Direct Instruction (DI) Program and English Language Learners, Research Paper Example

Introduction

This study generates conclusive evidence on the effectiveness of direct instruction (DI) program for English language learners. It takes the form of a large-scale research in which questionnaires were used in gathering data which was later summarized to bring about the results. This research was carried out in El Monte School District in Los Angeles County.

A program dubbed Even Your Most Vulnerable Subgroups (EYMVS) was targeted during the 2002-2003 survey, in which the results were got. This study provides indications of Direct Instruction, discusses its origin as well as research backgrounds and how the method can be implemented in enabling interested readers to learn more concerning Direct Instruction Program.

Problem Statement

In Elementary, high schools and University education programs, the issue of English learning is taken very seriously because it is the world’s mostly spoken language (Becker 2004). Throughout the different curriculums taught in those schools, the programs that prepare teachers for those educational institutions come and go, at times despised as a waste of resources as they are never fully operationalized. In instances when they get to the levels of operationalizing them, they often face problems with acceptability as most learners as well as teachers feel uncomfortable with them. Other methods are also valued on the basis of their newness and maturity, including measurably effective ones, which are later rejected on the basis that they are no longer new.

However, some of the most mature and effective instructional methods falls into the school of thoughts referred to as “behavioral” are thus subjected to become unaccepted in the mainstream educational teaching systems. Among those methods is the Direct Instruction (DI), which according to Vachon & Carnine (2000), has been applied in schools over the past 25 years. In fact, this approach to instruction may be the most comprehensively validated and constantly effective method to be developed in English speaking schools (pp 15).

Past researches have indicated that Direct Instruction in special and regular classrooms may be able to eliminate the current basic skills crisis in America today if broadly put to use. Unfortunately many policy makers as well as educators seem unaware of the method of Direct Instruction. When they seem aware of them, there mostly arises political as well as philosophical opposition to the use of Direct Instruction (Vachon & Carnine 2000).

Literature Review

According to Becker, & Gerstein (1982 pp 75), Direct Instruction (DI) is an approach based on research to instructional design and implementation, which is based on a development period of over 25 years. It is a philosophy of education and a combination of teaching procedures and programming principles that originate from that philosophy. Direct Instruction is mostly represented by more than 50 commercially accessible programs, each of which have been tested in the educational field in order to make sure that it is effective. In recent days, there have been teachers as well as some instructional designers who have combined Direct Instructions programs with Precision teaching to enhance effectiveness in teaching (Becker, & Gerstein 1982, pp 93).

However, Direct Instruction faces resistance from the mainstream educators, mainly on the basis that it involves detailed scripting of the behaviors of the teachers. This program has been fervently shown to maintain greater academic accomplishment, self esteem as well as solving problems in learners in mainstream approach than any other approach (McGreevy 1983)

The Origin of the Direct Instruction Program

This philosophy was founded in the 1960s by Siegfried Engelmann, with its approach mainly focused on teaching basic academic skills to young learners from a logical analysis of concepts as well as operations followed by teaching tests and procedures (Liberty & Haring 1990). This program was initially focused on disadvantaged young learners, and showed tremendous effects on them, making its inception to the mainstream education system very easy (Liberty & Haring 1990, pp 33).

This program was initially funded by the federal Government as an effort by the Government of America in identifying successful teaching programs for those learners who are at higher risk of failing in schools. Its concept of development was combined with the principles of behavior analysis (Liberty & Haring 1990, pp 41).

Direct Instruction Program as a Teaching Strategy

According to Gerstein & Keating (1983), the teaching strategy that the program seeks to adopt is one in which more is taught in less time. This is mainly on assumption that disadvantaged learners can actually catch up with their affluent counterparts if they have been given a competent instruction. This notion of “more in less time” is essential in the Direct Instruction mission because; even though the students with deficits in academic realms are taught with effective programs that make them gain at the same rate as the more affluent ones, they always have the tendency of remaining behind, and therefore, in order that they can catch up, the teacher must teach at a faster rate than the average one so as to close the gap (Gerstein & Keating 1983, pp 14).

The concept of Direct Instruction recognizes the objective of teaching more in less time through the use of teaching procedures that maximizes the time that learners spend being instructed and developing materials that endeavor to teach a “general case” (Gerstein & Keating 1983, pp 14). Such a strategy of “the general case” uses the slightest possible number of examples in producing the biggest possible learning amount, e.g. in English learning, the teacher may choose to teach forty consonantal sounds as well as the blending skills, whereas Direct instruction would give the learners a generalized skills to decode, which are relevant to 50% of the more common English words. A vital part of the analysis phase to develop a Direct Instruction program is identifying those kinds of general case strategies.

The Design Principles

According to Gerstein & Keating (1983), to design instructions for cognitive learning requires the following analyses

• Behavior Analysis
• Communications Analysis
• Knowledge Systems Analysis

According to Gerstein & Keating (1983, pp 15), behavior analysis seeks empirical based principles or laws concerning the way the environment influences behavior. Thus, it concerns factors such as student motivation, presenting examples as part of instruction, prompting and reinforcing responses and the way to correct errors. On the other hand, Communication analysis seeks principles for the effective teaching sequences’ logical design. Those are the principles that permit for the educational designer to describe the generalization variety expected to take place when the learner receives particular example sets.

Gerstein & Keating (1983, pp 15), further observes that communications analysis examines the similarities and differences between stimuli sets. It is in support of design of instructional sequences that put off misrules, over generalization or restricted generalization. Knowledge systems analysis seeks to logically classify or organize knowledge. So as to have a classification system maximizing utility for the instructional designer, it ought to provide information concerning the way to communicate skills to a learner (Gerstein & Keating 1983, pp 15). Owing to the fact that concepts are structurally the same can be taught in a similar manner, the analysis seeks to find the similarities across different types of learning results (Becker & Gerstein 1982)

Hypothesis

Direct Instruction (DI) Program can be effective when used for English Language Learners.

Significance of the Proposed Study

The study to decipher the effectiveness of Direct Instruction Programs being used for English language learners will help to improve the learning of those students who are slow to learn the language. It will also open up the forum for discussion into the possible workable policies that can be implemented in the education system, to bring about harmonization in the learning of English language.

Research Method

This study adopts the use of already working educational programs that have been put to the test by means of questionnaires, drawn by the American Committee of Education System, a non Governmental organization based in Texas. The data from the research questionnaires were then compiled together and put in a table of results so as to make the comparison of results easier.

Participants

The participants in this study were fifth and sixth grade students from El Monte School District in Los Angeles County, and their educators. The educators were the ones administering the questionnaires that were drawn and presented by the American Committee of Education System.

Instrumentation

In a manner to show how quickly the English learners who had been subjected to Direct Instruction Program, a test dubbed Los Angeles English Language Development Test (LAELDT) were examined. The questionnaires were then combined with the LAELDT results.

Procedures

All the participants in the study were to sign a memorandum that whatever they wrote on their questionnaires was purely confidential, and aimed at educational research. They were then subjected to the questionnaires all at the same time, in which the representatives from the American Committee of Education System supervised the fifth and sixth grade students from El Monte School District in Los Angeles County who had taken part in the research. No one was allowed to take part in the study if they felt unduly influenced to participate, or where duress or coercion was suspected.

Data Analysis and Presentation

After the questionnaires and the tests were analyzed, the American Committee of Education System supervisors compiled the following data from the fifth and sixth grade students who had taken part in Direct Instruction Programs during earlier grades, with the performance of the same non-follow through students.

Direct Instructions program students scored considerably higher on the measure of answering to the questionnaire as well as reading in the English language in the 50% of the comparisons made in the fifth grade. Similarly, students who had taken part in Direct Instruction programs in their sixth grades were compared with similar students who had not taken part. Results indicated that the students who had taken part in Direct Instruction programs received higher grades, and were likely to get high school diplomas, less probable to be retained in any grade as well as less likely to drop out of school (West, Young & Spooner 1990). A conclusive analysis of that data is that there exist a correlation between Direct Instruction and good learner performance.

Limitations of the Design

It is subjective to claim that all students subjected to the same questionnaire possessed the same ability to learn. That in itself could have compromised the dependency of the results. More so, the learning capability cannot only be based on Curriculum subjects only. There could be students who are able to learn English much easier but in the real sense are not bright. It is therefore hard to gauge the students’ capability to learn on the basis of their ability to read English. In future, there is the need to carry out a research on the behavioral aspects of English learners in regard to direct instruction.

References

Becker, W. C. (2004). Direct Instruction: A twenty-year assessment. Paper tabled at the XVI yearly Banff intercontinental Conference on Behavioral Science

Becker, W. C., & Gerstein, R. (1982) A record of follow through: Meta-analysis of the later Impacts of the Direct Instruction Model. American edifying Research Journal, 19, 75-93

Gerstein, R. M., & Keating, T. (1983). DI Follow Through scholars show fewer dropouts, fewer retentions, and additional high school graduates. Direct Instruction News, 2,14-15.

Liberty, K. A., & Haring, N. G. (1990). foreword to decision rule systems. Remedial and Special Education, 11(l), 32-41

McGreevy, P. (1983). Teaching and learning in plain English (2nd ed.). Kansas City, MO: Plain English Publications.

Scott, J., Wolfing, B., Stoutimore, J. & Harris, C. (1990). Challenging reading for students with gentle handicaps. Teaching Exceptional Children, 22(3), 32-35.

West, R. P., Young, R. & Spooner, F. (1990). accuracy Teaching: An introduction. Teaching Exceptional Children, 22(3), 4-9.

Vachon, V., & Carnine, D. W. (2000). Evaluation of computer software. Association for Direct Instruction News, 3(2),11-15.

Watkins, C. L. (1988). Project Follow- Through: A story of the identification and neglect of effective instruction; Youth Policy, 10(7), 7-11