Teachers' Rationale and Procedures Used during Lesson Script Deviations

The relationship between students' mathematics underachievement and disabilities such as learning disabilities and behavioral disorders has been widely reported (Fuchs, Bahr, & Rieth, 1989; Parmar, Cawley, & Frazita, 1996). Students' failure to use learning strategies (Swanson & Rhine, 1985) and metacognitive strategies (Palincsar & Brown, 1987), coupled with a lack of exposure to effective instructional practices (Miller & Mercer, 1997), seem to have a particularly detrimental influence on the development of computation skills.In a comparison study of 210 third-through eighth-grade students without disabilities and 197 students who had been classified as having mild disabilities such as learning disabilities and behavioral disorders, Parmar and colleagues (1996) found that students with disabilities performed at significantly lower levels than did those without disabilities in all cases, even when the problems involved only single-digit computation. Miller and Mercer (1997) discussed factors that contribute to the poor math performance of students with disabilities, including national reform movements that have influenced math instruction, learner characteristics, and the need to implement the curriculum using effective instructional techniques with research support. Kosc (1981) identified the following four variables as significant influences on math performance: (a) psychological factors such as intelligence, cognitive ability, and distractibility; (b) educational factors such as the quality and amount of instructional intervention across the dimensions of math performance; (c) personality factors such as persistence, self-concept, and attitudes toward mathematics; and (d) neuropsychological factors such as perception and neurological trauma. Most amenable to change are instructional intervention factors across the dimensions of math performance.Studies of effective instructional methods have found Direct Instruction (DI) to be one of the more effective approaches validated through research (Adams & Engelmann, 1996; Engelmann, 1999; Lloyd, Forness, & Kavale, 1998). Some educators are concerned, however, that DI scripted programs address only lower-order skills and are an obstacle to teacher creativity and initiative (Mathews, 2000). Others caution that DI is often used in low-performing schools where there is a high proportion of parents who are not college or high school graduates and may be more willing to accept DI as the method of instruction. They further argue that administrators and teachers in these schools assume that DI is a "one size fits all" program (Fritzer & Herbst, 1999). Given these concerns about the DI approach as it relates to limiting teacher creativity and initiative as well as its perceived lack of flexibility, in this article I present results of a study investigating the thinking processes of teachers of students with learning disabilities (LD) and emotional or behavioral disorders (E/BD) as they implemented and deviated from Dl scripted math lessons.Direct InstructionDirect Instruction (DI) is a systematic packaged instructional program that is somewhat different from the more generic direct instruction (di) that involves teaching skills directly as opposed to teaching through less directive, "discovery" approaches. Rosenshine (1976) introduced the term direct instruction into the education literature when he reviewed effective instructional practices. Rosenshine and Stevens (1984) used the term to refer to patterns of teacher behavior that are correlated with enhanced student academic performance. Their definition focused on teacher behavior and classroom organization, with a particular emphasis on how instructional time was used in the classroom. Their use of the term did not directly address issues of curriculum or instructional design (Gersten, 1985).Direct Instruction and di share many features (i.e., structured teacher-led lessons; small-group instruction; lessons presented in small steps; frequent questions; extensive practice; feedback, reinforcement, and correction). …