Thank you for this! My colleagues and I read the book How Learning Happens by Paul A. Kirschner this year. They mentioned DI in the book and compared it to di, but I was unfamiliar with the backstory of the concepts. Your article cleared up that confusion for me! Thanks for the info. (Btw, I would highly recommend How Learning Happens as an excellent exposition of educational research.)
Nothing prevents teachers from exploring or understanding student performance when using DI Programs or Explicit Teaching Practices. There is plenty of great work out there. To me, that is done "outside" the DI programs. Almost always, "reading instruction" is more than acquiring foundational reading skills, right? Getting Ss to read (a lot), talk about it, and certainly spelling and writing. We must not also forget a couple of "hidden gems" in that I would suggest folks examine and use Language for Learning and Language for Thinking (again, no financial interests) as components of core (Tier 1) instruction for young kids. Another brilliantly designed, field tested, "proven" program.
An OK review (I have no financial interests in any of this), and given that you are reviewing a book, you are making some inaccurate generalizations about a number of issues. Here is one of them. The focus on EARLY basic skills and not on intermediate or secondary students. Your generalizations may apply to the contents of the book you reviewed, but not on either published “DI” curriculum or the teaching principles. With respect to the latter, DI principles indeed have been directed to secondary CONTENT courses (e.g., American History with an exemplary “text” that I’m guessing is out of print, but amazing in its design; science, advanced mathematics). Plus DI has published curriculum, with Reading Mastery Signature edition extending to Grades 8 as I recall. It does a great job with reading comprehension. You also missed Essentials for Algebra and published programs who were influenced by Engelmann’s design principles for DI, including Third Quest (Marilyn Sprick) and Read to Achieve. Brilliantly designed. The concept of “scripts” is not unusual. The DI scripts are enabling…enabling teachers to use carefully selected language and importantly, teaching examples. All so the learner doesn’t get confused or make unnecessary errors. Ever gotten confused during the learning process by what your teacher said or teaching examples? As I professor for 40 years, I can tell you how often I confused students (or worse, disrupted their initial understanding) by my word choices and definitely with examples, especially spontaneous ones! Musicians, actors, and other professionals use “scripts” especially early in their learning processes. The “scripts” enable teachers to focus their attention on the learners (!!), and yes, how they are learning. Minimizing student errors (attributable to the teaching process) and importantly, increasing the likelihood of student SUCCESS. Engelmann’s book is a shining example of the DI “basics” at a given point in time.
It's good to know that there are other DI-influenced programs out there. I only looked at the programs listed on the NIFDI website (https://www.nifdi.org/), another commenter pointed me to other DI programs in use elsewhere as well.
I think you and I agree about scripts. I have one hesitation, that designing explanations is valuable for teachers to deepen their understanding of a topic. Still, you make good points about the value of scripts. I did not intend to be especially critical of scripts in the review; I think that improving the quality of explanations is overlooked in many modern curricula.
I’m not basing my judgment on ideology, nor am I basing it on fantasy. The whole package has been detrimental to reading instruction, I’ve seen it in real life, and I don’t see any point in bringing it up today. By the way, I published a study with Linnea Ehri in 1988 which found no significant difference better three groups at the elementary and community college level whether the practice was doing a spelling task correctly from the beginning (copying a word correctly) or just trying your best to make up a spelling and then studying the correct word. If the goal is to test automaticity as a function of rote memory, giving learners time to forget and then cold testing with first time correct is pragmatically appropriate. I did it a lot when I worked in reading clinics with dyslexics. It is ineffective with kids who have profound cognitive problems—those who might benefit from DI.
But that’s how we learn, going down rabbit holes. What attracts you to DI out of curiosity? I have worked with special Ed professors who hold it up as the gold standard and am always curious why people do that. In the case of special ed, there is a special population of kids the profs care deeply about and are hoping for a miracle fix.
I see a lot of conversations about DI that feel really shallow. DI proponents cite Project Follow Through as if that one study is irrefutable evidence that DI is the best solution for all students everywhere, and they omit that DI is really only for grades K-5. People attack DI without actually describing what it looks like in practice.
I will say again that I'm not advocating anyone use DI, I'm trying to understand it better and help people understand it better. I am really interested in the idea of having strands on multiple topics in a single lesson, rather than insisting every lesson has a single object. I like the idea of "first time correct" as an effective way to check for understanding. I think a lot of modern curricula would benefit from striving for a high success rate from students. I can use those ideas in my teaching without adopting DI.
To answer "what attracts me to DI" - I wanted to read the book to better understand it. I was surprised at how many of the teaching ideas I found thoughtful and helpful. There are also plenty of parts of DI I think don't make a lot of sense, feel shallow, and wouldn't want to teach. I can have a nuanced opinion about DI, and avoid caricatures and attacks based on ideology.
You do see how insane this is right? Reorganizing a whole school, tracking students in groups based on phonics—what do they recommend for ELLs? This is total nonsense. Btw, what studies are cited for efficacy? Has anyone done a mixed method study of the consequences of reorganizing a whole elementary student to accommodate phonics? The federal government clearinghouse has in the past discredited any studies of Englemann’s approach because of conflicts of interest. Have you read anything about DI from independent researchers? Please cite at least one study showing a) that this rescheduled instructional plan is worth the downsides (long transition time, heavy bureaucracy, deskilling of teachers, loss of motivation for reading among capable readers? and b) efficacy when placed against other methods (learning outcomes measured in sixth grade on qualitative and quantitative variables? You are reading a biased book. I’d need a raft of good research before I as an administrator would even look at something like this—research carried out by mainstream reading scientists, not by Barbara Foorman or Lisa Moats
As I said in the post, my goal isn't to convince anyone that DI is good or DI is bad. I mentioned a bunch of my personal concerns about the program. You are welcome to draw your own conclusions, I'm not interested in defending DI. My goal is to help people understand it better.
To answer your questions: for ELLs there are two specific DI programs designed to transition them into DI reading depending on their age. You can read about them on the NIFDI website under The Programs -> ELL/ELD: https://www.nifdi.org/
I'm not an expert in this area so it's possible these researchers are biased but one could look through the studies referenced to draw a conclusion. The paper references 328 studies so there is plenty of research.
Again, I'm not trying to convince you DI programs are good. I see a lot of really shallow discourse about DI and my goal is to help people understand the program better. I know a lot more about it than I did before reading the book and I am still skeptical and wouldn't want to teach a DI program, though I do see benefits from some of their practices. I agree the book is biased, but that doesn't mean I can't learn anything from it if I read it with a critical lens.
I’ve wasted too much time reading studies that support DI as a reading researcher. I advise you to look at the sources of those 300+ “studies.” They are funded by friends of DI. It started from the pen of a true believer and has persisted because it draws true believers. Seriously. You are looking at a biased source. Finding actionable truth in it is impossible because the author did not comment on the arguments against it. You, for example, accept the assertion that 300+ studies support it. Right? You used it in your argument. That’s garbage. And the only way you will know that is to dig into them as I did back in the day. You’re in a rabbit hole that is a time suck.
I’d like you to point me in the direction of a source I can use to verify this small group intention. So the materials are not designed for use in whole classrooms? Dylan states that the book asserts that DI is most effective when it is used at a whole school or at least in whole grade level. Is that the case? I’ve witnessed it used day after day in whole group first and second grade.
From the book referenced above, "...placing students at their current skill level and ensuring that they are taught to mastery are essential steps for success with DI because of the incremental step design of the DI program... If students are not placed at their current skill level in the DI program and taught to mastery every day, they will not develop a strong foundation for future learning."
The reason the program emphasizes whole school/grade level is that to make this homogenous grouping work students might not have reading with their typical teacher. For instance, a single 1st grade class might have students who need placements at 6 different levels in the program. A single teacher can't teach 6 different groups even with rotations through independent work and a para supporting, so the entire grade level would be divided up into 6 different levels so that each group can receive instruction on their level and teachers would be assigned to groups with a more flexible reading block that wouldn't necessarily be their typical class. Groups are also smaller for students who are in the lower levels of the program, and this is much easier to accommodate with a grade-level wide approach. Schools might choose to have reading groups flexible between grade levels, so any student on a certain level whether they are in K, 1st, 2nd, etc might be in a single group.
This page on the NIFDI website emphasizes small group sizes as well - a maximum of 6 at the lower levels, 10 or 12 above there, and whole-class at a certain point (I think typically in 2nd or 3rd grade but I'm not sure). The intent is to do most early reading instruction in very small leveled groups, and gradually move to whole class as students develop reading skills. https://www.nifdi.org/how-to-be-successful/ensuring-sufficient-personnel.html
The problem is DI is technically ok (not great—there are other scripted programs) but inappropriate for a whole class. In the real world learner differences in phonemic awareness, phonological coding and decoding, orthographic processing, syntactic inheritance, not to mention sociocultural experience are so great, it makes no sense to “prescribe” this sort of instruction for learners who are capable of reading in the wild. It simplifies the teaching problem—as you say, teachers don’t need to know what to say nor how to modify their language for different learners if it’s written out. That, my friend, works against gaining experience as a reflective practitioner, something I see missing in action in the 21st century. Englemann’s stuff is defensible if learner needs it. Let’s not cut the child’s foot to fit the shoe
Yea I agree with Ann, one of the major points I took away from the book is that DI programs should not be expected to work if students are not placed in the program using their placement tests. The goal is to meet students where they are, not to force them to march lockstep through things they already know.
I think your point about being a reflective practitioner is worth thinking about but I'm not sure the best way to help teachers develop that. I see plenty of teachers unwilling to reflect on their practice who teach much less structured curricula.
I worked as a reading specialist during the Whole Language era. It has never been the case that phonics was verboten. In fact, I spent much time in first grade classrooms over several years, and I saw some incredible phonics teachers. Zoo Phonics and other play or game approaches were very popular. Englemann’s stuff was used in regular classrooms in my district before WH, but many teachers had been unhappy with it. My assignment was to work with the DI teachers to support their transition to a more humanizing, flexible approach to phonics. No one was forced to change. I remember visiting Englemann’s classrooms. They were eerily similar, regimented, but I understood why the teachers were so devoted to it. Those that could retired. In a perverse way I find the new Science of Reading push for DI like instruction amusing in that it is conservative retribution. I have deep theoretical troubles with DI. I’m gobsmacked that it has survived.
Interesting! One of the book's claims was that if the entire school wasn't on board (at least for the grade levels chosen), DI won't work. The flexible grouping seems like it would be hard in a single classroom. I'm curious what that transition looks like.
This seems a fair review of the state of DI right now.
"But I can't understand why, if there is so much research that DI is successful, there aren't more curricula for higher grades. Most programs don’t go past 5th grade."
On this point It's maybe not entirely true that more advanced DI programmes aren't available. There are curricula written using the DI format for higher grades, but they tend not to be sold as packages. Morningside Academy and another program from UN Reno are explicitly behaviour analytic and use DI and precision teaching. I can't imagine they would find a purchase in today's educational world outside of their own system. When phonics were verboten for so long, who would publish a book using those methods on history or geography?
Edit: to another point on talking about what makes Math interesting, there's nothing in the ideas behind DI to say you can't do that, just that it's not the core of what they're selling.
That's reasonable. I was using "on the NIFDI website" https://www.nifdi.org/ as my criteria. Still, interest in DI and similar programs is increasing and I find the lack of any clear options for older grades interesting.
To your last point -- I tried to take the book at face value. If you write 500 pages on a program and you don't talk about something I'm going to assume it's not important to you. I'm sure I could make that same argument about lots of things but when a program is as prescriptive as DI it seems unlikely other stuff will be incorporated.
Thank you for this! My colleagues and I read the book How Learning Happens by Paul A. Kirschner this year. They mentioned DI in the book and compared it to di, but I was unfamiliar with the backstory of the concepts. Your article cleared up that confusion for me! Thanks for the info. (Btw, I would highly recommend How Learning Happens as an excellent exposition of educational research.)
I've always wondered about the actual pedagogy of DI, versus the edu-zeitgeist commentary. Thanks for doing this deep dive.
Nothing prevents teachers from exploring or understanding student performance when using DI Programs or Explicit Teaching Practices. There is plenty of great work out there. To me, that is done "outside" the DI programs. Almost always, "reading instruction" is more than acquiring foundational reading skills, right? Getting Ss to read (a lot), talk about it, and certainly spelling and writing. We must not also forget a couple of "hidden gems" in that I would suggest folks examine and use Language for Learning and Language for Thinking (again, no financial interests) as components of core (Tier 1) instruction for young kids. Another brilliantly designed, field tested, "proven" program.
An OK review (I have no financial interests in any of this), and given that you are reviewing a book, you are making some inaccurate generalizations about a number of issues. Here is one of them. The focus on EARLY basic skills and not on intermediate or secondary students. Your generalizations may apply to the contents of the book you reviewed, but not on either published “DI” curriculum or the teaching principles. With respect to the latter, DI principles indeed have been directed to secondary CONTENT courses (e.g., American History with an exemplary “text” that I’m guessing is out of print, but amazing in its design; science, advanced mathematics). Plus DI has published curriculum, with Reading Mastery Signature edition extending to Grades 8 as I recall. It does a great job with reading comprehension. You also missed Essentials for Algebra and published programs who were influenced by Engelmann’s design principles for DI, including Third Quest (Marilyn Sprick) and Read to Achieve. Brilliantly designed. The concept of “scripts” is not unusual. The DI scripts are enabling…enabling teachers to use carefully selected language and importantly, teaching examples. All so the learner doesn’t get confused or make unnecessary errors. Ever gotten confused during the learning process by what your teacher said or teaching examples? As I professor for 40 years, I can tell you how often I confused students (or worse, disrupted their initial understanding) by my word choices and definitely with examples, especially spontaneous ones! Musicians, actors, and other professionals use “scripts” especially early in their learning processes. The “scripts” enable teachers to focus their attention on the learners (!!), and yes, how they are learning. Minimizing student errors (attributable to the teaching process) and importantly, increasing the likelihood of student SUCCESS. Engelmann’s book is a shining example of the DI “basics” at a given point in time.
It's good to know that there are other DI-influenced programs out there. I only looked at the programs listed on the NIFDI website (https://www.nifdi.org/), another commenter pointed me to other DI programs in use elsewhere as well.
I will point out that according to the website, Reading Mastery Signature Edition only goes up to 5th grade (https://www.nifdi.org/programs/reading/reading-mastery.html). I did mention that math goes up to Algebra I in the blog.
I think you and I agree about scripts. I have one hesitation, that designing explanations is valuable for teachers to deepen their understanding of a topic. Still, you make good points about the value of scripts. I did not intend to be especially critical of scripts in the review; I think that improving the quality of explanations is overlooked in many modern curricula.
I’m not basing my judgment on ideology, nor am I basing it on fantasy. The whole package has been detrimental to reading instruction, I’ve seen it in real life, and I don’t see any point in bringing it up today. By the way, I published a study with Linnea Ehri in 1988 which found no significant difference better three groups at the elementary and community college level whether the practice was doing a spelling task correctly from the beginning (copying a word correctly) or just trying your best to make up a spelling and then studying the correct word. If the goal is to test automaticity as a function of rote memory, giving learners time to forget and then cold testing with first time correct is pragmatically appropriate. I did it a lot when I worked in reading clinics with dyslexics. It is ineffective with kids who have profound cognitive problems—those who might benefit from DI.
But that’s how we learn, going down rabbit holes. What attracts you to DI out of curiosity? I have worked with special Ed professors who hold it up as the gold standard and am always curious why people do that. In the case of special ed, there is a special population of kids the profs care deeply about and are hoping for a miracle fix.
I see a lot of conversations about DI that feel really shallow. DI proponents cite Project Follow Through as if that one study is irrefutable evidence that DI is the best solution for all students everywhere, and they omit that DI is really only for grades K-5. People attack DI without actually describing what it looks like in practice.
I will say again that I'm not advocating anyone use DI, I'm trying to understand it better and help people understand it better. I am really interested in the idea of having strands on multiple topics in a single lesson, rather than insisting every lesson has a single object. I like the idea of "first time correct" as an effective way to check for understanding. I think a lot of modern curricula would benefit from striving for a high success rate from students. I can use those ideas in my teaching without adopting DI.
To answer "what attracts me to DI" - I wanted to read the book to better understand it. I was surprised at how many of the teaching ideas I found thoughtful and helpful. There are also plenty of parts of DI I think don't make a lot of sense, feel shallow, and wouldn't want to teach. I can have a nuanced opinion about DI, and avoid caricatures and attacks based on ideology.
You do see how insane this is right? Reorganizing a whole school, tracking students in groups based on phonics—what do they recommend for ELLs? This is total nonsense. Btw, what studies are cited for efficacy? Has anyone done a mixed method study of the consequences of reorganizing a whole elementary student to accommodate phonics? The federal government clearinghouse has in the past discredited any studies of Englemann’s approach because of conflicts of interest. Have you read anything about DI from independent researchers? Please cite at least one study showing a) that this rescheduled instructional plan is worth the downsides (long transition time, heavy bureaucracy, deskilling of teachers, loss of motivation for reading among capable readers? and b) efficacy when placed against other methods (learning outcomes measured in sixth grade on qualitative and quantitative variables? You are reading a biased book. I’d need a raft of good research before I as an administrator would even look at something like this—research carried out by mainstream reading scientists, not by Barbara Foorman or Lisa Moats
As I said in the post, my goal isn't to convince anyone that DI is good or DI is bad. I mentioned a bunch of my personal concerns about the program. You are welcome to draw your own conclusions, I'm not interested in defending DI. My goal is to help people understand it better.
To answer your questions: for ELLs there are two specific DI programs designed to transition them into DI reading depending on their age. You can read about them on the NIFDI website under The Programs -> ELL/ELD: https://www.nifdi.org/
In terms of research, here is a 2018 meta-analysis of research on DI, the lead author is Jean Stockard: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/0034654317751919
I'm not an expert in this area so it's possible these researchers are biased but one could look through the studies referenced to draw a conclusion. The paper references 328 studies so there is plenty of research.
Again, I'm not trying to convince you DI programs are good. I see a lot of really shallow discourse about DI and my goal is to help people understand the program better. I know a lot more about it than I did before reading the book and I am still skeptical and wouldn't want to teach a DI program, though I do see benefits from some of their practices. I agree the book is biased, but that doesn't mean I can't learn anything from it if I read it with a critical lens.
I’ve wasted too much time reading studies that support DI as a reading researcher. I advise you to look at the sources of those 300+ “studies.” They are funded by friends of DI. It started from the pen of a true believer and has persisted because it draws true believers. Seriously. You are looking at a biased source. Finding actionable truth in it is impossible because the author did not comment on the arguments against it. You, for example, accept the assertion that 300+ studies support it. Right? You used it in your argument. That’s garbage. And the only way you will know that is to dig into them as I did back in the day. You’re in a rabbit hole that is a time suck.
DI materials have placement tests for all of their products. The programs are not intended for large heterogeneous groups.
I’d like you to point me in the direction of a source I can use to verify this small group intention. So the materials are not designed for use in whole classrooms? Dylan states that the book asserts that DI is most effective when it is used at a whole school or at least in whole grade level. Is that the case? I’ve witnessed it used day after day in whole group first and second grade.
From the book referenced above, "...placing students at their current skill level and ensuring that they are taught to mastery are essential steps for success with DI because of the incremental step design of the DI program... If students are not placed at their current skill level in the DI program and taught to mastery every day, they will not develop a strong foundation for future learning."
The book is the main source I've learned about DI from but I found this overview on the NIFDI website, where points 3 and 4 emphasize homogenous grouping: https://www.nifdi.org/docman/suggested-reading/white-papers-by-zig/116-developer-s-guidelines-by-siegfried-engelmann/file.html
The reason the program emphasizes whole school/grade level is that to make this homogenous grouping work students might not have reading with their typical teacher. For instance, a single 1st grade class might have students who need placements at 6 different levels in the program. A single teacher can't teach 6 different groups even with rotations through independent work and a para supporting, so the entire grade level would be divided up into 6 different levels so that each group can receive instruction on their level and teachers would be assigned to groups with a more flexible reading block that wouldn't necessarily be their typical class. Groups are also smaller for students who are in the lower levels of the program, and this is much easier to accommodate with a grade-level wide approach. Schools might choose to have reading groups flexible between grade levels, so any student on a certain level whether they are in K, 1st, 2nd, etc might be in a single group.
This page on the NIFDI website emphasizes small group sizes as well - a maximum of 6 at the lower levels, 10 or 12 above there, and whole-class at a certain point (I think typically in 2nd or 3rd grade but I'm not sure). The intent is to do most early reading instruction in very small leveled groups, and gradually move to whole class as students develop reading skills. https://www.nifdi.org/how-to-be-successful/ensuring-sufficient-personnel.html
The problem is DI is technically ok (not great—there are other scripted programs) but inappropriate for a whole class. In the real world learner differences in phonemic awareness, phonological coding and decoding, orthographic processing, syntactic inheritance, not to mention sociocultural experience are so great, it makes no sense to “prescribe” this sort of instruction for learners who are capable of reading in the wild. It simplifies the teaching problem—as you say, teachers don’t need to know what to say nor how to modify their language for different learners if it’s written out. That, my friend, works against gaining experience as a reflective practitioner, something I see missing in action in the 21st century. Englemann’s stuff is defensible if learner needs it. Let’s not cut the child’s foot to fit the shoe
DI materials have placement tests for all of their products. The programs are not intended for large heterogeneous groups.
Yea I agree with Ann, one of the major points I took away from the book is that DI programs should not be expected to work if students are not placed in the program using their placement tests. The goal is to meet students where they are, not to force them to march lockstep through things they already know.
I think your point about being a reflective practitioner is worth thinking about but I'm not sure the best way to help teachers develop that. I see plenty of teachers unwilling to reflect on their practice who teach much less structured curricula.
I worked as a reading specialist during the Whole Language era. It has never been the case that phonics was verboten. In fact, I spent much time in first grade classrooms over several years, and I saw some incredible phonics teachers. Zoo Phonics and other play or game approaches were very popular. Englemann’s stuff was used in regular classrooms in my district before WH, but many teachers had been unhappy with it. My assignment was to work with the DI teachers to support their transition to a more humanizing, flexible approach to phonics. No one was forced to change. I remember visiting Englemann’s classrooms. They were eerily similar, regimented, but I understood why the teachers were so devoted to it. Those that could retired. In a perverse way I find the new Science of Reading push for DI like instruction amusing in that it is conservative retribution. I have deep theoretical troubles with DI. I’m gobsmacked that it has survived.
Interesting! One of the book's claims was that if the entire school wasn't on board (at least for the grade levels chosen), DI won't work. The flexible grouping seems like it would be hard in a single classroom. I'm curious what that transition looks like.
This seems a fair review of the state of DI right now.
"But I can't understand why, if there is so much research that DI is successful, there aren't more curricula for higher grades. Most programs don’t go past 5th grade."
On this point It's maybe not entirely true that more advanced DI programmes aren't available. There are curricula written using the DI format for higher grades, but they tend not to be sold as packages. Morningside Academy and another program from UN Reno are explicitly behaviour analytic and use DI and precision teaching. I can't imagine they would find a purchase in today's educational world outside of their own system. When phonics were verboten for so long, who would publish a book using those methods on history or geography?
Edit: to another point on talking about what makes Math interesting, there's nothing in the ideas behind DI to say you can't do that, just that it's not the core of what they're selling.
That's reasonable. I was using "on the NIFDI website" https://www.nifdi.org/ as my criteria. Still, interest in DI and similar programs is increasing and I find the lack of any clear options for older grades interesting.
To your last point -- I tried to take the book at face value. If you write 500 pages on a program and you don't talk about something I'm going to assume it's not important to you. I'm sure I could make that same argument about lots of things but when a program is as prescriptive as DI it seems unlikely other stuff will be incorporated.