University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

How direct instruction is being used to close the achievement gaps in literacy

(USC Thesis Other)

How direct instruction is being used to close the achievement gaps in literacy

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
HOW DIRECT INSTRUCTION IS BEING USED TO CLOSE
THE ACHIEVEMENT GAPS IN LITERACY
by
Dennis D. Byas
__________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2007
Copyright 2007 Dennis D. Byas

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to thank the members of my committee for their support, patience,
and guidance. I especially want to thank my major professor, Dr. Amanda Datnow,
for her leadership, support, and confidence in my abilities. Without her, this work
could not have been completed. She without a doubt ensures that each student will
meet the demands of doctoral success.
I cannot say thank you enough to my wife Barbara, who is the most caring
and loving person that God could have placed in my life. Also, I would not have
considered a doctorate were it not for my deceased parents, Willie and Adell Byas,
who passed away before my completion. I will always respect their giving their
lifetimes and the pain they endured to ensure that I would achieve the highest edu-
cational excellence in their memory. They worked long and hard to make sure that
each child in the family would be successful.
Throughout my doctoral studies, I have found course work at the University
of Southern California to be extremely challenging and stimulating. It definitely
provided me with the necessary tools to explore past, present, and future educa-
tional issues.

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.........................................................................................ii
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................... v
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................ vi
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................1
No Child Left Behind (Part I).........................................................................3
Statement of the Problem................................................................................7
Purpose of the Study.......................................................................................8
Research Questions.........................................................................................9
Significance of the Study..............................................................................10
Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................11
Context for Educational Reform...................................................................11
Student Achievement....................................................................................14
A Nation at Risk............................................................................................15
Student Achievement Gaps...........................................................................22
The Achievement Gaps and Teachers’ Perceptions .....................................23
Direct Instruction..........................................................................................27
Implications for Future Studies ....................................................................30
Chapter 3: METHODOLOGY .............................................................................31
The Case Study Procedure and Justification ................................................31
Study Design.................................................................................................31
School District Selection ..............................................................................34
Sample and Population.................................................................................34
Number of Interviews ...................................................................................35
Study Participants’ Qualifications and Backgrounds...................................37
Data Analysis Procedures .............................................................................39
Validating the Findings.................................................................................40
Ethical Considerations ..................................................................................40
Limitations of the Study ...............................................................................41
Chapter 4: FINDINGS..........................................................................................42
Federal, State, and District Policy Context...................................................43
Findings for Research Question 1: The Role That Educators Believed
Direct Instruction Played in Closing the Achievement Gap...................46
Classroom Educational Strategies ..........................................................47
Advantages and Disadvantages of Using Direct Instruction..................49
Summary of Findings for Research Question 1......................................51
Findings for Research Question 2: Support or Resource Allocations ..........53

iv
Findings for Research Question 3: How Teachers Are Measuring the
Effectiveness of Direct Instruction.........................................................60
Changes in Teacher Beliefs as a Results of Their Work With
Direct Instruction..............................................................................64
Summary of Findings for Research Question 3......................................69
Findings for Research Question 4: How Teachers Perceive Direct
Instruction Has Changed Their Teaching Practice and What They
Are Doing to Effectively Adapt It in Their Classrooms.........................70
Targeting the Essential Standards...........................................................70
Changes to Class Work Activities ..........................................................71
Using Direct Instruction to Guide Instruction........................................75
Summary of Findings for Research Question 4......................................77
Chapter 5: SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND IMPLICATIONS ......................79
Summary.......................................................................................................80
Limitations of the Study ...............................................................................84
Implications for Direct Instruction ...............................................................85
Summary of Implications for Direct Instruction ....................................87
Implications for Direct Instruction Going to Scale Districtwide............88
The District or Central Office Role in Providing Information...............89
Conclusions: Implications for Current Practice.....................................90
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................93
APPENDICES
A. INTERVIEW PROTOCOL FOR TEACHERS.......................................98
B. INFORMED CONSENT........................................................................101

v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Comparisons of Scale Scores and Achievement Gaps by Race/
Ethnicity and Gender..........................................................................16
Table 2: A Comparison of Teacher Experience, Tenure Status, and Grade
Levels Taught. ....................................................................................38
Table 3: Silver Lakes Unified School District Elementary Schools’
Academic Performance Index (API) Scores and Individual
Schools’ Achievement of Adequate Yearly Performance (AYP)
Criteria for School Year 2004-2005 ..................................................45

vi
ABSTRACT
Large-scale school reform has been a challenge for many school districts
nationwide, and research has shown that school districts attempting to close student
literacy achievement gaps have not always been successful with the overall results.
However, one strategy, Direct Instruction, and its effects have been shown to be
more successful than many other strategies and programs. This qualitative case
study was designed to develop an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of
Direct Instruction and its relationship to closing the achievement gaps in literacy. It
consisted of a case study of two urban schools that had been identified as having
closed achievement gaps over the previous 3 years, as demonstrated by their Cali-
fornia Academic Performance Index (API) and Standardized Testing and Reporting
(STAR) results. Many of the study participants recited their positive perceptions of
the usefulness of Direct Instruction in closing achievement gaps. They gave many
examples of conferencing with students in language arts and mathematics. They
were quite proud to share some of their classroom preparation to assist in closing
the literacy achievement gaps, as well as classroom results of students’ recent
benchmark examinations that clearly demonstrate the achievement gap improve-
ment.
Large-scale school reform has been a challenge for many school districts
nationwide, and research has shown that school districts attempting to close student
literacy achievement gaps have not always been successful with the overall results.
However, one strategy, Direct Instruction, and its effects have been shown to be
more successful than many other strategies and programs. This qualitative case
study was designed to develop an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of
Direct Instruction and its relationship to closing the achievement gaps in literacy. It

vii
consisted of a case study of two urban schools that had been identified as having
closed achievement gaps over the previous 3 years, as demonstrated by their Cali-
fornia Academic Performance Index (API) and Standardized Testing and Reporting
(STAR) results. Many of the study participants recited their positive perceptions of
the usefulness of Direct Instruction in closing achievement gaps. They gave many
examples of conferencing with students in language arts and mathematics. They
were quite proud to share some of their classroom preparation to assist in closing
the literacy achievement gaps, as well as classroom results of students’ recent
benchmark examinations that clearly demonstrate the achievement gap improve-
ment.
Since teachers are the key performers in instructional improvement, this
research project measured teachers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of Direct
Instruction as a strategy or pedagogical method for closing achievement gaps. The
goal of this study was to provide insight regarding what contributes to closing the
achievement gaps in elementary and secondary schools.

1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
I don’t like this new curriculum and the new methodology. Don’t you
understand these kids cannot learn at the levels set by all of the new regula-
tions? In fact, these kids can’t learn at the same levels as students in
wealthier or districts with a majority of Anglo students. Those kids have all
of the advantages. We need to let these kids learn at much slower pacing
and stop pressuring them to perform the same requirements as those kids.
(A teacher to his principal, emphasis added)
Conversations like the one above take place in schools and districts across
the nation. It is well understood what is meant by the term those kids. These par-
ticular students tend to be children of color and children who are economically less
fortunate or poorer. They are the students who tend to be the majority of the popu-
lation represented in high-poverty urban areas and possess less social and cultural
capital in than many of their peers. Unfortunately, these are also the students who
tend to score lower on various tests and other assessment measures. Deeply painful
to many members of society is that these students are often used as the excuses for
the failure of those without the ability or desire to attempt different methodologies
to accomplish educational goals (Corley, 2003).
A major charge of public schools is to create students who are academically
capable, equipped for postsecondary education and the progressively competitive
labor force. The world has long removed itself from its labor- intensive industrial-
ized form and has progressed into a knowledge-based society, creating the need for
better-educated employees to support and create new accomplishments in industry
if the United States is to remain an economic world power.
In the past, the success of schools was measured by the success of a major-
ity of the student body’s academic performance. Currently, the success of public

2
schools is now measured by the success of all students; the underrepresentation of
African American, Hispanic, and Native American students among any significant
number of high-achieving students is a cause for major concern among educators.
Unfortunately, many educators may have predetermined the fate of many of
today’s students before they enter the classroom (Nichols, 2004). Too many edu-
cators, including administrators, teachers, and some community members, may
have accepted the notion that not all children will be successful academically
(Cooper, Horn, & Strahan, 2005). Therefore, they may predetermine the fate of
many children when they estimate in advance or anticipate the number of children
who will be failing subject matter content or how many students may never reach
the levels necessary for subject matter mastery. Sadly, too many educators have
accepted the notion that proficiency is beyond the reach of the majority of their
students. This is a belief system that is not only felt by educators but often accepted
as a reality by underperforming students as well. Many of these students have
stated that they were unengaged in school because they believed that their teachers
did not “care” for them or care about each student’s academic performance, and
some felt that this sentiment was exhibited by a lack of support, nurturing, or en-
couragement by teachers (Flaxman, 2003).
The one group that has not complained or asked for reduced rigor or a less
challenging curriculum has been the students. While adults discuss the complexity
of the demands, many of the students in urban schools see every challenge as an
opportunity—an opportunity to learn more and be better prepared for their futures.
However, it is well recognized that students can receive opportunities to succeed
only when given access, ability, and the proper resources for success. Fewer than
10% of eighth-grade African American and Latino students score at proficient

3
levels in mathematics. By the time the average 17-year-old African American or
Latino student reaches the 12th grade, he or she has skills in mathematics, science,
and English that are comparable to the skills of the average 13-year-old White
student. Closing these gaps has become a mandate for educators before they can
claim success (Education Trust, 2001).
Underperforming public schools now face some of the greatest challenges
in the history of the American educational system. Never before have the risks been
as large, the opportunities as fruitful, and the possible rewards as great. Never
before has the gauntlet been thrown so violently into the face of education’s hidden
secrets for success. Schools have now entered an era of policy reform that has a
series of strong accountability models and a policy that contains consequences for
failure (Hanushek & Raymond, 2005; Linn, 2003).
No Child Left Behind (Part I)
With the passage of new federal legislation, the No Child Left Behind Act
of 2001 (NCLB; U.S. Department of Education, 2001), and the advent of more
comprehensive school reform (CSR) accountability models, there is a stronger and
more focused emphasis on student learning. With NCLB, educators are now chal-
lenged to eliminate some of the stereotypes that they may have held for years. More
than stereotypes, educators are now forced to acknowledge that not all students are
being prepared to be triumphant lifelong learners or successful citizens in a global-
ized economy.
With NCLB, student performance data must now be disaggregated to view
the performance of each group independently. For the first time, all students’
achievement performance is shown and published in local newspapers by race,

4
ethnicity, gender, English language proficiency, migrant status, disability status,
and low-income status. These measurements are now shown In annual published
reports presented to entire communities, and this high-quality evidence now reflects
the achievement data disaggregated by student subgroups.
Moreover, with a major focus on changing entire schools systems, in addi-
tion to individual schools, urban school districts must now shift their priorities to
spotlight infrastructural changes and review how educational delivery systems
function. Under NCLB, school districts can push aside concerns about individual
schools because the district is now viewed as a collective system. In other words,
NCLB has set high expectations for all participants, including students, staff, and
community members (Pawlas, 2005).
In response to NCLB, schools and districts, especially those serving cultur-
ally or socially diverse neighborhoods, have been working hard to either find or
develop research-based reforms and standardized practices that might lead to the
closing of student achievement gaps. Many programs and strategies have shown
improvement in urban schools with diverse populations, and the impacts have been
somewhat positive but marginal. In fact, the National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP) reported that the gap between African American and Anglo stu-
dents on NAEP reading scores was cut in half between 1970 and 1988 but that the
gap had grown significantly larger by 1999 (Amrein-Beardsley & Berliner, 2003;
Lewis, 2000). The NAEP 2004 Trends in Academic Progress showed an analysis
that reflected the long-term trends: While 9-year-olds scored higher in 2004, 17-
year-olds scored the same as they did in 1971. The same report showed that 17-
year-old African American and Hispanic students have shown increases in scores
since 1971 and the achievement gap has shown a slight narrowing in reading and

5
mathematics scores for the three age groups: 9, 13, and 17 (“Long-Term NAEP
Scores Show Solid Gains,” 2005).
Over the decades researchers have continued to search for the best answer
and have consistently found no single response or strategy more successful than
any other. Each situation requires a careful review of the desires of that group of
students and their particular requirements. Then and only then can the proper
program implementation begin. Murnane and Levy (2001) found that one key
reason that standards-based reform has not been completely successful with
students of color is that there are many other factors hindering the closing the gap
in urban schools. As a simple example, they cited differences in the social and cul-
tural capital that each student brings to school. Each student brings a personal so-
ciological status and cultural advantage that aligns with that student’s personal or
home environment. Each of these must be recognized and distinguished and
aligned with the rest of the classroom students or a program that comes closest to
crossing all of the students’ boundaries. However, in explaining these differences
politician must still explain the tremendous financial capital investment that has
been made over the many years without reflection of a corresponding successful
gap closing for all students—especially without offending the general public by
discussing the sociological differences too broadly or loudly.
School districts have allowed school sites to utilize more decentralization,
selection of models, and newer methods of educating students. However, the results
have been a wide range of programs and student successes and, unfortunately,
growing achievement gaps. As districts have moved toward coherence and consis-
tency, one model that has shown some positive or appears to yield positive out-
comes is Direct Instruction. Currently, many districts nationwide are implementing

6
Direct Instruction in all of their schools, with the hope of improved performance
and sustainability and that the program will help them to meet NCLB mandates.
Using the Direct Instruction model, which is an instructional strategy of a
highly scripted, rigorously developed method for teaching reading, many students
showed tremendous success in increasing performance on norm-referenced tests
(Grossen, 1996).
Direct Instruction results have been very impressive and seem to work,
whereas more progressive programs, such as constructivism, child-centered in-
struction, and holistic instruction, have either shown marginal gains or failed
(Bock, Stebbins, & Proper, 1999). In a study in Wisconsin six schools were used as
the test case in comparison of Direct Instruction models and the findings strongly
supported the use of Direct Instruction, stating that it looked as good in practice as
it did in research (Schug, Tarver, & Western, 2001). This study followed a similar
study at the high school level in the prior years performed by Kozioff, LaNunziata,
Cowardin, and Bessellieu (2001).
Direct Instruction is a strategy that includes phonics and phoneme coaching,
with students engaged in the reading process through vigorously paced lessons that
are presented as a step-by-step process. Students immediately receive corrective
feedback, all of which is geared toward student success. In improving reading skills
and getting students to mastery levels, Direct Instruction has shown significant and
positive results (Grossen, 1996). Direct Instruction is a strategy that might assist in
closing achievement gaps (Miller, 2003) while continuing to raise achievement for
all students (Gersten & Carnine, 1980).
Borman, Hewes, Overman, and Brown (2002) examined the research on
“whole-school” or “comprehensive” reforms, of which Direct Instruction is one.

7
They were looking for researched-based solutions for school improvement and
used an extensive meta-analysis to examine the particular outcomes of 29 of the
most extensively employed CSR models. They found that students in the schools
with comprehensive reforms that they studied outperformed approximately 55% of
their equivalents in nonparticipating schools. In addition, they found that those stu-
dents also earned higher scores on achievement tests, and the effects were most
profound in schools that had followed the models for 5 years or more. While ac-
knowledging that CSR is still an embryonic field of knowledge and the existence of
the limitations on the overall quantity and quality of the research base, the re-
searchers acknowledged that the general effects of CSR are very promising and the
combined quantity, quality, and statistical significance of evidence from three of
the models set them apart from the rest. One of those three was Direct Instruction,
which showed some of the strongest evidence of effectiveness. (The other two were
Success for All and School Development Program.)
Statement of the Problem
As advised earlier, throughout the nation, successful increases in student
achievement have been inconsistent at best. Educators have been able to point to
the academic success of some blocks or groups of students but they have not been
able to show achievable or sustainable results for all students. Academic success
for all students, or more inclusive groupings of students reaching sustainable aca-
demic goals with coherence, equal access, or results across the spectrum is one of
the key goals of the standards-based reform movement, yet that remains a major
challenge for American educators, legislators, parents, and students.

8
While there is much research to support the many schools nationwide that
have achieved academic success, the problems of explaining and sustaining that
success still exist. Almost all of those schools can point to a series of events and
articulations that may have caused their success but few can document any one
thing or singular event that was most important to their success. As an example, a
change in pedagogy may have been accompanied by a change in staff or leadership,
new textbook adoption, different students, or reconstitution of a school. Finally,
there have not been many districts that have been able to stretch that success to full-
scale district wide.
While California’s public education system is enormous and contains more
than six million students in approximately 9,000 schools, these schools have yet to
find the magic formula for success duplication. This research will narrow the focus
of school-based reform to the challenges within the state of California (to be more
precise, southern California) and possible good strategies to support that reform.
More specifically, the study examines specific challenges or barriers for success of
the Direct Instruction for closing achievement gaps.
The area studied was a segment of a California K-12 school district within
150 miles of Los Angeles. This research explored the school district information
that once reflected large achievement gaps in student performance at several
schools and where teachers realized that a paradigm shift would be necessary so
that students could become academically successful.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to determine how teachers use Direct In-
struction to close achievement gaps between diverse student populations. The study

9
examined specific pedagogical strategies and how teachers’ work had changed as a
result of the use of Direct Instruction. This study will add to the knowledge base of
instructional models for closing the achievement gaps of all students. Specifically,
it examined how teachers’ use of Direct Instruction has helped to increase under-
performing students’ literacy success as measured by the California Academic Per-
formance Index (API) and Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) results.
Through extrapolation, the findings will increase the knowledge base of informa-
tion regarding teachers’ use of the systematic model of Direct Instruction in a
racially and social economically disadvantaged school setting.
Research Questions
This qualitative case study was designed to develop an understanding of the
strengths and weaknesses of Direct Instruction and its relationship to closing the
achievement gaps in literacy. It consisted of a case study of two urban schools that
had been identified as closing achievement gaps over the previous 3 years, as dem-
onstrated by their California API and STAR results.
The study was guided by the following overarching question: How is Direct
Instruction being used to close the achievement gaps in literacy?
The following research questions were addressed:
1. What role do educators believe Direct Instruction played in closing
achievement gap?
2. What support or resource allocations for Direct Instruction are in place at
the district level to support teachers in their use of Direct Instruction?
3. Have teachers changed their beliefs about underperforming students as a
result of their work with Direct Instruction?

10
4. How do teachers perceive Direct Instruction has changed their teaching
practice and what they do to adapt it in their classrooms?
Significance of the Study
Public schools are continually under attack due to the large number of stu-
dents who are not proficient in mathematics and literacy. In addition, there are sig-
nificant achievement gaps between minority and White students, as well as
between affluent and socioeconomically disadvantaged students (Kozioff et al.,
2001).
Some key issues are what strategies can be used to close these widespread
achievement gaps. Are the gaps closed by methodologies, curriculum, or a combi-
nation of the two? In many educators’ minds, good teaching is good teaching, and
the practice of good teaching can be used with any program. Many educators firmly
believe that the good practices of teaching will be the strength of any educational
system. Direct Instruction strategies have shown the capacity to support students in
improving achievement through the use of research-based best practices and
studies.
This research project measures teachers’ perceptions and beliefs of the ef-
fectiveness of Direct Instruction as a strategy or pedagogical method for closing
achievement gaps. The goal of this study was to provide insight regarding what
contributes to closing the achievement gaps in elementary and secondary schools. It
was intended that, through interviews and observations, information would be
gained to support the use of Direct Instruction as a methodology for assisting all
students in higher achievement and that the study would make a contribution to the
literature base for Direct Instruction.

11
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter reviews research in four areas. First, it discusses the context
for educational reform in the United States. Second, it discusses student achieve-
ment and examines the achievement gaps and teachers’ perceptions of why the
achievement gaps exist. Fourth, it includes a review of research on Direct Instruc-
tion as the model for change and positive impact on student performance.
Context for Educational Reform
In 1969, during a Congressionally mandated project, the National Center for
Education Statistics (NCES) began regular assessment of samples of U.S. students
who attended both public and private elementary, middle, and high schools. This
assessment was done for the purpose of collecting and making available reliable
and useful information to educators and policy makers about the academic
achievement of America’s students in various learning areas.
Since each of the 50 states assesses students and collects data in different
formats, comparisons were not directly analogous, so a standardized methodology
for measuring progress over time was developed during the original project (Na-
tional Center for Institute of Education Sciences, 2006). The product created from
these measurements, the NEAP, became known as the nation’s report card; without
these comparison data the United States would have lacked a standardized method
to evaluate student performance objectively (National Assessment Governing
Board, 1969).
Since that time and throughout the United States, schools are statistically
and scientifically selected to be in the NAEP sample of schools according

12
to individual demographic characteristics that make them collectively representa-
tive of the entire nation. The reports created by NAEP were and still are significant
because they fairly present information about what students know and can do aca-
demically. The first report (in 1969) was focused on the science curriculum; the
report in the following year focused on reading and literature.
At the conclusion of the 1969 NAEP report a large portion of the data re-
flected academic performance differences (socioeconomically and ethnically)
among students, leading researchers to recognize that social and cultural capital
differences may have had a large impact on student performance. This was one of
the first verifiable reports that reflected clear trends in differences between White
and non-White students and between poor and nonpoor students, causing major
points of concern. These academic and achievement gaps and the need to close the
gaps became a critical focus for community members, policy makers, and educa-
tors. The creation of new educational practices was the recommendation of the
report and the development of a corrective action plan was necessary. As a result of
that first NAEP report in 1969, educational reform became a challenge for educa-
tors, politicians, and policy makers (National Assessment Governing Board, 1969).
Educators and policy makers reviewed the report for meaning and deter-
mined that they would attempt to cluster areas where they felt they might be able to
show some small gains. With an emphasis on improved academic achievement, one
of the many areas that American educators began to review was students’ willing-
ness to learn (student engagement) and how to sustain behavioral involvement in
learning rather than disaffection (CDE, 1999). Research had shown that students’
use of cognitive and metacognitive processes and persistence to guide their learning

13
was essential to student academic success and that, if the students were not focused,
disaffection could and would occur.
Perhaps a more clear definition of student engagement and disaffection was
provided by Skinner and Belmont (1993):
Engagement versus disaffection in school refers to the intensity and emo-
tional quality of children’s involvement in initiating and carrying out learn-
ing activities. . . . Children who are engaged show sustained behavioral in-
volvement in learning activities accompanied by a positive emotional tone.
They select tasks at the border of their competencies, initiate action when
given the opportunity, and exert intense effort and concentration in the im-
plementation of learning tasks; they show generally positive emotions
during ongoing action, including enthusiasm, optimism, curiosity, and
interest. The opposite of engagement is disaffection. Disaffected children
are passive, do not try hard, and give up easily in the face of challenges . . .
[they can] be bored, depressed, anxious, or even angry about their presence
in the classroom; they can be withdrawn from learning opportunities or
even rebellious towards teachers and classmates. (p. 572)
Many studies examined the effects of teacher behavior on student engage-
ment, as well as the reciprocal effects of student motivation on teacher behavior.
Researchers and educators used direct observations, work sample analysis, and
focused case studies to measure to collect descriptive data of engagement rates and,
using those data, described student behavior and student responses. Many of the
studies found that students who were actively engaged showed persistent behav-
ioral participation in learning activities and that participation was supported by
positive student emotional tone. Studies had shown that disaffected students are
passive and do not accept challenges readily. As a result of the various studies re-
garding student engagement, there was an inference that, for active learning to
occur, student engagement is essential and that, to improve that engagement, a
paradigm shift would be necessary or educational reform was necessary.
A major goal of educational reform was and still is to assist students and
schools in improving the educational delivery system to all students, especially to

14
underperforming students of all sociological and economical statuses. This meant
supporting all students and competently engaging all students educationally and
academically in a strong learning environment. Creating an environment that fos-
tered academic achievement for all students and meet students’ academic needs
was a high priority. To support the goal of increased student performance and
closing the achievement gaps, the reforms had to be grounded in scientifically
based research and incorporate best practices techniques. The hope was that the
strategies would place a strong emphasis on basic academics, active student par-
ticipation, and parental involvement, as well as a paradigm shift in the way in
which students receive their classroom delivery system.
This was the beginning of the search for the most effective educational pro-
grams or strategies that might produce the greatest gains and sustainability in stu-
dent academic achievement. Researchers began comparisons of an array of
programs and strategies throughout the nation with the goal of narrowing the field
to a few high-quality possibilities. The researchers returned to the NAEP report to
determine where the needs existed and to identify a baseline of data to begin. The
area of this report covered in this review is the literacy component of education.
Student Achievement
The assessments recorded in the NAEP were and continue to be used to
evaluate long-term student performance trends. Since the 1969 school year and
through 1996, the average scale scores in reading by race/ethnicity and gender re-
mained relatively flat and without significant improvement (NCES, 1998). These
data were disaggregated into groups and subgroups for the benefit of comparisons.
While data for Hispanic students were captured beginning with the 1975 school

15
year, data for the other groups have been reported since 1969. In each case, the
achievement gaps for the subgroups have remained fairly consistent and wide.
While Black students have shown the largest gains in closing the achievement gap
at each grade level from 1971 to 1996, they still have some of the largest gaps
when compared to the overall nation and when compared to White and Hispanic
students (Table 1). However, overall, and with the exception of the Black students’
scale scores, student achievement has remained relatively flat.
Data in Table 1 reflect that that classrooms may not have been completely
heterogeneous during any period of time. However, simply reviewing the numbers
may not give a clear picture as to what may be truly occurring in American class-
rooms.
A Nation at Risk
The release of A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in
Education, 1983) sent shock waves across the nation as the Commission reported
findings on the assessment of the quality of teaching and learning. The report
contained a thorough examination and comparison of American schools with those
of other nations. The conclusion was that the United States, which was once the
world leader in education, had fallen greatly in its schools’ performance. Some of
the areas of key concern were science and technology. In prior years the United
States had been the world leader, and according to the report, the United States had
fallen well behind other industrialized countries. This was linked by the report to a
decline in the educational system.

16

17
A Nation at Risk reported other stark realities, such as that only 13% of all
17-year-olds could be considered functionally literate and that the number for mi-
nority students was 40%. Also reported were significant increases in remedial
mathematics courses and the realization that technology was replacing many jobs.
The report contained many recommendations for reform, including increasing the
requirements for all core curricular classes, such as English, mathematics, and the
sciences.
In the early 1980s educational reformers began setting academic standards
for all students. These standards were used to guide expectations of what students
should learn and know and the functions that students should be able to perform at
various grades levels. This new strategic plan became known as standards-based
reform. It established clear, measurable standards in the core academic subjects.
Standards-based reform encompassed curriculum alignment, professional develop-
ment, and high expectations for students toward completion of rigorous coursework
(Murnane & Levy, 2001). With the implementations of these new standards and
expectations began one of the most aggressive reform models in education history.
In more recent years the nation’s report card (NAEP) for 2003 showed
some modest gains in mathematics at grades 4 and 8 (NCES, 2003). The report
showed, in mathematics scores overall, 32% of grade 4 students and 29% of grade
8 students scoring at or above the proficient level. Students who score at the profi-
cient level represent a solid academic performance for any particular grade level
assessed and for any student(s). Students who score above the proficient level are
termed advanced; they exhibit superior or mastery performance. Their respective
numbers were 4% at grade 4 and 5% at grade 8. The report also showed that, across
the entire nation, the average scaled mathematics scores reflected increases for

18
grade 4 from years 1992 to 2000 in areas where accommodations were allowed;
they also showed increases in the years 2000 to 2003 where accommodations were
allowed. Different information appeared for the grade 8 math assessments. Across
the nation, the average scaled mathematics scores reflected increases for grade 8
from 1992 to 2000 in areas where accommodations were allowed. However, Ala-
bama and Michigan showed decreases in the years 2000 to 2003 where accommo-
dations were allowed.
The 2003 NAEP report (NCES, 2003) noted in state versus national com-
parisons that students in grades 4 and 8 only 16 states had scores lower than the
national average, with California being one of the 16. (While research regarding the
financial impacts on education may be valid, the present report does not attempt to
determine the financial relationships to ascertain whether amounts spent relate to
performance attained.) While it is encouraging to see an upward trend in all race
and ethnicities in 1990 through 2000, it is extremely discouraging to see the dis-
tance in performance levels or achievement gaps of White students versus the
major minority groups. If it is assumed that there are no cognitive differences at
birth, then it must be assumed that the differences occur during the lifetime and that
a portion of that difference is caused by teaching and learning in the classroom.
Hanushek and Raymond (2005) found evidence that, while the NAEP report
reflected a slight closing in the achievement gaps between Hispanic and Anglo stu-
dents, it did not reflect similar results for the caps between African American and
Anglo students. Remarkably, the study made no recommendations for the former
and provided no guide for reduction in the achievement gap between African
American and Anglo students. Equally important, the study pointed out several
possible major unintended outcomes for minority students. Examples included

19
possible higher exclusion rates from testing, increased dropout rates, and increased
rates in special education placement rates. Each of these concerns is similar to those
addressed in NCLB and shared by educators nationwide in their response to high-
stakes accountability systems.
Historically, students of color have exhibited lower academic achievement
than majority students, for various reasons (Flaxman, 2003). Flaxman found that
Whites and Asians appeared more academically engaged, or at a minimum gave the
impression of working harder, than minority students. In a study addressing racial
disparities (Ferguson, 2002), minorities exhibited fewer social and cultural oppor-
tunities than White students. Similar information was shared regarding lower-
socioeconomic students.
Bennett (1998) assessed whether the United States advanced educationally
in meeting the goals of the report. His findings were unsympathetic and dismal
(“Nation, U.S. Schools ‘Still at Risk,’ Bennett Says,” 1998). For example, he re-
ported,
More than 10 million Americans have reached the 12th grade without hav-
ing learned to read at a basic level. More than 20 million have reached their
senior year unable to do basic math. Almost 25 million have reached 12th
grade not knowing the essentials of U.S. history. And those are the young
people who complete their senior year. During that same period more than
6 million American students dropped out of high school altogether. The
numbers are even bleaker in minority communities. In 1996, 13 percent of
all blacks aged 16 to 24 were not in school and did not hold a diploma. Sev-
enteen percent of first-generation Hispanics had dropped out of high school,
including a tragic 44 percent of Hispanic immigrants in this age group. (p.
2)
The report contained two key recommendations: (a) a call for standards, assess-
ments, and accountability; and (b) pluralism, competition, and choice. Bennett
called for each school and school district to be held accountable for the high stan-
dards for student achievement. He suggested that parents should be fully informed

20
of the student progress as well as that of the school and district and state officials
should intervene, should failure occur. Finally, he recommended that parents have
an opportunity to move their children to schools of choice. This report was written
many years before NCLB, which incorporated similar reforms.
Thus, in the 2 decades since the publication of A Nation at Risk there was
no significant improvement in test scores in educational core areas (Smith, L. F.,
1996). In fact, some areas test scores declined. This led the federal government to
take drastic policy action in the form of NCLB. With the passage of NCLB, edu-
cators must now assess and gain a greater understanding of how to teach students
and meet all students’ needs by 2014.
NCLB has a strict requirement for annual assessments, with specific criteria
for evaluation of effectiveness. The act also establishes specific timelines and con-
sequences for failure (Wenning, Herdman, Smith, McMahon, & Washington,
2003). Under NCLB the data must now be disaggregated by categories of (a) major
ethnic groups, (b) students with limited English proficiency, (c) students with dis-
abilities, (d) economically disadvantaged students, and (e) gender. NCLB is a seri-
ous attempt to force educational reform.
While it will take many years to fairly measure the effects of NCLB’s
massive school reform effort due to many variables, such as immigration, socio-
logical, cultural, and economical differences, researchers are beginning to collect
data for year-by- year comparisons. While these data deliver much valuable infor-
mation about student performance, researchers have presented arguments against
relying completely on information from the NAEP and NCLB exams, since these
exams are not aligned to any particular state’s curriculum (Policy Analysis for Cali-
fornia Education, 2006).

21
Each state currently creates its own standards for the “proficient” level for
its students. Therefore, comparison of state examination scores show major gaps
between state and federal test results, and comparisons between states is a chal-
lenge and, in many cases, improbable.
Equally important have been a long-term lack of interest by school districts
and states, incapacity of states to track change over time, and frequent changes in
testing regimens (Policy Analysis for California Education, 2006). Each of these
components has made careful equating of any of the examinations highly improb-
able.
In the early 1990s, a concept known as systematic reform was developed to
emphasize clearer learning standards, and stronger pupil assessment was imple-
mented to correct many institutional inadequacies (Cohen, 1990). Led by reform
designers Michael Cohen of the National Governors Association and Michael
Smith and Jennifer O’Day of Stanford University, states were challenged to im-
prove on what students were learning and to increase curricular alignment to as-
sessments (Smith, M. S., & O’Day, 1991).
This restructured system focused on student achievement outcomes rather
than classroom practices; these outcomes would later become known as high-stakes
exams. Current research and a reexamination of NAEP historical exams support a
position that high-stakes exams may not have any effect on improving student
achievement. Amrein-Beardsley and Berliner (2003) studied the effects of NAEP
progress relative to achievement and found no consistent effects across states after
consequences were introduced. Those consequences included financial rewards to
teachers and schools, ability to replace site administration, and social promotion.
Other studies have supported the analysis that the additional pressure applied to

22
students and staff does not have a positive effect on improving student per-
formance.
It was hoped that, by changing the system, states and school districts would
be held more accountable for student performance and that measurements of per-
formance versus financial investment could be made. This newer system began a
larger phase of benchmarking student performance and measuring that performance
against the established benchmarks.
Student Achievement Gaps
Not only are policy makers concerned, but many parents and educators are
critical of their existing educational institutions. Parents are becoming wary and
very concerned by schools’ acceptance of the academic achievement gaps between
various blocks of students and now are beginning to recognize that this has oc-
curred for many years. Equally important, they are beginning to recognize that
schools have not been sufficiently responsive to closing those gaps. For many
years, educational agencies have allowed social promotions without accountability
for failure to close the gaps or to fully educate all students. While many educators
have asked for increased standards for all students, the overall standard measure-
ment of success has been to review schools’ performance in their entirety or based
on their average scores, which leaves many students passing with grades but aca-
demically far behind by any and all standards.
None of this is new to educators; however, the press to close achievement
gaps has become much stronger since NCLB was enacted. Since the implementa-
tion of NCLB, reports of educational achievement clearly show that children of

23
color and students within the lower socioeconomic clusters are distinctly behind
and underperforming their peers.
Any claims that educational improvement has lagged far beyond need and
that no city during the last seventy-five years has ever been able to provide
genuinely equal education for the poor. Those social and economic struc-
tures dictate that politicians and schools almost always treat poor children
and communities differently, but even beyond that, poverty hurts families
and children in so many ways that poor children’s education is almost in-
evitably doomed. (Anyon, 2005, p. 65)
One area of support that must be investigated is to the influence of teacher
training on assessment scores and closing achievement gaps. NCLB brought with it
the beginning of high-stakes testing and measuring what students learn. How well
students are learning becomes a critical component of student success. Students
who fail these high stakes tests can and will be the new measurement of failure for
entire school districts. More important, these students’ failure could point to how
the educational system has failed students in preparing them for college entrance or
entering the workplace with a strong education. These tests, combined with other
multiple measures, including student classroom work, student grades, and teacher
evaluations, can provide critical measures of students’ skills, knowledge, and abili-
ties.
The Achievement Gaps and Teachers’ Perceptions
While accountability is a key factor contained within NCLB, many advo-
cates for underperforming students consider that same factor a strength and support
for the immediacy of closing or narrowing academic achievement gaps. The
strength of accountability and consequences of NCLB are perceived to be a major
driving force of education nationwide. Possibly for the first time, researchers are
working aggressively to drive education with singular focus: improving

24
underperforming students. However, the internal challenge of belief systems enters
and interrupts the focus in many cases. Many teachers believe that no accountabil-
ity system will be strong enough to assist all students in meeting the challenges of
rigorous education.
In efforts to close the achievement gaps, a dialogue is occurring in schools
across the nation. It is a necessary dialogue regarding why many students are not
achieving at the same levels as their peers. As researchers have noted, school policy
and practices cannot be founded on perceptions but must be based on realities.
Real-life knowledge about each student’s needs is necessary, and a follow-on plan
of how to achieve and complete the plan for the student is needed (Ramirez & Car-
penter, 2005).
Teachers often fail to see the congruence between a strong educational per-
formance in the classroom and increased student achievement, due to their short-
term vision of race or ethnicity. Unfortunately, in some teachers’ minds, students of
some races or ethnicities cannot achieve at proficiency levels simply because of
where the student lives, socioeconomics of the student’s family, or the student’s
appearance (Ramirez & Carpenter, 2005).
Many teachers have a preconceived notion about many of their students
based on race, socioeconomic status, or family background. This could be viewed
as an insensitive approach or policy that has influenced educational issues and op-
portunities for minority students. But this is not an innate perception by teachers; it
is learned or accepted over time. Unfortunately, perceptions can become reality
over time, influencing a teacher’s desire to pursue aggressively the challenges of
additional efforts to reach students who are far below their peers (Office of Educa-
tional Research and Improvement [OERI], 2001).

25
It is interesting that teachers’ perceptions of why gaps exist due to language
barriers, socioeconomic status, race, and ethnicity tend to exist at much higher
levels in the middle and high schools of America. At the college and university
levels, professors are more likely to attribute the gap differences to explanations
related to curriculum and instruction or what is occurring in the classrooms. Bol
and Berry (2005) found that the teachers who were more likely to suggest that lan-
guage was the major reason for the underperformance by students of color were
teaching middle schools and high schools. They offered suggestions for reducing
the achievement gap. Rather than focus on language issues, the recommendations
centered on professional or staff development for teachers, aggressive curricular
changes, community collaboration, and policies that included equity of funding,
along with a reduction in the number of students per class. In other words, middle
and high school teachers tend to focus on the children’s issues, rather than address
strategies that can assist in overcoming student deficits.
In many school districts, administrators are beginning to share an opposing
view of underperforming students’ abilities to teachers through staff development
meetings regarding achievement gaps. Some meetings begin with a history lesson
in the hope of changing paradigms and perceptions. An example of information that
can be shared is an analysis of achievement growth as measured by the NAEP,
which shows that the educational reforms of the 1990s were somewhat successful
and have had a somewhat positive impact on student achievement overall. The gap
between Black and White students has grown. This could be due to higher exclu-
sion rates from key classes, testing, increased placements in special education
classes, and higher dropout rates (Hanushek & Raymond, 2005). They noted that
the White-Hispanic gap had narrowed, although the Hispanic students were still

26
significantly behind. As teachers begin to see the information, the intent is to have
them ask questions about how to identify gaps and find ways to address each stu-
dent’s needs independently.
Flaxman (2003) examined two studies on minority achievement gaps in
urban schools. First, he examined Ferguson’s (2002) research on middle and high
school students in an urban school setting. Second, he reviewed the work of John
Ogbu (“News and Views,” 2003), one of the most influential scholars in the field of
minority education, who focused his richly comparative research on the persistent
achievement disparities between Black and White Americans on minority students’
success and failures in schools. Accordingly, he collected data on how African
American students’ identity as an oppressed group impacted their academic
achievement and experiences in school (McLemore & Romo, 1998). The intent of
the two studies was to show the different perspectives on what each researcher
identified that should be done to assist minorities in becoming successful aca-
demically in efforts to narrow achievement gaps. An interesting and concurring
perspective came from the studies: White members considered that the gaps were
attributable to social and cultural class differences, while African Americans con-
sidered that the gaps were due to racism. A large number of African American
students initially attributed the differences to racism but they also acknowledged
the need for greater mental effort and persistence. They recognized that a change in
attitude and behaviors would be necessary to be successful in closing the gaps.
Another major factor in each of the two studies was that African American
students had routinely been assigned to less rigorous courses and therefore their
preparation for success was less. While White students had been assigned to
Advance Placement and college preparatory classes, African American and lower-

27
socioeconomic students had not received similar opportunities to take those chal-
lenging courses to prepare them adequately (Education Trust, 2001).
Teachers and K-12 educational leaders are now recognizing that not all stu-
dents are receiving the same instruction due to many issues, which may also
include many social and culture capital differences that are attached to students
before they enter the classroom. These issues have created the need for stan-
dardization of universal achievement to occur and a systematic structure that will
have a positive impact on larger numbers of students.
Direct Instruction
This section focuses on several studies of Direct Instruction strategies. This
is a model of structure and content that maybe contrary to the methods that many
teachers have used in the past. Although it has a rich history of success and has
been proven successful in one of the largest educational studies ever conducted
(Grossen, 1995), Direct Instruction has been overlooked by many schools as a
means to support underperforming students and close achievement gaps.
Direct Instruction is a research-based approach to teaching literacy as well
as any other subject. Englemann, an Illinois preschool teacher, developed Direct
Instruction in the early 1960s out of his experience in instructing his own children.
Based on his experiences, he produced a set of lesson plans and shared his knowl-
edge with other teachers (Vukmir, 2002).
Direct Instruction is an instructor-directed and skills-oriented approach to
teaching that uses small group instruction. Through this model, the ability of small
group instruction allows for more differentiation of instruction among students and
increased direct contact. Throughout the process teachers are challenged to use a

28
prescriptive model with scripted lessons that implicitly teach the children to key
cognitive skills that have been broken into small units. For example, through pho-
nemic awareness, children are introduced to sounds before they are taught the
names of the letters. Students progress from simple mastery of individual sounds to
the blending of sounds to make words. As students become skilled with simple
words and sentences, they are challenged with progressively more complex mate-
rial (Vukmir, 2002).
Direct Instruction is widely regarded as a highly researched-based model of
instruction. In fact, it has history of over 40 years. Each lesson sequence has been
extensively field tested to determine the most effective and efficient way to lead
students to mastery. In addition, it has been shown to be one of the most effective
programs in comprehensive school reform models. The effectiveness of Direct In-
struction is evident in the results of numerous research initiatives. The following
studies demonstrate the substantial scientific research basis for Direct Instruction.
In the 1970s one of the largest educational studies ever, entitled Project
Follow Through, was performed (ERIC Clearinghouse on Early Childhood Educa-
tion, 1977). At a cost exceeding $600 million and including 79,000 students and
over 180 communities, this comprehensive study reviewed a host of programs and
philosophies to determine what methods or programs would be best to assist disad-
vantaged students in grades K-3. The study reviewed areas of basic skills, cognitive
skills, and affective gains (Lindsay, 2004). Multiple programs were implemented
and monitored over a 5-year period by two research laboratories performing sepa-
rate studies. Of the studied programs, the one with the best results was Direct In-
struction. The results of the studies showed that Direct Instruction performed better

29
than other programs in core content areas and significantly improved cognitive
skills, compared to control groups.
In the largest educational study in history, Project Follow Through in 1977
supported Direct Instruction as the most successful school reform model to satisfy
the needs of the largest number of students. This was a program that began in 1967
and continued until 1995 at a total funding in excess of a billion dollars and in-
volving almost 30 years of research in an effort to find ways to decrease the cycli-
cal poverty cycles or eliminate the generational bounds of repeating poverty
through a better education (Grossen, 1996). The results thoroughly support the
study’s claims of success in closing achievement gaps (ERIC Clearinghouse on
Early Childhood Education, 1977).
There is considerable research available regarding Direct Instruction and an
abundance of data to support its use (Adams, 1996b; Schug et al., 2001). While it is
not feasible to compile a listing of all research regarding Direct Instruction strate-
gies, successes, and failures, a description of some is presented. Also, there is no
clear evidence that any one strategy will work for all students in every situation;
however, Direct Instruction has had success in closing wide achievement gaps be-
tween student populations (Schug et al.).
The Shug et al. (2001) study was performed by three principal researchers
and addressed the teaching of early literacy in Wisconsin. These researchers felt
strongly that they had exposed a methodology to teaching literacy that was showing
impressive positive improvements and results in younger students, not only in Wis-
consin but across the entire nation. An equally important discovery pertained to the
results with poor children and children of color. The study was focused on the
Direct Instruction approach for classroom use in improving early student learning.

30
A sample of six schools was selected and observed in which Direct Instruction was
used for the beginning reading, regular reading instruction, and the remedial
reading programs for elementary education.
The results led to four main findings: (a) The research base for Direct In-
struction was reliable, (b) the new teachers had learned little about Direct Instruc-
tion in their prior education or training, (c) n the schools visited Direct Instruction
looked as impressive in practice as it had in prior research studies, and (d) Direct
Instruction takes time to learn and the teachers were positioned at various levels
along the learning curve.
In a meta-analysis of CSR programs performed by Borman et al. (2002),
they categorized 29 instructional programs based on (a) quality, (b) quantity of
their research evidence, and (c) statistically significant and positive results. Only 3
of the 29 programs were categorized as showing the “strongest evidence of effec-
tiveness.” One of those was Direct Instruction.
Implications for Future Studies
There have been very few qualitative studies on Direct Instruction and it is
hoped that this study will continue to add to the knowledge base. Through a highly
researched based strategy, Direct Instruction could lead to support a large teacher
paradigm shift regarding students with social, cultural, and economical differences.

31
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this qualitative study was to increase the knowledge base
related to how the systematic model of Direct Instruction can be used in closing the
achievement gaps in literacy.
The Case Study Procedure and Justification
This chapter describes the methodology employed for this study. It includes
the plan or design, population sample, instrumentation, data collection, and the
method for data analysis.
This study was a naturalistic inquiry allowing for nonmanipulative and non-
controlling real-world situations. As a qualitative design, naturalistic research
occurs in active or real-world settings, with the participants being interviewed with
open-ended questions in places and under conditions that are comfortable to the
participants (Patton, 2002).
Since this qualitative research study addressed real-world situations as they
unfolded, the focus was delimited to a single California school district. This was a
well-chosen opportunity to determine how Direct Instruction was being used to
close the achievement gaps in literacy two schools in the district.
Study Design
This qualitative research design focused on two elementary schools (Lake
Vista [LV] and John F. Kennedy [JFK]) in the Silver Lakes Unified School
District. This district was selected because it is an urban school district that has all
of the challenges and opportunities of socioeconomics, ethnicity balancing,

32
migratory student and family populations, and a wide range of languages. Despite
these challenges, several schools in the district have shown overall improvement in
student achievement while at the same time reducing achievement gaps across
ethnic groups and between high- and low-income students.
The major goal of the district has been to improve student performance for
all students and to begin closing the performance achievement gaps. An additional
goal of the school district is to win the Broad educational prize within the next few
years. The Broad Prize for Urban Education is an annual $1 million award created
and funded by the Broad Foundation to honor urban school districts making the
greatest overall improvement in student achievement while reducing achievement
gaps across ethnic groups and between high- and low-income students (Eli Broad
Foundation, 2005).
The methodology for this study utilized the case study format. The power of
the case study method is that it allows for the gathering and analyzing of data about
an individual example as a way of studying a broader phenomenon. Of course, this
was done with the theory that the example, or the case itself, was reflective or
somewhat emblematic of the broader phenomenon (Patton, 2002).
The focus of this study in employing a qualitative research approach was to
bring forth some key issues on the role that educators believe Direct Instruction has
played in closing achievements gaps. The qualitative approach was a better fit for
this type of study because it helped to explain the meaning of the social phenomena
with as little disruption of the natural setting as possible (Merriam, 1998). This led
to this study being conducted in a natural setting and nonthreatening environment,
without the educators altering their normal daily activities.

33
A case study is commonly used in educational research, and it was deemed
to be the most appropriate approach to ask the research questions (Patton, 2002). A
major benefit of a case study approach is that it allows for a more rigorous, com-
plete system rather than that provided by a dissection of how the systematic model
of Direct Instruction can be used in closing the achievement gaps in literacy. Direct
Instruction has been reported to be a key issue in shaping the student literacy aca-
demic performance within the organization.
Yin (1984) noted that the case study approach investigates a phenomenon
within its real-life context while permitting uses of multiple sources of evidence by
the researcher. Therefore, this research was conducted by interviewing randomly
selected staff members from various school sites, district office administrators, and
some parents. Because this researcher wanted to ensure that all voices were heard,
he spent time interviewing people other than teachers. This was a comprehensive
study of how teachers use Direct Instruction to close achievement gaps between
diverse student populations; therefore, while other participants were interviewed,
they were interviewed to support and compare various perceptions with teacher
responses. Again, the emphasis of this study was on teachers and their use of Direct
Instruction to close achievement gaps.
Appendix A contains the interview protocol. Participants signed an in-
formed consent form (appendix B) prior to participating in the interviews. In addi-
tion, various documents and testing data were examined to support the research.
The focus of the study was that use of Direct Instruction that should lead to
mastery-level instruction, reviewing the content to be taught, the learning that the
student is expected to demonstrate each day, and what the teacher does to facilitate
that learning (Bushman & Goodman, 2003). To accomplish this purpose, it was

34
necessary to review the practices, available resources, quality of the resources, and
resources allocation utilized for professional development of staff. Some quantita-
tive data regarding achievement gaps were reviewed to verify and support the
qualitative findings.
School District Selection
To select a study school district, several key features were required. First,
the study district should be selected from a nationwide search and from a geo-
graphical location of high mobility.
This study called for reviewing a district for its academic strengths, weak-
nesses, and achievement gaps, as well as schools that have shown the gaps closing.
A final and key factor in selecting a study district was not only finding schools that
supports the development of first-rate academic program of Direct Instruction
through funding, and staff development were key components in selecting this
district.
The challenge of locating a district that could meet the requirements and
needs of this study decreased as the search progressed and more districts were
eliminated due to not meeting the criteria.
Continuing the search with an understanding of the relationships among the
various school districts and their pedagogical approaches, the curriculum program
instituted, and their students’ past performance allowed the selection of a school
district that met the study criteria.
Sample and Population
After reviewing several possible candidate school districts, I settled on
Silver Lakes because the district reflected and met the study criteria, as designed,

35
for a fair representation of an urban school district using Direct Instruction strate-
gies. After selection, I had several conversations with the Superintendent of
Schools and wrote request letters for permission. Upon receiving written permis-
sion, I contacted the principals by telephone and follow-up letters for permission to
perform the study at their sites. Upon receiving written approval from each of the
principals, we collaboratively determined interview dates and posted requests for
volunteer study participants.
Because experience was a critical part of this study, this researcher had a
strong desire to select teachers who had diversity of ethnicity and teaching skill
levels, while ensuring that the participants had a minimum of 2 years experience in
Direct Instruction and working with students in classrooms. Also, teachers with
“Emergency” credentials or less than NCLB qualified teachers were not acceptable
or considered for this study. The selection was made by contacting various districts
and reviewing their listings of schools, searching for schools using Direct Instruc-
tion, and secondarily reviewing the student enrollment to ensure that they had met
selection requirements and criteria. As an example, any school that reflected homo-
geneous grouping would not be able to show gaps due to ethnicity, and so forth. A
final step included the reviewing of staff of each of the potential schools for teach-
ers to ensure that they met the criteria.
Number of Interviews
The present study included over 20 interviews with teachers, administrators,
and parents, but this paper focuses on 12 teacher interviews. Because teachers
were the focus of the study, the teacher interviews were utilized for the key
findings of this study. However, it bears noting that other interviews were

36
conducted to give the researcher contextual information for the study. The
additional interviews included several district office and school site administrators,
some school site nonteaching staff, and two parents.
The interviews with the administration were conducted to understand the
administration’s perception of what was occurring at the impacted and study sites.
Questions were asked about the amount of support that the administration was
offering the study sites and whether they believed that their support was helping or
hurting performance. The researcher also wanted to know whether they had
received calls from community members or increased numbers of parents coming
to school board meetings. Also, the researcher asked whether staff presentations
from the study sites to the board members were clear, concise, and complete in an
understandable format to share the increased performance at the study sites and
what had been the reaction of school board members. This was an important
component to determine whether the key decision makers, the school board
members, see Direct Instruction as a valuable and effective tool in increasing
student achievement, whether the school board was supporting the staff’s use of
Direct Instruction, and whether they would continue to vote to allocate budget in
support of Direct Instruction. Hence, if the school board eliminated funding, the
program would cease.
The interviews with nonteaching staff were conducted to gain understand-
ing of their perceptions of site and student behavioral changes. As an example, as
students’ classroom performance improved, did the nonteaching staff notice
changes, such as fewer behavioral problems, less graffiti, and/or improved student
attitudes?

37
The interviews with parents were conducted to gain understanding of the
parents’ perceptions of their children’s attitudes and changes in study habits at
home. Questions were asked about time spent on homework, students’ desire to
attend school, and their desire to further their education. All of these interviews
provided insights to the responses to the study participants’ interview questions.
However, these interviews are not included in this study as this is a study about
how Direct Instruction is being used to close achievement gaps in literacy, pri-
marily from a teacher’s perspective. It was also deemed important to understand the
parents’ perceptions from their perspectives.
Study Participants’ Qualifications
and Backgrounds
An important component of this study was teaching experience, assuring
that the study participants represented a range of experiences, tenure status, grade
levels taught, and credentials held. Teachers were polled for background and quali-
fication information; results are shown in Table 2. While the study participants
were randomly selected from two of the district’s elementary schools, the study
was intended to focus on the district and not be a comparison of schools. This study
reviewed only teachers from the LV and JFK elementary schools, as they were a
good match for the study criteria. Each of the schools had been using Direct In-
struction for the past several years and had shown growth in their academic
performance index testing score; also, each had met all of their AYP criteria targets
in both language arts and mathematics.
A couple of teachers stood out among others due to their additional experi-
ences and were more positively animated in their responses. Additional experience
and background information was provided by several study participants.

38
Table 2

A Comparison of Teacher Experience, Tenure Status, and Grade Levels Taught

NCLB
Years as “highly
elementary Years at Grade qualified”
Teacher school teacher current school level(s) taught teacher?

Roger (LV) 4 3 2 Yes
Christine (LV) 16 6 K-3 Yes
Barbara (LV) 4 3 K-3 Yes
Joanne (LV) 3 3 4 Yes
Linda (LV) 5 5 1-2 No
Chrystal (LV) 8 5 2 Yes
Chandra (JFK) 23 9 5 Yes
Richard (JFK) 7 2 4 Yes
Tara (JFK) 4 4 3-4 Yes
Diane (JFK) 12 10 1-2 Yes
Maria (JFK) 15 9 5 Yes
Joseph (JFK) 18 8 6 Yes

Note. LV = Lake Vista school, JFK = John F. Kennedy school.

Christine had over 16 years experience and she currently taught Kindergar-
ten through third grade but also worked with fourth and fifth grades. The school
site where she taught had received a resource grant that funded her position and
allowed her work at various grade levels, pull students from other classes, and work
with those students with Direct Instruction, using differentiated instructional

39
strategies. Using these advanced strategies, she has freed up noninstructional time
and worked with teachers at higher grade levels to perform ongoing classroom
demonstrations and additional staff development activities. In addition, she has
served as a Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (BTSA) consulting teacher
to assist teachers to fulfill the requirements for the California Clear Multiple and
Single Subjects credentials.
Study participant Chandra reported more than 15 years experience as a
middle school Language Arts teacher in another district; thus, she brought a wealth
of classroom experience. She stated that she had originally had concerns and anxi-
ety about making the transition from middle school to elementary school, but she
reported that it had been a seamless and smooth evolution.
A couple of the study participants had previously worked in positions as
school site coordinators in semi administrative roles, and they brought their special
experiences to the interviews. In addition, several study participants had served as
paraprofessional as special day aides or resource specialist aides in special educa-
tion classes. Each of these former paraprofessionals had received training in obser-
vational learning for student motor skills and understood the necessity to
demonstrate student lessons slowly and precisely for assessment of competences
and capabilities for student learning.
Data Analysis Procedures
A three-step process was used to analyze the data. First, I took copious
notes of each of the interviews and the interviews were recorded and then profes-
sionally transcribed. Second, I conducted a thorough review and comparison of my
notes with the returned transcriptions of the interviewed study participants. Third, I

40
used the research questions to code the data and organize the findings into a coher-
ent package. All important and aligned study participant responses were inventory
coded based on content and strength of response. Once coded, the responses were
reviewed for theme generation and categorization of similar themes for meaning
and understanding.
Validating the Findings
To analyze interview data and ensure accuracy of the findings from the per-
spectives of the participants, the researcher, and the readers of the study, the strate-
gies of peer debriefing and triangulation were used. For peer debriefing, several
expert Direct Instruction peers, such as Gary Soto and Dr. Kit Marshall of Action
Learning Systems, a California research and consulting firm specializing in Direct
Instruction, were consulted individually and asked to review the questions and
discuss the qualitative nature of the study. In addition, multiple interviews were
conducted to garner multiple perspectives from study participants, thereby giving
multiple sources of data to analyze and sort into selected themes.
Ethical Considerations
The University Institutional Review Board’ rules, regulations, and proce-
dures were followed to the fullest to ensure the highest ethical standards possible.
In addition, each of the study participants signed a consent form (appendix B), a
copy of which was given to the participant. The consent form ensured that all par-
ticipants were informed of the purpose of the project and reaffirm that participation
was voluntary. The consent form also fully explained any potential dangers or obli-
gations of the study.

41
Limitations of the Study
The limitations of this study included locating underperforming schools that
had quantifiable and demonstrative data that reflected closing the achievement gap
that was documented to be related to Direct Instruction strategies. External validity,
or the generalizability of this study, was limited by the small number of schools
involved in the study. The study was limited by the researcher’s opportunities to
interview teachers who were involved in closing the gap, due to transfers, retire-
ments, and other staff retention issues. The study was also limited by the re-
searcher’s ability to identify formerly low-performing schools that had used Direct
Instruction with students from a variety of ethnicities and socioeconomic levels in a
diverse population.
Finally, the research findings may have been influenced by researcher bias..
As a school district superintendent, the researcher had assisted in the development
and training sessions on Direct Instruction modules. Despite a firm belief in the
value of Direct Instruction strategies, the researcher made concerted effort not to
allow possible biases to influence participant responses or interpretation of the data.

42
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS
The primary intent of this study was to add to the knowledge base on large-
scale school reform and the use of Direct Instruction in closing achievement gaps in
literacy. A key goal was to generate knowledge that practitioners can apply in local
educational agencies to improve educational outcomes. The foundation of the study
was a belief that increasing student success at all levels while closing achievement
gaps in urban schools is possible.
The study was guided by the following overarching question: How is Direct
Instruction being used to close the achievement gaps in literacy?
This was accomplished through an investigation of teachers’ perceptions of
Direct Instruction and analysis of those perceptions to address the following re-
search questions:
1. What role do educators believe Direct Instruction played in closing
achievement gap?
2. What support or resource allocations for Direct Instruction are in place at
the district level to support teachers in their use of Direct Instruction?
3. Have teachers changed their beliefs about underperforming students as a
result of their work with Direct Instruction?
4. How teachers perceive Direct Instruction has changed their teaching
practice and what they do to adapt it in their classrooms?
The exploration for this research study is presented with a focus on re-
searching how teachers use Direct Instruction to close literacy achievement gaps in
diverse student populations. This chapter examines the specific pedagogical

43
strategies of Direct Instruction and teachers’ perceptions of how their didactic skills
changed as a result of its use.
Specifically, this chapter explores teachers’ perceptions of whether and how
teachers’ use of Direct Instruction has helped to increase underperforming student’s
literacy success, as measured by the California API, Adequate Yearly Performance
(AYP) index, and STAR results. Before delving into results for the research ques-
tions, the federal, state, and district policy context is addressed.
Federal, State, and District Policy Context
In the late 1990s the state of California identified schools for an Interven-
tion/Underperforming Schools Program (II/USP) as part of a major provision of
California’s Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA) of 1999 (California De-
partment of Education [CDE], 1999). Under the PSAA program, underperforming
schools were given an opportunity to participate in planning and implementation
activities for improved student achievement.
During that particular time period, schools had begun to recognize some
major differences in the performance of many of their students and began discus-
sions about the literacy achievement gaps of various students. These literacy per-
formance gaps were especially noticeable in many students from lower
socioeconomic levels, as well as notable gaps in major ethnic groupings.
This new program activity of the PSAA was funded by state-provided
II/USP grant awards to selected school sites that were experiencing larger achieve-
ment gaps. Coupled with the requirements of NCLB, educational concerns emerged
in the Silver Lakes Unified School District.

44
Under the accountability provisions contained in NCLB, all public school
sites, entire school districts, and the state education system are evaluated and are
required to meet AYP criteria on three measures: reading/language arts, mathe-
matics, and either graduation rate (for high schools and districts) or attendance rate
(for elementary and middle/junior high schools). Should a school site, district, or
state that is receiving Title I, Part A funds fail to meet or exceed AYP for 2 con-
secutive years, that school site, district, or state may face federal sanctions and be
subject to certain requirements, such as offering supplemental educational services,
offering school choice, and/or taking corrective actions. The findings in this study
address only the reading/language arts component of literacy.
NCLB also contains a requirement that individual schools and districts
achieve AYP each year to ensure that all students perform at the proficient level in
the state standards by 2014. As shown in Table 3, the Silver Lakes Unified School
District had several elementary schools that had not achieved AYP targets for sev-
eral years and had been identified as a II/USP improvement district.
As a consequence of not meeting AYP targets, the district was mandated to
follow NCLB requirements of offering supplemental educational services, allowing
students to transfer into schools of the students’ choice or district-identified other
schools, and/or taking corrective action. The district elected to offer supplemental
services and to take corrective action via Direct Instruction. The teaching staff had
researched Direct Instruction and understood it to be an instructor-directed and
skills-oriented approach to teaching that utilized small- group instruction. As a part
of application of this model, many hours of professional development have
occurred over the past several years in the district. The teachers have received
training in using small group instruction, allowing for more differentiation of

45

Table 3

Silver Lakes Unified School District Elementary Schools’ Academic Performance
Index (API) Scores and Individual Schools’ Achievement of Adequate Yearly Per-
formance (AYP) Criteria for School Year 2004-2005

API score Met 2005 AYP criteria for:
School 2004 2005 Language Arts Mathematics

Silver Lakes Unified 639 661 No No
Sequoia Lakes 649 676 No Yes
Spring Valley 668 687 No Yes
Yellowstone Lake 704 702 No Yes
Chaparral City 635 665 No Yes
Lake Vista 717 744 Yes Yes
Madison (James) 629 604 No No
Brown (Richard) 753 774 Yes Yes
John F. Kennedy 732 769 Yes Yes
Martin Luther King 627 653 No Yes
Mirror Lake Mirage 742 759 Yes Yes
Datnow Academy 793 Yes Yes
University Prep 737 757 Yes Yes
Cesar Chavez 614 624 No No
Castaic Lake 650 678 No No
Ronald Reagan 647 638 No No

46
instruction among students, and increased direct contact with students. Throughout
the process teachers were challenged to use the prescriptive model, with scripted
lessons that implicitly taught key cognitive skills that were broken into small units.
The goal of the entire process was to improve student performance while closing
the achievement gaps between various student groups. The following sections
address the findings for the three research questions.
Findings for Research Question 1: The Role That
Educators Believed Direct Instruction Played
in Closing the Achievement Gap
The study participants had worked at their individual schools and various
grade levels for several years and had experienced student achievements gaps for
several years. In addition, they had spent many hours examining the data for causal
information. The teachers were some of the strongest resources for data and, as
research participants, they were asked for their perceptions regarding the effective-
ness of Direct Instruction in closing the achievement gaps. One teacher responded,
As an older and experienced teacher that is set in my ways, I went through
my training at a time where the things I was trained to do were very differ-
ent from this. I would have to say that I go into all my training with an open
mind. I do not always see everything as the end-all and cure-all of every-
thing. However, I can see the benefits of Direct Instruction.
Another teacher responded,
I honestly believe the trainings were great, absolutely. I had it before at an-
other school and it was kind of like drive-by training through an outside
consulting firm. We all met at one campus and it was really kind of quick,
down and dirty, had it in one day but you really cannot get a lot an awful lot
done. With this training, it was just our school, our grade levels. We got the
model lessons, we got to watch other teachers, we were able to critique each
other in a nonthreatening environment, and I thought it was awesome.
Overall, the study participants responded positively about the effectiveness
of training for closing achievement gaps by using Direct Instruction.

47
Classroom Educational Strategies
There were no differences across the schools and the teachers were
basically the same at each of the schools. Each of these study participants could
have easily been switched to the other school; each stated a belief that the results
would have been the same. The staff development training that they had received
were similar and in some cases done together with other Direct Instruction schools
in the district. The study participants discussed the bond that resulted from having
the ability to contact their peers at each of the schools to collaborate on lesson
planning and results.
Having worked with students of diverse backgrounds, the teachers had
become accustomed to adjusting classroom strategies to accommodate perceived
needs of their students. However, in prior years that strategy had led to many stu-
dents not understanding the classroom activities, and teachers wanted to see im-
provement and decided to become more uniform in their classroom delivery.
One of the classroom strategies that study participants discussed to increase
student literacy improvement was reciprocal teaching (RT). RT is not a new tech-
nique, having been used since the 1800s, and there is much research to support its
use (Hashey & Connors, 2003; Skinner & Belmont, 1993).
RT is a strategy or instructional activity that involves a dialogue between
teachers and students regarding portions of the studied text. This technique uses
four key strategies: summarizing information, questioning and generating ques-
tions, clarifying, and predicting (Brown & Palincsar, 1985). Each of these strategies
was designed to assist students in assembling meaning from text and to provide the
opportunity to monitor student reading skills and comprehension. Throughout the
entire process the teacher and students alternate the lead role in leading the

48
discourse, and much of RT’s success is attributable to its high degree of social in-
teraction.
While each of the study participants acknowledged using a variety of edu-
cational strategies in their classrooms, they identified as Direct Instruction as the
primary strategy that they used in their classrooms daily.
When I’m doing demos, it would be more on the Direct Instruction versus
the RT [Reciprocal Teaching] because that is our focus at this school. The
RT was when I was at another school, but we are really focusing on getting
teachers to fine tune their skills of Direct Instruction district wide. (Chris-
tine)
I use every single strategy that we have been taught. I especially use the
strategies on Direct Instruction daily. I use different elements of the recipro-
cal teaching obviously across the curriculum, not as much in math, though it
is usable in math as well. Obviously, I use all the things that I learned in
John Delandtsheer’s GATE training that we just received. Finally, I differ-
entiate my instruction within my classroom to meet each of the students’
needs. (Richard)
The teachers made it abundantly clear that they overwhelmingly supported
the general concept of using Direct Instruction in the classroom. All 12 teachers
expounded positively that they felt that Direct Instruction was the best program for
standards-based curriculum methodology. They commented that, before they used
Direct Instruction, they may have been offering students a fragmented program that
did not address the needs of all students. They commented that, since the imple-
mentation of Direct Instruction, they were speaking in a common language across
curriculum and grade levels. Teachers expressed the belief that they perceived and
knew that all lesson plans and subject areas were being covered in a standardized
manner school wide.
We do so much sometimes, it’s hard to say whether Open Court or Direct
Instruction is responsible for closing achievement gaps. But I believe that it
has been important to us to have explicit expectations of students, and we
are able to be explicit with a common language. We are now creating com-
plete lessons. For the first time, we are sure we are covering every

49
important item, and we have done this collaboratively. Direct Instruction
has helped us round out those things and made us more thorough. I think it
has had a major impact. (Diane, a 12-year veteran teacher)
At first it was a little hard to . . . follow that prescribed lingo. But it gave us
a common language that allowed us to communicate more effectively and
consistently. Now I’ve adapted my style to match that common language. It
may sound strange, but I know for sure that we are now covering everything
and none of our students are being left out any longer. (Maria)
The teachers stated that, due to the common language and ensuring that
everything was covered in classroom lessons, student participation had increased.
All 12 study participants freely discussed the increased active participation by all of
their students and the strength of students energetically involving themselves in
each of their class sessions and lessons. Participants reported comments stemming
from classroom observations, such as “A once-shy student has become much more
participatory.”
Advantages and Disadvantages of
Using Direct Instruction
Teachers were asked to share their perceptions regarding advantages or dis-
advantages of Direct Instruction as a means being used to close the achievement
gaps in literacy. Across both study schools, 7 of the 12 study participants discussed
the advantages of repetition and a spiraling of lessons, especially for students who
needed more repetition. They noted that the spiraling has led to more emphasis and
time spent on students who may not have completely understood the lesson the first
time. Spiraling has also generated better understanding of the lessons, thereby al-
lowing more closing of the gaps between students. The participants cited that
Direct Instruction provides repetition for many of the students who need that
repetition.

50
However, 5 study participants expressed that there may be too much repeti-
tion and they viewed this component of Direct Instruction as a disadvantage. This
block of teachers maintained that the increase in repetition was not allowing them
to complete lessons as rapidly as before. One study participant stated that she
would not use these strategies for her Gifted and Talented Education (GATE) stu-
dents they did not need so much repetition.
Another study participant explained her perception of the advantages of
Direct Instruction:
I think the advantages of Direct Instruction are that it is fast paced and it
keeps all of the kids engaged. It is giving our students the answers to things;
it sets the students up to succeed. On the other hand, what I struggled with
at the very beginning with Direct Instruction is something that I thought
was a disadvantage—that it is taking away their problem-solving skills,
almost. It felt like I was giving the students the information. It is just a lot
different than what we have had to do in the past, where I was taught in
college to get them to figure things out on their own. Now I was being told
to do just the opposite.
Another study participant cited advantages of Direct Instruction:
Probably not as much lesson planning is necessary on my part because
Direct Instruction is so prescribed. I have been able to adapt the lessons to
my planned way of teaching in some respects. . . . The instructional advant-
age is that I actually see my students learning. They can read. As an exam-
ple, during my last assessment, week 24, I had 89% at proficient reading
levels. That is almost a doubling, and I think those are incredible results.
Another study participant commented,
With the high level of student engagement, I have told my students that the
reason we do Pair Share is that, when they talk, or write, or make a project,
that is when they are actually getting smarter.
The teacher commented that she believed that using Direct Instruction to explain
what the students were accomplishing by using it was helpful to them. She cited
several instructional advantages, and commented, “It seems to kind of cut to the
chase.”

51
Almost all of the study participants viewed Direct Instruction as a benefit.
Their discussions centered on the advantages of the fast pace of the lessons and
increased student engagement. They cited a sense of giving students the answers
that places students in a position to be successful. One study participant expressed,
I think that it just ensures that you deliver all of the material that you want
to deliver and I think it also ensures that you are getting the kinds of inter-
actions that you are looking for in the classroom from teacher to student or
from student to student.
One study participant described another instructional disadvantage:
I don’t see any disadvantages. I think that the only way that somebody
would find a disadvantage is that maybe if it is a teacher who is unwilling to
relinquish all of the control and all of the command of their dialog. For me,
I don’t see any disadvantages.
Summary of Findings for Research Question 1
This study was intended to answer the first research question, regarding the
role that educators believed Direct Instruction played in closing the achievement
gap. Achieving the goal of finding out in detail how educators felt and what they
believed actually occurred when using Direct Instruction. The responses given by
the teachers to many questions gave a wealth of information. The study participants
were strong in their opinions and beliefs that Direct Instruction had played a large
role in closing the achievement gaps at their schools.
Through the many staff development training sessions that the teachers had
completed, they knew that there was considerable research showing how important
it was to have a deep content knowledge to increase classroom effectiveness. The
teachers also knew that merely having sufficient content knowledge does not nec-
essarily make one an effective teacher. Therefore, having the proper strategies was
a key to their success.

52
The teachers were now developing collaborative self-research to support or
change their predisposed positions on Direct Instruction. Having been trained in
many other strategies and practices, they had the expertise and the experience to
compare the successes of all past strategies and programs in their individual class-
rooms and at their school sites. They had discussed and described that they had
increased classroom relevance. The study participants agreed that they needed ac-
countability goals that were related to each of them directly and the Direct Instruc-
tion strategies provided a step-by-step process to meet this goal. Participants had
also stated that they now saw the effects of their efforts in the student test scores
and were able to improve congruence through common standards, assessments, and
evaluations with the Direct Instruction accountability system.
As direct sources of information, training, educational leaders should be the
best judges to measure effective programs; however, educational systems have a
tendency not to measure effectiveness and often continue down the wrong path due
to misinformation. In support of development of a self-correcting and measuring
system of testing effectiveness due to the required daily activities of Direct Instruc-
tion, the teachers in this study chose to measure their effectiveness on a regularly
scheduled basis for accuracy of results, and their results were positive. These par-
ticipants shared a common belief that Direct Instruction was singular; the teachers
in this study chose to measure their effectiveness on a regularly scheduled basis for
accuracy of results, most important strategy for guiding instruction systematically
for systemic improved student achievement.
Each of the study participants had shown student achievement growth in the
classroom and student achievement growth was experienced at each of the study

53
schools, all of which fueled a strong belief that Direct Instruction had played a sig-
nificant role in closing the achievement gaps.
Findings for Research Question 2: Support
or Resource Allocations
Another important component of Direct Instruction is resource allocation.
The costs for staff development, planning, staffing, substitutes, district office lead-
ership and vision, site administrative leadership, and planning are high. In review-
ing the records for the Siler Lakes Unified School District, more than one million
dollars per year has been spent on professional staff development, including ap-
proximately $300,000 per year on Direct Instruction in the pat 4 years. Many of the
costs, such as establishing a clear vision and strategic planning, are not as finan-
cially extensive or as visible as other things. Yet, the staff needs to know that
everyone is behind the planned success model.
Research has shown that, unless a school site has an established or clear
vision that explains a common mission or direction for the school, the probability
for success of accomplishing the desired results decreases. Clearly defining the
(what, why, and how) goals of the district and school site assists in accomplishing
the mission for success. As an example, the mission for the study district was to
close the achievement gaps in literacy (the “what”). The “why” is the law and re-
quirements created by NCLB. The “how” is by using Direct Instruction.
Performance of students in these schools has been mixed. Study participants
were asked to share their experiences related to training in Direct Instruction and
any other types of literacy-related training received in the previous 5 years that
would have prepared them to be fair judges of Direct Instruction in comparison

54
with other teaching strategies. The responses were similar throughout the inter-
views.
Each participant had been trained in RT, a research-based strategy that
refers to an instructional activity that takes place in the form of a dialogue between
teachers and students regarding segments of text. The dialogue is structured by the
use of four strategies: summarizing, question generating, clarifying, and predicting.
The teacher and students take turns assuming the role of teacher in leading this
dialogue (Brown & Palincsar, 1985; Palincsar & Brown, 1985). Each study partici-
pant had also received a minimum of 2 years of Direct Instruction training, con-
sisting of no less than 40 hours of direct contact instruction, as well as ongoing peer
training and monthly staff development meetings. Several teachers had recently
completed competed 30 or more hours of training in some aspect of ELD and/or
SDAIE. In addition, each of the study participants had a minimum of 2 years of
full-time or equivalent experience in teaching English Learners.
The vision established by the district office and the school site explains to
everyone what the schools are about and where they are headed educationally.
However, when questioning the study participants for their perceptions of whether
they had a district vision that is focused on student literacy outcomes, the responses
were surprising and unanticipated. Only half of the 12 participants espoused posi-
tive affirmations; however not one teacher could state, with a clear definition, the
district’s or their school site’s vision statement. As previously mentioned, success
may only increase when all of the partners know the what, why, and how of out-
come expectations.
The responses to the question of mission were short and uncreative: “Yes,
we have a district and a site vision statement.” However, the responses were

55
without substance and did not reflect any knowledge of their vision statement.
Deeper questioning revealed very few responses. Teacher Tara responded, “I think
that we are a much unified staff and we meet regularly to discuss our goals, and I
think everyone is on the same page. We all know what direction we are heading
in.”
Another teacher stated that she felt that her site was still in the process of
firming up a clear vision due to the several changes in leadership at the site. But
overall, the other participants could not state a common vision focused on literacy.
Approximately half of the study participants expressed strongly that the
school’s vision had been clearly explained and published and posted throughout the
school. However, some study participants had other opinions.
The politically correct version is what the union wants us to say. In reality,
yes, I do. The Principal has been very adamant about that. We are focusing
on improving student performance. The Principal has been very clear on
that. (Christine)
Another study participant commented,
Yes, for the most part we have been given the mission and the vision for our
school. I think the vision is clear, but I think that we have kind of been on a
roller coaster. Over the 5 years that I have been here and with the changes
of administration, it has been tough. But every new school year, it seems
that there is something new they want us to try while maintaining the
vision. This is our second Principal and I think that everyone agrees that
they want all the children reading, but as far as how to get there, it’s not a
clear vision.
Yet another study participant stated,
I do not believe the vision is clear to all of our teachers on this campus.
There are some of the older teachers who still want to do things their own
way and need to put more effort into understanding the vision.
Chrystal commented.
I feel that our vision is basically in terms of mastery of the standards. I think
that our vision is to make sure that kids are mastering grade-level standards
in literacy.

56
Study participant Chandra was quick with a response:
We believe that all kids can learn and all kids can be successful. In reading,
every child should be successful. Therefore, we have a vision and a goal for
all children to be successful. The vision is discussed in almost all of our
meetings and posted throughout the school. However, some teachers may
not want to get as involved as all of the rest of us.
In touring JFK school, the researcher discovered many posters and infor-
mational listings of the vision for student learning. In addition, a staff meeting with
breakout sessions for teachers clearly focused on the vision and learning objectives.
The researcher witnessed teachers during each of their preparatory sessions in small
group meetings reviewing data and lesson planning while asking questions about
how the lessons fit within the visions of their individual schools.
One study participant was adamant in professing that there was no clear di-
rection of vision at his school site for student literacy improvement. He stated that
he had tried to understand what the vision was but, “No one has been able to
explain it to me in a manner that I can accept.” An interesting note is that this study
participant was teaching at a school that in 2003 scored below the district-wide API
average by 16 points but outperformed the district average by 60, 65, and 41 points
over the past respective 3 years while using Direct Instruction.
The teachers expanded the interview questions into discussions regarding
their schools having well-defined plans for improved student literacy performance.
The first teacher was quick to respond:
Grade levels meet continually, at least twice a month and informally every
day . . . discussing ways to improve our teaching, and how to reach those
students that may not be as successful as others. We’re constantly readjust-
ing and re-evaluating.
Another teacher explained,

57
I think that we are a much unified staff and we meet regularly to discuss our
goals and I think everyone is on the same page. We all know what direction
we are heading in.
Researching staff records and other sources of data revealed that the staff
had been working on tiering across the grade levels for language arts. They had
begun this process to ensure that the students were put in a more appropriate envi-
ronment. While they were not grouping by ability, they were grouping based on
skill level. Students were placed in classrooms in which a program was designed to
cater to their needs rather than assuming that their Open Court program was going
to be a one-size-fits-all program.
When the teachers were asked what standards they were using and whether
those standards were site, district, or state standards, some were confused and did
not know where the standards were coming form. However, the majority were sure
that the standards were aligned with the state standards. When questioned as to how
they were sure, they produced the state-listed standards for language arts by their
individual grade levels.
There was some confusion among the teachers as to what support the dis-
trict is providing for assisting the schools in achieving their missions. While several
of the teachers stated that the district must be providing some training, they were
not sure about other support. For example, one teacher stated, “In my opinion, I
don’t know that they necessarily give the site administration near as much support
and credit as they deserve.”
An interesting addition to this study came from some of the study partici-
pants who worked at a school in an isolated urban city located more than 20 miles
from the district office. Each of these teachers stated that their school was treated
differently from other schools in the district because of its location, student and city

58
demographics, and the city’s economic status. The teachers from that school stated
that they were the “stepchildren” of the district and were treated with less respect
and received fewer district resources. In addition, each of the teachers from that
school stated that they had not seen district office personnel visit their school site in
years. They reported feeling isolated and insulated from district office support.
They had experienced leadership turnovers routinely and wanted to hold on to the
current site leadership team for a few years. However, they were concerned that the
district office would once again rotate the site’s latest leadership team from the site.
The teachers were highly impressed with what they perceived as an outstanding job
by the current leadership team that had developed a new camaraderie at the site.
They were concerned that the district might disrupt the new sense of a common
team again.
Teacher Richard stated that he saw what he believed was
district support by the hiring of companies like Action Learning Systems,
the opportunity to come to our schools, and they do district wide trainings.
However, from my standpoint, things that I’ve heard, I don’t necessarily
feel that they give our site administration the amount of credit they deserve.
Because independent about how anyone feels about the test scores, they do
not always provide a complete fair and accurate assessment for growth of a
student.
Research question 2 asked, What support or resource allocations for Direct
Instruction are in place at the district level to support teachers in their use of
Direct Instruction?
Allocating resources is probably one of the most challenging tasks that any
school site or district must undertake when encountering reform efforts. This
includes newly encountered reform efforts and/or sustainability of reforms. Even
when the entire school or district is in agreement with a goal of increased student
performance, the tasks does not become easier.

59
Study participants were very clear in describing the level of support and re-
source increases that had occurred over the past few years to support Direct In-
struction. They reported that the central offices had met with site administrators of
the Direct Instruction school sites and staffs, explaining that they believed that
helpful and sufficient resource allocation to minimize effect of budget shortages on
students’ education was critical. However, the site administrators wanted everyone
to know that the Superintendent and school board valued the Direct Instruction
program and were going to fully fund the needs of the staff members.
Teachers reported that the site administrators began the process by asserting
that they needed to focus on what was the most important thing: the students them-
selves. That was quickly followed with a clear vision statement and description of
their common mission: improved student achievement. The site administrators
shared with the staff that the Superintendent’s comment was to prepare for bumps
from budget crises, prioritize their resources, and communicate effectively.
The process continued by providing adequate allocation of resources, in-
cluding professional development trainers, release time from classroom instruction
for teachers on a rotational basis to visit peer classrooms, student-free time for
teacher collaborations, new Direct Instruction resource materials, videos and other
classroom and training materials. The Direct Instruction site also changed the
school bell times and added a minimum day schedule each week, which required
rerouting of busing schedules and nutritional service staff times.
Throughout the schools, posters were proudly hung to share the student’s
successes; the vision statement was posted in each classroom and in the hallways.
While the costs to continue the program will decrease in upcoming years
due to reduced professional development needs and resources already purchased,

60
the sites and district realize that, to realize sustainability of the newly achieved
student improvements, the district must continue to devote the necessary resources
to fully implement the long-term goals of student achievement.
Findings for Research Question 3: How Teachers Are
Measuring the Effectiveness of Direct Instruction
Research question 3 asked, Have teachers changed their beliefs about un-
derperforming students as a result of their work with Direct Instruction? In an
effort to determine the effectiveness of the improvement, the study participants
were asked to explain how they were measuring student performance in their
classrooms. Study participant Roger responded,
This is something I am still struggling with. I am using a variety of different
things or a multiple measures method. Personally, I like to monitor my stu-
dents’ daily work and, to a smaller extent, I measure the 6-week assess-
ments that we give the students. Even though I’m teaching my students a
Kaleidoscope program, I am giving my students the comprehension, flu-
ency, and writing sections of each unit test. So even if they’re not reading at
grade level in our Open Court literacy program, I am still giving them those
components of that unit test, and I can measure and assess student per-
formance.
I use teacher observational guides. In addition, we have weekly assessments
every 6 weeks and we also are required to give unit assessments through our
Open Court program. So I use each of these things for assessing student
performance and growth of my students, but primarily I prefer the teacher
observations. I work really hard with my students with their pair-share ac-
tivities and I can use teacher observations with random calling on students.
Finally, I use teacher observations with an activity we use called “White-
boards.” This is where each of my students holds up an answer so I can tell
immediately that my students are doing it, but as far as performance on
tests, it would be our weekly tests and our unit tests. (Christine)
Throughout the interviews, direct and indirect observation tended to be a
key monitoring method for many of the study participants, as well as a checking for
understanding by short quick questions seeking information and a short series of
tests.

61
Formally, at the beginning of the year, I take the California Standards Test
data and formulate groups based on that. Then throughout the year I give
my students short, well-articulated assessments. Then I take the information
from there and begin giving chapter tests and quizzes. Finally, I measure
that data also and seek ways to improve. I also informally measure through
questioning and taking notes as to which students were not able to answer
particular questions about particular skills and which students are doing
well. (Chandra)
I use a lot of informal observations. I have had good successes by pulling
my students into small groups, so it helps me and I take notes on them.
These are simply anecdotal notes that I can catalog and work with individ-
ual students later. Also, I use just our basic standardized, regular tests, and
normal assessments that I have to give to them. (Linda)
The study participants were very much in agreement that Direct Instruction
can be viewed as teaching to the test because so much information is given to the
students in advance. The differences they shared were that Direct Instruction moves
to higher levels of learning by adding defined sequences of detailed content com-
ponents; clear, scripted instructional steps to teach each component; and accurate
feedback procedures to deal with student errors (Heshusius, 1991).
As another teacher explained,
In my opinion, our measuring of the effectiveness of DI became easier
when we found we could measure and assess student achievement by the
assessments that were set forth in our Open Court programs. We have to do
faithful implementation of all of our programs, especially our Open Court
programs. So we stick with those assessments, the unit assessments, and
thoroughly prepare the students for these assessments. By the time we
assess the students, we pretty much have expectations and we can measure
their performance against our expectations.
Another teacher was asked how she was measuring the effectiveness of
Direct Instruction in her class.
I do it several ways. Of course, I use Direct Instruction, and I also use paper
and pencil when I do projects. I always use a grading rubric, where my kids
are taught the rubric and how to use it to evaluate their own learning. I have
English language learners and sometimes straight from Mexico, so we have
all different levels with kids. We [the teaching staff] are very flexible, and
we use a tiering process for reading, so the kids I’ve had at the beginning of
the year I don’t necessarily have now, except my English language learners,
and that is pretty consistent. When I review the work of all of these students

62
and compare against my grading rubric that was established by all of our
grade-level teachers, I can measure the effectiveness of the program in
comparison to other programs that we have used.
Overall, the study participants were using similar activities for measuring
the effectiveness of implementation of Direct Instructions, beginning with multiple
forms of assessment, both informal and formal. Informally, students were assessed
based on things as small as their work ethic, attitude, performance, and ability to
participate in Direct Instruction, to how they work in group settings. Formally,
teachers were using a variety of commonly designed rubrics to measure writing
assessments and grade level assignments. In addition, many of the teachers contin-
ued to give short weekly grade-level tests to go with the benchmark examinations,
simply to give students multiple opportunities to exhibit learning.
The finding of this research revealed that teachers were continuing with
success with formal assessments every 6 weeks. These assessments had evolved to
cover reading, writing, and mathematics. The teachers were still giving chapter
tests about every 2 weeks and continuing with ongoing data analysis, constantly
noting where students were performing low in one area or areas and where students
were doing exceptionally well.
Study participants were asked to discuss the sharing of literacy teaching
methods with their peers. They collectively discussed that one of their key strate-
gies for sharing was an uncomplicated task, such as observational surveys of peers.
The determination of whom to observe was simplistically made by analysis of the
student data by staff. Teachers cooperatively reviewed student data to search for
any teachers who had had student success, with literacy test scores that are sub-
stantially above other classes. Those teachers with higher-performing students or

63
who had made the larger gains were requested to allow peer observations to gain an
understanding of what was leading to their success.
Every 6 weeks after the unit assessment, we are given a half-day release
time within the school day. We meet collectively to discuss the results of
the benchmark assessment and plan further. Basically we make what is
called an action planner, where we plan in order to meet goals that we set at
that time. Then we review the data to see other teachers who have had suc-
cess and go to that teacher’s classroom to observe what they are doing and
their teaching style. (Tara)
Another teacher stated his rationale for peer observation:
These days, you cannot just be a teacher that closes your doors and keeping
your stuff to yourself. It needs to be more of a team effort. If we are not
sharing information and data and things that we work on, then there is no
way we can go as a team. Ultimately, each grade level is a team, and when
they show growth, we all share in our successes or our failures. Hopefully,
the idea is that the school as a team is going to grow and then we can keep
growing.
At each study site, teachers were observed to be traveling frequently from
one classroom to another to observe other teachers. The teachers were constantly
searching for teachers with students who were doing well in literacy and improved
writing skills at each of the study sites. Then they monitored and observed for new
techniques to apply in their own classes.
In addition, every 6 weeks after the unit assessment tests, the teachers were
given a half-day of release time within the school day. They met and discussed the
results of the benchmark assessments and planned further. Basically, they devel-
oped an “action planner” in which they established times to meet goals that they set
at that time. This action plan included time for peer observations and staff collabo-
ration.
In conclusion, the resultant findings reflect that faithful implementation of
frequent assessments allowed for measurement and assessment that gave more ac-
curate information to assist staff in closing student achievement gaps in literacy. By

64
following these procedures, the staff measured the effectiveness of the Direct In-
struction program in comparison to other programs.
Changes in Teacher Beliefs as a Results of
Their Work With Direct Instruction
A key question occurred throughout this entire research: a question of
whether teachers had changed their beliefs as a result of their work with Direct In-
struction. Teachers were asked to share their perceptions about whether, at the be-
ginning of their Direct Instruction training, they believed that it would provide the
skills necessary to close achievement gaps.
I was skeptical in the beginning, but was thinking it would provide another
set of tools. I was thinking I already had tools just from doing graduate
work. I was wrong. I am still relatively new, only teaching for 7 years, but
having the opportunity to go and view other teachers and observe them and
just discuss things. I think the best way that it helps to close the gap is that it
provides a nonthreatening way for both the teacher and the student to get
everyone engaged without the constant reprimanding of students.
I mean, I really have to work. The kids like doing group discussions
with each other and pair-shares, and I never did this before, but I love the
way DI teaches you to do the immediate correctives. When a student does
not understand something, I can go to another student and, if that student
gets it, then I go back to that first student and have them repeat it, and when
you do it, it’s not like you’re picking on the kids. . . . I was wrong, DI has
really changed the way I feel about closing the achievement gaps. I have
seen it working. (Richard)
Researcher observations revealed that the staff training had provided a
wealth of materials, graphic organizers, and ideas to think pair-share activities. The
Direct Instruction program, applications of the state standards, and the incorpora-
tion of the standards in classroom instruction are helping students to learn the stan-
dards and showing the students what is expected of them. All of this is assisting to
close the achievement gaps within the district.

65
Teachers were asked for their impressions regarding the prescriptiveness of
Direct Instruction in classrooms. Overall, the teachers from each school shared
many similar responses, beginning with the requirements to prepare for each
lesson. Nine of the 12 teachers reported that preparing for each lesson required ex-
tensive time and work but that it was beneficial for teaching. Eleven of the 12
teachers said that they believed that the prescriptiveness and the process were nec-
essary and good. When comparing the schools and the numbers of staff members
who stated that there was an overabundance of prescriptiveness, the staff response
was similar; they stated that the program should be prescriptive to be as successful
as they had been.
Each of the participants expressed that the new raised expectations by staff
and students had caused them to realize that it was necessary to take much more
time than in prior years. These participants shared that the additional time was in-
creasingly used in preparing thoroughly in advance of each class and taking time to
proceed sequentially through all steps. However, 10 of the 12 teachers expressed
that lesson preparation was now a very time intensive due to the amount of time
required and commitment necessary for Direct Instruction preparation of each of
the lessons taught.
One teacher went further with an explanation:
Lesson planning is one of the things we are still working on. That is the
portion of it to which I do not necessarily subscribe. What I am incorporat-
ing in my classroom is a series of fast-paced interactive lessons of variety of
different activities, so that it is not just rote. For us to prepare properly re-
quires a lot of preparation, and DI requires us to do things a certain way.
However, I have to admit, I seemed to have noticed a difference in my
classroom, especially the squirrelly kids that have a hard time sitting in their
seats. Teachers are keeping it fast paced and giving students a variety of
things to do, and the students are much more apt to sit there, even squirmy,
but they remained focused on the lessons.

66
Each of the teachers expressed a perception that, due to its prescriptiveness,
Direct Instruction had caused them to become better teachers. In some measure,
due to the requirements to create the scripts for students to follow, teachers ex-
pressed that a better understanding of lessons by students had occurred.
The teachers unreservedly discussed their impressions of the concept of
Direct Instruction through very positive results. Eleven of the 12 study participants
strongly supported the concept itself. The lone dissenter expressed indications that
he would prefer to have a little more freedom of expression within his classroom.
The same staff member stated that, from his perception, increasing student
achievement by increasing student engagement is a truism. But he said that he was
reserving his complete opinion until he saw longer-term results and sustainability
of cohort data from his students over longer periods of time. However, all of the
other study participants collectively expressed the benefits of using Direct Instruc-
tion in their classrooms.
One study participant remarked,
Quite honestly, my whole training, preservice training and all that was on
the more constructive end of it, and there are times when I miss that. Just
letting kids explore and go there, but it is valuable, and I can see growth es-
pecially with our poverty students. Those children who were missing so
much, I now see that Direct Instruction helps close that gap to get them to
the point of students who can explore.
Another study participant stated,
I think it is simply common sense. I think it is good teaching . . . . It is how I
learned, without it being called Direct Instruction, back in my teacher cre-
dentialing program, when you had an anticipatory setting . . . . This is just
how I learned to teach, so it seems like second nature to me.
It was the general sentiment of the study participants that the concept of
Direct Instruction allowed for the highest amount of student engagement and kept
students involved in classroom learning. Study participants expressed that they had

67
become much more involved due to the rigorous preparations of lessons and direct
reflection on what was taught each day. This included continual communication
and feedback of what could have been better and how to implement improvements
in the next classroom lessons. This reflection period allowed teachers time to con-
sider and plan what they wanted to discuss in the next class.
All 12 study participants expressed the opinion that Direct Instruction is a
valid strategy that is grounded in logic. The study participants stated that they were
pleased to sustain it in their classrooms because of the results that they had experi-
enced and seen in their classrooms. Ten of the 12 study participants expressed a
“tightening of effectiveness” in their classrooms; things had become much more
strategic and encompassing.
The study participants continued with their discussions on how the strate-
gies of the Direct Instruction process centers or focuses on what is important and
place an emphasis on student learning. The study participants indicated that they
believed that Direct Instruction strongly assisted in closing the achievement gaps
among their classroom students.
One study participant stated,
Because we have used Direct Instruction so much, the students feel so good
and empowered that they could now take the Open Court tests because the
students knew they had worked with the material. In addition, I usually add
a learning visualization kind of strategy, maybe a piece of clay, maybe pic-
tures incorporated with Direct Instruction. So my students feel empowered
because they have all of the tools to be able to be successful.
When questioned about the advantages and disadvantages of Direct Instruc-
tion from their informed perspectives, each of the study participants was impressed
with what they termed advantages. As an example of the advantages, several study
participants expressed that they now noticed increased student engagement and that

68
no student was left out of the learning process. Study participants were also very
content with one particular component of Direct Instruction. The participants spoke
of the activity called “pair share” and how student peers were able to assist fellow
students not only in learning but in checking for understanding with each other. All
12 study participants reported that they used the activity daily.
The “pair share” activity is a strategy in which teachers use a four-step pro-
cedure: (a) Teachers clearly demonstrate how to use the skill or strategy; (b) stu-
dents exercise the skill under the teacher’s guidance, while providing constant
remedial feedback and commendation; (c) students use the skill unaided in real
academic situations; and (d) students use the skill in other situations.
One study participant explained her belief in pair share activities as
just letting kids explore and go there. It is so valuable to them, and I can see
the growth. Especially with our poverty students, who were missing so
much. Direct Instruction helps close the gaps to get them to the point of stu-
dents who can now explore.
Over half of the study participants also used a variation of that same process
in which the teacher poses a thought-provoking questions for the entire class, stu-
dents are given time to consider their own solutions to the question, then there is
the thinking process in which the students begin to work to reach agreement on
answers to the questions, and finally the students share their answers with the class.
There is much research to support this strategy, as well as a simpler expla-
nation of the process by David Hayes, Director of Teacher Education at Fort Lewis
College in Durango, Colorado:
Teachers teach students a cognitive strategy and the students then apply the
cognitive strategy to help them complete the less-structured task. The uses
of dashed lines to link the series of boxes indicate that the teacher and
student are less direct when they work on less-structured tasks. At that point
teachers use scaffolding techniques to support the students as students learn
the cognitive strategies. Finally, the now learned the cognitive strategies

69
supports students as the students attempt to complete the less structured
task. (Stahl & Hayes, 1997, p. 87)
While it may be simplistic to analyze or discuss well or less-structured tasks, many
tasks are combinations of well or less-structured task parts. Many areas of sentence
structure are well-structured tasks, but in some areas, examples of when to use a
comma are less structured.
Although textbook examples of restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses may
be clear, in actual practice there are many examples where the finite rules
cannot be assertively useful. Most literature recommends that students be
taught cognitive strategies to use for the less structured parts of well-
structured tasks. Research supports cognitive strategies being developed and
taught in a number of subject areas. These include reading and all areas of
literacy. (Stahl & Hayes, 1997, p. 87)
Summary of Findings for Research Question 3
Research question 3 asked, Have teachers changed their beliefs about un-
derperforming students as a result of their work with Direct Instruction?
Many of the study participants shared that they had been originally skeptical
of any major improvements with a new set of tools. However, their belief system
had significantly changed after receiving much of the Direct Instruction training.
The staff shared that they had received newer materials, graphic organizers, and
additional staff development that was stronger than they had received in the past.
Using the newer training and materials, they could now see the same or
cohort groups of children who had been failing or were below grade level becom-
ing much more successful in literacy. The staff strongly stated that the literacy
improvement among children of color and lower socioeconomic conditions was
caused by Direct Instruction and that such significant improvement had brought
about a belief in Direct Instruction techniques.

70
They shared that they were experiencing a paradigm shift or a movement
from one thought process to another after seeing the results. They held stronger
beliefs that it was not the students who had been failing, but possibly the method of
the delivery system had failed the children with the greatest needs.
It was becoming an evolution of success, a transformation, a sort of meta-
morphosis in the eyes of the study participants. Each of them discussed becoming
an agent of change in students’ lives and having the ability to effect change more
positively with Direct Instruction strategies.
Findings for Research Question 4: How Teachers Perceive
Direct Instruction Has Changed Their Teaching Practice
and What They Are Doing to Effectively
Adapt It in Their Classrooms
Targeting the Essential Standards
Educators have stated that the state- mandated reading programs, such as
Open Court and Houghton-Mifflin, are very time intensive. In fact, teachers across
the state have commented that they no longer have the ability to cover each page in
the new language arts texts. The questions of covering and teaching what is being
tested have become an issue for both teachers and administrators nationally. Due to
the time limitations, educators now have to cover key components to prepare stu-
dents for achievement gains measured by state and federal standards.
When questioned about their ability to cover the essential standards in an
effort to make their classrooms more standards driven in assisting in closing the
achievement gaps, the study participants unanimously stated that they had become
much more standards driven as a result of using Direction Instruction strategies of
teacher collaboration periods and required planning for each class. They stated that

71
the only constriction that they were encountering was the prescriptiveness of the
Open Court reading program and articulating the program with the strategies of
Direct Instruction. The study participants shared a perception that Direct Instruction
was the most efficient way to move the Open Court targeted instructional plans to
students. However, one study participant stated,
I am trying to cover all the essential standards, but math is bogging me
down a little bit right now because we have so much to teach in math, and
we have a group of learners that are struggling in math. These students were
struggling when they came to me from other schools and lower grade levels,
and it is taking time for them to address and for them to remember. It takes
repeating over and over and over again; so I am looking I am for some
strategies this summer. We are taking AB466 math training [Assembly Bill
(AB) 466, Chapter 737, Statutes of 2001], so I am looking forward to that
opportunity. I believe that those additional strategies will give me additional
skills to bring to my students in literacy.
She commented that she was covering all of the essential standards with all of her
students.
When asked whether Direct Instruction had modified their teaching meth-
odologies to account for the (presumably) more rigorous standards-based curricu-
lum, one teacher responded,
Just by requiring teachers to develop each class lesson together, teachers are
more involved. The teachers are more focused. If teachers are not all over
the board, then we are more focused. Standards are now driving what we
are doing. Yes, it does make it more comprehensible to the teachers. They
know the road now.
Changes to Class Work Activities
Realizing that the achievement gaps exist and focusing on methodologies of
change or necessary teacher paradigm shifts has become a large challenge for many
educators. Study participants were asked to discuss whether they had either noticed
or changed their classroom activities from prior years. These teachers explained
that not only have their classroom activities have been modified, but now the

72
school sites have planning days or minimum days included within their work
schedules. Several of the district schools have increased minutes per day to allow
for a minimum day per week for teacher collaboration and preparation. During
those planning days teachers are released from classroom activities and work col-
laboratively on review of data, development of standardized rubrics, and common
lesson planning. These teachers work together to review the content strands and
standards in the core programs and to analyze and scaffold the information. This is
a completely different practice for many of these staff members. Teachers working
collaboratively in organizing their processes to utilize more Direct Instruction
strategies consistently across the curriculum is new but it is productive.
Another teacher explained that when she reviews her lesson plans she is
now obligated to reassess her lessons more rigorously. She stated that using Direct
Instruction strategies has caused her to contemplate how she could implement even
more Direct Instruction strategies to assist classroom learning.
A lot of times I will say, “Well, what can I have my kids do or am I going to
be talking too long if I do this, what I can do to get my kids more in-
volved?” So I think it has just given me a different focus when I am plan-
ning. I might not do a full DI lesson, but at least I take some of the
strategies and implement it a lot more. (Terry)
Another study participant stated,
I think that Direct Instruction has helped me grow as a teacher a significant
amount, and the training that we have had, just the way that we have used
Direct Instruction to increase the level of student engagement, has been a
huge success for me. I think that has been a really important part of our
Direct Instruction training.
Another study participant explained,
I think we have been a lot better about the orientation, and building back-
ground information as a result of Direct Instruction. I think we have also
been much more conscious of having a lot of highly structured practices. So
now we are no longer saying to students, “I taught it, now you do it.” There

73
was a gap that needed to be bridged and I think that is something that we
have tried and are doing now.
However, one of the 12 study participants who was interviewed with regard
to changing her instructional strategies stated,
No. Not really, I have not changed much. On our lesson plans, we try to
write when I am going to have a Direct Instruction lesson or when there is a
new pair sharing or how I am going to use Direct Instruction. I think the
only modification I have made is just being more consistent with using DI.
This is different from where I came from, we had a kind of the drive-by
Direct Instruction training, I tried to use it. I just did not get the practical
application part because I did not get to see that. It was just basically sitting
there taking notes and listening. Now, I have a greater appreciation but, in
my opinion, I have not really changed.
Overall, the study participants reported that Direct Instruction had forced
them to focus on what they need to be an effective teacher. In terms of modifying
their beliefs about instructing, it has given these teachers the tools to focus and not
stray onto other things. They agreed that the classroom and lesson objectives were
now clearer.
More probing questions were posed about teachers’ perceptions of a possi-
ble paradigm shift in their attitudes and teaching methodologies. The study partici-
pants were thoughtful in their responses regarding modifying their teaching styles
and methodologies. One study participant stated,
I have learned to modify my teaching methodology, but I don’t think it was
due to the more rigorous standards-based curriculum as much as the appli-
cation of Direct Instruction strategies. We are still doing and using the same
curriculum, it is just how we are presenting the lessons now, or more per-
sonally, how I am presenting the lessons.
Another study participant explained his belief in personal modifications:
Just by requiring the DI strategies and techniques . . . the teachers are more
involved. We as teachers are more focused, and if we are not, then we are
no longer teaching all over the board. Now we can clearly see that the stan-
dards are driving what we are doing. So, I have to admit that Direct Instruc-
tion makes it more accessible to the teachers. We know the road now.

74
The classroom modifications have included many opportunities for students
to have more guided instruction and individual practices with new concepts and
skills. This guided instruction and individual practices are strategies that many
teachers believe Direct Instruction is providing to assist in closing the achievement
gaps. In addition, through Direct Instruction teachers have expanded their opportu-
nities to ensure student understanding by asking clear, concise, and correct ques-
tions, thereby making sure all students have an opportunity to respond.
As the interviews continued, it became more apparent that the study partici-
pants were fostering the development of higher-level thinking skills. They contin-
ued to encourage and foster self-accountability, as well as student accountability,
through effective classroom modeling. Through classroom modifications by teach-
ers, there are higher expectations for student learning. These findings are similar to
those reported in 1984 by the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory in the
document “Effective Schooling Practices: A Research Synthesis” (as cited in
Druian & Butler, 2001).
Another study participant explained,
I guess just expecting all of my students to know the answers or just telling
them answers, instead of making them develop the answers on their own, is
just like a whole other method of teaching in itself.
Study participant Anne responded that, not only had her methodologies
advanced:
I think that Direct Instruction has helped me grow as a teacher a lot, and the
training that we have had has improved me. Just the way that we have used
Direct Instruction to increase the level of student engagement has been a
huge thing for me. I think that increasing student engagement has been a
really important part of our Direct Instruction training.
I think Direct Instruction has added to my teaching. You have to deliver the
message, and if you are going to deliver it by talking and lecturing to kids,
any age kids in elementary, you have lost them pretty much. Students get

75
the deer-in-the-headlights look, and with Direct Instruction you know that
they are with you . . . especially with think pair-share. (Ron)
When visiting classrooms it was evident that Direct Instruction had caused
teachers to modify instruction in that they tried to use the Direct Instruction meth-
ods across the curriculum in every area and with consistency. It appears that teach-
ers were focusing on what they needed to be effective teachers. In terms of
modifying their beliefs about instructing, Direction Instruction has given them a
tool to force them to focus on what they need to focus on and not stray onto other
things. As several of the study participants stated, “Our objectives are now much
clearer now.”
Using Direct Instruction to Guide Instruction
The teachers acknowledged that theoretical framework or mindset changes
had to occur for their success in closing the achievement gaps district wide.
Throughout the entire process, none of the study participants stated anything nega-
tive about Direct Instruction. A couple of the participants mentioned that they felt
that the prescriptiveness of Direct Instruction required some changes to their
teaching styles but that, over time, they had adapted and were having positive ex-
periences with the Direct Instruction practices. No teacher reported feeling less
effective or less creative using Direct Instruction. In fact, each of the study partici-
pants stated that he or she had become more creative due to the necessary prepara-
tion of lesson planning.
The study participants stated that Direct Instruction held a possibility of
constructive behavior improvement. When interviewed about the usefulness of
Direct Instruction in guiding instruction to cover the standards, the first study par-
ticipant responded,

76
It is a guideline for me. Using the Direct Instruction forces me to review
each standard and how I will teach to that standard. Sometimes I really have
to look hard at the lesson and see how it really applies to the standards
before I begin teaching.
The study participants reported that recent higher achievement was the
result of the skills and the concepts that were directly taught. This has become a
strong belief, that to really understand the lesson, students must be given the
lessons with protracted exchange with the academic materials.
As another study participant explained,
We try to cover all the standards, but it is a humongous task, and if you
want to cover it in depth, especially the literacy and math standards, it’s
hard. It is hard to do and you have to try to keep what the kids learn fresh in
their mind and then add to it. Direct Instruction is allowing us one or a set
of the techniques to use to do it.
The study participants explained that Direct Instruction had helped them to
prioritize the standards that they want students to learn. Working together, teachers
continued to design Direct Instruction lessons for all of the more challenging stan-
dards. As another study participant explained, “ Sometimes we will notice that this
is something that is not being covered in Open Court, let’s do a Direct Instruction
lesson and make sure students are getting it.”
Study participants said that they were speaking on behalf of many of the
staff members as reflected in discussions in the staff lunchrooms, lounges, staff
training centers. Also, some of the parents had expressed that Direct Instruction had
helped them to prioritize the standards that they wanted to cover. However, one
study participant said, “It is not really guiding my instruction, but it is making my
instructional delivery more focused and affective; that is the work I am looking
for.”
In understanding teachers’ perceptions of the usefulness of Direct Instruc-
tion in closing achievement gaps, participants were asked a probing question about

77
whether they saw Direct Instruction assisting them in closing the achievement gaps.
All 12 study participants answered affirmatively, stating that Direct Instruction was
definitely assisting them in closing the gaps. One study participant commented,
Yes, without a doubt DI is helping to close the literacy gaps. Many of our
students come to us and do not have a strong grasp of the English language
and DI has helped us reach those students. The students are more engaged
during the lesson and more focused on their assignment. I am hoping, God I
am hoping that that will translate into higher test scores this year again.
Another study participant exclaimed,
I definitely believe DI is working with our students and closing the achieve-
ment gaps in literacy. I think it allows for students to be more effectively
engaged. My goal is to make my students independent thinkers and inde-
pendent learners. Direct Instruction is doing that in my classroom.
A fourth-grade teacher stated,
Direct Instruction has given us a research-based curriculum-tested strategy
and standards-based way of giving instruction. I definitely think that that is
a huge part of closing our achievement gaps. In my professional opinion,
focusing on our grade-level standards and we are using Direct Instruction to
deliver that.
Summary of Findings for Research Question 4
Research question 4 asked, How teachers perceive direct instruction has
changed their teaching practice and what they are doing to effectively adapt it in
their classrooms?
Teachers were explicit in describing how Direct Instruction had changed
their teaching style and methodology for delivering literacy education to students.
Many of the teachers said that they found the universal training provided by Direct
Instruction to be the most effective way to teach English proficiency to non-English
speaking students. They reported that Direct Instruction was a highly research-
based practice to immerse students in their native language and English at different
periods of the student day.

78
The teachers reported that they follow scripts to keep students occupied,
engaged, and moving more rapidly than in traditional methods. In addition, stu-
dents are tracked or clustered into groups with like abilities and are assessed much
more frequently. The teachers stated that any disadvantages of Direct Instruction
were outweighed by the benefits of Direction Instruction, including the following:
(a) Teachers now have the ability to organize what will be learned, as well as who
will learn what; (b) since lessons can be administered more rapidly, more curricu-
lum can be covered; (c) the teacher has the ability to control the timing of the
lesson; (d) students who are grouped appropriately are easier to monitor.

79
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND IMPLICATIONS
The study was guided by the following overarching question: How is Direct
Instruction being used to close the achievement gaps in literacy? The following
research questions were addressed:
1. What role do educators believe Direct Instruction played in closing
achievement gap?
2. What support or resource allocations for Direct Instruction are in place at
the district level to support teachers in their use of Direct Instruction?
3. Have teachers changed their beliefs about underperforming students as a
result of their work with Direct Instruction?
4. How teachers perceive Direct Instruction has changed their teaching
practice and what they do to adapt it in their classrooms?
The first question addressed the role of classrooms educational strategies
and the advantages and disadvantages of using Direct Instruction. The second
question addressed support and resource allocation provided to the school sites and
teacher. The third question addressed teacher perceptions and changes in beliefs.
The fourth question asked teachers to discuss targeting the essential standards,
modifications of philosophical frameworks, and using Direct Instruction to guide
instruction.
The role and the goals of the teachers in the NCLB era are to improve
achievement by all students while simultaneously closing achievement gaps be-
tween all significant groups. Many of the study participants recited their positive
perceptions of the usefulness of Direct Instruction in closing achievement gaps.

80
They gave many examples of conferencing with students in language arts and
mathematics. The teachers had used journals to track each student’s performance
from pretest to posttest. During the interim period the teachers had used their class-
room results of students’ recent benchmark examinations and their preparation to
close achievement gaps. Through it all, the results had been positive not only in test
scores but also in improved student behavior.
Summary
The teachers’ discussions showed an understanding that teachers should still
be a part of their classroom and that they should still monitor their instructional
accountability. Teachers should have classroom management and discipline
routines and policies and all other classroom management activities.
The advantage in using Direct Instruction is that, so long as the teacher is
making sure that this is happening, the student does not just sit and shut himself off
and fade away into the corner. Some Direct Instruction activities, such as pair
sharing, force students to become active participants and to be a useful and vital
part of all processes. In addition, teachers are continuing to differentiate instruction
by continually moving around the classrooms and monitoring student learning.
To become a leader and achieve the desired result of educational best prac-
tice performance improvement, these teachers and school sites must continue with
their collaborative research and retain consulting services to help with ongoing pro-
fessional development. The teachers have been addressing their most challenging
issues by using objective benchmarks and best practice insights to identify gaps and
develop solutions.

81
The teachers in this case study were collaboratively reviewing benchmark-
ing data and performance metrics, performing group analyses on findings, and
gaining insights from consultants and research studies. Thus, they were bringing
new information into their classrooms. The teachers expressed a strong belief that
each of these best practices would contribute to continued success.
The study participants were a fair representation of a typical California
school district; they were randomly selected to give a fair representation of ages,
qualifications, and backgrounds. While the study participants were from diverse
backgrounds, they were similar in professional development training experience.
Each of the participants had received almost identical training in Direct Instruction
and each was receiving identical ongoing training.
The study participants were well versed in the federal, state, and district
contexts of NCLB, PSAA, and other achievement measurement tools and had been
monitoring not only testing data but also classroom activities for compliance and
progress. Compliance issues stemmed from a new mandate from the state of Cali-
fornia contained in the settlement of Williams et al. v. State of California et al.
(Williams), a case filed as a class action suit in 2000 (Daucher & Bermudez, 2004).
The rationale for the legislation was that local educational agencies had
failed to provide public school students with equal access to instructional materials,
safe and decent school facilities, and qualified teachers. Since the study district was
an urban district, it met many of the criteria contained in the Williams settlement.
Therefore, the study participants were strongly ensuring compliance and supporting
student classroom environments with adequate instructional materials and qualified
teachers, meeting all of the requirements of NCLB. In addition, each of the study
participants tracked the student literacy data on a weekly basis for classroom

82
activity, every 6 weeks for interim assessments, and trimester comprehensive ex-
aminations.
The study participants expressed many advantages to using Direct Instruc-
tion, such as lesson repetition, spiraling of lessons, and the pair share activities that
contributed to student literacy improvement, especially for minority children and
English language learners. The only disadvantage of significance that the teachers
described was the amount of time required to implement lesson plans.
The participants reported that they were holding planned collaboration peri-
ods weekly to review data and information through both horizontal and vertical
grade teaming.
In addition, the study found that the study participants strongly believed that
the Direct Instruction classroom educational strategies allowed them to adjust to the
perceived needs of their students more uniformly and consistently.
Another finding was that teachers reported that they needed a much clearer
vision of where the district and school were heading. In their expressed opinions,
an established well-articulated singular vision would enhance student learning by
alignment of vision and clearly defined expectations. The teachers were not focused
on the district goals and objectives and were only slightly aware of the schools
site’s individual goals. A strengthening of alignment and consistent sharing of the
district goals would allow for more focused grouping of what needed to be done to
get the desired results.
Many of the study participants reported their positive perceptions of the
usefulness of Direct Instruction in closing achievement gaps. They gave many ex-
amples of conferencing with students in language arts and mathematics. They ap-
peared to be proud to share some of their classroom preparation to assist in closing

83
the literacy achievement gaps, as well as classroom results of students’ recent
benchmark examinations.
The teachers’ discussions showed a clear understanding that teachers still
should be a major part of their classroom and should continue to monitor their in-
structional accountability frequently. Their perceptions were that teachers should
have classroom management, discipline routines, policies, and all other classroom
management activities in their assignments.
The study participants remarked that another major advantage in using
Direct Instruction is that, so long as the teacher is making sure that Direct Instruc-
tion is happening, the student does not just sit and shut himself off and fade away
into the corner, unnoticed and not learning. Some of the Direct Instruction activi-
ties, such as pair sharing, force students to become integral or active participants
while being a useful and vital part of all processes. In addition, teachers are con-
tinuing to differentiate instruction by continually moving around the classrooms
and monitoring student learning.
In conclusion, to become a leader and achieve the desired result of educa-
tional best practice performance improvement, these teachers and school sites must
continue with their collaborative research and retain consulting services to help
with ongoing professional development.
The teachers have been addressing their most challenging issues by using
objective benchmarks and best practice insights to identify gaps and develop solu-
tions.
The teachers in this case study were collaboratively reviewing benchmark-
ing data and performance metrics, performing group analyses on findings, and
gaining insights from consultants and research studies. Thus, they were bringing

84
new information into their classrooms. The teachers expressed a strong belief that
each of these best practices would contribute to continued success.
The implications of this study open the door for continued studies of Direct
Instruction as the tool for advancement of all students, especially underperforming,
lower-socioeconomic, and non-English-speaking students. These are the students
with the greater challenges, yet they are the students who have benefited the most
from Direct Instruction.
This qualitative case study examined the strengths and weaknesses of Direct
Instruction and its relationship to closing the achievement gaps in literacy. It con-
sisted of a case study of two urban schools that had been identified as closing
achievement gaps over the previous 3 years, as demonstrated by their California
API and STAR results. Twelve of the 45 teachers located at the school sites were
individually interviewed. Because the goal of the study was not to compare one
school’s performance against that of another school but to seek ways to bring about
an institutional change through generation of systematic knowledge that practi-
tioners can apply in local educational agencies to improve educational outcomes, a
qualitative research design was selected.
Limitations of the Study
This research project measured teachers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of
Direct Instruction as a strategy or pedagogical method for closing achievement
gaps. The goal of this study was to provide insight regarding what contributes to
closing the achievement gaps in elementary and secondary schools.
While this study identified several key topics as essential in the use of
Direct Instruction, there were certain constraints in the design of the study that limit

85
the generalizability of the findings. As an example, because confidentiality issues
prohibited direct access to all teachers on each campus, this study was limited to
study participants who had received training in Direct Instruction and any other
types of literacy-related training in the previous 5 years that would have prepared
them to be fair judges of Direct Instruction in comparison with other teaching
strategies. Because of this limitation, the views of other certificated staff members
concerning the significance of the identified skills used in Direct Instruction cannot
be verified.
It was intended that, through interviews and observations, information
would be gained to support the use of Direct Instruction as a methodology for as-
sisting all students in higher achievement and that the study would make a contri-
bution to the literature base for Direct Instruction. However, a second limitation
concerns the findings based on the outcome of the study participants’ collabora-
tions with all other teaching staff. It must be noted that the outcomes were self-
reported by the study participants and were not independently verified.
Implications for Direct Instruction
After reviewing the data from the interviews, implications for practice are
highlighted, with a strong emphasis on providing instructional practices that
promote effective classroom instruction to meet the literacy needs of all students in
general education classrooms.
Since the advent of NCLB, two issues in education have assumed consider-
able importance: improving student literacy achievement and closing the literacy
achievement gaps between groups. With regard to student literacy, the issue has
been trifold: (a) Too many students are not reading at grade level, (b) too many

86
students are not making adequate progress in learning to read at grade level, and (c)
educators are not taking advantage of research-based practices in the implementa-
tion of strategies and/or reading programs.
The analysis of this study indicated that teachers’ use and application of
Direct Instruction is indeed a complex subject. Use of Direct Instruction has proven
to be more than a simple argument between phonics versus whole language; it is
more about the understanding of research and practice. The fact is that too many
students are either failing or languishing far below reading proficiently while edu-
cators have proven and effective strategies that can be placed into service.
The teaching practice of explicit instruction has existed for decades, yet the
implementation of the same is lacking for most educators. While there are many
researched literacy programs, Direct Instruction has been demonstrated to be the
most effective strategy and yet it is one of the least-used strategies. It is one of the
least used for many different reasons, from the prescriptiveness of the strategy to
teacher union concerns to a fear of failure.
This research supports the findings of Project Follow Through (Adams,
1996a). Some of the packaged reading programs that are being implemented in
many schools, they have not been proven as effective as Direct Instruction. Within
the research district, Direct Instruction is an area where further investigation is war-
ranted. If the district wishes to continue with the success of the research sites, this
school district should continue to develop protocols and programs with reasonable
practices for program expansion throughout the entire school district.
In addition, Direct Instruction users within the study district should continue
to investigate success models with Special Education students who are also English
language learners. Rather than separating and studying the needs of Special

87
Education students from regular education students, the district should also
recognize its growing language needs populations. In diverse communities with
rapidly growing English language learner populations, the increased need to
understand the importance of student learning theories becomes more important.
The increased development of common protocols using Direct Instruction
will be educationally time saving for teachers, practitioners, and students. These
sets of common protocols accelerate learning capacity across the curriculum.
Summary of Implications for Direct Instruction
Review of this study’s research clearly indicates increased and improved
student achievement by teachers using Direct Instructional strategies:
1. The positive role that educators believe Direct Instruction played in
closing student achievement gaps was evident in discussions and reflected in the
testing data and results. Study participants were very pleased and comfortable in
using Direct Instruction after receiving adequate training and systemic professional
development.
2. The professional staff development and training was provided to staff, as
well as additional resource allocation by providing substitute teachers to allow
teachers to perform action walks into other teachers classrooms, staff collaboration
time, weekly collaborative review of classroom data. Equally important were the
financial resources provided by the district for outside consultants and professional
staff trainers.
3. Teachers changed their beliefs about underperforming students as a result
of their work with Direct Instruction. The teachers in this study recommended that
the student day be extended to allow for more teacher/student interaction. Teachers

88
in this study, as well as those in many other studies across the nation, have strong
beliefs that Direct Instruction strategies can be applied to all students, regardless of
socioeconomic conditions, ethnicity, and cultural differences.
4. Teachers have continually discussed how Direct Instruction has changed
their teaching practice and what they have done to adapt it in their classrooms.
Implications for Direct Instruction
Going to Scale Districtwide
This research has shown that there are student academic needs not only at
the study schools but districtwide. But the mere existence of student academic
needs does not necessarily justify district-level intervention at inception. If the
school site provides the necessary solutions, district intervention is not required or
desirable. In fact, in some circumstances district-level intervention may make
matters worse.
The need for intervention must come first from the school site. If the school
site cannot or does not move toward improved student achievement, then the
district-level support must intervene.
Although information about the schools’ performance is less limited than in
past years due to NCLB requirements, school district central offices already inter-
vene in several ways. First, the central offices provide supplemental response
through funding of corrective action planning, staff development, and staffing.
Second, central offices often provide other response teams, such as teachers on
assignment with specialization expertise, outside consultants, and assisting with
school reorganization. Third, the central office affects schools sites through school
board policies and administrative regulations, district rules, and implementation of

89
state and federal regulations. The central office also has a large impact on the re-
search and development funding and participation in low-performing schools.
With improved student performance, central offices have been able to de-
termine whether appropriate interventions have been effective and to what degree
and in what areas. District policies and programs can then be altered to improve
educational delivery to support student achievement and close performance gaps.
Equally important trends over time could be used to determine the effectiveness of
Direct Instruction for future planning and resource allocation.
The District or Central Office Role
in Providing Information
The key insight into Direct Instruction has been provided by Dr. Siegfried
Engelmann, currently Professor at the University of Oregon and the acknowledged
creator and key developer of Direct Instruction. Dr. Engelmann created and used
Direct Instruction to help inner-city children to learn and excel, but it has continued
to be successful for children regardless of economic level. Throughout the many
Direct Instruction studies, similar successes have occurred repeatedly. It has pro-
vided significant academic increased performance gains that have persisted and
increased the self-esteem of children.
The district central office has the responsibility to share this information
about Direct Instruction and the success that the many studies have shown. If
school sites and teachers do not have the same information about programs, strate-
gies, and other aspects of improvement programs, the result may be an inefficient
outcome due to a lack of shared information. For Direct Information to be success-
ful, information must be shared continually among all stakeholders. If Direct In-
struction strategies and information are not shared freely with all stakeholders, then

90
stakeholders will have only partial or incorrect information that may lead to unpro-
ductive outcomes. Under this condition, the district or central office may be re-
quired to intervene.
Conclusions: Implications for Current Practice
This research project measured teachers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of
Direct Instruction as a strategy or pedagogical method for closing achievement
gaps. The goal of this study was to provide insight regarding what contributes to
closing the achievement gaps in elementary and secondary schools. What this re-
searcher learned was valuable information regarding not only teachers’ perceptions
but also others’ perceptions of the success of the use of Direct Instruction.
The results of student data showed that with the use of Direct Instruction,
student performance indicators definitely showed improvement at each of the study
sites and in each study participant’s classroom. Because they were cohort tracked,
the same students were measured with year-over-year data to allow and ensure that
only the same participants were measured. Equally important, student attendance
improved, discipline issue decreased, parent participation increased, and com-
munity involvement began to show increases.
Unfortunately, the timeline for implementation of the program throughout
the entire school district has not been developed at the district level. The district
recently underwent a change of staff at the senior administration levels, and the
new district senior administration does not believe that the strategies are needed at
many of the other schools in the district due to their current exceptional per-
formance.

91
While the teaching staff, students, parents, and school site local communi-
ties have bought into the process, some of the other school sites are still nonbe-
lievers that the process is any better than what they have used for decades.
Typically, those are school sites that tend to not have the diverse populations of the
school that were included in this study.
Previously, the district did not allow for a study by the educational com-
munity, researchers, or teachers to identify those critical attributes and skills that
teachers should have. Thus, when the district allowed this study and proposed the
idea to these sites, they were prepared to be met with resistance and possible dis-
cussion of the failure of the program. They were greatly surprised that the partici-
pants and the sites more than wanted to participate to share their success. While
district senior administration personnel are pleased with the results of Direct In-
struction, they are not ready to implement the strategies districtwide.
It is this researcher’s opinion that for cohesiveness, clarity, and consistency,
all schools in the district could benefit from the strategies of Direct Instruction, and
it would support the district’s migratory students as they transfer throughout
schools due to facility space and needs. As an example, students may need to be
overflowed from one site to another due to a lack of seats or student space; how-
ever, the students who have already been involved in a Direct Instruction program
will still need support, and that support has been proven with Direct Instruction
versus the district’s other programs. The district’s other programs worked only at
specific sites and were site specific, whereas Direct Instruction has been proven to
work across the spectrum.
The responses in the interviews by teachers emphasized the importance of
teaching skills and of being able to work with all students, regardless of the

92
students’ backgrounds. The responses emphasized that compassion, active listening
skills, and hearing what students are saying, as well as building and maintaining
relationships, were equally important as knowledge of specific instructional strate-
gies or techniques. That, combined with a commitment to success by everyone,
caused a tremendous attitude shift and altered belief systems to believe that all stu-
dents could be successful when given the proper skills.
It is hoped that this study will provide guidance for districts in developing
ongoing training for teachers of students of diverse backgrounds in closing student
achievement gaps in literacy by using Direct Instruction. What has been learned
from this study is that teachers came together as an educational community to
identify the skills and critical attributes necessary for students to be successful, es-
pecially students of sundry attributes.
This study supports and proves that when support and resource allocations
are in place for Direct Instruction, teachers utilize the resources to gain maximum
benefits. The success provided by support, resource allocation, and hard work by
the teachers has had a significant impact on teacher belief systems. The study par-
ticipants had a large paradigm shift in belief systems about students of poverty and
color and were very pleased to acknowledge their change. These teachers now look
forward to working with children of diverse backgrounds; in fact, 100% of the
study participants stated unequivocally that they hoped that the future teaching ex-
periences would be with children of diverse populations because the intrinsic
rewards are much greater. The sense of helping students achieve at much higher
levels has brought rewards that were greatly unanticipated.

93
REFERENCES
Adams, G. (1996a). Project Follow Through: In-depth and beyond. Retrieved Au-
gust 25, 2006, from http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~adiep/ft/adams.htm
Adams, G. (1996b). Research on direct instruction. Retrieved May 16, 2005, from
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~adiep/ft/adams.htm
Amrein-Beardsley, A., & Berliner, D. C. (2003). Re-analysis of NAEP math and
reading scores in states with and without high-stakes tests: Response to
Rosenshine. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(25). Retrieved May 16,
2005, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n25
Anyon, J. (2005). What “counts” as educational policy? Notes toward a new para-
digm. Harvard Educational Review, 75(1), 65.
Bennett, W. (1998). A nation still at risk. Policy Review, 90, 23-29.
Bock, G., Stebbins, L., & Proper, E. (1999). Direct Instruction in education. Re-
trieved May 16, 2005, from http://science-
class.net/Research/research_directinstruction.htm
Bol, L., & Berry, R. Q., III. (2005). Secondary mathematics teachers’ perceptions
of the achievement gap. High School Journal, 88(4), 32.
Borman, G. D., Hewes, G. M., Overman, L. T., & Brown, S. (2002). Compre-
hensive school reform and student achievement: A meta-analysis. Balti-
more: Publications Department.
Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1985). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension
strategies: A natural history of one program for enhancing learning. Cogni-
tion Instruction, 1, 117-175.
Bushman, J., & Goodman, G. S. (2003). What teaching the standards really means.
Leadership, 33(2), 26-29.
California Department of Education. (1999). Public Schools Accountability Act
(PSAA). Sacramento, CA: Retrieved April 26, 2006, from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/pa/
Cohen, M. (1990). Key issues confronting state policy makers. In R. F. Elmore
(Ed.), Restructuring schools: The next generation of educational reform
(pp. 251-288). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cooper, J. E., Horn, S., & Strahan, D. B. (2005). “If only they would do their
homework:” Promoting self-regulation in high school English classes. High
School Journal, 88(3), 10.

94
Corley, M. A. (2003). Poverty, racism and literacy. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clear-
inghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education.
Daucher, L., & Bermudez, R. (2004). Williams Settlement Bill Number AB 2727.
Retrieved October 10, 2005, from: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/
03-04/bill/asm/ab_2701-2750/ab_2727_bill_20040929_chaptered.html
Druian, G., & Butler, J. A. (2001). Effective school practices and at-risk youth:
What the research show. Retrieved May 14, 2005, from http://www.nwrel.
org/scpd/sirs/1/topsyn1.html
Education Trust. (2001). New Education Trust state and national achievement gap
analysis. Retrieved May 2, 2001, from http://www2.edtrust.org/EdTrust/
Press+Room/states+can.htm
Eli Broad Foundation. (2005). The Broad Prize for Urban Education. Retrieved
January 6, 2006, from http://www.broadfoundation.org/flagship/prize.shtml
ERIC Clearinghouse on Early Childhood Education. (1977). Project Follow
Through: An ERIC abstract bibliography. Champaign, IL: Author.
Ferguson, R. F. (2002). What doesn’t meet the eye: Understanding and addressing
racial disparities in high-achieving suburban schools. Oak Brook, IL:
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.
Flaxman, E. (2003). Closing the achievement gap: Two views from current re-
search. New York: ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education.
Gersten, R. M., & Carnine, D. (1980). Measuring implementation of the direct in-
struction model in an urban school district: An observational approach.
Eugene: University of Oregon.
Grossen, B. (1995). The research base for Reading Mastery, SRA. Retrieved June
5, 2006, from http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~adiep/rdgtxt.htm
Grossen, B. (1996). The story behind Project Follow Through. Effective School
Practices, 15(1). Retrieved July 10, 2005, http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/
~adiep/ft/grossen.htm
Hanushek, E. A., & Raymond, M. E. (2005). Does school accountability lead to
improved student performance? Journal of Policy Analysis and Manage-
ment, 24(2), 297.
Hashey, J. M., & Connors, D. J. (2003). Learn from our journey: Reciprocal
teaching action research. Reading Teacher, 57(3), 224-232.
Heshusius, L. (1991). Curriculum-based assessment and direct instruction: Critical
reflections on fundamental assumptions. Exceptional Children, 57(4), 315.

95
Kozioff, M. A., LaNunziata, L., Cowardin, J., & Bessellieu, F. B. (2001). Direct
instruction: Its contributions to high school achievement. High School
Journal, 84(2), 54.
Lewis, A. C. (2000). The notorious G-A-P. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(2), 103.
Lindsay, J. (2004). What the data really show: Direct instruction really works! Re-
trieved February 8, 2006, from http://www.jefflindsay.com/EducData.shtml
Linn, R. L. (2003). Accountability: Responsibility and reasonable expectations.
Educational Researcher, 32(7), 3-13.
Long-term NAEP scores show solid gains. (2005). Reading Today, 23(1), 1.
McLemore, S. D., & Romo, H. D. (1998). Racial and ethnic relations in America
(5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in educa-
tion (2nd ed., rev.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Miller, D. E. (2003). A comparison of the effectiveness of direct reading instruction
on students of Caucasian and Hispanic backgrounds. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 63(7), 2493-A.
Murnane, R. J., & Levy, F. (2001). Will standards-based reforms improve the edu-
cation of students of color? National Tax Journal, 54(2), 401.
Nation, U.S. schools “still at risk,” Bennett says. (1988, April 25). Los Angeles
Times, p. A2.
National Assessment Governing Board. (1969). About NAEP. Retrieved July 14,
2006, from http://www.nagb.org/about/abt_naep.html
National Center for Education Statistics. (1998). NAEP facts. Retrieved July 16,
2006, from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_
01/0000000b/80/25/29/f4.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). The nation’s report card: Mathe-
matics highlights, 2003. Washington, DC: Author.
National Center for Institute of Education Sciences. (2006). Why participation in
the National Assessment is important. Retrieved July 14, 2006, from
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/about/natimportant.asp
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The
imperative for educational reform. Retrieved March 6, 2006, from
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/index.html
News and views: Professor Ogbu’s new thesis on Black-White achievement differ-
ences. (2003). Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, 38, 24.

96
Nichols, J. D. (2004). An exploration of discipline and suspension data. Journal of
Negro Education, 73(4), 408.
Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI). (2001). Expectations
and student outcomes. Retrieved August 31, 2001, from http://www.nwrel
.org/scpd/sirs/4/cu7.html
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1985). Reciprocal teaching: Activities to promote
read(ing) with your mind. In T. L. Harris & E. J. Cooper (Eds.), Reading,
thinking and concept development: Strategies for the classroom (pp. 147-
148). New York: The College Board.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pawlas, G. E. (2005). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and per-
formance. Choice, 42(8), 1447.
Policy Analysis for California Education. (2006). Is the No Child Left Behind Act
working? The reliability of how states track achievement. Retrieved
August 2, 2006, from http://pace.berkeley.edu/pace_publications.html
Ramirez, A., & Carpenter, D. (2005). Challenging assumptions about the achieve-
ment gap. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(8), 599.
Schug, M. C., Tarver, S. G., & Western, R. D. (2001). Direct instruction and the
teaching of early reading. Retrieved July 10, 2005, from http://www.
wpri.org/Reports/Volume14/Vol14no2.pdfGrossen, B. (1990).
Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal
effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year.
Retrieved July 20, 2006, from http://ft.csa.com/ids70/resolver.php?sessid=
0v63mge8gue7a5c7nph9ahju00&server=ca2.csa.com&check=fb49d06c358
674a34127f6416a3eb418&db=psycarticles-set-c&an=edu854571&mode=
pdf&f1=0022-0663%2C85%2C4%2C571%2C1993
Smith, L. F. (1996). Lessons from a nation at risk. Vital Speeches of the Day,
62(16), 489.
Smith, M. S., & O’Day, J. (1991). Systemic school reform. In S. H. Fuhrman & B.
Malen (Eds.), The politics of curriculum and testing: 1990 yearbook of the
Politics of Education Association (pp. 233-267). Washington, DC: Falmer.
Stahl, S. A. & Hayes, D. A. (Eds.). (1997). Instructional models in reading. Mah-
wah, NJ: Erlbaum.
U.S. Department of Education. (2001). No Child Left Behind: Stronger accounta-
bility. Retrieved May 15, 2005, from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/
accountability/schools/accountability.html

97
Vukmir, L. (2002). Direct instruction: Quiet revolution in Milwaukee Public
Schools. Retrieved April 17, 2005, from http://www.wpri.org/WIInterest/
Vol11No2/Vukmir11.2.pdf
Wenning, R., Herdman, P. A., Smith, N., McMahon, N., & Washington, K. (2003).
No Child Left Behind: Testing, reporting, and accountability. New York:
ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education.
Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.

98
APPENDIX A

INTERVIEW PROTOCOL FOR TEACHERS
Teachers’ Perceptions
Background
a. For your information I will be changing the names in this study. However it
makes it easier for me to categorize the interviews later by a common name, so
will you please state your name and I will change it in the study?
b. How long have you been an elementary school teacher? How long have you
taught at this school? What grade level do you teach? Are you a NCLB highly
qualified teacher?
Over arching question: How is Direct Instruction (DI) being used to close the
achievement gaps in literacy
1. What role do educators believe DI played in closing achievement gap?
c. Have you been trained in any particular strategies to use to close student
achievement gaps?
d. What strategies do you use? Have you found any one to be more effective than
any other?
e. How do you feel about the general concept of using Direct in the classroom?
f. What are your impressions of the concept?
g. Is it a valid strategy in the classroom? Why or why not?
h. What are the instructional advantages of using Direct Instruction? What are the
disadvantages?
i. As a result of using Direct Instruction are you able to cover the essential stan-
dards? Does this make your classroom more standards driven than?
j. Has Direct Instruction modified your teaching methodologies to account for the
(supposedly) more rigorous standards based curriculum? If so how? If no, why
not?

99
k. Have your lesson plans or classroom activities been modified in any way?
l. Taking into consideration what you have said so far, do you view it useful in
guiding your instruction to cover the standards? Why is it useful or why not?
m. Do you view it useful in closing achievement gaps in assessments? (For exam-
ple, the CST, API, AYP or interim assessments?) Could you elaborate?
2. What support or resource allocations for Direct Instruction are in place at
the district level to support teachers in their use of DI?
n. Do you feel that your school has a clear vision that is focused on student liter-
acy outcomes?
o. Do you feel your school has well defined plans for improved student literacy
performance?
p. Is your classroom guided by district standards? Are they aligned with the state’s
standards?
q. Does the district support your school in achieving its mission? Does the district
establish clearly defined targets for student learning and achievement? Provide
information about curriculum standards?
r. Were you trained in Direct Instruction techniques?
s. How much training did you receive? Was the training done by district staff or
consultants?
t. Do you feel that the professional development training of Direct Instruction was
effective in training for closing the achievement gaps?
u. How do you measure the student performance in your classroom? Does the
district disaggregate your classroom data for you or do you do it yourself?
v. Do you share and discuss your literacy teaching methods with your peers? Do
you discuss particular lessons that were successful with your peers?
3. Have teachers changed their beliefs about underperforming students as a
result of their work with DI?
w. During the training did you feel that Direct Instruction could provide you the
skills and tools necessary to close the achievement gaps of your students?
x. Do you use Direct Instruction in your classroom?

100
y. If you are using Direct Instruction How do you feel about the general concept
of it is prescriptiveness in the classroom?
z. What are your impressions of the concept of Direct Instruction?
aa. Do you feel it is a valid strategy in the classroom? Why or why not?
bb. What are the instructional advantages of using Direct Instruction? The
disadvantages?

By Dennis Byas.

101
APPENDIX B
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education

INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

******************************************************************
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH

Standards Based Reform: How Direct Instruction is being Used to
Close Student Achievement Gaps in Literacy
Teacher
You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Dennis D. Byas (re-
search student) and Amanda Datnow (faculty sponsor), Ph.D. from the Rossier
School of Education at the University of Southern California, because you are a
teacher in the Silver Lakes Unified School District. The results of this study will be
used for Dennis Byas dissertation regarding how teachers perceive their instruction
in secondary school math, in particular instructional sequencing and pacing, has
been influenced by standard-based reform. You were selected as a possible partici-
pant in this study because you have been using Direct Instruction strategies in the
Silver Lakes Unified School District at one of their elementary schools for at least
the last two years. A total of 12 subjects will be selected from your district, 6 from
each of two elementary schools to participate. Your participation is voluntary. You
should read the information below, and ask questions about anything you do not
understand, before deciding whether or not to participate

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This study will research how teachers use Direct Instruction to close achievement
gaps between diverse student populations. The study will examine what specific
pedagogical strategies are used and how has teachers' work changed as a
result of the use of Direct Instruction. This study will add to the knowledge base of
instructional models for closing the achievement gaps of all students. Specifically, I
will examine how teachers’ use of Direct Instruction has helped to increase under-
performing student’s literacy success as measured by the California Academic Per-
formance Index and Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) results.

102
PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, we would ask you to do the following
things:
· Participate in a one-time audio-taped interview with researcher, lasting ap-
proximately 60 minutes.
· Each participate will be given a copy of the questions for their review.
· This interview will be conducted during the second semester of the 2005/
2006 school year.
· Each interview will be conducted at a time and location convenient to you
and the researcher.
· You are agreeing to a short series of questions with a possible follow up tele-
phone call for clarification, if necessary.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
You may feel uncomfortable in responding to some questions, if so you may skip
the question and still remain in the study. It should be noted you will not be asked
to single out an individual by name at the district office or anywhere else. Again,
any discomforts you may experience with any questions may be managed by
simply not answering these questions. All of your responses will be kept confiden-
tial. If you do not wish to be audio-taped or if you become discomforted by being
audio-taped, you may at anytime choose not to be and the tape recorder will be
turned off and only notes will be taken.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
You will not receive any direct benefits from participating in this research study.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not be paid for participating in this research study.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be
identified with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your
permission or as required by law.

103
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no in-
formation will be included that would reveal your identity. Audio-tapes will be
secured and stored in the office of the principal investigator. Only the research team
will have access to these audio-tapes. Personal identities will be disguised using
pseudonyms. You may also continue in the study should you decline to be taped.
The Principal investigator will transcribe all interviews. All audio-tapes and data
gathered will be stored for three years after the study has been completed.

Personal information, research data, and related records will be coded, stored, and
secured by the researcher as to prevent access by unauthorized personnel. If the
researcher contemplates any other uses of the data of this study, your consent will
be solicited. All data, including audio-tapes will be secured and stored for three
years after the completion of the study in the office of the principal investigator, at
which time the data will be destroyed. No others will have access to the data and
audio-tapes. All audio-tapes used in interviews during this study will be destroyed
three years after the completion of the study.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this
study, you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may
also refuse to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the
study. The investigator may withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise
which warrant doing so.

IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact
the Principal Investigator: Dennis D. Byas (research student) [address and tele-
phone number].
Faculty Sponsor is Dr. Amanda Datnow; University of Southern California; Rossier
School of Education; Los Angeles, CA; 90089-4039; (213) 740-3443.

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your
participation in this research study. If you have questions regarding your rights as a
research subject, contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for
Research, Grace Ford Salvatori Hall, Room 306, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1695,
(213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.

104

SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH SUBJECT.

I understand the procedures described above, and I understand fully the rights of a
potential subject in a research study involving people as subjects. My questions
have been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. I
have been given a copy of this form.

I agree to be audio-taped

I do not agree to be audio-taped

Name of Subject

Signature of Subject Date

SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR

I have explained the research to the subject and answered all of his/her
questions. I believe that he/she understands the information described in this docu-
ment and freely consents to participate.

Name of Investigator

Signature of Investigator Date

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Large-scale school reform has been a challenge for many school districts nationwide, and research has shown that school districts attempting to close student literacy achievement gaps have not always been successful with the overall results. However, one strategy, Direct Instruction, and its effects have been shown to be more successful than many other strategies and programs. This qualitative case study was designed to develop an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of Direct Instruction and its relationship to closing the achievement gaps in literacy. It consisted of a case study of two urban schools that had been identified as having closed achievement gaps over the previous 3 years, as demonstrated by their California Academic Performance Index (API) and Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) results. Many of the study participants recited their positive perceptions of the usefulness of Direct Instruction in closing achievement gaps. They gave many examples of conferencing with students in language arts and mathematics. They were quite proud to share some of their classroom preparation to assist in closing the literacy achievement gaps, as well as classroom results of students' recent benchmark examinations that clearly demonstrate the achievement gap improvement.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Closing the achievement gap: what can be done?

PDF

High school math reform and the role of policy, practice and instructional leadership on math achievement: a case study of White Oak Tree High School

PDF

A case study of an outperforming elementary school closing the achievement gap

PDF

Closing the achievement gap for students with disabilities: a focus on instructional differentiation - an evaluation study

PDF

How professional learning communities use student data to increase achievement

PDF

Perceived factors for narrowing the achievement gap for minority students in urban schools: cultural norms, practices and programs

PDF

Achievement gap and sustainability: a case study of an elementary school bridging the achievement gap

PDF

Latino parental aspirations and literacy practices related to children's reading engagement

PDF

Closing the achievement gap in a high performing elementary school

PDF

How successful urban superintendents in California improve student achievement

PDF

A case study: one successful elementary school that reduced the achievement gap

PDF

An alternative capstone project: Closing the Hispanic English learners achievement gap in a high performing district

PDF

Secondary math reform and the role of policy, practice, and instructional leadership on math achievement

PDF

Sustainability of a narrowed achievement gap: A case study

PDF

High school reform to improve mathematics achievement

PDF

Closing the achievement gap: successful practices at a middle school -- a case study

PDF

Reframing school reform with effective tactics: institutionalizing culturally responsive pedagogy in alignment with policy-based accountability to ensure the achievement of African aAmerican stud...

PDF

Closing the achievement gap by means of professional learning communities

PDF

A story of achievement in areas where others fail: a case study of secondary school reform in mathematics at Pacific North High School

PDF

Closing the achievement gap: breakthrough in the urban high school

Asset Metadata

Creator Byas, Dennis Day (author)

Core Title How direct instruction is being used to close the achievement gaps in literacy

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Curriculum

Publication Date 02/22/2007

Defense Date 01/05/2007

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag direct instruction,large-scale school reform,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Advisor Alama, Frank [illegible] (committee member), Beethaldo, Batcead E. [illegible] (committee member), Datnow, Amanda (committee member)

Creator Email Dennis_Byas@Colton.k12.ca.us

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m281

Unique identifier UC1291608

Identifier etd-Byas-20070222 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-160369 (legacy record id),usctheses-m281 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Byas-20070222.pdf

Dmrecord 160369

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Byas, Dennis Day

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu