Direct Instruction Language Programs

05492_SR_BRO_DILANGUAGE_FC_BC 7/26/06 1:15 PM Page 1

The Research Base and Validation of

Kathleen M. Waldron-Soler | Ronald C. Martella | Nancy E. Marchand-Martella | Eastern Washington University

R80001729 0706 05492_SR_BRO_DILANGUAGE_FC_BC 7/26/06 1:15 PM Page 1

The Research Base and Validation of

Direct Instruction Language Programs

Kathleen M. Waldron-Soler | Ronald C. Martella | Nancy E. Marchand-Martella | Eastern Washington University

R80001729 0706 05492_SR_BRO_DILANGUAGE_IFC_1 7/26/06 1:17 PM Page 3

Executive Summary

Most educators agree that children who are facile with spoken Given the importance of academic language and the fact that language and who demonstrate an understanding of the vocabulary is such an essential aspect of it, one of the most meanings and relationships that underlie words are children crucial services that educators can provide is to systematically who will do well in school. On the other hand, children who teach and reinforce the words, thinking, and knowledge do not have a basic understanding of academic language used children need to achieve long-term success. for instruction in classrooms, or the vocabulary that appears in text, will have difficulty understanding information they This document describes the research base and validation of read or hear. SRA’s Direct Instruction language curriculum — the Language for Learning, Language for Thinking, and TABLE OF CONTENTS Academic language is different from everyday speech and Language for Writing programs: I. Importance of Oral Language ...... 2 conversation. It is the directions and demonstrations used by • Part I highlights the importance of language in the school teachers for the teaching of concepts. It is the language of curriculum. text, of discussion, and of formal writing. Academic language II. Overview of Direct Instruction Language Programs....5 provides a foundation for the development of other language • Part II provides an overview of Language for Learning, skills. It is a very important link in the process of children’s Language for Thinking, and Language for Writing. III. Principles of High Quality Educational Tools Used in learning and thinking development. • Part III describes the principles of high quality educational Direct Instruction Language Programs...... 7 tools used in Direct Instruction language programs. Many children acquire academic language outside of school. IV. Alignment of Direct Instruction Language Programs • Part IV demonstrates the alignment of Language for Such children commonly take part in conversations at home with the Elements of Oral Language...... 10 Learning, Language for Thinking, and Language for Writing that involve abundant information and vocabulary that will be with critical elements of oral language. useful to them in school. By contrast, children from families V. Importance of Written Language...... 22 with less adult–child support for refining the use of language • Part V discusses the importance of written language. are less likely to achieve the academic language proficiency • Part VI highlights the alignment of Language for Writing VI. Alignment of Language for Writing with the Elements required for success in school. with the research-based elements of written language. of Written Language...... 23

For English-language learners, academic language means far • Part VII summarizes 17 published peer-reviewed VII. Studies on Direct Instruction Language Programs ....30 more than fluency in conversation. Although these students investigations on the effectiveness of DISTAR Language, come to the classroom with prior knowledge in their native Language for Learning, Language for Thinking,or VIII. References ...... 42 language, there often exists a gap between children whose Language for Writing. native language is English and children for whom English is a second language. These children must acquire basic language skills and the additional academic language native English speakers are learning, if they are to be academically competitive.

Academic language provides a foundation for the development of other language skills. It is a very important link in the process of children’s learning and thinking development. 05492_SR_BRO_DILANGUAGE_IFC_1 7/26/06 1:17 PM Page 3

Executive Summary

Direct Instruction Language Programs

I. Importance of Oral Language Oral Language and Reading Comprehension Oral Language Skills and Social Interaction Long-Term Effects of Poorly Developed Oral Language Oral language is a key aspect of children’s early development. Comprehension is the very reason for reading; it involves Oral language skills also benefit children’s social interactions. Language acquisition is a natural process and occurs almost gathering meaning from text. Research has demonstrated Social tasks, such as engaging in a conversation to obtain Longitudinal studies suggest that young children with without effort. The ability to speak grows with age, but not a relationship between reading comprehension and oral information and expressing a particular point of view, are poorly developed oral language skills continue to experience all growth automatically gives children the background language tasks such as picture naming. often dependent on the use of oral language. negative social and academic consequences as adolescents and knowledge and vocabulary they need to understand the • Messer, Dockrell, and Murphy (2004) found that children • Research suggests that children with poorly developed oral adults (Arnbak, 2004). content they will encounter in school. When children seem with word naming difficulties struggled with reading and language may experience social problems, such as rejection to be behind in language development, they are likely to • For example, Aram, Ekelman, & Nation (1984) administered language comprehension skills. and feelings of isolation, as well as demonstrate a battery of language and non-language measures to 47 have difficulty learning to read, understanding what they inappropriate behaviors such as aggression and outbursts read, and participating in social interactions. • Early oral language skills have been shown to be predictive preschool children with language disorders. Twenty of these of reading comprehension in the early elementary grades (Brinton, Fujiki, Spencer, & Robinson, 1997; Fujiki, children were located 10 years later and evaluated in four (Griffin et al., 2004). Brinton, Isaacson, & Summers, 2001; Gertner, Rice, & areas: (a) intelligence, (b) speech and language, (c) Oral language is an important link in the process of children’s Hadley, 1994). learning and thinking development. It is the basis of • The link between oral language comprehension and subsequent academic achievement, and (d) social adjustment. Results communication — in fact, it is the basis of literacy. reading comprehension for native English speakers suggests • Qi and Kaiser (2004) compared the social skills of children suggested that children who experienced language disorders that systematic instruction in vocabulary and listening and with language delays to children with typical language in the preschool years were highly likely to have long-standing Oral Language and Beginning Reading Achievement reading comprehension strategies is particularly important for development. Those children with language delays exhibited language, academic, and behavioral problems in adulthood. English learners (Gersten & Geva, 2003). more problem behaviors and poorer social skills than the children with typical language development. Reading is a language-based skill (Owens, 2001). Studies • Children make gains in reading comprehension when their have repeatedly shown that elementary-aged children with oral language skills improve. More specifically, studies have The social status of young children has been correlated with lower beginning reading achievement are often those with demonstrated oral language vocabulary to be tied to reading their oral language skills (Brinton et al., 1997). language delays (Griffin, Hemphill, Camp, & Wolf, 2004; comprehension (Brett, Rothlein, & Hurley, 1996; Snow, Nathan, Stackhouse, Goulandris, & Snowling, 2004). Burns, & Griffin, 1998). • Gertner et al. (1994) found receptive language (i.e., understanding what is said) to be a discriminating • Language delays noted in the preschool years appear to • Medo and Ryder (1993) found that both average and highly factor that separated children who were socially accepted be predictive of poor reading progress in the elementary skilled children benefited from oral vocabulary instruction by their peers from those who were not. Children with low grades. Delays as early as 24 and 31 months have been prior to reading content-rich texts. language skills were generally rated by their peers as less found to correlate with lower reading skills in elementary popular than children with typical language skills. In fact, school (Rescorla, 2002). oral language skills were found to be a stronger predictor • There appears to be a direct connection between oral of peer status than age or intelligence. language skills and the development of phonological • Fujiki, Brinton, and Todd (1996) found that children with awareness (Metsala, 1999; Snow, Tabors, Nicholson, specific language impairments rated themselves as feeling & Kurland, 1995). significantly more lonely at school than their typically • Research has consistently demonstrated that children who developing classmates. perform well on phonological awareness tasks become • Jambunathan and Norris (2000) found that children’s successful readers, whereas children who perform poorly on perception of their self-competence was highly related these tasks experience more difficulties in learning to read to their actual language skills. (Adams, 1990; Bos & Vaughn, 2002; Mann & Foy, 2003; NICHD, 2000; Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1994). • Each language has different phonological characteristics and English-language learners may encounter specific difficulties related to their home language (Fashola, Drum, Mayer, & Kang, 1996). • Instruction focused on oral language helps children build phonological awareness, learn vocabulary, and acquire knowledge of English grammatical structures — essential elements for success in school (Biemiller, 2003). Research has demonstrated a relationship between reading comprehension and oral language tasks such as picture naming.

2 3 05492_SR_BRO_DILANGUAGE_2_3 7/26/06 12:22 PM Page 5

Direct Instruction Language Programs

2 3 05492_SR_BRO_DILANGUAGE_4_5 7/26/06 12:25 PM Page 7

Direct Instruction Language Programs

Oral Language and Socioeconomic Status receptive vocabulary (r = 0.58) and the Test of Language Who Benefits from Language for Learning? Development-2: Intermediate (TOLD) (r = 0.74) and its II. Overview of Direct Instruction Basic language instruction would be unnecessary if all subtests (listening, speaking semantics, syntax). Language Programs Language for Learning is intended for students who: children entered school with well-developed oral language • Vocabulary at age three was also strongly associated with • Need a firm foundation of spoken words before they can get skills. Unfortunately, many children begin school with less reading comprehension scores on the Comprehensive Test The Direct Instruction language curriculum focuses on much out of narratives or texts developed oral language. of Basic Skills (CTBS/U) (r = 0.56). the language used in schools and textbooks. A major premise of this curriculum is that students must understand the • May not have extensive experience in hearing and speaking • Hart and Risley (1995; 1999) provided detailed information the English language in academic settings about the social and linguistic environments in which typical Oral Language and Second-Language Learners language used for instruction in classrooms, as well as the children learn to talk. language that appears in texts and workbooks. What is • Need explicit instruction in expressive and receptive instructional language? language • In a longitudinal study conducted over two and a half years Learning a second language is difficult. Learning in a second of children from 42 diverse families, researchers conducted language is even more difficult. According to recent research • The directions and verbal demonstrations used by instructors • Need to build English vocabulary and acquire knowledge monthly hour-long observations of everything said by, to, (Hakuta, Goto Buttler, & Witt, 2000): to teach arithmetic, reading, social studies, science, and of English grammatical structures other school subjects and around each of the 42 children during unstructured • Oral proficiency takes three to five years to develop, and • Need to build knowledge of language of the classroom activities in their homes (Hart & Risley, 1995). academic English proficiency can take four to seven years. • The language used by teachers to direct the sequence of events during a school day Regardless of their age or grade level, all students entering • A child’s SES is a powerful predictor of the rate of English The authors sought to determine why children differed greatly Language for Learning should have some oral language skills. development. • The directions and instruction sequences that appear in in terms of the age at which they began to learn language and textbooks and workbooks • They must be able to imitate a word or phrase spoken by an • Second-language learners have to acquire oral and academic how fast they learned once they began. Families represented adult (e.g., they should be able to repeat “a cat” or “under English and keep pace with English-language speakers, who • A broad array of background knowledge and the vocabulary welfare, lower, middle, and upper socioeconomic status (SES) the table”). homes. They found that race and gender were not significant continue to develop their language skills. associated with it factors influencing a child’s acquisition of language. • A wide variety of English grammatical structures • They must be able to answer questions such as, “What is However, the economic status of the family strongly The Need is Clear this?” or “What are you doing?” or they must be able to correlated with the language development of the children. The programs that make up the Direct Instruction language learn to do so quickly. Children living in poverty were found to have acquired In summary, it is no surprise that children with poorly curriculum — Language for Learning, Language for • They must be able to answer simple yes/no questions such less than a third of the vocabulary of high SES families developed academic language skills tend to have lower Thinking, and Language for Writing — address the important as, “Are you standing?” or “Is this a chair?” by the age of three. Vocabulary acquisition was highly academic achievement than those children whose English elements of instructional language as well as broader • They must be able to point to and label common objects, correlated to the number of language experiences in the language development is average or above average. Children knowledge of the words and sentence structures relevant to such as, “a door,” and complete simple actions such as, “sit.” home. In a typical hour the average child in a high SES will not learn if they do not understand what the teacher is reading comprehension and writing. family heard 2,153 words while a child in a low SES family saying or cannot comprehend what they read in their • They must be able to describe pictures of objects and actions heard only 616 words. textbooks. The need for a research-based curriculum to What is Language for Learning? using the same words that are used to name the actual teach and reinforce academic language and, as a result, objects and actions. The authors also attempted to determine how much difference greatly enhance students’ chances of learning the academic Language for Learning is the first level of three Direct Students who cannot carry out these language tasks should children’s early experience would make in school performance content presented in subject matter classes is clear. Instruction language intervention programs designed to be taught these skills before starting the program. at Grade 3, when the children were nine to ten years old. teach basic language concepts and skills. The 150 lessons of • Measures of accomplishment at age three predicted Language for Learning (formerly DISTAR Language I ) focus measures of language skill at age nine and ten on both the on the language of classroom instruction. The program uses Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (PPVT-R) of demonstrations, actions, and pictures to teach basic concepts and instructional words. • Language for Learning moves from the identification of Families’ Language and Use Differ Across Income Groups familiar objects to the description and classification of 13 Professional 23 Working-class 6 Welfare these objects. Measures & Scores Parent Child Parent Child Parent Child • Children learn the precise meaning of both familiar and new Pretest score (a) 41 31 14 concepts and use these concepts in statements and questions. Recorded vocabulary size 2,176 1,116 1,498 749 974 525 • Additional concepts taught in Language for Learning are important for logical reasoning such as “if-then,” “before- Average utterances per hour 487 310 301 223 176 168 after,” “some,” and “only.” Average different words per hour (b) 382 297 251 216 167 149 (a) At the beginning of the study, parents completed a vocabulary pretest. Each parent was asked to complete a form abstracted from the Peabody Picture Vocabulary In the Language for Learning program, students develop Test (PPVT). Each parent was given a list of 46 vocabulary words and a series of pictures (four options per vocabulary word) and asked to write the number of the skills required to use vocabulary, descriptive words, and picture that corresponded to the written word. Parent performance on the test was highly correlated with years of education (r = 0.57). sentences with growing independence. They also accumulate (b) Parent utterance and different words were averaged with children 13-36 months old. Child utterances and different words were averaged for four observations the important background information, thinking skills, and when the children were 33-36 months old. vocabulary they need to succeed in school.

4 5 05492_SR_BRO_DILANGUAGE_4_5 7/26/06 12:25 PM Page 7

Direct Instruction Language Programs

4 5 05492_SR_BRO_DILANGUAGE_6_7 7/26/06 12:27 PM Page 9

Direct Instruction Language Programs

What is Language for Thinking? What is Language for Writing? III. Principles of High Quality Big Ideas Language for Thinking (formerly DISTAR Language II) Language for Writing (formerly DISTAR Language III) is the Educational Tools Big ideas are the core components (concepts) of a given is the second level of three Direct Instruction language third level of three Direct Instruction language intervention instructional area (Kame’enui et al., 2002). Direct Instruction intervention programs. The 150 lessons of Language for programs. The program is designed to lay a foundation for Used in Direct Instruction language programs use big ideas to identify the scope of what Thinking extend the instruction found in Language for communication skills, particularly written communication, is presented. The content of the programs can be divided into Learning to more advanced concepts. and provide the support and scaffolding that helps struggling Language Programs three big ideas that can be efficiently taught through teacher- writers apply the skills in their own writing. Language for directed instruction: • Students develop reasoning and critical thinking through Principles include: work with classification, if/then reasoning, and analogies. Writing provides 140 lessons that focus on the concepts and • The language of instruction, including English grammatical skills important to clear writing, including: • Big ideas, conspicuous strategies, mediated scaffolding, structures, used by teachers in the classroom and found in • They expand their vocabularies and learn how words are strategic integration, primed background knowledge, and • Writing sentences and paragraphs text materials related as synonyms, opposites, and homonyms. judicious review (Kame’enui, Carnine, Dixon, Simmons, & • A body of background knowledge and new vocabulary • In sentence skill exercises, students analyze what a sentence • Using correct grammar and punctuation Coyne, 2002) says and learn what inferences can be drawn from that • Applying higher-order thinking • Best practices, as identified by Bos and Vaughn (2002), for • Elements of logical reasoning, higher-order thinking, and organization sentence. • Interpreting written text teaching language to children • Additional concepts set the stage for reading comprehension • Scripted presentations, group unison responding, continuous This content is then organized and sequenced into groups through activities that include asking questions, retelling Students who complete the Language for Writing program assessment and mastery, and error correction procedures of related tasks, sometimes referred to as tracks. The goal accounts, and making inferences. will have learned to analyze the structure of spoken and (Watkins & Slocum, 2004) for any level of the programs is to teach students skills that written sentences and to use these skills to write narratives, enable them to apply big ideas within a specific universe summarize, retell, and make comparisons. Who Benefits from Language for Thinking? of content.

Language for Thinking is intended for students who are older Who Benefits from Language for Writing? or have higher skill levels than students placed in Language for Learning. The program is intended for students who: Language for Writing is designed to help students in Grades 2–5 who have been through Language for Learning • Have completed, or almost completed, Language for Learning and Language for Thinking. The Language for Writing • Have meager vocabulary for their age and who have program can also be used for students who: difficulty comprehending what they read • Have not been in the first two programs, if their scores on • Tend to need more repetitions in order to interpret and infer the placement test indicate they are ready for the third level information from oral and written language • May not have extensive experience with grammatical • Need explicit instruction in expressive and receptive language forms, word usages, and organizational skills that are tools for writing • Need to build English vocabulary and acquire knowledge of English grammatical structures • Tend to need more repetitions to apply academic language with accuracy and complexity in written form In Language for Thinking, students use an expanded Program Content vocabulary and increasingly complex sentence structures. Students placed in the program should be reading and writing After completing the Language for Thinking program, at an end-of-Grade 2 or beginning-of-Grade 3 level and have Language for Learning • Actions students are prepared to discern precise meaning, both literal adequate knowledge of conversational English. • Description of objects and inferential, from text materials they encounter in and out • Information and background knowledge of school. • Instructional words and problem-solving concepts • Problem-solving strategies and applications

Language for Thinking • Information and background knowledge • Reasoning and critical thinking • Vocabulary development After completing the Language for Thinking program, • Observing and describing students are prepared to discern precise meaning, both • Comprehension concepts literal and inferential, from text materials they encounter • Interpreting graphic displays in and out of school. Language for Writing • Grammar (including parts of speech) • Sentence constructions (statements, questions, commands) • Mechanics (capitalization and punctuation rules) • Critical thinking (deductions, definitions, analogies) • Writing (elements of clear narrative and expository prose)

6 7 05492_SR_BRO_DILANGUAGE_6_7 7/26/06 12:27 PM Page 9

Direct Instruction Language Programs

6 7 05492_SR_BRO_DILANGUAGE_8_9 7/28/06 4:52 PM Page 11

Direct Instruction Language Programs

Conspicuous Strategies • Each lesson provides additional practice on content Scripted Presentation An alternative way to obtain student responses to ensure introduced in the preceding one or two lessons. attention and skill acquisition, and to decrease behavior problems, is to use group unison responding. With group Conspicuous strategies involve the steps teachers take in • Part of each lesson has some form of cumulative review or Scripts are tools designed to ensure consistency of unison responding, students respond as one. Thus, students: making learning more explicit for students (Kame’enui et al., applications that address skills and information presented in instructional delivery by standardizing the wording teachers 2002). Explicit instruction is “a systematic method of teaching earlier lessons. use, and to free teachers from designing, field testing, and • Have opportunities to respond more and to receive feedback with emphasis on proceeding in small steps, checking for refining instruction in every subject they teach (Watkins & on their responses student understanding, and achieving active and successful Thus, newly learned skills are mixed with well-practiced Slocum, 2004). The scripts found in Direct Instruction • Do not have time to “go off task” given the rapid pacing and participation by all students” (Rosenshine, 1987, p. 34). ones; difficult tasks are interspersed with easier ones (Watkins language programs include carefully developed explanations, instructional requirements & Slocum, 2004). No skills are ever introduced and then examples, and wording. This type of instruction can be summarized as unambiguous, dropped; they continue to be woven into other tracks to • Wording is clear and concise. Group unison responding is followed by individual questions clear, and direct teaching (Arrasmith, 2003). Teachers: ensure skill maintenance and generalization. • Vocabulary is limited to what is necessary. to check for further student understanding. • Show students what to do (modeling) Primed Background Knowledge • The presentation assumes skills implied by what students Direct Instruction language programs provide an appropriate • Give them opportunities to practice with teacher monitoring have done earlier. mix of group responses (85%) and individual turns (15%) to and feedback (guided practice) Primed background knowledge relates to developing create an optimum learning environment (Marchand-Martella, • Provide opportunities for them to perform these skills on prerequisite or background skills before more complex skills Each of these programs is field tested to ensure maximum Blakely, & Shaefer, 2004). their own (independent practice) are taught (Kame’enui et al., 2002). Primed background student performance. Changes were made in the current knowledge and strategic integration of skills go hand in hand; programs based on this field testing when difficulties in Continuous Assessment and Testing for Mastery Bos and Vaughn (2002) note the importance of modeling to thus, it is critical to ensure that students have requisite skills instructional delivery, curricular design, or student performance were noted. In short, Direct Instruction language demonstrate skills within structured language programs that mastered before they tackle a more complex skill. Likewise, “It is important to monitor students’ progress toward program programs are engineered for student success. provide intensive practice and feedback for students; they cite they should have opportunities to practice newly learned objectives continuously” (Watkins & Slocum, 2004). Language for Learning and the DISTAR Language programs skills with previously learned ones. Assessment is part of every Direct Instruction language Some teachers feel that scripted presentations hinder their as illustrative of effective structured oral language programs. lesson. For anything that is taught, the teacher provides a task creativity; however, the opposite is true. Teachers put life into Explicit instruction is evident in Language for Thinking and The idea in Direct Instruction language programs is to design to determine whether the students understand the content scripted programs. According to Watkins and Slocum (2004), Language for Writing as well. instruction so all students succeed. These programs ensure presented. Teachers monitor students’ performance and use success by developing skills in small intervals from one “Teachers relate to the students through the words in the the information to identify skills or information that needs to Mediated Scaffolding lesson to the next. The content from one group of lessons to scripts. They are the source of warmth, excitement, and life be remediated. the next does not change drastically, even though more in the presentation. They make the expected adjustments Mediated scaffolding pertains to providing students support complex content is being introduced. The end result is that for individual differences among students. Teachers are the Further, mastery tests are provided after every 10 lessons in all and assistance that is gradually reduced over time so they can students learn how to apply newly acquired vocabulary and only ones who can motivate students with praise and other Direct Instruction language programs. eventually perform a skill on their own (Kame’enui et al., grammatical structures to more complex higher-order feedback on their work. They are the only ones who can • These assessments are designed to help teachers monitor 2002). thinking skills. adjust the pace to the needs of the group, allowing more students’ progress and provide feedback to the students time for tasks that are difficult for a particular group and about their learning. Mediated scaffolding is built into all Direct Instruction Judicious Review moving more quickly through tasks that are easier. language programs. Teachers are the only ones who can play the critical roles • When these assessments are analyzed, teachers become data- based decision makers, determining if groups have mastered • Before students are asked to perform skills on their own, Optimizing the number, spacing, and timing of repetitions of of problem solver and decision maker, identifying the concepts and skills taught in the program to that point or they are shown what to do by the teacher and then practice a skill over time is the hallmark of judicious review. Judicious problems in student learning and adjusting the instruction require re-teaching of specific concepts or practice of these skills with careful teacher monitoring and feedback. review enhances memory and fluency (Kame’enui et al., accordingly.” 2002); the more students practice a skill over time, the more specific skills. • Only when students are successful during guided practice likely they will be able to demonstrate it in the future. • This cycle of instruction, feedback, and re-teaching, when activities do they participate in activities on their own. Group Unison Responding necessary, helps students experience success that instills Direct Instruction language programs include reviews that are confidence and motivation to continue learning. Strategic Integration sufficient in number, distributed over time, cumulative in skill One way to obtain active student engagement is to call on complexity (moving from easier to more difficult), and varied individual students to provide answers. If the questions are relevant and well-placed, students practice well and teachers “Whenever possible, new strategies should build on what has to promote skill generalization. This type of systematic planning and teaching for generalization was noted as an receive immediate feedback on student understanding of been taught earlier” (Kame’enui et al., 2002, p. 13). This content (Watkins & Slocum, 2004). process is referred to as strategic integration. important guideline for teaching language to students by Bos and Vaughn (2002). However, these individual responses have limitations. When Direct Instruction language programs use strategic integration one student is responding, other students may not be paying at the very core of their instructional sequence. attention. Further, the teacher obtains information on only one • Content is organized so that each lesson introduces only a student — without knowing if the other students actually small amount of new material (about 10%). understood the question/material. • Everything taught in a lesson is consistent with what has been taught earlier.

8 9 05492_SR_BRO_DILANGUAGE_8_9 7/28/06 4:52 PM Page 11

Direct Instruction Language Programs

8 9 05492_SR_BRO_DILANGUAGE_10_11 7/26/06 5:41 PM Page 13

Direct Instruction Language Programs

Error Correction Procedures Figure 1 illustrates an example of modeling oral language in Figure 2 shows an example of how students are asked to IV. Alignment of Direct Instruction Lesson 1 of Language for Learning. produce language in Lesson 1 of Language for Writing. One hallmark of an effective program is the use of specified Language Programs with the Students use this information about classes to classify words error correction procedures (Watkins & Slocum, 2004). Direct Figure 1 as parts of speech–noun, verb, adjective, and pronoun. Instruction language programs adhere to a general error Elements of Oral Language correction procedure: Scientifically based language programs designed for students • Model — “My turn. This is a chair.” Figure 2 with fewer English language skills and those learning English • Lead — “Say it with me. This is a chair.” as a second language should contain three functional • Test — “Your turn. Say the whole thing.” components — form, content, and use — and five dimensions of oral language: phonology, morphology, syntax, content, and • Re-test — Return to an earlier part of the exercise and pragmatics (Meese, 2001; Owens, 2001). These are the tools represent the subsequent steps. for discourse, reading and writing, complex language, and cognitive processes. As students progress through different (See Waldron-Soler & Osborn, 2004 for other error correction grades, the demand for complex language use in speaking, procedures related to the language programs.) reading, and writing increases dramatically. Limitations leave many students unable to infer subtleties, discern irony, and comprehend relationships among ideas.

The forms/dimensions of oral language presented in Direct Instruction language programs begin with simple constructions and build in complexity.

Form

Language form consists of phonology, morphology, and syntax. Example of how students use language in Language for Writing.

Phonology. Phonology is defined as “the aspect of language concerned with the rules governing the structure, distribution, and sequencing of speech sounds and the shape of syllables” (Owens, 2001, p. 22). The English language has approximately Example of modeling oral language in Language for Learning. 44 phonemes or families of very similar sounds (Bos & Vaughn, 2002). For example, cat and mat each begin with a Students are also required to produce language in all lessons different phoneme (i.e., /c/ and /m/, respectively). Only the of Direct Instruction language programs. This method of initial phoneme prevents the words cat and mat from being instruction allows students to hear and practice using the 45 identical, yet the meanings of cat and mat are very different. sound elements of the English language. Direct Instruction language programs simultaneously develop speech and understanding of the English language. Although these programs are not specifically designed to address speech articulation issues with the sounds of the English language, students build phonological awareness, learn vocabulary, and acquire knowledge of English grammatical structures by focusing on oral language.

10 11 05492_SR_BRO_DILANGUAGE_10_11 7/26/06 5:41 PM Page 13

Direct Instruction Language Programs

The forms/dimensions of oral language presented in Direct Instruction language programs begin with simple constructions and build in complexity.

Form

Language form consists of phonology, morphology, and syntax. Example of how students use language in Language for Writing.

10 11 05492_SR_BRO_DILANGUAGE_12_13 7/26/06 5:44 PM Page 15

Direct Instruction Language Programs

Morphology. Morphemes are the smallest grammatical units Direct Instruction language programs teach students the In later exercises, students learn to use a singular or plural of language that carry meaning (Owens, 2001). They differ internal organization of words (morphology) in a variety of noun to describe one or multiple objects in a picture. Figure 4 from phonemes in that phonemes do not convey meaning exercises. Language for Learning includes action and picture shows an example from Lesson 62 of Language for Learning on their own. Morphology refers to the rules governing the exercises that teach students to recognize the difference where students learn to use a singular or plural noun to organization of morphemes in words. There are two types between singular and plural nouns. Students learn how the describe an object. of morphemes — free and bound. Free morphemes are addition of the morpheme /s/ changes the meaning of the independent and can be used alone. For example, cover is word. Figure 3 illustrates an example from Lesson 55 of a free morpheme. Bound morphemes cannot be used alone Language for Learning where students are taught to Figure 4 and must be attached to free morphemes (e.g., re). Bound recognize whether they need to perform an action involving morphemes change the meaning of words when attached one or more than one part of the body. to free morphemes (e.g., recover).

Figure 3

Example of how students learn to use the morpheme /s/ to describe an object in Language for Learning.

Example of how students learn to recognize the meaning of the morpheme /s/ in Language for Learning.

12 13 05492_SR_BRO_DILANGUAGE_12_13 7/26/06 5:44 PM Page 15

Direct Instruction Language Programs

Figure 3

Example of how students learn to use the morpheme /s/ to describe an object in Language for Learning.

Example of how students learn to recognize the meaning of the morpheme /s/ in Language for Learning.

12 13 05492_SR_BRO_DILANGUAGE_14_15 7/26/06 12:39 PM Page 17

Direct Instruction Language Programs

In comparative exercises in Language for Learning, This type of word manipulation continues into the Language Figure 6 students are taught to use words such as bigger and for Thinking and Language for Writing programs. Students smaller to compare objects. In earlier lessons of Language learn how the meanings of big and small change when the for Learning, students learn to use the words big and small morphemes /est/ or /er/ are added. Figure 6 provides an appropriately. The comparative exercises build on this skill example from Lesson 24 of Language for Thinking where and teach students how the new words are used when an students learn to determine if classes of objects are the additional morpheme /er/ is added. Figure 5 illustrates an smallest, next bigger, or the biggest. example from Lesson 131 of Language for Learning where students learn to compare objects. Transfer is also enhanced by teaching language functions, such as comparison. The programs shape understanding Figure 5 beyond the examples presented in a given lesson because once students know how to compare, they can apply that skill to a range of contexts across content areas.

Example of how students learn to compare objects in Language for Learning.

In comparative exercises in Language for Learning, students are taught to use words such as bigger and smaller to compare objects. Example of how students learn to recognize the smallest, next bigger, and biggest classes in Language for Thinking.

14 15 05492_SR_BRO_DILANGUAGE_14_15 7/26/06 12:39 PM Page 17

Direct Instruction Language Programs

Example of how students learn to compare objects in Language for Learning.

14 15 05492_SR_BRO_DILANGUAGE_16_17 7/26/06 12:41 PM Page 19

Direct Instruction Language Programs

Syntax. Syntax refers to the set of rules that governs the As lessons progress, new vocabulary is combined into longer In Language for Thinking, students learn how to use the In Language for Writing, students learn to create compound meaningful arrangement of words into sentences. Syntax phrases and sentences. By the end of Language for Learning, vocabulary and simple grammatical structures in more sentences. Figure 10 illustrates the production of compound dictates the grammatically acceptable relationships among students are using sentences such as, “The rabbit jumped into complex ways. Students begin with sentences such as, sentences in Lesson 84 of Language for Writing. sentence elements such as the subject, verb, and object the can.” Figure 8 illustrates an exercise with this level of “It’s a container” and progress to sentences like, “A bird is an (Owens, 2001). syntax in Lesson 150 of Language for Learning. animal, but an airplane is not an animal.” Figure 9 shows a usage exercise from Lesson 141 of Language for Thinking Figure 10 Throughout each level of the Direct Instruction language Figure 8 requiring students to produce complex sentences using programs, students are provided models of appropriate syntax contractions. and then are asked to use these sentences on their own. The sentences become increasingly complex as students are Figure 9 instructed in each level of the programs. For example, Figure 7 shows an exercise from Lesson 3 of Language for Learning where students initially learn to produce simple sentences like, “This is a boy.” Figure 7

Example of sentence production in the final lesson of Example of sentence production in an initial lesson of Language for Learning. Example of complex sentence production in Language for Thinking. Language for Learning.

Example of compound sentence production in Language for Writing.

16 17 05492_SR_BRO_DILANGUAGE_16_17 7/26/06 12:41 PM Page 19

Direct Instruction Language Programs

Example of compound sentence production in Language for Writing.

16 17 05492_SR_BRO_DILANGUAGE_18_19 7/26/06 12:43 PM Page 21

Direct Instruction Language Programs

Content Language for Learning teaches vocabulary, concept, and Language for Thinking builds the semantic knowledge of classification skills. For example, Figure 11 illustrates how students through exercises on synonyms, opposites, Figure 13 definitions, verb tense, usage, superlatives, and homonyms. Language content involves semantics. students are taught appropriate labels for parts of the body in Lesson 4 of Language for Learning. Figure 12 shows how students are taught synonyms in Lesson 31 from Language for Thinking. Semantics. Semantics is the “system of rules governing the meaning of words and word combinations” (Owens, 2001, p. Figure 11 23). Students must gain knowledge of vocabulary (e.g., words Figure 12 related to objects such as dog, shoe, hat) so they accurately understand and use labels for items and events. Semantic knowledge also includes concept development and categorization. For example, students must learn the difference between the concepts same and different, as well as the rule (e.g., “If it takes you places, it is a vehicle”) that puts a plane and car in the same class (e.g., vehicles). Knowledge of antonyms and synonyms is also a part of semantic knowledge. For example, students must learn that substituting the word finish with end in the sentence, does not change the meaning of the sentence “The class will finish at noon.” Finally, Meese (2001) stated that students should learn that word meaning can change depending on the context of the sentence (e.g., “Mary will run for office,” “Juan can run Example of an exercise on synonyms in fast”) or whether the words are being used figuratively (e.g., Language for Thinking. “Would you run that by me again?”). Language for Writing increases students’ semantic knowledge Semantic knowledge can also be described in terms of through exercises of definitions, synonyms, and antonyms. receptive and expressive semantics. Receptive semantics Figure 13 illustrates how Language for Writing teaches the refers to language comprehension, while expressive semantics definitions of general and specific directions in Lesson 32. refers to using language following the rules that govern the meaning of words and word combinations. It is important that Full understanding of syntax and semantics requires students learn to understand and use words and word competence in comprehending and generating different parts combinations accurately. of speech in different sentence structures. As illustrated in these examples, Direct Instruction language programs develop Language for Learning, Language for Thinking, and specific language functions (describing actions, locations, or Language for Writing explicitly teach students to understand things) within larger functions (relating information), which and use words and word combinations through exercises carry distinct linguistic demands. This ensures that students representing the different aspects of semantic knowledge learn accurate and appropriate use of a full range of (vocabulary, concept development, classification, antonyms, grammatical forms essential to academic success. synonyms, and connotative meaning by context).

Example of vocabulary development in Language for Learning.

Example of an exercise of the definitions of general and specific direction in Language for Writing.

18 19 05492_SR_BRO_DILANGUAGE_18_19 7/26/06 12:43 PM Page 21

Direct Instruction Language Programs

Example of vocabulary development in Language for Learning.

Example of an exercise of the definitions of general and specific direction in Language for Writing.

18 19 05492_SR_BRO_DILANGUAGE_20_21 7/26/06 12:47 PM Page 23

Direct Instruction Language Programs

Use

Language is used in formal or informal settings and for social In early lessons, Language for Learning teaches students to Language for Thinking builds on skills developed in In Language for Writing, students are taught to make oral or academic purposes. Social purposes include expressing use language to identify objects (e.g., “This is a boy”). In Language for Learning and teaches students to use language statements, questions, and commands. In later exercises, needs and wants, indicating agreement or disagreement, and later lessons of Language for Learning, students are taught to describe their actions as well as pictures and actions in these skills are applied to different writing tasks. Figure 16 participating in personal conversations. Academic purposes to use language to describe the actions of the teacher and pictures, to identify sequences of events, to compare, and to illustrates an exercise from Lesson 20 of Language for include asking and answering informational questions, themselves, which requires them to know how to use parts report on pictures. The function of describing requires that Writing where students are taught to use language to make relating information, comparing, contrasting, drawing of speech, particularly verbs, nouns, and prepositions. students use appropriate nouns, pronouns, verbs, adverbs, a statement or question. conclusions, summarizing, and evaluating. prepositional phrases, and words in sequence. Figure 15 Figure 14 illustrates an exercise from Lesson 23 of Language shows an exercise from Lesson 118 of Language for Thinking Pragmatics. Pragmatics is the set of rules for the English for Learning where students use language this way. where students use language to report on a picture. Figure 16 language governing how language is used to communicate. The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Figure 14 (ASHA) (2004) identifies the following three communication Figure 15 skills as components of pragmatics: • Using language to achieve different communicative functions (e.g., demanding, requesting, and relating information) • Adapting or changing language according to the context within which it is being used (i.e., the needs or expectations of a listener or situation) • Abiding by the rules for conversations or narrative (e.g., pausing to allow the listener to respond, rephrasing, facial expressions)

Direct Instruction language programs teach students how to use language for a variety of communicative purposes through a lens of academic meaning and use. For example, verbs are taught so students can retell, comparative adjectives so they can compare, and conditional reasoning so they can hypothesize.

Example of an exercise describing actions in Language for Learning.

Example of an exercise reporting on pictures in Language for Thinking.

Example of an exercise on statements and questions in Language for Writing.

In summary, by building competence in a range of functions, Direct Instruction language programs teach Direct Instruction language programs equip students to students how to use language for a variety participate in content instruction and support academic language proficiency. Language becomes a vehicle, rather of communicative purposes. than a barrier, to learning.

20 21 05492_SR_BRO_DILANGUAGE_20_21 7/26/06 12:47 PM Page 23

Direct Instruction Language Programs

Use

Example of an exercise describing actions in Language for Learning.

Example of an exercise reporting on pictures in Language for Thinking.

Example of an exercise on statements and questions in Language for Writing.

20 21 05492_SR_BRO_DILANGUAGE_22_23 7/26/06 1:27 PM Page 25

Direct Instruction Language Programs

Written Language and Academic Achievement Recognizing that oral language skills are related to writing V. Importance of VI. Alignment of performance, Language for Writing addresses oral language development throughout each lesson. Language for Writing Writing is an essential skill for successful school performance Written Language Language for Writing with the provides opportunities for students to practice applying (Harris et al., 1998; Fredrick & Steventon, 2004). It is a grammatical rules and language mechanics, constructing primary form of communication in the classroom. Elements of Written Language Writing is perhaps the most complex of all the language skills sentences, and making inferences in both spoken and written that students must learn (Hall, Salas, & Grimes, 1999; Harris, • Students must use writing skills to take notes from class This section describes how Language for Writing aligns with forms. Figure 17 shows an oral language exercise from Schmidt, & Graham, 1998). Written language skills are activities (e.g., lectures and discussions) and demonstrate four key areas of written language (i.e., oral language, the Lesson 2 of Language for Writing where students are learning highly correlated with reading performance. Additionally, their understanding of material taught in the classroom secretary and author roles of writing, the writing process, and to identify synonyms and antonyms. students with low written language skills may struggle in the (e.g., writing answers to questions posed by the teacher or text structures). It also outlines the ways these principles are classroom and perform poorly on high-stakes tests. The answers to a test). following sections describe the relationship between written incorporated within the Language for Writing program. Figure 17 language skills and reading, academic achievement, and high- • Students also use their writing skills to learn new skills stakes testing. introduced in the classroom. For example, students often are Oral Language taught to write answers to textbook chapter questions as a Written Language and Reading way to prepare for an exam. Research has shown that performance on writing tasks improves when students are taught a variety of oral language Research suggests a relationship between writing and reading Written Language and High-Stakes Testing skills (Englert, Raphael, Anderson, Anthony, & Stevens, 1991; performance (Adams, 1990; Isaacson, 1994; Snow et al., 1998). Stuart, 1999). The majority of states now include a writing component in • For example, Englert et al. found that expository writing • Tierney and Shanahan (1991) reviewed several studies their state tests. investigating this relationship. The authors concluded that improved when students were instructed with a writing although the exact nature of the relationship is not clear, • In fact, 49 of the 50 states require a measure of writing program that promoted the use of oral language. writing and reading are related. When students perform well in competency for high school graduation or include writing • Stuart investigated the relationship between phonemic writing, they tend to perform well in reading, and vice versa. assessments as part of statewide testing (State Assessment awareness language skills and reading and spelling. Students Services State Assessment Advisor, 2002). • Raphael and Englert (1990) also illustrated the relationship instructed with a phonemic awareness language program between writing and reading skills. They implemented a • The SAT added a writing component that is one-third of made greater improvements in reading and spelling than program that incorporated reading instruction with four the total SAT score beginning in 2005. children in a control group. Grade 5 students. Specifically, the authors taught the • Perhaps even more important, writing continues to be an These results suggest that oral language skill instruction students to analyze text structures as they read. The writing ever-increasing skill used in the workplace (Agnew, 1992; improves the acquisition of reading and writing skills. performance of these students greatly improved by the end Fredrick & Steventon, 2004). Many jobs require writing of the study. reports, taking notes related to job activities, and/or communicating through e-mail with colleagues and/or other concerned parties.

Students with low written language skills are clearly at a disadvantage in the classroom compared to peers who have fluent writing skills.

Example of an exercise on synonyms and antonyms in Language for Writing.

22 23 05492_SR_BRO_DILANGUAGE_22_23 7/26/06 1:27 PM Page 25

Direct Instruction Language Programs

Students with low written language skills are clearly at a disadvantage in the classroom compared to peers who have fluent writing skills.

Example of an exercise on synonyms and antonyms in Language for Writing.

22 23 05492_SR_BRO_DILANGUAGE_24_25 7/26/06 12:51 PM Page 27

Direct Instruction Language Programs

When initially learning many skills, students practice them After practicing this skill aloud, students practice writing Secretary and Author Roles of Writing Figure 20 shows how students learn about verbs in Lesson 51 aloud with guidance from the teacher before independently questions from statements, with teacher support. Figure 19 of Language for Writing. applying them in written form. Language for Writing links illustrates how students are asked to write questions from There has been much debate about whether writing instruction oral language skills with written language tasks by requiring statements in Lesson 39 of Language for Writing. should focus on technical skill development, such as grammar Figure 20 students to analyze language structures in both forms. and writing mechanics, or the content of writing (Weaver, For example, Figure 18 shows how students first practice Figure 19 1996). Kame’enui et al. (2002) refer to these instructional changing statements into questions aloud with teacher domains as the skills-dominant and composition-dominant support in Lesson 39 of Language for Writing. approaches. The skills-dominant approach focuses on the secretary role of writing (mechanics of writing), while the composition-dominant approach focuses on the author Figure 18 role of writing (content).

There is little empirical evidence showing that the use of either approach in pure form results in clear writing. Students will not master written language until they can independently function in both roles. When students struggle with writing mechanics, they also tend to struggle with the author role of writing (Isaacson, 1994). The burden of poorly developed writing mechanics may cause students to focus so much energy on this aspect of writing that the content of their writing is compromised (Englert et al., 1988). However, the assumption that instruction of writing mechanics will result in improved composition is as faulty as the assumption that instruction in composition will result in grammatically accurate writing. Rather, research suggests that parallel instruction in both roles (secretary and author) is most effective (Kame’enui et al., 2002).

Language for Writing provides opportunities for students to practice the skills required of the author and secretary roles of writing. Each Language for Writing lesson includes several exercises in grammar, sentence construction, writing mechanics, and critical thinking. As each grammatical and mechanical rule is learned, students are asked to use it in various writing tasks. For example, students are taught to analyze the structure of sentences. They learn to identify parts of sentences such as the subject and the verb. As students learn to identify different parts of sentences, they are asked to construct sentences using these parts.

Example of an exercise on statements and questions in Language for Writing.

In later lessons, teacher support decreases and students practice Example of an exercise on statements and questions in changing statements into questions in written form on their own. Language for Writing. Example of an exercise on verbs in Language for Writing.

24 25 05492_SR_BRO_DILANGUAGE_24_25 7/26/06 12:51 PM Page 27

Direct Instruction Language Programs

Example of an exercise on statements and questions in Language for Writing.

24 25 05492_SR_BRO_DILANGUAGE_26_27 7/26/06 12:52 PM Page 29

Direct Instruction Language Programs

Other exercises teach students to discriminate among In later lessons, students are asked to write detailed Figure 23 shows how they share ideas about completing statements, questions, and commands. Once students can instructions for completing simple tasks such as washing Figure 22b a story before being asked to write in Lesson 117 of make this discrimination, they are asked to convert questions dishes. Figures 22a–b illustrate how they learn to write Language for Writing. into statements and statements into questions. Figure 21 instructions for washing dishes in Lesson 111 of illustrates how students practice converting questions into Language for Writing. sentences and statements into questions in the same exercise Figure 23 from Lesson 40 of Language for Writing. Figure 22a Figure 21

Example of an exercise on writing instructions in Language for Writing.

Students are given additional opportunities to improve skills required of the secretary and author roles of writing when given feedback about their writing. In addition to the content of their written work, students are held accountable for grammar and mechanical skills taught in previous lessons. Writing Process

The process of writing consists of three to four basic steps: planning, drafting, editing/revising, and publishing (Gersten & Baker, 2001; Kame’enui et al., 2002). Sometimes publishing is not included as part of this process, however. From a meta- analysis of research on teaching expressive writing to students with disabilities, Gersten and Baker found students’ writing performance improved when they were explicitly taught each step of the writing process. Further, evidence suggests that this process should be divided into discrete steps with each step taught separately. These steps can then be integrated into the whole process (Graham & Harris, 1988; Hull, 1987; Isaacson, 1990).

Language for Writing provides students with skills practice necessary for the steps of the writing process. For example, Example of an exercise on completing a story in before many of the writing activities, students are asked to Language for Writing. brainstorm ideas about what they might write and then share these ideas verbally with the rest of the group. Once these Language for Writing includes other exercises that help ideas are shared, each student is asked to complete the writing develop the skills needed for each step of the writing process. task independently. Teachers provide feedback to students For example, during Lessons 111–120 students participate in during and after their writing. Students are then asked to make Example of an exercise on writing instructions in proofreading activities. Figure 24 illustrates how they are any necessary corrections. Language for Writing. asked to correct wording and punctuation errors in a paragraph and then rewrite the paragraph in a proofreading exercise in Lesson 132 of Language for Writing. Example of an exercise on converting questions into sentences and statements into questions in Language for Writing.

26 27 05492_SR_BRO_DILANGUAGE_26_27 7/26/06 12:52 PM Page 29

Direct Instruction Language Programs

Example of an exercise on writing instructions in Language for Writing.

26 27 05492_SR_BRO_DILANGUAGE_28_29 7/26/06 12:57 PM Page 31

Direct Instruction Language Programs Figure 25b Figure 25d

Figure 24 Text Structures Another important element of writing instruction involves text structures. Text structures are patterns that students use to organize important information communicated in their writing. Each text structure has its own set of structural characteristics. • Kame’enui et al. (2002) note the example of stories. Stories typically include a protagonist, a crisis, developing incidents, and a resolution. Lessons 31-40 Lessons 71-80 • Further, research suggests that it is beneficial to teach a few Students have to write at least two At this stage, students are writing three or sentences about the picture, with one more sentences telling what happened text structures until the skills are mastered rather than sentence describing the boy’s feelings, before the event in the picture, requiring simply expose students to many types of text structures which requires an inference by the student. the ability to sequence events logically. (Englert et al., 1991).

Students master several text structures in the Language for Writing program including stories, instructions, and comparisons. The characteristics of each text structure are Example of an exercise on describing event sequence in explicitly taught through the use of examples and non- Example of an exercise on describing feelings in Language for Writing. examples. Figures 25a–e show examples of instruction that Language for Writing. indicate what students will write about, what tense they will use, what kind of paragraphing is required, and the specific Figure 25e sentence forms they must use. Figure 25c Figure 25a

Lessons 41-50 Here, the instructions are more general. Students are told only to write three sentences Lessons 11-20 about what the boy will do. At this point, Early lessons focus on the most basic student writing begins to show varying writing skills. Here, students are asked sophistication, as with this paragraph using to write two sentences describing the transitional words. action in the picture. Their first sentence is to tell where the dog is, and the second sentence is to tell what the dog is doing. Example of an exercise on describing sequential actions in Language for Writing. Example of an exercise on describing action in Language for Writing. Lessons 125 By the end of the program, students are writing multi-paragraph stories without picture prompts. The instructions tell students to write at least three paragraphs from the writing prompt: “From far away, the planet Zanza looks like a bright yellow ball. The people on the spaceship thought it would be a good place to land.”

Example of an excercise on continuing a story from Exercise on completing a story in Language for Writing. Language for Writing. 28 29 05492_SR_BRO_DILANGUAGE_28_29 7/26/06 12:57 PM Page 31

Direct Instruction Language Programs Figure 25b Figure 25d

Example of an excercise on continuing a story from Exercise on completing a story in Language for Writing. Language for Writing. 28 29 05492_SR_BRO_DILANGUAGE_30_31 7/28/06 4:54 PM Page 33

Direct Instruction Language Programs

All investigations were selected using the First Search, Students in General Classrooms VII. Studies on Direct Instruction ERIC, Psych INFO, Education Abs, and ProQuest databases. Language Programs Descriptors included the following: Direct Instruction, Seven studies were found that examined the effectiveness of Direct Instruction language direct instruction, DISTAR Language, DISTAR Language I, programs with students in general classrooms. Table 1 shows these investigations. DISTAR Language II, DISTAR Language III, Language for “Research evidence is essential for identifying effective Learning, Language for Thinking, Language for Writing, educational practices. Research, when it is based on sound language instruction, language development, expressive and scientific observations and analyses, provides reliable receptive language development, and explicit instruction. Table 1 — Characteristics of studies investigating Direct Instruction information about what works, why, and how it works. This Ancestral searches of reference lists were used to identify language programs with students in general classrooms information is essential to designing effective instruction and other possible research articles. In addition, hand searches in demonstrating that it is, in fact, effective. Responsible were done of the following peer-reviewed journals: Study DI Program n Participants Research Design Research Purpose Intervention Details Outcome Measures Findings decisions about what is good for students, therefore, require ADI News, Effective School Practices, and Journal of Benner, Trout, Language for 45 (21 in Kindergarten children Quasi-experimental — Determine the relative Language for Learning Test of Auditory Comprehension Language for Learninghad scientific evidence” (Reyna, 2004, p. 47). Nordness, Learning Language for (ages 5.50 years for Nonequivalent control Learningeffects of theLanguage for program implemented over of Language-3 statistically and educationally Direct Instruction. Nelson, Knobel, Learning, 24 in Language for Learning group design program one academic year. significant effects on receptive Epstein, Maguire, comparison) group and 5.61 years for compared to the present language skills. A 2 x 2 ANCOVA Birdsell, & comparison group) language development with effect sizes was provided. In a climate where accountability has never counted more, Epstein (2002) program provided to Effect sizes ranged from 0.13 to The following section describes published research on Kindergarten children. 0.35 across the Direct Instruction language programs are carefully structured TACL-3scales. the Direct Instruction language programs. The studies to ensure success. Seventeen studies have been published in Beveridge & 40 (10 in Experimental — Determine the differential Provided 12 weeks of are grouped according to the population with whom DISTAR Age range three years, Reynell Comprehension andStatistically significant differences Jerrams DISTAR five months to four Pretest–posttest control- effects of programs (i.e., PAP, Expressive Language Scales peer-reviewed journals, 16 of which were group design LanguageLanguage Language wereLanguage noted between the program(s) was implemented (i.e., students without (1981) only, 10 years, five months group design DISTAR Language DISTAR DISTAR in DISTAR and a PAP with nursery ); also assessed 18 and English Picture Vocabulary plus PAP and control studies (pre-experimental, quasi-experimental, experimental) Test disabilities [N = 7], students with disabilities [N = 8], Languageand Four matched groups: school children. months later. and PAP and control. Improved and one of which was single case (A-B). All examined the Parental Assistance Languageperformance withDISTAR students with and without disabilities [N = 2]). Plan [PAP], 10 in DISTAR Languageonly, found, but not effectiveness of one or more of the Direct Instruction PAP only, and 10 DISTAR Languageplus statistically significant. language programs across a wide variety of settings and in control [no PAP, PAP only, and no language program] language instruction Darch, Gersten, All students were populations. All studies are described in the narrative. Only & Taylor (1987) Reading Determine the effects of Provided Direct Instruction Metropolitan Achievement Test 600+ low-income African Quasi-experimental — Direct Instruction resulted in Mastery Direct Instruction programs program that included Americans Nonequivalent control significantly higher performance the results of those investigations that isolated the effects of on low-income African Test(1973-1976), of Basic Skills omprehensiveC , group on reading, math, and language a Direct Instruction language program and used a control or DISTAR American students. Data ArithmeticReading Mastery, DISTAR (1978- measures than did the comparison Arithmetic, collected over a seven-year Language , and DISTAR 1980), Coopersmith Self- group over a seven-year time period to determine stability Concept comparison group are shown graphically (N = 8). and DISTAR implemented over Inventory, and IARS period. Graduation rates were Language of effects. three years for each group of higher for the Direct Instruction participants over a seven-year group than the comparison group period (i.e., 1973-80). in the longitudinal analysis. Gersten, Taylor, Students from an Woodward, & Determine the effects of 900+ economically Quasi-experimental At the end of third grade each group White (1997) Direct Instruction programs DISTAR disadvantaged Students received Direct of students achieved above or near on low-income students Metropolitan Achievement Test Language, community. 60-80% Instruction programs, the national norm on the Language ELL were classified as limited whose first language is not (1970-1983) DISTAR including subtest of the English proficient when English. Data collected over DISTAR Language Reading a 12-year period to , and entering school. for three full years. Prompts MAT. Strong, determine consistency of in Spanish were provided consistent effects were noted for DISTAR program effects. Arithmetic when necessary and sixth graders. In the longitudinal expedient. analysis, students in the DI programs were less likely to be retained or drop out of school.

Muthukrishna & DISTAR Language11 (six inDISTAR Language I DISTAR Stanford-Binet Intelligence Both groups had gains in expressive Naidoo (1987) Language I group, Language I DISTAR and semi- Scale, Reynell Developmental and receptive language, vocabulary, Scales Revised five in semi- with preschool structured program every day Picture Vocabulary, and Test Peabody Languageand intelligence. I TheDISTAR ELL structured Preschool disadvantaged Quasi-experimental —disadvantagedInvestigate children the for 30-35Implemented minutes for group had greater program children from India Nonequivalent control from India.effectiveness of approximately 12 months. gains in intelligence, language comparison group) (aged four to five years). group comprehension and expression, and in vocabulary age. School Readiness Survey Sassenrath & DISTAR 98 (no indication Assess the effectiveness of Provided Children made gains on almost all of number of DISTAR Language , Maddux (1974) Language the measures. There were statistically DISTAR Language, program for 30 minutes per Wepman Auditory students in each of Test of Psycho-linguistic significant differences favoring Kindergarten students Quasi-experimental — day, Discrimination Test ELL three groups) Peabody Language Peabody Language Abilities , and Illinois from economically and Nonequivalent control MethodDevelopment Language, and Standard Development Programfor 40 DISTAR Languageand Standard Vocabulary educationally group (11 classrooms;Development minutes a day, and the programs in the areas ofSpeaking disadvantaged no indication of number programs for Standard Method Language , errors in Auditory neighborhoods from of classrooms and/or disadvantaged Kindergarten Developmentprogram for Differences, and errors in Auditory seven elementary students exposed to each students. implemented (no time Similarities, and a statistically schools in a small program) specified) over one academic significant difference favoring the city/rural school district year. (55 monolingual Standardprogram for Mutual [English] and 43 LanguageExpression. However, overall results bilingual [English and seemed to slightly favor theDISTAR Spanish]) and/orStandard programs over the Peabodyprogram. Wheldall & 16 (eight in DISTAR Placement Test, The Wheldall (1984) DISTAR Determine the relative English Picture Vocabulary Test Language IDISTAR effectiveness of the DISTAR Languageand I Lack of statistically significant Language I Age three years, nine Experimental — Pretest– differences were found between the ; eight Language I DISTAR Shiach’s Teach Them to , months and four years, posttest control group Speak two programs. Gains were observed in Shiach’s Teach program and provided for Sentence Comprehension Test Them to Speak nine months in from pretest to posttest for both Birmingham, England Shiach’s Teach Them To eight weeks. (SCT), British Ability Scales, and In a climate where accountability has never counted ) Speak programs on all measures (several program on young Illinois Test of Psychological of which reached statistical more, Direct Instruction language programs are socially disadvantaged Abilities significance). No statistically children. significant differences were found between teacher or nurse carefully structured to ensure success. implementation.

30 31 05492_SR_BRO_DILANGUAGE_30_31 7/28/06 4:54 PM Page 33

Direct Instruction Language Programs

30 31 05492_SR_BRO_DILANGUAGE_32_33 7/26/06 1:02 PM Page 35

Direct Instruction Language Programs

Benner et al. (2002) investigated the effects of the entire measures favoring the Direct Instruction language students. Language for Learning program implemented over one Figure 26 Also, the Direct Instruction language students had a much academic year on the receptive language skills of 14 greater percentile rank on the MAT Total Reading, Math, and Kindergarten children who lived in a small rural Midwestern Language (1973–1976) and CTBS Total Reading, Math, and 12 10.71 town. Forty-five children participated across two elementary 10 Language (1978–80) subtests than did the comparison group schools. The Language for Learning school included 21 over the seven-year period (e.g., for Language, the range 8 children (mean age 5.50 years) while the comparison school, for those receiving Direct Instruction was the 28th to 34th

Test of Auditory Test 6 which used language development activities designed by the percentile on the MAT and 31st to 38th on the CTBS, versus Figure 28 teachers, included 24 children (mean age 5.61 years). 4 the 8th and 15th percentile for the comparison group). Finally, 2.44 120 Children were pretested and posttested with the Test of 2 1.72 a higher percentage of students (85.9% to 93.1%) who 0.70

Auditory Comprehension of Language-3 (TACL-3). Results received Direct Instruction graduated from high school than 104 0 101 99 97 showed that children who received Language for Learning did the comparison students (81.7% to 83.1%). 100 98

-2 88 -0.55 -0.87 instruction had statistically higher gains on the TACL-3 than 82 -4 -1.78 children in the comparison school (see Figure 26). Gersten, Taylor, Woodward, and White (1997) summarized 80 78 -6 the results of several structured immersion evaluation studies Beveridge and Jerrams (1981) compared the relative effects of Comprehension of Language-3 (TACL-3) -8 conducted in Uvalde, Texas as part of Project Follow- 60 -7.28 a 12-week implementation of the DISTAR Language program Mean Standard Score Gains on the -10 Through. Structured immersion was defined as teaching new only, the DISTAR Language program combined with the Total Vocabulary Grammatical Elaborated content in English using vocabulary understood by students — Morphemes Sentences/ 40 Parental Assistance Plan (PAP), the PAP only, and a control Phrases difficult words were pretaught to students, sometimes in their group that did not receive a language program. In all, 40 native language. Thus, prompts in Spanish were provided nursery school children ranging in age from three years, five Language for Learning School when necessary. Students were from low-income households 20 Comparison School months to four years, five months, from Manchester, England, (85% eligible for free lunch) and Hispanic, with 60–80% classified as limited English proficient (LEP). DISTAR IQ Standard Scores Mean Pretest–Posttest 0 were involved in the study. Ten children were assigned to Note: The Total TACL-3 standard score is based on a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. DISTAR Comparison DISTAR Comparison each group; each child was matched with a child from each of Language, Reading, and Arithmetic programs were used. At Language 1 Language 1 The Vocabulary, Grammatical Morphemes, and Elaborated Sentences/Phrases subtests the other groups. Thus, there were 10 matched quartets. All are based on a mean of 10 and a standard deviation of 3. the end of Grade 3, the Uvalde students achieved above or near the national norm on the Language subtest of the Pretest Stanford-Binet Peabody Picture children were pretested and posttested immediately following Benner et al. (2002) study showing mean standard score gains Vocabulary Test Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT). These students were Posttest the intervention as well as 18 months later on the Reynell on the Test of Auditory Comprehension of Language-3. Comprehension and Expressive Language Scales and the followed up in Grades 5 and 6, with educationally significant EPVT. Results showed that the DISTAR Language only, (above 0.25 noted by Adams and Engelmann, 1996) findings DISTAR Language plus PAP, and PAP-only groups scored noted for the MAT Language subtest for students in Grade 6. higher than children in the control group (see Figure 27). Figure 27 Finally, a preliminary analysis of the effects of those receiving However, only the children in the DISTAR Language plus DISTAR programs in Follow-Through through the high school 6 5.99 50

PAP and PAP-only groups had statistically significant gains years was conducted. Results revealed that these students were 5.23 4.95 as compared to the control group. more likely to receive a high school diploma, less likely to be 5 4.91 41.0 38.2

retained in any grade, and had better attendance. Further, these 4.15 40 37.5 4.00 3.93 35.8

Darch, Gersten, and Taylor (1987) investigated the combined students were more likely to graduate from high school. These 4 3.65 31.8

effects of Reading Mastery, DISTAR Arithmetic, and DISTAR 30.2 findings suggest that the structured immersion approach using

Language implemented over three years with over 600 30 27.8 DISTAR programs increased the academic achievement of the 3 African American students from low-income homes 25.8 language minority students in Uvalde. These findings show 21.3 21.0 21.2 beginning with students who entered Grade 1 in 1969 or 20.8 that language achievement was at or near grade level for more 2 20 1970. Three elementary schools participated — one located in than one decade. a small town and two located in agricultural areas in South 1 Reynell Developmental Language Scales Carolina. The Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT) 10 Muthukrishna and Naidoo (1987) investigated the effects of (1973–1976), Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills (CTBS) the DISTAR Language I program with disadvantaged Indian 0 on the

Pretest-Posttest Scores on the Pretest-Posttest DISTAR Comparison DISTAR Comparison (1978–1980), Coopersmith Self-Concept Inventory, and IARS, preschoolers (age range four to five years) in South Africa. Language 1 Language 1 Mean Pretest-Posttest Age-Equivalent Scores (in years) Age-Equivalent Mean Pretest-Posttest English Picture Vocabulary Test (EPVT) Test English Picture Vocabulary 0 Six students were taught with the DISTAR Language I were administered as pretests and posttests for students in the DISTAR DISTAR Parental Control program and five children received instruction using a teacher- Pretest Reynell Reynell experimental and comparison groups. Students received Language only Language and Assistant Plan Comprehension Expression Direct Instruction language programs over a three-year Pretest Parental only developed semi-structured program every day for 30 to 35 Posttest period. The stability of the effects was assessed over a seven- Posttest 1 Assistant Plan minutes for about 12 months. The authors reported that both Posttest 2 year time period (1973–80). Results showed twice as many groups had gains in intelligence, expressive and receptive Muthukrishna and Naidoo (1987) study showing mean students in the local comparison group were more than one language, and vocabulary as measured by the Stanford-Binet pretest and posttest standard IQ scores and age equivalent Beveridge and Jerrams (1981) study illustrating pretest and scores (years). year below grade level (i.e., at risk for academic failure). posttest scores on the English Picture Vocabulary Test. Intelligence Scale, PPVT, and Reynell Developmental Scales- There were large differences between the Direct Instruction Revised (see Figure 28). The DISTAR Language I group had language students and the comparison students on almost greater gains than did the semi-structured (comparison) group every subtest of the MAT (the one exception was Math on all measures. Concepts). Consistent differences were found on the affective

32 33 05492_SR_BRO_DILANGUAGE_32_33 7/26/06 1:02 PM Page 35

Direct Instruction Language Programs

retained in any grade, and had better attendance. Further, these 4.15 40 37.5 4.00 3.93 35.8

Darch, Gersten, and Taylor (1987) investigated the combined students were more likely to graduate from high school. These 4 3.65 31.8

effects of Reading Mastery, DISTAR Arithmetic, and DISTAR 30.2 findings suggest that the structured immersion approach using

32 33 05492_SR_BRO_DILANGUAGE_34_35 7/26/06 7:18 PM Page 37

Direct Instruction Language Programs

Sassenrath and Maddux (1974) implemented DISTAR Wheldall and Wheldall (1984) implemented DISTAR Language, the Peabody Language Development Program, Figure 29 Language I and Shiach’s Teach Them to Speak program for Figure 30 and the Standard Method Language Development over one eight weeks with 16 children (age three years, nine months academic year. Ninety-eight Kindergarteners from to four years, nine months). Children were randomly assigned 200 6.13 economically and educationally disadvantaged neighborhoods 182.12 to one of the programs (eight per program). From there, all 6 171.79 171.09

across seven elementary schools (11 classrooms) in a small children were randomly assigned to be taught by the teacher 5.25 5 city/rural school district participated. (Note: There was no 150 or nurse (thus, four children participated in each of the 4.63 4.38 information on the number of students/classrooms exposed to subgroups). Another group of 12 children who had 12 or more 4.25 each program.) Fifty-five of the students were monolingual errors on the DISTAR Placement Test, and whose raw scores 4 4.00 3.63 (English), while 43 were bilingual (English and Spanish). All on the EPVT were so low that a vocabulary age could not be 100 81.97 2.75 81.80 students were given the School Readiness Survey, Wepman calculated, were provided the DISTAR Language I program 3 2.63 2.50 75.03 School Readiness Survey (SRS)

Auditory Discrimination Test, and Illinois Test of by either a teacher (N = 6) or nurse (N = 6). The DISTAR 2.13

Psycholinguistic Abilities as pretests and posttests. Students in Placement Test, EPVT, Sentence Comprehension Test, British 2 1.88 50

all groups made gains on nearly all measures. There were Ability Scales, and Illinois Test of Psychological Abilities 1.25 1.00 statistically significant differences favoring the DISTAR (ITPA) were administered to all children as pretests and Statistically Significant Gain Scores 1

Language and Standard Method programs in the areas of of Psycholinguistic Abilities (ITPA) Illinois Test posttests. Results showed no statistically significant

Speaking Vocabulary, errors in Auditory Differences, and 0 differences between the programs with the exception of 0 and SRS ITPA errors in Auditory Similarities (see Figure 29). Statistically Scores on the Posttest “marginally significant” results on the EPVT Raw Score and

DISTAR Language Verbal significant differences were found in favor of the Standard ITPA Auditory Reception subtest favoring Shiach’s Teach DISTAR Standard Method Language Development Placement Verbal Age Verbal Raw Score Verbal Age Verbal Method program for Manual Expression. Them To Speak program. However, the authors argued that Raw Score Raw Score Peabody Language Development

these results were likely due to chance factors, rather than Comprehension Naming Vocabulary

differential effects of the programs. Statistically significant # of Subtests Passed Auditory Association Auditory Association increases were observed from pretests to posttests for both EPVT SCT ITPA BAS programs on several of the measures (see Figure 30). Finally, DISTAR Language 1 there were no statistically significant differences between Shiach’s Teach Them to Speak groups taught by the teacher and those taught by the nurse.

14 13.03 Note: EVPT = English Picture Vocabulary Test; SCT = Sentence ComprehensionTest; ITPA = Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities; BAS = British Ability Scales 12 Overall, the results of these studies suggest that Direct Instruction language programs are as effective or more Wheldall and Wheldall (1984) study showing statistically

10 9.06 effective than other language programs. significant gain scores. Wepman Auditory Wepman

8 Students in all groups made gains on 6.77 6

nearly all measures. There were 4.45 4

statistically significant differences (WADA) Discrimination Test 1.68 favoring the DISTAR Language and 2 1.66 Posttest Errors on the Posttest Standard Method programs in the 0 Errors in Auditory Differences Errors in Auditory Similarities areas of Speaking Vocabulary, errors WATD in Auditory Differences, and errors in Auditory Similarities. Sassenrath and Maddux (1974) study displaying posttest scores on the School Readiness Survey and Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities, and posttest errors on the Wepman Auditory Discrimination Test.

34 35 05492_SR_BRO_DILANGUAGE_34_35 7/26/06 7:18 PM Page 37

Direct Instruction Language Programs

Auditory Discrimination Test, and Illinois Test of by either a teacher (N = 6) or nurse (N = 6). The DISTAR 2.13

Psycholinguistic Abilities as pretests and posttests. Students in Placement Test, EPVT, Sentence Comprehension Test, British 2 1.88 50

Language and Standard Method programs in the areas of of Psycholinguistic Abilities (ITPA) Illinois Test posttests. Results showed no statistically significant

these results were likely due to chance factors, rather than Comprehension Naming Vocabulary

10 9.06 effective than other language programs. significant gain scores. Wepman Auditory Wepman

8 Students in all groups made gains on 6.77 6

nearly all measures. There were 4.45 4

34 35 05492_SR_BRO_DILANGUAGE_36_37 7/28/06 4:55 PM Page 39

Direct Instruction Language Programs

Children with Disabilities Table 2 — Characteristics of studies investigating Direct Instruction language programs with children with disabilities (continued) Eight studies were found examining the effectiveness of the

Direct Instruction language programs with children with Study DI Program n Participants Research Design Research Purpose Intervention Details Outcome Measures Findings disabilities. Table 2 shows these investigations. Dale & Cole DISTAR 83 Preschool (N = 61, ages Experimental Determine the relative Implemented DISTAR McCarthy Scales of Children’s The Direct Instruction group (1988) Abilities, Peabody Picture Language, three years to five years, pretest/posttest control effectiveness of Direct ArithmeticLanguage, DISTAR EarlyVocabulary Language Test Development Revised scored significantly higher on DISTAR 11 months) and group design (four Direct Instruction programs Reading , and DISTAR , Test of Languagethe standardized DevelopmentTests of Early Kindergarten/primary Instruction classes [three versus Arithmetic, Mediated Learning Learning (DI), andMediated , and the (N = 22, ages six to preschool, one and with preschool and (ML) two hours a Mean Length of Utterance, Basic Language Concepts Testwhile Table 2 — Characteristics of studies investigating Direct Instruction DISTAR eight) developmentally Kindergarten] and four Reading Kindergarten children with day, five days per week for Basic Language Concepts Test, the ML group scored significantly delayed children language programs with children with disabilities Mediated Learning developmental delays. 180 school days (preschool) Test of Early Reading Ability, higherMemory on the Scales McCarthy Verbal and classes [three preschool, and 5.5 hours a day, five days Test of Early Mathematics Utterance and Mean Length of per week over 180 school one Kindergarten]) Ability, and Stanford Early . Higher performing days (Kindergarten). School Achievement Test children did better on the posttest in Study DI Program n Participants Research Design Research Purpose Intervention Details Outcome Measures Findings Implemented over one academic year. Mediated Learning, while lower performing children did better on Peabody Picture Vocabulary Booth, Hewitt, DISTAR 12 Age range 8 to 14 years Pre-experimental — Determine the outcomes of ProvidedDISTAR Language, I Children mastered most language the posttest in Direct Instruction Jenkins, & Maggs Language I, II, at beginning of study one-shot case study the DISTAR Language ReadingII, and III and DISTAR Test, Masteryin language and Abilityobjectives Test on theBaldie Language programs on 18 of the 24 analyses, (1979) reading, Baldie Language Ability IIIand program with children with over a period of four Test . Participants had an although the authors reported these Age range 12.7 to 17.8 Longitudinal study over a DISTAR mental retardation. to five years. , Neale Analysis of Reading average gain of 34 (range = 15 to results did not reach statistical years at end of study five-year period Ability Reading Recognition, and Schonell Test Word 49) language age months in 32 significance. months of daily instruction. Most Gersten & Maggs 12 Children with moderate/ Determine the long-term IQ range 35 to 55 children read at or above Grade 3 (1982) DISTAR severe mental Pre-experimental — effects of Statistically significant improvement language and reading levels. Language I retardation; ages at the One-group pretest – DISTAR Language, III, and III Pretest only: was noted on beginning of the study posttest DISTAR and DISTAR Reading, III , and Peabody Picture Vocabulary Intelligence TestStanford-Binet DISTAR Languagechildren , II, Language and III and ranged from six years, Reading and DISTAR III given over five years. Test, Baldie Language Ability . Good performance outperformed “normal” children on 10 months to 12 years, Test Language Ability Test DISTAR with children with Language instruction was , and Neale Analysis of levels found at end of program on 31 of 66 objectives on theBaldie six months, mean Reading Reading, III, mental retardation. provided 30 minutes a day other measures. . 10.34 years (average) for 195 school days Cole & Dale 44 (19 in Preschool children with Experimental — Pretest– Columbia Mental Maturity Scale and III Determine the relative per year. (1986) DISTAR language delays ranging posttest control group Pretest/posttest: DISTAR effects of the DISTAR Languageand I , Statistically, significant differences LanguageLanguage I I in age from two years, (two classes used were noted between pretest and Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test , 25 in Language I DISTAR Interactive Language Carrow Auditory-Visual Abilities 10 months to five years, posttest for both groups on every Interactive Language Instructionand Interactive Instructionimplemented two Test, Peabody Basic Language nine months (mean age measure except developmental Glang, Singer, DISTAR 1 Language I DISTAR Percentage of words correctly Language DISTAR Reading; three hours a day, five days per samples Mean( Length of four years, six months) Utterance sentence scoring. No statistically Cooley, & Tish Language I Six year-old child with Single case— DISTAR Languageand I MasteryImplemented I , Reading repeated increased from an average Instruction classes used Interactive- week for 32 weeks. Student- , developmental Determine the effects of Percentage of words correctly ) programs with preschool significant difference between the (1992) and Reading traumatic brain injury A-B design Reading Mastery onI a over 12 of 47.9% during baseline to 72.8% Language Instruction) to-teacher ratio was four to Languagesentence scoring, Scale repeated in complete sentence IQ range 52 to 109 and Kindergarten children Preschool effectiveness of the programs was Mastery I (12 months post-injury) child with a traumatic brain instructional sessions. during the instruction. The number one. and number of letter sounds with language delays. (Auditory found. injury. of sounds read correctly increased read correctly Comprehension, and Verbal IQ = 65 from zero sounds during baseline to Abilities subscales and Overall an average of 6.2 during instruction. score), Basic Language Concepts Test Maggs & Morath DISTAR 28 Determine the relative Significantly greater gains were Syntax Screening, Northwest Test DISTAR Language I Basic Concept Inventory, (1976) Language I (14 in Institutionalized (for five Experimental — effectiveness of found for children instructed with DISTAR Language I DISTAR implemented one hour per Reynell Verbal Comprehension, Language years) children with Pretest – posttest control (Receptive subtest), , 14 in DISTAR Language kitversusPeabody school day over a two year Stanford-Binet Intelligence DISTAR Language thanI children Northwestern Syntax Screening moderate or severe Languagegroup I ( Peabody Language retardation from group, period (experimental group) Scale, Piaget’s Class Inclusion, instructedLanguage with the Peabody Test (Expressive subtest), and Matrix program) Stockton and Marsden Peabody Language kit (P-level) with and Peabody Language Piaget’s Seriation, and Bruner’s program on all six Peabody Picture Vocabulary Hospital schools in the group) institutionalized children program (P-level) or measures. Test Revised state of New South with moderate to severe programs utilizing some Wales (age range eight retardation. Languagecomponents kit of thePeabody 107 (55 in Direct DISTAR Peabody Picture Vocabulary Both groups had gains on several to 16 years at posttest). Cole, Dale, & Mills DISTAR Children (ages 3 to 7 Experimental — Pretest– Language with variations Instruction measures. No statistically significant (1991) Language, years) with mild to posttest control-group Arithmetic, DISTAR LanguageTest-Revised Development, Test of Early (control group). programs, 52 in Implemented differences were found between the DISTAR moderate developmental design (four Direct Determine the relative Reading , and DISTAR , R Standard two programs except for the Arithmetic Mediated Learning delays Instruction classes [3 effectivenessMediated of Learning Direct Learning, and Mediated Preschool Language PPVT- , Length of Utterance, Basic and program) preschool, 1 withInstruction preschool programs and 2 hours a day, 5 Assessment Inventory, Mean score favoring the ML DISTAR Language Concepts Test Reading Kindergarten; mean ageKindergartenversus children with days per week for 180 school group. Higher performing children 5.0 years] and 4 mild to moderate days (preschool) and 5.5 , and on MSCAGeneral Cognitive Index Booth, Hewitt, Jenkins, and Maggs (1979) investigated the Cole and Dale (1986) compared the effects of DISTAR Mediated Learning developmental delays. hours a day, 5 days per week McCarthy Scales of Children’s and PLAI pretest measures over 180 school days classes [3 preschool, 1 Abilities benefited more from Direct long-term effects of a five-year program in DISTAR Language Language I with Interactive Language Instruction implemented (Kindergarten). Program Kindergarten; mean age Instruction, whereas lower provided over a 4-year 4.9 years] per year) performing children benefited more I–III and DISTAR Reading I–III. Twelve students with mental two hours per day, five days per week for 32 weeks with 44 period. from Mediated Learning. retardation, ranging in age from 8 to 14 years (IQ range 35 to preschoolers with language delays (i.e., 1.5 standard deviations Cole, Dale, Mills, & 164 (81 in Direct Children with Determine the relative Implemented DISTAR Experimental — Peabody Picture Vocabulary Jenkins (1993) Instruction developmental delays in effectiveness of Direct Language DISTAR No statistically significant 55) received instruction in DISTAR Language and Reading over below the mean for their chronological age). These children Language, Pretest–posttest control Test Revised programs, 83 in language (3 to 7 years Instruction programs , DISTAR , Test of Early differences were found between the DISTAR group design (four Direct Arithmetic EarlyLanguage Reading Development Ability ML program) old, mean age 4.75 versus two programs on any measures. a five-year period. The PPVT was administered at the end of ranged in age from 34 to 69 months and attended the Arithmetic Instruction classes [3 Reading , and DISTAR , Test of Scales of Children’s Abilities Higher performing children gained years) Mediated Learning Learning (DI), andMediated , McCarthy , preschool, 1 significantly more in the Direct each school year. DISTAR mastery tests in language and Experimental Education Unit at the University of Washington. and Kindergarten; mean age with preschool and (ML) 2 hours a day, , DISTAR Mean IQ 76.03 Instruction program, although these Reading 4.76 years; mean IQ Kindergarten children with 5 days per week for 180 Preschool Language reading, the Baldie Language Ability Test, the Neale Analysis All children were randomly assigned to one of five classrooms. Length of Utterance gains were modest. 77.53] and 4 mild to moderate school days (preschool) and Assessment Inventory, Mean developmental delays. 5.5 hours a day, 5 days per Language Concepts Test Learning Mediated , and Basic of Reading Ability, and the Schonell Word Recognition Test Two classrooms used the DISTAR Language I program (N = week over 180 school days classes [3 (Kindergarten). Program were also administered at various times throughout the study. 19) and three classrooms used the Interactive Language preschool, 1 provided over a 4-year Kindergarten; mean age period. Before the study, students progressed at an average rate of Instruction program. Children were pretested and posttested 4.74; mean IQ 74.57] per year) two months for every five months of instruction. After the with a variety of language assessments including measures of DISTAR programs were implemented, the authors reported mean length of utterance (MLU), developmental sentence that the students gained an average of 34 language age scoring (DSS), Preschool Language Scale (Auditory months in the actual 32 months of instruction. Many of the Comprehension subtest), Preschool Language Scale (Verbal students were performing at approximately Grades 3–4 levels Abilities subscale), Preschool Language Scale (Overall), Basic in language and reading at the conclusion of the study. The Language Concepts (BLCT), Northwest Syntax Screening Test DISTAR Language students outperformed typical children in (Receptive subtest), Northwestern Syntax Screening Test 31 of the 66 objectives on the Baldie Language Ability Test. (Expressive subtest), and PPVT-R.

36 37 05492_SR_BRO_DILANGUAGE_36_37 7/28/06 4:55 PM Page 39

Direct Instruction Language Programs

36 37 05492_SR_BRO_DILANGUAGE_38_39 7/26/06 5:53 PM Page 41

Direct Instruction Language Programs

Results indicated statistically significant differences between assessments for both programs on the following measures: McCarthy Verbal and Memory Scales and MLU. Higher Test, Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test, Piaget’s Class Inclusion, pretest and posttest performance for both groups (see Figure MSCA General Cognitive Index, PPVT-R Standard Score, performing children did better on the posttest in Mediated Piaget’s Seriation, and Bruner’s Matrix. Significantly greater 31). The DISTAR Language I program outperformed the PPVT-R Raw Score, TELD Quotient Score, TELD Raw Learning, while lower performing children did better on the gains were observed for students instructed with DISTAR Interactive Language Instruction program on eight of the Score, PLAI, and BLCT. No statistically significant differences posttest in Direct Instruction on 18 of the 24 analyses. Language I than students instructed with the Peabody nine measures. However, both programs were effective and between the Direct Instruction and Mediated Learning were Language program on all six dependent measures (see showed no statistically significant differences between them. found on language, cognitive, or other measures except for the Gersten and Maggs (1982) investigated the long-term effects of Figure 32). PPVT-R Standard Score favoring the Mediated Learning group. an intensive five-year program in DISTAR Language I–III and Figure 31 However, children who scored higher initially on the MSCA DISTAR Reading I–III in Sydney, Australia. Twelve children Overall, the results of these studies suggest that Direct General Cognitive Index and PLAI gained more from the with mental retardation ranging in age from six years, ten Instruction language programs are as effective or more Direct Instruction programs in language development, while months to twelve years, six months received instruction in the effective than other language programs. 18

16.32 lower performing children gained more language skills from three levels of DISTAR Language and Reading an average of 16 Mediated Learning. 30 minutes per day over approximately 195 instructional days 14.74 14.21 during a five-year period. The Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test Figure 32 14 13.48

12.53 Cole, Dale, Mills, and Jenkins (1993) compared the effects (pretest and posttest) and PPVT, Baldie Language Ability Test, 26

12 11.15 of Direct Instruction (DISTAR Language, Arithmetic, and Neale Analysis of Reading Ability (posttest only) were 24 22.50 10 and Reading) to Mediated Learning. The programs were administered. Results indicated statistically significant gains 22 8.90 implemented two hours a day, five days per week over 180 on the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test from 41.9 (44.8 when 20 7.45 8 7.43 6.69 17.14 6.75 days (preschool) and 5.5 hours a day, five days per week adjusted for regression) to 50.6 (1.08 standard deviation gain 18 6 over 180 days (Kindergarten). The study was conducted over from pretest to posttest; 0.36 standard deviation gain when 16

Pretest-Posttest Gain Scores Pretest-Posttest a four-year period with 164 preschool or Kindergarten children compared to normative group). There were significant 14 3.26

4 3.14 12.00

2.64 (three to seven years of age, mean age 4.75 years) with differences between the children with mental retardation in this 12 2 developmental delays in language (mean IQ was 76.03). study and children without disabilities from the normative 0.81

0.80 10 0.57 -0.07 0 Children were randomly assigned to either a classroom using sample in Sydney on nine of the 66 objectives on the Baldie 8 7.50 6.00 Direct Instruction programs or a classroom using Mediated Language Ability Test (five favoring children with mental Gain Scores Pretest–Posttest 6 Learning. All children were instructed at a laboratory school retardation, four favoring children without disabilities). Overall 3.07

Auditory 4 2.86 2.21 2.14 Receptive

Expressive (three preschool classrooms and one Kindergarten classroom 2 1.14 0.57 0.43

Verbal Abilities Verbal per year per program). The PPVT-R, TELD, MSCA, PLAI, Glang, Singer, Cooley, and Tish (1992) provided DISTAR Comprehension

0 MLU, and BLCT were administered as pretests and posttests. Language I and DISTAR Reading I to a six-year-old girl with MLU DSS PLS BLCT NSST PPVT-R in in Results showed no statistically significant differences on a traumatic brain injury (12 months post-injury) two to three DISTAR Language 1 language, cognitive, or other measures between the groups. times per week for a total of 12 instructional sessions. The Interactive Language Instruction (total scores) Piaget’s Class Piaget’s Inventory Test Reynell Verbal Reynell Verbal Stanford Binet However, higher performing children gained more from girl’s full-scale IQ score was 65. She was at the second Basic Concept Bruner’s Matrix Bruner’s Piaget’s Seriation Piaget’s

Note: MLU = Mean Length of Utterance; DSS = Developmental Sentence Score; Direct Instruction, while lower performing children gained percentile on the Vocabulary and Similarities subtest and at the Comprehension Comprehension Mental Age Months Mental Age Months Inclusion (total score) Inclusion PLS = Preschool Language Scale; BLCT = Basic Language Concepts Test; (total score) Inclusion NSST = Northwestern Syntax Screening Test; more from Mediated Learning. first percentile on the Comprehension subtest of the Weschsler PPVT-R = Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence. Data were DISTAR Language 1 Peabody Language Cole and Dale (1986) study displaying pretest–posttest Dale and Cole (1988) compared the effects of Direct gathered on the percentage of words correctly repeated in gain scores. Instruction (DISTAR Language, Arithmetic, and Reading) to complete sentences and the number of sounds read correctly. Mediated Learning. The programs were implemented two hours The girl’s percentage of words correctly repeated increased Maggs and Morath (1976) study illustrating pretest–posttest Cole, Dale, and Mills (1991) compared the effects of Direct a day, five days per week over 180 school days (preschool) from an average of 47.9% during baseline to 72.8% during gain scores. Instruction (DISTAR Language, DISTAR Arithmetic, and and 5.5 hours a day, five days per week over 180 school instruction. She also had an increase in the number of sounds DISTAR Reading) to Mediated Learning. Programs were days (Kindergarten). Eighty-three children (61 preschool, read correctly from zero sounds during baseline to an average implemented two hours a day, five days per week over 180 22 Kindergarten) with developmental delays in language of 6.2 during instruction. days (preschool) and 5.5 hours a day, five days per week participated. Preschoolers ranged in age from three years to over 180 days (Kindergarten). The study was conducted over five years, eleven months; Kindergarten children ranged in Maggs and Morath (1976) assessed the differential effects of a four-year period with 107 preschool or Kindergarten children age from six to eight years. Children were randomly assigned the DISTAR Language I program and Peabody Language with developmental delays in language. Children were to either a classroom implementing Direct Instruction or to program with 28 children (ages ranging from eight to 16 years) randomly assigned to either a classroom implementing the a classroom implementing Mediated Learning. All children with moderate to severe retardation who were institutionalized Direct Instruction programs (mean IQ was 76.3) or to a were instructed at the Experimental Education Unit, Child for a period of five years in Stockton and Marsden Hospital classroom implementing the Mediated Learning program Development and Mental Retardation Center at the University schools in South Wales. Fourteen children were randomly (mean IQ was 75.5). All children were instructed at Northwest of Washington (three preschool classrooms and one selected from the two institutions and received DISTAR University laboratory school (three preschool classrooms Kindergarten classroom per year per program). The MSCA, Language I for one hour per school day over a two-year and one Kindergarten classroom per year per program). PPVT-R, TELD, MLU, BLCT, Test of Early Reading Ability, period. Fourteen other children were randomly selected The PPVT-R, Test of Early Language Development (TELD), Test of Early Math Ability, and Stanford Early School from the same institutions and received instruction from Preschool Language Assessment Inventory (PLAI), MLU, Achievement Test were administered as pretests and posttests. the standard curriculum (i.e., Peabody Language [P-level] BLCT, and McCarthy Scales of Children’s Abilities (MSCA) Results showed the Direct Instruction group scored or some components of the Peabody Language program with were administered as pretests and posttests. Results showed significantly higher on the TELD and the BLCT while the variations). All participants were pretested and posttested with statistically significant increases from pretest to posttest Mediated Learning group scored significantly higher on the the Basic Concept Inventory, Reynell Verbal Comprehension

38 39 05492_SR_BRO_DILANGUAGE_38_39 7/26/06 5:53 PM Page 41

Direct Instruction Language Programs

12.53 Cole, Dale, Mills, and Jenkins (1993) compared the effects (pretest and posttest) and PPVT, Baldie Language Ability Test, 26

Pretest-Posttest Gain Scores Pretest-Posttest a four-year period with 164 preschool or Kindergarten children compared to normative group). There were significant 14 3.26

4 3.14 12.00

Auditory 4 2.86 2.21 2.14 Receptive

Expressive (three preschool classrooms and one Kindergarten classroom 2 1.14 0.57 0.43

Verbal Abilities Verbal per year per program). The PPVT-R, TELD, MSCA, PLAI, Glang, Singer, Cooley, and Tish (1992) provided DISTAR Comprehension

38 39 05492_SR_BRO_DILANGUAGE_40_41 7/28/06 5:03 PM Page 43

Direct Instruction Language Programs

Children with and without Disabilities Waldron-Soler et al. (2002) investigated the effects of a 15- week implementation of the Language for Learning program Figure 33 Two studies were found examining the effectiveness of Direct on the language and social interaction skills of children in an 15 integrated preschool located in the Pacific Northwest. A total 11.25 Instruction language programs in children with and without 11.04 of 36 students were involved (28 children without 10.42 disabilities. Table 3 describes these investigations. 10 9.25 developmental delays and eight children with developmental 6.14

delays). Three preexisting groups were pretested and 5.50 5 4.75 posttested on the following measures: Peabody Picture 3.40 3.62 Table 3 - Characteristics of studies investigating Direct Instruction Vocabulary Test Third Edition (PPVT-III), Expressive 2.00 language programs with children with and without disabilities Vocabulary Test, and Social Skills Rating System (SSRS): 0 Preschool Teacher Questionnaire. Preschool A (N = 16, 12 -1.28 Study DI Program n Participants Research Design Research Purpose Intervention Details Outcome Measures Findings children without developmental delays, four with -5 -1.50 -3.06 -3.25 Martella & Language for 126 General education Pre-experimental — one Determine the effects of the Language for Writing Test of Written Language-III, General and special education developmental delays) received the Language for Learning Waldron-Soler Writing children in Grades 2–3, group pretest–posttest Language for Writing program implemented for fivestudent errors, lesson duration, students made statistically and -5.42

(2005) special education program on Grades 2–3 months (Classrooms 1–5) lesson ratings, mastery test educationally significant program. Preschool B (N = 16, all without developmental Gain Scores Pretest–Posttest -10 students in Grades 3–5 general education students and 14 months (Classroom performance, social validity improvements in their writing (at least 60% African and Grades 3–5 special 6) (Evaluation I) and one survey, and curriculum-based performance. delays) and Preschool C (N = 4, all with developmental American and/or education students. academic year (Classrooms measures Hispanic) 7–10) (Evaluation II). delays) received standard early childhood education programs. -15

105 general education

21 special education Results showed that children with developmental delays who -20 -15.50 were instructed with Language for Learning had greater Waldron-Soler, 36 Preschool children (three Quasi-experimental — Investigate the differential Children with disabilities instructed Language for Martella, (16 in to five years of age) Nonequivalent control effects of the Language for Learning Peabody Picture Vocabulary with Marchand- Learning group (Preschool A, improvement in receptive and expressive language skills and Problem Language Learning Language for implemented for 15 weeks. Test-III, Expressive Vocabulary Language for Learningmade Problem Martella, Warner, for Learning 28 typical children, eight Test , 20 in program and , and Social Skills Rating greater gains than the comparison social interaction skills than children in the comparison group Miller, & Tso with developmental System: Preschool Teacher standard early standard early childhood group on all three measures. (2002) delays: Language for Learning Questionnaire childhood group; Preschool B, education programs with Children without disabilities made (see Figure 33). Children instructed with Language for Behaviors Scale* programs) standard early childhood preschoolers with and greater gains on all three measures; Behaviors Scale* Social Skills Scale Preschool A (12 children Social Skills Scale without developmental however, there was a statistically Learning had reduced problem behaviors as measured by the without developmental programs; and Preschool delays. significant increase on the delay, four children with C, standard early PPVT-III SSRS compared to those in the comparison group. PPVT-III EVT SSRS PPVT-III EVT SSRS developmental delay), childhood programs) and SSRScompared to the Children with Developmental Delays Children without Developmental Delays Preschool B (16 children comparison group. Additionally, children without developmental delays who without developmental delays), and Preschool C received instruction in Language for Learning outperformed Language for Learning (four children with developmental delays) the comparison group on all measures; however, the statistical Control Group significance levels were reached for only receptive language Note: PPVT-III = Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-3rd Edition; (as measured on the PPVT-III) and social interaction skills (as EVT = Expressive Vocabulary Test; SSRS = Social Skills Rating System. measured by the SSRS). *Lower scores refer to less problem behavior. Martella and Waldron-Soler (in press) conducted an 18-month (Evaluation II). Students in special education settings closed Overall, the results of these studies suggest that Direct Waldron-Soler et al. (2002) study illustrating pretest/posttest program evaluation of the Language for Writing program with the gap between their performance and that of the normative Instruction language programs are effective. gain scores. 126 students in Grades 2–5 (105 general education students in sample. The authors noted that English-Language learners Grades 2–3 and 21 special education resource room students made educationally significant improvements in all three in Grades 3–5) (at least 60% African American and/or measures of writing. Hispanic). Ten classrooms participated from the following locations: two in the Pacific Northwest, one in the West, four in the Southwest, two in the Midwest, and one in the South. Classrooms one through five received five months of the program (Evaluation I), Classroom six received 14 months of the program (Evaluation I), Classrooms seven through ten received nine months of the program (Evaluation II). All students were pretested and posttested using the TOWL-3. Data was also gathered on errors, lesson duration, lesson ratings, mastery test performance, and social validity. Statistically significant gains from pretest to posttest were found for all classrooms involved in the evaluation on the TOWL-3. Effect sizes ranged from 0.45 (Contrived Writing) to 1.29 (Spontaneous Writing) for general education students in Evaluation I and 0.43 (Contrived Writing) to 1.67 (Spontaneous Writing) for Evaluation II. Students in special education had average effect size gains of 0.28 (Contrived Writing) to 1.15 (Spontaneous Writing) (Evaluation I) and 0.41 (Contrived Writing) to 1.36 (Spontaneous Writing)

40 41 05492_SR_BRO_DILANGUAGE_40_41 7/28/06 5:03 PM Page 43

Direct Instruction Language Programs

105 general education

40 41 05492_SR_BRO_DILANGUAGE_42_43 7/31/06 12:36 PM Page 45

Direct Instruction Language Programs

Brinton, B., Fujiki, M., Spencer, J., & Robinson, L. (1997). The ability of Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching expressive writing to students Hull, G. A. (1987). Current views of error and editing. Topics in Language VIII. References children with specific language impairment to access and participate in an with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. The Elementary School Disorders, 7(4), 55-65. ongoing interaction. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, Journal, 101(3), 251-272. 40, 1011-1025. Isaacson, S. (1990). Written language. In P. J. Schloss, M. A. Smith, & C. (Note: * indicates the studies included in the research review) Gersten, R, & Geva, E. (2003). Teaching reading to early language N. Schloss (Eds.), Instructional methods for secondary student with *Cole, K. N., & Dale, P. S. (1986). Direct language instruction and learners. Educational Leadership, 60(7), 44-49. learning and behavior problems (pp. 202-228). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. interactive language instruction with language delayed preschool children: A comparison study. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 29, 206-217. Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. *Gersten, R. M., & Maggs, A. (1982). Teaching the general case to Isaacson, S. L. (1994). Integrating process, product, and purpose: The role moderately retarded children: Evaluation of a five-year project. Analysis of instruction. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming learning *Cole, K. N., Dale, P. S., & Mills, P. (1991). Individual differences in and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 2, 329-343. difficulties, 10, 39-62. language delayed children’s responses to direct and interactive preschool Agnew, E. (1992). Basic writers in the workplace: Writing adequately for instruction. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 11, 99-124. careers after college. Journal of Basic Writing, 11(2), 28-46. *Gersten, R., Taylor, R., Woodward, J., White, W. A. T. (1997). Jambunathan, S., & Norris, J. A. (2000). Perception of self-competence in Structured English immersion for Hispanic students in the U.S.: relation to language competence among preschoolers. Child Study *Cole, K. N., Dale, P. S., Mills, P., & Jenkins, J. R. (1993). Interaction Findings from the fourteen-year evaluation of the Uvalde, Texas Journal, 30(2), 91-101. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) (2004). between early intervention curricula and student characteristics. program. Effective School Practices, 16(3), 30-38. Pragmatics, socially speaking. Retrieved December 10, 2004 from Exceptional Children, 60(1), 17-28. http://www.asha.org/public/speech/development/pragmatics.htm. Kame’enui, E. J., Carnine, D. W., Dixon, R. C., Simmons, D. C., & Gertner, B. L., Rice, M. L., & Hadley, P. A. (1994). Influence of Coyne, M. D. (2002). Effective teaching strategies that accommodate *Dale, P. S., & Cole, K. N. (1988). Comparison of academic and communicative competence on peer preferences in a preschool classroom. diverse learners. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall. Aram, D. M., Ekelman, B., & Nation, J. (1984). Preschoolers with cognitive programs for young handicapped children. Exceptional Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 37, 913-923. language disorders: 10 years later. Journal of Speech and Hearing Children, 54, 439-447. Research, 27, 232-244. *Maggs, A., & Morath, P. (1976). Effects of direct verbal instruction on *Glang, A., Singer, G., Cooley, E., & Tish, N. (1992). Tailoring direct intellectual development of institutionalized moderately retarded children: *Darch, C., Gersten, R., & Taylor, R. (1987). Evaluation of Williamsburg instruction techniques for use with elementary students with brain injury. A 2-year study. Journal of Special Education, 10, 357-364. Arnbak, E. (2004). When are poor reading skills a threat to educational County Direct Instruction Program: Factors leading to success in rural Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 7(4), 93-108. achievement? Reading and Writing, 17(5), 459-482. elementary programs. Research in Rural Education, 4, 111-118. Mann, V. A., & Foy, J. G. (2003). Phonological awareness, speech Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1988). Instructional recommendations for development, and letter knowledge in preschool children. Annals of Arrasmith, D. (2003). Definition of explicit instruction and systematic Englert, C. S., Raphael, T. E., Anderson, L. M., Anthony, H. M., Fear, K. teaching writing to exceptional students. Exceptional Children, 54, 506-512. Dyslexia, 53, 149-173. curriculum. Retrieved April 19, 2004 from http://www.studydog.com/. L., & Gregg, S. L. (1988). A case for writing intervention: Strategies for writing informational text. Learning Disabilities Focus, 3, 98-113. Griffin, T. M., Hemphill, L., Camp, L., & Wolf, D. P. (2004). Oral Marchand-Martella, N. E., Blakely, M., & Shaefer, E. (2004). Aspects of Beimiller, A., Language and Reading Success. Volume 5 in the series: discourse in the preschool years and later literacy skills. First Language, schoolwide implementations. In N. E. Marchand-Martella, T. A. Slocum, From reading research to practice. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books. Englert, C. S., Raphael, T. E., Anderson, L. M., Anthony, H. M., & 24(No. 2), 123-147. & R. C. Martella (Eds.), Introduction to Direct Instruction (pp. 304-334). Stevens, D. D. (1991). Making strategies and self-talk visible: Writing Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon. instruction in regular and special education classrooms. American *Benner, G. J., Trout, A., Nordness, P. D., Nelson, J. R., Epstein, M. H., Educational Research Journal, 28(2), 337-372. Hakuta, K., Goto Butler, Y., & Witt, D. (2000). How Long Does It Take Knobel, M., Epstein, A., Maguire, K., & Birdsell, R. (2002). The effects English-Language Learners to Attain Proficiency? University of *Martella, R. C., & Waldron-Soler, K. M. (2005), Language for Writing of the Language for Learning program on the receptive language skills of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute. program evaluation. Journal of Direct Instruction, 5, 81-96. kindergarten children. Journal of Direct Instruction, 2(2), 67-74. Fashola, O.S., Drum, P.A., Mayer, R.E., & Kang, S.J. (1996). A cognitive theory of orthographic transitioning: Predictable errors in how Spanish- speaking children spell English words. American Educational Research Hall, J. K., Salas, B., & Grimes, A. E. (1999). Evaluating and improving Medo, M. A., & Ryder, R. J. (1993). The effects of vocabulary instruction *Beveridge, M., & Jerrams, A. (1981). Parental involvement in language Journal, 33(4), 825-843. written expression: A practical guide for teachers (3rd ed.). Austin, TX: on readers’ ability to make causal connections. Reading Research and development: An evaluation of a school-based parental assistance plan. Pro-Ed. Instruction, 33(2), 119-134. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 259-269. Fredrick, L. D., & Steventon, C. (2004). Writing. In N. E. Marchand- Martella, T. A. Slocum, & R. C. Martella (Eds.), Introduction to Direct Harris, K. R., Schmidt, T., & Graham, S. (1998). Every child can write: Meese, R. (2001). Teaching learners with mild disabilities: Integrating *Booth, A., Hewitt, D., Jenkins, W., & Maggs, A. (1979). Making Instruction (pp. 140-177). Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon. Strategies for composition and self-regulation in the writing process. research and practice (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. retarded children literate: A five-year study. The Australian Journal of In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, & D. Deshler (Eds.), Teaching every child Mental Retardation, 5(7), 257-260. every day (pp.131-167). Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books. Fujiki, M., Brinton, B., Isaacson, T., & Summers, C. (2001). Social Messer, D., Dockrell, J. E., & Murphy, N. (2004). Relation between behaviors of children with language impairment on the playground: A pilot naming and literacy in children with word-finding difficulties. Journal Bos, C. S., & Vaughn, S. (2002). Strategies for teaching students with study. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in School, 32, 101-113. Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 462- 470. learning and behavior problems (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. experience of young American children. Baltimore: Brooks.

Fujiki, M., Brinton, B., & Todd, C. (1996). Social skills of children with Metsala, J. L. (1999). Young children’s phonological awareness and Brett, A., Rothlein, L., & Hurley, M. (1996). Vocabulary acquisition from specific language impairment. Language, Speech, and Hearing in Services Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1999). The social world of children learning to nonword repetition as a function of vocabulary development. Journal listening to stories and explanations of target words. Elementary School in Schools, 27, 195-202. talk. Baltimore: Brooks. of Educational Psychology, 91, 3-19. Journal, 96(4), 415-422.

42 43 05492_SR_BRO_DILANGUAGE_42_43 7/31/06 12:36 PM Page 45

Direct Instruction Language Programs

42 43 05492_SR_BRO_DILANGUAGE_44_45 7/28/06 4:57 PM Page 47

Direct Instruction Language Programs

*Muthukrishna, A., & Naidoo, K. (1987). Preschool for the disadvantaged: State Assessment Services–State Assessment Advisor. (June 16, 2002). DISTAR Language I tested in South Africa. ADI News, 6 (3), 3-4. http://www.homeroom.com/Irp/INDEX.asp.

Nathan, L., Stackhouse, J., Goulandris, N., & Snowling, M. J. (2004). Stuart, M. (1999). Getting ready for reading: Early phoneme awareness Educational consequences of developmental speech disorder: Key Stage I and phonics teaching improves reading and spelling in inner-city National Curriculum assessment results in English and mathematics. second-language learners. British Journal of Educational Psychology, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 173-186. 69, 587-605.

National Institute for Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). Tierney, R. J., & Shanahan, T. (1991). Research on the reading-writing (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read: relationship: Interactions, transactions, and outcomes. In R. Barr, M. An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading reading and its implications for reading instruction. Reports of the research (Vol. 2, pp. 246-280). New York: Longman. subgroups. (NIH Publication No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1994). Longitudinal studies of phonological processing and reading. Journal of Learning Owens, R. E. (2001). Language development: An introduction (5th ed.). Disabilities, 27, 276-286. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

*Waldron-Soler, K. M., Martella, R. C., Marchand-Martella, N. E., Qi, C. H., & Kaiser, A. P. (2004). Problem behaviors of low-income Warner, D. A., Miller, D. E., & Tso, M. E. (2002). Effects of a 15-Week children with language delays: An observation study. Journal of Speech, Language for Learning implementation with children in an integrated Language, and Hearing Research, 47(3), 595-609. preschool. Journal of Direct Instruction, 2(2), 75-86. Provide research-based, proven tools for success. In a climate where accountability has never counted more, numerous studies Raphael, T., & Englert, C. S. (1990, February). Writing and reading: Waldron-Soler, K. M., & Osborn, J. (2004). Language. In N. E. document the effectiveness of Direct Instruction. The programs that make Partners in construction meaning. The Reading Teacher, 43(6), 388- 400. Marchand-Martella, T. A. Slocum, & R. C. Martella (Eds.), Introduction to Direct Instruction (pp. 66-99). Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon. up the Direct Instruction language curriculum — Language for Learning, Language for Thinking, and Language for Writing — address the important Rescorla, L. (2002). Language and reading outcomes to age 9 in late- elements of instructional language as well as broader knowledge of the words talking toddlers. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, Watkins, C., & Slocum, T. A. The components of Direct Instruction. and sentence structures relevant to reading comprehension and writing. 45(2), 360-371. In N. E. Marchand-Martella, T. A. Slocum, & R. C. Martella (Eds.), Introduction to Direct Instruction (pp. 28-65). Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon. Discover the research base and validation that suggest these Direct Instruction Reyna, V. F. (2004). Why scientific evidence? The importance of evidence programs can close the achievement gap for a wide range of students. in changing educational practice. In P. McCardle & V. Chhabra (Eds.), The voice of evidence in reading research (pp. 47-80). Baltimore, MD: Weaver, C. (1996). Teaching grammar in context. Portsmouth, NH: Paul H. Brookes. Boynton/Cook.

Rosenshine, B. V. (1987). Explicit teaching and teacher training. Journal *Wheldall, D., & Wheldall, K. (1984). DISTAR in the day nursery: An of Teacher Education, 38(3), 34-36. experimental evaluation of DISTAR Language I. Educational Review, 36(3), 287-301.

*Sassenrath, J. M., & Maddux, R. E. (1974). Language instruction, background, and development of disadvantaged kindergarten children. California Journal of Educational Research, 25(2), 61-68.

Simmons, K. (2002, June 28). College entrance test due changes. The Atlanta Journal Constitution, pp. C1, C7.

Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Snow, C. E., Tabors, P. O., Nicholson, P. A., & Kurland, B. F. (1995). SHELL: Oral language and early literacy skill in kindergarten and first- grade children. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 10, 37- 48.

44 05492_SR_BRO_DILANGUAGE_44_45 7/28/06 4:57 PM Page 47

Direct Instruction Language Programs

*Sassenrath, J. M., & Maddux, R. E. (1974). Language instruction, background, and development of disadvantaged kindergarten children. California Journal of Educational Research, 25(2), 61-68.

Simmons, K. (2002, June 28). College entrance test due changes. The Atlanta Journal Constitution, pp. C1, C7.

Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.