亞瑟學院特許學校使用漸進式、精通學習的方法教授閱讀、數學和語言等基礎科目,這些科目在一系列詳細的、預先計劃的計劃中被稱為直接教學。這種針對閱讀、數學、拼寫和語言技能等基礎學科的專門教學方法基於綜合教學模式。這種模式是一種教學方式,也定義了我們特許學校的選擇。提供這種模式是基於這樣一種信念,即存在一種大多數學校都沒有使用的強大教學方式,因此我們的特許學校提供它作為一種選擇。
這種教學模式被稱為掌握學習。使用此模型的教學計劃稱為直接教學 (DI),用於在 K-5 年級教授早期識字和數學基礎知識。這種模式與這些計劃一起,是中小學教育改革模式中記錄最完整的模式。它強調精心設計和精心計劃的課程,圍繞小的學習增量和規定的教學任務而設計。學習是循序漸進地安排的,這樣學生會發現學習容易但具有挑戰性,因此,隨著課程的進展,他們可以成功地掌握所教的一切。
DI 課程材料將所有一般目標分解為非常小的教學進展。所有活動都經過精心安排,以便於學習、掌握並逐漸積累以實現更大的目標。這些活動以非常嚴格的互動方式呈現給孩子們,從而激發孩子們的積極性。
這種模式從幼兒園開始就以學術為重點。它基於這樣一種信念,即當清晰、系統和熱情地教授學術學習時,它本身就可以高度激勵。據觀察,當孩子們在這些課程中學習學術技能和知識時,他們會感到興奮並獲得自信。
雖然這種教學方式代表了教育領域的歷史性進步,但其基本思想可能並不新鮮。 18 世紀開明的哲學家和教育家塞繆爾·約翰遜 (Samuel Johnson) 的一句話說明了這一點。
“正如洛克所觀察到的,學習的主要藝術是一次嘗試很少.”塞繆爾·約翰遜(1751 年 7 月 9 日)
精通學習教學模式的起源
這些程序的使用導致了很高的學術成就。這些結果是有充分理由的。我們學校使用的 DI 課程是一些現有的最基於證據的教學課程。他們都對核心學習和組件技能進行了仔細的邏輯分析,並結合了精通學習的教學方法。掌握學習的基礎是,孩子的進步速度取決於他或她對精心安排的課程和活動的掌握程度,這些課程和活動導致掌握基本的基本技能和知識。
這些課程中的精通學習方法是一長串教育理論和研究的一部分,其歷史可以追溯到芝加哥大學實驗室學院的 Carleton Washbourne (1922) 和 Henry Morrison (1926) 的工作。許多其他人都在繼續這項工作,最著名的是約翰卡羅爾 (1963) 的學校學習模型和本傑明·布魯姆 (1984) 和他的研究生,也是芝加哥大學的進一步研究。大多數掌握學習 (ML) 特徵也出現在 Jerry Brophy,“教師行為和學生成就”,(1986 年)和 Barak Rosenshine,“教學研究進展”(1997 年)報告的大量有效教學研究中有效性的關鍵特徵。
由 Engelmann、Becker 和 Carnine 開發、研究和出版的直接教學 (DI) 計劃以將高質量教學的精通學習原則帶到課程材料中最終、系統的結論而聞名。
支持性證據
這些材料本身就是眾多研究的主題。最近的兩項研究涉及美國研究所 (AIR) 在 1999 年和 2005 年進行的審查。在這些審查中,確定了 22 種廣泛採用的綜合小學改革教學模式。 DI 課程是僅有的兩個獲得最高評分的課程之一,因為在這兩項評論中,他們都有證據證明對小學水平的學生成績有積極影響。
總的來說,2005 年研究中審查的改革模式為全國數千所主要是貧困、表現不佳的學校提供了服務。根據這些研究,獲得高評價的模型,例如直接教學計劃,被認為是“基於研究的”,並提供培訓以實現學生的成功。這些報告是有史以來對小學改革模式最廣泛和最全面的審查。 DI 掃盲計劃還符合科學證據的不讓一個孩子掉隊 (NCLB) 標準,並且在 NCLB 批准的計劃清單上。
對開始閱讀進行早期干預已成為學校公認的需求,尤其是在過去的二十年中。研究人員 Anne E. Cunningham 和 Keith E. Stanovich 進行了大量研究,研究了早期預防閱讀障礙的價值。他們在 1998 年的一份報告中總結了他們的研究結果,“閱讀對心靈有什麼作用”,該報告發表在美國教育家春/夏刊上。他們研究的重點是兒童生活中閱讀量對整體智力的影響。較早開始閱讀的孩子在積累閱讀量方面具有明顯優勢,因此更有可能獲得更高水平的閱讀技能。這些研究人員發現,閱讀量可以解釋幾種聰明程度的差異:三年級和五年級閱讀理解能力的提高、高中平均成績、智商測試和實踐知識測試。
在一項獨特的十年縱向研究中,作者發現一年級閱讀能力的所有三個標準化測量(解碼、單詞識別和理解)都預測了十一年級的閱讀量。這些一年級閱讀量度比智商量度更能預測閱讀量。積累大量閱讀量的孩子這樣做主要是因為他們很早就學會了閱讀。這本書本身對未來的學習和思想的塑造有著強大的影響。我們了解到,如果最有可能出現學習問題的高危兒童能夠在強大的學術課程中開始上幼兒園,那麼他們的許多學習困難就可以避免。就在 2007-08 學年,所有 6 所學校的 138 名幼兒園兒童中有 55% 在新學年開始時閱讀量低於平均水平。到年底,只有 2% 低於平均水平。在幼兒園提供這種加速進步為所有孩子在未來的成績上取得成功提供了巨大的優勢。
我們現在還從國家兒童健康與發展研究所 (NICHD) 的里德·里昂 (Reid Lyon) 的國家報告以及耶魯大學學習和注意力研究中心聯合主任莎莉·沙伊維茨 (Sally Shaywitz) 醫學博士和其他人的工作中了解到,正確的早期指導可以在大腦的激活模式中帶來永久性的、可測量的變化(MRI 大腦成像研究),以防止和克服未來的閱讀問題。這一切都為在低年級提供仔細、高效的閱讀指導提供了強有力的證據和理由。所有亞瑟學院都在提供這一教學方面取得了出色的成績。
精通學習也出現在著名心理學家阿爾伯特班杜拉的著作中。根據 2002 年的一項調查,班杜拉是最常被引用的在世心理學家,也是有史以來最常被引用的第四位。在他關於自我效能感:控制的練習 (1997) 的工作中,他確定了與掌握學習理論一致的自我效能感的四個來源。自我效能被定義為達到或完成結果的能力。自我效能感是對自己能力的信念。這種觀點會產生個人成就並減輕壓力。自我效能感基於掌握經驗,通過示範和建模學習開始,通過鼓勵和強化得到加強,從而使學生對自己的能力充滿信心。我們相信,以掌握學習為基礎的學校可以在培養兒童這些品質方面發揮重要作用。根據班杜拉進行的研究,自我效能的衡量標準是學校成功的有力預測因素。
閱讀掌握計劃是整個直接教學計劃的一個組成部分,它實施了美國國會委託的兩份國家報告和國家研究委員會的報告(1998 年)提出的建議,最終出版了《防止閱讀困難》幼兒,以及國家閱讀小組(2000 年)。
在這個項目中發現並得到這些國家報告支持的開始閱讀的方法與從 Jeanne Chall 1967 年的書“學習閱讀:大辯論”開始的一系列研究報告是一致的,她後來的許多出版物,伊莎貝爾·利伯曼和Donald Shankweiler 關於音素意識,Kieth Stanovich 關於閱讀困難的原因和後果的工作,(“閱讀中的馬修效應”,1986 年),Marilyn Adams 1990 年的書,Beginning Reading,以及 Reid Lyon 對 NICHD 閱讀研究的歷史總結“閱讀:一種基於研究的方法。”這只是在過去 20 年內沿著這些方向發表的大量出版物中的一小部分。引起人們對 Bonnie Grossen 1997 年報告的關注也很重要,“研究三十年:我們現在對兒童如何學習閱讀的了解:NIHCHD 閱讀研究的綜合”。 Grossen 博士是 Mastery Learning Institute (MLI) 的董事會成員。
亞瑟學院的獨特貢獻
亞瑟學院發現,孩子們可以在幼兒園學習閱讀方面取得先機。然而,很少有學校在一年級之前認真地開始這個過程。此外,儘管 AIR 所做的研究評論已被廣泛宣傳(俄勒岡州頭版,2005 年 12 月 14 日),但很少有學校使用精通學習方法進行教學。在承認和實施最近閱讀委託報告的結果方面也存在延遲。亞瑟學院特許學校證明了這些教學實踐的有效性,因此可以在其他學校以各種形式傳播它們的使用方面產生影響。
The instructional model is called Mastery Learning. The instructional programs using this model are called Direct Instruction (DI) for teaching early literacy and the fundamentals of math in grades K-5. This model, with these programs, is the most thoroughly documented educational reform model in elementary and middle school grades. It emphasizes well-developed and carefully planned lessons, designed around small learning increments and prescribed teaching tasks. Learning is arranged very incrementally so that students find learning easy but challenging and, therefore, can be successful in mastering everything that is taught as they progress through the programs.
The DI curriculum materials break down all general objectives into very small teaching progressions. All activities are very carefully sequenced so that they can be easily learned, mastered and gradually accumulated towards larger objectives. The activities are presented to children in very exacting, interactive ways so that children are motivated.
Direct Instruction
What is Direct Instruction (DI)?
Direct Instruction (or “DI”) is a unique and very effective, nationally acclaimed program that teaches children reading, early language, and math skills.
DI is known for its clever and creative way of teaching children. What makes DI programs different and special are the carefully designed lessons. All programs are arranged and organized into precise, small and sequential steps with specific examples and wording. The children learn quickly.
These clear presentations and strategies help children get past typical trouble spots. Lessons gradually progress from simple and easy to more difficult and complicated learning. DI lessons demand active participation from the children in order to maintain their interest and attention. Rapid pacing and choral group response punctuated by individual turns characterize the delivery of a DI lesson. Children progress from directed and guided activities to increasingly more independent work. Over time, they become proud of what they know and can do and confident in their ability to learn.
The steps in DI have been developed from extensive field testing with hundreds of children over thirty years. No other program used today has been as extensively researched and developed.
Because Arthur Academy is a small school, we can be sure that these highly-specialized programs will be implemented correctly and skillfully.
The evidence is clear: DI works with children at all ability levels.
Beginning Reading
DI and Reading
We believe that all children can learn to read beginning in kindergarten. The main purpose of reading is to understand. Yet, to understand, all readers must be able to easily and quickly translate words in a printed alphabetic code into understandable speech. This process of deciphering printed words is often the source of children’s reading difficulty.
The most recent research indicates that the best way to approach this problem is directly, explicitly and systematically. This involves strengthening a child’s sensitivity and skills with speech sounds and linking these sounds to the printed words. This is phonics.
Making this connection must become automatic so a child can focus more on understanding what is read. If a child has to spend a lot of effort simply translating print to speech, he or she will be less able to understand what is read.
The Reading Mastery program uses a phonics-based approach. Children learn in sequential steps and can keep track of their own growth towards becoming good readers.
Connecting Math Concepts
DI and Math
Learning math can be difficult and boring.
Teachers disagree on how best to teach math. Some believe it best to let students “discover” math skills such as the number system or basic math operations. Under this theory, children are given word problems and then learn the computation skills necessary in order to solve them. This approach is considered a “constructionist” or “discovery” approach.
Arthur Academy takes a different approach using a program called Connecting Math Concepts (CMC). Children learn skills first. Then they are taught why the skill works. Finally, the children apply the skill to solve a word problem. Our three-step approach is skill, understanding, application--not the reverse.
CMC does this by teaching skills in small steps from the simplest to the most complicated. Lessons are a mixture of both new and old content which results in a higher level of success for each child.
CMC provides a very logical and reasonable approach to teaching math. Computation skills are taught sequentially and directly, without sacrificing understanding and application. As a result, children gain a firm foundation and can learn and perform math at all levels in future grades.
History of Arthur Academy Instructional Model
Although this way of teaching represents a historic advancement in the field of education, the basic ideas may not be all that new. A quote from Samuel Johnson, enlightened philosopher and educator of the 18th century illustrates this point.
"The chief art of learning, as Locke has observed, is to attempt but little at a time. The widest excursions of the mind are made by short flights frequently repeated; the most lofty fabrics of science are formed by the continued accumulation of single propositions." Samuel Johnson (July 9, 1751)
Origins of the Mastery Learning Instructional Model
The use of these programs has resulted in high academic achievement. There are good reasons for these kinds of results. The DI programs used in our schools are some of the most evidence-based instructional programs available. They all use a careful logical analysis of core learning and component skills combined with a Mastery Learning approach to teaching. The basis of Mastery Learning is that a child’s rate of progress is determined by the extent to which he or she masters carefully sequenced lessons and activities that lead to mastery of essential foundational skills and knowledge.
The Mastery Learning approach found in these programs is a part of a long line of educational theory and research that dates as far back as the work of Carleton Washbourne (1922) and Henry Morrison (1926) of the University of Chicago Laboratory School. This work was continued by many others, most notable, John Carroll’s (1963) model of school learning and the further work of Benjamin Bloom (1984) and his graduate students, also of the University of Chicago. Most of the Mastery Learning (ML) features also emerged in the large number of Effective Teaching studies reported by Jerry Brophy, “Teacher’s Behavior and Student Achievement”, (1986) and Barak Rosenshine, “Advances in Research on Instruction” (1997) as critical features for effectiveness.
The Direct Instruction(DI) programs, developed, researched and published by Engelmann, Becker and Carnine, are known for carrying Mastery Learning principles of high-quality instruction to their ultimate, systematic conclusion in curricular materials.
Supportive Evidence
These materials alone have been the subject of numerous studies. The two most recent studies involved reviews conducted by the American Institute of Research (AIR) in 1999 and 2005. In these reviews, 22 widely adopted comprehensive elementary school reform teaching models were identified. The DI programs were one of only two programs that received the highest rating for having evidence of positively impacting elementary level student achievement in both reviews.
Collectively, the reform models reviewed in the 2005 study served thousands of mostly high-poverty, low-performing schools nationwide. According to these studies, the models that received a high rating, such as the Direct Instruction programs, are considered “research-based” and provide the training to achieve student success. These reports are the most extensive and comprehensive reviews of elementary school reform models ever issued. The DI literacy programs also met the No Child Left Behind(NCLB) criteria for scientifically based evidence and were on the NCLB list of approved programs.
Early intervention in beginning reading has been a well-recognized need in schools, especially within the last two decades. Researchers, Anne E. Cunningham and Keith E. Stanovich, have produced a large body of research that examined the value of early prevention of reading failure. They summarized the results of their studies in a 1998 report, “What Reading Does For the Mind”, found in the Spring/Summer issue of the American Educator. The focus of their studies was on the effect of volume of reading in a child’s life on over-all intelligence. Children who begin reading early have a distinct advantage in accumulating reading volume, and thus, are more likely to acquire reading skills at a higher level. These researchers found that reading volume accounts for differences in several measures of smartness: growth in reading comprehension at grades three and five, high-school grade average, IQ tests, and a Practical Knowledge test.
In a unique ten-year longitudinal study, the authors found that all three standardized measures of first grade reading ability (decoding, word recognition and comprehension) predicted eleventh-grade reading volume. These first grade reading measures were an even stronger predictor of reading volume than IQ measures. Children who accumulate high levels of reading volume do so mostly because they learn to read early. This volume of reading, in and by itself, has a powerful affect on future learning and on the shaping of the mind. We have learned that, if at-risk children who have the highest likelihood of learning problems can start kindergarten in a strong academic program, many of their learning difficulties can be prevented. Just within the 2007-08 school year, 55% of all 138 kindergarteners, in all six schools, started the year below average in reading. By the end of the year, only 2% were below average. Giving this kind of accelerated progress in kindergarten provides all children with a huge advantage for success in future grades.
We also, now know, from national reports by Reid Lyon of the National Institute for Child Health and Development (NICHD) and the work of Sally Shaywitz, M.D., Co-director of the Yale Center for the Study of Learning and Attention, and others, that proper early instruction can bring about permanent, measurable changes (MRI brain imaging research) in the activation patterns of the brain to prevent and overcome future reading problems. This all provides strong evidence and cause for providing careful, highly effective instruction in reading in the early grades. All of the Arthur Academies are providing this instruction with outstanding results.
Mastery Learning also shows up in the writings of the distinguished psychologist, Albert Bandura. According to a 2002 survey, Bandura is the most frequently cited living psychologist and the fourth most frequent of all time. In his work on Self-Efficacy: the Exercise of Control (1997), he identifies four sources of Self-Efficacy that are consistent with Mastery Learning theories. Self-Efficacy is defined as the ability to achieve or accomplish results. Perceived self-efficacy is the belief in one’s capabilities. Such an outlook produces personal accomplishments and reduces stress. Self-Efficacy is based on mastery experiences, which are initiated by learning through demonstration and modeling, strengthened by encouragement and reinforcement that result in a student’s belief in their capacities. We believe that schools based on Mastery Learning can play a large part in producing these qualities in children. Accord to studies conducted by Bandura, measures of self-efficacy are strong predictors of school success.
The Reading Mastery program, a component of the full body of Direct Instruction programs, implements the recommendations made by two national reports commissioned by the US Congress, reports by the National Research Council (1998), which resulted in the publication, Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children, and the National Reading Panel (2000).
The approach to beginning reading found in this program and supported by these national reports is consistent with a long line of research reports beginning with Jeanne Chall’s 1967 book, Learning to Read: The Great Debate, her many later publications, the work of Isabelle Libermann and Donald Shankweiler on phonemic awareness, the work of Kieth Stanovich on causes and consequences of reading difficulties, (“Matthew effects in reading,” 1986), Marilyn Adams’ 1990 book, Beginning Reading, and Reid Lyon’s historic summary of NICHD research on reading “Reading: A Research-Based Approach.” This is just to mention a few of the vast amount of publications made within the last 20 years along these lines. It is also important to call attention to Bonnie Grossen’s 1997 report, “Thirty Years of Research: What We Now Know About How Children Learn To Read: A synthesis of research on reading from the NIHCHD.” Dr. Grossen is a member of the board of directors of Mastery Learning Institute (MLI).
Arthur Academies’ Unique Contribution
Arthur Academies have found that children can gain a head start in learning to read in kindergarten. Yet, very few schools start this process seriously until first grade. Also, in spite of the research reviews done by AIR, which have been widely publicized (front page Oregonian, 12/14/05), very few schools use a Mastery Learning approach to teaching. There also is still a delay in recognizing and implementing the results of the recent reading commissioned reports. The Arthur Academy Charter Schools demonstrate the effectiveness of these teaching practices and therefore can have an influence in disseminating their use, in various forms, in other schools.
Project Follow Through
The Biggest Educational Study Ever
One large study that parents really should know about is Project Follow Through, completed in the 1970s. This was the largest educational study ever done, costing over $600 million, and covering 79,000 children in 180 communities. This project examined a variety of programs and educational philosophies to learn how to improve education of disadvantaged children in grades K-3. (It was launched in response to the observation that Head Start children were losing the advantages from Head Start by third grade.) Desired positive outcomes included basic skills, cognitive skills ("higher order thinking") and affective gains (self-esteem). Multiple programs were implemented over a 5-year period and the results were analyzed by the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) and Abt Associates (Cambridge, MA). The various programs studied could be grouped into the three classes described above (Basic Skills, Cognitive-Conceptual, Affective-Cognitive).
The program that gave the best results in general was true Direct Instruction, a subset of Basic Skills. The other program types, which closely resemble today's educational strategies (having labels like "holistic," "student-centered learning," "learning-to-learn," "active learning," "cooperative education," and "whole language") were inferior. Students receiving Direct Instruction did better than those in all other programs when tested in reading, arithmetic, spelling, and language. But what about "higher-order thinking" and self-esteem? Contrary to common assumptions, Direct Instruction improved cognitive skills dramatically relative to the control groups and also showed the highest improvement in self-esteem scores compared to control groups. Students in the Open Education Center program, where self-esteem was the primary goal, scored LOWER than control groups in that area! As Dr. Jones puts it, "The inescapable conclusion of Project Follow Through is that kids enrolled in educational programs, which have well-defined academic objectives, will enjoy greater achievement in basic skills, thinking skills, and self-esteem. Self-esteem in fact appears to derive from pride in becoming competent in the important academic skills."
Dr. Jones goes on to explore the lamentable reaction of many educators who found their ideologies undercut by the hard data. Rather than change, many simply ignored the study and continued as before. (A more recent example of this is the continued use of whole language reading education in schools, in spite of overwheling evidence of failure). Today, we find schools spending more and more to implement forms of "affective" and "cognitive" educational programs, while continuing to turn away from anything close to Direct Instruction. This has not resulted in improved basic skills, improved thinking, or improved self-esteem.
Jones also discusses research on the long-term effects of those who received Direct Instruction in Project Follow Through and in a separate study conducted by Gersten and Keating. Kids receiving true Direct Instruction were much more likely to graduate from high school and to be accepted into college and to show long-term gains in reading, language, and math scores.
Among the multiple references Jones provides for Project Follow Through, I'll list three:
-
Stebbins, L.B., R.G. St. Pierre, E.C. Proper, R.B. Anderson, and T.R. Cerva. Education as Experimentation: A Planned Variation Model, Volume IV-A, An Evaluation of Follow Through. Abt Associates, Cambridge, MA, 1977.
-
Bock, G., L.B. Stebbins, and E.C. Proper. Education as Experimentation: A Planned Variation Model, Volume IV-B, Effects of Follow Through Models, Abt Associates, Cambridge, MA, 1977. [Also issued by U.S. Office of Education as National Evaluation: Detailed Effects Volume II-B of the Follow Through Planned Variation Experiment Series.]
-
Meyer, L.A. Long-term academic effects of the Direct Instruction project follow through. Elementary School Journal. 84: 380-304 (1984).
The following sources have been recommended as studies showing the long-term benefits of Direct Instruction on a child:
-
Gersten, R., & Keating, T (1987). Long-Term Benefits from Direct Instruction. Educational Leadership, 44(6), 28-29.
-
Gersten, R., Keating, T., & Becker, W. (1988). The Continued Impact of the Direct Instruction Model: Longitudinal Studies of Follow Through Students. Education and Treatment of Children, 11(4), 318-327.
-
Gary Adams, Project Follow Through and Beyond, in Effective School Practices, Volume 15, No. 1, Winter, 1995-6 Theme: What Was That Project Follow Through? This is also available at http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~adiep/ft/151toc.htm.
Research on Direct Instruction by Gary Adams and Siegfried Engelmann. Available for $24.95 + $4 shipping and handling through Educational Achievement Systems, 319 Nickerson St. - Suite 112, Seattle, WA 98109. (Did you know that the average percentile score of students in DI reading is .72 percentile and .87 in DI math? Not bad!)