Re: [MOSAIC] Building comprehension of questions-was heartbreak /response to Reading Mastery
Jennifer, I have a couple of quick questions... Is the student ELL? If so, what level? Maybe the questions are out of her English Language Development "zone". If worded differently, she may be able to answer them? Also, what reading level is she? Maybe she doesn't know how to put her thoughts into words? Response starters could be used, or scaffold the questions until she can respond to the one you want her to. This does take time. Jan Unless we reach into our studentsĀ¹ hearts, we have no entry into their minds. -Regie Routman > > Now...Let's talk comprehension...the purpose of our listserv. I have a > question for all the wonderful minds on this list. > > I just picked up a new little girl on my caseload today. When reading with > her a couple of things became obvious to me. One: She isn't thinking about > reading. (We all know what to do about that---time to pull out Strategies That > Work...Reading With Meaning etc etc.) BUT another problem I detected is that > she doesn't seem to understand the questions posed to her by me or the other > children...particularly questions that start with why and how. It really > affects how she interacts with other children when they are discussing text. > > I want to teach her how to comprehend questions and was thinking about > applying comprehension strategies to the genre of questions. > > Can you all help me think this through? > Jennifer ___ Mosaic mailing list Mosaic@literacyworkshop.org To unsubscribe or modify your membership please go to http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/options/mosaic_literacyworkshop.org. Search the MOSAIC archives at http://snipurl.com/MosaicArchive.
Re: [MOSAIC] Building comprehension of questions-was heartbreak/response to Reading Mastery
Kristin, it makes perfect sense to me. I had the same experience my 1st year as a literacy coach. My principal was not on board with any of this "fluff" A 3rd grade teacher approached me and told me that something I said in one of our study groups made him realize that he didn't know how to teach kids to read or help his struggling readers. I suggested he begin with independent reading - we took Dominie scores and organized materials accordingly - so he could guide his readers. I conferenced with some of his students (to model) --needless to say - the next fall when we got state test scores back, his class scored the highest in reading - the principal scratched his head and said I don't know what he did - when I explained - no comment - that quickly went by the wayside as it was not viewed as instruction and we quickly adopted direct instruction - every year it is another "program" - the analogy I used was -- reading is like playing football or learning to ride a bike - if you don't practice it everyday - you don't get very good at it :) sorry for the epistle - just my thoughts about independent reading >>> Kristin Mitchell 2/20/2009 9:39 am >>> Elisa and others, I've been following this conversation with much interest (as I'm sure many are!) and I think I've already piped in with this, but I need to bring it up again (it's possible I never did in the first place, I'm almost 6 months pregnant and I left my brain at about 8 weeks!). Last month's issue of The Reading Teacher had an article about SSR (which for me is simply Independent Reading...it's what kids do while I do guided reading). For me, the premise of the article was how federal dollars will most likely never be used to support something like SSR because they cannot do "medical research" to PROVE that it works. Even though I've seen test scores go up from a group that got "Guided Reading" using their SS textbooks (I wish I were kidding) their entire 5th grade year. As 6th graders they recieved Guided Reading and lots of choice independent reading time from me and their reading scores went up. While this is not "reasearch" that can prove anything, it's pretty strong evidence for me to continue how I teach reading to upper grades. Unfortunately, the feds need programs and other methods of teaching reading to be tested quantitatively. Which, is not a reality in schools. There is no fair playing field when it comes to research on teaching reading. Until "outsiders" (non educators who direct our policies whether they be gov't or buisness) realize that schools are NOT clinical places where you can have strict control groups this will always be the case. Things like Mosaic of Thought will not have support until someone can magically produce a control group of kids that can be tested "fairly." I hope I made sense! Kristin Mitchell/4th/CO "Be the change you want to see in the world" -Ghandi Each child is different and deserves different approaches to learning based on a solid philosophy backed up by pedagogical principles and research (expert and teacher). Elisa Elisa Waingort ___ Mosaic mailing list Mosaic@literacyworkshop.org To unsubscribe or modify your membership please go to http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/options/mosaic_literacyworkshop.org. Search the MOSAIC archives at http://snipurl.com/MosaicArchive. ___ Mosaic mailing list Mosaic@literacyworkshop.org To unsubscribe or modify your membership please go to http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/options/mosaic_literacyworkshop.org. Search the MOSAIC archives at http://snipurl.com/MosaicArchive.
Re: [MOSAIC] Building comprehension of questions-was heartbreak/response to Reading Mastery
It isn't that the feds NEED programs and other methods of teaching reading to be testing quantitatively. It is that they WANT them to be. When the National Reading Panel met, they started out by systematically throwing out all research that didn't meet their overall, already-established phonics-first philosophy, then went on to use terms like "scientifically proven" to drive home their goal of turning classrooms back into what they remembered from the 1950's, with the teacher in charge of "delivering instruction" and turning Whole Language into a divisive, politicized term based on lies, myths, and, at best, misunderstanding of the process. NCLB functions under the philosophy of a "daddy knows best" kind of paradigm, where everything is "either/or" and "good/bad" and children are reduced to numbers, rankings, and ratings while teachers are demeaned, deprofessionalized, and defeated, perhaps in the hope that public school as we know it will bite the dust and privatization can rise up in the education field. All this from an administration which consistently altered scientific research in other areas, such as global warming and environmental standards, in order to reward big business with more money and more power. In the education field, big business has been rewarded mightily by NCLB. Follow the money. As for "scripted instruction" well, frankly, I think the phrase is an oxymoron. Renee On Feb 20, 2009, at 6:39 AM, Kristin Mitchell wrote: Elisa and others, I've been following this conversation with much interest (as I'm sure many are!) and I think I've already piped in with this, but I need to bring it up again (it's possible I never did in the first place, I'm almost 6 months pregnant and I left my brain at about 8 weeks!). Last month's issue of The Reading Teacher had an article about SSR (which for me is simply Independent Reading...it's what kids do while I do guided reading). For me, the premise of the article was how federal dollars will most likely never be used to support something like SSR because they cannot do "medical research" to PROVE that it works. Even though I've seen test scores go up from a group that got "Guided Reading" using their SS textbooks (I wish I were kidding) their entire 5th grade year. As 6th graders they recieved Guided Reading and lots of choice independent reading time from me and their reading scores went up. While this is not "reasearch" that can prove anything, it's pretty strong evidence for me to continue how I teach reading to upper grades. Unfortunately, the feds need programs and other methods of teaching reading to be tested quantitatively. Which, is not a reality in schools. There is no fair playing field when it comes to research on teaching reading. Until "outsiders" (non educators who direct our policies whether they be gov't or buisness) realize that schools are NOT clinical places where you can have strict control groups this will always be the case. Things like Mosaic of Thought will not have support until someone can magically produce a control group of kids that can be tested "fairly." I hope I made sense! Kristin Mitchell/4th/CO "Be the change you want to see in the world" -Ghandi Each child is different and deserves different approaches to learning based on a solid philosophy backed up by pedagogical principles and research (expert and teacher). Elisa Elisa Waingort ___ Mosaic mailing list Mosaic@literacyworkshop.org To unsubscribe or modify your membership please go to http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/options/ mosaic_literacyworkshop.org. Search the MOSAIC archives at http://snipurl.com/MosaicArchive. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." ___ Mosaic mailing list Mosaic@literacyworkshop.org To unsubscribe or modify your membership please go to http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/options/mosaic_literacyworkshop.org. Search the MOSAIC archives at http://snipurl.com/MosaicArchive.
Re: [MOSAIC] Building comprehension of questions-was heartbreak/response to Reading Mastery
Elisa and others, I've been following this conversation with much interest (as I'm sure many are!) and I think I've already piped in with this, but I need to bring it up again (it's possible I never did in the first place, I'm almost 6 months pregnant and I left my brain at about 8 weeks!). Last month's issue of The Reading Teacher had an article about SSR (which for me is simply Independent Reading...it's what kids do while I do guided reading). For me, the premise of the article was how federal dollars will most likely never be used to support something like SSR because they cannot do "medical research" to PROVE that it works. Even though I've seen test scores go up from a group that got "Guided Reading" using their SS textbooks (I wish I were kidding) their entire 5th grade year. As 6th graders they recieved Guided Reading and lots of choice independent reading time from me and their reading scores went up. While this is not "reasearch" that can prove anything, it's pretty strong evidence for me to continue how I teach reading to upper grades. Unfortunately, the feds need programs and other methods of teaching reading to be tested quantitatively. Which, is not a reality in schools. There is no fair playing field when it comes to research on teaching reading. Until "outsiders" (non educators who direct our policies whether they be gov't or buisness) realize that schools are NOT clinical places where you can have strict control groups this will always be the case. Things like Mosaic of Thought will not have support until someone can magically produce a control group of kids that can be tested "fairly." I hope I made sense! Kristin Mitchell/4th/CO "Be the change you want to see in the world" -Ghandi Each child is different and deserves different approaches to learning based on a solid philosophy backed up by pedagogical principles and research (expert and teacher). Elisa Elisa Waingort ___ Mosaic mailing list Mosaic@literacyworkshop.org To unsubscribe or modify your membership please go to http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/options/mosaic_literacyworkshop.org. Search the MOSAIC archives at http://snipurl.com/MosaicArchive.
Re: [MOSAIC] Building comprehension of questions-was heartbreak/response to Reading Mastery
Amy, Thanks for the research link suggestions. I will look them up. I think the big difference is whether the developers of Direct Instruction programs, who also produced their own research saying their programs work, made profits from their programs based on their research results and marketing ploys. Someone else who has a better handle of the research out there might want to address this question: what does the independent research say about Direct Instruction programs and, since you brought it up, Reading Recovery? Also, I don't know that Stephanie Goudvis, et al are making any claims as far as test gains, etc because people are applying their ideas in their classroom. BTW, Strategies that Work is not a program. Unfortunately, my experience with proponents of DI is that they see everything as a program. Life is broader than that. Teachers are smarter than that. A program, especially one that needs to be followed with "fidelity" (what the heck does that mean???), is an insult to teachers' intelligence and professionalism. While you claim that teachers may deviate from the script, children are different and throw us curve balls every once in a while, you imply that this is the exception rather than the norm. To me, I want it to be the norm. Each child is different and deserves different approaches to learning based on a solid philosophy backed up by pedagogical principles and research (expert and teacher). Elisa Elisa Waingort Grade 2 Spanish Bilingual Dalhousie Elementary Calgary, Canada The best and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen or even touched. They must be felt within the heart. ĀHelen Keller Visit my blog, A Teacher's Ruminations, and post a message. http://waingortgrade2spanishbilingual.blogspot.com/ Second, (and this is a bit more harsh, but true non-the-less) that someone profits financially from selling their well researched books and workshops. Food for thought. I hope this information helps. Amy ___ Mosaic mailing list Mosaic@literacyworkshop.org To unsubscribe or modify your membership please go to http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/options/mosaic_literacyworkshop.org. Search the MOSAIC archives at http://snipurl.com/MosaicArchive.
Re: [MOSAIC] Building comprehension of questions-was heartbreak/response to Reading Mastery
I Googled Phyllis Hostmeyer, and the website is www.PhylsQuill.com (two L's). Melissa/VA/2nd On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:28 PM, W.Robertson wrote: > I wasn't able to get the link to work. Is the correct? > Wendy > > -Original Message- > From: mosaic-boun...@literacyworkshop.org > [mailto:mosaic-boun...@literacyworkshop.org] On Behalf Of Christi Poteet > Sent: February-19-09 7:20 PM > To: Mosaic: A Reading Comprehension Strategies Email Group; > mosaic@literacyworkshop.org > Subject: Re: [MOSAIC] Building comprehension of questions-was > heartbreak/response to Reading Mastery > > QAR would be awesome!! Phyllis Hostmeyer has a great website for QAR and > many other comprehension strategies. Her website is www.PhylsQuil.com > > > > Christi A. Poteet > Reading Specialist > Delores Moye School > cpot...@ofallon90.net > > > > From: mosaic-boun...@literacyworkshop.org on behalf of cnjpal...@aol.com > Sent: Thu 2/19/2009 8:23 PM > To: mosaic@literacyworkshop.org > Subject: [MOSAIC] Building comprehension of questions-was > heartbreak/response to Reading Mastery > > > > > > I am just finishing up the second of two courses in my doctorate on > "disciplined inquiry". One of the things I have learned is how to evaluate > research > articles. I thank you, Amy, for posting the research links...and I look > forward to reading through your links when I get a few minutes. It will be > good > practice for me as I work on my literature review for my dissertation. > > There are many kinds of research in education...and yes...some research is > done to create programs. Marie Clay, Fountas and Pinnell and many others > have > done research and then created programs or theories from their research. > Marie Clay was my hero but even her work needed to be validated by many > others > over time. The fact that someone makes a profit on their research makes > this > validation process essential. > I am particularly interested in looking at the studies you mention to see > if > there is an improvement in comprehension scores...AND if improvement in > reading skills holds over time. If there is no independent validation > studies, > then I am afraid the jury is still out for me. > > Now...Let's talk comprehension...the purpose of our listserv. I have a > question for all the wonderful minds on this list. > > I just picked up a new little girl on my caseload today. When reading with > her a couple of things became obvious to me. One: She isn't thinking about > reading. (We all know what to do about that---time to pull out Strategies > That > Work...Reading With Meaning etc etc.) BUT another problem I detected is > that > she doesn't seem to understand the questions posed to her by me or the > other > children...particularly questions that start with why and how. It really > affects how she interacts with other children when they are discussing > text. > > I want to teach her how to comprehend questions and was thinking about > applying comprehension strategies to the genre of questions. > > Can you all help me think this through? > Jennifer > > > > > > In a message dated 2/19/2009 7:49:53 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, > mcgovern_amy64042...@hotmail.com writes: > > Hi Elisa, > I appreciate your question. There is a helpful report from the Wisconsin > Policy Research Institute that is worth looking at if you would like > several > specific examples regarding the research supporting Direct Instruction. > In > addition to listing some independently reviewed research, it also > summarizes the > highlights of Project Follow Through. If you are not familiar with this > study, Follow Through is often described as the single most expensive > education > experiment in history. The experiment lasted from 1967 to 1976 and > on-going > data was collected all the way through 1995 on literally thousands of > students. Please see Bonnie Grossen's Overview: The Story Behind Project > Follow > Through. You can find Grossen's article on-line if you google it. I > would > encourage anyone who is being asked to teach Direct Instruction, willingly > or > not, to take a look at this info. > > The Wisconsin Policy Research Institute also can be found by googling it. > Once there, Go to the index and click on "education k-12". That will take > you > to the list of articles. Look for Direct Instruction and the Teaching of > Early Reading.Wisconsin's Teacher-led Insurgency (March 2001, Volume > 14, > number 2.) It's near the bottom of the page. There are other more > current
Re: [MOSAIC] Building comprehension of questions-was heartbreak/response to Reading Mastery
I wasn't able to get the link to work. Is the correct? Wendy -Original Message- From: mosaic-boun...@literacyworkshop.org [mailto:mosaic-boun...@literacyworkshop.org] On Behalf Of Christi Poteet Sent: February-19-09 7:20 PM To: Mosaic: A Reading Comprehension Strategies Email Group; mosaic@literacyworkshop.org Subject: Re: [MOSAIC] Building comprehension of questions-was heartbreak/response to Reading Mastery QAR would be awesome!! Phyllis Hostmeyer has a great website for QAR and many other comprehension strategies. Her website is www.PhylsQuil.com Christi A. Poteet Reading Specialist Delores Moye School cpot...@ofallon90.net From: mosaic-boun...@literacyworkshop.org on behalf of cnjpal...@aol.com Sent: Thu 2/19/2009 8:23 PM To: mosaic@literacyworkshop.org Subject: [MOSAIC] Building comprehension of questions-was heartbreak/response to Reading Mastery I am just finishing up the second of two courses in my doctorate on "disciplined inquiry". One of the things I have learned is how to evaluate research articles. I thank you, Amy, for posting the research links...and I look forward to reading through your links when I get a few minutes. It will be good practice for me as I work on my literature review for my dissertation. There are many kinds of research in education...and yes...some research is done to create programs. Marie Clay, Fountas and Pinnell and many others have done research and then created programs or theories from their research. Marie Clay was my hero but even her work needed to be validated by many others over time. The fact that someone makes a profit on their research makes this validation process essential. I am particularly interested in looking at the studies you mention to see if there is an improvement in comprehension scores...AND if improvement in reading skills holds over time. If there is no independent validation studies, then I am afraid the jury is still out for me. Now...Let's talk comprehension...the purpose of our listserv. I have a question for all the wonderful minds on this list. I just picked up a new little girl on my caseload today. When reading with her a couple of things became obvious to me. One: She isn't thinking about reading. (We all know what to do about that---time to pull out Strategies That Work...Reading With Meaning etc etc.) BUT another problem I detected is that she doesn't seem to understand the questions posed to her by me or the other children...particularly questions that start with why and how. It really affects how she interacts with other children when they are discussing text. I want to teach her how to comprehend questions and was thinking about applying comprehension strategies to the genre of questions. Can you all help me think this through? Jennifer In a message dated 2/19/2009 7:49:53 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, mcgovern_amy64042...@hotmail.com writes: Hi Elisa, I appreciate your question. There is a helpful report from the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute that is worth looking at if you would like several specific examples regarding the research supporting Direct Instruction. In addition to listing some independently reviewed research, it also summarizes the highlights of Project Follow Through. If you are not familiar with this study, Follow Through is often described as the single most expensive education experiment in history. The experiment lasted from 1967 to 1976 and on-going data was collected all the way through 1995 on literally thousands of students. Please see Bonnie Grossen's Overview: The Story Behind Project Follow Through. You can find Grossen's article on-line if you google it. I would encourage anyone who is being asked to teach Direct Instruction, willingly or not, to take a look at this info. The Wisconsin Policy Research Institute also can be found by googling it. Once there, Go to the index and click on "education k-12". That will take you to the list of articles. Look for Direct Instruction and the Teaching of Early Reading.Wisconsin's Teacher-led Insurgency (March 2001, Volume 14, number 2.) It's near the bottom of the page. There are other more current articles on Direct Instruction, but I am fond of this one because it begins with a really good description of Direct Instruction. Samples from the research are sited on pages 6-10. There's a list of references on page 25. Something to think about... A common criticism of the research supporting Direct Instruction and Reading Mastery is that this research comes from the author, meaning Zig Englemann. Indeed there is plenty of research out there that was not conducted by Englemann at all. But let's stick with the critique used on Direct Instruction: that if the research comes from the author or creator, it is somehow not valid. In an attempt to draw
Re: [MOSAIC] Building comprehension of questions-was heartbreak/response to Reading Mastery
QAR would be awesome!! Phyllis Hostmeyer has a great website for QAR and many other comprehension strategies. Her website is www.PhylsQuil.com Christi A. Poteet Reading Specialist Delores Moye School cpot...@ofallon90.net From: mosaic-boun...@literacyworkshop.org on behalf of cnjpal...@aol.com Sent: Thu 2/19/2009 8:23 PM To: mosaic@literacyworkshop.org Subject: [MOSAIC] Building comprehension of questions-was heartbreak/response to Reading Mastery I am just finishing up the second of two courses in my doctorate on "disciplined inquiry". One of the things I have learned is how to evaluate research articles. I thank you, Amy, for posting the research links...and I look forward to reading through your links when I get a few minutes. It will be good practice for me as I work on my literature review for my dissertation. There are many kinds of research in education...and yes...some research is done to create programs. Marie Clay, Fountas and Pinnell and many others have done research and then created programs or theories from their research. Marie Clay was my hero but even her work needed to be validated by many others over time. The fact that someone makes a profit on their research makes this validation process essential. I am particularly interested in looking at the studies you mention to see if there is an improvement in comprehension scores...AND if improvement in reading skills holds over time. If there is no independent validation studies, then I am afraid the jury is still out for me. Now...Let's talk comprehension...the purpose of our listserv. I have a question for all the wonderful minds on this list. I just picked up a new little girl on my caseload today. When reading with her a couple of things became obvious to me. One: She isn't thinking about reading. (We all know what to do about that---time to pull out Strategies That Work...Reading With Meaning etc etc.) BUT another problem I detected is that she doesn't seem to understand the questions posed to her by me or the other children...particularly questions that start with why and how. It really affects how she interacts with other children when they are discussing text. I want to teach her how to comprehend questions and was thinking about applying comprehension strategies to the genre of questions. Can you all help me think this through? Jennifer In a message dated 2/19/2009 7:49:53 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, mcgovern_amy64042...@hotmail.com writes: Hi Elisa, I appreciate your question. There is a helpful report from the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute that is worth looking at if you would like several specific examples regarding the research supporting Direct Instruction. In addition to listing some independently reviewed research, it also summarizes the highlights of Project Follow Through. If you are not familiar with this study, Follow Through is often described as the single most expensive education experiment in history. The experiment lasted from 1967 to 1976 and on-going data was collected all the way through 1995 on literally thousands of students. Please see Bonnie Grossen's Overview: The Story Behind Project Follow Through. You can find Grossen's article on-line if you google it. I would encourage anyone who is being asked to teach Direct Instruction, willingly or not, to take a look at this info. The Wisconsin Policy Research Institute also can be found by googling it. Once there, Go to the index and click on "education k-12". That will take you to the list of articles. Look for Direct Instruction and the Teaching of Early Reading.Wisconsin's Teacher-led Insurgency (March 2001, Volume 14, number 2.) It's near the bottom of the page. There are other more current articles on Direct Instruction, but I am fond of this one because it begins with a really good description of Direct Instruction. Samples from the research are sited on pages 6-10. There's a list of references on page 25. Something to think about... A common criticism of the research supporting Direct Instruction and Reading Mastery is that this research comes from the author, meaning Zig Englemann. Indeed there is plenty of research out there that was not conducted by Englemann at all. But let's stick with the critique used on Direct Instruction: that if the research comes from the author or creator, it is somehow not valid. In an attempt to draw some comparisons between authors/creators and their research, please respectfully consider this: Marie Clay ...Teacher/ Researchershe spear headed the research that eventually became Reading Recovery. Fountas and Pinnell are considered the creators of Guided Reading They did 9 years of research. This is according to their book: Guided Reading: Good First Teaching for All Children. Stephanie Harvey and
[MOSAIC] Building comprehension of questions-was heartbreak /response to Reading Mastery
I am just finishing up the second of two courses in my doctorate on "disciplined inquiry". One of the things I have learned is how to evaluate research articles. I thank you, Amy, for posting the research links...and I look forward to reading through your links when I get a few minutes. It will be good practice for me as I work on my literature review for my dissertation. There are many kinds of research in education...and yes...some research is done to create programs. Marie Clay, Fountas and Pinnell and many others have done research and then created programs or theories from their research. Marie Clay was my hero but even her work needed to be validated by many others over time. The fact that someone makes a profit on their research makes this validation process essential. I am particularly interested in looking at the studies you mention to see if there is an improvement in comprehension scores...AND if improvement in reading skills holds over time. If there is no independent validation studies, then I am afraid the jury is still out for me. Now...Let's talk comprehension...the purpose of our listserv. I have a question for all the wonderful minds on this list. I just picked up a new little girl on my caseload today. When reading with her a couple of things became obvious to me. One: She isn't thinking about reading. (We all know what to do about that---time to pull out Strategies That Work...Reading With Meaning etc etc.) BUT another problem I detected is that she doesn't seem to understand the questions posed to her by me or the other children...particularly questions that start with why and how. It really affects how she interacts with other children when they are discussing text. I want to teach her how to comprehend questions and was thinking about applying comprehension strategies to the genre of questions. Can you all help me think this through? Jennifer In a message dated 2/19/2009 7:49:53 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, mcgovern_amy64042...@hotmail.com writes: Hi Elisa, I appreciate your question. There is a helpful report from the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute that is worth looking at if you would like several specific examples regarding the research supporting Direct Instruction. In addition to listing some independently reviewed research, it also summarizes the highlights of Project Follow Through. If you are not familiar with this study, Follow Through is often described as the single most expensive education experiment in history. The experiment lasted from 1967 to 1976 and on-going data was collected all the way through 1995 on literally thousands of students. Please see Bonnie Grossen's Overview: The Story Behind Project Follow Through. You can find Grossen's article on-line if you google it. I would encourage anyone who is being asked to teach Direct Instruction, willingly or not, to take a look at this info. The Wisconsin Policy Research Institute also can be found by googling it. Once there, Go to the index and click on "education k-12". That will take you to the list of articles. Look for Direct Instruction and the Teaching of Early Reading.Wisconsin's Teacher-led Insurgency (March 2001, Volume 14, number 2.) It's near the bottom of the page. There are other more current articles on Direct Instruction, but I am fond of this one because it begins with a really good description of Direct Instruction. Samples from the research are sited on pages 6-10. There's a list of references on page 25. Something to think about... A common criticism of the research supporting Direct Instruction and Reading Mastery is that this research comes from the author, meaning Zig Englemann. Indeed there is plenty of research out there that was not conducted by Englemann at all. But let's stick with the critique used on Direct Instruction: that if the research comes from the author or creator, it is somehow not valid. In an attempt to draw some comparisons between authors/creators and their research, please respectfully consider this: Marie Clay ...Teacher/ Researchershe spear headed the research that eventually became Reading Recovery. Fountas and Pinnell are considered the creators of Guided Reading They did 9 years of research. This is according to their book: Guided Reading: Good First Teaching for All Children. Stephanie Harvey and Anne Goodvis wrote Strategies that Work. They are listed in the back of their book as researchers. I think we may be able to agree on two things: First, that all the teacher/researchers listed above have only the best of intentions: which is to help children learn to read and to support teachers in their quest to make this happen. Second, (and this is a bit more harsh, but true non-the-less) that someone profits financially from selling their well researched books and workshops.
