Direct Instruction Mathematics: A Longitudinal Evaluation of Low-Income Elementary School Students

The Elementary School Journal Volume 84, Number 4 ? 1984 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 0013-5984/84/8404-0007$0 1.00 The recent National Assessment of Educational Progress (1979) found that at all grade levels, in all components of mathematics (concepts, problem solving, computation), students from disadvantaged urban areas performed at a lower level than their peers in other areas of the country. The National Institute of Education (Cohen, Koehler, Datta, & Timpane 1980, p. 1) concluded, "These differences have not come about recently and have shown little sign of dissipating over time." The purpose of this paper is to describe an instructional model, the Direct Instruction model, that has been effective in teaching mathematics to disadvantaged students. The first section of the paper describes the methodology and presents an overview of the research conducted. The final section discusses more general implications of the findings for improving classroom practices. Issues to be addressed include training and supervision of teachers, use of paraprofessionals in the classroom, criteria for selection or adaptation of curricula for low-SES students, and methods for assessing student progress.

[1]  D. Carnine.  Effects of two teacher-presentation rates on off-task behavior, answering correctly, and participation. , 1976, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[2]  Decker Walker,et al.  No Simple Answer: Critique of the Follow Through Evaluation , 1978 .

[3]  Preteaching versus Concurrent Teaching of the Component Skills of a Multiplication Algorithm. , 1980 .

[4]  Penelope L. Peterson,et al.  Ability × Treatment Interaction Effects on Children's Learning in Large-group and Small-group Approaches , 1981 .

[5]  Thomas L. Good,et al.  Time on Task: A Naturalistic Study in Sixth-Grade Classrooms , 1978, The Elementary School Journal.

[6]  Linda B. Stebbins,et al.  Education as Experimentation: A Planned Variation Model. Volume IIIA: Findings: Cohort II; Interim Findings: Cohort III. Volume IIIB: Appendices. , 1976 .

[7]  Follow Through Redux: A Response to the Critique by House, Glass, McLean, and Walker , 1978 .

[8]  S. Coopersmith,et al.  The antecedents of self-esteem. , 1969 .

[9]  Michael Cohen.  Instructionally Effective Schools. Research Area Plan. , 1980 .

[10]  Gaea Leinhardt,et al.  The Instructional Dimensions Study , 1980 .

[11]  Linda A. Meyer,et al.  Direct Instruction: A Project Follow Through Success Story in an Inner-City School , 1983, The Elementary School Journal.

[12]  L. Stebbins.  Education as Experimentation: A Planned Variation Model. Volume IV-A: An Evaluation of Follow Through. , 1977 .

[13]  O. K. Buros,et al.  The eighth mental measurements yearbook , 1978 .

[14]  Jane A. Stallings.  Implementation and Child Effects of Teaching Practices in Follow Through Classrooms. , 1975 .

[15]  M. A. Scheirer,et al.  Increasing Educational Achievement Via Self Concept Change , 1979 .

[16]  William Kessen,et al.  A Theory of Instruction , 1966 .

[17]  Joseph N. Payne.  Mathematics Learning in Early Childhood. , 1975 .

[18]  A. Woodruff.  The psychology of teaching , 1947 .

[19]  W. Becker.  The National Evaluation of Follow Through , 1978 .

[20]  V C CRANDALL,et al.  CHILDREN'S BELIEFS IN THEIR OWN CONTROL OF REINFORCEMENTS IN INTELLECTUAL-ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT SITUATIONS. , 1965, Child development.

[21]  Russell Gersten,et al.  Entry IQ and Yearly Academic Growth of Children in Direct Instruction Programs: A Longitudinal Study of Low SES Children , 1984 .