DIANE KINDER, University of Washington, Tacoma; RICHARD KUBINA, The Pennsylvania State University; NANCY E. MARCHAND-MARTELLA, Eastern Washington University meet students’ needs and to ensure their Special Education and access in the general curriculum (34 CFR 300.24[b][3] as cited in Bateman & Linden, Direct Instruction: An 1998). This instruction may differ in terms of how it is provided (e.g., one-on-one, small Effective Combination groups, using sign language), where it is pro- vided (e.g., resource room, separate classroom, residential school), or what curriculum is used (e.g., Direct Instruction programs, Touch Math, Abstract: This paper considers the unique Edmark Reading). and successful combination of using Direct Instruction programs with special education populations. The introduction establishes the Two of the critical elements of “specially need for valid, scientifically based materials. designed” instruction include individualization Next is a description of studies using Direct and validation (Fuchs, 1996; Fuchs & Fuchs, Instruction with students who have high-inci- 1995). Individualization refers to developing dence disabilities. Thirty-seven studies were instruction with an individual student’s needs found across academic areas. In only 3 of the 37 studies did students who were in mind—as the student’s needs change, so instructed with other materials fair better does the treatment (Fuchs, 1996). Validation than the students who received Direct pertains to rigorous experimental studies that Instruction. Next, a research review of 8 have been conducted over time yielding con- studies involving Direct Instruction and stu- dents with low-incidence disabilities is pre- verging evidence. “When practiced most effec- sented. These studies showed positive effects tively and ethically, special education is for this population, with one investigation characterized by the use of research-based showing higher effects when another compo- teaching methods” (Heward, 2003, p. 38). nent (Discrimination Learning Theory) was added to Distar Arithmetic than when Distar Arithmetic was used alone. In all, 45 studies Interestingly, the 2004 reauthorized IDEA were found across student disability cate- (Council for Exceptional Children, 2004) gories with over 90% noting positive effects includes increased focus on the use of scientif- for Direct Instruction programs. Finally, con- ically based instructional practices and pro- clusions are drawn regarding the effective combination of Direct Instruction and special grams and peer-reviewed research. For education, and further research is called for example, a special rule for determining eligi- particularly in the areas of language, bility was made noting that students cannot spelling, writing, and mathematics. be qualified for special education services if they lack appropriate instruction in reading (as The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act of 1997 (IDEA) requires “specially designed” instruction for students with dis- abilities to meet their unique needs. Specially Journal of Direct Instruction, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 1–36. Address designed instruction pertains to adapting con- correspondence to Nancy Marchand-Martella at tent, methodology, or delivery of instruction to [email protected] Journal of Direct Instruction 1 defined in section 1208[3] of the Elementary cial education services and found Direct and Secondary Education Act of 1965) or Instruction to be one of only seven interven- mathematics. Further, local educational agen- tions with strong evidence of success. Thus, it cies may use a process that determines if stu- is no surprise that Direct Instruction is often dents respond to scientific, research-based referred to as a program for special education intervention as part of the evaluation proce- or at-risk students (Watkins & Slocum, 2004). dures for identifying a specific learning disabil- ity. This focus on research-based intervention In fact, Direct Instruction was initially used to ensures that students are qualified for special teach young, at-risk children as part of the education services for the “right” reasons, and largest educational study in U.S. history— not due to an absence of scientifically based Project Follow Through—which compared nine instructional programs. different educational approaches to determine the best instructional practice for low-income, Prior to the 2004 reauthorization of IDEA, the at-risk children in kindergarten through third No Child Left Behind legislation expected grade (Kennedy, 1978; Stebbins, St. Pierre, educators to demonstrate that all children can Proper, Anderson, & Cerva, 1977; Watkins, make progress, which led to an increased focus 1997). Project Follow Through demonstrated on the use of valid, scientifically based materi- that the Direct Instruction model for teaching als (Allbritten, Mainzer, & Ziegler, 2004). reading, language, and arithmetic had signifi- Thus, states, districts, and schools have been cant positive effects on basic, cognitive–con- reviewing the research base supporting pub- ceptual, and affective skills. lished programs to find curricula that will be effective, especially with students receiving Much of the Project Follow Through research special education. These reviews conclude took place prior to national legislation requir- that “More than any other commercially avail- ing special education, at a time when students able instructional programs, Direct Instruction with mild disabilities were typically taught in is supported by research” (Watkins & Slocum, general education classrooms. In an effort to 2004, p. 57). Several independent reviews of assess the effectiveness of Direct Instruction research add to this strong support, with par- for students with disabilities, Gersten, Becker, ticular focus on students with special needs Heiry, and White (1984) analyzed data previ- (Carnine, Silbert, Kame’enui, & Tarver, 2004). ously collected from Direct Instruction Follow For example, White (1988) found 25 investiga- Through participants including the intellec- tions in which Direct Instruction was com- tual/cognitive ability variable. Gersten et al. pared to another treatment. Not 1 of the 25 found that students in all IQ groups had the studies showed results favoring the compari- same pattern of growth from kindergarten to son groups; 53% of the outcomes significantly first, second, and third grades. That is, even favored Direct Instruction with an average those students with low IQs maintained con- effect size of .84. Further, Adams and sistent gains and gained the same amount per Engelmann (1996) analyzed 37 research stud- year as those with higher IQs. This investiga- ies involving Direct Instruction programs com- tion of the use of Direct Instruction to teach pared to other treatments. When those studies students with varied intellectual abilities led involving special education students (n = 21) the way for many additional studies. were analyzed separately, the mean effect size was .90 (considered a large magnitude of The purpose of this paper is to review pub- change from pre- to posttest assessments). lished investigations where Direct Instruction Finally, Forness, Kavale, Blum, and Lloyd programs were used with special education (1997) conducted an analysis of various inter- populations. Specifically, the review centers on vention programs for students receiving spe- two populations of students with special 2 Winter 2005 needs—those with high-incidence disabilities spelling, writing, and mathematics), where (e.g., learning disabilities, communication dis- appropriate. Tables were devised to present orders, behavior disorders, mild mental retarda- specific details regarding these studies. Each tion) and those with low-incidence disabilities table identifies: (a) researchers and year of (e.g., autism, traumatic brain injuries, moder- publication of the study; (b) Direct ate to severe mental retardation). Instruction programs used; (c) number of par- ticipating students, including the number in the intervention group and the number in the Literature Search control group; (d) participant information including disability, mean age and age range, Search procedures for the articles in this review included: (a) hand searches of all issues and IQ and IQ range; (e) research design; (f) of ADI News, DI News, Effective School Practices, research purpose; (g) intervention details; (h) and Journal of Direct Instruction (publications outcome measures; and (i) findings. (Note: If produced by the Association for Direct information is missing in the tables with Instruction—www.adihome.org); (b) ancestral regard to these details, it was not provided in searches of references in key Direct the studies.) Instruction texts including Research on Direct Instruction: 25 Years Beyond DISTAR (Adams & Direct Instruction Research Engelmann, 1996), Designing Effective With Students With Mathematics Instruction: A Direct Instruction High-Incidence Disabilities Approach (Stein, Silbert, & Carnine, 1997), As previously stated, 37 studies investigating Direct Instruction Reading (Carnine et al., 2004), the effects of Direct Instruction on partici- and Introduction to Direct Instruction (Marchand- pants with high-incidence disabilities were Martella, Slocum, & Martella, 2004); (c) found. These studies spanned the mid-1970s ERIC and PsycINFO computerized searches to 2005. The participants in the majority of using various search terms related to Direct these studies (n = 22) were students with Instruction; and (d) examination