A Summary of Concerns Regarding the What Works Clearinghouse A NIFDI White Paper
Loading...
Date
2012-09-04
Authors
Stockard, Jean
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
National Institute for Direct Instruction (NIFDI)
Abstract
There are many studies that have examined the extent to which Direct Instruction (DI)
curricula promote student achievement. Meta analyses of these works have found strong
evidence that the programs are highly effective. For instance, in their meta-analysis of 29
comprehensive school reform models, Borman and associates found that the most evidence
was available for the Direct Instruction model with “49 studies with 182 outcomes”
compared to a median of four studies and 23 outcomes (Borman, et al., 2003, p. 141). DI
was found to produce the strongest effects of all models examined and was one of three
models that met their criteria of “strongest evidence of effectiveness,” which involved
replication of the outcomes “in a number of contexts, …statistically significant and positive
achievement effects in studies using comparison groups or third-party comparison designs
and…accumulated evidence from at least 5 third-party comparison studies” (p. 161). Other
meta-analyses echo these results. For instance, Adams and Engelmann’s (1995) of 37
studies found that 87% of the 173 comparisons examined favored Direct Instruction and
that the average effect size across all studies was .75. White’s (1988) meta-analysis of
studies of Direct Instruction with special education students looked at 25 studies and found
an average effect size across all comparisons of .84. Coughlin’s (2011) meta-analysis was
limited to 25 randomized control trials, with 95 separate comparisons, and found an
average effect size of .66. Hattie (2009) summarized the results of four meta-analyses that
included DI, incorporating 304 studies, 597 effects and over 42,000 students. He found
that the average effect size associated with DI was .59 and noted that the positive results
were “similar for regular (d [the effect size] =.99) and special education and lower ability
students (d=0.86), … [and] similar for the more low-level word-attack (d=.64) and also for
high-level comprehension (d=.54)” (pp. 206-207). Direct Instruction was the only curricular
approach with such strong support.
Description
8 pages
Keywords
Meta-analysis, Technical Report, Direct Instruction