di: Fwd: Most comprehensive Meta-analysis ever done on Direct Instruction

Wed Jan 10 14:09:49 PST 2018

A meta-analysis done by Jean Stockard, Tim Wood, Cristy Coughlin and Caitlin Rasplica Khoury. was recently published. Quantitative mixed models were used to examine literature published from 1966 through 2016 on the effectiveness of Direct Instruction. Analyses were based on 328 studies involving 413 study designs and almost 4,000 effects. 

Here is a link for the meta-analysis.  Questions on the study can be directed to the authors

Here is the link:
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.3102/0034654317751919. 

Below is  an excerpt from the paper. Be sure to read the last paragraph. 

Implications for Policy and Practice

The findings of this meta-analysis reinforce the conclusions of earlier meta-analyses and reviews of the literature regarding DI. Yet, despite the very largebody of research supporting its effectiveness, DI has not been widely embraced orimplemented. In part this avoidance of DI may be fueled by the current popularityof constructivism and misconceptions of the theory that underlies DI. As explainedin the first part of this article, DI shares with constructivism the important basicunderstanding that students interpret and make sense of information with whichthey are presented. The difference lies in the nature of the information given tostudents, with DI theorists stressing the importance of very carefully choosing andstructuring examples so they are as clear and unambiguous as possible. Withoutsuch clarity students will waste valuable time and, even worse, potentially reachfaulty conclusions that harm future progress and learning.

Many current curriculum recommendations, such as those included within theCommon Core, promote student-led and inquiry-based approaches with substan-tial ambiguity in instructional practices. The strong pattern of results presented inthis article, appearing across all subject matters, student populations, settings, andage levels, should, at the least, imply a need for serious examination and reconsid-eration of these recommendations (see also Engelmann, 2014a; Morgan, Farkas,& Maczuga, 2015; Zhang, 2016). It is clear that students make sense of and inter-pret the information that they are given—but their learning is enhanced only whenthe information presented is explicit, logically organized, and clearly sequenced.To do anything less shirks the responsibility of effective instruction.

Another reason that DI may not be widely used involves a belief that teacherswill not like it or that it stifles teachers’ ability to bring their own personalities totheir teaching. Yet, as described in earlier sections, proper implementation of DIdoes not disguise or erase a teacher’s unique style. In fact, the carefully testedpresentations in the programs free teachers from worries about the wording oftheir examples or the order in which they present ideas and allow them to focusmore fully on their students’ responses and ensure their understanding. Recall thateffect sizes associated with teachers’ perceptions of the program reached as highas 1.04 in our analyses. Fears that teachers will not enjoy the programs or not bepleased with their results do not appear to be supported by the evidence.

Lipsey et al. (2012) have suggested that effect sizes based on performance gapsamong demographic groups could be a useful benchmark in evaluating the poten-tial impact of an intervention. Using data from the National Assessment ofEducation Progress, they calculated performance gaps in reading and math andfound that the difference between more and less privileged groups corresponds toeffect sizes ranging from 0.45 to 1.04 (Lipsey et al., 2012; p. 30; see also Bloom,Hill, Black, & Lipsey, 2008). These values are quite similar to the effects found inour analysis. In other words, the effects reported in this analysis, and calculated

from 50 years of data on DI, indicate that exposure to DI could substantiallyreduce current achievement disparities between sociodemographic groups.Moreover, as noted above, at least for the academic subjects, greater exposurewould be expected to result in even larger effects. There is little indication that theeffects would be expected to decline markedly after intervention ceased; the positive effects are long-term.

Certainly our nation’s children deserve both effective and efficient instruction.As one of the anonymous reviewers of our article put it, “Researchers and practi-tioners cannot afford to ignore the effectiveness research on DI.” 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists-prod.uoregon.edu/pipermail/di/attachments/20180110/34a48106/attachment.html>