In this report, Stockard analyzes the conclusions of the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) on the effectiveness of Direct Instruction, specifically examining the big differences between their review of Direct Instruction and the extent of scholarly literature, which indicates that Direct Instruction programs are highly effective.
The report initially examines the WWC review procedures for including and excluding articles for official review, comparing the procedures to those of the social sciences, while highlighting problems in their selection criteria. This section is followed by an examination of the ten studies on Direct Instruction that the WWC decided met its inclusion criteria. She argues that serious errors occurred in the classification of four of the approved studies. The following two sections of the report focus on analyzing the content of the 2012 WWC report on the effectiveness of the Direct Instruction program Reading Mastery with students with learning disabilities.
Stockard examines twenty research studies that could have been included in the WWC’s review, specifically focusing on the design and conclusions of the studies, the effect size associated with their results, and the potential reasons why the WWC would not include the studies in its review. She concludes that the WWC procedures appear to be responsible for a selective and inaccurate analysis of Direct Instruction literature. Furthermore, she suggests consumers should consult sources of summary material other than the WWC, and specifically, they should examine the well-conducted and highly regarded meta-analysis literature.
Click here to view all documents.