A Summary of Concerns Regarding the What Works Clearinghouse A NIFDI White Paper
| dc.contributor.author | Stockard, Jean | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2023-04-11T21:39:56Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2023-04-11T21:39:56Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2012-09-04 | |
| dc.description | 8 pages | en_US |
| dc.description.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. | en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/1794/28166 | |
| dc.language.iso | en | en_US |
| dc.publisher | National Institute for Direct Instruction (NIFDI) | en_US |
| dc.rights | Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0-US | en_US |
| dc.subject | Meta-analysis | en_US |
| dc.subject | Technical Report | en_US |
| dc.subject | Direct Instruction | en_US |
| dc.title | A Summary of Concerns Regarding the What Works Clearinghouse A NIFDI White Paper | en_US |
| dc.type | Technical Report | en_US |