Special Education and Direct Instruction: An Effective Combination

Nancy Marchand-Martella Diane Kinder Richard Kubina Eastern Washington University University of Washington Tacoma The Pennsylvania State University Contents

Executive Summary ...... 1

Part I: An Overview of Special Education and Effective Instruction ...... 2 Overview...... 2 Special Education ...... 2 Effective Instruction...... 4 Executive Summary Summary...... 9

Part II: Description of Research Review and Project Follow Through...... 10 The U.S. House of Representatives and Senate bills Part I describes methods and approaches that Overview...... 10 (H.R. 1350 and S. 1248) contain substantial revisions research implies will benefit special education Project Follow Through...... 11 central to the reauthorization of the Individuals with students. It indicates that direct, explicit instruction Summary...... 12 Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA) and proclaim is the most effective way to improve skills of students who are significantly behind peers. Part III: Direct Instruction Research With Students With significant changes in how learning disabilities will be identified. This affects services and special education Part II provides a description of procedures used to High-Incidence Disabilities ...... 13 determinations. review the Direct Instruction and special education Overview...... 13 populations studies. Data confirms that students Direct Instruction Language Research...... 14 This landmark legislation places emphases on predicted to have low achievement benefit greatly DISTAR® Reading/Reading Mastery Research...... 16 instruction, early intervention, and building success from Direct Instruction. Corrective Reading Research...... 18 by requiring “specially designed” instruction to meet Part III summarizes studies using Direct Instruction Direct Instruction Writing and Spelling Research...... 22 the unique needs of students with disabilities. IDEA with students who have high-incidence disabilities 2004 (see www.wrightslaw.com for further details) Direct Instruction Mathematics Research...... 24 from pre-school to high school. Thirty-seven studies includes increased focus on the use of scientifically- Areas of Emerging Research...... 25 were found across academic areas. In 34 of the based instructional practices and programs and 37 studies, students who were taught with Direct Summary...... 25 peer-reviewed research. Local educational agencies Instruction fared better than students who used Part IV: Direct Instruction Research With Students With may use a process to determine if students respond other programs. to scientific, research-based intervention as part of Low-Incidence Disabilities ...... 26 Part IV describes eight studies using Direct evaluation procedures to determine a specific learning Instruction for students who have low-incidence Overview...... 26 disability. This process benefits children with disabilities disabilities. These studies show that students with DISTAR Reading Research...... 28 as well as any children who enter school at risk of more severe disabilities can learn at high levels with DISTAR Language Research...... 29 failure. Concentrating on research-based intervention systematic, research-proven programs such as Corrective Reading Research...... 29 legislation ensures that students qualify for special Direct Instruction. Research Involving the Combination of Programs...... 30 education services rather than failing to receive DISTAR Arithmetic Research...... 30 appropriate instruction. Areas of Emerging Research...... 31 This report highlights the unique and successful Summary...... 33 use of Direct Instruction among special education References ...... 34 populations. It is divided into four parts:

In all, 45 studies were found across student disability categories with over 90 percent noting positive effects for Direct Instruction programs.

1 Part I: An Overview of Special Education and Effective Instruction

Achieve Maximum Benefits With Programmatic Scaffolding is central to quality special education. Students initially need considerable support Individualization and Validation and then diminishing support as they learn to perform Two critical elements of effective special education are skills independently (Slavin, 2003). individualization and validation (Fuchs, 1996; Fuchs & Fuchs, 1995): Vaughn and Linan-Thompson (Vaughn & Linan- Thompson, 2003, pg. 142) note that instruction is Individualization refers to developing instruction more effective for students with mild disabilities when: with an individual student’s needs in mind—as the student’s needs change, so does the treatment Task difficulty is controlled (i.e., examples are (Fuchs, 1996). Thus, progress monitoring is a key sequenced to ensure success; tasks are matched to aspect of individualization. students’ skills). Validation pertains to rigorous experimental Groups are small and interactive. studies that have been conducted over time yielding Instruction is direct and explicit, with clear modeling converging evidence. “When practiced most and guided practice activities. effectively and ethically, special education is [also] characterized by the use of research-based teaching Progress monitoring is ongoing. methods” (Heward, 2003, pg. 38). There is focus on foundational skills. Therefore, curricular programs selected for students According to Halle, Chadsey, Lee, and Renzaglia who have special needs should provide evidence of (2004), instruction for students with more severe sufficient field-testing or results from experimental disabilities should be: studies. This ensures that instructional time yields Overview Special Education maximum benefits. In addition, programs should meet Systematic, meaningful, and functional. the needs of each student by monitoring individual Because special education students fall significantly Special education has been defined as “individually Delivered using frequent opportunities for students student performance through: behind peers in academic, behavioral, and/or planned, specialized, intensive, goal-directed to respond and receive feedback. functional living skills, intensive instruction is crucial instruction” (Heward, 2003, pg. 38). Placement testing. Focused on mastery learning . for their academic success. This instruction may differ in terms of In-program progress monitoring.

Though the level of intensity will likely differ for Mastery tests. Measured using progress monitoring to ensure data- individual students, research shows that explicit, How it is provided: based decision making. Review opportunities. individualized, and validated instruction—like that One-on-one While the level of explicitness, intensity, and support offered by Direct Instruction programs—is key for Small groups may vary, explicit instruction seems to be the key to optimal learning opportunities among students who Set Special Education Apart Through optimize learning opportunities for students with have special needs. Where it is provided: Intensive, Explicit Support special needs (see Vaughn & Linan-Thompson, 2003 Resource room IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Special education differs from general education for further details). reauthorized in 1997 and amended in 2004) requires Separate classroom (Torgesen, 1996) because it is typically more: specially designed instruction for students with Residential school Explicit – All skills are taught directly. disabilities. Specially designed instruction pertains to adapting content, methodology, or delivery of What curriculum is used: Systematic – Instruction is purposeful, instruction to meet students’ needs and to ensure their This combination of features makes special education well-organized, and hierarchical. access to the general curriculum [(34 CFR 300.24(b) effective for students with disabilities. Intensive – Students receive more interactions (3) as cited in Bateman & Linden, 1998)]. and experience significant time on task. Supportive – Students need encouragement, feedback, and positive reinforcement.

2 3 Effective Instruction Build Understanding Through Presenting new material in small steps, giving According to Harris & Graham (1996), explicit Use the Carefully Sequenced Lessons clear and detailed explanations of the skill(s) to instruction is not: Systematic, Explicit Instruction be learned (modeling), often checking for student of Direct Instruction to Accomplish Trial-and-error learning. Explicit or direct instruction (lowercase “d,” “i”) offers understanding through strategic questioning. More in Less Time

a systematic method of teaching with emphasis on Providing repeated opportunities for students to Discovery. One explicit, teacher-directed model of effective (Rosenshine, 1987, pg. 34): practice in an active manner and to obtain feedback Exploration. instruction is Direct Instruction (DI) as exemplified in on their performance (guided practice). programs authored by Siegfried Engelmann. Direct Facilitated learning. Proceeding in small steps. Monitoring student learning through varied Instruction can be distinguished from other models of Checking for student understanding. exercises (i.e., seatwork). A constructivist approach where teachers explicit instruction/direct instruction by its focus on assist performance rather than directly provide effective instructional delivery and curriculum design. Achieving active and successful participation by Providing continual practice opportunities until knowledge/information to students. students are performing skills independently and all students. Guiding principles of Direct Instruction include with ease (independent practice). the belief that every child can learn if carefully Rosenshine (1986) provided highlights of research Reviewing previous week’s lesson at the beginning of Accomplish More in Less Time taught and that anyone can teach successfully on explicit instruction of well-defined knowledge and each week and reviewing what students have learned when given effective programs and instructional skills such as math procedures, grammatical rules, and With Explicit Instruction over the past four weeks at the end of each month. delivery techniques. Thus, ultimately it is you who is vocabulary. These highlights include daily instruction Students who qualify for special education services responsible for student learning (see Tarver, 1999 for techniques such as: Explicit instruction can be summarized as must be accelerated in their learning to catch up with unambiguous, clear, and direct teaching (Arrasmith, their grade-level peers. Thus, you must do more in further details). Starting every lesson by correcting the previous 2003). Show students what to do, provide less time. The goal of Direct Instruction is to do more in less day’s homework and reviewing what students opportunities to practice with feedback, and then time—accelerating student learning by carefully have recently been taught. provide opportunities to apply these skills on their own The most effective way to decrease the learning time for special needs students is through direct controlling instruction. A typical Direct Instruction over time. Describing the goals of today’s lesson. and explicit teaching of skills. Initially, you take full lesson includes: responsibility for student learning but gradually Explicit, carefully sequenced instruction (a model of relinquish responsibility as students become what students will do). successful. “This progression can be seen as a

continuum that moves from teacher modeling, Scaffolding before students complete a task on their own (guided practice). through guided practice using prompts and cues, to independent and fluent performance by the learner” Frequent opportunities for students to practice (Rosenshine, 1986, pg. 69). skills (independent practice). Repeated practice over time (review). FALL 2014—SPRING 2015 RIT SCORE GROWTH Average Growth of Intensive Students

12

10 11

8 8.5

6 6.5

2 Percentile Points Percentile 4.1 3.4 3.1 4

0

Expected Growth Actual Growth

4 5 Build Success through the Design White (1988) found 25 investigations where Direct Instruction was compared to some other and Delivery of Direct Instruction treatment. Not one of the 25 studies showed results The Unique Elements of Direct Instruction favoring the comparison groups; 53 percent of the outcomes significantly favored Direct Instruction Make the Difference with an average effect size of .84 (considered a Most academic programs require modifications large magnitude of change from pre- to post- to meet the needs of students who receive special assessments). education services (Carnine et al., 2004). These Adams and Engelmann (1996) analyzed 37 research modifications include: studies that compared Direct Instruction to other treatments. When those studies involving Identifying the most important tasks to teach in special education students (n = 21) were analyzed order to cover priority topics. separately, the mean effect size was .90 (considered a large magnitude of change from pre- to post- Providing clear directions on how to structure active assessments). student responses and teacher feedback. Forness, Kavale, Blum, and Lloyd (1997) conducted Determining where students should be placed and an analysis of various intervention programs for how to monitor progress. students receiving special education services and Adjusting the rate of instruction to ensure adequate found Direct Instruction to be one of only seven practice and mastery. interventions with strong evidence of success. Controlling the vocabulary/syntax used to ensure student understanding. Positive effects on at-risk populations have been noted by the American Federation of Teachers (1999), Program Design These modifications take time and energy to complete; American Institutes of Research (Herman et al., 1999), Careful Content Analysis The content in Direct Sequencing of Skills In Direct Instruction programs, essentially, programs must be changed to meet the and the Center for Research on the Education of Instruction programs is carefully analyzed to skills are taught in a cumulative and carefully unique needs of students who struggle. Students Placed at Risk (Borman, Hewes, Overman, identify central concepts, rules, strategies, and “big integrated scope and sequence to help students & Brown, 2002). Direct Instruction offers sufficient reach mastery level and generalize their learning In contrast, Direct Instruction programs do not require ideas” (those strategies that promote generalization validation as noted by Fuchs (1996) to warrant its use to new, untaught situations (AFT, 1999). Students teacher modification to achieve student success. The of learning). Thus, teachers do not have to develop with special education populations. lessons or modify curriculum to help students gain learn “rules” before exceptions and easy skills design and delivery of Direct Instruction programs proficiency in areas critical to success. before more difficult ones. Appropriate scaffolding make them effective and uniquely designed for special Thus, it is no surprise that Direct Instruction is often is utilized, moving students from teacher-directed Clear Communication The instructional language education populations. Direct Instruction programs referred to as a program for special education or at- activities to independent ones. used in Direct Instruction programs is carefully feature a unique program design, instructional risk students; however, it is important to note that written to be clear and consistent to reduce student Each Direct Instruction lesson organization, and presentation techniques that Direct Instruction is appropriate for talented and Track Instruction confusion. “Teacher talk” is kept to a minimum and consists of multiple “tracks” (strands) and skills make them highly successful for special education gifted students, grade-level students, and those with phrases used in teaching routines are repeatedly to teach the tracks. Rather than introduce skills populations. diverse language backgrounds or “learning styles” used. Instructional examples are introduced and in isolation, multiple tracks are taught in unison, (Watkins & Slocum, 2004). carefully planned to promote student success. and each is related to provide efficient instruction. Direct Instruction is Proven Effective for Teachers do not have to invent “learner friendly” Tracks ensure that: Three main components of McGraw-Hill Education instruction. Students with Special Needs Lessons are made up of several relatively Direct Instruction programs—program design, Clear Instructional Formats Direct Instruction short exercises. Elements of Direct Instruction That Make instructional organization, and presentation formats are teaching routines that model new Difficult tasks are interspersed with easier ones. the Difference techniques—make them uniquely effective for content, provide guided practice, and implement “More than any other commercially available special education populations. independent practice opportunities. As students New skills are interspersed with instructional program, Direct Instruction is supported master skills, formats evolve to accommodate their well-practiced skills. progress and growing independence. These formats by research” (Watkins & Slocum, 2004, pg. 57). Practice is distributed so that students do not are “written, tested, rewritten, retested—polished Several independent reviews of research add to this “forget” skills over time. in a cycle of classroom field testing and revision strong support with a particular focus on students that ends only when trials show that 90 percent with special needs (Carnine, Silbert, Kame’enui, & In track instruction, errors are reduced, and skill of students grasp a lesson the first time around” integration is enhanced. Tarver, 2004). For example: (AFT, 1999, pg. 4). Teachers do what they do best— teach—rather than develop instructional plans to try to ensure student success day after day.

6 7 Presentation Techniques Teaching to Mastery Direct Instruction programs are Students with Diverse Learning Needs engineered so that every student can perform every Seven aspects of Direct Instruction presentation skill without making a mistake. The exception is that In the earliest efforts to assess the effectiveness techniques for delivering instruction (also called students begin each new activity ready to achieve at of Direct Instruction for students with disabilities, teacher/student interactions) help to achieve superior least 80 percent accuracy on their first try, with 100 Gersten, Becker, Heiry, and White (1984) classified the outcomes with special education populations. percent accuracy after error correction. Individual data from 1,500 Direct Instruction Follow-Through turns and in-program assessments confirm that students into six IQ groups. Then achievement gains Active Student Participation Every minute each student has mastered the activity. Teaching to made by students in each of the groups were compared of instruction provides students with many mastery communicates that what is learned today is statistically to see if the growth patterns from year to opportunities to actively respond. Students important because it will be needed tomorrow. year differed for high IQ students as compared to low participate orally through unison (choral) responses, Motivation Success is motivating to even the IQ students. individual turns, and in writing. Active participation most challenging students. Direct Instruction ensures that each student gains ownership of lessons keep students focused and engaged. Results concepts and skills, and it reduces off-task behavior. New information in each lesson is minimal, while When Direct Instruction programs are implemented It is not surprising that the higher IQ students started the majority—80 to 90 percent—is review and correctly, there is no time to misbehave. with higher achievement in reading and math than the application. Students make few errors, success rates lower IQ students, nor is it surprising that at the end

Unison Responding Unison or choral responding are high, and enthusiasm for learning is enhanced. of third-grade students with higher IQs ended with is a key feature of Direct Instruction programs. The early introduction of Direct Instruction in these higher achievement. Instructional signals cue students to respond areas led to its use among students with special together, ensuring that each student practices all needs today. From 1968 to 1976, Direct Instruction However, the surprising result was that students in content. This feature is crucial for those students who was part of the largest educational study in U.S. all IQ groups had the same pattern of growth from struggle. It provides the maximum opportunity for history: Project Follow Through. After the success Kindergarten, to Grade 1, Grade 2, and Grade 3. students to practice each skill as it is being taught. of Head Start with at-risk preschool students, Those students with low IQs maintained consistent Instructional Organization Even error corrections are taught to the entire group. Students are not singled out in any way and Project Follow Through was designed to compare gains and gained the same amount per year as those

Instructional Grouping Direct Instruction programs feel “safe.” The lesson continues to move smoothly. educational approaches to determine best practice with higher IQs. These year-by-year results for the are generally presented to small groups—and can be All students practice the correct response again, and for instruction of low income, at-risk children in six IQ groups are illustrated in Figure 1 (reading) and used one-on-one—to provide intensive instruction everyone remains engaged. kindergarten through third grade. Figure 2 (mathematics). when promoting individual student growth. Students are placed in a group according to skill Signals Unison responding requires clear signals Much of the Project Follow-Through research took level and move in the program depending upon how to “cue” students to respond together. Direct place prior to national legislation requiring special rapidly they acquire skills and concepts. Instruction programs include a variety of signals education for students with disabilities. Although many to elicit student responses. Signals help to control Instructional Time Direct Instruction lessons children with severe disabilities were not included in pacing and provide adequate think time before schools at that time, students with mild disabilities— encourage rapid and constant interactions between students answer. Signaling is an effective technique learning disabilities, language delays, behavior teachers and students to maximize engagement. for minimizing students’ tendency to guess or blurt The objective is to keep students focused and out incorrect answers and for increasing automaticity problems, and slightly lower IQs were typically provide plenty of academic learning time—time of response. taught in general education classrooms. that students are engaged with a high degree of success—because academic learning time is “one of Instructional Pacing In a well-paced lesson, the the strongest predictors of student achievement” dialogue between teacher and students occurs as (Watkins and Slocum, 2004, pg. 42). a rapid interchange, allowing a smooth transition between activities. Direct Instruction teachers adjust

Continuous Assessment Student progress is pacing, so that is quick enough to keep students carefully monitored to ensure academic success and attending and on task but not so fast that they begin Summary to allow program individualization, a key element to guess and make errors. of effective special education (see Fuchs, 1996; Research shows strong evidence of success when Direct Instruction Fuchs & Fuchs, 1995). Placement tests ensure that Error Corrections Students must receive immediate programs are used with students with special needs. In fact, Direct students are taught at their optimal instructional corrective feedback when they make errors. All errors Instruction is one of only seven interventions proven effective levels. Ongoing, in-program assessments help track are corrected as soon as they occur using pre-planned (Forness, Kavale, Blum & Lloyd, 1997). With its research-supported progress and make data-informed instructional correction procedures within each Direct Instruction design and systematic delivery, Direct Instruction is often referred decisions, and mastery (goal) criteria help to program. Corrections are typically a “model-lead-test to as a program for special education or at-risk students. document achievement and monitor grade-level and re-test” sequence wherein the teacher shows benchmark progress. students how to perform a task, practice it with Direct Instruction programs are structured for success, them, test their knowledge, and then come back to and successful students are motivated to continue the check understanding after a little time has passed. path of achievement.

8 9 Part II: Description of Research Review and Project Follow Through

If information is missing from the tables, it was not provided in the studies. Project Follow Through Search procedures for the articles in this review Background included: A number of independent reviews of research show that Direct Instruction is effective for teaching

Hand searches of all issues of publications produced students with special needs (e.g., Adams & Engelmann, by the Association for Direct Instruction (www. 1996; AFT, 1999; Borman et al., 2002; White, 1988). adihome.org), which includes ADI News, DI News, However, Direct Instruction was not initially used for Effective School Practices, and Journal of Direct students with special needs. Direct Instruction was Instruction. first introduced to: Ancestral searches of references in key Direct Instruction texts including Research on Direct Teach young, at-risk children. Instruction: 25 Years Beyond DISTAR (Adams & Engelmann, 1996), Designing Effective Mathematics Accelerate learning. Instruction: A Direct Instruction Approach (Stein, Prevent failure. Silbert, & Carnine, 1997), Direct Instruction

Reading (Carnine et al., 2004), and Introduction to Close gaps. Direct Instruction (Marchand-Martella et al., 2004). Elevate the learning of those with lower IQs. ERIC and PsycINFO computerized searches using terms related to Direct Instruction. The early introduction of Direct Instruction in these areas led to its use among students with special needs Examination of references listed in SRA-produced today. From 1968 to 1976, Direct Instruction was part research overviews, including Corrective Reading of the largest educational study in U.S. history: Project Overview (Grossen, 1998), Reading Mastery® (Schieffer, Marchand-Martella, Martella, & Simonsen, 2002), Follow Through. After the success of Head Start with This research includes an analysis of published Investigations were grouped within special education spelling programs (Simonsen, Gunter, & Marchand- at-risk preschool students, Project Follow Through investigations where Direct Instruction programs were population areas by academic program (i.e., language, Martella, 2001), and mathematics programs was designed to compare educational approaches to used with special education populations. Specifically, reading, spelling, writing, and mathematics), where (Przychodzin, 2004). determine best practice for instruction of low income, the review centered on two populations of students appropriate. This research includes tables of study at-risk children in kindergarten through third grade. with special needs: details. Each table identifies: Much of the Project Follow Through research took 1. High-incidence disabilities The study’s researchers and year of publication. place prior to national legislation requiring special education for students with disabilities. Although many Direct Instruction programs used. Learning disabilities children with severe disabilities were not included in

Communication disorders Number of participating students. schools at that time, students with mild disabilities— learning disabilities, language delays, behavior Behavior disorders Participant information including disability, mean age and age range, and intelligence quotient (IQ) problems, and slightly lower IQs—were typically Mild developmental disabilities and IQ range. taught in general education classrooms. Research design. 2. Low-incidence disabilities Research purpose. Intervention details. Autism Outcome measures. Traumatic brain injuries Findings. Moderate to severe developmental disabilities

10 11 Part III: Direct Instruction Research with Students With Diverse Learning Needs Results Students with High-Incidence Disabilities In the earliest efforts to assess the effectiveness It is not surprising that the higher IQ students started of Direct Instruction for students with disabilities, with higher achievement in reading and math than the Gersten, Becker, Heiry, and White (1984) classified the lower IQ students, nor is it surprising that at the end data from 1,500 Direct Instruction Follow-Through of third-grade students with higher IQs ended with students into six IQ groups. Then achievement gains higher achievement. made by students in each of the groups were compared statistically to see if the growth patterns from year to However, the surprising result was that students in year differed for high IQ students as compared to low all IQ groups had the same pattern of growth from IQ students. kindergarten to third grade. Those students with low IQs maintained consistent gains and gained the same amount per year as those with higher IQs. These year- by-year results for the six IQ groups are illustrated in Figure 1 (reading) and Figure 2 (mathematics).

FIGURE 1: READING FIGURE 2: MATHEMATICS

100 100

90 90

80 80

70 70 60 60 Overview 50 50 This section reviews studies specific to students with These 37* studies also investigated a range of 40 40 Percentiles Percentiles high-incidence disabilities. Thirty-seven studies were Direct Instruction programs including: 30 30 used spanning the mid-1970s to 2005: 20 20 DISTAR (Reading, Language, and Arithmetic) (n = 9)

10 10 The participants in the majority of these studies Reading Mastery® (n = 5) 0 0 (n = 22) were students with learning disabilities; PreK K 1 2 3 1 2 3 16 of these 22 studies specifically identified Horizons (n = 1) Results of Direct Instruction on Reading as Measured by the Results of Direct Instruction on Math as Measured by the participants as learning disabled; the remaining six Corrective Reading (n = 17) Wide Range Achievement Test for Students with Diverse IQ Metropolitan Achievement Test for Students with Diverse IQ studies were earlier investigations, some taking Scores. Adapted from Gersten et al. (1984). Scores. Adapted from Gersten et al. (1984). place in other countries but the descriptions of Language for Learning (n = 1) the participants matched those of students with Language for Writing (n = 1) IQ Under 71 IQ 71–90 IQ 91–100 IQ 101–110 IQ 111–120 IQ 121 learning disabilities. Reasoning and Writing (n = 1) Seven of the 22 investigations not only included

students with learning disabilities but also those Spelling Mastery (n = 2) with behavior disorders, mild cognitive disabilities, Morphographic Spelling (now called Spelling Through other health impairments, and/or traumatic brain Morphographs) (n = 2) Summary injuries as well. Connecting Math Concepts (n = 1) These results provide evidence that Direct Instruction is appropriate One study’s participants were low socioeconomic status (SES) children with mild cognitive disabilities. *The number of studies does not equal 37 because some for and effective with a wide variety of students. In reading, the group studies included more than one Direct Instruction program with the lowest IQ scores (under 70) improved nearly as much each Eight studies included preschoolers who were or more than one age group. year in reading as students with much higher IQ scores. In math, the not yet categorically identified. These children results were even more pronounced—the growth rate for all groups were often described as language or of students corresponds to one grade equivalent for each year in developmentally delayed. school. In addition, because students in Project Follow-Through were Five studies identified school-aged students simply taught in small groups, the gains of students with lower IQ scores as mildly disabled, developmentally delayed, or were not made at the expense of other students. eligible for special education.

12 13 These 37 studies included not only a wide range of Cole et al. (1991) found no statistically significant TABLE 1: LANGUAGE RESEARCH WITH PRESCHOOLERS WITH HIGH-INCIDENCE DISABILITIES Direct Instruction programs and participants, but differences between the DI and ML group on any Research Intervention also varying age/grade ranges from three years, two language, cognitive, or other measure except for the Study D1 Program (N) Participants Outcome Measures Findings months to high school. The majority of the studies Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (PPVT-R) Design/Purpose Details (n = 28) included: Standard Score favoring the ML group. Additionally, Cole & Dale DISTAR Language I (44) Experimental — DISTAR Language I and Columbia Mental Maturity Statistically significant differences (1986) Pretest-posttest control Interactive Language Scale, Carrow Auditory-Visual were noted between pretest and Preschool children with language group Instruction implemented Abilities Test, Language samples posttest for both groups on every children who scored higher on pretests of cognitive delays ranging in age from 2 2 hours a day, 5 days (Mean Length of Utterance, measure except developmental years, 10 months to 5 years, 9 Determining the Elementary school-aged students (n = 22) ability and language gained more from DI programs per week for 32 weeks. developmental sentence sentence scoring. No statistically months (mean age 4 years, 6 relative effects of the Student to teacher ratio scoring), Preschool Language significant difference between the months) DISTAR Language I and in language development, while lower-performing was 4 to 1. Scale (Auditory Comp. and Verbal effectiveness of the programs Middle school-aged students (n = 6) Interactive Language IQ range 52 to 109 Abilities subscales and Overall was found. children gained more from ML. Cole et al. (1993) Instruction programs score), Basic Language Concepts with preschool and Test, Northwest Syntax Screening Participants in eight of the studies were preschool- also found that higher-performing children gained Kindergarten children with Test (Receptive subtest), language delays. aged, kindergarten children. Finally, six studies more from DI; however, in this study there were no Northwestern Syntax Screening Test (Expressive subtest), and included high-school aged students. statistically significant differences between the groups Peabody Picture Vocabulary on any measure. In contrast, Dale and Cole (1988) Test-Revised. Overall, in only three of the 37 studies did students found that higher-performing children did better on who were instructed with other materials fare better Cole, Dale, & DISTAR Language, (107) Experimental — Implemented DISTAR Peabody Picture Vocabulary Both groups had gains on several the posttest in ML while lower-performing children did Mills (1991) DISTAR Arithmetic, Pretest-posttest control Language, DISTAR Test-Revised (PPVT-R), Test of measures. No statistically significant Children (ages 3 to 7 years, than the students who received Direct Instruction. and DISTAR group Arithmetic, and DISTAR Early Language Development, differences were found between the better on the posttest in DI. Dale and Cole also found mean 5.0) with mild to moderate Reading Reading (DI), and Preschool Language Assessment two programs except for the PPVT-R developmental delays Determining the relative Mediated Learning (ML) Inventory (PLAI), Mean Length Standard Score favoring the ML that each program had at least one measure on which effectiveness of Direct *The number of studies does not equal 37 because some studies 2 hours a day, 5 days per of Utterance, Basic Language group. Higher performing children Instruction programs it was superior. week for 180 school days Concepts Test, and McCarthy on MSCA General Cognitive Index included more than one Direct Instruction program or more than versus Mediated Learning (preschool) and 5.5 hours Scales of Children’s Abilities and PLAI pretest measures benefited with preschool and a day, 5 days per week (MSCA). more from Direct Instruction whereas one age group Kindergarten children In a more recent study, Waldron-Soler et al. (2002) over 180 school days lower performing children benefited with mild to moderate (kindergarten). Program more from Mediated Learning. investigated the effects ofLanguage for Learning, the developmental delays. provided over a 4 year Direct Instruction Language Research new, accelerated version of DISTAR Language I. This period. Five studies used Direct Instruction with preschool- investigation found that 15 weeks of instruction with Cole, Dale, DISTAR Language, (164) Experimental — Implemented DISTAR Peabody Picture Vocabulary No statistically significant differences aged children with high-incidence disabilities (see Language for Learning resulted in children outperforming Mills, & Jenkins DISTAR Arithmetic, Pretest-posttest control Language, DISTAR Test-Revised, Test of Early were found between the two Children with developmental (1993) and DISTAR group Arithmetic, and DISTAR Language Development, Test of programs on any measures. delays in language (3 to 7 years Table 1 on pg. 15). Children in these studies were the comparison group who received traditional Reading Reading (DI), and Early Reading Ability, McCarthy Higher performing children gained old, mean age 4.75 years) Determining the relative Mediated Learning (ML) Scales of Children’s Abilities, significantly more in the Direct eligible for special education services, often identified preschool instruction on receptive language and social effectiveness of Direct Mean IQ 76.03 2 hours a day, 5 days per Preschool Language Assessment Instruction program although these Instruction programs in the general category of developmentally delayed or week for 180 school days Inventory, Mean Length of gains were modest. interaction skills. versus Mediated Learning (preschool) and 5.5 hours Utterance, and Basic Language with preschool and language delayed. Each of these studies focused on a day, 5 days per week Concepts Test. Kindergarten children over 180 school days with mild to moderate language instruction. (Kindergarten). Program developmental delays. provided over a 4 year Four of these studies comprised a series of period. investigations involving DISTAR Language (now called Dale & Cole DISTAR Language, (83) Experimental — Implemented DISTAR McCarthy Scales of Children’s The DI group scored significantly Language for Learning) contrasted with other language (1988) DISTAR Arithmetic, Pretest-posttest control Language, DISTAR Math, Abilities, Peabody Picture higher on Tests of Early Language Preschool (N = 61, ages 3 years and DISTAR group and DISTAR Reading (DI), Vocabulary Test-Revised, Test of Development and the Basic to 5 years 11 months of age) and approaches. The first study in the series (i.e., Cole & Reading and Mediated Learning Early Language Development, Language Concepts Test while kindergarten/primary (N = 22, Determining the relative (ML) 2 hours a day, 5 days Mean Length of Utterance, Basic the ML group scored significantly ages 6 to 8) developmentally effectiveness of Direct Dale, 1986) compared DISTAR Language to interactive per week for 180 school Language Concepts Test, Test of higher on the McCarthy Verbal and delayed children Instruction programs days (preschool) and 5.5 Early Reading Ability, Test of Early Memory Scales and Mean Length language instruction that incorporated language versus Mediated Learning hours a day, 5 days per Mathematics Ability, and Stanford of Utterance. Higher performing with preschool and throughout daily activities; no statistically significant week over 180 school Early School Achievement Test. children did better on the posttest Kindergarten children days (kindergarten). in Mediated Learning, while lower with mild to moderate differences were found. Thus, both groups performed Implemented over 1 performing children did better on developmental delays. academic year. the posttest in Direct Instruction similarly. programs on 18 of the 24 analyses (although the authors reported Later studies (i.e., Cole et al., 1991; Cole, Dale, Mills, these results did not reach statistical significance). & Jenkins, 1993; Dale & Cole, 1988) examined the effectiveness of a Direct Instruction package including Waldron-Soler, Language for (36) Quasi-experimental — Language for Learning Peabody Picture Vocabulary Children with disabilities instructed Martella, Learning Nonequivalent control implemented for 15 Test-Third Edition (PPVT-3), with Language for Learning made Preschool children (3 to 5 years DISTAR Language, Reading, and Arithmetic (DI) and Marchand- group weeks. Expressive Vocabulary Test, greater gains than the comparison of age) Martella, and Social Skills Rating System group on all three measures. Mediated Learning (ML), a program that focused Investigating the Warner, Miller, 28 typical children, 8 with (SSRS): Preschool Teacher Children without disabilities made differential effects & Tso (2002) developmental delays: Questionnaire. greater gains on all three measures; on interactive cognitive processes like comparisons, of the Language for however, there was a statistically Learning program and classification, and changing perspective, rather than Preschool A (12 children without significant increase on the PPVT-3 standard early childhood developmental delay, 4 children and SSRS versus the comparison education programs with emphasizing specific academic content. Table 1 (on pg. with developmental delay), group. Preschool B (16 children without preschoolers with and 15) provides the details of these studies. developmental delays), and without developmental Preschool C (4 children with delays. developmental delays)

14 15 DISTAR Reading / Reading TABLE 2: READING MASTERY/DISTAR RESEARCH WITH STUDENTS Mastery Research WITH HIGH-INCIDENCE DISABILITIES This research includes 10 studies with school-aged Haring and Krug (1975) investigated the efficacy of Research Design/ Intervention Outcome Study DI Program (N) Participants Findings populations that include DISTAR Reading or Reading DISTAR Reading supplemented with precision teaching Purpose Details Measures Mastery, the revised and extended Direct Instruction compared to traditional reading instruction. Low Branwhite DISTAR Reading II (14) Phase I: Quasi-experimental — Phase I: 55 days of DISTAR Schonell’s Graded Word Phase I: DISTAR Reading group (1983) Non-equivalent control group Reading II, comparison Reading Test. scored statistically significantly better socioeconomic status (SES) students with mild Likely learning disabilities Phase II: Pre-experimental — One group received Diagnostic- than the DPR comparison group. reading program (See Table 2 on page 17): from description 8 and 9 group, pretestposttest Prescriptive Remediation (DPR) Phase II: Both groups’ achievement cognitive disabilities (mean IQ = 72.3) who were years (mean = 8 years, 7 with phonics focus. Phase II: was similar with DISTAR Reading the Seven of the 10 studies compared DISTAR Reading or months) IQs from 74–108 Investigating the efficacy of Direct Both groups received DISTAR major contributor to both. in self-contained special education placements (mean = 92) Instruction reading in the UK. Reading II. Reading Mastery to other approaches. participated in this study. Interestingly, not only Cooke, Gibbs, Reading Mastery Fast (30) Quasi-experimental— Each teacher taught Reading Woodcock Johnson-Revised Students in both programs made One study described the effects of Reading Mastery did the students who received DISTAR Reading Campbell, & Cycle and Horizons Nonequivalent control group Mastery and Horizons to small (WJ-R) — Broad Reading statistically significant gains from Shalvis (2004) Fast Track A-B Learning disabilities, groups of 2–5 students daily Score and Basic Reading pretest to posttest on WJ-R and and Corrective Reading. intellectual and Comparing differences in reading for 2 years. Score, North Carolina NC Literacy Assessment. Reading supplemented with precision teaching perform better developmental gains with two Direct Instruction Literacy Assessment, Mastery students scored better but dissabilities, behavior reading programs. teacher interviews. not significantly. Teachers preferred Two Reading Mastery studies went beyond the on standardized reading posttests—as compared to disorders, and other Horizons. health impairments 3rd question of the efficacy of Direct Instruction the students who did not receive instruction—but also and 4th graders (mean age: Reading Mastery = reading. In addition, they explored supplementing one-third of these students returned to the general 8.0 and Horizons = 8.3) Reading Mastery with Spelling and comparing two education classrooms due to adequate reading levels. Chamberlain Reading Mastery and (120) Pre-experimental — One group Classroom teacher reported 7 Schonnel Reading Inventory, On average, students gained about Direct Instruction reading programs. (Note: None of the students who received regular (1987)) Corrective Reading pretest/posttest years of evaluation data when Classroom Reading 1.5 months for every month of Learning disabilities and Reading Mastery and Corrective Inventory (CRI). instruction. “struggling students” 1st Describing the effects of two Reading were used. classroom instruction returned to general to 6th grade Direct Instruction reading Most students across these studies were in Grades programs in learning assistance education placements.) classrooms in Victoria, British K–6 and were identified as learning disabled or would Columbia from 1980–1986. meet the definition of learning disabilities (e.g., O’Connor and Jenkins (1995) found that Reading Haring & Krug DISTAR Reading I (54) Experimental — Pretest-posttest DISTAR Reading I supplemented Wide Range Achievement On WRAT, DISTAR + Sullivan group other countries). This finding is not surprising given Mastery supplemented with spelling resulted in (1975) control group with the Sullivan Programmed Test (WRAT), return gained 13.5 months in reading in 8 Intellectual and Reading Series, in the control to general education months. The other group made 4.5 that specific learning disability is the largest special improved reading of words from Reading Mastery as well developmental Evaluating systematic instruction group teachers had access to classroom. months gain. A return to general dissabilities 9 to 12 years for poverty students with mild, a variety of materials, one year education occurred for 8 of 24 education category coupled with the fact that Reading as improved scores on tests of word identification and (mean IQ = 72.3 for cognitive disabilities. implementation. DISTAR + Sullivan group participants, DISTAR group; 71.9 for 0 for control group. is the area where most of these students experience decoding of pseudo-words. other group) difficulty (Meese, 2001). Kuder (1990) DISTAR Reading (48) Quasi-experimental — Static 2-year study comparing DISTAR Woodcock Reading Mastery Year 1: No statistically significant More recently, Cooke, Gibbs, Campbell, and Shalvis group comparison Reading to a number of basals, Test. differences were noted. Year 2: Both Learning disabilities 18 students received DISTAR DISTAR groups made greater gains Chamberlain (1987) presented seven years of program (2004) compared reading achievement of students (mean age = 8 years, 10 Examining the effectiveness of for 2 years, 8 received 1 year than basal — only group but not months) Direct Instruction reading. of basal followed by a year of statistically significant. evaluation data on Reading Mastery and Corrective with mild disabilities taught with the accelerated DISTAR, and 8 received 2 years of basal reading (basal only). Reading with elementary-aged students with learning versions of Reading Mastery (Fast Cycle) and Horizons

disabilities or “slow learners” in learning assistance (Fast Track). Both groups made significant gains on Marston, Deno, Reading Mastery (176) Experimental — Pretest-posttest Six interventions — 1) generic Reading CBM. Student achievement was highest in Kim, Diment, & control group direct instruction with Holt 2) CAI, reciprocal teaching, and generic classrooms in Victoria, British Columbia. Chamberlain the state literacy exam and the reading subtests of the Rogers (1995) Mild disabilities 1st to 6th Reading Mastery 3) reciprocal direct instruction with Holt. grade, (mean = 3.6 grade) Translating research into practice teaching 4) peer tutoring 5) reported that students gained an average of one and Woodcock Johnson— Revised: Tests of Achievement. and determining the efficacy computer-assisted instruction across interventions. (CAI) 6) effective teaching. half months for each month of instruction. A comparison of the two groups showed small

differences favoring theReading Mastery students; O’Connor, Reading Mastery (81) Experimental — Pretest-posttest Kindergarten 30 min. daily Test of Early Reading Few statistically significant One study (Branwhite, 1983) illustrating the impact of Jenkins, Cole, & control group instruction in homogenous Abilities (TERA), Portions differences were found. Reading however, these differences were not statistically Mills (1993) Developmental delays groups of two to four, 4 years of California Achievement Mastery group performed DISTAR Reading, was conducted in the United Kingdom (mean Reading Mastery = Determining the contribution of data collected, in either Test (CAT), Subtests of significantly better on the sounds significant. 6.2; Superkids = 6.3) of instructional design to two Reading Mastery or Superkids the Peabody Individual subtest of the CAT and on the PIAT phonics-based beginning reading 13-26 sounds were taught. Achievement Test (PIAT). spelling subtest. with students who fit the common description programs. of learning disabilities. This study compared the Only one of the 10 studies found that a comparison group outperformed the students who were taught O’Connor & Reading Mastery (10) Experimental — Pretest-posttest All students taught Reading Phonological blending No differences were found in effectiveness ofDISTAR Reading II to Diagnostic Jenkins (1995) control group Mastery; one intervention group and segmenting, Reading blending and segmenting. The Developmental delays received individual spelling Mastery (RM) word and spelling group significantly Prescriptive Remediation (DPR) with eight- and nine- with Direct Instruction reading programs. Marston Kindergarten children Determining if spelling with instruction for 20 min. for 1 pseudo-word reading, outperformed the control group on phonics-based reading would month; control group received Woodcock Reading Mastery word reading and pseudo-word year old students who were described as delayed et al. (1995) examined six promising interventions encourage application & transfer. 20 min. of additional reading for Test Revised (WRMT). reading and did better on Word in reading (pg. 293). Both DISTAR groups scored for elementary students with mild disabilities. The the month. Identification WRMT subtest.

significantly higher on reading tests than the students interventions were implemented for only 10 weeks Richardson, DISTAR Reading (72) Experimental — Pretest-posttest Intervention group received Peabody Individual Both groups made gains but there DiBenedetto, control group DISTAR Reading, control Achievement Test (PIAT), were no statistically significant taught with DPR. At that point, the DPR group was and students taught with computer-assisted learning, Christ, Press, Likely learning disabilities group received Integrated Gilmore Oral Reading Test. differences between the groups on & Winsberg from description (mean Assessing two reading Skills Method (ISM) combining any reading measure. placed in DISTAR Reading. The group who originally reciprocal teaching, and generic direct instruction (1978) age: DI = 10 years, 0 approaches. thematic and eclectic teacher months; IMS = 9 years, 11 designed methods, small received DPR made significant growth in Direct outperformed students taught with Reading Mastery. months) (mean IQ: DI = 81; group instruction, 45 min. daily, IMS = 83) average of 63 days. Instruction in DISTAR Reading and, in fact, caught up

with the group who received Direct Instruction from Stein & DISTAR Reading (63) Quasi-experimental — 60 min daily instruction, Peabody Individual DISTAR group performed statistically Goldman (1980) Nonequivalent control group approximately 11-month Achievement Test (PIAT). significantly higher on posttest. the start. Learning disabilities 6 to intervention, two programs 8 years (mean IQ DISTAR Comparing the effects of two included DISTAR Reading and = 98.7; Palo Alto = 101.4) reading programs. Palo Alto.

16 17 Corrective Reading Research Sixteen studies were found that included Corrective Reading with students with high-incidence disabilities. As seen in Table 3 (on pg. 20), most participants were Coming from a ‘whole-language only’ specifically identified as having learning disabilities or upbringing, I was very skeptical about whose descriptions matched the definition of learning disabilities (i.e., other countries). Most investigations Direct Instruction. Now, I have several were conducted in elementary and/or middle school years with Reading Mastery®…children settings. One study investigated the effects of the are reading stories they thought they’d amount of teacher training on student performance. never read! Eight of these studies compared the relative effectiveness ofCorrective Reading to other programs. Principal, Tacoma, Washington Results showed that students who received Corrective Reading significantly outperformed comparison groups in all but one of these studies (Lewis, 1982). Results of one of two studies conducted by Lewis found that both the Corrective Reading group and English Colour Code (a reading intervention program) group outperformed the school’s own remedial program. However, results of the second study found that gains for all three groups were similar.

FIGURE 3 Six studies evaluated the effectiveness ofCorrective weeks of training fared better than the students whose 20 Reading by comparing pretest and posttest scores. Each teachers received one week of training. of these studies reported that students who received Corrective Reading made gains. Polloway, Epstein, Finally, Marchand-Martella, Martella, Orlob, and Polloway, Patton, and Ball (1986) found that students Ebey (2000) examined the issue of implementation of Corrective Reading at the high school level, where 16 with learning disabilities and developmental disabilities made significantly greater gains withCorrective Reading scheduling and grouping are often challenging. The than they had made in the previous year when they authors found that high-school students in Honors were taught with different materials. English, when properly trained, could effectively teach Corrective Reading to freshman in special education. 12 One study (i.e., Edlund & Ogle, 1988) investigated This study suggests that with careful training, parents, different levels of teacher training for implementation volunteers, and peers can effectively tutor struggling of Corrective Reading and Morphographic Spelling (currently readers using the Corrective Reading program. published as Spelling Through Morphographs) as well as Average Gain in Months Average 8 two non-Direct Instruction programs. Teachers in the control group studied the manuals on their own. One group received six weeks of training and another group got one week of training. The students instructed by 4 each group of teachers were pretested and posttested. The students whose teachers studied the manuals on their own (control group) demonstrated losses in reading and spelling. Students whose teachers had six First 55 days Last 55 days Days of Instruction

Average Gain in months for each group across days of instruction

18 19 TABLE 3: LANGUAGE RESEARCH WITH PRESCHOOLERS WITH HIGH-INCIDENCE DISABILITIES TABLE 3, CONTINUED

Research Design/ Intervention Outcome Research Design/ Intervention Outcome Study DI Program (N) Participants Findings Study DI Program (N) Participants Findings Purpose Details Measures Purpose Details Measures

Arthur (1988) Corrective Reading (6) Pre-experimental — One-group Provided students Corrective Test of Language Large gains in standard scores and Lloyd, Cullinan, Corrective Reading: (23) Experimental — Posttest only Study took place over 1 Slosson Intelligence Test, On both measures, the Corrective pretestposttest Reading Decoding and Development, Test of grade equivalents were seen on all Heins, & Decoding A & B; & control group school year; one group Gilmore Oral Reading Test. Reading group scored significantly Learning disabilities Comprehension over a 1 year Reading Comprehension, measures. Epstein (1980) Comp. A Learning disabilities received Corrective Reading higher. Junior-high school Determining the effects of academic period. Test of Written Language, Elementary aged (9 Comparing the effects of while other group received students Grades 7 and 8 Corrective Reading with Sequential Test of years, 9 months to 10 Corrective Reading with teacher-developed language Age range 12.2 to 14.2 junior-high school special Educational Progress, years, 4 months) individual and small group instruction based on district education students. Woodcock-Johnson instruction in a variety of areas. guidelines and Houghton- Psycho- Educational Mifflin reading. Battery, Wide Range Achievement Test. Malmgren & Corrective Reading (45) Pre-experimental — One group 6 weeks, 45 min. per day, Gray Oral Reading Test Overall, positive results were Leone (2000) among other pretestposttest 5 days per week. Teachers (GORT-3) subtests (i.e., Rate, noted. Statistically significant gains Benner, Kinder, Corrective Reading (41) Quasi-experimental — One group received Corrective Woodcock-Johnson Corrective Reading did significantly programs Incarcerated males, delivered an intensive Accuracy, Passage, and on Rate, Accuracy, and Passage Beaudoin, Decoding B1 Nonequivalent control group Reading taught by students Achievement Tests-III, better than comparison on all 20 receiving special Determining the effects of Corrective Reading program to Comprehension). subtests were found. Gains were Stein, & Learning disabilities, and cooperating teachers DIBELS, Child Behavior measures; significant decrease education services Corrective Reading with incarcerated youth. made on Comprehension subtest Hirschmann (in behavior disorders, Title Comparing the effects of for 4 months; other group Checklist: Teacher Form. in the number of treatment Average age = 17.07 incarcerated youth. but they did not reach statistical press) 1 Elementary school and Corrective Reading with another received current reading nonresponders. years (Range = significance. middle school students reading intervention. program. 13.92–18.75) EBD (N = (Grades 3–8) 10), LD (N = 7), and MR (N = 3)

Campbell Corrective Reading (55) Quasi-experimental — Corrective Reading program Woodcock Reading Mastery Corrective Reading group made (1984) Nonequivalent pretestposttest provided to the experimental Test. greater grade-equivalent and Marchand- Corrective Reading (22) Pre-experimental — One group Honors English students Gates-MacGinitie Reading Grade equivalent scores improved Poor readers, likely control group group 50 minutes per day for standard score gains than did Martella, Decoding pretest-posttest taught one-on-one, 3 days Tests, measures of reading for B1 group in vocabulary, learning disabilities 6 to 9 months. the comparison group. Further, Martella, Special education per week, 80 days; students fluency. B2 and C in vocabulary and (more than 1 standard Assessing the effects of the the students initially at a higher Orlob, & Ebey students 9th graders Investigating the effects of completed 39–53 lessons of comprehension; oral reading deviation below the Corrective Reading program vs. reading level made greater gains (2000) Corrective Reading as delivered Corrective Reading Decoding fluency for B1 and B2 increased. mean) Grades 7 and 8 regular English classes. than did the students initially at a by peer instructors. programs. lower reading level.

Polloway, Corrective Reading: (119) Pre-experimental — One group Study took place over 1 Peabody Individual Students’ gains were significantly Drakeford Corrective Reading (6) Single-case — Multiple baseline 8 weeks, 1 hour per day, 3 Measures of oral reading All participants demonstrated Epstein, Decoding A, B, and C pretestposttest school year, daily small group Achievement Test. greater with Corrective Reading (2002) across participants days per week. Teachers fluency, Rhody-Secondary positive gains on oral reading Polloway, Middle and high school instruction provided, middle than in previous year. Students Incarcerated males delivered the Corrective Reading Attitude fluency measures. Positive trends Patton, & Ball Learning disabilities Investigating the effects of and high school students with learning disabilities improved Average age = 17 years Investigating the effects Reading program to Assessment (RSRA). were noted in attitudes toward (1986) (N = 78); educable Corrective Reading; determining taught by teachers using at a greater rate than students All participants had a of Corrective Reading with incarcerated youth. reading instruction. developmental if handicapping condition Corrective Reading. with educable developmental history of educational incarcerated males. Participant 1 completed disabilities (N = 41) interacted with treatment. disabilities. disabilities and/or 24 lessons, Participant (Learning disabilities had received special 2 completed 19 lessons, mean age = 15 years, education services Participant 3 completed 7 months; educable 18 lessons, Participant 4 developmental completed 22 lessons, disabilities mean age Participant 5 completed 19 = 16 years, 0 months) lessons, and Participant 6 (Learning disabilities completed 17 lessons. mean IQ = 87; educable developmental disabilities mean IQ = 62.5) Edlund & Ogle Corrective Reading, (6*)(48**) Experimental — Pretest-posttest Two teachers received 6 Wide Range Achievement Results indicated that students (1988) Morphographic control group weeks of training, 2 teachers Test. whose teachers had more training Spelling, and other Teachers with 6.5 years received 1 week of training, had greater standard score non-DI programs of special education Comparing the differential and 2 teachers received increases in reading and spelling. Scarlato & Corrective Reading: (9) Quasi-experimental — 19 weeks of instruction, 5 Woodcock Reading Mastery Majority of students in Corrective experience Students effects of amount of no formal training (studied Asahara (2004) Decoding B2 Nonequivalent control group students received instruction Test–Revised. Reading group had moderate with learning disabilities teacher training on student Adjudicated youth using Corrective Reading to large gains on standardized manual on their own). Emotional/ behavioral Comparing the effects of (12- to 19- years-old, IQ performance. Students received a variety Decoding Level B2 while measures. Majority of students in range 90 to 100) disorders; learning Corrective Reading and reading the other group received comparison group demonstrated of instructional materials disabilities 16 to 17 years specialist group. including Corrective Reading. instruction developed by a moderate to large losses on reading specialist (RS). standardized measures.

Gregory, Corrective Reading (19) Quasi-experimental — One group received Corrective Daniels & Diack Test of Corrective Reading group did Hackney, & Decoding B Nonequivalent control group Reading; comparison group Reading, behavior surveys, significantly better than the Somerville & Corrective Reading (40) Experimental — Pretest-posttest 12 weeks, groups received 1 hr. Tests of reading, On the reading test, Corrective Gregory (1982) Likely learning received the current remedial attendance records. comparison group in reading gains, Leach (1988) control group of teacher-directed instruction psychomotor skills, and Reading students scored disabilities Mean age: Comparing the effects of Learning disabilities per week and 15 min. of self-esteem measures. significantly higher than other three reading class; 4 periods per behavior, and attendance. (mean age = 10 years, 11 Comparing the effects of Corrective Reading Corrective Reading with the week for 5 months. daily homework, parents groups. No significant differences group = 11 years, 9 school’s own remedial program months) Corrective Reading with monitored or taught. Groups: on psychomotor or self-esteem months; comparison in Britain. psycho-motor, self-esteem, and 1) Psychomotor 2) Self-esteem measures were found. group = 11 year, 10 control groups. 3) Corrective Reading 4) No months intervention.

Holdsworth Corrective Reading (15) Pre-experimental — One group Provided Corrective Reading, Neale Analysis of Reading Large improvements in Thomson (1992) Corrective Reading (255) Quasi-experimental — Corrective Reading, traditional Woodcock-Johnson Corrective Reading students had (1984-85) Decoding B and C pretestposttest Decoding B to 9 students Ability. reading accuracy and reading Nonequivalent control group basal approach, and Individual Achievement greater standard score gains and Students placed in a over a period of 4 months and comprehension grade equivalent Learning disabilities whole language approach Tests, Dolch Story Reading larger increases in words read per school for students with Determining the effects of Decoding C to 6 students over scores. Elementary and Comparing Corrective Reading implemented for 1 academic Test. minute than the other two reading special needs in the Corrective Reading with the 2.5 months. middleschool students to a traditional basal approach year. group students. United Kingdom students with special needs in and a whole language the United Kingdom. approach.

Lewis (1982) Corrective Reading (41) Experimental — Pretest-posttest One group received Corrective Neale Analysis of Reading, Corrective Reading group made Thorne (1978) Corrective Reading (13) Pre-experimental — One group 35 lessons of the Corrective Neale Analysis of Reading. After 35 lessons, Group 1 made Decoding B control group Reading; one group received oral reading miscue significantly greater gains than pretestposttest Reading program were gains in reading accuracy. Group Likely learning “novelty” program (The analysis (comparison traditional remedial group. Junior maladjusted boys taught to two groups of 2 made gains in reading accuracy disabilities 11- to English Colour Code); another of self-corrections to Novelty program group made in England Age range = Investigating the effects boys by the same teacher. A and reading comprehension. 12-year-olds group received traditional substitutions). gains similar to Corrective Reading 8 to 12 years of Corrective Reading with contractbased system was remedial program. Length group. Corrective Reading group maladjusted boys in England. used. of program was 7-16 months demonstrated a significant increase (Study 1) and 8 months in self-corrections on miscue (Study 2). analysis.

20 21 Direct Instruction Writing TABLE 4: WRITING AND SPELLING RESEARCH WITH and Spelling Research STUDENTS WITH HIGH-INCIDENCE DISABILITIES

Our search identified five studies using Direct Recently, Martella and Waldron-Soler (in press) Research Design/ Intervention Outcome Study DI Program (N) Participants Findings Instruction spelling and writing programs (See Table conducted a year-and-a-half program evaluation of Purpose Details Measures

4 on pg. 23). The participants in four studies were Language for Writing that included 21 special education Anderson & Reasoning and (10) Pre-experimental — One group 25 lessons of Reasoning and Test of Written Language-2 Educationally important gains Keel (2002) Writing pretest-posttest Writing Level C were taught in (TOWL-2). were found. students with learning disabilities whose age ranged elementary students. All students were pretested Learning disabilities; 6 weeks. behavior disorders 4th Determining the gains using and 5th graders Reasoning and Writing for a from eight to 11 years. Two studies, in addition to and posttested using the Test of Written Language–3 short period. students with learning disabilities, included students (TOWL-3). Students in special education made with behavior disorders and traumatic brain injuries. educationally significant gains; in particular, Darch & Spelling Mastery (28) Experimental — Pretest-posttest Two groups (Spelling Mastery Probes every 8–10 lessons, Spelling Mastery group Simpson (1991) control group and visual imagery) used same posttest of all words in unit, performed statistically Learning disabilities practice words, 25–30 min. Test of Written Spelling significantly better on the One study identified participants as special education these students closed the gap between their (mean age = 10 years, Comparing two models of daily instruction for 5 weeks, (TWS). probes, posttest, and each 6 months) (mean IQ = 92) spelling instruction. Spelling Mastery students subtest of the TWS than the resource room students in grades three through five. performance and that of the normative sample. completed 40 lessons. visual imagery group.

Three studies investigated Direct Instruction spelling Maggs, Morphographic (31) Pre-experimental — One group 35 min. of daily instruction Schonell Graded Word Remedial students made 11.63 McMillan, Spelling pretest-posttest in Morphographic Spelling, Spelling Test. months growth on the Schonell programs. Darch and Simpson (1991) compared the Patching, & Likely learning 8 months, all 140 lessons in 8 months. Hawke (1981) disabilities from Determining the efficacy of completed, fidelity checks effectiveness of 40 lessons ofSpelling Mastery and found description — remedial Morphographic Spelling (only indicated strict adherence to with severe spelling remedial student results procedures. that the students who received Direct Instruction problems 9 year, 9 included here). months–11 years, 3 months (mean = 11 years, significantly outperformed those students who were 3 months) taught using another program. In a study that took After one year of using Reasoning place in Australia using Morphographic Spelling, Maggs, and Writing Martella & Language for Writing (126) Pre-experimental — One group Language for Writing program Test of Written Language-3, General and special education , the difference between Waldron-Soler pretest-posttest implemented for 5 months student errors, lesson students made statistically McMillan, Patching, and Hawk (1981) found that (in press) General education (Classrooms 1–5) and duration, lesson ratings, and educationally significant everyday thinking and alertness students in 2nd to Determining the effects of the 14 months (Classroom 6) mastery test performance, improvements in their writing 3rd grade, special Language for Writing program (Evaluation I) and 1 academic social validity survey, and performance. students whose academic problems fit our description education students in on 2nd- to 3rd-grade general year (Classrooms 7–10) curriculum-based measure. 3rd to 5th grade (60% education students and 3rdto (Evaluation II). of learning disabilities made gains of over 11 months among my special education students African American and/ 5th-grade special education or Hispanic) 105 general students. after only eight months of instruction. More recently, education, 21 special compared with newly identified special education Owens et al. (2004) investigated the efficacy ofSpelling education students is stunning. Those Mastery taught by a paraprofessional. They found that Owens, Spelling Mastery (61) Single-case — Multiple All students received CBM of spelling using 97% errors corrected and Fredrick, & baseline across participants Spelling Mastery in pairs; taught and untaught words, 97% script compliance were the paraprofessional was successful in implementing using Reasoning and Writing can Shippen (2004) Learning disabilities, implementation was Test of Written Spelling-2 noted. Correct letter sequence 1 with traumatic brain Determining if: 1) a staggered; while waiting for (TWS-2). Improvement on CBM ranged Spelling Mastery as determined by observations of her injury 7 years, 10 para-professional could Spelling Mastery, probes were from 9.6% (student with TBI) to listen to complex directions and follow months– 9 years, 8 effectively and efficiently be given; pairs received 4, 9, and 29.8%; improvement on TWS-2 teaching and the improvement of her students. This months Mean age = 8 trained to implement Spelling 12 weeks of instruction. from 0% (student with TBI) to years, 9 months Mastery and 2) if Spelling 50% was found. study suggests another instructional delivery option them accurately. They write in simple, Mastery was effective for special educators. yet complete sentences that aren’t just

The Direct Instruction writing programs Language for a collection of words but express ideas. Writing and Reasoning and Writing were developed later Resource Specialist, than the reading and spelling programs; thus, there Glendale, California is limited, although strong, evidence of their success (Fredrick & Steventon, 2004). Anderson and Keel (2002) investigated the effects ofReasoning and Writing Level C fourth and fifth grade students with learning disabilities and behavior disorders. Students were shown to make significant gains in only six weeks.

22 23 TABLE 5: MATH RESEARCH WITH PRESCHOOLERS WITH HIGH-INCIDENCE DISABILITIES

(N) Research Design/ Intervention Outcome Study DI Program Participants Purpose Details Measures Findings

McKenzie, Connecting Math (16) Pre-experimental, one group 10–20 min. of small group Cognitive Domain of the Students with developmental Marchand- Concepts, K. (CMC-K) pretestposttest instruction daily for 6.5 weeks; Battelle Developmental delays made significant 5 with developmental Martella, all students completed all 30 Inventory; CMC placement gains on the Battelle; all delays. 3 years, 5 Investigating the efficacy of Moore, & lessons of CMC-K. test. students were ready to begin months–5 years, 4 CMC-K. Martella (2004) Connecting Math Concepts A. months (mean age = 4 years, 5 months).

Areas of Emerging Research Little research has been done examining the academic These studies found that students taught with the impact of serious emotional disturbance (SED). Low Direct Instruction curricula not only made gains in graduation rates associated with academic failure are reading but also made substantial gains in behavior common for these students (Greenbaum et al., 1996). measures. Although the studies that Colvin and Educators have begun to look at Direct Instruction his colleagues cited were not carefully controlled as positive behavior support for students with SED. experimental research, they do suggest that further Colvin, Greenberg, and Sherman (1993) reviewed two research needs to be conducted investigating the unpublished studies with Corrective Reading and Reading relationship between the structure and design of Mastery Fast Cycle used to teach students with SED. Direct Instruction and gains in reading and behavior.

Direct Instruction Mathematics Research We found one study on mathematics instruction conducted by McKenzie, Marchand-Martella, Moore, When I first introduced Connecting and Martella (2004) using the prepublication Math Concepts to my students (after program, Connecting Math Concepts-K, with typically developing three- to five-year-old children and those a few months of another series), they with developmental delays (see Table 5 on page 25). began referring to it as the ‘good Positive findings were noted on various measures after math.’ Each day as I would say it was completing 30 lessons of this program. time for math, they would ask whether Summary It should be noted that Cole et al. (1993) described we were going to do the ‘good math’ or in Table 1 used DISTAR Arithmetic as part of an the ‘icky math.’ I finally collected the Direct Instruction programs have been shown to intervention package for preschoolers, however, be effective with a wide range of children with high- specific math measures were not used; therefore, this other math books from them and told incidence disabilities from preschool to high school. study was not summarized here. them we would be doing only the ‘good Although the majority of the participants in the studies were students with learning disabilities, students with math’ from now on. I never went back. developmental delays, language delays, mild cognitive Teacher, Kingston, Illinois disabilities, and behavior disorders also have been shown to benefit from Direct Instruction. Reading Mastery and Corrective Reading have been researched fairly extensively, demonstrating their efficacy for students with mild disabilities. Further research is needed in the areas of writing and mathematics instruction.

24 25 Part IV: Direct Instruction Research With TABLE 6: DIRECT INSTRUCTION RESEARCH WITH STUDENTS Students With Low-Incidence Disabilities WITH LOW-INCIDENCE DISABILITIES

Research Design/ Intervention Study DI Program (N) Participants Outcome Measures Findings Purpose Details

Booth, Hewitt, DISTAR Language (12) Pre-experimental — One shot Provided DISTAR Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Children mastered most language Jenkins, & I, II, III and DISTAR case study Longitudinal study Language I, II, and III and DISTAR Mastery in language objectives on the Baldie Language Maggs (1979) Reading Age range 8 to 14 years over a 5 year period DISTAR Reading over a and reading, Baldie Language Ability Test. Participants had an at beginning of study Age period of 4 to 5 years. Ability Test, Neale Analysis of average gain of 34 (range = 15 to 49) range 12.7 to 17.8 years Determining the outcomes of the Reading Ability, and Schonell Word language age months in 32 months at end of study IQ range DISTAR Language program with Recognition Test. of daily instruction. Most children 35 to 55 children with mental Intellectual read at or above the 3rd-grade and developmental disabilities. language and reading levels. DISTAR Language children outperformed “normal” children on 31 of 66 objectives on the Baldie Language Ability Test.

Bracey, DISTAR Reading I (6) Pre-experimental, One group, Students received Difference between pretest and Significant gains made in blending Maggs, & pretest-posttest instruction for 15 to 30 posttest on specified mastery sounds, identifying letters sound Morath (1975) Intellectual and min. per day during their objectives from the DISTAR correspondences, spelling by developmental disabilities Demonstrating that students with school day in DISTAR Reading I program. sounds, and sounding words out and 7 to 14 years IQ range = moderate mental Intellectual and Reading I. saying them the fast way 30–40 developmental disabilities can learn to read using an explicit phonics program.

Flores, Corrective Reading: (6) Single-case — Multiple baseline Baseline and intervention Percentage of correct lettersound Five of 6 students correctly identified Shippen, Decoding A across behaviors with embedded conditions using correspondences identified in all letter-sound correspondences Alberto, & Moderate Intellectual conditions Corrective Reading isolation, in a discrimination and blended letter sounds and Crowe (2004) Disabilities/ Autism 7 to 13 Decoding A over 11 to 27 format, and blended together; correctly blended and telescoped years IQ range = 38–52 Investigating the effects of training sessions. percentage correct of letter-sound words composed of targeted Corrective Reading on learning correspondences blended and letter sounds. A high degree of letter-sound correspondences, telescoped into words (instruction, maintenance was shown. blending sounds in CVC words, generalization, and maintenance and decoding. conditions).

Gersten & DISTAR Language (12) Pre-experimental, One group, DISTAR Language I, and III Pretest Only: Peabody Picture Statistically significant improvement Overview Maggs (1982) I, II, and III and pretest-posttest and DISTAR Reading I, II, Vocabulary Test, Baldie Language was noted on Stanford-Binet DISTAR Reading I, Children with moderate/ and III given over 5 years, Ability Test, and Neale Analysis Intelligence Test. Good performance II, and III severe mental Intellectual Determining the long-term language instruction was of Reading. Pretest/posttest: levels were found at end of program Eight investigations were found. These studies Participants ranged in age from six to 16 years and developmental effects of DISTAR Language and provided 30 minutes a Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test. on other measures. disabilities; ages at the DISTAR Reading with children day (average) for 195 spanned the mid-1970s to 2004. The majority of (mean age = 10) and had IQ scores between 30 beginning of the study with mental Intellectual and schools days per year. ranged from 6 years, 10 developmental disabilities. months to 12 years, 6 these investigations included students with and 81 (average IQ of participants = 52, which is months, mean 10.34 years developmental disabilities (n = 4). Some studies approximately three standard deviations below also included students with: the mean of 100). Such scores, coupled with other Glang, Singer, Corrective Reading (2) Case study 1: Multiple baseline Case study 1: 1 week of Case study 1: Percentage of Case study 1: Increases in story Cooley, & Tish Comprehension across behaviors Case study 2: baseline and 6 weeks correctly answered reasoning problem completion and math fact (1992) A, Corrective Traumatic Brain Injury Case A-B design of intervention. Case problems; percentage of correctly computation. Case study 2: Improved factors, lead to the classification of moderate to Mathematics, study 1: 8 years Case study study 2: baseline and answered story problems; and skills in repeating sentences and DISTAR Language I, 2: 6 years Case study 1: 81 Evaluating the effects of Direct intervention; included number of math facts per minute. number of letter sounds identified. Traumatic brain injury or TBI (n = 1) severe developmental disabilities for a number of the Reading Mastery I* IQ Case study 2: 65 IQ Instruction programs with various Direct Instruction Case study 2: Percentage of students with traumatic brain programs (two different sentences correctly repeated; participants. injury. programs for each number of letter sounds correctly Moderate intellectual disabilities and autism/ student). identified. moderate intellectual disabilities (n = 1) The research review uncovered common themes Gregory & DISTAR Reading II (8) Pre-experimental, One group, Instruction provided for Gains on Burt Rearranged Graded Gains of an average of .9 years in Intellectual disabilities (n = 1) despite the various classifications of students with Warburton pretest-posttest 25 min. per day over 5 Word Reading test. reading in 5 months were found. (1983) Educationally subnormal 6 months. low-incidence disabilities. One theme pertained to the to 7 years Investigating how much Those identified as “educationally subnormal” (n = 1) progress learners made with a low expectations we often have for this population. well-designed teaching program. Our analysis is presented in one table (Table 6 on Perhaps because of the low levels of vocabulary, deficits in language and communication skills, and a Maggs & DISTAR Language I (28) Experimental — Pretest-posttest DISTAR Language I Basic Concept Inventory, Significantly greater gains were page 27) given the small number of studies found. Morath (1976) control group implemented 1 hour Reynell Verbal Comprehension, found for children instructed with Institutionalized (for per school day over Stanford-Binet (L-M) Intelligence, DISTAR Language I than children history of repeated failure with “typical” curricula, low 5 years) children with Determining the relative a 2-year period Piaget’s Class Inclusion, Piaget’s instructed with the Peabody moderate or severe effectiveness of DISTAR (experimental group) Seriation, and Bruner’s Matrix. Language program on all six The eight studies* examined a range of Direct expectations for how these individuals acquire complex mental Intellectual and Language I versus Peabody and Peabody Language measures. developmental disabilities Language kit IP-level) with program (P-level) or Instruction programs including: skills exist. Another common theme involved the use from Stockton and institutionalized children with programs utilizing some Marsden Hospital schools moderate to severe Intellectual components of the of less sophisticated interventions. in the state of New South and developmental disabilities. Peabody Language kit Wales (age range 8 to 16 with variations (control DISTAR Reading (n = 4) years at posttest) group). The Direct Instruction studies did not support these Language (n = 4) themes; students were held to high standards using Young, Baker, DISTAR Arithmetic I (5) Single-case — Multiple baseline Participants received Percentage of academic DLT plus DISTAR Arithmetic I & Martin across participants Discrimination Learning engagement and scores on produced higher percentages of Arithmetic (n = 1) sophisticated interventions resulting in generalizable (1990) Intellectual Disabilities 8 to Theory (DLT) based on mastery tests. academic engagement; students 10 years IQ range = 35–54 Assessing the effects of two content from DISTAR scored higher on the mastery tests in skills. Overall, all eight studies showed positive effects mathematics interventions. Arithmetic I and DISTAR this condition. Corrective Reading (n = 2) Arithmetic II, baseline from 6 to 20 days, for this population of students. intervention ended on Reading Mastery® (n = 1) day 26, maintenance data *Note: The number of studies does not equal eight given that some * A third case study used generic Direct Instruction techniques. This data is not presentgathered days 52–56. studies included more than one Direct Instruction program.

26 27 DISTAR Reading Research DISTAR Reading and Language Research Corrective Reading Research The search found two studies that involved DISTAR The search yielded two studies that combined DISTAR The search produced one study demonstrating the Reading. As shown in Table 6 on page 27, researchers Reading and Language programs with students with effectiveness ofCorrective Reading. Similar to the identified the participants in these studies as students As a charter school, we offer a developmental disabilities (i.e., Booth, Hewitt, Jenkins, DISTAR Reading studies, the investigation examined with developmental disabilities (i.e., Bracey, Maggs, & Maggs, 1979). The researchers implemented an the degree to which students with severe disabilities & Morath, 1975) or those who were “educationally range of educational programming. extensive five-year investigation with 12 students. could learn to read. Flores, Shippen, Alberto, and subnormal” (Gregory & Warburton, 1983). One Approximately half of the students Results showed an average language gain of 34 months Crowe (2004) analyzed whether six students with common theme expressed in these investigations for 32 months of instruction. At the end of the study, moderate intellectual disabilities could learn letter- related to the notion that these individuals could are typically developing while the most students read at third- to fourth-grade levels. sound correspondences to decode words. Corrective not ever be expected to learn to read or read very other half have been diagnosed as Reading, Decoding A was used with modifications Gersten and Maggs (1982) investigated the long- well (e.g., they should be provided only with sight having autism spectrum disorder. In to the instructional sequence and formats to words). These studies set out to show that students term effects of an intensive five-year program in accommodate the students’ needs (e.g., some students with developmental disabilities could learn to read. Reading Mastery® Classic II and III, DISTAR Reading I–III in Sydney, Australia. Twelve used augmentative communication devices). Results Additionally, these studies focused on how rapidly I group my students by instructional children with developmental disabilities ranging in age demonstrated that five of the six students learned to from six years, 10 months to 12 years, six months these students could learn to read. Overall, the two performance level, not their label. identify all targeted letter-sound correspondences and studies showed students with low incidence disabilities received instruction in DISTAR Language and Reading blend letter sounds. Another positive finding showed could learn sophisticated reading strategies such Having (typically developing) peer an average of 30 minutes per day. The Stanford-Binet that these students could sound out and blend words as decoding words and sentences (i.e., using phonic models has turned out to be very Intelligence Test (pretest and posttest) and Peabody composed of the targeted letter sounds. Picture Vocabulary Test, Baldie Language Ability Test, analysis strategies as opposed to sight words). advantageous. The students with Furthermore, the studies showed the students learned and Neale Analysis of Reading Ability (posttest only) to read at an accelerated pace. autism have access to high levels of were administered. Results indicated statistically language, good examples of reading significant gains on the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Bracey et al. (1975) showed the robust effects of Test. There were significant differences between the DISTAR Reading with six institutionalized students with behavior, and can imitate the positive children with developmental disabilities in this study IQ scores ranging from 30 to 40. These students had classroom/learning behaviors of their and children without disabilities from the normative various speech difficulties and were unable to read any sample in Sydney on nine of the 66 objectives on the words. DISTAR Reading (Reading Mastery) asks students peers. Our students with autism really Baldie Language Ability Test (five favoring children to identify sounds, blend these sounds into words, need constant repetition to retain with developmental disabilities, four favoring children and say the words the fast way. Results showed these the skills. without disabilities). students made significant improvements in learning to

read words. The authors called attention to teaching Teacher, Columbus, Ohio

generalizable decoding strategies to this population of students because “not every word needs to be taught directly to the students, as with a sight word approach” “ (pg. 88).

We used Language for Learning with three students with autism spectrum disorder. Although the students showed some initial problems—such as trying to imitate the finger snap—all three students learned to follow the Language for Learning format after four to five lessons. Not only did the students benefit from the specific content of the lessons, they also practiced taking turns and working together in a small group. They were never distracted during a lesson. The program helped them attend to me and the lesson, a strong indication that Language for Learning captured the students’ interest.

Teacher, Middletown, Pennsylvania

28 “ 29 Areas of Emerging Research FIGURE 5: GRADE LEVEL GAINS STUDENTS

One area of research that offers promise in the area 4 of Direct Instruction involves students who are hard- of-hearing or deaf or who have visual impairments or blindness. Students in these populations have 3 traditionally displayed poor educational progress. For instance, students with hearing loss and deafness generally lag behind their same age peers in academics 2 Year even though they possess average intelligence (Heward, 2003). A long-term study of students who are deaf or hard-of-hearing suggests Direct Instruction 1 programs can make dramatic differences in the educational performance of students with hearing loss (Kraemer, Kramer, Koch, Madigan, & Steely, 2001). 0 Language Reading Spelling Research Involving the DISTAR Arithmetic Research Students who attended high school in Irvine, California Comprehension in self-contained classrooms received several Direct The search located one study demonstrating how Combination of Programs Instruction programs (Corrective Reading Self-Contained Direct Instruction Self-Contained Students DISTAR Arithmetic can benefit students who have One interesting investigation used combinations of Series – Decoding and Comprehension, Spelling Through Self-Contained Mainstreamed intellectual disabilities. Young, Baker, and Martin Direct Instruction programs (see Table 6 on page 27). Morphographs, Spelling Mastery, and Expressive Writing). (1990) analyzed the effects of the Discrimination Glang, Singer, Cooley, and Tish (1992) provided two Grade 12 students made grade level gains of: case studies conducted with students with traumatic Learning Theory (DLT). DLT added specific response On average, students who spent four years in Direct 3.0 years in total language. brain injuries. In the first case study, an eight-year- cards where students indicated their responses Instruction programs were at the: through the use of cards in a match-to-sample format. old student received instruction in Corrective Reading, 2.5 years in reading comprehension. Five students received instruction in DISTAR Arithmetic I 7.2 grade level in total language. Comprehension A (lessons in reasoning from the 3.8 years in spelling when compared to end-of-year and DISTAR Arithmetic I coupled with DLT. The DLT plus 5.7 grade level in reading comprehension. deduction strand) and Corrective Mathematics (two testing in grade eight. different exercises involving math story problems and DISTAR Arithmetic I phase produced higher percentages 7.0 grade level in spelling. of academic engagement and mastery test scores as math facts). Results showed that this student could Over the same period, the Gallaudet Center for compared to DISTAR Arithmetic I alone. The students complete more reasoning problems after receiving Assessment and Demographics (CADS) reported that The students who received Direct Instruction had limited verbal skills and responded in two to instruction. Further, he demonstrated an increased self-contained students demonstrated yearly grade outperformed the national averages for students who three word utterances; therefore, the match-to- number of correctly answered story problems and his level gains of: are deaf and attending self-contained classrooms by: rate per minute of correctly completed facts almost sample format used during DLT served as an effective 0.0 years for total language. 4.4 years in total language. doubled with instruction. Figure 4 illustrates the adaptation of the DISTAR Arithmetic I program.

results of this student in mathematics. 0.0 years for reading comprehension. 2.8 years in reading comprehension. 1.3 years for spelling. 2.2 years in spelling. In the second case study, Glang et al. (1992) targeted FIGURE 4: CORRECTIVE MATH instruction using DISTAR Language (sentence repetition) Baseline Direct Instruction Grade level gains for all CADS students who were Finally, the students taught using Direct Instruction and Reading Mastery (letter sounds) for a six-year-old 16 deaf or hard-of-hearing (including mainstreamed programs outperformed the CADS average for all student with a traumatic brain injury who experienced 14 students) were: students who were deaf or hard-of-hearing (including difficulty with visual motor skills, attention, and 12 mainstreamed students) by: memory. Substantial improvement was evident in both 0.3 years for total language. 10 2.7 years in total language. statement repetition and sound identification skills. 0.4 years for reading comprehension. 8 1.2 years in reading comprehension. 0.9 years for spelling. 6 0.9 years in spelling.

4 Facts Per Minute Facts Per

2 Number of Correct Math

0

0 5 10 15 20

30 31 Direct Instruction Shows Great Promise for Visually Impaired Students Students with visual impairments represent another I was skeptical about Reading Mastery, low incidence population that benefits from Direct Instruction programs. The Arkansas School for but like any teacher, I was willing to try the Blind implemented Reading Mastery, Connecting it for the sake of the students. After a Math Concepts, Language for Learning, Spelling Mastery, week of one hour per day, my students and Spelling Through Morphographs in the elementary grades and Corrective Reading Decoding were rapidly improving, and I was a and Comprehension, and Corrective Mathematics happy teacher. in the secondary grades (Hunt, Woolly, & Moore, 2001). Although the authors do not share specific Special Education Teacher, outcome data, they do report after examining which Brookhaven, Mississippi students needed Braille, large print, or standard print, “Most beginning Direct Instruction programs are already written in larger than standard print and would, therefore, work for several students with little adaptation” (pg. 33). Although these studies show great promise for students with hearing loss and visual impairments, systematic experimental studies published in quality peer-reviewed journals remain the benchmark by which educators judge efficacy through scientific validation.

Deaf Students Using Direct Instruction Make Significant Reading Gains Similarly, Trezek (2002) asked, “Does Direct Trezek described a pilot study showing how deaf Instruction in phonics benefit deaf students? If so students who received instruction from Direct how?” Trezek discussed the findings of the National Instruction reading programs (Corrective Reading, Reading Panel (NICHD, 2000) and highlighted the Decoding B2 and C) gained 1.2 to 2.5 grade levels importance of phonological processing and its role in in basic reading and comprehension measures after learning to read. She presented evidence that students only seven months of instruction. Although the who are deaf can access phonological information implementation of the DI programs used by Trezek Summary even though they cannot do so through audition. For (2002) and Kraemer et al. (2001) produced gains, instance, students might rely on speech reading or both studies report making some adaptations and Direct Instruction programs show clear evidence of cued speech. modifications to the programs to accommodate their efficacy with students who have low-incidence the students’ needs. Adaptations included disabilities. Many of these students had IQs in the 30 extending the time to present the lesson to practice to 50 range, yet the majority of these students learned pronunciations, reviewing previously presented to read and master language skills otherwise thought concepts, and using pictorial representations of unattainable. Studies about Direct Instruction show selected vocabulary. evidence of rapid learning gains. It seems that students with more severe disabilities can learn at high levels when provided with systematic, research-validated programs such as Direct Instruction.

32 33 References

Adams, G.L., & Engelmann, S. (1996). Research on Direct *Campbell, M.L. (1984). Corrective Reading program *Flores, M. M., Shippen, M. E., Alberto, P., & Crowe, L. Grossen, B. (1998). The research base for Corrective Reading Instruction: 25 years beyond DISTAR. Seattle, WA: evaluated with secondary students in San Diego. ADI News, (2004). Teaching letter-sound correspondence to students SRA. DeSoto, TX: Science Research Associates. Educational Achievement Systems. 3 (3),1. with moderate intellectual disabilities. Journal of Direct Instruction, 4(2), 173-188. Halle, J.W., Chadsey, J., Lee, S., & Renzaglia, A. (2004). *Arthur, C. (1988). Progress in a high school LD class. ADI Carnine, D., Silbert, J., Kame’enui, E., & Tarver, S. (2004). Systematic instruction. In C. Kennedy & E. Horn (Eds.), News, 27(4), 17-18. Direct Instruction reading (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Forness, S. R., Kavale, K. A., Blum, I.M., & Lloyd, J.W. (1997). Including students with severe disabilities (pp.54-77). Pearson. Mega-analysis of meta-analysis: What works in special Boston,MA: Pearson. education. Teaching Exceptional Children, 19(6), 4-9. American Federation of Teachers. (1999). Five promising remedial reading intervention programs. Washington, D.C. *Chamberlain, L.A. (1987). Using DI in a Victoria, B.C. *Haring, N. G., & Krug, D. A. (1975). Evaluation of a program http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/downloads/teachers/ resource room. ADI News, 7(1), 7-8. Fredrick, L.D., & Steventon, C. (2004). Writing. In N.E. of systematic instructional procedures for extremely poor remedial.pdf. Marchand-Martella, T.A. Slocum, & R. C. Martella (Eds.), retarded children. American Journal on Mental Retardation, Introduction to Direct Instruction (pp. 140-177). Boston, 79, 627-631. *Cole, K. N., & Dale, P. S. (1986). Direct language instruction MA:Pearson. *Anderson, D. M., & Keel, M. C. (2002). Using Reasoning and and interactive language instruction with language delayed Writing to teach writing skills to students with learning preschool children: A comparison study. Journal of Speech Harris, K.R., & Graham, S. (1996). Memo to constructivists: disabilities and behavior disorders. Journal of Direct and Hearing Research, 29, 206-217. Fuchs, D. (1996). Educational intervention and students with Skills count, too. Educational Leadership, 53(5), 26-29. Instruction, 2(1), 49-55. learning disabilities. Learning disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 7, 63-67. *Cole, K. N., Dale, P. S., & Mills, P. E. (1991). Individual Herman, R., Aladjem, D., McMahon, P., Masem, E., Mulligan, Arrasmith, D. (2003). Definition of explicit instruction and differences in language delayed children’s responses to direct I., O’Malley, A., Quinones, S., Reeve, A., & Woodruff, D. systematic curriculum. Retrieved April 19, 2004 from and interactive preschool instruction. Topics in Early Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L.S. (1995). What’s ‘special’ about special (199). http://www.studydog.com. Childhood Special Education, 11, 99-124. education? Phi Delta Kappan, 76 , 522-530. An educator’s guide to school reform. Washington, DC: Bateman, B., Linden, M. (1998). Better IEPS: How to develop *Cole, K. N., Dale, P. S., Mills, P. E., & Jenkins, J. R. (1993). Gersten, R.M., Becker, W.C., Heiry, T.J., & White, W.A.T. American Institutes for Research. Retrieved July 2004 from legally correct and educationally useful programs (3rd ed.). Interaction between early intervention curricula and student (1984). Entry IQ and yearly academic growth of children in www.aasa.org/issuesandinsights/districtorganization/ Longmont, CO: Sopris West. characteristics. Exceptional Children, 60, 17-28. Direct Instruction programs: A longitudinal study of low reform. SESchildren. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 6(2),109-121. *Benner, G. J., Kinder, D., Beaudoin, K. M., Stein, M., & Colvin, G., Greenberg, S., & Sherman, R. (1993, Winter). The Heward, W.L. (2003). Exceptional children: An introduction to Hirschmann, K. (in press). The effects of Corrective Reading forgotten variable: Improving academic skills for students special education (7th ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill. Decoding program on the basic reading skills and social with serious emotional disturbance. Effective School *Gersten, R.M., & Maggs, A. (1982). Teaching the general case adjustment of students with high-incidence disabilities. Practices, 20-25. to moderately retarded children: Evaluation of a five year *Holdsworth, P. (1984-85). Corrective Reading tested in U.K. Journal of Direct Instruction. project. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental ADI News, 4(2), 1, 4-5. Disabilities, 2, 329-343. *Cooke, N. L., Gibbs, S. L., Campbell, M. L., & Shalvis, S. L. *Booth, A., Hewitt, D., Jenkins, W., & Maggs, A. (1979). (2004). A comparison of Reading Mastery Fast Cycle and Hunt, D., Woolly, D., & Moore, A. (2001). Arkansas School for Making retarded children literate:A five-year study. The Horizons Fast Track A-B on the reading achievement of *Glang, A., Singer, G., Cooley, E., & Tish, N. (1992). Tailoring the Blind adopts more effective curriculum. Direct Australian Journal of Mental Retardation, 5(7), 257-260. students with mild disabilities. Journal of Direct Instruction, Direct Instruction techniques for use with elementary Instruction News, 1(2), 32-33. 4, 139-151. students with brain injury. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, Borman, G.D., Hewes, G.M., Overman, L.T., & Brown, S. 7(4), 93-108. Kelly, B., Carnine, D., Gersten, R., & Grossen, B. (1986). The (2002). Comprehensive school reform and student *Dale, P. S., & Cole, K. N. (1988). Comparison of academic effectiveness of videodisk instruction teaching fractions to achievement : A meta-analysis (Report No. 59). Baltimore, and cognitive programs for young handicapped children. learning-disabled and remedial high school students. Journal MD: Center for Research on the Education of Students Exceptional Children, 54, 439-447. Greenbaum, P.E., Dedrick, R.F., Friedman, R.M., Kutash, K., of Special Education Technology, 8(2), 5-17. PlacedAt Risk, John Hopkins University. Retrieved July 2004 Brown, E.C., Lardierh, S.P., & Pugh, A.M. (1996). National from www.csos.jhu.edu. Adolescent and Child Treatment Study (NACTS): Outcomes *Darch, C., & Simpson, R. G. (1990). Effectiveness of visual for children with serious emotional and behavioral Kennedy, M. (1978). Findings from Follow Through planned imagery versus rule-based strategies in teaching spelling to disturbance. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, variation study. Educational Researcher, 7, 3-11. *Bracey, S., Maggs, A., & Morath, P. (1975). The effects of a learning disabled students. Research in Rural Education, 4, 130-146. direct phonic approach in teaching reading with six 7(1), 61-70. Kraemer, J., Kramer, S., Koch, H., Madigan, K., & Steely, D. moderately retarded children: Acquisition and mastery (2001). Using Direct Instruction programs to teach learning stages. The Exceptional Child, 22 (2), 83-90. *Gregory, R. P., Hackney, C., & Gregory, N. M. (1982). *Drakeford, W. (2002). The impact of an intensive program to Corrective Reading programme: An evaluation. British comprehension and language skills to deaf and hard- increase the literacy skills of incarcerated youth. Journal of Journal of Educational Psychology, 52, 33-50. ofhearingstudents: A six-year study. Direct Instruction *Branwhite, A. B. (1983). Boosting reading skills by Direct Correctional Education, 53(4), 139-144. News,1(2), 23-31. Instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 53, 291-298. *Gregory, R. P., & Warburton, B. G. (1983). DISTAR Reading *Edlund, C.V., & Ogle, R. R. (1988). Amount of training in DI and remedial children in an infant school. School Psychology and outcomes with secondary handicapped students. ADI International, 4, 169-172. News 7(3), 14-15.

34 35 *Kuder, S.J. (1990). Effectiveness of the DISTAR Reading National Institute for Child Health and Human Development. Slavin, R.E. (2003). Educational psychology: Theory and Watkins, C., & Slocum, T. (2004). The components of Direct program for children with learning disabilities. Journal of (2000). Report of National Reading Panel: Teaching children practice (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Instruction. In N.E. Marchand-Martella, T.A. Slocum, & R.C. Learning Disabilities, 23 (1), 69-71. to read: An evidenced-based assessment of the scientific Martella (Eds.), Introduction to Direct Instruction (pp. 28- research literature on reading and its implications for *Somerville, D. E., & Leach, D. J. (1988). Direct or indirect 65). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. *Lewis, A. (1982). An experimental evaluation of a direct reading instruction. Reports of the subgroups. (NIH instruction?: An evaluation of three types of intervention instruction programme (Corrective Reading ) with remedial Publication No. 00-4745). Washington, DC: U.S. programme for assisting students with specific reading White, W.A.T. (1988). Meta-analysis of the effects of Direct readers in a comprehensive school. Educational Psychology, Government Printing Office. disabilities. Educational Research, 30, (1), 46-53. Instruction in special education. Education and Treatment of 2 (2), 121-135. Children, 11, 364-374. *O’Connor, R. E., & Jenkins, J. R. (1995). Improving the Stebbins, L., St. Pierre, R.G., Proper, E.L., Anderson, R.B., & *Lloyd, J., Cullinan, D., Heins, E. D, & Epstein, M. H. (1980). generalization of sound/symbol knowledge: Teaching spelling Cerva, T.R. (1977). Education as experimentation: A planned *Young, M., Baker, J., & Martin, M. (1990). Teaching basic Direct instruction: Effects on oral and written language to kindergarten children with disabilities. The Journal of variation model. (Vols. IV-A). Cambridge, MA: Abt number skills to students with a moderate intellectual comprehension. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 3, 70-76. Special Education, 29, 255-275. Associates. disability. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 25 (1), 83-93. *Maggs, A., McMillan, K., Patching, W., & Hawke, H. (1981). *O’Connor, R. E., Jenkins, J. R., Cole, K. N., & Mills, P. E. *Stein, C. L., & Goldman, J. (1980). Beginning reading Accelerating spelling skills using morphographs. Educational (1993). Two approaches to reading instruction with children instruction for children with minimal brain dysfunction. Psychology, 1, 49-56. with disabilities: Does program design make a difference? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 13, 52-55. Exceptional Children, 59, 312-323. *Maggs, A., & Morath, P. (1976). Effects of direct verbal Stein, M., Silbert, J., & Carnine, D. (1997). Designing effective instruction on intellectual development of institutionalized *Owens, S. H., Fredrick, L. D., & Shippen, M. E. (2004). mathematics instruction: A direct instruction approach moderately retarded children: A 2-year study. The Journal of Training a paraprofessional to implement Spelling Mastery (3rd ed.). Upper River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Special Education, 10(4), 357-364. and examining its effectiveness for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Direct Instruction, 4, 153-172. Stevens, R., & Rosenshine, B. (1981). Advances in research on *Malmgren, K. W., & Leone, P.E. (2000). Effects of a shortterm teaching. Exceptional Education Quarterly, 2, 1-9. auxiliary reading program on the reading skills of *Polloway, E. A., Epstein, M. H., Polloway, C. H., Patton, J. R., & Ball, D. W. (1986). Corrective Reading program: An incarcerated youth. Education & Treatment of Children, 23, Tarver, S. (1999, Summer). Focusing on Direct Instruction. 239-247. analysis of effectiveness with learning disabled and mentally retarded students. Remedial and Special Education, Current Practice Alerts; Division for Learning Disabilities 7(4), 41-47. and Division for Research, 2, 1-4. *Marchand-Martella, N., Martella, R.C., Orlob, M. & Ebey, T. (2000). Conducting action research in a rural high school *Thomson, B. (1992, Winter). A field report: Specific learning setting using peers as Corrective Reading instructors for Przychodzin, A. M. (2004). The research base for Direct Instruction mathematics programs . DeSoto, TX: Science disabilities Corrective Reading pilot study 1989-90. students with disabilities. Rural Special Education Quarterly, ADI News, 11 (2), 11-13. 19 (2), 20-29. Research Associates. *Thorne, M.T. (1978). Payment for reading: The use of the Marchand-Martella, N.E., Slocum, T.A., & Martella, R.C. *Richardson, E., DiBenedetto, B., Christ, A., Press, M., & Winsberg, B. G. (1978). An assessment of two methods for ‘Corrective Reading scheme’ with junior maladjusted boys. (Eds.). (2004). Introduction to Direct Instruction. Boston, Remedial Education, 13 (2), 87-90. MA: Allyn and Bacon. remediating reading deficiencies. Reading Improvement, 15, 82-95. Torgesen, J.K. (1996). Thoughts about intervention research *Martella, R.C., & Waldron-Soler, K.M. (in press) Language for in learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Writing program evaluation. Journal of Direct Instruction. Rosenshine, B.V. (1986). Synthesis of research on explicit teaching. Educational Leadership, 43 (7), 60-69. Multidisciplinary Journal, 7, 55-58.

*Marston, D., Deno, S. L., Kim, D., Diment, K. & Rogers, D. Trezek, B. (2002). Does Direct Instruction in phonics benefit (1995). Comparison of reading intervention approaches for Rosenshine, B.V. (1987). Explicit teaching and teacher training.Journal of Teacher Education, 38 (3), 34-36. deaf students? If so how? Direct Instruction News, students with mild disabilities. Exceptional Children, 2 (1), 18-23. 62, 20-37. *Scarlato, M.C., & Asahara, E. (2004). Effects of Corrective Vaughn, S., & Linan-Thompson, S. (2003). What is special *McKenzie, M. A., Marchand-Martella, N.E., Moore, M. E., & Reading in a residential treatment facility for adjudicated youth. Journal of Direct Instruction, 4, 211-218. about special education for students with learning Martella, R. C. (2004). Teaching basic math skills to disabilities? preschoolers using Connecting Math Concepts level K. The Journal of Special Education, 37, 140-147. Journal of Direct Instruction, 4, 85-94. Schieffer,C., Marchand-Martella, N.E., Martella, R.C., & Simonsen, F. (2002). The research base for Reading *Waldron-Soler, K. M., Martella, R.C., Marchand-Martella, Meese, R.L. (2001). Teaching studies with mild disabilities: Mastery: Direct Instruction reading. Desoto, TX: Science Research Associates. N. E., Tso, M. E., Warner, D. A., & Miller, D.E., &. (2002). Integrating research practice (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Effects of a 15-week Language for Learning implementation Wadsworth/Thompson Learning. with children in an integrated preschool. Journal of Direct Science Research Associates. (2002) Reading Mastery Plus Instruction, 2 (2), 75-86. series guide, levels K-6 . Columbus, OH. Watkins, C.L. (1997). Project Follow Through: A case study of Simonsen, F., Gunter, L., & Marchand-Martella, N.E. (2001). the contingencies influencing instructional practices of the Spelling research: Research on teaching children to spell. educational establishment . (Monograph). Concord, MA: DeSoto, TX: Science Research Associates. Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies.

36 37 Proven Results. Direct Instruction Works. Nearly 50 years of research validate the efficacy of the Direction Instruction approach for all types of students in a range of instructional settings. mheonline.com/disuccess

DI17 W 09915