Direct Instruction, Comprehensive School Reform, and Student Achievement
| dc.contributor.author | Stockard, Jean | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2023-04-12T19:07:56Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2023-04-12T19:07:56Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2015-07-05 | |
| dc.description | 6 pages | en_US |
| dc.description.abstract | A large body of evidence has documented the effectiveness of Direct Instruction as a whole school reform model. With support from the U. S. Department of Education, Geoffrey Borman and colleagues (Borman, Hewes, Overman, & Brown, 2003) conducted a large-scale meta-analysis review of the comprehensive school reform literature. They identified 29 reform models for their analysis, all of which had at least one study of achievement effects that would allow the computation of effect sizes. To be included in the analysis a model had to have been replicated in 10 or more schools. From an extensive literature search 232 studies of the reform models were identified. There were substantially more studies of Direct Instruction than of any other model. The median number of studies identified for the models was 4, and the median number of effect sizes found for each model was 23. In contrast, there were 49 studies of Direct Instruction (21% of the total), with 182 effects (16% of the total) (p. 141). Only seven of the 232 studies had evidence from randomized experiments, and 5 of these seven were of Direct Instruction (p. 163). Thus, there was considerably more evidence regarding the efficacy of DI than for the other models. | en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/1794/28185 | |
| 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 | Technical Report | en_US |
| dc.subject | Review | en_US |
| dc.subject | Efficacy Study | en_US |
| dc.title | Direct Instruction, Comprehensive School Reform, and Student Achievement | en_US |
| dc.type | Technical Report | en_US |