\doc\web\99\09\basarab.txt
From:           	"Angie Penzkover" <angie@powernetonline.com>
To:             	"ClearingHouse" <education-consumers@lists.dundee.net>
Subject:        	[education-consumers] DI not = OBE Explained
Date sent:      	Tue, 6 Jul 1999 07:29:44 -0500
Send reply to:  	"Angie Penzkover" <angie@powernetonline.com>


Shirley Basarab did NOT say that DI (capitals) was a new term for OBE. 
She said that the term di (lowercase) was hi-jacked by the OBE movement
and re-defined to suit their purposes.  DI with capitals represents a
specific and fairly unique set of curricula, while di with lowercase
letters usually represents just about any traditional teaching method,
such as lecturing or direct phonics instruction.


Ms. Basarab writes:


"The buzzword "direct instruction" with lower case, as listed in my book,
appears to be a term confiscated by OBE and redefined to mean "mentoring."
A "mentor" is defined as "formerly an ancient Greek term referring to a
counselor (Webster). Redefined as one who monitors, speaks for, and is
responsible for another; a case worker who follows a student throughout
his/her school and career to insure he/she internalizes the desired
outcomes or is remediated through lifelong learning.


Like "core cirriculum" is understood as "basic academics," but really
means Muller's "World Core Curriculum."


And "decision-making" is understood as determining an opinion or course of
action (Webster), but has been redefined to mean use of a process such as
Total Quality Management (e.g., evaluate all potential solutions without
regard to time-proven methods or consequences); or negotiation; or making
personal decisions by teamwork (peer pressure); etc.


My book's Glossary explains, "direct instruction - formerly meant
teaching facts by an expert, in contrast to discussing theories, called
“drill and kill” by reform supporters. Redefined as a new name (1998) for
education reform; Outcome Based Education." Since I wrote that, it has
come to my attention that the new redefinition also includes "mentoring."




Angie Penzkover




Date sent:      	Thu, 08 Jul 1999 23:57:35 -0700
From:           	shirley <shirley@basarab.com>
To:             	"Hu, Arthur" <arthurhu@halcyon.com>
Subject:        	A message I sent to someone else. FYI. Shirley


I went to the U of Oregon (my alma mater) WEB site
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~adiep/rdgtxt.htm and must admit I have
some concerns about Direct Instruction. Again, I know little about it. All
I can do is reflect on my personal area of study on the subject, so I must
evaluate (1) the process, (2) the language used to explain it, (3) the
"scientific research" supporting it, and (4) how much parental input is
allowed to influence the cirriculum.


(1) The process (scripting) seems to be driven by "outcomes," clearly the
goal of Goals 2000 and Outcome Based Education. The question that arises
is, exactly what are DI's objectives or outcomes? Only an evaluation of
the actual scripting and testing (none of which I have seen) can determine
that.


>From reading the WEB site, though, it appears DI has not only a
learn-to-read outcome, but also is "integrated" with affective results
(feelings) and "progressive" (it's inevitiable) viewpoints. It appears the
"outcomes" integrate a "science," which is highly subjective, not the
typical, factual "atoms are element, which make up molecules, which make
up compounds." The DI example given is: "with the progressive development
of the skeleton of the horse over time, ... a(n) historical perspective
(is learned). Later when the children read about dinosaurs, Odysseus and
the battle of Troy, or a future time machine, and so on, they use the
timeline to place the occurrence of the event in perspective."


The process appears to use new (non-classical) stories, which may or may


not reflect parents' values and beliefs. It also appears to "integrate"
feelings into the academic learning process. For instance, it


"requires children to imagine themselves in the stories... [e.g., 'Now
close your eyes and feel that cold.'] ...[S]tudents become accustomed to


imagining themselves in stories ... [such as] how Bertha was feeling
when she was inside the hot trunk of a car... Children often have
trouble inferring feelings, but not in Reading Mastery, because the
children get in the habit of imagining themselves in the stories and
associating things they read about literally with other likely reactions


and experiences." Unanswered is, what are the major topics "felt" and
learned? Are they sinister and dark, or heroic, up-lifting and clever?
Being inside a "hot trunk" isn't what many parents want their children to
"feel."


It admits, "Explicit instruction in common letter-sound correspondences is
also necessary." It appears that "letter-sound correspondences" means


phonics. Unanswered is: Is DI's limit of "only 40 letter-sound
correspondences" enough to be taught? After all, there are 26 letters in


the alphabet, leaving only 14 additional variations and combinations. For
instance, the WEB site states,


"The word ma'am could also be sounded out, but "ma" as a short form for
mother uses a different sound for a. The pupils only learn to produce the
sound /aaa/ as in am for the letter a. When pupils encounter a word like
ma, they will sound it out with the a sound as in fat and then use the
context of a sentence to adjust /ma/ to /maw/ as the word is correctly
pronounced. Thus, ma would not be an appropriate word to have pupils sound
out until they have learned enough sounds to be able to work in a context
of words."


(2) The language, along with the meaning of the words used to describe DI,
raised a definite red flag. The terms used to describe DI reflect Goals
2000, Essential Academic Learning Requirements, and the "mission and
vision" buzzwords of most school districts. One cannot assume the
definitions of these terms are as traditionally understood, but in fact
appear to reflect the meaning explained in "Education Reform - The Silent
Weapon"  Glossary.


Just a few of the buzzword examples include:


"Effective Schools ... Mastery ... integrating ... reading activities ...
listening activities ... comprehension activities ... competence ...


skills ... research-based ... constructing understanding ... partner
reading ... the partner takes error data ... criterion ... additional
tutoring ... daily performance measures, goals ... decision rules for
making instructional changes ... special (not defined) orthography ...
reading as a tool ... self-esteem ... affective (feeling) outcomes ... a


variety of strategies for communicating word meaning ... work in a
context of words ... facilitate learning ... read for a variety of
purposes ... teaching children to refrain from drawing conclusions from
insufficient evidence ...  interpret narrative stories ... Temporal
inferences ... Behavior and feeling inferences (comparison of human and
non-human responses to the same situation, projections of how the reader


would behave in various situations) ... logical thinking ... reasoning and
analysis strategies for scientific thinking ... effects transfer to other
critical thinking and reasoning activities ... read critically ...


critical thinking and analysis skills ... phonemes ... phonemic
awareness ...


I'll give just a couple of examples from "Education Reform - The Silent
Weapon" Glossary:


"critical thinking - traditionally defined as evaluation of facts.
Redefined as criticizing tradition, higher order thinking; viewing
parentÆs values/beliefs as out-of-date; absent absolute truth;
self-hypnosis to enhance concentration and open oneself to instruction
(suggestion); an essential learning; establishing and then resolving
cognitive dissidence with a facilitator; and (quoting ôResearch and
Improvement in the Social Studies..." by Raymond English. [National
Advisory Council on Educational Research and Improvement, April 2, 1987]) 
critical thinking is ônot only learning how to think for oneself, but it
[critical thinking] also means learning


how to subvert the traditional values in your society. YouÆre not
thinking æcriticallyÆ if youÆre accepting the values that mommy and
daddy taught you. ThatÆs not æcritical.Æö
Bloom defined critical thinking as, ôformulating subjective judgement as


the end product resulting in personal values/opinions with no real right


or wrong answer;ö moral relativism. (See values clarification, mastery
learning, Delphi technique.)


"phoneme - implied to mean phonics (learning to say the sounds
letters/letter- combinations make). Actually means the reverse of
phonics ù learning to hear the nuances of all the sounds of a language;
learning which letters/letter-combinations could produce each sound (e.g.,
of i sounds in hi, my, die, sigh, lye; of e sounds in get, any; of e
sounds in be, real, silly and see; of a sounds in eight, ate, aim, may; of
t sounds in right and tall); learning to discern sound nuances.


(3) The "scientific research," though, is my greatest concern. When I see
the term "meta-analysis," [e.g., "Similar conclusions were drawn from a
meta-analysis conducted by Pflaum, Walberg, Karagianes, and Rasher
(1980)"] what it really means is selecting scientific research studies
(whether or not they are valid) and using them as the basis of an argument
to support a given viewpoint. It is totally unscientific (as


I learned the blind-study scientific process) and reflects a Socratic
dialectic persuasion more than scientific fact. The WEB site also said,
"Taken together these findings indicate that..." This says to me that the
unscientific meta-analysis is the major basis for the "scientific"
conclusions.


"Education Reform - The Silent Weapon" explains meta-analysis as "a new
buzzword to manipulate research results and convince people a method is
research-based; averaging research studies, rather than using empirical
data."


A footnote quotes:
ôWhat Works and DoesnÆt, with At-Risk Studentsö by Jan Glaes (BKS
Publishing, 3109 150th Place SE, Mill Creek, WA). And ôFlunking Grades:
Research and Policies on Retention,ö ed. by LA Shepard & ML Smith (Falmer
Press, Philadelphia, PA, 1989). And ôGrade Level Retention Effects: A
Meta-Analysis of Research Studiesö by CT Holmes. "In it Glaes wrote
meta-analysis ôintegrates studiesö thus eliminating ôindividual study
methods and results.ö It is ôbased on ... differences between ... studies
rather than tests of statistical significance.ö It ôpermits systematic
[unscientific] examination of study attributes that might influence ...
results. In the case of retention research [students


who are held back], for example, do studies where promoted and retained
children are well matched on initial characteristics lead to the same
conclusions as studies with poorer control?ö ôIn the case of ... [students
who flunk], for example, do studies ... matched on initial characteristics
lead to the same conclusions as studies with poorer control? It ôenables a
... statement about what research says.ö (See research, effect size
[Endnotes].)"


In fact, meta-analysis was explained briefly on the WEB site. I found it


curious that they referenced Smith from 1981, but not Smith from 1989 (as
I did). It also admitted it was "not a study of the complete program," but
only a study of "components."


The DI WEB site said,
"A useful and relatively new technique for reviewing and summarizing the


results of a large number of studies is metaanalysis (Glass, McGraw, &
Smith, 1981). A very recent metaanalysis by Gary Adams has summarized the
research on Reading Mastery and other Direct Instruction programs (Adams,
in press).


It continued:
"The procedures for a metaanalysis are well defined. First all the
studies on a topic are gathered in a thorough search of all the
databases and a handsearch through the most recent (unindexed)
publications on the shelves. In addition Adams contacted authors of
research on Direct Instruction to gather any research articles that were


in press or in manuscript form.
"Second, a metaanalysis procedure requires establishing a set of rules for
accepting a study into the analysis. These rules are applied consistently
to all the gathered studies. Studies in Adams' (in press) metaanalysis
were rejected if:      They lacked a comparison group. They lacked pretest
scores.     The pretest scores of the Reading Mastery group and the
comparison group showed significant differences.     They lacked the
necessary mathematical information: means, standard deviations, and sample
sizes.     They lasted only one session (because the generalizability of
these laboratory studies are questionable.)     The Reading Mastery
intervention was combined with other incompatible programs.     They were
single-subject designs (because there is no accepted way of  calculating
effect sizes for this research design).     They were studies of the
components of Reading Mastery (e.g., pacing, correction procedures) and
not a study of the complete program.


(4) Another concern is based on the apparent absolute outside control of


the curriculum, not allowing for any parental or even teacher input.
"Scripting" clearly leaves little to no room for another viewpoint. If it
is a universally accepted viewpoint, like factual "atoms are elements,
etc.," that's fine for scripting. But it appears that DI delves into
emotional viewpoints as well, such as feelings.


I have also copied another WEB site, and included my comments on it. It,


too, raises a red flag. My comments are in parenthesis.


"Philosophy of Effective School Practices, the journal of the
Association for Direct Instruction"
(Effective Schools is a buzzword for a group that promotes Goals 2000,
especially through charter schools. "Education Reform - The Silent Weapon"
 Glossary defines: "effective schools - formerly meant schools where
students scored above-average on normed tests. Redefined as schools that
produce a high percentage of students who achieve predetermined criteria
outcomes [e.g., volunteering, teamwork, diversity].)"


1.  Teachers are responsible for student learning.
(This ties in with the mandate that teachers be "accountable" for their
students' learning, thus controlling the teaching outcomes by controlling
who teaches and what is taught through "licensing," "testing," and
"continuing education" for teachers.)


2.  The curriculum is a critical variable for instructional
effectiveness.
(This sounds like a call for a national cirriculum. "Effectiveness"
implies an outcome. Hitler was "effective." The difference between DI's

"special orthography" and "regular orthography" is not explained.)


3.  Effective teaching practices are identified by instructional
research that compares the results of a new practice with the results of


a viable alternative.
(The "research" I read was not "scientific." Furthermore, why are only
"new practices" being evaluated against a "viable alternative." Who and
what determines if an alternative is "viable?" If I were selling Golden
Delicious apples, a "viable alternative" to compare them with would be a


crab apple, not a Winter Banana apple. What happened to evaluation
against the traditional methods, which clearly taught all to read?)


4.  Experiments should not be conducted using an entire generation of
Americans.  The initial experimentation with a new practice should be
small in scale and carefully controlled so that negative outcomes are
minimized. (The first sentence is obvious. But whose children will be used
in these


"small in scale" experiments and available for "negative outcomes?"
Where is the informed consent that it is experimental feature?)


5.  A powerful technology for teaching exists that is not being utilized


in most American schools.
(This sounds like a call for more technology, thus implementing data
collection on children's responses so their curriculum can be
"adjusted," thus insuring they achieve the undefined "outcomes.")


Although I reserve my judgement until additional facts and research is
provided, it appears Direct Instruction is also highly suspect as an arm


of OBE.


Shirley Basarab