Special Education and Direct Instruction: An Effective Combination.

This paper considers the unique and successful combination of using Direct Instruction programs with special education populations. The introduction establishes the need for valid, scientifically based materials. Next is a description of studies using Direct Instruction with students who have high-incidence disabilities. Thirty-seven studies were found across academic areas. In only 3 of the 37 studies did students who were instructed with other materials fair better than the students who received Direct Instruction. Next, a research review of 8 studies involving Direct Instruction and students with low-incidence disabilities is presented. These studies showed positive effects for this population, with one investigation showing higher effects when another component (Discrimination Learning Theory) was added to Distar Arithmetic than when Distar Arithmetic was used alone. In all, 45 studies were found across student disability categories with over 90% noting positive effects for Direct Instruction programs. Finally, conclusions are drawn regarding the effective combination of Direct Instruction and special education, and further research is called for particularly in the areas of language, spelling, writing, and mathematics. The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act of 1997 (IDEA) requires “specially designed” instruction for students with disabilities to meet their unique needs. Specially designed instruction pertains to adapting content, methodology, or delivery of instruction to meet students’ needs and to ensure their access in the general curriculum (34 CFR 300.24[b][3] as cited in Bateman & Linden, 1998). This instruction may differ in terms of how it is provided (e.g., one-on-one, small groups, using sign language), where it is provided (e.g., resource room, separate classroom, residential school), or what curriculum is used (e.g., Direct Instruction programs, Touch Math, Edmark Reading). Two of the critical elements of “specially designed” instruction include individualization and validation (Fuchs, 1996; Fuchs & Fuchs, 1995). Individualization refers to developing instruction with an individual student’s needs in mind—as the student’s needs change, so does the treatment (Fuchs, 1996). Validation pertains to rigorous experimental studies that have been conducted over time yielding converging evidence. “When practiced most effectively and ethically, special education is characterized by the use of research-based teaching methods” (Heward, 2003, p. 38). Interestingly, the 2004 reauthorized IDEA (Council for Exceptional Children, 2004) includes increased focus on the use of scientifically based instructional practices and programs and peer-reviewed research. For example, a special rule for determining eligibility was made noting that students cannot be qualified for special education services if they lack appropriate instruction in reading (as Journal of Direct Instruction 1 Special Education and Direct Instruction: An Effective Combination Journal of Direct Instruction, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 1–36. Address correspondence to Nancy Marchand-Martella at nmartella@ewu.edu DIANE KINDER, University of Washington, Tacoma; RICHARD KUBINA, The Pennsylvania State University; NANCY E. MARCHAND-MARTELLA, Eastern Washington University defined in section 1208[3] of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965) or mathematics. Further, local educational agencies may use a process that determines if students respond to scientific, research-based intervention as part of the evaluation procedures for identifying a specific learning disability. This focus on research-based intervention ensures that students are qualified for special education services for the “right” reasons, and not due to an absence of scientifically based instructional programs. Prior to the 2004 reauthorization of IDEA, the No Child Left Behind legislation expected educators to demonstrate that all children can make progress, which led to an increased focus on the use of valid, scientifically based materials (Allbritten, Mainzer, & Ziegler, 2004). Thus, states, districts, and schools have been reviewing the research base supporting published programs to find curricula that will be effective, especially with students receiving special education. These reviews conclude that “More than any other commercially available instructional programs, Direct Instruction is supported by research” (Watkins & Slocum, 2004, p. 57). Several independent reviews of research add to this strong support, with particular focus on students with special needs (Carnine, Silbert, Kame’enui, & Tarver, 2004). For example, White (1988) found 25 investigations in which Direct Instruction was compared to another treatment. Not 1 of the 25 studies showed results favoring the comparison groups; 53% of the outcomes significantly favored Direct Instruction with an average effect size of . 84. Further, Adams and Engelmann (1996) analyzed 37 research studies involving Direct Instruction programs compared to other treatments. When those studies involving special education students (n = 21) were analyzed separately, the mean effect size was . 90 (considered a large magnitude of change from preto posttest assessments). Finally, Forness, Kavale, Blum, and Lloyd (1997) conducted an analysis of various intervention programs for students receiving special education services and found Direct Instruction to be one of only seven interventions with strong evidence of success. Thus, it is no surprise that Direct Instruction is often referred to as a program for special education or at-risk students (Watkins & Slocum, 2004). In fact, Direct Instruction was initially used to teach young, at-risk children as part of the largest educational study in U.S. history— Project Follow Through—which compared nine different educational approaches to determine the best instructional practice for low-income, at-risk children in kindergarten through third grade (Kennedy, 1978; Stebbins, St. Pierre, Proper, Anderson, & Cerva, 1977; Watkins, 1997). Project Follow Through demonstrated that the Direct Instruction model for teaching reading, language, and arithmetic had significant positive effects on basic, cognitive–conceptual, and affective skills. Much of the Project Follow Through research took place prior to national legislation requiring special education, at a time when students with mild disabilities were typically taught in general education classrooms. In an effort to assess the effectiveness of Direct Instruction for students with disabilities, Gersten, Becker, Heiry, and White (1984) analyzed data previously collected from Direct Instruction Follow Through participants including the intellectual/cognitive ability variable. Gersten et al. found that students in all IQ groups had the same pattern of growth from kindergarten to first, second, and third grades. That is, even those students with low IQs maintained consistent gains and gained the same amount per year as those with higher IQs. This investigation of the use of Direct Instruction to teach students with varied intellectual abilities led the way for many additional studies. The purpose of this paper is to review published investigations where Direct Instruction programs were used with special education populations. Specifically, the review centers on two populations of students with special