Talk:Direct Instruction

On the premise that all students can learn and all teachers successfully teach if given effective training in specific techniques, teachers may be evaluated based on measurable student learning. A frequent statement in discussions of the methodology is "If the student doesn't learn, the teacher hasn't taught." (Tarver, 1999)

The above reference from the beginning of the page is not cited at the bottom of the paper. And furthermore, from searching on google scholar, the paper does not seem to exist. Shredthegnarbrah (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone who has felt compelled to speak out here provide some solid anti-Direct Instruction references or data? It is certainly reasonable to question the opinions coming from both sides of the argument here, but the primary difference seems to be that the pro-DI opinions are backed by research studies (albeit somewhat out-dated ones). Seeing some evidence to support negative opinions of this teaching methodology would be helpful to achieve a resolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.24.101.246 (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not NPOV and Direct Instruction is a controversial concept for many educators. It has been pushed primarily by conservative educators and by many in the Republican administration in the United States. I'm unclear as to whether it is controversial in other countries. The ideology behind it has been used to pressure out many "progressive" reforms. From a non-ideological stance, it has some merit and has been used effectively in some situations in the United States. It's also not that big an innovation...it was the way most teacher's taught me in the 1950'sRichard Dates 15:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not NPOV -- it consists mainly of quotations from pro-DI websites, with no mention whatsoever of criticisms. I don't know enough about the topic to make it NPOV, but I hope someone can. Vardamana 14:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above reservation does not list specific quotes he/she takes issue with. The user above also does not appear to exist anymore. User:Harriska2 23 Nov 2006

The above appears to remain an issue, thus I am leaving the NPOV request on the article. Kuki ni 15:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, the assertions this author makes are in dear need of substantiation. Additionally, "direct instruction" as a term can be applied in many ways and refers to more and broader intructional theories than the "Direct Instruction" movement.

As this is the only article on direct instruction submitted thus far, I am scared it will be read by some as fact, despite the many "citation needed" tags. This is corrupt information, and though W has marked it as possibly biased, I'm scared it will be cited. Please don't use this article as though it holds any authority!! There are wonderful definitions all over the place. Just hit Google, or any number of university websites, if you are doing online research. Please do not use this article to guide any definitions of "direct instruction!"

-Marged Howley, Master's Candidate, Ohio University College of Education

No offense but the above user is part of the education system and didn't even bother to create a wiki account to raise issues and contribute. Again, the above reservation does not point out specific issues. There is a difference between "direct instruction" (general) and "Direct Instruction" (Engelmann, University of Oregon, SRA, and others). It should really be capital "D" and capital "I". User:Harriska2 23 Nov 2006

Neutrality

One's perspective of DI often depends on what question s/he is asking: "Does DI conform to my personal philosophy of public education?" or "Is DI effective?" People responding "no" to the former usually see DI as a betrayal of the humanistic, egalitarian foundations of public education, or as a "canned" or "teacher proof" curriculum deliverable via unskilled teachers.

Ayn Rand, of whom I am otherwise no big fan, has a useful comment on terms like "effective" or "practical": "The evaluation of an action as 'practical' depends on what it is that one wishes to practice."

Is DI "effective"? That may well depend on what effect one desires.

These critics ignore the fact that DI achieves the goals of compensatory education...

I rather doubt it. I expect that in fact they either disagree with the goals (which is not the same as ignoring them), or disagree that DI achieves them.

For these reasons, I'm npov-tagging the article.

Also, this section needs cites, and I can't seem to google up any quickly.

Novalis 19:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My judgement is that it went NPOV back in early 2006 and the DI partisans are just more invested than others. Good luck addressing this issue. Rorybowman 01:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have access to an academic library, it would be great if you could help find some balancing references. I tried to do a bit of clean-up just now, but I don't really know much about education, and it's hard to find references on the web without paying Elsevier a zillion dollars. Novalis 14:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't just now, but don't think it would matter if I did. The "think tank" purchased-religion and purchased-science model generally leads to a tiresome quarrel between religious/ideological/financially-motivated DI proponents and moderate academic claims, which get zotted. One article that made me appreciate how much this is the case was at http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020128/metcalf . Trying to introduce NPOV into any of these politically-charged pedagogy topics is about as useful as trying the same with new religious movements in the face of "anti-cult" zealots. I personally find it tiresome. They tend to confuse science with war and believe that truth is a zero-sum game. Hence my "good luck." - Rorybowman 16:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So far on WP, I've AGF'd and had good luck thereby. I haven't done much to this article, but the few changes I've made have stuck, so I think there is hope that we can reach a neutral version of the article (even if I believe that DI sounds like some sort of creepy robot indoctrination protocol). Novalis 17:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No resolution removed tag

I will try to get in and do some work on this. The critique levied above about the POV stance in use of terms like 'effective' and 'practical' are right on target. The National Reading Panel's study did a meta-analysis and reached the conclusion that no phonics program is statistically significantly at increasing primary-grade reading achievement. The NRP's primary finding was that programs with a system and sequence are most effective for early reading achievement, and also that the effects of phonics programs diminish as students move up in school grades--they are most effective in 1st grade, progressively less effective afterwards. These may be important balancing citations. What complicates claims from DI proponents even more is the fact that 'effectiveness' and 'practicality' do not seem to involve lifelong reading, only early reading achievement. POV might be lessened in the current article with clear caveats about who the participants were in the studies, and by citing the studies. Unfortunately, much of the available writing on DI is apologetics from nifdi.org. When looking at national assessment data (NAEP) we see that there is a general plateau trend in reading achievement scores after 4th grade. In terms of lifelong reading, DI's claims at 'effectiveness' and 'practicality' would need to address this well-known 'slump'. I will look into the NAEP data, again, because my understanding is that increases in K-3 achievement do not always translate into achievement in grades 4-12--i.e., increases in measured skills for grades K-3 do not hold up when we begin to complicate the content and increase the difficulty of text. So to decrease POV, writers need to include clear descriptions of the population to which their studies may be generalized (basic research reporting methods). --Jerekson (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Direct Instruction vs. direct instruction

"Another popular direct instruction approach is the Success for All program which uses scripted teaching to instruct elementary children in phonics intensive reading instruction program. "

Is there anyway to make another article called direct instruction with the lower case? Success for All belongs there, not here. Harriska2 20:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly could create a separate article. I'm wondering, though, if Direct Instruction (the program formerly known as DISTAR) really needs to be the topic of a separate article. I'm thinking that we could revise this article to cover the broader topic of direct instruction as a "generic" method of instruction, and include sections for each of the significant programs that use direct instructional methods.

This article isn't very long, so there's no particular need to create multiple articles.

What if we rename this article from "Direct Instruction" to "Direct instruction"? We'd need to revise the lead section so that it represents the broader topic. Beyond that, we could simply include a section for each significant program that uses a direct instruction approach.

What do you think?

Best,

Rosmoran 03:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I had not noticed the proper noun upper-case redirect trick that was going on. DISTAR currently has its own entry so yes, I think that would be a good idea. I am going to be gold and do just that. I shall remove the redirect at direct instruction and leave this proper noun Direct Instruction stuff to sort itself out. Good idea! Rorybowman 19:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't lump "direct instruction" and "Direct Instruction" together -- they are sufficiently different to warrant separate entries. "Direct Instruction" is the set of 32 or so programs published by Engelmann and colleagues, most often published by SRA. There are arguably others. In lower case, "direct instruction," is the set of design principles to help guide instruction when (a) there are no published DI curricula, or (b) when a teacher is forced to use weaker materials and must make instructional adaptations. DISTAR has not been published in decades. It was the first large-scale DI program. I agree with Harriska2 that Success for All belongs in the "direct instruction" article -- I'm sure the principal author of Success for All, Robert Slavin would agree! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.21.75 (talk) 23:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. They are quite different. Should we go ahead and remove the merge proposal at the top of the page?

Notice that there is also an article for DISTAR. Do you think there should be separate articles for DISTAR and Direct Instruction (the actual program)? Or should they be merged?

Best, Rosmoran (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Direct Instruction, direct instruction, Success For All and DISTAR should all be separate entries.
-"direct instruction" is a generic term for teacher-directed instruction and includes many disparate techniques, methodologies and programs. This is what user Rdates recalls being used in his school in the 1950's. Capital-D capital-I Direct Instruction could not have been used because it was not developed until the 1960's and thereafter.
- "Success For All" is a comprehensive school-reform model that involves much more than teacher-directed instruction.It has no connection with Engelmann's work and Direct Instruction.
- DISTAR was the original K-4 language, math and reading program developed in the Engelmann-Bereiter preschool and during the Follow Through program implementation.
- Direct Instruction is a methodology and a much broader "family" of programs that includes middle school reading and mathematics, algebra, writing skills and more. There are 30+ "Direct Instruction" programs available now that all share the design features indicated by Engelmann. Some are for school use and others are aimed at home users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palisadesk (talk • contribs) 13:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unresolved- removed tag.

Remove Anne Tweed paragraph?

Anne Tweed appears to be discussing a study, "The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: effects of direct instruction and discovery learning," that uses generic "direct instruction," not the DISTAR model; therefore, it would appear to have nothing to do with this branch of "direct instruction," but the other, more generic branch of direct instruction. Derrida316 (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pathetic grammar

I find it somewhat amusing, and somewhat distressing, that, in this, article, about the types of instruction methods, used by public schools, and institutions in the U.S., that there are textbook style grammar and comma, errors indicative of a, poor understanding of sentence structure. All while talking, about learning to read. And how underwhelmed I am! In light of the lack of commas in some sentences perhaps some editors would do well to master the basics and I mean the very very basics before writing about learning about reading wouldn't you say? I like to saw logs! (talk)