di: "new di" bridge academy

Mon Jan 22 19:05:04 PST 2018

This popped up on my Google feed today, had anyone seen this?  I had to laugh when they said someone in Boston was writing the scripts for teachers, the scripts have been written for decades! Someone is trying to re invent the wheel.

Funded by Gates and Zuckerberg, one company is on a quest to educate the world's poorest kids

https://search.app.goo.gl/<https://search.app.goo.gl/cRZD>cRZD<https://search.app.goo.gl/cRZD>

Shared from my Google feed

Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>

________________________________
From: di-bounces at lists.uoregon.edu <di-bounces at lists.uoregon.edu> on behalf of di-request at lists.uoregon.edu <di-request at lists.uoregon.edu>
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2018 12:29:59 PM
To: di at lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: di Digest, Vol 68, Issue 8

Send di mailing list submissions to
        di at lists.uoregon.edu

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        https://lists-prod.uoregon.edu/mailman/listinfo/di
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        di-request at lists.uoregon.edu

You can reach the person managing the list at
        di-owner at lists.uoregon.edu

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of di digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1.  Fwd: Most comprehensive Meta-analysis ever done on Direct
      Instruction (jsilb24034)
   2. Re:  Most comprehensive Meta-analysis ever done on Direct
      Instruction (Jim Cowardin)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 17:09:49 -0500
From: jsilb24034 <jsilb24034 at aol.com>
To: di at lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: di: Fwd: Most comprehensive Meta-analysis ever done on Direct
        Instruction
Message-ID: <160e21f4a32-c0c-214e at webjasstg-vaa29.srv.aolmail.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

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-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 14:21:58 +0000
From: Jim Cowardin <jimco66 at gmail.com>
To: jsilb24034 <jsilb24034 at aol.com>
Cc: di at lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: di: Most comprehensive Meta-analysis ever done on Direct
        Instruction
Message-ID:
        <CAJ6ox6Q=KP_TODoZv2sFBQJn4p9cQXsgOf3OJyi0gQt7=Ut9Nw at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Thanks! I can?t seem to download the full report.

Jim

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 5:09 PM jsilb24034 <jsilb24034 at aol.com> wrote:

>
>
> 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 large body of research supporting its effectiveness, DI has not been
> widely embraced or implemented. In part this avoidance of DI may be fueled
> by the current popularity of constructivism and misconceptions of the
> theory that underlies DI. As explained in the first part of this article,
> DI shares with constructivism the important basic understanding that
> students interpret and make sense of information with which they are
> presented. The difference lies in the nature of the information given to
> students, with DI theorists stressing the importance of very carefully
> choosing and structuring examples so they are as clear and unambiguous as
> possible. Without such clarity students will waste valuable time and, even
> worse, potentially reach faulty conclusions that harm future progress and
> learning.
> Many current curriculum recommendations, such as those included within the
> Common Core, promote student-led and inquiry-based approaches with substan-
> tial ambiguity in instructional practices. The strong pattern of results
> presented in this article, appearing across all subject matters, student
> populations, settings, and age 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 when the 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
> teachers will not like it or that it stifles teachers? ability to bring
> their own personalities to their teaching. Yet, as described in earlier
> sections, proper implementation of DI does not disguise or erase a
> teacher?s unique style. In fact, the carefully tested presentations in the
> programs free teachers from worries about the wording of their examples or
> the order in which they present ideas and allow them to focus more fully on
> their students? responses and ensure their understanding. Recall that
> effect sizes associated with teachers? perceptions of the program reached
> as high as 1.04 in our analyses. Fears that teachers will not enjoy the
> programs or not be pleased with their results do not appear to be supported
> by the evidence.
> Lipsey et al. (2012) have suggested that effect sizes based on performance
> gaps among demographic groups could be a useful benchmark in evaluating the
> poten- tial impact of an intervention. Using data from the National
> Assessment of Education Progress, they calculated performance gaps in
> reading and math and found that the difference between more and less
> privileged groups corresponds to effect 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 in our 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
> substantially reduce current achievement disparities between
> sociodemographic groups. Moreover, as noted above, at least for the
> academic subjects, greater exposure would be expected to result in even
> larger effects. There is little indication that the effects 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/20180111/86cb03e5/attachment.html>

End of di Digest, Vol 68, Issue 8
*********************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists-prod.uoregon.edu/pipermail/di/attachments/20180123/fbaf583e/attachment-0001.html>