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. Results are reported for the total set and subareas regarding reading, math, language, spelling, and multiple or other academic subjects; ability measures; affective outcomes; teacher and parent views; and single-subject designs. All of the estimated effects were positive and all were statistically significant except results from metaregressions involving affective outcomes. Characteristics of the publications, methodology, and sample were not systematically related to effect estimates. Effects showed little decline during maintenance, and effects for academic subjects were greater when students had more exposure to the programs. Estimated effects were educationally significant, moderate to large when using the traditional psychological benchmarks, and similar in magnitude to effect sizes that reflect performance gaps between more and less advantaged students.
AdamsG. (1996). Project Follow Through: In-depth and beyond. Effective School Practices, 15, 43–56.
2.
AdamsG.EngelmannS. (1996). Research on Direct Instruction: 25 years beyond DISTAR. Seattle, WA: Educational Achievement Systems.
3.
American Institutes for Research. (1999). An educator’s guide to schoolwide reform. Arlington, VA: Author.
4.
BarbashS. (2012). Clear teaching: With Direct Instruction, Siegfried Engelmann discovered a better way of teaching. Arlington, VA: Education Consumers Foundation.
5.
BeckerW. C.GerstenR. (1982). A follow-up of Follow Through: The later effects of the Direct Instruction model on children in fifth and sixth grades. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 75–92.
6.
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.
7.
BereiterC.EngelmannS. (1966). Teaching disadvantaged children in the preschool. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
8.
BereiterC.KurlandM. (1996). A constructive look at Follow Through results. Effective School Practices, 15, 17–32.
9.
BloomH. S.HillC. J.BlackA. B.LipseyM. W. (2008). Performance trajectories and performance gaps as achievement effect-size benchmarks for educational interventions. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 1, 289–328.
10.
BorensteinM.HedgesL. V.HigginsJ. P. T.RothsteinH. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. New York, NY: Wiley.
11.
BormanG. D.HewesG. M.OvermanL. T.BrownS. (2003). Comprehensive school reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 73, 125–230.
12.
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.
13.
CollinsM.CarnineD. (1988). Evaluating the field test revision process by comparing two versions of a reasoning skills CAI program. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 375–379.
14.
CookT. D.CampbellD. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
15.
CoughlinC. (2011). Research on the effectiveness of Direct Instruction (NIFDI Technical Report 2011-4). Eugene, OR: National Institute for Direct Instruction
16.
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.
17.
CohenJ. (1977). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (Rev. ed.). New York, NY: Academic Press.
18.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
19.
DedrickR. F.FerronJ. M.HessM. R.HogartyK. Y.KromreyJ. D.LangT. R.. . . LeeR. S. (2009). Multilevel modeling: A review of methodological issues and applications. Review of Educational Research, 79, 69–102.
20.
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.
21.
EngelmannS. (2007). Teaching needy kids in our backward system: 42 years of trying. Eugene, OR: ADI Press.
22.
EngelmannS. (2014a). The dreaded standards. In WoodT. W. (Ed.), Engelmann’s Direct Instruction: Selected writings from the past half century (pp. 414–421). Eugene, OR: NIFDI Press.
23.
EngelmannS. (2014b). Research from the inside: The development and testing of DI programs. In StockardJ. (Ed.), The science and success of Engelmann’s Direct Instruction (pp. 3–24). Eugene, OR: NIFDI Press.
24.
EngelmannS. (2014c). Successful and confident students with Direct Instruction. Eugene, OR: NIFDI Press.
25.
EngelmannS.BeckerW. C.CarnineD.GerstenR. (1988). The Direct Instruction Follow Through model: Design and outcomes. Education and Treatment of Children, 11, 303–317.
26.
EngelmannS.CarnineD. (1991). Theory of instruction: Principles and applications (Rev. ed.) Eugene, OR: ADI Press. (Originally published 1982)
27.
EngelmannS.CarnineD. (2011). Could John Stuart Mill have saved our schools?Verona, WI: Full Court Press.
28.
EngelmannS.ColvinG. (2006). Rubric for identifying authentic Direct Instruction programs. Eugene, OR: Engelmann Foundation.
29.
EngelmannS.SteelyD. (2004). Inferred functions of performance and learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
30.
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.
31.
GerstenR.CarnineD.ZorefL.CroninD. (1986). A multifaceted study of change in seven inner-city schools. The Elementary School Journal86, 257–276.
32.
GrossenB. (1996). The story behind Project Follow Through. Effective School Practices15(1), 4–9.
33.
HattieJ. A. C. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York, NY: Routledge.
34.
HuittW. G.MonettiD. M.HummelJ. H. (2009). Direct approach to instruction. In ReigeluthC.Carr-ChellmanA. (Eds.), Instructional-design theories and models: Vol. 3. Building a common knowledge base (pp. 73–98). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
35.
KalaianH.RaudenbushS. W. (1996). A multivariate mixed linear model for meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 1, 227–235.
36.
KennedyM. M. (1978). Findings from the Follow Through planned variation study. Educational Researcher, 7(6), 3–11.
37.
KennedyM. M. (2016). How does professional development improve teaching?Review of Educational Research, 86, 945–980.
38.
KinderD.KubinaR.Marchand-MartellaN. E. (2005). Special education and Direct Instruction: An effective combination. Journal of Direct Instruction, 5, 1–36.
39.
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.
40.
MacIverM. A.KemperE. (2002). The impact of Direct Instruction on elementary students’ reading achievement in an urban school district. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 7, 197–220.
41.
MeyerL. A. (1984). Long-term academic effects of the Direct Instruction Project Follow Through. The Elementary School Journal, 84, 380–394.
42.
MorganP. L.FarkasG.MaczugaS. (2015). Which instructional practices most help first-grade students with and without mathematics difficulties?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37, 184–205.
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.
45.
O’BrienD. M.WareA. M. (2002). Implementing research-based reading programs in the Fort Worth Independent school district. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 7, 167–195.
46.
PolaninJ. R.Tanner-SmithE. EHennessyE. A. (2016). Estimating the difference between published and unpublished effect sizes: A meta-review. Review of Educational Research, 86, 207–236.
47.
PopperK. R. (1962). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. New York, NY: Basic Books.
48.
PrzychodzinA. M.Marchand-MartellaN. E.MartellaR. C.AzimD. (2004). Direct Instruction mathematics programs: An overview and research summary. Journal of Direct Instruction, 4, 53–84.
49.
Przychodzin-HavisA. M.Marchand-MartellaN. E.MartellaR. C.MillerD. A.WarnerL.LeonardB.ChapmanS. (2005). An analysis of Corrective Reading research. Journal of Direct Instruction, 5, 37–65.
50.
RaudenbushS. W. (2009). Analyzing effect sizes: Random-effects models. In CooperH.HedgesL. V.ValentineJ. C. (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (pp. 295–315). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
51.
RossS. M.NunneryJ. A.GoldfederE.McDonaldA.RachoR.HornbeckM.FleishmanS. (2004). Using school reform models to improve reading achievement: A longitudinal study of Direct Instruction and Success for All in an urban district. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 9, 357–388.
52.
SchiefferC.Marchand-MartellaN. E.MartellaR. C.SimonsenF. L.Waldron-SolerK. M. (2002). An analysis of the Reading Mastery program: Effective components and research review. Journal of Direct Instruction, 2, 87–119.
53.
ShadishW. R.CookT. D.CampbellD. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
54.
SimonsenF.GunterL. (2001). Best practices in spelling instruction: A research summary. Journal of Direct Instruction, 1, 97–105.
55.
StataCorp. (2011). Stata Statistical Software: Release 12. College Station, TX: Author.
56.
StockardJ. (2010). Promoting reading achievement and countering the “fourth-grade slump”: The impact of Direct Instruction on reading achievement in fifth grade. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 15, 218–240.
57.
StockardJ. (2011). Direct Instruction and first grade reading achievement: The role of technical support and time of implementation. Journal of Direct Instruction, 11, 31–50.
58.
StockardJ. (2013). Merging the accountability and scientific research requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act: Using cohort control groups. Quality & Quantity, 47, 2225–2257.
59.
StockardJ.WoodT. W. (2017). The threshold and inclusive approaches to determining “best available evidence.”American Journal of Evaluation, 38, 471–492.
60.
TallmadgeG. K. (1977). The Joint Dissemination Review Panel idea book. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.
61.
VitaleM. R.JosephB. L. (2008). Broadening the institutional value of Direct Instruction implemented in a low-SES elementary school: Implications for scale-up and reform. Journal of Direct Instruction, 8, 1–18.
62.
VitaleM. R.KaniukaT. S. (2012). Adapting a multiple-baseline design rationale for evaluating instructional interventions: Implications for the adoption of Direct Instruction reading curricula for evidence-based reform. Journal of Direct Instruction, 12, 25–36.
WhiteW. A. T. (1988). A meta-analysis of the effects of Direct Instruction in special education. Education & Treatment of Children, 11, 364–374.
65.
WoodT. W. (2014). Engelmann’s Direct Instruction: Selected writings from the past half century. Eugene, OR: NIFDI Press.
66.
ZhangL. (2016). Is inquiry-based science teaching worth the effort?Science & Education, 25, 897–915.
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.
