Direct instruction
Encyclopedia : D : DI : DIR : Direct instruction
| This article may not conform to the [Neutral point of view>neutral point of view] policy. A Wikipedian has [POV checknominated this article] to be checked for its neutrality. Discussion of this nomination can be found on the [DISTAR (Direct Instruction System for Teaching Arithmetic and Reading) program gained prominence during Project Follow Through (1967-1995), the largest federally-funded experiment in public education. Features of DI include:
Perspectives on Direct InstructionOne's perspective of DI often depends on what question they are asking: "Does DI conform to my personal philosophy of public education?" or "Is DI effective?" People responding "no" to the former usually see DI as a betrayal of the humanistic, egalitarian foundations of public education, or as a "canned" or "teacher proof" curriculum deliverable via unskilled teachers. More radical critics argue that the entire history of public education in the United States has been a political one, designed primarily to domesticate lower socio-economic groups, and that DI is in keeping with this broader, historical purpose. Debates about the efficacy of DI have raged since before the final results of Project Follow Through were published; however, the empirical research base is quite settled on this question. A meta-analysis published by Adams & Engelmann (1996) finds a "mean effect size average per study...(as) more than .75, which confirms that the overall effect is substantial." However, a three-year study of methods of teaching reading showed that highly scripted, teacher-directed methods of teaching reading were not as effective as traditional methods that allowed a more flexible approach. The study, headed by Randall Ryder, Professor of Curriculum and Instruction in the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee's School of Education, also found that teachers felt the most highly scripted method, known as Direct Instruction (DI), should be used in limited situations, not as the primary method of teaching students to read. Urban teachers in particular expressed great concern over the DI's lack of sensitivity to issues of poverty, culture and race. The findings from Dr. Ryder's study are not consonant with the findings of more than tweny other studies. Direct Instruction is widely and successfully used with students from every population segment (with regard to poverty, culture, and race). Direct Instruction is recognized as one of two effective models of comprehensive school reform (see the federal government's site on Comprehensive School Reform). The findings from Project Follow Through, conducted in a variety of communities throughout the United States, are conclusive. Direct Instruction is the most effective model for teaching academic skills and for affective outcomes (e.g., self-esteem of children). Recent large scale studies (1997-2003), such as the Baltimore Curriculum Project, show that it is possible to help schools that are in the lowest twenty percent with respect to academic achievement stadily improve until they are performing well above average. In some cases, school achievement improved from the 16th percentile to above the 90th percentile. The president of the National Science Teacher's Association (NSTA), Anne Tweed, also questions whether direct instruction is the most effective science teaching strategy. In the Dec 15, 2004 NSTA Reports she concludes that a variety of teaching strategies, including those that are inquiry-based (see inquiry-based instruction) as well as direct instruction techniques are what is best for students. See also
External links
From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Original article here. Support Wikipedia by contributing or donating. |