One-school Pilot Implementation as a
Catalyst
For District-wide Adoption of Direct Instruction:
Frances B. Bessellieu
Maryann Nunnally
The paper describes a
model of school reform via Direct Instruction curricula (Reading Mastery
and Language for Learning) in an elementary school in
Applied
Research Plan
Riverside
Several reform efforts (Paideia Seminar, Teaching Children to Care, and Accelerated
Reader) were tried and dropped under a different principal. The remaining
program, Accelerated Reader, was strengthened when Mrs. Nunnally
became principal and hired a Language Arts Coordinator.
Design
Features of the Pilot Implementation
The project plan had the following
features.
1. The project was conducted in the
context of discovery (seeking empirical generalizations about school
reform) rather than verification (testing hypotheses).
2. Data were quantitative and
qualitative. The Direct Instruction implementation provided numerical data
on, for example, the percentages of children whose reading achievement placed
them at a higher level on re-test. In addition, extensive qualitative data were
collected on the reform process. However, the purpose of data collection and
analysis was not to test the effectiveness of Direct Instruction. Rather, data
were collected and pre-post comparisons were made within and between DI and nonDI classes to provide information that the
3. The first author's role was participant
observer. During at least weekly visits to
4. To gain a representative sample of
events in the project, the first author:
a. Stayed for lengthy periods to observe
beginnings and endings of lessons and school days.
b. Visited during and between stages of
the implementation: initial planning, placement testing, materials acquisition,
first days of implementation, later classroom lessons in the new curriculum,
the decision to implement the new curriculum school wide, and placement testing
for the school wide implementation.
c. Observed all classes and interviewed
all teachers using the new, DI curricula. In addition, the first author
interviewed the school principal, assistant principal, reading teachers,
guidance counselor, and classroom teachers.
Stages of
Implementation
The pilot project at Riverside Elementary
had 6 stages.
Stage 1. Initial Discussions
With the Principal The new principal of
In August, 1998, the first author and the
principal began planning a pilot DI implementation with 3 classes, one each in
Kindergarten, 1st and 2nd grades. Two of the 6 teachers in the pilot test had
some knowledge of DI.
In retrospect, the principal's decision
to pilot Direct Instruction (and to make necessary changes in staff
assignments) was uncommonly easy given possible obstacles.
However, several factors facilitated the principal's pro-DI
decision. First, the principal was somewhat in competition with the principal
at the only other local school using Direct Instruction, where student
achievement was high. The principal at
Stage 2. Establishing a Close Relationship with
the Principal and Staff
A proper implementation of Direct Instruction requires testing and grouping
children, ordering materials, and training teachers. The authors were concerned
that commitment might wane and staff resistance might develop in the time (4
months) between the principal's announced decision to introduce DI and the
start of the implementation. Therefore, the first author decided to offer free
consulting on Precision Teaching to a teacher of children labeled BEH
(Behaviorally and Emotionally Handicapped). This new teacher was having
difficulty managing disruptive and inattentive behavior and fostering academic
achievement. It was hoped that, if effective, free consultation would:
1. Demonstrate the first author's
commitment to the staff, children and school, and her judgment and skill.
2. Create expectations that even more
could be accomplished when Direct Instruction was implemented.
3. Increase the first author's
familiarity with the social organization of the school and with staff (and vice
versa). For at least 2 days a week for 2 months, the first author modeled
Precision Teaching of elemental classroom behaviors, such as lining up, raising
hands before asking questions, and interacting appropriately with peers
(Binder, 1996; Binder, Haughton, & Van Eyk, 1990;
Lindsley, 1991, 1993). The first author coached the
teacher to use these methods. Students' behaviors improved and the teacher
began used Precision Teaching methods; e.g., correcting inappropriate behavior,
strengthening tool skills for academic and social learning, and providing
sufficient practice and consistent reinforcement. As her competence and
confidence increased, children's appropriate behavior improved dramatically.
Several children were mainstreamed within 2 months.
Stage 3. Discussion of the Pilot Project with
Staff
The objectives were to: 1) transform staff's initial
interest into a strong shared mission; 2) continue demonstrating the first
author's commitment to the school, and not to Direct Instruction per se; and 3)
increase staff understanding of Direct Instruction as a way to create a small
community that could support its members.
One important activity was viewing a
videotape of Reading Mastery I lesson 154 in a kindergarten class at
Immediately after the viewing, the group
made decisions about details of the coming DI implementation. Specifically:
1. Teachers would do their own placement
testing
2. Groups would be cross-graded
throughout the kindergarten, 1st and 2nd grades.
3. Teachers would not use all of the
materials in the Direct Instruction curricula. To save money, students would
use every other "take home" worksheet. Periodic testing materials
("checkouts") would not be used at all.
4. Teachers would share teacher kits.
5. Students would share reading books.
6. Students in Reading Recovery would not
participate. This was to avoid possible conflict between the Reading Recovery
and Direct Instruction teachers, and to avoid confusing the children.
This group meeting gave Riverside
teachers a clear vision of what they could achieve; provided a clear choice
between the relatively ineffective reading and language instruction they had
been using and the DI curricula being offered; connected Riverside staff with
teachers at the other local school where Direct Instruction was successful; and
focused attention on concrete tasks, and by doing so helped to create new roles
and identities as DI teachers.
Stage 4. Testing Children and Ordering Materials
Direct Instruction curricula consist of several levels. For example, Reading
Mastery has levels I-VI. Each level contains many lessons. Placement tests
(requiring 5-10 minutes per student) determine the exact beginning level and
lesson for each student. The 1st and 2nd authors helped test children in the
1st and 2nd grades that would be in the implementation. This enabled them to
get to know the teachers and students. The 2 kindergarten teachers tested their
own children in Reading Mastery and Language for Learning.
Placement tests took 3 days. The 1st and 2nd grade teachers used outcomes to
place children in groups and to order materials. The teachers also decided who
would teach which groups by matching their interests with the curricula.
Placements were based on the following.
1. Scores on placement tests.
2. Evenly distributing the more
disruptive students among groups.
3. Keeping group sizes within ranges
suggested by the Direct Instruction manuals (about 12 students).
These activities and decisions reveal
teachers' increasing skill and independence. The testing and placement
activities served several functions. They
1. Helped ensure that the implementation
would be successful.
2. Continued to show the first author's
commitment to the school.
3. Taught concepts and skills in Direct
Instruction; e.g., temporary ability groups, lessons, levels, and instruction
formats. These would become part of the culture of the school.
Stage 5. Pre-implementation Meetings
After the testing, teachers met informally alone and with the first 2 authors
and principal several times. Teachers decided that they wanted their own
materials; therefore, they would not share materials to save money. In
addition, the kindergarten teacher and her assistant decided they would
self-contain their class. There was no dissention about this decision; the rest
of the group acknowledged the kindergarten teacher's and assistant's expertise
and knowledge of their students, and believed they had students' interests at
heart. In other words, the teachers decided not to follow several pieces of
advice from teachers at the other school using Direct Instruction. This, again,
shows increasing confidence and community among them.
The group informally selected the person
with the most DI experience as lead teacher for the small group of DI
teachers--the 2nd grade teacher who taught Reading Mastery the previous year at
another school.
Stage 6. Implementation
After materials arrived and lessons began, the group met informally to discuss
progress and identify further training needs. They told the first author they
would call her as needed. This phase lasted 10 weeks-- from the second week of
January, 1999 to April, 1999.
Outcomes
This section discusses: 1) changes in
teachers and their social relationships; 2) student achievement; 3) learning
communities; 4) school-wide DI implementation; and 5) district-wide adoption of
DI.
Changes in Teachers
Changes in teachers occurred in 2 areas: skills, and empowerment and
collaboration. Skills. The most notable changes in
teachers' skills were in the following areas identified by Vitale (1998).
a. Securing attention before giving task
signals
b. Watching all students in the group
while presenting tasks.
c. Correcting the group for less than
100% proficient group response.
d. Seating low performers in direct line
of vision.
e. Presenting the entire lesson without
skipping tasks.
f. Presenting tasks in the correct
sequence.
g. Requiring that students give the
correct response throughout the task.
h. Presenting tasks so all children can
see and hear.
i. Using signals whenever specified.
j. Sustaining a brisk pace.
k. Maintaining student attention by
varying voice inflection.
l. Requiring students to respond in
normal voices.
m. Correcting most errors.
n. Providing transition statements
between tasks; e.g., praise.
Teachers generalized these skills to
non-Direct Instruction lessons, materials and student groups. This suggests
that teachers: 1) saw the value of these techniques; 2) could identify settings
where they would be useful; and 3) were skilled enough to apply techniques in
settings without the help of presentation books. More broadly, this suggests
that teachers were moving towards a larger implementation of Direct
Instruction.
Empowerment and Collaboration
As teachers' skills improved, another leader emerged. She did not replace the
more experienced Direct Instruction teacher initially selected as leader. She
assumed more of the role of making decisions about the position of the small
Direct Instruction group in the larger school environment; e.g., who should
re-test students. The Direct Instruction teachers also communicated frequently
with each other about their hopes, students' progress, instructional
methods and about their relationship with teachers in the rest of the school.
They saw themselves as a small community in (but fully part of) the larger
school community. Evidence of the special place of DI in the changing school
culture is teachers' protecting DI lesson time. When they needed substitute
teachers for times when they were away, they ensured that reading lessons were
conducted.
Another finding was increasing social
status of assistant teachers, who taught one or more Direct Instruction groups
each day. They were considered essential to the success of the pilot
project--and to the integrity of the new community. Therefore, they were
accorded virtually full status and respect as teachers by the licensed
teachers.
Students' Achievement
Measures of student achievement presented here can only be seen as examples of
ongoing evaluation, not summative evaluation, because the implementation was
only 10 weeks old at the time of final data collection. The question is, did participation in Direct Instruction prepare children
for more advanced placement in Direct Instruction curricula? Data consist of DI
and nonDI students' scores on placement tests in the
Reading Mastery and Language for Learning curricula.
Pre-test (October) and re-test (March) scores are available for students in the
implementation. In addition, because the principal and staff decided to
implement Direct Instruction school-wide during the next school year, and since
this requires placement testing, March placement test scores are also available
for nonDI students in kindergarten, 1st and 2nd
grades. Again, the data and the analyses were not designed to test the
effectiveness of Direct Instruction. The question was whether these data and
analyses would help to convince the principal, teachers, and district
administrators to move to a school-wide implementation. The main findings are
as follows.
a. 73% of kindergartners (16/22) in Language
for Learning placed at a higher level of the curriculum at the re-test.
There was no change in test placement for 4 children.
b. Comparison of placement re-test scores
of kindergartners who had received Language for Learning with placement
test scores of kindergartners in two classes that had not received Language
for Learning, showed that: (1) 91% of DI kindergartners (20/22) placed at
lesson 41; (2) only 25% (6/24) and 27% (6/22) of kindergartners in the two nonDI Language for Learning classes placed at lesson 41.
Most of the nonDI kindergartners placed at lesson 31.
3. 76% of kindergartners (16/21), who had
all begun in Reading Mastery I or II, placed out of Reading
Mastery I and II, and now placed in the more advanced, Fast Cycle,
curriculum at the re-test. One child was not available for re-test. In
contrast, (a) 64% (14/22) of kindergartners in one class who had not received
DI, placed in Reading Mastery I (none in Reading Mastery II or
higher); and (b) 50% (12/24) kindergartners in the other nonDI
class placed in Reading Mastery I, lesson 11. However, 50% (12/24) in
this second nonDI kindergarten placed in Fast
Cycle. This interesting result may be accounted for by the fact that the
teacher in this second nonDI kindergarten began
imitating the DI techniques modeled by the DI teachers (e.g., specific
attention and task signals, group responses, firming responses and correcting
errors). In addition, she instituted a phonics program. This was understood by
teachers as evidence supporting DI; if a little DI works, imagine what a
complete implementation will do.
4. 63% (10/16) of first graders in Reading
Mastery placed at higher lessons in the curriculum at the re-test. There
was no lesson placement change in 5 children (32%). And 1 child placed at a
lower lesson on re-test.
5. Of the 17 second graders who began in Reading
Mastery II, 53% (9/17) placed out of Reading Mastery II, and now
placed in Reading Mastery III (7 children, or 41%), one child placed in Reading
Mastery IV, and one in Reading Mastery V. In contrast most of the
children in nonDI second grades placed either in Reading
Mastery I or II.
In general, the findings show that
students who received Direct Instruction in kindergarten, 1st and 2nd grades
significantly increased their skills between the pre-test and re-test period of
less than 2 months, and appeared to outperform children in the nonDI classes. However, the DI and nonDI
groups could not be created by random allocation or by matching. Therefore, the
authors cannot be sure that the classes were equivalent at the time of the
pre-test. Still, the consistent findings in one direction (the apparent
superiority of DI) were highly suggestive to the principal, teachers, and
district administrators.
Another major change in the children was
in pro-social or classroom behavior. These changes are discussed in the next
section.
Direct Instruction Learning Communities
Direct Instruction is understood as a form of communication that helps students
acquire complex knowledge systems (Engelmann & Carnine,
1991). However, one of the first findings was marked change in students' social
behavior. Following are examples that reflect the development of learning
communities.
1. Quickly and quietly coming to the
group lesson area when signaled.
2. Increased attention to lesson
activities.
3. Precise attention to teachers'
signals; e.g., "Get ready" or "Your turn" or hand gestures.
4. Precise attention to the behavior of
other students--especially distinguishing on-task and off-task behavior and
more and less proficient
behavior.
5. Decrease in off-task behavior.
6. Increase in helpful behavior, such as
helping other students to give right answers or changing position so that other
students can see the teacher or the book she is holding.
7. Enthusiasm about lessons.
8. Covertizing
the turn-taking sequences and the "rules" ("grammar") for
their operation. Student's tacit knowledge of the rules of instruction was
revealed when substitute teachers deviated from "the way you're supposed
to teach." For example, students would say:
"Sit on the chair. Miss S sits on
the chair."
"You gotta
get us ALL to say it."
"We get to read a whole thing
(points to a column of words) by ourself."
"Hold the book up here. (higher) Not on your knee."
"JT said it wrong. Make him do it
again. He said 'Oh.' It's 'Ah.'"
"You ain't
pointin' at the word."
"That's not the sentence we're
on." (referring to the story book).
In other words, Direct Instruction
lessons foster precisely the skills (attention, perception, action) and
sentiments that enable students and teachers to participate competently in
them. Lessons are not adequately understood as one-way teacher
"transmission" of information or even as reciprical
exchange of information. Lessons are better understood as a learning
community--with shared understanding of aims, norms about appropriate behavior
and the roles of students and teacher, values, and skills.
Classical sociological theory helps
explain how Direct Instruction fosters these sorts of changes. First, Georg Simmel described the
origins of "society" (the state of "social") and the
socializing effects of society in an early paper, "Social interaction as
the definition of the group in time and space." Simmel
wrote:
Society
exits whenever several individuals are in reciprocal relationship. This
reciprocity arises always from specific impulses or by virtue of specific
purposes...That which constitutes "society" is evidently types of
reciprocal influencing. Any collection of human beings whatsoever becomes
"society," not by virtue of the fact that in each of the number there
is a life-content which actuates the individual as such, but only when the
vitality of these contents attains the form of reciprocal influencing. (Simmel, 1909).
In other words,
children come to school and to classroom activities with different impulses,
purposes and skills. Many children come to school with no idea of what school
is or how to behave. However, turn-taking sequences within exercises within
lessons and classroom activities (especially Direct Instruction lessons) are
all forms (formats) of social organization. Within these forms, teachers and
students exert reciprocal influence on each other. A
state--"society"--comes into existence. With repetition of familiar
forms of social interaction, each member learns what to look and listen for,
how to understand what is seen and heard ("learning sets"), when it
is his or her turn and what he or she is supposed to do within the sequences
that constitute the group. Gradually, "the isolated
side-by-sideness of the individuals (is transformed)
into definite forms of with-and-for-one-another" (Simmel,
1909)--i.e., an experience of "we."
This is exactly what happens in Direct
Instruction lessons, which are scripted and use the same formats (sequences of
tasks, turns and wordings) from lesson to lesson. For example, teachers and
students are supposed to engage in certain behaviors in response to each other.
As part of a reading lesson the teacher says, "What word?" Students
say the word, and the teacher acknowledges the correct response. Or students
make an incorrect response, and the teacher corrects the error in a typical way
(e.g., by giving the correct answer and then re-asking the question). These
interaction sequences are highly regular from moment to moment and lesson to
lesson. The result is that students learn not only subject matter (e.g.,
to read), but also learn the "rules" and skills for social
behavior in lessons. In fact, when teachers make "mistakes," students
invariably correct them. These corrections reveal students'
"commonsense" or tacit understanding of the social order and moral
obligations of lessons and the group.
Simmel does not explain how repeated
performance of teacher-student interactions within lessons fosters common
understandings and skills. However, the sociologist and philosopher George
Herbert Mead addressed this issue. For Mead (1956), social activities are
sequences of "social acts." Social acts have 3 phases:
1. One person (e.g., teacher) initiates a
social act (task) with a signal ("gesture")--vocal or nonvocal--such as "Get ready" or "Yes, what
word?"
2. The 2nd person (e.g., student or
group) interprets the meaning of the gesture.
3. The 2nd person then makes an "adjustive response" (reaction) based on his or her
interpretation of the initiating gesture; e.g., the students
answer, "slipped." The 1st person (teacher) interprets the
meaning of the 2nd person's adjustive response
("They got it."), and makes his or her own adjustive
response ("Next word."), and the sequence continues.
For Mead, signals or "gestures"
have pragmatic meaning; they signify (point to) something that will
happen next. When interacting persons share the meaning of a gesture (i.e.,
they respond to it the same way), the gesture is a "significant
symbol." For example, both teachers and children understand (can
predict) the meaning (i.e., what follows from) a teacher saying,
"Listen," or "My turn," or "Say it with me." And
teachers and students come to share the meaning of students' correctly vs.
incorrectly reading words--namely, the teacher will enact a correction routine
and students will "get it right." These significant symbols have at
least 3 functions; they are: 1) what members communicate about; 2) how members
communicate; and 3) the core culture of the group or "society." They
define "us."
The concept of significant symbol is
recognized by 2 of the major curriculum developers and theorists of Direct
Instruction. Speaking of teacher communication, Engelmann and Carnine write:
The
communication must also provide a signal that accompanies each example that has
the quality to be generalized...(W)e must use some
form of signal to tell the learner, in effect, that these examples are the
same...The signal, typically a behavior such as saying 'red' for all examples
that are red, also provides the learner with the basis for communicating with
us. (Engelmann & Carnine, 1991:
p. 5).
When
"red" means (predicts, points to) the same thing (turning towards a
red object, a similar sensory experience) for students and teacher,
"red" is a significant symbol that is part of the group's "stock
of knowledge."
This is why student's mastering the smallest bits of knowledge is a powerful
event for them and their teachers. Note that the high frequency and regular
form of social acts (teacher-student communication) in DI lessons, combined
with clarity (faultlessness) in communications, makes it more likely that
events will acquire shared meaning--become significant symbols. This is shown
below in an excerpt from the curriculum called Corrective Reading. Decoding B1, lesson 1.
Teacher: You're going to say the first
sounds in hard words.
Teacher: Listen: slip. Say it. (Signal)
Students: Slip
Teacher: Good!
Teacher: My turn to say the first sound
in (pause) slip. sss. Your turn. Say the first sound. (Signal)
Students: sss.
Teacher: Great! Teacher:
My turn to say the next sound in slip: lll Your turn. Say that sound. (Signal). lll
Students: lll
As persons (now group members) come to
understand the meaning or significance of gestures, they are able to "take
the attitude" of the person making the gesture; i.e., to attend and
interpret events as he or she does, and therefore to predict what he or she
will do next or what he or she expects the receiver of the gesture to do next.
Another sociologist, Alfred Schutz (1970), calls this
the assumption of a "reciprocity of
perspectives"; i.e., each person assumes that if she trades places
with the other person, she will see what the other person sees. The
assumption of a reciprocity of perspectives fosters
"intersubjectivity," or a
"we-feeling," which is what Simmel meant by
"with-and-for-one-another." Members' assumption that they are not
lone individuals, but members of a "we," sharing the ability to take
the attitude of other members, and sharing a number of significant symbols,
gives members an identity (a self) as members and incentive to protect the
group by: 1) self-controlling order-disturbing action; 2) controlling
order-disturbing actions of other members (e.g., reminding other members of the
rules, as shown in the earlier examples); and 3) enthusiasm about
participation. This, of course, fosters learning the content of lessons.
Emile Durkheim
makes a similar argument in The Division of Labor in Society (1933) and
in Suicide (1951). Following are relevant quotations.
...when
individuals who are found to have common interests associate, it is not only to
defend these interests, it is to associate...to have the pleasure of communing,
to make one out of many, which is to say, finally, to lead the same moral life
together. (Durkheim, 1933: p. 15)
The influence of
society is what has aroused in us the sentiments of sympathy and solidarity
drawing us toward others; it is society which, fashioning us in its image,
fills us with religious, political and moral beliefs that control our actions.
To play our social role we have striven to extend our intelligence and it is
still society that has supplied us with tools for this development by transmitting
to us its trust fund of knowledge. (Durkheim,
1951: p. 211-212.)
Where collective
sentiments are strong, it is because the force with which they affect each
individual conscience is echoed in all the others, and reciprocally. The
intensity they attain therefore depends on the number of consciences which
react to them in common...But for a group to be said to have less common life
than another means that it is less powerfully integrated; for the state of
integration of a social aggregate can only reflect the intensity of the
collective life circulating in it. It is the more unified and powerful the more
active and constant is the intercourse among its members. (Durkheim,
1951, p. 201-202)
In brief, Durkheim's argument is that: 1) when members share values
and the meaning of events, and 2) when interaction occurs at a high rate (so
that the experience of sharing meaning is frequent), there will be 3) stronger
group cohesion, which 4) increases the group's value for members and reduces
the likelihood of deviant behavior--not for fear of aversive consequences for
deviant behavior, but because the self is defined in part by group membership.
The phenomenological sociologist, Alfred Schutz, makes still more contributions to an understanding
of DI learning communities. For Schutz (1970),
members gradually develop a common understanding of their "reality."
It's not merely that they share the meaning of gestures. They develop shared
concepts ("typifications") of: 1) purpose;
2) time (DI time, quiet time, active time, time when we're real smart); 3) space
(lesson space, personal space); 4) objects (our materials, my
materials); 5) activities (enjoyable, boring, individual, group); and 6)
persons (members, nonmembers). By acting according to these typifications (e.g., settling down when lesson time begins
in lesson space), teachers and students: 1) enact the typifications;
2) communicate the vitality and moral force of the typifications
("Shhh, Jimmy, its time for SRA."); and 3)
sustain group cohesion and their identities and skills as members.
In addition, DI lessons are "provinces
of meaning." Schutz (1970) argues that we
live in multiple realities--dreams, illness, the blues, religious experience,
and the workaday world of everyday life. Each "reality" or province
is somewhat separated from the others by time and space, and by special
activities for entering (inducing) the province and for leaving it. For
example, a congregation performs activities that enable members to exit the
world of daily life (jobs, competition, worldly possessions) and enter the
reality of religious experience. Similarly, Direct Instruction lessons are a
province of meaning separate from the playground, street, and other lessons. Direct
Instruction lessons have their own typifications of time, space, objects actions, interactions
and persons; their own aims or "projects at hand" ("Everyone
learns everything."); and their own norms ("We support one another;
we do not make fun of mistakes."). To the extent that Direct Instruction lessons contrast
sharply with other classes in students' school life, DI lessons may become more
salient; exert stronger influence on actions and feelings; and produce more
pro-social behavior and achievement.
In summary, as a form of communication
embedded in a larger form of social organization (lessons), Direct Instruction
creates a learning community in which members have: 1) high expectations of
achievement for themselves and the group; 2) clearly established standards and
accountability (moral principles); 3) shared symbols that make communication
possible and that define the group itself; and 4) shared conceptions of
purpose, time, space, action, objects and activities.
Decision to Implement Direct Instruction
School-wide at Riverside
A 4th outcome was the principal's and teachers' decision to implement the Language
for Learning and Reading Mastery curricula school-wide the next
year. During an interview near the end of the school year, the principal, Mrs. Nunnally, said that the pilot implementation had served 2
purposes:
1. It improved student achievement in
reading comprehension and word attack.
2. It taught children to focus. With 12%
of the students on medication for alleged attention deficits, Mrs. Nunnally believed DI greatly benefitted
students and teachers.
In addition, Mrs. Nunnally
said that teachers saw significant gains in achievement and "this is
beneficial for them as teachers feel they are making a difference."
Another benefit is that the teachers did
not have to spend 4-6 hours a week planning instruction. Another important
benefit of Direct Instruction was the involvement of the teaching assistants.
Mrs. Nunnally said,
We
(principals) say it all the time. Teachers' assistants ought to be teaching,
not doing bulletin boards. You have a warm body in the classroom,
use them effectively, particularly in low schools. However, Teaching Assistants
are not trained to teach, but with DI they can become a part of the teaching
force. They are integrally involved in the mission of the school-- to improve
the students' reading achievement. Everybody, I mean
everybody, is taking pride in the accomplishments of the students' increased
skills and knowledge. When people feel pride in what they are doing they give
more, they invest more time and energy.
Mrs. Nunnally
moved decisively on the full implementation. In early March, 1999, it was
decided to give all of the children placement tests. The Reading Recovery
teachers and their assistants volunteered to help test the children, and (with
consent of the current DI teachers) assumed the major share of the work. After
one day of introduction and testing, these teachers began to work more
independently--creating their own data base, for example. In addition, the
Reading Recovery teachers indicated that their commitment to Direct Instruction
was genuine. They said, "This is what we've needed all along. Reading
Recovery does not provide what many of these kids need." And, "I
can't wait to start using this. I wish we could have been doing this last year.
Reading Recovery teaches decoding but not comprehension, and that is what
showed up in the kids."
In addition, the Reading Recovery
teachers suggested that meetings be held for the whole school, to introduce and
gain teachers' acceptance of Direct Instruction before the implementation. In
other words, their interest in Direct Instruction and participation in testing
was based on more than job security.
Following the suggestion for a
whole-school meeting, the 1st and 2nd authors met with the staff at
From One-school to District-wide Adoption
Following is a description of the movement from the one-school pilot
implementation of Direct Instruction to district-wide adoption. It should be
made clear that the authors did not plan steps ahead of time. The process is
perhaps best described as shaping. As persons and organizations in the district
took another step closer to wider implementation (e.g., read more, seemed more interested,
decided to try Direct Instruction for 1 grade), the authors provided support,
praise, training, hands-on assistance, and opportunities for even more adoption
of Direct Instruction. Weakening Institutionalized Beliefs and Practices.
Education is dominated by "philosophies," "theories of
learning," and "best practices" legitimated and valorized with
the terms "progressive," "child-centered," and
"developmentally appropriate" (Grossen,
1998a; Stone, 1998). A deeper analysis suggests that these constructivist
beliefs and practices:
1. Are part of a cultural current of
"Romantic modernism," which portrays social institutions, authority,
and bodies of knowledge as essentially repressive (Rice, 1999).
2. Run counter to the long history and
large body of readily available research on learning and instruction (e.g.,
Anderson, Reder, & Simon, 1996;
3. Foster less achievement in reading and
math, and yield lower self-esteem and internal locus of control than direct,
elements-first, mastery-oriented curricula, such as Direct Instruction (Adams
& Engelmann, 1996).
4. Are not subjected to protocols of
scientific reasoning found in the "hard sciences," or even the
cost-benefit analyses used in the business world for making or accepting claims
to validity and efficacy (Ellis & Fouts, 1993; Grossen, 1998b). Therefore, some administrators and
teachers sustain the predominant constructivist mode of thinking and
instruction by default; they know nothing else. Others are true believers. And
others, who (for example) believe that many children need explicit instruction
on decoding, keep silent, fearing censure for voicing objections.
However,
The authors had many discussions with
teachers, principals and district administrators during and after the pilot
implementation. These discussions revealed that the ABC's had the following
effects.
1. The ABC accountability system is
considered "here to stay." Unlike other state mandates, the ABCs will
not be dropped in a few years.
2. District administrators and school
principals examine every student's achievement. They know exactly how well
students are doing and teachers are teaching.
3. Teachers feel pressure to help
students achieve from the beginning of the year.
4. Teachers, principals and district
administrators understand that self-valorizing rhetoric ("We're
child-centered."), anecdotal and qualitative "data" (e.g.,
5. The idea that low achievement means
learning disabilty (and therefore is not the schools'
fault) is less tenable. Low achievement is coming to be seen as a sign of weak
curriculum and poor teaching.
6. The combination of: a) hard evidence
that Direct Instruction fosters the achievement prescribed by the state (e.g.,
graphs from Project Follow Through, videotapes of kindergartners reading
fluently, high scores from schools using Direct Instruction); and b) the costs
and benefits of what they are doing (and believing) compared with Direct
Instruction, leads many to see Direct Instruction as a less costly and more
rewarding alternative. For example, principals know that Reading Recovery costs
about $100,000 a year of Title I funds and "services" only about 20
children, while a full-school implementation of Direct Instruction language and
reading costs less than half and will teach all children to read.
7. Veterans who
"knew all along" that constructivist beliefs and practices are a main
reason for low achievement,
openly criticize these curricula and fads in general. (The threat of censure is
now less aversive than the threat of job loss and the
immorality of not doing what obviously works.) They point to the failure of
schools of education to prepare new teachers. They ridicule whole language.
Even Reading Recovery teachers identify ways that Direct Instruction is
superior. Respected veteran teachers begin educating new (naive) teachers and
constructivist-indoctrinated teachers about effective instructional design.
"You can't expect children to comprehend a text if they can't decode
it!" Or, "They have to practice, practice, practice, or they won't
retain it." This occurs in school meetings (e.g., when staff prepare
yearly "school improvement plans") and informally in teachers'
lounges. School principals and district administrators (whose jobs and
reputations are on the line) support the newly-forming idea that predominant
beliefs and practices are fundamentally flawed and will "get us in
trouble," but that Direct Instruction is a rational and desirable
alternative.
Disseminating
Initial Results of the Pilot Implementation.
After only ten weeks of implementation (March, 1999), teachers saw and reported
significant changes in their children (described earlier). The principal shared
these results with other principals and the Executive Director of Elementary
Education, Ms. Lynch, who is the curriculum and instruction leader of the
county. Ms. Lynch was familiar with and supportive of Direct Instruction,
having used it when she first began teaching. She encouraged Mrs. Nunnally to share the results with another school in the
county (Sunrise Elementary) whose population was similar to
The principal of
One factor appears especially important
in speading interest and acceptance of Direct
Instruction. The Language Arts Coordinators at 2 schools that had decided to
adopt Direct Instruction schoolwide, were trained in
Reading Recovery, believed in its efficacy, and made their living using it.
Yet, after observing Reading Mastery lessons in level IV in another
school, and after giving the Corrective Reading placement tests, these
teachers were the strongest advocates of Direct Instruction. They were
well-respected by Language Arts Coordinators at other schools (similarly
trained in Reading Recovery), who were in a position to obstruct the adoption
of Direct Instruction. However, these 2 former Reading Recovery teachers were
persuasive. More than 1 teacher and principal made the statement, " If she's for it, then I gotta
listen because I trust her judgment."
A Direct Instruction
Position. In April, the 1st author was offered a job
with
Additional Focus on
Minority Students.
In addition to wanting to raise achievement generally, the Executive Director
of Elementary Education, Ms. Lynch, was strongly committed to decreasing the
large discrepancy between the achievement of disadvantaged and advantaged
(generally minority vs white) children in some
elementary schools. With funds from a Matching Incentive Grant (from The
University of North Carolina at Wilmington and from the county), the 2 first
authors and Ms. Lynch, after several meetings with school principals and
teachers, began a pilot implementation of Language for Learning and Reading
Mastery in two affluent schools Direct Instruction was now in schools that served
primarily poor children and primarily middle and upper class children. This
created the (increasingly accurate) impression that Direct Instruction was
"everywhere in the county." Principals of nonDirect
Instruction schools were beginning to feel left out, and asked the 1st author
for information about Direct Instruction.
A Taste of
District-wide Adoption.
The Executive Director of Elementary Education, Ms. Lynch, now made a bold
move. She offered to pay for DI materials in any summer school classes that
chose them. Twenty-one of 22 elementary schools opted for Direct Instruction.
There were now 42 classes (at least 84 teachers and approximately 700 students)
using DI the summer of 1999.
District-wide
Training. A
Direct Instruction Conference, sponsored by SRA/McGraw-Hill (the publisher of
Direct Instruction materials), The Watson School of Education and
Growing Adoption. Throughout the summer of 1999, the 1st
author was asked to give presentations at meetings for principals and assistant
principals, Language Arts Coordinators, and at 14 elementary school faculty
meetings. Almost invariably, these meetings were followed by requests for help
instituting Direct Instruction. The 1st and 2nd authors spent the rest of the
summer meeting with school staff (sometimes 1 school at a time and sometimes
with representatives of several schools together) to:
1. Discuss curricula in relation to
school needs.
2. Plan placement testing. Teachers and
Language Arts Coordinators were taught to test the children.
3. Secure pre-implementation training
from the publisher and provide such training themselves.
4. Order materals.
5. Help each school to select staff who
would serve as "lead Direct Instruction teachers"; i.e., persons who,
with the principal, would collect and maintain placement test data; work with a
few other teachers and the principal to create groups; make sure materials were
ordered, received, stored and distributed to the right teachers; collect and
store mastery test data; be available when special prblems
arose; and arrange training sessions. As of September, 1999, following on the
pilot work at
1. Instruments which, together with
mastery tests in the curricula, will provide formative evidence of children's
achievement, well before the end-of-grade tests.
2. Instruments that
teachers and princpals can use to assess
teacher performance and guide coaching and hiring.
3. Methods by which principals, teachers
and district administrators can share progress, develop solutions for within-
and across-school difficulties, and plan long-term changes. For example, the
authors have developed a plan for linking 6 schools that serve the same
population of disadvantaged childen who repeatedly
move between one school and another. By using the same DI curricula, these
schools can assure continuity in the children's education.
Summary
This paper reports a case study of a
school reform model that began with 1 school and was gradually expanded to a
district-wide adoption of Direct Instruction. The school reform consisted of
implementing 2 Direct Instruction curricula--Reading Mastery and
Language for Learning--in 3 classes--kindergarten, 1st and 2nd grades--in a
school serving disadvantaged children. Qualitative and quantitative data on
children's and teachers' achievements, combined with a strict state accountabiity program, set in motion a process of
district-wide adoption of Direct Instruction. Certain features of the movement
from a one-school pilot project to district-wide school reform via Direct
Instruction may be usable in other locations.
References
Anderson
Binder, C. (1996). Behavioral fluency: Evolution of a new
paradigm. The Behavior Analyst, 19, 163-197.
Binder, C., Haughton,
E., and Van Eyk, D. (1990). Precision teaching
attention span. Teaching Exceptional Children, Spring,
24-27.
Catania
Dixon
Durkheim, E. (1933). The
division of labor in society.
Durkheim, E. (1951). Suicide.
Ellis, A., & Fouts, J.T. (1993). Research on educational innovations.
Ellis, E., &
Engelmann, S., & Carnine, D. (1991). Theory of instruction.
Grossen, B. (1998a). Child-Directed Teaching
Methods: A Discriminatory Practice of Western Education.
Grossen, B. (1998a). What Does It Mean to Be a
Research-Based Profession? In W. Evers (Ed.), What's
gone wrong in
Lindsley, O. R. (1990). Precision teaching: By
teachers for children. Teaching Exceptional Children, Spring,
10-15.
Lindsley, O.R. (1993). Our
discoveries over 28 years. Journal of Precision Teaching, 10,
11-13.
Mead, G.H. (1956). The
social psychology of George Herbert Mead.
North Carolina
Department of Public Instruction (1996). A guide to the ABC's for central office
staff. On-line at http://www.dpi.state.nc.us.
North Carolina
Department of Public Instruction (1998). A report card for the ABC's of public
education. Technical Notes from NCDPI. On-line at http://www.dpi.state.nc.us.
Rice, J. (1999). Romantic
modernism and the self. The Hedgehog Review.
1, 17-24.
Simmel, G. (1909). Social
interaction as the definition of the group in time and space. American
Journal of Sociology, XV, 296-298.
Schutz, A. (1970). On
phenomenology and social relations.
Stone, J.E. (1996). Developmentalism:
An Obscure but Pervasive Restriction on Educational Improvement. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 4, 8. On-line at http://olam.ed.asu.edu/epaa/v4n8.html.
Vitale, M. (1998). Direct Instruction Diagnostic Checklist.