Research

877.485.1973 | 541.485.1973
Info@NIFDI.org

877.485.1973 | Info@NIFDI.org

What our partners say…

“I would use the word transformational to describe our relationship with NIFDI.”

Click here to view our Partner Perspectives videos. Robin Shakespeare, Director of Education - Midland Academies Trust, UK

“NIFDI support was exemplary. It was structured in such a way as the teachers did not feel overwhelmed.”

Click here to view our Partner Perspectives videos. Nazam Hussain, School Psychologist - Bradford, UK

“Our principals have all agreed that NIFDI support is the single most changing professional development experience they have experienced in their careers.”

Click here to view our Partner Perspectives videos. Sean McKenzie, Director of Support Services - Bethel School District - Spanaway, WA

“The support for me as an administrator–looking at the data, and making decisions was really valuable. I couldn’t have done it by myself.”

Click here to view our Partner Perspectives videos. Rhonda Richetta, Principal - City Springs Elementary/Middle School - Baltimore, MD

“The small, bite-size level of feedback has supported me in improving as a teacher.”

Click here to view our Partner Perspectives videos. Ann Fuentes, Assistant Principal of Instruction - Idea Mission Academy - Mission, TX

“NIFDI has been a game-changer in terms of building student confidence. They have fun with the program.”

Click here to view our Partner Perspectives videos. Selina Ortiz, Assistant Principal of Instruction - IDEA Edinburg Academy - Edinburg, TX

“Working with NIFDI means you are working with the acknowledged authority on Direct Instruction.”

Click here to view our Partner Perspectives videos. Robin Shakespeare, Director of Education -Midland Academies Trust, UKm

“The thoroughness and robustness of the training was amazing to see. It was rigorous and professional, but sensitive to the individual.”

Click here to view our Partner Perspectives videos. Nazam Hussain, School Psychologist - Bradford, UK

“Schools with NIFDI have more and better discussions about how what they are doing is impacting individual student achievement.”

Click here to view our Partner Perspectives videos. Sean McKenzie, Director of Support Services - Bethel School District - Spanaway, WA.

“The support was very targeted.”

Click here to view our Partner Perspectives videos. Rhonda Richetta, Principal - City Springs Elementary/Middle School - Baltimore, MD

“The schools like the support and they are seeing the results”

Click here to view our Partner Perspectives videos. Nazam Hussain, School Psychologist - Bradford, UK

“The teachers have gained so much knowledge behind the data tracking. They love the assistance… end of week goals, end of month goals…”

Click here to view our Partner Perspectives videos. Selina Ortiz, Assistant Principal of Instruction - IDEA Edinburg Academy - Edinburg, TX

“NIFDI Implementation Managers build relationships. She is here to help and support. It is a caring, comforting approach.”

Click here to view our Partner Perspectives videos. Ann Fuentes, Assistant Principal of Instruction - Idea Mission Academy - Mission, TX

"The most valuable tool for a teacher is a NIFDI coach… side by side, shoulder to shoulder, to model for you, show you and give you feedback.”

Click here to view our Partner Perspectives videos. Rhonda Richetta, Principal - City Springs Elementary/Middle School - Baltimore, MD

"The tools and procedures taught in training are applicable... When I enter a new program the teachers pick it up easily.”

Click here to view our Partner Perspectives videos. Selina Ortiz, Assistant Principal of Instruction - IDEA Edinburg Academy - Edinburg, TX

While decades of well-designed, scientific research show that Direct Instruction programs are highly effective, the programs have faced criticism. Some of these involve how DI affects students. For instance, some suggest that DI is less effective than other types of instruction, such as the “constructivist” or “discovery” approaches, or that it has no long-lasting impact on students’ achievement. Others suggest that it is only appropriate for disadvantaged students or those with learning difficulties. Some even claim that exposure to Direct Instruction results in poor self-image, behavior problems, or other problems for students. The accumulated evidence counters each of these claims. The research conclusively shows that Direct Instruction is more effective than other curricular programs and that the positive effects persist through high school. The positive effects occur with students of all ability levels and social backgrounds. Students exposed to Direct Instruction also have greater self-esteem and self-confidence than students in other programs, primarily because they are learning more material and understand that they can be successful students.

Other criticisms focus on the Direct Instruction programs and their use by teachers. Some suggest that Direct Instruction is only “rote and drill” and that teachers don’t like it because it hampers their creativity. Again, the research evidence counters these claims. Rather than involving a “rote and drill” approach, DI programs are designed to accelerate students’ learning and allow them to learn more material in a shorter amount of time. The programs are technical and prescriptive, designed to make teachers more effective, much like the prescribed techniques for surgeons and pilots ensure optimal results for their patients and passengers. Yet, just as surgeons and pilots’ personalities create the atmosphere of an operating room or plane, the individual personalities and creativity of DI teachers permeate their classrooms and interactions with students. The research shows that teachers like DI programs because they help their students learn more and they become more effective teachers.

Others suggest that using separate elements of the programs will result in outcomes that are just as good as using the full DI programs. Yet, the research shows that using only some of the elements of DI programs, what is sometimes called “direct instruction” or “little di,” is far less effective than using the true Direct Instruction programs developed by Engelmann and associates.

The claim that Direct Instruction programs are not effective has been promulgated in recent years by the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC), which is funded by the United States Department of Education to provide reviews of curricular programs. Careful analyses of the WWC reports show that they can be very misleading and provide inaccurate summaries of the research. As a result, some WWC reports give positive ratings to programs that researchers have found to be ineffective and negative ratings to programs that the research has found to be highly effective.

The scientific literature emphasizes the importance of multiple tests, or replications, of studies to ensure that conclusions are accurate. Over the last five decades, there have been many studies of Direct Instruction’s efficacy, and researchers have reviewed and summarized this vast literature. They have found strong and consistent evidence of DI’s effectiveness.

Two approaches are typically used in such analyses: systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses. Both approaches begin with a delineation of the topic to be covered. For instance, some have looked only at studies of reading or of mathematics. Some have focused on studies of whole school reform. Some may look only at special populations, such as students with disabilities. Systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses may also use methodological criteria to limit the range of studies examined, such as sample size or the nature of the research design. Once the researchers have determined the topic and criteria to be used, they try to amass all the relevant studies and then carefully examine their findings.

The procedures used to summarize the findings differ slightly for the two approaches. Systematic literature reviews usually involve narrative summaries of the results. They describe the nature of each study and compare and contrast conclusions. These reviews usually include simple tallies of the outcomes, noting the proportion of results that are positive, negative, or indeterminate. Meta-analyses use a more statistical approach. They translate results into a common numerical metric, usually an effect size, and statistically analyze variations in the metric and factors that might influence it. All of the literature reviews and meta-analyses of Direct Instruction materials have found strong evidence of their effectiveness.

For more, see the work of:

This is where we will link to reports on work we have done with schools, including Mt. Carmel, Rimes, Guam, IDEA, etc.

D.4. Research from NIFDI Schools

NIFDI has helped schools and teachers throughout the United States and in other countries develop strong and successful implementations of DI. Research on these sites documents the success of these implementations. Read more about some of the NIFDI sites

[in about nifdi – look at success stories – to look]

D.4.a. Baltimore (tell of how long has been going – and link to technical reports, articles – and their webpage)

D.4.b. Nebraska – (history of involvement, link to articles)

D.4.c. Guam

D.4.d. Mt. Carmel

D.4.e. RIMES

D.4.f. IDEA

Others???

This is where we will link to reports on work we have done with schools, including Mt. Carmel, Rimes, Guam, IDEA, etc.

NIFDI is proud to support research on Direct Instruction and promote the development of emerging scholars in the field of education through research awards and fellowships. NIFDI Research Fellowships are available for graduate students, emerging scholars, and established researchers. Priority for the graduate awards will be given to projects conducted by doctoral candidates as part of their dissertation research. Proposals from Masters’ candidates and faculty supervising the work of numerous students will also be considered. Projects may address a variety of issues regarding Direct Instruction. Those that examine the efficacy of DI curricular programs and incorporate random assignment of students, classrooms, or schools will be given the highest priority. Studies that include subjects with varying demographic characteristics and in different community settings are encouraged. Additional topics that might be examined include the fidelity of implementation, the relationship of Direct Instruction to behavioral issues and self-esteem, and the role of Direct Instruction in teacher retention and satisfaction.

AWARDS:		Small grants; varies based on project scope and funding availability

WHO SHOULD APPLY:		Masters, Doctoral and Postdoctoral scholars

HOW TO APPLY:		Instructions and Evaluation Letter: pdf Research Fellowship Application Packet (906.32 kB)
		Application Form: pdf Fellowship Application Form (95.63 kB)

DEADLINE:		Applications are currently being accepted on a limited basis.

For more information, please contact NIFDI's Research Department at research@nifdi.org.

NIFDI's Fellowship Recipients

Jessica Cadette, M.Ed., BCBA Jessica Cadette is a doctoral candidate at Florida Atlantic University in Special Education with an emphasis in Applied Behavior Analysis. Jessica has taught elementary school students with and without disabilities since graduating with her Bachelor’s degree in Elementary Education in 2003. In addition to classroom teaching, Jessica has been working as an in-home behavior therapist for children with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) for four years. Jessica is a National Board certified teacher specializing in middle childhood and is also a Board Certified Behavior Analyst. Jessica has presented at state and national conferences on special education teacher preparation and implementation of common core standards with students with disabilities. Her research interests include Direct Instruction with students with disabilities, early intervention, and language development in children with ASD.

Jessica is currently completing her dissertation study on the effectiveness of Direct Instruction in teaching students with ASD to answer “wh-” questions. Jessica is utilizing the SRA Reading Mastery language program in a small group setting to teach her study participants to answer “what”, “who”, and “where” questions. Jessica’s study is being conducted on the campus of a charter school for high school students with ASD. She anticipates graduating in May 2015.

Julie L. Thompson, M.Ed., BCBA Julie Thompson is a doctoral candidate in Special Education at UNC Charlotte. She also earned her Master’s degree from UNC Charlotte. Prior to pursuing a PhD in special education, Julie taught students with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) for six years. Her current research focuses on teaching academics to students with ASD, Direct Instruction, and applied behavior analysis. She is a National Board Certified teacher in severe and multiple disabilities and a Board Certified Behavior Analyst. She has presented at conferences nationally on teaching academics to students with autism and severe disabilities. Currently, she works as a research assistant for the Center for Secondary Education of Students with Autism.

As a recipient of the NIFDI Research Fellowship Grant, Julie was able to conduct a study investigating the effects of proximity fading and task breaks on student responding during small group Direct Instruction in mathematics with students with ASD. Results demonstrated a functional relation between the intervention and students’ ability to actively respond during small group instruction. One student, an English Language Learner, required an instructional cue in her native language to increase her participation to mastery level. Following the promising results of this study, Julie is continuing this line of research for her dissertation and plans to extend the research by measuring generalization of active responding across DI curricula (Connecting Math Concepts and Language for Learning) as well as measuring accuracy of response and assessing mathematics skill acquisition using distal standardized measures.

Jennifer Weber Jennifer Weber is a doctoral candidate at Columbia University in Teaching as Applied Behavior Analysis, a program that is part of the Comprehensive Application of Behavior Analysis to Schooling CABAS®. Currently, Jennifer teaches in a CABAS® Accelerated Independent Learner (AIL) inclusion classroom. Through NIFDI’s fellowship program, Jennifer was able to conduct research on the implementation of Corrective Reading (CR) with students with and without disabilities at a Title I school.

Jennifer tested the effects of Corrective Reading on students with and without disabilities, who were identified as reading below proficient, as according to the New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (NJ ASK), Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA), and DIBELS® across third, fourth, and fifth grade CABAS® classrooms, that utilized behavioral principles to teach children with and without disabilities. 25 students participated in the Corrective Reading intervention and were matched to 25 counterparts within the school that functioned at similar academic levels.

The study included:

1) a comparison between general education student's reading below proficient that receive CR as an intervention (experimental group), compared to general education students reading below proficient and receive teacher-developed reading lessons (control group), and

2) the effects of the implementation of CR on children with disabilities compared to students with disabilities who receive teacher-developed reading lessons.

Overall, four months of Direct Instruction intervention with the use of behavioral tactics increased their independent reading level as according to the DRA, anywhere from one to four levels.

pdf Summary from NIFDI Fellow Jennifer Weber: The Effects of the Corrective Reading Program on Reading Skills with Students in an Accelerated Independent Learner Classroom

Scholars from all over the world conduct research on Direct Instruction. Some serve on the faculties of colleges and universities, some work in institutes devoted solely to research, some are independent researchers, and some are teacher scholars, doing action research in their classrooms. People doing research on Direct Instruction are invited to join the Direct Instruction Research Group. The NIFDI research office periodically sends information to the group on recent research, possible research sites, funding, and other areas of potential interest. With members’ permission help with networking and collaboration is also provided. To join the listing, click here.

Subcategories

Article Abstracts Article Count: 18

Page 2 of 9

Start
Prev
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Next
End

Implementing Direct Instruction Successfully

When implemented fully, Direct Instruction (DI) is unparalleled in its ability to improve student performance and enhance students’ self-esteem. In order to implement DI effectively, much more is required than simply purchasing instructional materials. The following two-part tutorial guides administrators, teachers, and coaches through the key features of a successful DI implementation. Part I provides an overview of the steps schools need to take in preparation for a DI implementation before school starts, while Part II provides an overview of the steps schools need to take after school has started.

IMPORTANT: This tutorial is an intensive video series comprised of 18 segments, each followed by a series of questions. Users should allow approximately three hours to watch the videos and complete the questions. NIFDI recognizes the high demand for time placed on school officials and, for this reason, has structured the tutorial so users may stop at any time and later resume where they left off.

Enroll in the tutorial here.