Toll Free 877.485.1973 | T: 541.485.1973 | F: 541.683.7543 | P.O. Box 11248 | Eugene, OR 97440
In this article Engelmann explains the importance of teaching to mastery and the necessity of having a curriculum program that does so. He describes the features of a Direct Instruction program, which teaches to mastery. The main features covered include properties of mastery, criteria and procedures for measuring mastery, procedures for teaching to mastery, procedures for aligning student skills with appropriate programs, and the benefits of learning to mastery. Engelmann concludes that teaching to mastery is the most effective use of instructional time and results in students learning how to learn. (Copyright © 2013, National Institute for Direct Instruction (NIFDI). All rights reserved).
This study examined the effects of adding three repeated readings following Reading Mastery lessons on the reading fluency of six first grade students. This study aims to replicate the findings of Frankhauser, Tso, and Martella (2001) as well as determine if fluency gains generalize to other Reading Mastery passages. Results indicate that the addition of repeated readings did not substantially increase reading fluency beyond what is expected within the RM program. Additionally, fluency gains did not generalize to other RM passages, nor reduce the number of readings required to meet RM checkout criteria. These results suggest that RM provides sufficient support for students to gain fluency in reading without supplementing the program with repeated readings. (Copyright © 2011, National Institute for Direct Instruction (NIFDI). All rights reserved).
This study investigated the effects of a Direct Instruction reading program, Corrective Reading, on the reading achievement of elementary and middle school students with emotional disturbance (ED) and learning disabilities (LD). Comparison students receiving non-DI instruction were selected based on demographics. Results indicate that students in the Corrective Reading program made significantly higher gains than comparison students; additionally, students with ED were more responsive to Corrective Reading than students with LD. (Copyright © 2011, National Institute for Direct Instruction (NIFDI). All rights reserved).