Legacy of Learning

Teaching Methods

We are dedicated to transforming at-risk youth into youth of promise. Over the past 13 years, our in-house and volunteer instructors have educated over 1,000 low-income students through year-round programs at our center in East Boulder, at various community centers and local schools. Our work is on a one-to-one basis whenever possible; however, in order to leverage our funding and reach as many students as possible, we also conduct lessons in small, homogenous groups. At the heart of our program is the Direct Instruction (DI) curriculum, a systematic, research-proven, multi-sensory teaching methodology which is fast-paced, highly interactive, and founded on the belief that all students can learn regardless of their educational histories, behavioral patterns, or learning preferences.

Each of our programs provides structured, personalized support to meet the needs of individual students in a variety of settings. One-hundred percent of our students come from low income backgrounds, and each one has unique academic needs. To qualify for our programs, a student must meet the requirement of the Federal Free or Reduced Lunch Program and be two or more grade levels behind in reading, math or spelling.

Description of Programs

Direct Instruction is a research-proven, learner-verified curriculum designed in the early 1960's. The term "Direct Instruction" refers to a rigorously developed, highly structured intensive method for teaching that is fast-paced and provides constant interaction between student and teacher. Direct Instruction has been the subject of over 3,000 studies worldwide that validate its efficacy. The program is structured to master increasingly complex skills, which are taught in sequential steps, followed by ample opportunity for pupils to apply their knowledge in new and challenging contexts. The program then relies upon frequent built-in tests to ensure mastery.

Here is a brief synopsis of the programs.

Corrective Reading provides informational reading selections. Each story increases in difficulty and depth. The questions are both written and oral and ask "who, what, where, when, why, and yes and no." Vocabulary words are taught before they appear in a selection.

Support material includes short but complicated selections that require multiple choice, short written responses, and true-false statements. As the program progresses, there is a greater spectrum of topics with a focus on science and history. In the intermediate and more advanced classes, the following is emphasized:

Story Reading with increasing length and rate criterion
Story Reading that focuses on reversal problems, commonly confused words, and longer sentences
How to sequence story events
How to follow written and oral directions
Questions about vocabulary and definitions that were presented in the context of the selections
Questions about fact versus opinion
True-false items
Items that call for inference and prediction based on the content of the selection
Items that ask about the main idea
Items that ask about the best title
Items that ask to draw conclusions
Items that require application of math operations

In the Critical Thinking Skills (Comprehension A, B, or C) program, students may be proficient in logical reasoning, but have not mastered reasoning skills to the point where applying them is nearly automatic. They have trouble learning a new concept or discriminating from written instructions. They are deficient in advanced vocabulary. They are weak in mechanics of writing and editing. They lack facility in extracting information from sources such as a written passage or a graph. These skills incorporate analogies, strategies, deductive reasoning, and fall into five categories:

Using information for directions
Communicating information
Using sources of information
Operating on information
Organizing information

The Reasoning and Writing program covers all basic skills: Sentence Development, Capitalization and Punctuation, Creative Writing, Outlining, Paragraph and Essay writing. Writing is an essential skill and a fundamental method of communication. The writing program has six levels. The beginning levels cover all basic skills: sentence development, capitalization and punctuation, editing, reporting, inferring, relevance, and expanded writing. The intermediate and advanced levels include parts of speech and sentence analysis, clarity, inaccurate and unclear directions, misleading and inaccurate claims, arguments, passage writing, parallel construction, vocabulary, descriptions, grammar, deductions and reasoning and writing extensions.

The objective of the Corrective Spelling program is to teach a set of principles that deal with the structure of words. Entitled Morphographs (the smallest part of a word that has meaning), the scope and sequence includes introducing new words, rules and principles, integrating any new material with previously taught material, and continuing to review until student is at mastery. After completion of this program, students will be able to spell thousands of words, including most words on the Dolch word list, and most commonly misspelled high school and college words.

The Building Vocabulary Skills program explicitly teaches students a core set of high-utility vocabulary words along with a range of strategies for learning, remembering, and incorporating unknown words into their existing reading, writing, speaking and listening vocabularies. This program increases language-arts proficiency and builds a strong foundation for lifelong learning.

Corrective Math includes the fundamentals of Addition, Subtraction, Multiplication, Division, Fractions, Decimal, Ratios, Percents and Equations. More advanced programs are offered in Algebra 1 and 11, Geometry, Calculus and Trigonometry.

EVALUATION

Each student begins with a series of national, norm-referenced standardized assessments. We primarily use two tests to evaluate our students' current levels and create a learning program suited to each student's needs. We begin with the Wide Range Achievement Test #4, WRAT(4), a comprehensive and norm-referenced standardized achievement test which establishes a base level in reading, comprehension, spelling, and math. We also rely on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, a nationally recognized language test, which evaluates a student's language age relative to chronological age. Many children have poor language skills, and research has shown that increased receptive language skills result in greater success in any formal learning environment.

Direct Instruction placement tests are then administered in the identified program or programs of need. The student is placed precisely in a DI program that is comfortable and appropriate. A teacher is carefully selected and assigned to a student, or homogenous group of students, for at least 30 hours, which allows a supportive bond to develop. This instructor is coached and supervised by an experienced trainer throughout the course to ensure that the rapport is positive and to redirect the programs if necessary. After 30 hours of instruction, an alternate assessment is re-applied to gauge the student's progress and establish a new level and to redirect the programs accordingly.

We use the following tools to assess each student:

Wide Range Achievement Test 4 (WRAT 4)

The Fourth Edition of this classic test measures the basic academic skills of reading, spelling, and mathematical computation necessary for effective learning, communication, and thinking. The WRAT (4) is a standardized, norm/referenced assessment that has been in use throughout the U.S. since the 1930's. It is extremely reliable and considered a valid measure of a student's academic skills, giving both a grade level and a percentile placement in reading, spelling, and math. The WRAT4 was standardized on a representative national sample of more than 3,000 individuals ranging in age from 5 to 94 years. It correlates well with most of the major achievement tests used in public schools today.

The latest edition features an entirely new subtest, Sentence Comprehension, to enhance the scope of the content assessed and to meet the need for a measure of reading comprehension. The new WRAT4 has four subtests:

Sentence Comprehension
Word Reading
Spelling
Math Computation

The interpretation of the WRAT4 has been enhanced by adding grade-based norms, thereby increasing the usefulness of the test in grades K through 12. The WRAT4 is a quick, simple, and psychometrically sound measure of fundamental academic skills. It is helpful in diagnosing learning disabilities, assessing academic progress over time, evaluating achievement/ability discrepancies, checking progress in remedial programs, determining instructional needs, and assessing children whose performance is below that of their peers.

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT)

In order to measure the student's receptive language level, we administer the PPVT, a nationally standardized test that has been in use for 40 years. Determining a language age is vital because each learner must understand the language of instruction in order to learn successfully.

The PPVT is designed primarily to measure receptive (hearing) vocabulary for Standard American English. In this sense, it is an achievement test, since it shows the extent of English vocabulary acquisition.

Another important function is to provide a quick estimate of one major aspect of verbal ability for subjects who have grown up in a Standard English-speaking environment. In this sense, it is a scholastic aptitude test. It is not, however, a comprehensive test of general intelligence; instead, it measures only one important facet of general intelligence -vocabulary. Though far from perfect, vocabulary is the best single index of school success (Dale and Reichert, 1957). Exposure to Standard American English, and other cultural influences, has resulted in marked performance changes on the PPVT.

Measurable Results with Direct Instruction

There is a plethora of measurable results from over 3,000 studies worldwide that validate Direct Instruction's efficacy.

The term "Direct Instruction" refers to a rigorously developed, highly structured intensive method for teaching that is fast-paced and provides constant interaction between students and teacher. The program is structured to master increasingly complex skills, which are taught in sequential steps, followed by ample opportunity for pupils to apply their knowledge in new and challenging contexts. The program then relies upon frequent built-in tests to ensure mastery.

Direct Instruction is based on Zigfreid Engelmann's theory that learning can happen at an accelerated rate if educators deliver instructions that are clear, are able to predict likely misinterpretations and therefore reduce confusion, and assist in forming generalizations.

Direct Instruction is a curriculum that is uniquely suited to addressing the academic needs of our target population. A study conducted by Scarlato & Ashara in 2004 tested the reading skills of adjudicated youth with emotional/behavioral or learning disabilities. The students in the DI group showed "moderate to large gains" on standard reading skills, whereas the control group, administered by a reading specialist, showed "moderate to large losses" in the same fundamental areas. A study conducted by Gregory, Hackney, and George in 1982 found that middle-school age students in remedial reading groups using the DI curriculum scored higher on tests and demonstrated more consistent attendance and improved behavior in school.

In 1999, the American Institutes for Research (co-sponsor of What Works Clearinghouse) published the result of a comprehensive study that compared twenty-five curricula often associated with comprehensive school reform efforts. The National Education Association (NEA) and the American Association of School Administration (AASA) commissioned this study jointly. Results were based on review of studies, article, books and material published regarding each approach. Part of the official guide and review for the findings offered the following:

"This guide is about separating real solutions - or at least programs with a track record for improving student achievement - from solutions that might work. Only three of the approaches examined: 1) Direct Instruction, 2) High Schools That Work, and 3) Success for All, provide strong evidence that they positively impact student achievement. For many of the approaches, surprisingly, there's little evidence one way or another on whether they help students achieve. Others haven't done so even though they've been used by schools for years."

A 2011 study, conducted by American Institutes of Research, found that Direct Instruction is only one of two models of education that achieved "Moderately Strong" status. In 1999, Direct Instruction was one of three models that showed promise; the results were the same in 2011.

The programs offered by Legacy of Learning help students break free from a persistent cycle of failure, dramatically improving their self-esteem, academic performance and future prospects. We invite you to take part in this exciting, transformational work.

Question: Has a particular program demonstrated replicated effectiveness? For what populations?

The American Institutes for Research (2006) reviewed 800 studies of student achievement and of the 22 reform models examined, Direct Instruction and Success for All received the highest rating for quality and effectiveness.

There is ample empirical evidence that the Direct Instruction programs have succeeded with a wide range of learners. This has been recognised by diverse groups, for example, the US Government's acceptance of the Direct Instruction model as one eligible for funding. The US Department of Education allocates enormous amounts for the implementation of replicable, research based school reform models. Its approved list includes Direct Instruction programs. Direct Instruction programs have also been acknowledged as having the exemplary research base required under the recent USA Reading First Act, 2001 (Manzo & Robelen, 2002).

Manzo, K., & Robelen, E. (2002, May 1). States unclear on ESEA rules about reading. Education Week online. Retrieved February 14, 2003.

Major reviews of the primary research can provide additional surety of program value. In a Department of US Education meta-analysis, Comprehensive School Reform and Student Achievement (2002, Nov), Direct Instruction was assigned the highest classification: Strongest Evidence of Effectiveness, as ascertained by Quality of the evidence Quantity of the evidence, and Statistically significant and positive results. "Its effects are relatively robust and the model can be expected to improve students' test scores. The model certainly deserves continued dissemination and federal support" Borman, G.D., Hewes, G.M., Overman, L.T., & Brown, S. (2002)

A report from American Institutes for Research found that Direct Instruction was one of only three programs with adequate evidence for effectiveness in reading instruction.

Power4Kids: Following the successful models of rigorous medical science, the Power4Kids reading study will be a landmark in education—a large-scale, randomized, controlled, longitudinal field trial. It is the second largest study of its kind ever to be conducted in public schools. It is designed to provide conclusive evidence of the effectiveness of quality remedial reading programs, along with determining common learning profiles of students and the best targeted-intervention for each profile. Regardless of the reason a child struggles to learn to read, Power4Kids will provide the information and winning models of how to close the reading gap in our schools. Four (4) highly effective remedial reading programs have been awarded a position in the study by virtue of their scientifically-based evidence of effectiveness. The programs are: Corrective Reading, (Direct Instruction), Failure Free Reading, Spell Read P.A.T., Wilson Learning Program.

The Council for Exceptional Children provides informed judgements regarding professional practices in the field. The Direct Instruction model was judged by the Editorial Committee to be well validated and reliably used.

Direct Instruction is the only model to be recommended by American Federation of Teachers in each of their reviews. Seven Promising Reading and English Language Arts Programs "When this program is faithfully implemented, the results are stunning..." (Seven Promising Reading and English Language Arts Programs, pg. 9). Direct Instruction is also lauded in Three Promising High School Remedial Reading Programs, and Five Promising Remedial Reading Intervention Programs. American Federation of Teachers (1999).

The report Bringing Evidence Driven Progress to Education: A Recommended Strategy for the U.S. Department of Education (2002) nominates Direct Instruction as having strong evidence for effectiveness.

The Center for Education Reform (2003) nominated DI among its "Best Bets".

"Strong, proven education programs for kids - programs that demonstrate success for more than just a handful of students" McCluskey, N. (2003). Best bets: Education curricula that work. Center for Education Reform.

Better by design: A consumers' guide to schoolwide reform: A report from the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation supports the Direct Instruction model as a viable approach to schoolwide reform.

Corrective Reading: Decoding and Corrective Reading: Comprehension are among the programs adopted by the California State Board of Education in 1999, after it abandoned the Whole Language model.

Task Force on Improving Low-Performing Schools (American Federations of Teachers, 1999) named Corrective Reading as one of five effective remedial reading interventions

The two best known examples of sound research-based practices coming to scale are Direct Instruction (Carnine, Silbert, & Kameenui, 1997) and Success for All (Slavin, Madden, Dolan, & Wasik, 1996).

Foorman, B.R., & Moats, L.C. (2004). Conditions for sustaining research-based practices in early reading instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 51-60.

Adams & Englemann' (1996) meta-analysis resulted in an effect size of 0.69 for the 44 acceptable comparisons involving the Direct Instruction program Reading Mastery. Across DI programs, the average effect size for 173 comparisons was 0.87. In White's 1988 DI meta-analysis involved learning disabled, intellectually disabled, and reading disabled students, the average effect size for Direct Instruction programs was .84. A similar meta-analysis of the effectiveness of the whole language approach to reading found an effect size of only 0.09 (Stahl & Miller, 1989). An effect size of 1 means a gain of 1 standard deviation - equivalent of a year's progress (0.8 is a large effect size, 0.5-0.8 is a medium effect size, and less than .5 is a small effect size).

2004 Florida Center for Reading Research aims to disseminate information about research-based practices related to literacy instruction and assessment for children in pre-school through 12th grade. Its Director is well-known researcher, Joe Torgesen.

"The instructional content and design of Corrective Reading is consistent with scientifically based reading research" (p.4). Torgesen, J. (2004). SRA Corrective Reading. Florida Center for Reading Research.

Sally Shaywitz does recommend the REACH System (Corrective Reading, Spelling Through Morphographs, and R&W) for "dyslexic" children in her much publicised book The Brain and Dyslexia.

DI for English language learners

The two best known examples of sound research-based practices coming to scale are Direct Instruction (Carnine, Silbert, & Kameenui, 1997) and Success for all (Slavin, Madden, Dolan, & Wasik, 1996).