research base of di final
TRANSCRIPT
MICHIGAN SCHOOLS WITH HORRIFIC 10%
LITERACY RATE HAVE BEEN TAKEN OVER
BY A CHARTER OPERATOR
Just outside of Detroit is a school district
where only 10 percent of students from
third to eighth grade are proficient in
reading and math. On the college-ready
exam, 90 percent of the district's 11th
graders failed the reading portion, 97
percent failed the math section, and 100
percent failed the social studies and
science portions.
HIGHLAND PARK, MICHIGAN
We have similar challenges in Utah – not an entire district
failing, but many, many students are not being effectively
taught.
http://www.deseretnews.com/top/769/37/Taylorsville-High-
50-worst-scoring-high-schools-in-Utah.html
UTAH SCHOOLS
How long have we been educating children?
At least several centuries
Do we know how to best educate children?
Does anyone believe we can learn how to best educate
children?
FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS IN
EDUCATION
As a result of a job assignment – researched how many repetitions it takes for a child to “get” something
COULDN’T FIND ANYTHING IN THE RESEARCH
Undertook to find the answers himself by doing direct research with his own children
Wrote “Give Your Child a Superior Mind” – translated into several languages
Charles Bereiter at University of Il l inois was given a grant to develop early learning programs for children – heard about Zig’sbook, met him and hired him to develop the grant program.
HISTORY OF DI
Hello, I ’m Siegfried Engelmann, Senior Educational Specialist at the University of I l l inois. For the past several years I have been working with Dr. Carl Bereiter at the Institute for Research on Exceptional Children developing methods and curricula for educating social ly disadvantaged chi ldren.
In this fi lm you wil l see the end product of some of our ef for ts. You wil l see chi ldren sitt ing down and showing of f what they can do in arithmetic. That’s what it is – showing of f – no attempt to teach – just to show what they’ve learned over, for some of them, a 2 year period and for others, only a 1 school year period. That’s not very many hours when you consider that their lessons lasted for only 20 minutes a day.
Now the method that I developed and that you wil l see in this fi lm is basically deductive. I t is not inductive as many of the current programs are. I t is based on the idea that you can work with minimum statements and teach the application of simple, deductive rules that give a very precise understanding and a very precise meaning to the statements of Arithmetic.
SCRIPT FOR BEGINNING OF 2ND FILM
“So long as the problem exists
and so long as a solution
apparently exists, then, it is
incumbent upon us to demand
that the problem be solved in the
schools”. Zig Engelmann
ZIG ENGELMANN
Rhymes/chants
FUN – tricks – challenges
Choral responding
“Goodbye” cards
Error corrections
Pause and Punch
ELEMENTS OF INSTRUCTION
THINKING MAKES YOU SMART
CORRECTION IS FUN
CORRECTION/FIRMING
LET’S MOVE TO THE HARD STUFF
Demonstration preschool program for low-income children - led
by Zig
Spent a couple years in further development creating
individual daily learning plans - Field Tested
Results: IQ gains of 24 points, Children who began the preschool highly
at risk entered first grade reading at beginning second-grade level and
performing at mid-second-grade level in math
CREATED LESSONS AND CURRICULUM
The instructional materials developed for the preschool project were later refined and published as the DISTAR programs by Science Research Associates, which at the t ime was owned by IBM. The programs were widely distr ibuted and produced success in many cit ies. The fol lowing is an excerpt from a newspaper ar t icle published in 1974 in the Chicago Sun Times:
The downward s l ide o f Chicago publ ic educat ion is be ing reversed in oneWest S ide school d is t r ic t by an exper imental program which can teachsome k indergarten ch i ldren to read at a th i rd grade leve l . The program isca l led DISTAR. I t is cred i ted wi th ach iev ing remarkable ga ins inreading and math sk i l ls s ince i ts formal in t roduct ion in1970 as astandard procedure for the pr imary grades in Publ ic School Dis t r ic t 10in the Lawndale Community.
DI - HISTORY
Late 1960’s War on Poverty was the social agenda.
Government instituted a large -scale study called Project
Follow Through, and its purpose was to evaluate dif ferent
approaches to educating economically disadvantaged
students in kindergarten through grade 3 to see what works
best.
Federal Office of Education invited Bereiter and Engelmann to
participate
Project Follow Through would become the largest experimental
education research program ever conducted by the federal
government.
PROJECT FOLLOW-THROUGH
Initial study period: 9 years – 1967-1976
More than 10,000 low-income students in 180 communities
were involved
$600 million project.
PROJECT FOLLOW-THROUGH
Category 1: Basic Skills Models
Direct Instruction – DISTAR scripted programs
Behavior Analysis – used tokens and rewards, programmed reading
curriculum – 2 sites used DISTAR – focus on rewards
Language Development Model – SW Education - Bilingual – when
appropriate, presented material in Spanish then in English
MODELS IN PROJECT FOLLOW-THROUGH
Category 2: Cognitive Conceptual Skills Models
High Scope (based on Piaget’s processes ) – children were
encouraged to schedule their own activities, then follow their
schedules. Based upon the idea that self -esteem is increased
through giving children more choices.
Florida Parent Education Model - Piaget approach using parents
teaching their children and directing their learning in the classroom
TEEM (whole language approach) – children have different learning
styles so child directed choices are important, and teachers facilitate
learning.
MODELS IN PROJECT FOLLOW-THROUGH
Category 3: Affective Skills Models
Bank Street College Model – this model used the traditional nursery
school approach that was adopted by Headstart. Centers based –
children get to choose their learning centers and teachers job is to
maximize the learning opportunities.
Open Education Model – Derived from British Infant School – building
children’s responsibility for their own learning. Reading is not taught
directly, but through stimulating a desire to communicate.
Responsive Education Model – Montessori influence, centers and
focus on development of self-esteem. Learning centers and child’s
interests are key and define the learning environment.
MODELS IN PROJECT FOLLOW-THROUGH
The above graph is based on ISO numbers. This figure is derived by subtracting the total
number of negative outcomes from the total number of positive outcomes multiplied by
1,000.
-400 0 400
DirInst
SW Lab
ParEd
BankSt
RespEd
BehAnal
TEEM
CogCur
OpenEd
Follow Through Results:
Cognitive Skills
PROJECT FOLLOW THROUGH RESULTS
-400 0 400
DirInst
SW Lab
ParEd
BahAnal
RespEd
BankSt
TEEM
CogCur
OpenEd
Follow Through Results:
Basic Skills
The above graph is based on ISO numbers. This figure is derived by
subtracting the total number of negative outcomes from the total number
of positive outcomes multiplied by 1,000.
PROJECT FOLLOW THROUGH RESULTS
-300 0 300
DirInst
BehAnal
ParEd
SW Lab
CogCur
RespEd
BankSt
OpenEd
TEEM
Follow Through Results:
Affective Skills
The above graph is based on ISO numbers. This figure is derived by
subtracting the total number of negative outcomes from the total number
of positive outcomes multiplied by 1,000.
PROJECT FOLLOW THROUGH RESULTS
45%
32%
61%
19%
73%
51%
40%
51%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Bank Street
Behavior Analysis
Cognitive Curriculum
Direct Instruction
Educational Development Corporation
Parent Education
Responsive Education
Tucson Early Education
Percentage of Students Scoring 1 or More Grade Levels Below Age Expectancy in
Reading in Each of Several Models of Instructions
PROJECT FOLLOW THROUGH RESULTS
AFTER PROJECT FOLLOW - THROUGH
O.00 –treatment &
control conditions do
not differ
0.20 – still not much
happening
0.30 – it’s theoretically interesting
0.40 –definitely
significant
0.50 –definitely, very
significant
0.70 – it’s powerful and important –Get a Clue!
0.80 or more –Can you say
“Nobel Prize”?!
Standards for Significance
Effect Size
AFTER PROJECT FOLLOW - THROUGH
O.00 –treatment &
control conditions do
not differ
0.20 – still not much
happening
0.30 – it’s theoretically interesting
0.40 –definitely
significant
0.50 –definitely, very
significant
0.70 – it’s powerful and important –Get a Clue!
0.80 or more –Can you say
“Nobel Prize”?!
Interesting Comparisons
Perceptual
Training -
0.08Learning Styles/
Modality Prefs –
0.14
Class Size –
0.31 Peer Tutoring –
0.48
Computer-Assisted
Instruction – 0.53
Formative/C
urr. Based
Assessment
– 0.70Direct Instruction –
0.82
The government commiss ioned a rev iew o f the data and the resu l t s were so outs tand ing in favor o f one mode l that the QUESTIONS of the s tudy were CHANGED f rom
“ Which mode l works bes t?” to
“ What makes the mode ls work” and “How can one make the mode ls work bet te r ”?
The commiss ion wrote another repor t fo r the Nat iona l Ins t i tu te o f Educat ion wh ic h conv inced them not to d isseminate the resu l t s o f the FT eva luat ions they had pa id 30 to
40 mi l l ion do l la r s to have completed .
SO
NOTHING HAPPENED
AFTER PROJECT FOLLOW - THROUGH
WHY HAVE WE NOT ACTED ON THE
FINDINGS?
"We know how to teach kids, what we don't know is how to get the public schools to do it!" Alan Cohen
Policy makers went with the majority
Planning committees, advisory boards, and task forces were composed of representatives of universities and research centers that use philosophies that were not supported by the evidence.
Preconceived notions and bias reports presented to policy makers
The data from Follow Through failed to support the philosophy that dominates colleges of education.
The adoption of DI would call for massive change in the form of new training, training programs, materials, and other expensive and dif ficult restructuring.
Teachers failed to recognize that their current methods are not effective.
Material and training unavailable for teachers F o l l o w T h r o u g h : W h y D i d n ' t W e ? C a t h y L . W a t k i n s C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , S t a n i s l a u s
Why Have we not Acted on the Findings?
NICHD (National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development has been doing research for 33 years.
Findings:
• The abil ity to read fluently for meaning depends primarily upon
rapid, automatic decoding and recognition at the level of the single
word.
• Effor ts should be directed at explicitly and systematically teaching
the connection between phonological rules and the written word.
ADDITIONAL RESEARCH
National Reading Panel (2002)
systematic, explicit phonics program are funded by Reading First as
a result of the NRP’s findings that these programs are most effective
Why are public schools allowed to teach reading
in ways not supported by scientific research?
ADDITIONAL RESEARCH
You never know when someone,
May catch a dream f rom you.
You never know when a l i t t le word ,
Or something you may do ,
Wi l l open up the windows,
Of a mind that seeks the l ight .
The way you teach may not matter at a l l ,
But then again , i t might .
And just in case i t could be,
That another ’s l i fe through you,
Might poss ibly change for the bet ter,
Wi th a br ighter po int o f v iew.
I guess i t might be wor th a t r y,
At po int ing the way to the r ight .
Of course i t may not matter at a l l ,
But then again, i t might .
CATCH A DREAM
