on knowledge. I realizedeach day that the lack of consistencyin the content being taught and themethod of instruction being used atthis "typical" school had a direct anddetrimental effect on student learning.

As my student teaching experiencesended, I analyzed and reflected onwhat I learned from them. I realizedfrom the outset that my first experi-ence was going to be different fromwhat I had learned at GMU, but Iexpected GMU to have done its job inpreparing me for the second experi-ence. However, that was not the case.I do not remember ever being taughtwhat or how to teach in my courses atGMU. Instead, I wrote two "reflec-tion" papers, downloaded a lesson planoff the internet, created bulletinboards, played games, and scrapbookeda portfolio. These activities simply didnot prepare me to teach. The toolsand knowledge that inade my second

6 9

experience manageable were those Itaught myself or learned during myfirst experience. It was during thatfirst experience at the Direct Instruc-tion/Core Knowledge school that Ilearned to deliver effective and effi-cient instruction using content-spe-cific curricula and methods ofinstruction grounded in research.

As I embark upon my 1st year of "real"teaching at Cheyenne Mountain Char-ter Academy, I look forward to apply-ing what I learned during my firststudent teaching experience and learn-ing even more about how and what toteach. Not to use the most effectivean efficient instruction approachesknown, I feel, would be a disservice tomy students, school, community, state,and country.

I am fully aware of the fact that what Ihave written is my opinion, based onwhat I experienced in the teacher edu-cation program at GMU and my expe-riences as a student teacher in the twodifferent classrooms. But I also know,being an education major, that I amnot alone in the feelings of disappoint-ment and frustration about the failuresof the program from which I gradu-ated. But there comes a point whenone needs to stop complaining andstart taking action. In my case, I amchallenging GMU to critically evaluateits current teacher education program,look carefully at what teachers are andare not being taught, and look at theresearch that documents instructionalpractices that are effective and effi-cient. The program has the potentialto graduate truly competent and confi-dent educators, but it is not doing soat present. What the program offersnow is "pretty good." Pretty good willnever be good enough.

There once was a pretty good studentWho sat in a pretty good classAnd was taught by a pretty good teacher,Who always let pretty good pass.He wasn't terrific at reading,He wasn't a whiz-bang at math.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE31

But for him education was leadingStraight down a pretty good path.He didn't find school too exciting,But he wanted to do pretty well,And he did have some trouble with

writing,And nobody had taught him to spell.When doing arithmetic problems,Pretty good was regarded as fine,

Five plus five needn't always add up tobe ten,

A pretty good answer was nine.

The pretty good class that he sat inWas part of a pretty good school

And the student was not an exception,On the contrary, he was the rule.

The pretty good school that he went toWas there in a pretty good town.

And nobody there seemed to noticeHe could not tell a verb from a noun.

The pretty good student in fact wasPart of a pretty good mob.

And the first time he knew what helacked was

When he looked for a pretty good job.It was then, when he sought a position,He discovered that life could be tough.And soon had a sneaky suspicion

Pretty good might not be good enough.The pretty good town in our storyWas part of a pretty good state,Which had pretty good aspirations,And prayed for a pretty good fate.There once was a pretty good nation,Pretty proud of the greatness it hadWhich learned much too late,If you want to be great,Pretty good is, in fact, pretty bad.Charles Osgood,

The Osgood File, 1988 AD,f

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

Research on Direct Instruthon: 25 years beyondDISMR. Seattle, WA: EducationalAchievement Systems.

Hirsch, E. D., Jr. (1995). Core KnowledgeSequence. Charlottesville: VA: Core Knowl-edge Foundation.

DALE FEIK

"Mastery Why and How"

Why I attended Zig Engel-mann's 2-day session, "Mas-teryWhy and How," at the29th Annual National DirectInstruction Conference andInstitutes in Eugene, Oregon,JUly, 2003:

"You can grow physically only about aninch a year, but if you work hard, youcan grow enormously during a year.""The more you learn, the greater thenumber of choices you'll be able tomake later in life and the more you'llbe able to help others."

Zig Engelmann emphasized the firststatement during his presentation,"MasteryWhy and How," and wrotethe second statement at the end ofone of his handouts. After serving low-

performing students for over 30 years

32

as a public school teacher, I can cer-tainly say that I quit growing physi-cally a long time ago, but that mystudents and I have continued to growenormously during each year because

of Zig Engelmann's capability anddesire to help others.

Zig Engelmann has devoted his life towriting programs that work becausethey are based upon a sound instruc-tional design and a sound analysis of

human behavior. I attended his "Mas-teryWhy and How" presentation 3separate years, and realized more each

year why his programs work. They are

based upon the life of a person whohas learned how to motivate others towork hard by the role he has played increating a learning/teaching modelwith a written curriculum unmatchedin the health-care profession.

70

I just finished rereading the two hand-

outs Zig used as his lecture notes.

They are filled with the details neces-

sary to understand how to teach to

"Mastery" If you want to learn why

teaching to "Mastery" is the critical

element of Direct Instruction pro-

grams, and learn from the master, sign

up for Zig Engelmann's session at the

30th ADI Conference and Institutes. I

hope to see you there. 114W-

Dale Feik: Ed.D, Reading Education; M.Ed.,

Counseling; M.S. Special Education; last assign-

ment: self-contained classroom of 15 elementary

students labeled as having emotional disabilities;

previous assignments: resource room teacher for

sixth- through ninth-grade students, coordinator

of an elementary Title I reading project; retired

from teaching in 1999 after serving low-perform-

ing students for over 30 years.

Fall 2003

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.

Direct Instruction News

Summer 2004Direct InstructionTraining

Opportunities

The Association for Direct

Instruction is pleased to

announce the following inten-

sive DI training conferences.

These events will provide com-

prehensive training presented by

some of the most skilled trainers

in education. Plan now to attend

one of these professional devel-

opment conferences.

Save these dates:

7th Southeast DI

Conference andInstitutes

June 22-25,2004

Radisson Hotel Orlando

at Universal Studio

Orlando, Florida

30th National DirectInstruction Conference

and Institutes

July 18-22;2004Eugene Hilton and

Conference Center

Eugene, Oregon

Other regionalconferences to be

announced in

November, 2003.

7 1 881'0OPYAVAILABLE33

iliell6 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 Direct Instruc-tion. The training tapes have been designed to be either stand-alone training or used to supplement and reinforce live train-ing. The motivational tapes are keynote presentations from past years of the National Direct Instruction Conference.

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, Wesley Elemen-tary School in Houston, Texas, demonstrates approach. Principal, Thaddeus Lott, and teachers are interviewed and class-room footage is shown. Created by Houston Independent School District in collaborative partnership with Project FollowThrough. 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 Schae-

fer and Molly Blakely. The video includes scenarios showing 27 common teaching problems, with demonstrations of coach-ing interventions for each problem. A common intervention format is utilized in all scenarios. Print material that details eachteaching problem and the rationale for correcting the problem is provided. This product should be to used to supplementlive DI coaching training and is ideal for Coaches, Teachers, Trainers. Price...$395.00 Member Price...$316.00

DIP/Reading 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 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 I I (5 Videotapes) $75.00Reading Mastery III (1 Videotape) $25.00Combined package (Reading Mastery IIII) $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 decod-ing lesson, information on classroom management/reinforcement, and demonstration of lessons (off-camera responses).Price $25.00.

34 7 2 BEST COPYAVAILABLEFall 2003

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.

Keynotes From the 2003 National DI Conference, July 2003, Eugene, Oregon

To the Top of the MountainGiving Kids the Education They Deserve-75 minutes. Milt Thompson, Principal of21st Century Preparatory School in Racine, Wisconsin gives a very motivational presentation of his quest to dramaticallychange the lives of all children and give them the education they deserve. Starting with a clear vision of his goal, Thomp-son describes his journey that turned the lowest performing school in Kenosha, Wisconsin into a model of excellence.

In his keynote, Senior Direct Instruction developer Zig Engelmann focuses on the four things you have to do to have aneffective Direct Instruction implementation. These are: work hard, pay attention to detail, treat problems as informa-tion, and recognize that it takes time. He provides concrete examples of the ingredients that go into Direct Instructionimplementations as well as an interesting historical perspective. Price: $30.00

No Excuses in Portland Elementary, The Right ChoiceIsn't Always the Easiest, and Where Does the BuckStop? 2 tapes, 1 hour, 30 minutes total. Ernest Smith isPrincipal of Portland Elementary in Portland, Arkansas.The February 2002 issue of Reader's Digest featured Port-land Elementary in an article about schools that outper-formed expectations. Smith gives huge credit to theimplementation of DI as the key to his students' andteachers' success. In his opening remarks, Zig Engel-mann gives a summary of the Project Follow Throughresults and how these results translate into current edu-cational practices. Also included are Zig's closingremarks. Price: $30.00

Lesson Learned...the Story of City Springs, Reachingfor Effective Teaching, and Which Path to Success?2 Tapes, 2 hours total. In the fall of 2000 a documentarywas aired on PBS showing the journey of City Springs Ele-mentary in Baltimore from a place of hopelessness to a'place of hope. The principal of City Springs, BerniceWhelchel addressed the 2001 National DI Conferencewith an update on her school and delivered a truly inspir-ing keynote. She describes the determination of her staffand students to reach the excellence she knew they werecapable of. Through this hard work City Springs went frombeing one of the 20 lowest schools in the Baltimore CitySchools system to one of the top 20 schools. This keynotealso includes a 10-minute video updating viewers on theprogress at City Springs in the 2000-2001 school year. Inthe second keynote Zig Engelmann elaborates on the fea-tures of successful implementations such as City Springs.Also included are Zig's closing remarks. Price: $30.00

Commitment to ChildrenCommitment to Excellenceand How Did We Get Here... Where are WeGoing?-95 minutes. These keynotes bring two of thebiggest names in Direct Instruction together. The firstpresentation is by Thaddeus Lott, Senior. Dr. Lott wasprincipal at Wesley Elementary in Houston, Texas from1974 until 1995. During that time he turned the schoolinto one of the best in the nation, despite demographicsthat would predict failure. He is an inspiration to thou-sands across the country. The second presentation bySiegfried Engelmann continues on the theme that weknow all we need to know about how to teachwe justneed to get out there and do it. This tape also includesEngelmann's closing remarks. Price: $30.00.

Direct Instruction News

73

State of the Art & Science of Teaching and Higher Pro-file, Greater Risks-50 minutes. This tape is the open-ing addresses from the 1999 National Direct InstructionConference at Eugene. In the first talk Steve Kukic, for-mer Director of Special Education for the state of Utah,reflects on the trend towards using research based educa-tional methods and research validated materials. In thesecond presentation, Higher Profile, Greater Risks,Siegfried Engelmann reflects on the past of Direct Instruc-tion and what has to be done to ensure successful imple-mentation of DI. Price: $30.00

Successful Schools... How We Do it-35 minutes. EricMahmoud, Co-founder and CEO of Seed Academy/Har-vest Preparatory School in Minneapolis, Minnesota pre-sented the lead keynote for the 1998 National DirectInstruction Conference. His talk was rated as one of thebest features of the conference. Eric focused on the chal-lenges of educating our inner city youth and the highexpectations we must communicate to our children andteachers if we are to succeed in raising student perform-ance in our schools. Also included on this video is a wel-come by Siegfried Engelmann, Senior Author andDeveloper of Direct Instruction Programs. Price: $15.00

Moving from Better to the Best-20 minutes. Closingkeynote from the National DI Conference. Classic ZigEngelmann doing one of the many things he does well...motivating teaching professionals to go out into the fieldand work with kids in a sensible and sensitive manner,paying attention to the details of instruction, makingsure that excellence instead of "pretty good" is the stan-dard we strive for and other topics that have been theconstant theme of his work over the years. Price $15.00

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

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

continued on next page

BEST COPY AVAILABLE 35

rafir.k06 Videotapes on the Direct Instruction Model...continued

Fads, Fashions & FolliesLinking Research to Prac-tice-25 minutes. Dr. Kevin Feldman, Director of Read-ing and Early Intervention for the Sonoma County Officeof Education in Santa Rosa, California presents on theneed to apply research findings to educational practices.He supplies a definition of what research is and is not,with examples of each. His style is very entertaining andholds interest quite well. Price: $15.00

One More Time-20 minutes. Closing from 1997 NationalDI Conference. One of Engelmann's best motivationaltalks. Good for those already using DI, this is sure tomake them know what they are doing is the right choicefor teachers, students 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,"an excellent introductory talk on the efficiency of DI andthe sensibility of research based programs. Doug Carnine'stalk "Get it Straight, Do it Right, and Keep it Straight" isa call for people to do what they already know works, andnot to abandon sensible approaches in favor of "innova-tions" that are recycled fads. Siegfried Engelmann deliversthe closing "Words vs. Deeds" in his usual inspirationalmanner, with a plea to teachers not to get worn down bythe weight of a system that at times does not reward excel-lence as it should. Price: $25.00

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

Keynote Presentations from the 1994 20th AnniversaryConference-2 hours. Titles and speakers include: JeanOsborn, Associate Director for the Center for the Study ofReading, University of Illinois, speaking on "DirectInstruction: Past, Present, and Future"; Sara Tarver, Profes-sor, University of Wisconsin, Madison, speaking on "I Havea Dream That Someday We Will Teach All Children"; ZigEngelmann, Professor, University of Oregon, speaking on"So Who Needs Standards?" Price: $25.00

An Evening of Tribute to Siegfried Engelmann-2.5hours. On July 26, 1995, 400 of Zig Engelmann's friends,admirers, colleagues, and protégés assembled to pay trib-ute to the "Father of Direct Instruction." The Tributetape features Carl Bereiter, Wes Becker, Barbara Bate-man, Cookie Bruner, Doug Carnine, and Jean Osbornthe pioneers of Direct Instructionand many otherprogram 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:

irm y ADI, PO Box 10252, Eugene, OR 97440You may also phone or fax your order.Phone 1.800.995.2464 Fax 541.868.1397

Qty. Itern Each Total

Please charge my Visa Mastercard Discover in the amount of $

Card #

Signed

Name:

Address:

City: State: Zip:

Phone:

Exp Date

Shipping

Total

3674

BEST COPY AVAILABLE Fall 2003

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

Corrective ReadingSounds Practice Tape

1

CORRECTIVE READING

SOUNDS PRACTICE

ADI PO Box 10252 Eugene OR 97440I-800.995446f

MOO ASSORMI011 for Dire. Instruction

I.

3

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:

y ADI, PO Box 10252, Eugene, OR 97440$0.00 to $5.00 $3.85 N You may also phone or fax your order.

$5.01 to $10.00 $4.50 Phone 1.800.995.2464 Fax 541.868.1397

$10.01 to $15.00 $5.85$15.01 to $20.99 $7.85 Qty. Item Each Total

$21.00 to $40.99 $8.50 Corrective Reading Sounds Tape 10.00$41.00 to $60.99 $9.85$61.00 to $80.99 $10.85

Shipping

$81.00 or more 10% of Subtotal Total

Outside the continental U.S., add $5.00 more

Please charge my Visa Mastercard Discover in the amount of $

Card #

Signed

Name:

Address:

City: State: Zip:

Phone:

Exp Date

Direct Instruction News

7 5 SEST COPY AVAILABLE37

A 711"ziut.. 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 $24.95 $29.95

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 $5.50$21.00 to $40.99 $6.75$41.00 to $60.99 $8.00861.00 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 (U.S. 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:

38

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

76 Fall 2003

A 71.z.-.AL Association for Direct InstructionPO Box 10252, Eugene, Oregon 97440 541.485.1293 (voice) 541.868.1397 (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 Jour-nal of Direct Instruaion (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, TheJourned 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% discounton ADI sponsored events and on materials sold by ADI).

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

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

$150.00 Institutional Membership (includes 5 subscriptions to ADI publications and regular membershipprivileges for 5 staff people).

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:

Direct Instruction News

7739

4 pi y Association for Direct Instructionjo, PO Box 102522

Eugene, OR 97440

Thank you to our Sustaining Members

The ADI Board of Directors acknowledges the financial contribution made by the following ihelps our organization continue to promote the use of effective, research-based methods and

Non-Profit OrganizationUS Postage PAIDPermit No. 122

Eugene, OR

ndividuals. Their generositymaterials in our schools.

Anayezuka Ahidiana Donna Dressman Debbie & Ken Jackson Pam Smith

Alvin Allert Mary Eisele Shirley R. Johnson Jonita Sommers

Anita Archer Babette Engel John W. Lloyd Karen Sorrentino

Jason Aronoff Dale Feik Pat Lloyd Randy & Marilyn Sprick

Marvin Baker Todd Forgette Mary Lou Mastrangelo Geoff St. John

Jerry Jo Ballard Barbara Forte Doreen Neistadt Linda Stewart

Roberta Bender Brad Frieswyk Kip Orloff Sara G. Tarver

Gregory J. Benner David Giguere Jean Osborn Vicci Tucci

Molly Blakely Dick Glatzmaier Steve Osborn Vicky Vachon

Mary Frances Bruce Mary P Gudgel David Parr Frank Valenti

Dawn Anna Rose Butler Ardena Harris K. Gale Phillips Scott Van Zuiden

Judith Carlson Betty-Jane Hartnett Thomas Rollins Tricia Walsh Coughlan

Corene Casselle Melissa Hayden Peggy Roush Rose Wanken

Lisa Cohen Lee Hemenway Joan Rutschow Ann Watanabe

Maria Collins Diane Hill Randi Saulter Paul Weisberg

Gail Coulter Christy Holmes Ed Schaefer Gayle Wood

Jim Cowardin Susan Hornor Carolyn Schneider Leslie Zoref

78

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)

E Cfittitilkw.ir_zittf,,An

CS 512 513

Title:Direct Instruction News, Volume 3, Number 1

Author(s):

Corporate Source:Association for Direct Instruction

Publication Date:April, 2003

II. REPRODUCTION RELEASE:

In order to disseminate as widely as possible timely and significant materials of interest to the educational community, documents announced inthe monthly abstractjournal of the ERIC system, Resources in Education (RIE), are usually made available to users in microfiche, reproduced papercopy, and electronic media, and sold through the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). Credit is given to the source of each document, and,if reproduction release is granted, one of the following notices is affixed to the document.

If permission is granted to reproduce and disseminate the identified document, please CHECK ONE of the following three options and sign at thebottom of the page.

The sample sticker shown below will beaffixed to all Level I documents

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS

BEEN GRANTED BY

TO THE EINFOR .

AL RESOURCESON CENTER (ERIC)

Level 1

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 E RESOURCESINFOR ION CENTER (ERIC)

Level 2A

H

The sample sticker shown below will beaffixed to all Level 2B documents

2B

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN

MICROFICHE ONLY HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

TO THEINF

a I'50:

S.NAL RESOURCES

TION CENTER (ERIC)

Level 2B

Check here for Level 1 release, permitting reproduction Check here for Level 2A release, pemiitting reproduction and Check here for Level 28 release, pelmitting reproduction andand dissemination in miaofiche or other ERIC archival dissemination in microfiche and in electronic media for ERIC dissemination in microfiche only

archival collection subsaibers onlyDocuments will be accessed as indicated provided reproduotion quarrty permits.

tf permission to reproduce is orented. but no box is checked dccuments will be processed at Level 1.

media (e.g., electronic) and paper copy.

Signhere,-->please

I hereby grant to the Educational Resoumes Information Center (ERIC) nonexclusive permission to repnaduce and disseminate thisdocument as indicated above. Reproduction from the ERIC microfiche or electronic media by persons other than ERIC employees andits system contractors requires permission from the coprightholder. Exception is made for non-profit reproduction by libraries and otherservice agencies to satisfy information needs of educators in response to discrete inquiries.

,Signature: 61 Printed Name/Position/Title:

Amy Griffin/Managing EditorOrganization/Address

Association f Direct I t ctiond

P.O. Box 10252Eugene, OR 97440

Telephone:

541.485.1293FAX:

541.868.1394E-Mail Address:

amy@adihome.orgDate:

10/13/03

III. DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY INFORMATION (FROM NON-ERIC SOURCE):

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)