READING MASTERY: A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF TEACHERS ATTITUDES AND
PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS DIRECT INSTRUCTION
Sara J. Gervase
A Thesis
Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green
State University in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF EDUCATION
August 2005
Committee:
Cindy Hendricks, Advisor
Craig Mertler
William Morrison
ii
© 2005
Sara J. Gervase
All Rights Reserved
iii
ABSTRACT
Cindy Hendricks, Advisor
Learning to read is a complex process. Teachers are constantly looking for the best ways
to teach reading. As recommendations are being made on how to best teach reading, various
programs are being used. Teachers have different perceptions and attitudes towards various
materials. As attitudes and perceptions differ among teachers, it is important for professionals to
be informed of them. Professionals in the field of education may find teachers' opinions helpful
when making a decision about what materials to purchase or approaches to use.
This study was conducted to investigate teachers' attitudes and perceptions of Reading
Mastery, a Direct Instruction program to teach beginning reading. Ninety teachers in northern
and southern Ohio participated in this study. They were asked to rate the extent to which they
disagreed or agreed with statements about Reading Mastery. They were also asked to make
additional comments regarding the program. The purpose of this study was to answer the
following questions: (1) What are teachers' attitudes and perceptions regarding the use of
Reading Mastery? and (2) Is there a difference in attitudes and perceptions based on years of
experience with the program?
When comparing teachers with varying years of experience with Reading Mastery, the
data collected indicated that there were significant differences between groups among three of
the survey items. Comparisons of different types of teachers showed significance within one
item. Teacher comments revealed that the program lacks instruction in critical thinking and
comprehension skills. Teachers believe that it lacks exposure to quality literature. Finally, some
iv
teachers believe that the program works best with low performing readers and populations of
students with special needs.
v
Dedicated to my mother, Susan, for all of her support in my efforts.
vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express my appreciation and thanks to those who contributed to the
completion of this research. Without them, this investigation would not have been possible.
To Dr. Cindy Hendricks, my committee chair, for her expertise, suggestions, and
guidance.
To committee members, Drs. Craig Mertler and William Morrison for their guidance and
recommendations.
To my special friend, Shelby Devendorf, for her support, assistance, and faith in me.
Last but not least, to my parents, for their unconditional love and support.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................
1
Statement of the Problem...........................................................................................
2
Justification ................................................................................................................
3
Research Questions....................................................................................................
4
Definition of Terms....................................................................................................
5
Limitations .................................................................................................................
5
CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ........................................................................
7
Direct Instruction .......................................................................................................
7
Reading Mastery ........................................................................................................
11
Research on Reading Mastery and DISTAR .............................................................
17
Teacher Training and Perceptions .............................................................................
26
Myths about Direct Instruction ..................................................................................
29
Summary
............................................................................................................
32
CHAPTER III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES ..............................................................
34
Methods
............................................................................................................
34
Research Design.............................................................................................
34
Participants.....................................................................................................
34
Instrumentation ..............................................................................................
35
Procedures
............................................................................................................
36
Data Collection ..........................................................................................................
36
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................
36
viii
Summary
............................................................................................................
36
CHAPTER IV. DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS............................
38
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................
38
Research Question One..................................................................................
38
Research Question Two .................................................................................
45
Comparisons of Different Types of Teachers................................................
53
Discussion of Results.................................................................................................
58
Summary
............................................................................................................
59
CHAPTER V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................
60
Summary ....................................................................................................................
60
Conclusions................................................................................................................
61
Recommendations......................................................................................................
63
Summary ....................................................................................................................
65
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................
67
APPENDIX A. COVER LETTER ........................................................................................
70
APPENDIX B. INSTRUMENT ............................................................................................
74
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
1
Frequencies and Percentages of Response by Item Number………………………..
40
2
Analysis of Variance for Teachers with Varying Years of Experience.....................
48
3
Analysis of Variance for Different Types of Teachers..............................................
54
1
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION
Direct Instruction Systems for Teaching Arithmetic and Reading (DISTAR) was
developed and initiated by Engelmann and Bereiter in 1964 and published by Research Science
Associates in 1967. It evolved out of a need to provide beginning and remedial reading
instruction to preschool and primary children who were socially and economically deprived. The
philosophical and pragmatic foundation of DISTAR is based on two questions: (1) What do
children need to learn? and (2) How can it be taught most effectively? Adams and Engelmann
(1996) state that Direct Instruction is a teaching system that attempts to control all variables that
may affect the performance of children. At the heart of Direct Instruction are instructional
sequences which are different from traditional sequences. Adams and Engelmann identify the
main difference to be the extent to which the programs are field tested before publication and
revised on the basis of student performance. Performance expectations of students receiving
Direct Instruction are precise. This is shown in the number of lessons students are expected to
master by the end of the school year. According to Adams and Engelmann, the Direct Instruction
program assumes, “if the student has not learned, the teacher has not taught”(p. ix).
Reading Mastery editions are the revised and renamed versions of DISTAR which were
published in 1997. Schieffer, Marchand-Martella, Martella, and Simonsen (n.d.) define Reading
Mastery programs as “basal reading programs that develop reading skills and strategies through
systematic, small steps that make it possible for all children to learn and learn in a timely
manner” (p. 2). Reading Mastery is comprised of three editions. These include the Reading
Mastery Rainbow edition for levels kindergarten through sixth grade, the Reading Mastery
Classic edition for levels kindergarten through second grade, and the Reading Mastery Plus
edition for levels kindergarten though sixth grade. Carnine, Silbert, and Kame’enui (1997) state
2
that Reading Mastery was designed for students entering school with very few reading literacy
skills and its intentions are to facilitate students’ maximum acceleration. Schieffer et al. (n.d.).
list major components of Reading Mastery which include the teaching of skills and strategies that
must be taught for fundamental reading processes. A major emphasis is placed on teacher
modeling. After the teacher models the skill the students apply the same steps to a different but
similar problem. Mastery of each skill is necessary before moving on to the next and no skill is
taught in isolation. The lessons consist of new material in small amounts that build on previously
learned material. The program is highly structured, consistent, and facilitates a high level of
student engagement. For students to stay on task, pacing is very quick. Choral responding is
included for active participation of all students.
Statement of the Problem
Over the past decade, ideas of how best to teach reading have steadily changed. In the
early 1990s, many schools adopted the whole language approach and used it as the dominant
model for reading instruction (Schieffer et al., n.d.). Reading scores were declining, and by the
mid 1990s, the whole language approach led to a more “balanced” practice of providing phonics
instruction within a literature based curriculum (Carnine et al.,1997). Recently, the National
Reading Panel (2000) finalized a report identifying the effective components of reading
instruction. The report states that for a reading program to be effective, it must teach and provide
phonemic awareness, systematic phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and explicit teaching of
comprehension skills. According to Carnine, Silbert, Kame’enui, & Tarver (2004), reading
Mastery exhibits these important characteristics.
Direct Instruction, however, has long been criticized. Proctor (1989) states that the term
Direct Instruction generates disagreement and debate among educators. Proctor explains that
3
because Direct Instruction requires that changes be made in traditional classroom practices,
teachers may initially view it as conflicting with their philosophy of teaching. In addition,
teachers do not have the opportunity of adopting their own reading materials or series. Although
teachers may have input, the decision of which materials or reading series to use is left up to
school boards or state education departments (Stein, Stuen, Carnine, & Long, 2001). Therefore,
when teachers are asked to implement Direct Instruction without being involved in the choice,
strong negative attitudes can result (Gersten, Carnine, Zoref, & Cronin, 1986).
In a large scale study of Direct Instruction using the DISTAR reading series, at least half
of the teachers experienced a philosophical conflict with the highly structured, scripted lessons,
and believed they were “overly mechanical” (Gersten et al., 1986). However, the same study also
concluded that the use of Direct Instruction over a period of time produced significant changes in
the teachers’ attitudes. The purpose of this study is to examine teachers’ attitudes and
perceptions towards Direct Instruction focusing specifically on the Reading Mastery Series.
Justification
White and Stevens (1988) conducted a study to identify statistical relationships between
teacher morale and student achievement test scores in reading. In their conclusions they state,
“The teachers’ feelings about teaching and classroom learning and the inhibitors to teaching
contributed to the effect on student achievement” (p. 232). In addition, White and Stevens state,
“there is sufficient evidence to generate hypotheses about school climate and teacher attitude in
relation to student learning” (p. 232). According to Blair (1984), the classroom teacher is the key
variable regarding whether or not a child learns to read well. Similarly, Bond and Dykstra (1967)
conclude in their study of first grade reading instruction that it is not the program but the teacher
that makes the difference in student success. Therefore, teachers need to be comfortable with,
4
and have positive attitudes towards the materials they are using. Often, with Direct Instruction,
this is not the case. Gersten et al. (1986) demonstrated that teachers showed discontent when
beginning the DISTAR program. Some believed it to be overly mechanical and impossible to
incorporate fun activities into the highly structured program. In addition, the teachers believed
the expectations of the program to be too high for the amount of experience and training they
had. However, their attitudes became more positive after they used the program and saw the
effects it had on their students. Therefore, it is important for school boards and administrators to
be aware of the various attitudes and perceptions teachers may have towards certain materials
and or programs. In addition, Proctor (1989) conducted a study showing that preservice teachers
had a better attitude toward Direct Instruction after implementing the techniques during an eight
week field experience.
This study will inform professionals in the field of reading education of the various
attitudes and perceptions toward a Direct Instruction Reading Program in relation to training and
experience. If school boards and administrators are more aware of teacher attitudes and
perceptions, they may be able to improve the attitudes by further training, thereby making
teachers more comfortable with the program. In addition, as school boards and other
professionals seek to adopt a reading program that best fits the needs of their students, they may
be interested in what teachers experienced in a Direct Instruction reading program have to say
and or recommend.
Research Questions
The two questions to be addressed in this study are: (1) What are teachers’ attitudes and
perceptions towards using Reading Mastery, a commercial Direct Instruction program to teach
5
beginning reading? and (2) Are there differences in attitudes and perceptions based on years of
experience with Reading Mastery?
Definition of Terms
This section defines terminology valuable to the understanding of this study.
Direct Instruction: Adams and Engelmann (1996) define direct instruction as:
A system of teaching that attempts to control all the variables that make a difference in
the performance of children. The system assumes that if children have IQ’s of sixty or
more, they can be placed in Direct Instruction programs that will permit them to master
the content at a reasonable rate. (p. ix)
Limitations
This study was limited to teachers in the state of Ohio who were using Reading Mastery
as the core program for teaching beginning reading. Therefore, it did not explore the attitudes of
teachers who do not use Direct Instruction programs or may use other programs defined as
Direct Instruction. There are a number of factors other than years of experience with Reading
Mastery that may have affected teachers’ attitudes and perceptions towards the program.
Teachers’ attitudes and perceptions may have been influenced by advocates of the program, or
those opposed to the program. In addition, attitudes may have been influenced simply by whether
or not a teacher had success with the program. However, success could depend on how the
teacher perceives and delivers the program. Adams and Engelmann (1996) believe that Direct
Instruction will produce superior results when implemented appropriately. It is not possible for a
teacher to implement a program appropriately without proper training or a negative attitude. This
survey did not take into consideration what attitudes or perceptions teachers may have had prior
to using the program.
6
Surveys were sent out to 150 schools. Four surveys were sent to each school resulting in
a total of 600 surveys distributed. Due to an outdated list of schools given by Science Research
Associates, some of the schools that were sent surveys were not, in fact, users of the Reading
Mastery program. A total of nine schools reported that they were not users of the program, while
a total of three schools’ envelopes had been returned to the sender. It is possible that additional
schools being non users of the program chose not to report this information. Therefore, the true
response rate is unknown. Assuming that all schools being non users of the program reported this
information, the response rate amounts to only 16 percent. In addition to a low response rate,
returned surveys did not yield an even distribution of teachers with varying years of experience
or type of teacher. Only 14.4% of surveys were completed by beginning users of the program.
The majority of surveys were completed by those with 1-4 years of experience amounting to
58.9%. Participants with 5-9 years of experience reached 20%. Participants with more than 10
years of experience amounted to only 6.7%. In addition, the type of teacher does not display an
even amount of representation. Seventy eight percent of surveys were completed by regular
education teachers while 13% were completed by special educators. Title I. or remedial reading
teachers consisted of 5.6% while one identified as being a bilingual educator. Due to the low
response rate and unequal representation of groups, results should be interpreted with caution.
7
CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The purpose of this study was to investigate teachers’ attitudes and perceptions towards
using a commercial Direct Instruction approach to teach beginning reading, and to determine
whether there are differences in attitudes and perceptions based on years of experience with
Direct Instruction. This chapter will review the literature related to a Direct Instruction program
known as Reading Mastery as well as teacher perceptions of Direct Instruction.
Direct Instruction
When professionals in the field of education discuss Direct Instruction, it usually
generates confusion and disagreement (Adams & Engelmann, 1996). A main reason for the
disagreement is that professionals are not describing and defining Direct Instruction in the same
way. Direct Instruction was originated by Siegfried Engelmann and his colleges at the University
of Illinois in 1967. At that time, it was defined as direct verbal instruction. Engelmann has
developed more that 60 Direct Instruction programs that include reading and arithmetic. The first
series of Direct Instruction with reading and arithmetic carried the name DISTAR. This stands
for Direct Instruction System for Teaching Arithmetic and Reading. The reading series was later
named Reading Mastery.
Adams and Engelmann (1996) describe two types of Direct Instruction techniques and
sequences: Direct Instruction techniques and sequences that set standards, and commercial Direct
Instruction sequences and materials that are designed for use by people who have not been
trained directly by Engelmann and his colleges. One such program is Reading Mastery.
Commercial programs such as Reading Mastery are designed to provide the teacher with training
that clearly shows how to teach all components that lead to the complex skill. The programs
serve as a substitute to teacher training. Because not all teachers can be trained by Engelmann
8
and his colleges, lesson presentations are scripted and describe everything that the teacher should
do. If all users were first trained, the program could consist of general directions.
Adams and Engelmann (1996) describe three important features of Direct Instruction.
One feature is homogenous grouping. Adams and Engelmann believe that grouping children
together with different abilities is impractical. The rationale is that if teachers teach to lower
performers in such a group, the higher performers suffer. Furthermore, teaching to the mean of
the group overwhelms lower performers. A general rule of Engelmann’s is that students who
perform higher on entry criteria are grouped together. As performance changes, students are
constantly being regrouped. Students are only homogeneously grouped for certain periods of the
day. Adams and Engelmann state that the reason for grouping students is to make the learning
experience as appropriate as possible to each student.
Another important feature that Adams and Engelmann (1996) emphasize is lesson length.
In a Direct Instruction lesson, students are expected to master all the material in a specified
amount of time. Lessons can be anywhere from 30 to 45 minutes. Adams and Engelmann state,
“The times allotted for lessons translate into expectations about student performance or rate of
student mastery. The basic unit of rate is the lesson. The basic measure of rate is the amount of
time required for mastery” (p. 9). One can predict how much students will learn in 30 lessons by
examining lesson 30 to see what it entails. Predictions are not perfect. However, Engelmann and
Adams state, “Despite this less than perfect correspondence between clock time and student
performance, the anticipated length of time required for lessons is precise enough to permit
expectations of mastery that are based on the number of school days” (p. 9).
The final feature of Direct Instruction described by Adams and Engelmann (1996) is
scripted presentations. Directions in the commercial program are always specific and presented
9
in the form of a script that provides exact wording. Adams’s and Engelmann’s rationale for
scripted presentations states that students will learn the material with less confusion if the teacher
presents adequate examples with clear, consistent wording.
The most clear and extensive Direct Instruction that can be found today is represented in
programs such as Reading Mastery authored by Engelmann and published by Science Research
Associates (Carnine et al., 2004). However, in their latest edition of Direct Instruction Reading,
Carnine et al. have provided a thorough guide on how to systematically and explicitly teach
essential reading skills using a Direct Instruction approach. This book can be used as a guide to
using Direct Instruction when commercial Direct Instruction materials are not available. It is
intended to provide teachers with information on what to do, specific procedures, and
explanations on why these procedures are recommended. In this edition, Carnine et al. describe
six aspects of the Direct Instruction program design that are relevant when selecting or
modifying a reading program and writing lesson plans. These aspects include specifying
objectives, devising instructional strategies, developing teaching procedures, selecting examples,
sequencing skills, and providing practice and review.
Carnine et al. (2004) believe that in a Direct Instruction program, objectives in a lesson
must be stated clearly and as specific observable behaviors. Saying that students will read third
grade words by the end of third grade is not specific enough. The types of words that the student
will be expected to read as well as accuracy and rate criteria must also be specified.
According to Carnine et al. (2004), rather than having students memorize information,
Direct Instruction programs teach students to depend on strategies. Carnine et al. use the example
of teaching students the letter sound correspondence and letter sounding out strategy. They
explain that the sounding out strategy enables children to read any word that contains letter
10
sound relationships which they have learned. They also suggest that lessons be designed so that
once a child has learned a strategy, he or she receives practice in applying that strategy to a wide
range of examples.
When developing teaching procedures, Carnine et al. (2004) suggest that the strategy be
put into a format that specifically states how the teacher is going to present the strategy. This
includes exactly what the teachers are to say and do. Carnine et al. state, “Detailed formats
planned in advance of teaching allow the teacher to focus his or her full attention on the students’
performance” (p. 26).
Carnine et al. (2004) explain the importance of selecting appropriate examples. If one is
to use an example at the introductory stage, it should be one that the student can use the new
strategy and information that was previously taught to come up with the correct answer.
Examples that would be appropriate for discrimination exercises consist of a mix of examples. A
range of examples are necessary so that students can learn when and when not to use the new and
previously learned strategy.
Carnine et al. (2004) describe five guidelines for sequencing skills. They suggest that pre
skills, instances that are consistent with the strategy, and high utility skills be taught first.
Strategies that are likely to be confused are not introduced at the same time.
Carnine et al. (2004) emphasize the importance of practice and review of new strategies.
For mastery to occur, sufficient practice is needed. Mass presentation of examples should be
incorporated into a lesson in which a new strategy is introduced. For retention of the new
strategy, review is needed.
In addition to these six aspects, Carnine et al. (2004) describe certain presentation
techniques associated with Direct Instruction Reading. These techniques include small group
11
instruction, unison oral responding, signaling, pacing, and monitoring. Direct Instruction is
designed for small groups consisting of students at the same level. Careful assessment is
conducted to properly place students. Groups should be flexible. Students in these groups
actively participate by unison or choral responding. For responding to be effective, students must
know when to respond. A signal is a cue given by the teacher that tells the students exactly when
to respond. For signaling a unison response, the teacher gives directions, provides a pause for
thinking, and then cues the response. The cue may be a clap, finger snap, or a hand drop. Carnine
et al. suggest that lessons be fast paced and should not consist of “down time.” When students
respond, the teacher should begin the next set of directions immediately. This helps to keep
students on task. To monitor the students’ responses, the teacher listens carefully to the responses
by watching the students’ eyes and mouths. By watching the students’ eyes, the teacher can see if
the students are attending. By watching their mouths, the teacher can see if the students are
forming their lips and positioning their tongues correctly so that they can produce the correct
response. Carnine, et al. suggest looking at different students at different times because it is
impossible to observe all students each time the group gives a response.
Reading Mastery
According to Schieffer et al. (n.d.), “Reading Mastery are basal reading programs that
develop reading skills and strategies through systematic, small steps that make it possible for all
children to learn and learn in a timely manner” (p. 2 ). Schieffer et al. provide an extensive
review of Reading Mastery and its components including examples from the Reading Mastery
Series.
Schieffer et al. (n.d.) explain that Reading Mastery recognizes that a prerequisite to
learning to read is oral language skills. Oral language skills necessary to understand what is
12
spoken, written, and read in the classroom are taught in the Reading Mastery Plus Series. These
skills are not taught in Reading Mastery Classic; however, it is recommended to support reading
instruction with language instruction. In Reading Mastery Plus, language lessons consist of direct
teaching of important background information, vocabulary, and thinking skills needed to achieve
high levels of reading comprehension. In an example of a lesson from Reading Mastery Plus,
level K, the objective is to help children listen to and discriminate between questions that start
with who, what, where, and when. The rationale for this lesson is that if the children can
accurately answer questions about pictures, spoken sentences, and stories read by the teacher,
they will be better able to deal with questions when they are asked about the stories they read.
The authors discuss how Reading Mastery provides phonemic awareness instruction. It
starts with activities that the students will most likely be able to do. One such activity presented
is saying drawn-out words fast. Reading Mastery starts by presenting long words broken into
parts. For example, the teacher breaks apart the compound word hamburger, saying the words
separate and telling the students to listen carefully to the words. The students are then told to
“say it fast.” Later, the activities become more focused on blending phonemes. For example, the
teacher says the word slam saying each sound in the word slowly. The students are then asked to
repeat it back but say it fast. This oral practice of blending sounds is supported by verbal
activities involving rhyming. Children are told the beginning and ending sound of a word. They
are told to combine the sounds to make a word and then say it fast. The last phonemic awareness
skill that is taught in Reading Mastery is segmenting words into phonemes. When sounding out
words, the students first say the parts slowly and then say them fast. These oral activities of
blending, rhyming, and segmenting individual sounds allows students to concentrate on listening
to sounds without interference from written symbols (Schieffer et al., n.d.).
13
In Reading Mastery, students are initially taught how to decode words by sounding them
out. The introduction of letter sounds and letter-sound combinations is sequenced carefully to
reduce confusion and to provide adequate practice. Initially, the most common sounds for each
letter or letter combination are taught. Sounds that are of high frequency are taught early so that
students can read meaningful words and stories as soon as possible. To decrease confusion,
letters that sound or look similar are not taught consecutively but several days apart (Schieffer et
al., n.d.).
Along with phonics, the authors explain the component of orthography. Reading Mastery
incorporates orthogrophy in the early grades to help students distinguish between the sound of a
letter combination and the sound of the individual letters. An example of this would be to put a
line over the letter “o” in the word coat to enforce the long o sound (Schieffer et al., n.d.).
The components of blending are also emphasized. Once students have learned phonemic
awareness skills and at least two letter-sound correspondences, they can move on to blending or
sounding out words. Reading Mastery provides a series of activities to teach sounding-out words.
Students are expected to combine the skills of reading sounds, reading words slowly, and then
fast. Teachers model the blending skills followed by the students repeating exactly what the
teacher modeled. Students are taught to read words after they have learned the first two sounds
presented in Reading Mastery. In Reading Mastery, reading words is simply an extension of the
skills that have been taught in oral blending exercises. The students say each sound in the word,
then they blend the sounds together to say it fast. In Reading Mastery, what students are expected
to read correlates with the letter-sound correspondences that they have been taught in previous
lessons. Every three to five lessons, new letter-sound or letter combinations are taught. Students
are expected to read words with new sounds in stories about two to three lessons after they are
14
introduced. All words in the text are words that contain sounds that the students have already
been taught (Schieffer et al., n.d.).
The authors discuss three important features of the Reading Mastery program that ensure
students acquire efficient and effective reading skills. These features include accuracy and
fluency instruction, specific and immediate feedback and error corrections, and an appropriate
placement within the program.
Reading Mastery lessons incorporate accuracy and fluency instruction by daily oral
reading, repeated readings, and partner reading. In the beginning of each lesson, students orally
read lists consisting of words that they will encounter in the text for that specific lesson. Students
take turns reading parts or all of the reading selection aloud. If a student makes a mistake, he or
she is asked to reread the sentence. There is an error limit for each section. If students exceed the
error limit, they are required to read the section again for extra practice. In addition, students
receive practice with fluency by reading sections aloud with partners. Teachers can monitor
students’ progress by specific rate and accuracy criteria provided in the program. The level of
expectation increases as students’ progress through the different levels of Reading Mastery. Each
level has specific guidelines at the end. For example, at the end of level two, the criteria is to
read ninety words per minute with no more than four errors (Schieffer et al n.d.).
Every error is corrected in Reading Mastery. If only one student makes the error, the
correction is directed towards all students and is specific to the error. For example, if the students
are sounding out words in lists and one or more students makes an error, they are directed to go
back to the beginning of the list and start over. If an error is made in reading a passage, the
student is stopped immediately. The teacher points out exactly what the error is. For example, of
the student said a word wrong, the teacher says the correct word and then asks the student to
15
repeat the word. The student is then directed to go back to the beginning of the sentence and read
it again (Schieffer et al, n.d.).
The importance of appropriate placement and regular assessment of progress is
emphasized by the authors. Reading Mastery contains a placement test for every level. This test
should be given to students at the beginning of each school year. These placement tests provide
information needed for grouping students. Student progress is measured by a mastery test that is
given every five to ten lessons. The tests consist of items that require the use of specific skills
taught in the previous lessons. Also, progress is monitored throughout the program not only by
mastery tests, but individual checkouts. These checkouts consist of timed reading of a specific
passage. Certain criteria depending on the level must be met to pass the checkout. Students are
required to read a certain number of words in a certain amount of time, making no more than a
specified amount of errors (Schieffer et al., n.d.).
Finally, Schieffer et al. (n.d.) explain the importance of comprehension. Reading Mastery
emphasizes comprehension instruction beginning in the early levels. It is emphasized through
explicit teaching strategies incorporating a variety of comprehension strategies in the areas of
vocabulary, literal comprehension, interpretive comprehension, and reasoning. Vocabulary
instruction is included through examples of introducing words that are not easily understood.
Examples can include giving the definition of the word, using synonyms, or using the word in
context. The teacher script consists of definitions of words that the students may not know before
the words appear in the reading selection. Reading Mastery allows students to practice strategies
at the literal level. This includes answering who, what, where, and when questions. Some
questions are presented at the beginning of the passage and others at the end. In the early levels
of Reading Mastery, the questions are asked throughout the reading of sentences. Being asked
16
questions about the passage demonstrates to students what good readers think about as they read.
The teacher presentation book provides the instructor with exact questions and when to ask them.
Reading Mastery moves quickly into inferential questions or reasoning. Inferential
questions are represented in the early levels by picture deduction. Based on a given rule, students
are asked to make inferences about a picture. For example, if the student is given a picture of big
and small dogs, and is told that all the big dogs are sleepy, the student is asked to circle all of the
dogs that are sleepy. The student would then circle all of the big dogs. Examples are integrated
into passages as students’ master deductive reasoning. Schieffer et al., (n.d) state that work with
deductions is important because it teaches students the skills of learning a rule and then applying
it to different examples which are often required in a variety of advanced comprehension
activities. As one progresses to higher levels of Reading Mastery, the stories rely more on
background knowledge and require students go beyond using simple literal comprehension
strategies. Students learn to infer the main idea of a passage by answering questions that the
teacher asks at the beginning of a passage. The purpose of the teacher asking this series of
questions is to make the thinking process clear. Next, the teacher asks the students to infer the
main idea of a similar passage. The teacher guides and models the students through this example.
Finally, the students practice the strategy. Students continue to practice with readings that
become longer and more difficult. Outlining the main idea of a passage is also taught in a
systematic manner. Students are given an outline of a passage they have just read. They are
asked to identify the main idea and fill in supporting details. Next, the students are given a broad
outline of a reading selection with only the main ideas. Students must fill in supporting details
for each main idea. Finally, students have to complete an outline for an entire story. In Reading
17
Mastery, more sophisticated concepts are taught as the students’ vocabulary and comprehension
abilities increase.
Research on Reading Mastery and DISTAR
The following section is a summary of research findings on Direct Instruction. Adams
and Engelmann (1996) include 37 articles in their meta-analysis of Direct Instruction. Studies
within the meta- analysis that investigated the effectiveness of DISTAR and Reading Mastery
were selected for review in this chapter. Additional studies provided by Adams and Engelmann
on Direct Instruction relating to reading, teacher attitudes, and teacher training are also included.
Participants include individuals within general and special education populations. The following
studies are organized chronologically beginning with findings with general education
populations. A total of 17 studies are discussed.
Effects of using a Direct Instruction program with economically disadvantaged students
is shown through what Adams and Engelmann (1996) called the largest most expensive
educational experiment ever conducted, Project Follow Through. According to Stebbins Pierre,
Proper, Anderson, and Cerva (1977), the purpose of the study was to examine the effects of
various compensatory education approaches for improving the performance of children with low
socio economic status. It included over 10,000 low income students in 108 communities. The
nine approaches of teaching used in the experiment varied from high to low structured programs
and were classified according to theoretical orientation. Theoretical orientations included the
behavioristic approach, the cognitive development approach, and the psychodynamic approach.
The general label for the behavioristic approaches became the Basic Skills Models and includes
the Behavior Analysis Model, the Direct Instruction Model, and the Language Development
Model. The general label for the cognitive development approach is the Cognitive Conceptual
18
Skills Models and includes the Cognitively-Oriented Curriculum Model, the Florida Parent
Education Model, and the Tucson Early Education Model (TEEM). The general label for the
psychodynamic approaches became the Affective Skills Models and includes Bank Street
College Model, Open Education Model, and Responsive Education Model. Adams and
Engelmann (1996) classified the models according to degree of structure. Models that were
classified as having a high degree of structure were the Direct Instruction Model, and the
Behavior Analysis model. Models classified as having a medium degree of structure were
TEEM, Cognitive Curriculum, and Responsive Education. Low structured models included Bank
Street and Open Education. The degree of structure in the Parent Education model was classified
as unknown.
Each model was evaluated across four to eight school sites with students who started
school in kindergarten or first grade. Each school district involved in the Follow Through project
identified a non-Follow Through comparison site for each Follow Through site. The control
group was the comparison site. Tests used to assess basic skills, cognitive, and effective behavior
were the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT), the Wide Range Achievement Test, the Raven’s
Colored Progressive Matrices, the Intellectual Achievement Responsibility Scale, and the
Cooperative Self-Esteem Inventory.
The final analysis of Project Follow Through was conducted by Abt. Associates in 1976
and included data on 9255 third grade Follow Through students, and 6485 third grade students
not being taught by one of the Follow Through Models. In their final evaluation of Project
Follow Through, Stebbins et al. (1977) conclude the following:
Only the children associated with the Direct Instruction Model appear to perform above
the expectation determined by the progress of non-Follow Through children. Moreover,
19
the Direct Instruction children are the only group which appears to make more progress
in reading, both early and late. In general, most models appear to be more effective
during kindergarten and first grade than during second and third grade. The Direct
Instruction Model is the only program which consistently produces substantial progress.
(p. 155)
Summerell and Brannigan (1977) conducted a study to compare the effectiveness of the
DISTAR and the Johnny Right to Read program. In this study, DISTAR was considered a
phonetic approach while the Johnny Right to Read program was a special alphabet program. The
study included 12 female and 12 male second graders from public elementary schools.
Participants had average intelligence but demonstrated poor performance in school and on the
Stanford Achievement Test. Each of the programs were used for one year. Students receiving
instruction with DISTAR were taught for 30 minutes a day. Students receiving instruction with
the Johnny Right to Read program were taught for 20 minutes a day with additional regular
reading instruction. Post test results on the Stanford Achievement Test showed that both groups
made significant gains. However, when comparing the two groups, the DISTAR group had
significantly higher scores on the paragraph meaning subtest. Students receiving instruction with
DISTAR had grown eight tenths of a year while students in the Johnny Right to Read program
had six tenths of a years growth. Summerall and Brannigan suggest that the difference in scores
can be attributed to the high degree of structure and supplemental materials associated with the
DISTAR program.
Richardson, DiBenedetto, Christ, Press, and Winsberg (1978) compared the DISTAR
program and the Integrated Skills Method (ISM) of teaching reading. Participants included 72
students in second through six grade who had been recommended for remedial reading. In the
20
area of reading, each student was at least seven months below his or her chronological age. One
teacher was assigned to each group and provided 45 minutes of instruction each day for a total of
75 sessions. Results on the Peabody Individual Achievement Test (PIAT) showed that both
groups showed gains in all eight reading measures. There were no significant differences in the
gains made by each group. However, the DISTAR group alone made significant gains on the
PIAT reading subtest.
Branwhite (1983) compared Reading Mastery II Classic (Formally called DISTAR
Reading II) with diagnostic prescriptive remediation (DPR). The study included 14 children in an
urban middle school with varying levels of problems in reading. In reading, each student fell
between 20 to 40 months behind their average peers. The average age was eight years and seven
months with a mean IQ of 91. Schonell’s Graded Word Reading Test was used as a pre and post
test. In phase one of the study, seven students were taught using Reading Mastery while the other
seven where taught using DPR. After 55 days of implementation, both groups were tested.
Although no significant differences between the two groups were found, the Reading Mastery
group accelerated more rapidly. Participants in the Reading Mastery group made an average of
10.17 month gain while the DPR group made an average of 6.06 month gain. Due to rapid
growth with Reading Mastery, both groups were taught using Reading Mastery in phase two.
Students received 35 minutes of instruction with the program for 110 school days. The results
after phase two showed that students originally receiving Reading Mastery had made an
additional 7.54 month gain while students originally receiving DPR had made an additional 12.2
month gain. In the final discussion, Branwhite states that “the ability of a Direct Instruction
reading program to promote strong gains reflects the quality of its organization, which integrates
21
task analysis, program-logic and teaching strategies, in a carefully researched and field-tested set
of procedures” (p. 297).
Sexton (1989) compared the DISTAR Reading I program with the Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich (HBJ) basal reading program. The purpose was to find out if the effects of DISTAR
would be better for children with lower initial language ability than for children with higher
language ability. The control group (HBJ) and the experimental group (Reading Mastery)
consisted of 40 first grade African American students from neighboring schools. The
Metropolitan Readiness Test (MRT) was used as a pretest. Students instructed with Reading
Mastery received instruction for 120 minutes per day while students receiving instruction with
HBJ were taught for 125 minutes per day along with supplemental language instruction. Results
revealed that Reading Mastery was significantly more effective than the HBJ basal method.
DISTAR was equally effective for students with low and high language abilities. Despite these
results, Sexton explains that neither the basal readers nor the DISTAR program is right for all
learners and that numerous other models such as the whole language model and the literature
model address different aspects of language development. Furthermore, Sexton acknowledges
that different models have different purposes and therefore achieve different results.
Similarly, Ashworth (1999) compared the effects of a basal reading program to the
effects of Reading Mastery with second graders. The study spanned over two consecutive years.
The first year consisted of the control group of 23 students receiving instruction with the basal
reading program. The second year consisted of 19 students who received instruction from
Reading Mastery. The Georgia Kindergarten Assessment Program was used as a pretest. Scores
on the pretest were compared to ensure that both groups were equal. Results on the Iowa Test of
Basic Skills showed that the Reading Mastery group had higher average scores on each of the
22
subtests. Furthermore, the overall mean score on the posttest was significantly higher for the
Reading Mastery group than the basal reader group.
Gunn, Biglad, Smolkowski and Ary (2000) evaluated the effects of supplemental
instruction in reading for students in kindergarten through grade three. Participants were students
in grades kindergarten through grade three from three school districts. All students were either
considered aggressive or performed below grade level on literacy skills. Students were screened
using the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) and randomly assigned to
a control or experimental group. The experimental group received supplemental instruction
including instruction with Reading Mastery, skills training for parents, and social behavior
intervention. The control group did not receive any type of supplemental instruction. Students
were evaluated at the end of the first and the second year of receiving instruction. The results
showed that students who received supplemental instruction had higher scores on all Woodcock
Johnson subtests. The difference in scores on the oral reading fluency subtest was statistically
significant. Gunn, et al., concluded in their study that instruction made a difference regardless of
the students’ ethnicity and that in this study, supplemental instruction was appropriate and
benefited Hispanic and non-Hispanic children. Furthermore, Gunn, et al., concluded that the
programs were equally effective across all grade levels and had similar effects for both genders.
Haring and Krug (1975) compared the results of students with mild retardation from low
income families who received DISTAR programs along with the Sullivan Programmed Reading
Series to two control classrooms that received typical instruction. The experimental group
consisted of two classes with 12 students in each class. The control group consisted of 30
students divided into two special education classes. All instruction regarding the control group
was determined by the instructor. Students in the experimental group received instruction with
23
DISTAR. Placement in either the control group or experimental group was based on intelligence
scores from the Stanford Binet Intelligence Test and the Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT).
Both groups had similar means on each test. Intervention lasted for one year. Results from the
WRAT showed that the experimental group made a 13.5 month gain in reading while the control
classes made a 4.5 month gain in the same time period. In addition, at the end of the intervention,
eight out of the 24 students in the experimental group met the criteria to return to regular classes
while none of the children from the control group met the criteria.
Stein and Goldman (1980) compared the effects of DISTAR reading and the Palo Alto
Reading Program on students with learning disabilities in the primary grades. Group one
consisted of 26 boys and four girls receiving instruction with DISTAR. Group two consisted of
25 boys and eight girls receiving instruction with the Palo Alto Reading Program in addition to
instruction on comprehension and decoding skills. Pretest results on the reading subtests of the
Peabody Individual Achievement Test (PIAT) indicated that there were no significant differences
in scores between the two groups. All students had average or above average intelligence, along
with problems in reading. After one year of intervention, results on the PIAT showed that
students in both programs made gains; however, the DISTAR group had an average gain of 15
months while the students in the Palo Alto group had an average gain of seven months. In their
conclusions, Stein and Goldman state, “The superiority of the DISTAR program may lie in the
emphasis placed on the analysis of the specific tasks involved in the acquisition of reading skills”
(p. 54).
Lloyd, Cullinan, Heins, and Epstein (1980) investigated the effects of a Direct Instruction
language program upon oral language and reading comprehension of students with learning
disabilities. Participants included 23 elementary-aged children in self-contained classrooms for
24
learning disabilities. Eight students were randomly assigned to an experimental classroom
receiving Direct Instruction in language and reading or a control classroom receiving traditional
special education instruction. Two classes served as the experimental groups while one served as
the control group. The duration of intervention was one year. Posttest results on the Slosson
Intelligence Test and the Gilmore Reading Tests showed that the groups receiving Direct
Instruction made significantly greater gains in IQ and reading than the control group. The two
experimental groups did not significantly differ from each other. In their conclusion, Lloyd, et al.
state, “The results support a position that direct-instruction procedures for language skills can
improve the language comprehension of learning disabled pupils” (p. 75).
Darch and Kame’enui (1987) evaluated the effectiveness of two approaches to teaching
critical reading. Twenty five students with learning disabilities participating in a summer school
program were randomly assigned to one of two experimental groups, Direct Instruction or
traditional discussion and workbook teaching. Pretest results showed that the IQs of each group
were comparable. For 12 days, each group received 40 minutes of instruction by the same
teacher on the three skills to be assessed. The three skills to be assessed at the end of intervention
were argument analysis, embedded argument analysis, and skills classification. The results
showed that the group receiving Direct Instruction did significantly better on all three critical
reading measures than the group receiving discussion and workbook instruction. In their
conclusions, Darch and Kame’enui state, “Results showed that to be optimally effective,
instruction must be explicit; rules must be presented; and a carefully crafted strategy for how to
apply these rules is necessary” (p. 89).
Kuder (1990) compared reading achievement of elementary students with learning
disabilities who received instruction from DISTAR to students who received instruction from a
25
basal reader. Forty eight students were split into either a control or experimental group. The
experimental group consisted of 24 students who received instruction with DISTAR. The control
group consisted of 24 students who received instruction with a traditional basal reader. Both
groups received seven months of instruction and were then tested using the Woodcock Reading
Mastery Test. Results showed that although students who received instruction through DISTAR
made more progress in the word attack domain, they did not read significantly better than
students in the basal reader program. Results suggest that students in both programs continued to
fall behind age expectations for reading achievement. Kuder explains that the results could be
attributed to the persistent and severe reading disabilities of the population studied.
In addition, Kuder (1991) investigated whether success in a Direct Instruction reading
program for students with learning disabilities may be related to the language abilities of the
students receiving such instruction. Participants were 26 students from Kuder’s 1990 study
previously mentioned, who remained in the self-contained classroom with DISTAR reading
instruction. Eighteen of the students had been in the DISTAR reading program for two years and
eight had been in the program for one year. Reading progress was measured over two years.
Results on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Woodcock Reading Mastery Test, as well as the
Test of Language Development showed that the mean improvement in overall reading was four
months. In addition, the results suggested that children who had problems with language skills in
word discrimination and syntactic analysis may do more poorly in reading than students who do
not have these problems.
O’Connor, Jenkins, Cole and Mills (1993) examined the effects of variation of program
design on reading achievement. In this study, Reading Mastery I and II were compared with
Addison Wesley’s Meet the Superkids Reading Program. O’Conner et al. identified both
26
programs as synthetic phonics programs that differed in instructional design. Differences were
identified regarding the introduction of auditory and visually similar letters, introduction of letter
names, step by step strategies, mastery of each skill, error correction procedures, formative
testing, and review. Eighty one students received special education in kindergarten. Each year,
students were randomly assigned to a group receiving instruction with Reading Mastery or
Superkids. At the onset of the program, all students were given a pre test using the McCarthy
Scales of Children’s Abilities as well as the Test of Early Reading (TERA) with addition of the
California Achievement Test (CAT) in the second year of the study. Students in the Reading
Mastery group completed between 50 lessons of Reading Mastery I and 20 lessons of Reading
Mastery II. Students in the Superkids group completed the first five letter books of the
Superkids’ Club. Each group received instruction for 30 minutes per day. Students were
evaluated at the end of kindergarten. At the end of the first year, there were no statistically
significant differences in scores between the two groups.
Teacher Training and Perceptions
Adams and Engelmann (1996) suggest that relatively extensive training with Direct
Instruction be implemented with teachers prior to the first year of teaching. One week of training
along with follow up sessions throughout the year may be adequate. Adams’s and Engelmann’s
rationale for training is that teachers must be adequate presenters, motivators and sources of
feedback and corrections to teach effectively.
Research suggests that there is a positive correlation between amount of training and
experience, and attitudes towards direct instruction. Gersten et al. (1986) evaluated perceptions
of teachers and paraprofessionals with regard to a Direct Instruction program. Teachers were
interviewed toward the end of the first and second year of implementation. Initially, teachers
27
were concerned with the high degree of structure leaving little room for fun activities and felt
that scripted lessons were overly mechanical. At least half of the teachers believed that their
teaching philosophy conflicted with that of Direct Instruction. By mid year, Gersten et al. found
that teachers and paraprofessionals generally came to accept the program. By the end of the first
year, attitudes had improved along with student achievement. Gersten et al. found that by the end
of the second year of implementation, all but one teacher agreed with the main objectives of
Direct Instruction as a program for educationally disadvantaged students.
Proctor (1989) surveyed 41 students and 19 graduates of an undergraduate special
education program that uses the Direct Instruction Model as the basis for methods instruction.
For comparison purposes, current students were divided into three groups according to amount of
training and experience. Two of the groups, called math one and two, had recently completed
one semester of training and approximately 40 hours of experience with Direct Instruction in one
subject area. Students in a third group, labeled the practicum group, had completed an additional
semester of training and approximately 100 hours of experience in three or more subject areas.
Undergraduates completed the survey during the last week of the semester and graduates from
the program were sent the same survey. Results showed that when comparing students in the
math groups to the practicum group which had received more training and experience, there were
significant differences in survey responses. For example, practicum students agreed to a greater
extent with the statement “Direct Instruction can be used in all subject areas” than did the math
groups who had been exposed to Direct Instruction in only one subject area. Proctor states, “This
result shows that the practicum students who used Direct Instruction in several subject areas
were more confident of its use in all subjects” (p. 44). In addition, Proctor found that when
comparing practicum students with graduates, two survey items resulted in significant
28
differences. Practicum students responded more favorably to the following items: “Direct
Instruction is primarily beneficial in one to one and small groups” and “Regular use of Direct
Instruction has increased my appreciation of it.” Proctor explains that differences in the
responses to the first item may be reflective of practicum change. In the past, the program
emphasized only one to one instruction while it added an emphasis of small group instruction
during the training of the practicum students. Differences in the second statement may be
attributed to the fact that practicum students had just finished intensive training in ideal situations
consisting of homogenous grouping and available materials. On the other hand, graduates may
deal with scheduling problems, heterogeneous groupings, lack of material and little feedback. In
the final discussion, Proctor concludes that 89% of all subjects agreed that regular use of Direct
Instruction had increased their appreciation of the method. Also, the results show evidence
supporting the relationship between the amount of supervised experience and positive attitudes
towards Direct Instruction.
Cossairt, Jacobs and Shade (1990) conducted a similar study assessing special education
preservice teachers’ perceptions of the efficacy of a Direct Instruction course at the end of the
course and after using Direct Instruction during an eight-week field experience. Twenty-two
undergraduate students all enrolled in a Direct Instruction course received instruction on Direct
Instruction techniques and practiced them on each other. Sixteen of the students then practiced
during an eight-week internship in a special education setting. Before and after the eight-week
field experience, students completed an evaluation form using a five-point Likert scale, regarding
the usefulness of Direct Instruction techniques. Results from the pre and post internship
evaluation show that responses in favor of Direct Instruction increased. Differences in responses
regarding attention signals, response signals, and feedback were statistically significant. Cossairt
29
et al. conclude, “After completion of an internship where they work directly with educationally
handicapped students, students felt even more strongly about the usefulness and values of these
techniques” (p. 170).
Myths about Direct Instruction
Adams and Engelmann (1996) identify eight myths regarding direct instruction. Myth
one states: “Direct Instruction Programs are rigid and unenlightened because they treat all
instructional tasks as if they have a right and wrong answer” (p. 25). Adams and Engelmann
explain that although it is true that Direct Instruction programs deal with only answers that are
correct or preferable, the reason is:
If a teacher tried to teach any content, discrimination, operation, or skills and there were
no responses that were better than any others, the teacher would be unable to teach and
would have no basis for responding to the student’s productions. (p. 25)
Finally, Adams and Engelmann state:
The myth about correct answers is promulgated largely as an excuse for a very poor
analysis of the subject that is to be taught. If the subject is well understood and the
program is well designed, it should be possible to specify the correct answers or
acceptable responses for every activity in the program. (p. 25)
Myth two identified by Adams and Engelmann (1996) states, “Direct Instruction
programs are spurious because they are based on the hierarchies of skills, but there are no
universal skill hierarchies” (p. 26). Adams and Engelmann explain that hierarchies are necessary
and can be found in any subject. They also explain that students need to learn the prerequisite
skills for solving any problem, otherwise teachers have to teach skills on the spot which is often
time consuming and results in student dependency.
30
The third myth identified by Adams and Engelmann (1996) is, “Direct Instruction
eschews developmental progression and developmental theory” (p. 27). Adams and Engelmann
state, “It is true that Direct Instruction programs passionately eschew developmental theory” (p.
27). However, Adams and Engelmann provide justification in that although statements about
developmental theory could make general predictions that are true of an average child, they do
not assess which skills in the subject area the child does and does not know, nor do they provide
information about where to begin instruction. Therefore, developmental theory is of no use in
designing programs.
Myth four identified by Adams and Engelmann (1996) is, “Direct Instruction’s scripted
presentations and predetermined lessons stifle the teacher’s creativity” (p. 27). Adams and
Engelmann state, “The creative potential of students is limited by what they know” (p. 27). They
explain that students need to learn the basic skills first and therefore, the teachers first priority is
to teach these basic skills. Adams and Engelmann point out that teachers are often judged as
being creative if their students are engaging in creative activities. However, “The most germane
indices of teacher creativity are how well the teacher succeeds at teaching-accelerating student
performance and teaching students things they typically have trouble learning” (p. 27). They also
emphasize that the teacher must be successful at teaching before he or she can become creative.
Once the teacher has mastered certain behaviors and is achieving attainable results with the
students, he or she can then incorporate creativity by taking shortcuts in the lessons if needed,
modifying presentation sequences, and extending and integrating what students have learned
through projects and activities.
The fifth myth identified by Adams and Engelmann (1996) states, “Direct Instruction
programs are appropriate for low performers only” (p. 28). Adams and Engelmann explain that
31
Direct Instruction has become associated with lower performers because it is works well and has
been used extensively with such students. However, Adams and Engelmann explain that if one
can teach lower performers to read, it is much easier to teach that skill to higher performers.
Therefore, any instructional sequence that is successful with lower performers would be equally
successful with naïve higher performers.
In addition, Adams and Engelmann state, “The fact that research shows that Direct
Instruction programs have accelerated lower performers beyond higher performers who receive
other programs provides the ultimate challenge to the suggestion that the programs are
appropriate only for lower performers” (p. 29).
Adams and Engelmann (1996) identify the sixth myth as, “Direct Instruction promotes
passive learning” (p. 29). According to this myth, because Direct Instruction programs break
skills down into such small steps, students become dependent on the teacher and fail to develop
the motive for independent learning. Adams and Engelmann explain that although students may
become dependent on the teacher as a source of information and skill, no evidence exists to
support the idea that students will lose the ability or desire to learn on their own.
Myth seven identified by Adams and Engelmann states, “Direct Instruction ignores
individual differences” (p. 30). Adams and Engelmann believe that a program does not ignore
individual differences simply if it accommodates students of varying abilities and styles. They
explain that Direct Instruction programs accommodate student differences by providing
functional tests that determine appropriate placement in the program. Furthermore, even if
students are appropriately placed in the program, teachers are still encouraged to vary the amount
of practice and review according to student performance.
32
Finally, myth eight identified by Adams and Engelmann (1996) states, “It is possible to
use effective-school practices to achieve results as good as those achieved by Direct Instruction”
(p. 31). Adams and Engelmann explain that visible features of Direct Instruction programs such
as choral responding, and high rates of praise have been previously identified as effective school
practices. However, other major features of Direct Instruction programs such as curriculum and
instructional sequences often go unnoticed. Adams and Engelmann believe that although they
may improve what has already been achieved, visible features alone without systematic
instructional sequences cannot produce effective results nor cause superior performance. Adams
and Engelmann state:
The reason is that curricular sequence is solely responsible for the various concepts and
skills that are to be induced in the naïve student. No magic is to be found in repeating
statements that are relatively trivial or in engaging in tasks that do not have identifiable
instructional functions. If the instructional sequence is weak, the effective-schools
trappings will not make it strong. (p. 32)
Summary
Adams and Engelmann (1996) along with Carnine et al. (2004) have defined Direct
Instruction based on the program’s design, presentation techniques, and curriculum. The most
clear and extensive Direct Instruction that can be found today is represented in programs such as
Reading Mastery (formally known as DISTAR). Reading Mastery contains key elements of an
effective reading program. It has a high degree of structure involving carefully sequenced skills.
Research has shown Reading Mastery and DISTAR to be effective with special and
regular education populations. However, as shown through various studies and myths, there
seem to be varying attitudes about Direct Instruction programs. Research has shown a
33
relationship between amount of experience and attitudes toward Direct Instruction. Few studies
support the hypothesis that positive attitudes towards Direct Instruction increase along with
training and experience.
34
CHAPTER III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES
The two questions addressed in this study were: (1) What are teachers’ attitudes toward
using Reading Mastery to teach beginning reading? and (2) Are there differences in attitudes
based on years of experience with Reading Mastery? Attempts were made to answer these
questions by conducting a statewide survey involving teachers who use Reading Mastery.
Methods and procedures used in the investigation will be described in this chapter.
Methods
Research Design
Quantitative research was conducted in which data from a survey containing a five-point
Likert scale was used. Participants rated the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with
statements about Reading Mastery. A frequency test was used to describe teachers’ overall
attitudes and perceptions towards Reading Mastery. A one-way analysis of variance was
conducted to determine the difference in attitudes and perceptions among teachers with various
years of experience with Reading Mastery. Groups were categorized as the following: beginning
user, 1-4 years, 5-9 years and more than 10. In addition, a one-way analysis of variance was
conducted to determine the differences in attitudes among various types of teachers. Categories
for type of teacher consisted of special education, regular education, or Title I/remedial reading.
A qualitative analysis was used to summarize comments made by participants.
Participants
To identify schools that use Reading Mastery, the sales representative of Science
Research Associates (SRA) for the state of Ohio was contacted. A list of approximately 300
schools in northern and southern Ohio including their addresses was received. The subjects
involved in this study were teachers in northern and southern Ohio who use Reading Mastery.
35
Teachers included special education, regular education, and remedial reading (Title I) teachers
who teach kindergarten through third grade. Seventy eight percent of the surveys received were
completed by regular education teachers. Thirteen percent were special education, and five
percent were Title I. remedial reading teachers. One participant was a bilingual education
teacher. Twenty percent were kindergarten teachers, 21.1% were first grade, 22.2% were second
grade, 14.4% were third grade, 13.3% were something other than those three, and 8.9% were
teachers of multiple grades. Beginning users consisted of 14.4% while the majority of teachers,
58.9%, had used Reading Mastery from 1-4 years. Teachers with 5-9 years of experience
consisted of 20%. Teachers with more than 10 years of experience with Reading Mastery
consisted of 6.7%. Most participants, 55.6%, had received training from a district in-service.
Those who received training from an independent consultant consisted of 18.9%. The percentage
of participants who learned how to use Reading Mastery on their own was 16.7%. Only 5.6% of
participants received training from college courses. Approximately 34% of participants noted
that they were aware of someone who had left their teaching position due to dissatisfaction with
Reading Mastery.
Instrumentation
The instrument used in this study was a survey adopted and modified from a similar
study conducted by Proctor (1989). Items include 15 positive statements regarding Reading
Mastery. Using a five point Likert scale, subjects were asked indicate the extent to which they
agreed or disagreed with these statements. Choices were “Strongly agree,” “Agree,” “Not sure,”
“Disagree” and “Strongly Disagree. In addition teachers were asked demographic questions to
identify type of teacher, amount of experience with Reading Mastery, and type of training
36
received. Participants were left additional space on the survey to make comments about Reading
Mastery.
Procedures
Kindergarten through third grade teachers across the state of Ohio were surveyed
regarding their attitudes and perceptions towards the use of Reading Mastery. From a list of 300
schools that use Reading Mastery, provided by Science Research Associates, 150 elementary
schools were randomly selected to receive surveys. A total of 4 surveys were sent directly to the
principal of each school (see Appendix A). The principal was asked to distribute one survey to a
kindergarten, first, second and third grade teacher. Grade level teachers were special education,
regular education or Title I remedial reading teachers.
Data Collection
Surveys were sent out in February of 2005 and returned in March 2005. The data
collected consists of teachers’ ratings on statements about the use of Reading Mastery. Each
participant responded to 15 statements about Reading Mastery and rated the extent to which they
agreed or disagreed with the statements (see Appendix B).
Data Analysis
To evaluate the responses of teachers who use Reading Mastery, descriptive statistics
including a frequency test and analyses of variance were used to summarize the data. An item by
item analysis was used to describe overall responses. Analyses of variance were used to identify
significant differences among the type of teacher, and teachers with varied years of experience.
Summary
For the purpose of this study, kindergarten through third grade special, regular education,
and Title I remedial teachers from northern and southern Ohio who use Reading Mastery were
37
randomly selected to complete a survey regarding their attitudes and perceptions of Reading
Mastery. Data were collected in the form of a survey. A five-point Likert scale was used where
teachers rated the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with statements about Reading
Mastery. Quantitative data regarding teachers’ attitudes and perceptions towards the use of
Reading Mastery were collected and analyzed to describe the differences in attitudes and
perceptions among teachers of varying experience with Reading Mastery as well as the
differences in attitudes and perceptions among various types of teachers.
38
CHAPTER IV. DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
This research was designed to investigate teachers’ attitudes and perceptions towards the
use of the Direct Instruction reading program called Reading Mastery. The focus of this research
was to answer the following questions: (1) What are teachers’ attitudes and perceptions
regarding the use of Reading Mastery? and (2) Is there a difference in attitudes and perceptions
based on years of experience with the program?
Teachers across the state of Ohio, who use Reading Mastery were randomly selected and
surveyed regarding their attitudes and perceptions towards the program. Using a five-point Likert
scale, teachers were asked to rate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with statements
about Reading Mastery. The total number of respondents was 90 teachers. This chapter will
address the results of this study, including statistical analyses of the responses. An analysis of
variance was used to determine the differences in attitudes and perceptions among teachers with
varying years of experience as well as different types of teachers.
Data Analysis
The results of this study will be presented by question as identified in the purpose of this
study. Results for an additional question addressed after the collection of data will also be
presented.
Research Question 1:
What are teachers’ attitudes and perceptions regarding the use of Reading Mastery?
The majority of the responses were in favor of Reading Mastery. Within all items, more
than 50% of participants agreed or strongly agreed with each of the statements provided (see
Table 1). The highest percent of “strongly agree” responses reached 46.7% for item one,
“Reading Mastery aids learning,” and item 15, “I have seen positive results with Reading
39
Mastery.” The highest percent of “strongly disagree” responses reached 7.8% for item 13,
“Reading Mastery is fun.” In view of these results, it is evident that the majority of participants
seem to have positive attitudes and perceptions of Reading Mastery.
In addition to responding to the Likert items, teachers were provided an opportunity to
make additional comments. A total of 36 participants made comments. Among the comments,
similar ones that appeared multiple times were identified and grouped into one of four
categories. Categories were identified after reviewing the comments. The categories consisted of
comments concerning the programs’ failure to address critical thinking and comprehension
skills, lack of exposure to quality literature, the program’s ability to be made fun, and the various
populations that Reading Mastery works best or with whom it should be used.
A concern that appeared multiple times revealed that the program does not teach and
provide enough comprehension and critical thinking skills. A total of six participants addressed
this issue. For example, one teacher stated, “Reading Mastery does not teach students
comprehension skills, writing skills, or analytical thinking.” Another stated, “Reading Mastery is
strong in teaching decoding skills but weak in comprehension and critical thinking.” Finally,
another teacher stated, “There is not enough emphasis on comprehension and the stories don’t
make sense, they are too silly.”
In addition, a total of three participants addressed the need to incorporate quality
literature. One teacher stated, “Reading Mastery is great for students in K-2, as long as they are
also receiving a literature based instruction.” Another stated, “It needs to be balanced by
exposing students to good literature.” Finally, another stated, “It does have holes that need to be
filled with supplemental activities including additional literature.”
40
Table 1.
Frequencies and Percentages of Response by Item Number
Item Number
1
2
3
Response
Frequency
Percent
strongly disagree
1
1.1
disagree
5
5.6
not sure
5
5.6
agree
37
41.1
strongly agree
42
46.7
strongly disagree
2
2.2
disagree
5
5.6
not sure
9
10.1
agree
33
37.1
strongly agree
40
44.9
strongly disagree
3
3.3
disagree
10
11.1
not sure
13
14.4
agree
25
27.8
strongly agree
38
42.2
41
Table 1.
Frequencies and Percentages of Response by Item Number (continued)
Item Number
4
5
6
Response
Frequency
Percent
3
3.3
disagree
15
16.7
not sure
11
12.2
agree
31
34.4
strongly agree
29
32.2
strongly disagree
2
2.2
disagree
7
7.8
not sure
24
26.7
agree
28
31.1
strongly agree
29
32.2
strongly disagree
3
3.4
disagree
9
10.1
not sure
16
18.0
agree
29
32.6
strongly agree
32
36.6
strongly disagree
42
Table 1.
Frequencies and Percentages of Response by Item Number (continued)
Item Number
7
8
9
Response
Frequency
Percent
strongly disagree
2
2.2
disagree
17
18.9
not sure
17
18.9
agree
26
28.9
strongly agree
27
30.0
strongly disagree
1
1.1
disagree
19
21.1
not sure
20
22.2
agree
29
32.2
strongly agree
21
23.3
strongly disagree
5
5.6
disagree
11
12.2
not sure
12
13.3
agree
29
32.2
strongly agree
33
36.7
43
Table 1.
Frequencies and Percentages of Response by Item Number (continued)
Item Number
10
11
12
Response
Frequency
Percent
strongly disagree
5
5.6
disagree
13
14.4
not sure
10
11.1
agree
35
38.9
strongly agree
27
30.0
strongly disagree
3
3.3
disagree
16
17.8
not sure
18
20.0
agree
26
28.9
strongly agree
26
28.9
strongly disagree
2
2.2
disagree
16
17.8
not sure
7
7.8
agree
35
38.9
strongly agree
29
32.2
44
Table 1.
Frequencies and Percentages of Response by Item Number (continued)
Item Number
13
14
15
Response
Frequency
Percent
strongly disagree
7
7.8
disagree
21
23.3
not sure
15
16.7
agree
29
32.2
strongly agree
18
20.0
strongly disagree
5
5.6
disagree
13
14.4
not sure
10
11.1
agree
35
38.9
strongly agree
27
30.0
strongly disagree
1
1.1
disagree
9
10.0
not sure
10
11.1
agree
28
31.1
strongly agree
42
46.7
45
Also, while one teacher mentioned that Reading Mastery is not fun, two others stated that
it could be fun as long as the teacher makes it fun. One teacher stated, “Students dread coming to
Direct Instruction due to the fact that the program is not fun or exciting.” On the other hand,
another teacher stated, “Reading Mastery is fun if the teacher makes if fun by using games, voice
inflections and facial expressions.” Similarly, another stated, “Direct Instruction is fun because I
make it fun.”
Finally, six teachers made comments regarding Reading Mastery and specific populations
of students. Three teachers agreed that Reading Mastery works for some students but not for all.
For example, one teacher stated, “The program is used in small group settings and not in a
regular classroom. I cannot see it being used in the classroom with all students.” Similarly,
another stated, “Some of my students benefit by Direct Instruction but it is no magic bullet for all
students.” Also, one stated, “Reading Mastery is good for some learners but excellent readers are
hindered by it.” Three teachers agreed that it works best with lower and beginning readers. For
example, one teacher stated, “It is best used with beginning readers. It builds confidence in them,
helps with writing and spelling skills, and spelling skills, and provides the teacher with intense
repetitions needed for naïve learners.” Another stated, Reading Mastery produces excellent
results especially in excelling low performing students.” Finally, another stated, “It has its faults
but it is very useful for special education populations.”
Research Question 2:
Comparisons of Teachers with Varying Amounts of Experience with Reading Mastery
To determine the difference in attitudes and perceptions of Reading Mastery among
teachers of varying years of experience with the program, an analysis of variance was conducted
(see Table 2). For five of the survey questions, the results showed significant differences at α .05.
46
However, due to unequal group sizes, the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was
unable to describe the difference for two of these questions.
Item 8 of the survey stated, “Reading Mastery improves overall classroom conditions.”
For this item, results showed a significant difference at α = .05, between teachers with 1-4 years
of experience with the program and teachers with 5-9 years of experience. Teachers with 1-4
years of experience had an average response of 3 (not sure), significantly less positive than
teachers with 5-9 years of experience with the program having an average response of 4 (agree).
For this item, teachers with more experience (5-9 years) answered significantly more positive
towards Reading Mastery.
Item 9 of the survey stated, “I would use Reading Mastery techniques even if materials
were not available.” The results were significantly different at α = .05, between a beginning user
and a user with 1-4 years of experience. In this case, the beginning users’ average answer was 4
(agree) while users with 1-4 years had an average response of 3 (not sure). Teachers with less
experience (beginning users) answered significantly more positive towards Reading Mastery.
Item 11 stated, “More money should be spent on Direction Instruction programs such as
Reading Mastery.” The results showed a significant difference between groups, however SPSS
was unable to describe the differences due to unequal group sizes. Item 13 stated, “Reading
mastery is Fun.” The results showed a significant difference at α = .05, between beginning users
and users with 1-4 years of experience with Reading Mastery. Beginning users had an average
response of 4 (agree) while users of 1-4 years had an average answer of 3 (not sure). With this
item, teachers with less experience answered significantly more positive towards Reading
Mastery. Item 14 stated, “Reading Mastery helps students to become independent.” Results
47
showed a significant difference between groups; however, SPSS was unable to determine the
difference due to unequal group sizes.
When comparing teachers with different amounts of experience, item 8, “Reading
Mastery improves overall classroom conditions,” was the only item where the responses from
teachers with more experience were significantly more positive towards Reading Mastery at the
.05 level of significance. Item 9, “I would use Reading Mastery techniques even if materials
were not available,” and item 13, “Reading Mastery is fun,” were answered more positively by
beginning users (significant at α = .05). These results are summarized in Table 2.
48
Table 2.
Analysis of Variance for Teachers with Varying Years of Experience
Dependent
Variable
Item 1
Item 2
Item 3
Group
n
M
SD
F
p
Beginning user
13
4.62
.51
1.52
1.519
1-4 years
53
4.13
.88
5-9 years
18
4.28
1.13
More than 10
6
4.67
.52
Total
90
4.27
.88
Beginning user
13
4.54
.66
1.69
.175
1-4 years
52
3.98
1.04
5-9 years
18
4.33
1.03
More than 10
6
4.50
.55
Total
89
4.17
.98
Beginning user
13
4.31
.947
.05
.985
1-4 years
53
4.53
5.50
5-9 years
18
4.11
1.37
More than 10
6
4.17
1.17
Total
90
4.39
4.27
49
Table 2.
Analysis of Variance for Teachers with Varying Years of Experience (continued)
Dependent
Variable
Item 4
Item 5
Item 6
Group
n
M
SD
F
p
Beginning user
13
4.08
.86
1.91
.133
1-4 years
53
3.53
1.22
5-9 years
18
7.06
12.02
More than 10
6
3.83
1.17
Total
90
4.33
5.53
Beginning user
13
4.23
.73
2.67
.053
1-4 years
53
3.58
1.01
5-9 years
18
4.22
1.13
More than 10
6
4.00
.89
Total
90
3.83
1.04
Beginning user
13
4.31
.63
2.08
.110
1-4 years
52
3.63
1.19
5-9 years
18
4.17
1.20
More than 10
6
4.17
.41
Total
89
3.88
1.12
50
Table 2.
Analysis of Variance for Teachers with Varying Years of Experience (continued)
Dependent
Variable
Item 7
Item 8
Item 9
Group
n
M
SD
F
p
Beginning user
13
4.15
.99
2.26
.088
1-4 years
52
3.40
1.18
5-9 years
18
4.00
1.24
More than 10
6
3.83
.75
Total
90
3.66
1.17
Beginning user
13
4.00
.91
3.46
.020*
1-4 years
53
3.26
1.18
5-9 years
18
4.06
1.24
More than 10
6
3.67
.75
Total
90
3.56
1.17
Beginning user
13
4.46
.52
4.52
.005*
1-4 years
53
3.45
1.23
5-9 years
18
4.28
1.32
More than 10
6
4.33
.52
Total
90
3.82
1.21
51
Table 2.
Analysis of Variance for Teachers with Varying Years of Experience (continued)
Dependent
Variable
Item 10
Item 11
Item 12
Group
n
M
SD
F
p
Beginning user
13
4.23
.83
2.54
.062
1-4 years
53
3.45
1.22
5-9 years
18
34.06
1.35
More than 10
6
4.17
.41
Total
90
3.73
1.20
Beginning user
13
4.23
.93
3.77
.014*
1-4 years
52
3.33
1.15
5-9 years
18
3.78
1.30
More than 10
6
4.50
.55
Total
89
3.63
1.18
Beginning user
13
4.31
.85
2.08
.108
1-4 years
52
3.58
1.16
5-9 years
18
4.06
1.30
More than 10
6
4.17
.41
Total
89
3.82
1.14
52
Table 2.
Analysis of Variance for Teachers with Varying Years of Experience (continued)
Dependent
Variable
Item 13
Item 14
Item 15
Group
n
M
SD
F
p
Beginning user
13
4.08
.76
3.37
.022*
1-4 years
53
3.04
1.22
5-9 years
18
3.72
1.41
More than 10
6
3.17
1.17
Total
90
3.33
1.25
Beginning user
13
4.31
.95
3.83
.013*
1-4 years
53
3.40
1.15
5-9 years
18
4.11
1.37
More than 10
6
4.33
.52
Total
90
3.73
1.20
Beginning user
13
4.38
.870
1.77
.160
1-4 years
53
3.92
1.05
5-9 years
18
4.33
1.14
More than 10
6
4.67
.52
Total
90
4.12
1.04
* significant at p<.05
53
Comparisons of Different Types of Teachers
The comparison of attitudes and perceptions among different types of teachers was not
part of the original research questions. However, results of the study reveal that Reading Mastery
is used in regular, special and remedial educational settings and therefore may show varying
attitudes and perceptions based on type of teacher. To determine the differences in attitudes and
perceptions towards Reading Mastery, among special education, regular education, and Title
I/remedial reading teachers, an analysis of variance was used. The results showed significance at
α = .05, for two items. However, SPSS was unable to determine the significance of one of the
items, due to unequal group sizes.
Item 11 stated, “More money should be spent on Direct Instruction programs such as
Reading Mastery.” When comparing regular education to special education, special education
teachers had an average response of 4 (agree) while regular education teachers had an average
response of 3 (not sure). Special education teachers responded more positively towards Reading
Mastery. Although there was significance within item 12, “Reading Mastery can benefit all
students,” SPSS was unable to describe the difference due to unequal group sizes. These results
are summarized in Table 3.
54
Table 3.
Analysis of Variance for Different Types of Teachers
Dependent
Variable
Item 1
Item 2
Item 3
Item 4
Group
n
M
SD
F
p
Special ed
12
4.67
.49
1.45
.239
Regular ed
71
4.20
.92
Title1/remedial
5
4.20
.84
Total
88
4.26
.89
Special ed
12
4.50
.67
1.08
.343
Regular ed
70
4.13
1.01
Title1/remedial
5
3.80
1.30
Total
87
4.16
.99
Special ed
12
4.58
.67
.14
.868
Regular ed
71
4.42
4.79
Title1/remedial
5
3.40
1.52
Total
88
4.39
4.32
Special ed
12
4.08
1.08
.06
.939
Regular ed
71
4.42
6.21
Title1/remedial
5
3.60
1.14
Total
88
4.33
5.59
55
Table 3.
Analysis of Variance for Different Types of Teachers (continued)
Dependent
Variable
Item 5
Item 6
Item 7
Item 8
Group
n
M
SD
F
p
Special ed
12
4.42
.67
2.39
.098
Regular ed
71
.73
1.08
Title1/remedial
5
3.60
.89
Total
88
3.87
1.05
Special ed
12
4.33
.89
1.27
.286
Regular ed
70
3.81
.13
Title1/remedial
5
3.60
1.34
Total
87
3.87
1.12
Special ed
12
4.00
.95
.885
.417
Regular ed
70
3.64
1.20
Title1/remedial
5
3.20
1.30
Total
87
3.67
1.18
Special ed
12
3.92
.10
1.28
.285
Regular ed
71
3.54
1.14
Title1/remedial
5
3.00
.37
Total
88
3.56
1.11
56
Table 3.
Analysis of Variance for Different Types of Teachers (continued)
Dependent
Variable
Item 9
Item 10
Item 11
Item 12
Group
n
M
SD
F
p
Special ed
12
4.50
.67
2.33
.104
Regular ed
71
3.70
1.27
Title1/remedial
5
3.60
1.14
Total
88
3.81
1.22
Special ed
12
4.02
.83
1.74
.183
Regular ed
71
3.70
1.24
Title1/remedial
5
3.00
1.41
Total
88
3.73
1.21
Special ed
12
4.50
.80
5.26
.007*
Regular ed
70
3.51
1.19
Title1/remedial
5
2.80
.84
Total
87
3.61
1.18
Special ed
12
4.50
.52
3.20
.046*
Regular ed
70
3.73
1.19
Title1/remedial
5
3.20
1.10
Total
87
3.80
1.15
57
Table 3.
Analysis of Variance for Different Types of Teachers (continued)
Dependent
Variable
Item 13
Item 14
Item 15
Group
n
M
SD
F
p
Special ed
12
3.42
1.08
.89
.416
Regular ed
71
3.37
1.29
Title1/remedial
5
2.60
1.34
Total
88
3.33
1.27
Special ed
12
4.17
.94
1.04
.359
Regular ed
71
3.68
1.26
Title1/remedial
5
3.40
.89
Total
88
3.73
1.21
Special ed
12
4.42
.10
.62
.538
Regular ed
71
4.06
1.07
Title1/remedial
5
4.20
.84
Total
88
4.11
1.04
* significant at p<.05
58
Discussion of Results
It is evident that the majority of the responses favored Reading Mastery. Overall, the
teachers surveyed seemed to have mostly positive attitudes and perceptions towards the program.
In general, it appears that the majority of participants believe that Reading Mastery aids learning
and that they have seen positive results with the program. However, some teachers believe that
the program lacks sufficient teaching of critical thinking and comprehension skills as well as
lacks quality literature. Some believe that Reading Mastery is not fun. However, some teachers
stated that Reading Mastery is fun if the teacher makes it fun. Finally, multiple teachers
mentioned that Reading Mastery is not meant for all students but works well with beginning
readers and special populations.
Summary
An analysis of variance was used to determine differences in attitudes and perceptions
among groups of teachers with varying amounts of experience with the Reading Mastery, as well
as different types of teachers. The results show that the teachers surveyed have mostly positive
attitudes towards Reading Mastery. The majority of participants believe that it aides learning and
produces positive results. However, multiple teachers suggest that it does not teach critical
thinking and comprehension skills as well as lacks exposure to quality literature. Within this
study, five out of 15 items showed a significant difference in attitudes based on years of
experience. Within only one item, teachers with more experience answered significantly more
positive towards Reading Mastery. Within two items, teachers with less experience answered
significantly more positive. Two items were unable to be described by SPSS due to unequal
group sizes. These results suggest that there is little difference when comparing teachers based
on years of experience.
59
When comparing different types of teachers, significance at the .05 level was found
among two items. However, one item was unable to be described due to the unequal group sizes.
Within one item, special education teachers answered significantly more positive towards
Reading Mastery. These results suggest that within this study, there is little difference in attitudes
and perceptions of Reading Mastery based on type of teacher.
60
CHAPTER V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This research explored the attitudes and perceptions of the Direct Instruction reading
program known as Reading Mastery, among teachers throughout the state of Ohio. It also
described the differences in attitudes and perceptions based on years of experience with the
program as well as differences in attitudes and perceptions based on type of teacher. The study
was conducted in the form of a survey where using a Likert scale, teachers were asked to rate the
extent to which they agreed or disagreed with statements about Reading Mastery. Participants
were also provided an opportunity to make additional comments.
Basic frequency counting using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS)
was used to identify attitudes and perceptions among participants as a whole. An analysis of
variance was used to determine differences in attitudes and perceptions based on years of
experience as well as type of teacher.
This chapter will include a summary of chapters one, two, and three. Conclusions drawn
from the results of the study will also be addressed. In addition, recommendations for future
actions will be presented.
Summary
Ideas of how best to teach reading have steadily changed over the past decade. The whole
language approach was used in the early 1990s as the main approach to teach reading (Schieffer
et al., n.d.). By the mid 1990s, low reading scores led to the idea of providing “balanced”
instruction including phonics within a literature based curriculum (Carnine et al., 1997).
Recently, the National Reading Panel (2000) reported that effective reading instruction should
teach and provide phonemic awareness, systematic phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and
61
comprehension. Carnine et al. (2004) identify Reading Mastery, a Direct Instruction approach to
teaching beginning reading, as a program that systematically teaches all of these skills.
Research has shown direct instruction to produce successful results when used within
regular and special education settings (Adams & Englemann, 1996). However, Direct Instruction
has often sparked debate among educators. Some believe that the program is overly mechanical
and boring (Gersten et al., 1986). Research has shown that the use of Direct Instruction over a
period of time can produce changes in teachers’ attitudes towards the program (Gersten et al.). It
is important for administrators to be aware of the various attitudes and perceptions concerning a
reading program as attitudes and perceptions can have an effect on delivery of instruction.
This study was conducted among teachers in the state of Ohio who use Reading Mastery
to teach beginning reading. Teachers included special education, regular education and remedial
reading teachers at the elementary level. Data for this investigation were analyzed and
interpreted using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS).
Conclusions
Direct Instruction evolved out of a need to provide remedial reading instruction to
socially and economically deprived children (Adams & Englemann, 1996). However, the
majority of participants in this study were regular education teachers with 1-4 years of
experience with Reading Mastery. This may be a result of the National Reading Panel (2000)
publicizing a report identifying effective components of reading instruction. The reports states
that for a reading program to be effective, it must teach and provide phonemic awareness,
systematic phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and explicit teaching of comprehension skills.
According to Carnine, Silbert, Kame’enui, & Tarver (2004), Reading Mastery exhibits these
62
important characteristics. Therefore, more schools may be starting to adopt Direct Instruction
programs such as Reading Mastery.
Proctor (1989) explains Direct Instruction generates disagreement among educators.
Teachers believe Direct Instruction conflicts with their philosophy of teaching. However, within
this study, the results of the frequency test indicated that the majority of participants had mostly
positive attitudes and perceptions of the Reading Mastery program. Within all items, more than
50% of participants agreed or strongly agreed with each of the statements provided (see Table 1).
Overall, it can be concluded that the participants in this study seemed to be pleased with the
program. This could be a result of the fact that most participants had between 1-4 years of
experience with the program.
In previous research concerning teachers’ attitudes and perceptions towards Direct
Instruction, teachers addressed concerns that the program had a high degree of structure leaving
little room for fun activities (Gersten et al., 1986). Similarly, this study showed that multiple
teachers seemed to be concerned that the program is not fun. Reading Mastery emphasizes
comprehension through explicit teaching strategies incorporating a variety of comprehension
strategies in the areas of vocabulary, literal comprehension, interpretive comprehension, and
reasoning (Schieffer et al., n.d) However, within comments, multiple teachers seem to be
concerned with the program’s failure to address critical thinking, comprehension skills, and lack
of exposure to quality literature. Sexton (1989) states that no specific program works for all
learners. Similarly, within this study, multiple participants mentioned that they believed that
Reading Mastery works for some students, but may not be appropriate for all. Specifically,
participants felt it works best with low performing readers and special education populations.
63
When comparing teachers with varying amounts of experience, within five of the survey
items, results showed significant differences at α = .05. However, within only one of those items,
participants with more experience with Reading Mastery answered significantly more positive.
These results are not consistent with results of previous research such as Proctor (1989) where
participants with more experience answered significantly more positive on multiple items.
Previous research has shown Direct Instruction to be successful with regular as special education
populations (Adams & Englemann, 1996). However no research has been found whereby
attitudes and perceptions of special and regular educators was compared. When comparing
different types of teachers, within one item, special education teachers answered significantly
more positive. Again, these results are not strong enough to conclude that there are differences
among types of teachers.
Results of the comparison of teachers with varying years of experience are consistent
with previous research showing that more experience with Direct Instruction yields more
positive attitudes towards it (Proctor, 1989). However, it is only supported by showing
significance within one item. Therefore, results should be reviewed with caution due to the low
response rate unequal group sizes, and significant differences appearing with few items. Other
factors not addressed by this survey such as pre conceived notions of the program may have
affected results.
Recommendations
The results of this study provide professionals and future researchers with a general
overview of attitudes and perceptions regarding the Reading Mastery program. Results are
beneficial to school boards and administrators interested in purchasing the Reading Mastery
series. Participants’ comments may inform professionals of the positive and negative aspects of
64
the program. In general, those considering purchasing the program should be aware that within
this study, participants seemed to be pleased with the Reading Mastery program and believe that
it aides learning. Schools considering purchasing the program may be interested to know that
some teachers believe it lacks exposure to quality literature as well as the teaching of critical
thinking and comprehension skills. Therefore, schools that use the program or are considering
purchasing the program may want to consider supplemental materials and instruction in these
areas to provide a balance within instruction. Also, those who use it should be aware that it may
not work for all students. Results of this study indicate that school boards and administrators
should not be concerned with amount of experience affecting the users’ attitudes, however, those
in use of the program should be provided with sufficient training as well as encouragement in
making the program fun by using voice inflections, facial expressions, and games with the
program.
The results of this study indicate a need for future research in this area. Future research
should investigate why more regular education teachers are using the program as opposed to
special education and remedial reading teachers. A study involving more participants would
possibly show greater significance. Also, an in depth qualitative study such as interviews may
explain other factors influencing attitudes and perceptions as well as changes in attitudes and
perceptions over time. In addition, an in depth qualitative study observing the delivery of
instruction using Direct Instruction materials may further explain teacher impact on student
success. Participants in this study were teachers who use the Reading Mastery program. This
study did not investigate attitudes and perceptions of teachers who do not use the program.
Therefore, in order to gain an understanding of why teachers may not use the program or how
non-users perceive the program, future research should investigate attitudes and perceptions of
65
these teachers. Finally, there are many different factors other than amount of experience that may
effect satisfaction with a reading program. Factors may include teacher familiarity, setting, types
of students, flexibility within the program, preconceived notions, previous training or even social
influences. As some teachers think a program is boring, others may think it is fun because he or
she makes it fun. In addition, Bond and Dykstra (1997) conclude that the teacher is the key
variable to student success rather than the program. Therefore, further studies should investigate
how teachers make a reading program fun.
Summary
Professionals are constantly looking for the best ways to teach reading. With the National
Reading Panel (2000) suggesting components of an effective reading program, professionals may
be turning to programs that contain these components. One such program is the Direct
Instruction Reading program known as Reading Mastery. Although research has shown it to be
successful with regular and special education populations, it also creates controversy due to its
scripted plans and highly structured presentation. Past research has shown that attitudes towards
Direct Instruction can improve with extended use and training.
In researching the answer to the question. “What are teachers’ attitudes and perceptions
of Reading Mastery?” and “Is there a difference in attitudes and perceptions based on years of
experience?” a survey containing 15 statements about Reading Mastery was used. Participants
were asked to rate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with statements about Reading
Mastery as well as make additional comments.
The rationale for conducting the study was to become aware of the various attitudes and
perceptions of the Direct Instruction program known as Reading Mastery, as well as inform
professionals in the field of education. Professionals considering purchasing Reading Mastery
66
and or Direct Instruction materials may be interested in teachers’ responses to this survey. Also,
they may be interested in knowing what teachers feel to be positive and negative aspects of the
program so that they can either supplement the program with supporting materials or improve
teacher attitudes.
It is important for teachers to feel confident and comfortable with the materials they are
using. Perceptions and attitudes of these materials may affect delivery of instruction and
ultimately, student success. Professionals need to be aware of and consider teachers’ perceptions
of the materials they are using so that they can make changes to the program, or improve teacher
attitudes.
67
REFERENCES
Adams, G.L., & Engelmann, S. (1996). Research on direct instruction: 25 years beyond
DISTAR. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Ashworth, D. R. (1999). Effects of direct instruction and basal reading instruction
programs on the reading achievement of second graders. Reading Improvement,
36, 150-156. Retrieved October 17, 2004, from Educational Resource
Information Center database.
Blair, T.R. (1984) Teacher effectiveness: The know-how to improve student
Learning. Reading Teacher, 38, 138-142.
Bond, G.L., & Dykstra, R. (1967). The cooperative research program in first grade reading
instruction. Reading Research Quartely, 32, 348-427.
Branwhite, A.B. (1983). Boosting reading skills by direct instruction. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 53, 291-298.
Carnine, D.W., Silbert, J., & Kame’enui, E.J. (1997). Direct instruction reading: Third
Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Carnine, D.W., Silbert, J., Kame’enui, E.J., & Tarver, S.G. (2004). Direct instruction
reading: Fourth edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Cossairt, A., Jacobs, J., & Shade, R. (1990). Incorporating direct instruction skills
throughout the undergraduate teacher training process: A training and research
direction for the future. Teacher Education and Special Education, 13, 167-171.
Darch, C., & Kameenui, E.J. (1987). Teaching learning disabled students critical reading
skills: A systematic replication. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 82-91.
Gersten, R., Carnine, D., & Cronin D. (1986). A multifaceted study of change in seven
inner-city schools. Elementary School Journal, 86, 257-276.
Gunn, B., Biglan, A., Smolkowski, K., & Ary, D. (2000). The efficacy of supplemental
instruction in decoding skills for hispanic and non-hispanic students in early
elementary school. Journal of Special Education, 34, 90-103. Retrieved October
68
17, 2004, from Educational Resource Information Center database.
Haring, N. G., & Krug, D.A. (1975). Evaluation of a program of systematic instructional
procedures for extremely poor retarded children. American Journal of Mental
Deficiency, 79, 627-631.
Kuder, S. J. (1990). Effectiveness of the DISTAR reading program for children with
Learning Disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 69-71.
Kuder, S.J. (1991). Language abilities and progress in a direct instruction reading
Program for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
24, 124-127.
Lloyd, J., Cullinan, D., Heins, E.D., & Epstein, M.H. (1980). Direct instruction: Effects
on oral and written language comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 3,
70-76.
National Reading Panel (NRP) (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment
of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction.
Washington, DC: national Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
O'Connor, R. E., Jenkins J. R., Cole, K.N., & Mills, P. E. (1993). Two approaches to
reading instruction with children with disabilities: Does program design make a
difference? Exceptional Children, 59, 312-323.
Proctor, T. J. (1989). Attitudes toward direct instruction. Teacher Education and Special
Education, 12, 40-45.
Richardson, E., DiBenedetto, B., Christ, A., Press, M., & Winsberg, B.G. (1978). An
assessment of two methods for remediating reading deficiencies. Reading
Improvement, 15, 82-95.
Schieffer, C., Marchand-Martella, N., Martella, R., & Simonsen, F. (n.d). The research
base for reading mastery. Retrieved October 10, 2004, from Science Research
Associates website: http://www.sraonline.com/index.php/home/researchbaserm/653
Sexton, C. W. (1989). Effectiveness of the DISTAR reading program in developing first
69
graders' language skills. Journal of Educational Research, 82, 289-293.
Stebbins, L.B., St. Pierre, R.G., Proper, E.C., Anderson, R.B., & Cerva, T.R. (1977).
Education as experimentation: A planned variation model (Vol IV-A). Cambridge,
MA: Abt Associates Inc.
Stein, C. L., & Goldman, J. (1980). Beginning reading instruction for children with
minimal brain dysfunction. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 13, 219-222.
Retrieved September 23, 2004 from EBSCO database.
Stein, M., Stuen, C., Carnine, D., & Long, R.M. (2001). Textbook evaluation and
adoption. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 17, 5-24. Retrieved September 24,
2004 from Educational Research Information Center Database.
Summerell, S., & Brannigan, G.G. (1977). Comparison of reading programs for children
with low levels of reading readiness. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 44, 743-746.
White, W.F., & Stevens, R. (1988). Teacher morale and student achievement. Reading
Improvement, 25, 222-232.
70
Appendix A
Survey Cover Letter
71
February 14, 2005
Dear Principal,
My name is Sara Gervase and I am a graduate student at Bowling Green State University
working towards my Masters degree in reading. As part of my thesis, I am conducting a survey
to examine primary grade teachers’ perceptions and attitudes regarding the use of the Direct
Instruction program known as Reading Mastery. It is my understanding that your school uses the
Reading Mastery program and that you may be able to help me.
I am asking you to help by distributing four surveys. Each survey is to be completed by one
kindergarten, first, second, and third grade teacher who uses Reading Mastery. The teachers may
be special and/or regular education teachers. Along with the survey, each of the four teachers
should receive one of the enclosed postage-paid return envelopes.
All responses will remain anonymous and confidential. No individual information will be shared;
only aggregate results will be reported. No one other than the individual who has completed the
survey will know if he or she has participated in the study.
Enclosed are four surveys and four postage-paid envelopes. Please distribute one each to a
kindergarten, first, second, and third grade teacher.
If you have any questions regarding this study, please contact me at [email protected] or
Dr. Cindy Hendricks at (419) 372-7341. You may also contact the chair, Human Subjects
Review Board, Bowling Green State University, (419) 372-7716 ([email protected]) if you
have any concerns about your teachers’ rights as research participants.
Thank you for helping with this study. It is greatly appreciated.
Best regards,
Sara J. Gervase
Graduate Student
74
Appendix B
Survey
75
February 14, 2005
Dear Teacher,
My name is Sara Gervase and I am a graduate student at Bowling Green State University. As
part of my Master’s thesis, I am conducting a survey study to examine the attitudes and
perceptions of those who use the Reading Mastery Direct Instruction program.
I am asking you to participate in the study by completing this survey. The survey should only
take about 5 minutes to complete. When you have completed the survey, please return it to me
using the enclosed postage-paid envelope. Additionally, please complete and return the survey
by March 3, 2005.
Your participation in this study is voluntary. Your responses will remain anonymous. No
individual information will be shared; only aggregate results will be reported. By completing the
survey, you are giving your consent to participate. If you have any questions regarding this
survey study, please contact me at [email protected] or Dr. Cindy Hendricks at (419) 3727341. You may also contact the Chair, Human Subjects Review Board, Bowling Green State
University, (419) 372-7716 if you have any concerns about your rights as a research participant.
Best regards,
Sara J. Gervase
Bowling Green State University Graduate Student
Please answer the following questions by placing a check in the appropriate circle.
1. Which type of teacher are you?
special education
regular education
2. What grade level do you currently teach?
kindergarten
first
second
third
other
N/A
3. How much experience have you had with using Reading Mastery?
Beginning user
1-4 years
5-9 years
more than 10
4. How did you learn to use Reading Mastery?
on my own
college courses
publisher in-service
district in-service
5. Are you aware of teachers who have left due to dissatisfaction with Reading Mastery?
Yes
No
76
Please identify the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements
about Reading Mastery.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Not Sure
Agree
Strongly
Agree
1. Reading Mastery aids learning.
o
o
o
o
o
2. Student improvement is worth the extra
effort of using Reading Mastery.
o
o
o
o
o
3. Regular use of Reading Mastery has
increased my appreciation of it.
o
o
o
o
o
4. Reading Mastery promotes positive
attitudes in the classroom.
o
o
o
o
o
5. There would be more support for Reading
Mastery if people knew more about it.
o
o
o
o
o
6. I am glad Reading Mastery is emphasized
o
o
o
o
o
7. Reading Mastery helps students cope with
academics.
o
o
o
o
o
8. Reading Mastery improves overall
classroom conditions.
o
o
o
o
o
9. I would use Reading Mastery techniques
even if materials were not available.
o
o
o
o
o
10. I look forward to using Reading Mastery.
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
12. Reading Mastery can benefit all students.
o
o
o
o
o
13. Reading Mastery is fun.
o
o
o
o
o
14. Reading Mastery helps students to
become independent.
o
o
o
o
o
15. I have seen positive results with Reading
Mastery.
o
o
o
o
o
11. More money should be spent on Direct
Instruction programs such as Reading
Mastery
Additional comments not captured by this survey:
™ Thank you for your time in completing this survey. Your help is greatly appreciated.