Direct Instruction schools' ratings rose significantly only when the program was fully supported with training and coaching¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2006 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Evidence quality · No study behind this claim is a peer-reviewed article with a DOI: it rests on a source with no registered publication record (a web page, book or unpublished report). It is kept because a design page cites it; treat it as a lead to check, not an established finding.

Subclaims¶

q2 i? All 21 Direct Instruction schools improved .06 per year, significant only at the 90% level, while the 10 fully-supported schools improved .14 per year with increased statistical significance. → Bruce Thompson 2006 q2 i? The difference between fully-supported and other Direct Instruction schools was significant with a p-value of .04, while the other 11 schools showed no improvement. → Bruce Thompson 2006 (2)

Evidence¶

Bruce Thompson 2006¶

Bruce Thompson. (2006). Evaluating Three Programs Using a School Effectiveness Model: Direct Instruction, Target Teach, and Class Size Reduction. Third Education Group Review, Vol. 2, No. 3. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ874476

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Before-after analysis of poverty-adjusted ratings for 21 Milwaukee schools implementing Direct Instruction school-wide before 2000 (Table 3). The 10 fully-supported schools reached .14 annual growth; the remaining 11 showed -0.01, no improvement.

"On average their scores increased by .06 per year. As shown by the p-value, this change is significant at the 90% level but not at the 95% level. For the ten schools with fully-supported programs, annual growth in ratings increased to .14."

Bruce Thompson 2006 (2)¶

Bruce Thompson. (2006). Evaluating Three Programs Using a School Effectiveness Model: Direct Instruction, Target Teach, and Class Size Reduction. Third Education Group Review, Vol. 2, No. 3. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ874476

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Same ratings analysis comparing the 10 fully-supported Direct Instruction schools against the 11 other DI schools; the contrast is reported as "significant with a p-value of .04". No effect size is printed.

"The difference between the fully supported and the other Direct Instruction schools was significant with a p-value of .04."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Engelmann's Direct Instruction curricula improve academic outcomes across reading, mathematics, language and spelling — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
• Simulation estimates that regression-to-the-mean selection bias inflates apparent Target Teach improvement by about .03 per year, leaving a smaller but still significant gain — related
• SAGE class-size reduction schools showed no statistically significant change in poverty-adjusted effectiveness ratings — related
• Frequency of coaching field support varies across California induction programs and is positively related to administrators' ratings of program effectiveness — related
• Principals' confidence in leadership skills related to instructional coaching rose from 60 to 95 percent over the pilot year — related