Research base of di final

MICHIGAN SCHOOLS WITH HORRIFIC 10%
LITERACY RATE HAVE BEEN TAKEN OVER
BY A CHARTER OPERATOR

HIGHLAND PARK, MICHIGAN

Just outside of Detroit is a school district
where only 10 percent of students from
third to eighth grade are proficient in
reading and math. On the college-ready
exam, 90 percent of the district's 11th
graders failed the reading portion, 97
percent failed the math section, and 100
percent failed the social studies and
science portions.

UTAH SCHOOLS

 We have similar challenges in Utah – not an entire district
failing, but many, many students are not being ef fectively
taught.

 http://www.deseretnews.com/top/769/37/Taylorsville-High-
50-worst-scoring-high-schools-in-Utah.html

FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS IN
EDUCATION
 How long have we been educating children?
 At least several centuries

 Do we know how to best educate children?

 Does anyone believe we can learn how to best educate
children?

STORY OF ZIG ENGLEMANN

http://www.zigsite.com/

HISTORY OF DI

 As a result of a job assignment – researched how many
repetitions it takes for a child to “get” something

 COULDN’T FIND ANY THING IN THE RESEARCH

 Undertook to find the answers himself by doing direct research
with his own children

 Wrote “Give Your Child a Superior Mind” – translated into several
languages

 Charles Bereiter at University of Illinois was given a grant to
develop early learning programs for children – heard about Zig’s
book, met him and hired him to develop the grant program.

SCRIPT FOR BEGINNING OF 2 ND FILM

 Hello, I’m Siegfried Engelmann, Senior Educational Specialist at the
University of Illinois. For the past several year s I have been working
with Dr. Carl Bereiter at the Institute for Research on Exceptional
Children developing methods and curricula for educating socially
disadvantaged children.

 In this film you will see the end product of some of our ef for ts. You
will see children sitting down and showing of f what they can do in
arithmetic. That’s what it is – showing of f – no attempt to teach – just
to show what they’ve learned over, for some of them, a 2 year period
and for other s, only a 1 school year period. That’s not ver y many hour s
when you consider that their lessons lasted for only 20 minutes a day.

 Now the method that I developed and that you will see in this film is
basically deductive. It is not inductive as many of the current programs
are. It is based on the idea that you can work with minimum
statements and teach the application of simple, deductive rules that
give a ver y precise under standing and a ver y precise meaning to the
statements of Arithmetic.

ZIG ENGELMANN

“So long as the problem exists
and so long as a solution
apparently exists, then, it is
incumbent upon us to demand
that the problem be solved in the
schools”.
 Zig Engelmann

ELEMENTS OF INSTRUCTION

 Rhymes/chants
 FUN – tricks – challenges
 Choral responding
 “Goodbye” cards
 Error corrections
 Pause and Punch

LET’S MOVE TO THE HARD STUFF

CREATED LESSONS AND CURRICULUM

 Demonstration preschool program for low -income children - led
by Zig
 Spent a couple years in further development creating
individual daily learning plans - Field Tested

 Results: IQ gains of 24 points, Children who began the preschool highly
at risk entered first grade reading at beginning second-grade level and
performing at mid-second-grade level in math

DI - HISTORY

 The instructional materials developed for the preschool project were
later refined and published as the DISTAR programs by Science
Research Associates, which at the time was owned by IBM. The
programs were widely distributed and produced success in many cities.
The following is an excerpt from a newspaper ar ticle published in 1974
in the Chicago Sun Times:

The downward slide of Chicago public education is being reversed in one
West Side school district by an experimental program which can teach
some kindergarten children to read at a third grade level. The program is
called DISTAR. It is credited with achieving remarkable gains in
reading and math skills since its formal introduction in1970 as a
standard procedure for the primary grades in Public School District 10
in the Lawndale Community.

PROJECT FOLLOW-THROUGH

Late 1960’s War on Poverty was the social agenda.
Government instituted a large -scale study called Project
Follow Through, and its purpose was to evaluate dif ferent
approaches to educating economically disadvantaged
students in kindergarten through grade 3 to see what works
best.

Federal Of fice of Education invited Bereiter and Engelmann to
participate

Project Follow Through would become the largest experimental
education research program ever conducted by the federal
government.

PROJECT FOLLOW-THROUGH

 Initial study period: 9 years – 1967-1976
 More than 10,000 low -income students in 180 communities
were involved
 $600 million project.

MODELS IN PROJECT FOLLOW -THROUGH

 Category 1: Basic Skills Models
 Direct Instruction – DISTAR scripted programs

 Behavior Analysis – used tokens and rewards, programmed reading
curriculum – 2 sites used DISTAR – focus on rewards

 Language Development Model – SW Education - Bilingual – when
appropriate, presented material in Spanish then in English


 Category 2: Cognitive Conceptual Skills Models
 High Scope (based on Piaget’s processes) – children were
encouraged to schedule their own activities, then follow their
schedules. Based upon the idea that self-esteem is increased
through giving children more choices.

 Florida Parent Education Model - Piaget approach using parents
teaching their children and directing their learning in the classroom

 TEEM (whole language approach) – children have different learning
styles so child directed choices are important, and teachers facilitate
learning.


 Category 3: Af fective Skills Models
 Bank Street College Model – this model used the traditional nursery
school approach that was adopted by Headstart. Centers based –
children get to choose their learning centers and teachers job is to
maximize the learning opportunities.

 Open Education Model – Derived from British Infant School – building
children’s responsibility for their own learning. Reading is not taught
directly, but through stimulating a desire to communicate.

 Responsive Education Model – Montessori influence, centers and
focus on development of self-esteem. Learning centers and child’s
interests are key and define the learning environment.

PROJECT FOLLOW THROUGH RESULTS
Follow Through Results:
Cognitive Skills
OpenEd
CogCur
TEEM
BehAnal
RespEd
BankSt
ParEd
SW Lab
DirInst

-400 0 400

The above graph is based on ISO numbers. This figure is derived by subtracting the total
number of negative outcomes from the total number of positive outcomes multiplied by
1,000.


Basic Skills
OpenEd

CogCur

TEEM

BankSt

RespEd

BahAnal

ParEd

SW Lab

DirInst

-400 0 400

The above graph is based on ISO numbers. This figure is derived by
subtracting the total number of negative outcomes from the total number
of positive outcomes multiplied by 1,000.

Affective Skills
TEEM

OpenEd

BankSt

RespEd

CogCur

SW Lab

ParEd

BehAnal

DirInst

-300 0 300

The above graph is based on ISO numbers. This figure is derived by
subtracting the total number of negative outcomes from the total number
of positive outcomes multiplied by 1,000.


Percentage of Students Scoring 1 or More Grade Levels Below Age Expectancy in
Reading in Each of Several Models of Instructions

Tucson Early Education 51%

Responsive Education 40%

Parent Education 51%

Educational Development Corporation 73%

Direct Instruction 19%

Cognitive Curriculum 61%

Behavior Analysis 32%

Bank Street 45%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

AFTER PROJECT FOLLOW - THROUGH

Standards for Significance
Effect Size

O.00 –
treatment & 0.70 – it’s
control 0.20 – still not 0.30 – it’s 0.40 – 0.50 – powerful and 0.80 or more –
conditions do much theoretically definitely definitely, very important – Can you say
not differ happening interesting significant significant Get a Clue! “Nobel Prize”?!


Interesting Comparisons

O.00 –
treatment & 0.70 – it’s
control 0.20 – still not 0.30 – it’s 0.40 – 0.50 – powerful and 0.80 or more –
conditions do much theoretically definitely definitely, very important – Can you say
not differ happening interesting significant significant Get a Clue! “Nobel Prize”?!

Perceptual Class Size – Formative/C
0.31 Peer Tutoring – urr. Based
Training - 0.48
0.08 Assessment Direct Instruction –
Learning Styles/ – 0.70 0.82
Modality Prefs – Computer-Assisted
0.14 Instruction – 0.53


The government commissioned a review of the data and the results were so outstanding in
favor of one model that the QUESTIONS of the study were CHANGED from
“ Which model works best?” to
“ What makes the models work” and “How can one make the models work better”?
The commission wrote another repor t for the National Institute of Education which
convinced them not to disseminate the results of the FT evaluations they had paid 30 to
40 million dollars to have completed.

SO

NOTHING HAPPENED

WHY HAVE WE NOT ACTED ON THE
FINDINGS?

Why Have we not Acted on the Findings?

"We know how to teach kids, what we don't know is how to get the
public schools to do it!" Alan Cohen
 Policy maker s went with the majority
 Planning committees, advisor y boards, and task forces were
composed of representatives of univer sities and research centers
that use philosophies that were not suppor ted by the evidence.
 Preconceived notions and bias repor ts presented to policy makers
 The data from Follow Through failed to suppor t the philosophy that
dominates colleges of education.
 The adoption of DI would call for massive change in the form of new
training, training programs, materials, and other expensive and
dif ficult restructuring.
 Teachers failed to recognize that their current methods are not
ef fective.
 Material and training unavailable for teacher s
 Follow Through: Why Didn't We? Cathy L. Watkins California State University, Stanislaus

ADDITIONAL RESEARCH
NICHD (National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development has been doing research for 33 years.

Findings:
• The ability to read fluently for meaning depends primarily upon
rapid, automatic decoding and recognition at the level of the single
word.

• Ef for ts should be directed at explicitly and systematically teaching
the connection between phonological rules and the written word.

ADDITIONAL RESEARCH

 National Reading Panel ( 2002)
 systematic, explicit phonics program are funded by Reading First as
a result of the NRP’s findings that these programs are most effective

Why are public schools allowed to teach reading
in ways not supported by scientific research?

CATCH A DREAM

Yo u n ev e r k n o w w h e n s o m e o n e ,
M ay c a t c h a d r e a m f r o m yo u .
Yo u n ev e r k n o w w h e n a l i t t l e w o r d ,
O r s o m et h i n g yo u m ay d o ,
W i l l o p e n u p t h e w i n d ow s ,
Of a mind that seeks the light.
T h e w ay yo u te a c h m ay n o t m a t te r a t a l l ,
But then again, it might.

And just in case it could be,
T h a t a n o t h e r ’ s l i f e t h r o u g h yo u ,
M i g h t p o s s i b l y c h a n g e f o r t h e b et te r,
W i t h a b r i g h te r p o i n t o f v i ew.
I g u e s s i t m i g h t b e w o r t h a t r y,
A t p o i n t i n g t h e w ay to t h e r i g h t .
O f c o u r s e i t m ay n o t m a t te r a t a l l ,
But then again, it might.

Research base of di final

More Related Content

Similar to Research base of di final (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Research base of di final

Editor's Notes