This article examined the extent to which administrative decisions that affected the implementation fidelity of Direct Instruction programs were related to student achievement. Data from three studies showed that administrative decisions that disregarded recommended protocols regarding teacher training, teacher preparation, and student schedules were related to lower levels of teacher fidelity, student progress at mastery, and student achievement. Most results were statistically significant and had large associated effect sizes. Implications for practice and policy are discussed.
BarbashS. (2012). Clear teaching: With Direct Instruction, Siegfried Engelmann discovered a better way of teaching. Arlington, VA: Education Consumers Foundation.
2.
BennerG. J.NelsonJ. R.StageS. A.RalstonN. C. (2010). The influence of fidelity of implementation on the reading outcomes of middle school students experiencing reading difficulties. Remedial and Special Education, 32, 79–88.
3.
BurkeM. D.Hagan-BurkeS.KwokO.ParkerR. (2008). Predictive validity of early literacy indicators from the middle of kindergarten to second grade. The Journal of Special Education, 42, 209–226.
4.
CarlsonC. D.FrancisD. J. (2002). Increasing the reading achievement of at-risk children through Direct Instruction: Evaluation of the Rodeo Institute for Teacher Excellence (RITE). Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk, 7, 141–166.
5.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6.
CoughlinC. (2014). Outcomes of Engelmann’s Direct Instruction: Research syntheses. In StockardJ. (Ed.), The science and success of Engelmann’s Direct Instruction (pp. 25–54). Eugene, OR: NIFDI Press.
7.
DIBELS. (2008). DIBELS data system: Using data to improve achievement for each and all. Retrieved from https://dibels.uoregon.edu/
8.
EngelmannK. (2014). Creating effective schools with Direct Instruction. In StockardJ. (Ed.), The science and success of Engelmann’s Direct Instruction (pp. 99–122). Eugene, OR: NIFDI Press.
9.
EngelmannS. (1999). Theory of mastery and acceleration. In LloydJ. W.Kame’enuiE. J.ChardD. (Eds.), Issues in educating students and disabilities (pp. 177–195). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10.
EngelmannS. (2004). The Dalmatian and its spots: Why research-based recommendations fail logic 101. Education Week, 23, 34–35, 48.
11.
EngelmannS. (2014). Successful and confident students with Direct Instruction. Eugene, OR: NIFDI Press.
12.
EngelmannS.CarnineD. (1991). Theory of instruction: Principles and applications (Rev. ed.). Eugene, OR: ADI Press. (Original work published 1982)
13.
EngelmannS.CarnineD. (2011). Could John Stuart Mill have saved our schools?Verona, WI: Full Court Press.
14.
EngelmannS.ColvinG. (2006). Rubric for identifying authentic Direct Instruction programs. Eugene, OR: Engelmann Foundation.
15.
EngelmannS.SteelyD. (2004). Inferred functions of performance and learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
16.
EngelmannS. E.EngelmannK. E. (2004). Impediments to scaling up effective comprehensive school reform models. In GlennanT. K.BodillyS. J.GalegherJ. R.KerrK. A. (Eds.), Expanding the reach of education reforms: Perspectives from leaders in the scale-up of educational interventions (pp. 107–133). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
17.
FienH.BakerS. K.SmolkowskiK.SmithJ. L. M.Kame’enuiE. J.BeckC. T. (2008). Reading fluency as a predictor of reading proficiency in low-performing, high-poverty schools. School Psychology Review, 37, 391–408.
18.
GerstenR. M.CarnineD. W.WilliamsP. B. (1982). Measuring implementation of a structured educational model in an urban school district: An observational approach. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 4, 67–79.
19.
GerstenR. M.CarnineD. W.ZorefL.CroninD. (1986). A multifaceted study of change in seven inner-city schools. The Elementary School Journal, 86, 257–276.
LipseyM. W.PuzioK.YunC.HebertM. A.Steinka-FryK.ColeM. W.BusickM. D. (2012). Translating the statistical representation of the effects of education interventions into more readily interpretable forms (NSER 2013-3000). Washington, DC: National Center for Special Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the national reading panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
25.
Northwest Evaluation Association. (2011). RIT scale norms: For use with Measures of Academic Progress (MAP®) and MAP® for primary grades. Portland, OR: Author.
26.
ShadishW. R.CookT. D.CampbellD. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
27.
SimonH. A. (1947). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administration organization. New York, NY: Macmillan.
28.
SimonH. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63, 129–138.
29.
SmolkowskiK.CummingsK. (2016). Evaluation of the DIBELS (sixth edition) diagnostic system for the selection of native and proficient English speakers at risk of reading difficulties. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 34, 103–118.
StockardJ. (2011). Direct Instruction and first grade reading achievement: The role of technical support and time of implementation. Journal of Direct Instruction, 11(1), 31–50.
32.
StockardJ. (2013). Merging the accountability and scientific research requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act: Using cohort control groups. Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, 47, 2225–2257.
33.
StockardJ. (2014). The relationship between lesson progress in Direct Instruction programs and student test performance (NIFDI Technical Report 2014-1). Eugene, OR: National Institute for Direct Instruction.
34.
StockardJ.WoodT. W.CoughlinC.KhouryC. R. (2018). The effectiveness of Direct Instruction curricula: A meta-analysis of a half century of research. Review of Educational Research, 88, 479–507. doi:10.3102/0034654317751919
35.
TallmadgeG. K. (1977). The joint dissemination review panel idea book. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.
36.
VanderwoodM. L.LinklaterD.HealyK. (2008). Predictive accuracy of nonsense word fluency for English language learners. School Psychology Review, 37, 5–17.
37.
WoodT. W.StockardJ. (2012). Reading mastery and learning disabled students: A bibliography. Eugene, OR: National Institute for Direct Instruction.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
