Direct Instruction and First Grade Reading Achievement: The Role of Technical Support and Time of Implementation.

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship of two implementation variables (source of technical support and time of implementation) to first grade reading achievement across three naturallyoccurring conditions over a six-year time span. Two of the conditions involved implementation of Direct Instruction (DI) curriculum programs, one with technical support from a purveyor associated with the curriculum’s developer and the other with a group not associated with the developer. The third condition involved implementation of another highly rated reading curriculum program: Open Court. Increases in the vocabulary and comprehension achievement scores of students across all three conditions were statistically significant. Increases in students’ scores were significantly greater in the DI implementation conditions relative to the Open Court condition. Increases in students’ scores were significantly larger in the DI implementation condition with technical support from the purveyor associated with the curriculum developer relative to the group not associated with the curriculum developer. Differences in achievement across the implementation conditions were both statistically significant and educationally meaningful. Many have documented the strong relationship between students’ academic achievement and their later academic and economic success and social well being (Farkas, 1996; Heckman, 2006; Jencks, Crouse, & Mueser, 1983). Early reading achievement is one of the most important predictors of later academic accomplishments. Students who are poor readers in first grade have substantially higher probabilities of later academic problems than students who achieve at grade level at that time (Juel, 1988). Problems of consistent low student achievement and poor performing schools have been most marked in urban settings (Stringfield & Land, 2002; Stringfield & Yakimowski-Srebnick, 2005). These consistent and strong research findings have prompted extensive policy attention, especially in large urban school systems, to promoting first grade reading achievement and finding the most effective curricular-reform models. An extensive body of research has demonstrated the effectiveness of systematic and explicit instruction in promoting students’ reading achievement (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [NICHD], 2000; Juel & Minden-Cupp, 2000; Murphy, 2004; National Reading Panel, 2000). However, controversies continue in the “phonics–whole language debate,” and the more highly structured curricula are still far from universally adopted (Foorman, 1995; Hempenstall, 1997, 1999). In addition, it is not clear whether all “systematic and explicit” curricula are equally effective (Engelmann, 2004). While the literature on systematic and explicit instruction in promoting reading achievement is quite large, less attention has been given to Journal of Direct Instruction 31 Direct Instruction and First Grade Reading Achievement: The Role of Technical Support and Time of Implementation JEAN STOCKARD, Director of Research, National Institute for Direct Instruction and Professor Emerita, University of Oregon how reading programs are implemented. The general literature on implementation identifies two elements of special importance: a) the nature of the technical support provided to practitioners and b) providing sufficient time for a reform to be fully implemented and institutionalized. Although studies have examined one or the other of these elements, as well as more detailed elements of fidelity to a program, we have found no studies simultaneously examining the relationship of these two broad-based implementation variables to the development of higher reading achievement. This paper addresses these gaps in the literature. Using data from a large urban school district we examined differences in the changes in first grade reading achievement of students in three groups of schools over six years. One group of schools implemented the highly structured Direct Instruction (DI) program with technical support from a purveyor associated with the developer of the program, another group implemented DI with an alternative source of technical support, and the third group used Open Court (OC). We examined the extent to which reading achievement increased in schools employing DI and OC, the association of variations in the source of technical support with changing achievement levels, and the extent to which the positive effects of systematic and explicit instruction become apparent as curricular programs are more fully institutionalized and stabilized within a school. Background Literature Effective Reading Curricula and Direct Instruction Literature spanning several decades documents the importance of systematic and explicit instruction in promoting reading achievement (Adams, 1990; Anderson, Hiebert, Scott, & Wilkinson, 1985; Baker, Kameenui, Simmons, & Stahl, 1994; Bond & Dykstra, 1967; Chall, 1967; Foorman, 1995; Fukkink & deGlopper, 1998; Grossen, 1997; Juel & Minden-Cupp, 2000; Murphy, 2004; National Reading Panel, 2000; NICHD, 1996, 2000; Pflaum, Walberg, Karigianes, & Rasher, 1980; Smith et al., 2001; Snider, 1990; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998; Stanovich, 1994). Meta-analyses that examine specific curricula also support this conclusion, showing that curricula that embody the specific and explicit elements consistently result in larger achievement gains (Adams & Engelmann, 1996; AFT, 1998; Beck & McCaslin, 1978; Borman, Hewes, Overman, & Brown, 2003; Hattie, 2009; Herman et al., 1999). One explicit instructional approach is Direct Instruction (DI) (distinguished by its use of capital letters from other “direct instruction” approaches that embody only some of DI’s characteristics), which was developed by Siegfried Engelmann and Wesley Becker (Engelmann & Carnine, 1982; Engelmann, 2007). DI curricula are specifically designed to accelerate students’ learning by teaching more than traditional programs in the same amount of time. Unlike many curricula, DI programs are extensively field tested before publication to ensure they produce the greatest learning in the most efficient manner. The programs, commercially available through SRA/McGraw Hill, involve scripted lessons designed to provide teachers with the most effective wording to allow the presentation of tasks to students at a relatively high rate. The amount of new material introduced in each lesson is carefully controlled. Applications become increasingly complex and are designed for children to master the content presented by the end of each lesson. Mastery tests are included to help ensure students have made the expected progress (Collins & Carnine, 1988; Engelmann, 2007; Engelman & Carnine, 1982; Huitt, Monetti, & Hummel, 2009). Numerous studies have documented the effectiveness of DI in promoting achievement, and several meta-analyses have summarized these results. For instance, Borman et al. (2003)