Search

This article presents the author's response to Karen Eppley's "Reading Mastery as Pedagogy of Erasure". Eppley's commentary (2011) on Dr. Stockard's article, "Increasing Reading Skills in Rural Areas: An Analysis of Three Rural School Districts" (Stockard, 2011), uses selected details as points of departure for a critique of Reading Mastery, a structured reading curriculum used at the elementary level. The arguments and conclusions proffered by Eppley have a critical problem, however. They are not merely unsupported by facts; they generate conclusions that are the opposite of what the facts show. Eppley argues that "Pedagogy of Erasure is a theoretical construct used to challenge the instrumental arguments that support standardized instruction of basic skills". The author contends that Eppley's interpretation of "standardized instruction" and "basic skills" is invalid on several counts. First, Eppley's position assumes a redefinition of standardization. Eppley further assumes that "standardization" means treating all children in the same way. Eppley also contends that Reading Mastery teaches only "basic skills." Moreover, Eppley's pedagogy of erasure is designed to "challenge the instrumental arguments that support the standardized instruction of basic skills". However, the author argues that no such arguments were provided. (Contains 2 footnotes.)

One goal of basic research in education is to identify the variables of effective instruction. As this pursuit has been conceived, however, its theoretical problems make it unlikely that the effort will provide a clear picture of instructional variables, their interactions, or the kind of teacher training that is implied by instructional variables.

When students are taught to mastery, they become smarter, acquire information faster, and develop efficient strategies for learning. Teachers must have an understanding of what mastery is and how to achieve it in their students. However, teachers cannot teach to mastery without referencing the performance of their students. In addition, teachers cannot teach to mastery without a program design that supports the approach. Teaching to mastery is built upon effective student/program alignment. This paper discusses the features of a program design that supports mastery, properties of mastery, criteria and procedures for measuring mastery, procedures for aligning program placement with student performance and for teaching to mastery, and the benefits of immersing students in mastery.

Shortcomings of mathematics curricula are described and research on the use of sameness analysis with learning-disabled and at-risk students is outlined. The paper then illustrates how to teach addition-subtraction and multiplication-division relationships and their interrelationships in the context of solving word problems in mathematics. (Author/JDD)

Essential ingredients of supervising teachers include: (1) going beyond teacher report to direct observation, (2) timely identification of problems, (3) careful analysis of programs for design adequacy, (4) provision for extensive teacher practice in structured settings, (5) provision for additional supervised classroom practice, and (6) a well trained supervisor. (Author/DB)

The article summarizes assumptions and components of the Direct Instruction Follow Through Model (K-Three) including curriculum, increased teaching time, efficient teaching techniques, thorough implementation, and increased teacher expectations. Research findings are summarized including achievement and affective data, performance of students with low IQs, and longitudinal results. (Author/DB)

Discusses basic differences between cognitive and behavioral approaches to instructional design, emphasing the role of concept analysis in the design of instruction. (RAO)

Traditional diagnostic approaches with handicapped and nonhandicapped children usually occur outside the instructional context and focus on the learner. Accurate conclusions about the learner, however, can only be reached after an adequate diagnosis of instruction. (Author)

In a previous issue, Lawrence Schweinhart and David Weikart conclude that children who attended a direct-instruction preschool program had significantly greater adult felony arrests than children following the High/Scope or nursery-school curricula. Analysis of research methods suggests improbable links between preschool experience and adult criminal behavior. (MLH)

Although at-risk students often begin school academically behind, Direct Instruction's highly structured approach can help them catch up. Skills are presented orally. Outcomes of Project Follow Through show that children starting Direct Instruction in kindergarten were accelerated about seven months over those who started in first grade. (MLH)