This report examines data from two schools within the same Oregon school district. One school adopted the Reading Mastery Direct Instruction program as the core reading curriculum for all primary children, while the other used a “three tiered” model, occasionally employing DI for students that teachers felt would benefit from the instruction.
The National Reading Panel recently concluded that pre-literacy and early literacy instruction is appropriate for kindergarten students and an important element of promoting higher achievement in later grades. This paper examines the relationship of receiving the Direct Instruction (DI) kindergarten curriculum, Reading Mastery, on students' oral reading fluency in first and second grade.
This study compares students’ achievement in BCPSS schools that 1) implemented Direct Instruction with support from NIFDI, 2) implemented DI without NIFDI support, and 3) used a traditional curriculum (Open Court) from 1998 through 2003. Students in the NIFDI supported schools had significantly higher levels of achievement than students in the other schools. Achievement scores of all first grade students in the BCPSS were higher in 2003 than in 1998, but the increases in the NIFDI supported schools were more than twice as great as in the other schools.
Full Report Improving First Grade Reading Achievement in a Large Urban District: The Effects of NIFDI-Supported Implementation of Direct Instruction in the Baltimore City Public School System, Technical Report # 2008-1, Eugene, Oregon: National Institute for Direct Instruction, September, 2008.
This report examines the impact of receiving Direct Instruction in first grade on reading achievement in fifth grade. Results indicate that students who received Direct Instruction had significantly higher reading scores in fifth grade than other students. On average, students in NIFDI-supported schools had a 25 percent gain in composite reading achievement scores from first grade to fifth grade compared to a gain of only 5 percent for students in control schools.
This report examines the impact of receiving Direct Instruction on mathematics achievement. Results indicate that students who received Direct Instruction had significantly higher mathematics achievement than other students. The differences in achievement between DI schools and other schools became larger over time. In addition, students who had DI in first grade had significantly greater change in their achievement scores from first grade to fifth grade than students in the Control schools.
*(Bolded words signify specific keywords used in reviews)
Design:
There are eight types of designs that serve to classify studies:
o Matched Comparison (Demographics): Pretest and posttest measures are collected, a control group is included, and participants are divided into treatment and control groups in a manner that demographic variables (gender, age, grade, ethnicity, disability, socioeconomic status) are similar for both groups.
o Matched Comparison (Pretest): Pretest and posttest measures are collected, a control group is included, and pretest scores are used to divide participants into groups that are similar in ability.
o Non-matched Comparison: Pretest and posttest measures are collected, a control group is included, but groups are not manipulated to account for demographic or pretest differences.
Students Included:
Characteristics of students included in studies are classified into:
Location:
Location refers to the geographical region of the study. Regions are classified as follows:
o New England: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut
o Middle Atlantic: New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey
o East North Central: Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio
o West North Central: North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri
o South Atlantic: Delaware, Maryland, Washington D.C., Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida
o East South Central: Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama
o West South Central: Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana
o Mountain: Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico
o Pacific: Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii
Setting:
Setting refers to the type of school that the study takes place:
Fidelity Measured:
If a study indicates that fidelity data was collected, then this identifier will be marked with a Yes. If there is no indication of fidelity monitoring in the study, then No will be marked.
Other Tags:
Program/Intervention: The curricula, programs, instruction methods or interventions included in the study will be indicated (Reading Mastery, Houghton-Mifflin, etc.) Both experimental and comparison programs will be listed. Also, the subject of interest (reading, math, etc.) will be indicated.
Dependent Measures: Measures that were used to determine efficacy will be tagged (Woodcock Johnson Achievement Test, DIBELS, etc.)
Interested in obtaining a copy of an article? Submit your request here.
The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) was established in 2002 with funding from the U.S. Department of Education. The Clearinghouse was charged with producing user-friendly guides for educators on effective instructional practices in order to understand what instructional programs have been shown to be effective. Unfortunately, the WWC has failed to live up to its promise.
The WWC's reports promote curricula that the scientific community has found to be ineffective and inefficient and denigrate those that the scientific community has found to be highly effective. Here are some of the major problems documented by NIFDI staff:
NIFDI staff have documented numerous problems with the procedures and reports of the What Works Clearinghouse. Learn more about some of these issues in the articles and reports below.
To learn more about concerns others have with the WWC's work, visit the links below.
pdf
Machinations of What Works Clearinghouse by Siegfried Engelmann
What Doesn't Work Clearinghouse by Jay Greene (Oct 2010)
pdf
Perspectives on Evidence-Based Research in Education by Robert Slavin (Educational Researcher, Jan/Feb 2008)
pdf
Does What Works Clearinghouse Work? by Genevieve McArthur (Australasian Journal of Special Ed., Apr 2008)