Teach Effectively!

As have many others, I have been reading Zig Engelmann’s book recounting his experiences in the development of the Direct Instruction DI model for teaching that has been serialized on Ziggy’s site. The currently available chapter (Chapter 5: Follow Through Evaluation) describes the outcomes of the evaluation of Follow Through (FT), the US effort to (a) improve the achievement of children coming from impoverished neighborhoods and (b) identify which models of instruction provided the best methods for improving children’s achievement.

As a dispassionate look at the data reveals, the Direct Instruction model was clearly more effective than any of the other models in promoting children’s competence. I have at my desk an original copy of one of the reports by the independent evaluator for FT, Abt Associates. This 407-page report provides the actual, site-by-site data about children in the second cohort (there were three) for each of the major models tested in FT. (Mr. Engelmann describes data from a later volume, Volume 4; this is Volume 3.) At the right is an image showing Abt’s summary from that report about the DI model (referred to as the “DIM model” in the report); because it’s difficult to read, I’ve transcribed it here:

Cohort III Effects to Date

Three of the DIM sites are found in both Cohort II and Cohort III. The results for the two cohorts are in general favorable: the children in the DIM program perform as well as or better than comparison children, and their scores are at or slightly below grade level. In Providence, RI, the fourth site in Cohort III, children likewise exceeded the comparisons. This cross cohort consistency adds to our confidence inthe general effectiveness of the DIM model.

Summary

The DIM model is specific in stating that children participating in teh FT program are expected to, on the average, perform at the same level as their middle-class peers by the end of third grade. This goal has largely been achieved with the Cohort II children. When all DIM site are grouped and compared with the [Metropolitan Achievement Test] norms, students on the average are performing at grade level in Reading, Math and Spelling. When Grand Rapids, which appears to be an outlier, is dropped from the total, the average performance of the other sites is at or above grade level in each subject. In sum, The DIM program is generally effective in raising the achievement of FT children to a level comparable with national norms. Similarly, the Cohort III effects to date also appear favorable.

In his chapter on this time during the evolution of the DI model, Mr. Engelmann explains how people in the US government’s office overseeing the FT project suppressed these results. Instead of showing how one approach clearly accomplished the goals of FT, Rosemary Wilson national director of FT for the US Office of Education in the Department of Health and Human Services, declared that FT was not a test of different approaches, but an examination of whether local communities could succeed in ameliorating the low outcomes for children from poverty. Abetted by a group of educational researchers sponsored by the Ford Foundation, Wilson and the US Office of Education essentially changed the game. Mr. Engelmann maintains that the reversal of field was because the models that did the best—DI and the Behavior Analysis Model—did not employ practices and techniques that were popular with the established and prevailing views in early childhood education.

Other folks out in the wide wild world of the Web are discussing this book, too. Check out their takes on these topics. More importantly, get with the program; download the available chapters from Zigsite.

• Michael Shaughnessy, a columnist for EdNews.org and a faculty member at Eastern New Mexico University, has an interview with Mr. Engelmann about these issues.
• Over at Instructivist there’s a page pointing to the release dates of chapters and an earlier article describing some of the results Mr. Engelmann discusses.
• On D-Ed Reckoning, Ken has a post pointing to chapter 2, another about chapter 4, and another (long) post recounting some of these same outcomes.
• Joanne Jacobs got into the act with a post announcing the serial publication and another more recent post referring to Ken’s comments on chapter 4.
• Not surprisingly, Kitchen Table Math has a post here.