Literature Review

Rebecca Wilman 17325509

EDUC4001

Introduction

In this hypothetical literature review, the focus area relates to special needs in regards to best practice
for reading instruction; specifically direct instruction, otherwise known as explicit teaching. Therefore,
the action research question in response pertains to ‘How effective is Direct Instruction in teaching
reading strategies to students with mild learning disabilities (Special Needs)?’. The basis for this
hypothetical action research question is in response to experiences of an education assistant and pre-
service teacher being tasked to enact this pedagogical approach in special needs classrooms and further
experiences in mainstream on practical placements. This question has been derived specifically due to
receiving mixed opinions about the strategies’ effectiveness in developing students reading skills,
phonological patterns and how it conflicts with known best practice in developing a phonological and
whole word decoding approach; warranting clarity through further research. Especially, when the topic
of best instruction for reading development is important in a special needs context for students who are
already behind or struggle to develop strategies in decoding texts. Specific definitions needed in reading
this review include:

 ‘Direct Instruction’ (DI) is an explicit teaching approach that breaks processes into small base skills,
involves mastery before proceeding, is grouped according to ability and utilises scripted lesson
plans that will not move on until everyone understands the skill (Reutzel, Child, Jones & Clark,
2014).
 ‘Core reading skills’ are phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension
skills (Reutzel et al., 2014).
 ‘Teacher pedagogy’ is the teacher’s interpretation of educational theory and student needs
(Stockard, Wood, Coughlin & Khoury, 2018).

What benefits does DI bring to developing core reading skills in primary settings that identify
learners with learner differences?

The current research studies and articles found are as follows:

1
 1. Direct Instruction with Playful Skill Extensions: Action Research in Emergent Literacy
Development. (Keaton, Palmer, Nicholas & Lake, 2007).
2. Effects of Teaching Syllable Skills Instruction on Reading Achievement in Struggling Middle
School Readers (Diliberto, Beattie, Flowers & Algozzine, 2008).
3. Explicit instruction in core reading programs (Reutzel et al., 2014).
4. Teaching Reading Comprehension to Special Needs Learners: What Matters? (Reid, Baker, Lasell
& Eastin, 1993).

From the above readings, these articles are attending to the specific and effective use of DI as best
practice when focusing on the area of core reading skills (CRS). The authors discuss in context to
developing phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension skills advocated to
be taught in conjunction with DI in order for students to read effectively (Reutzel et al., 2014). The scope
of the articles cover students from emergent lower primary, to middle and upper primary and aims to
reveal or extend previous bodies of knowledge surrounding the positive benefits of utilizing DI within a
classroom that has students with additional learning needs; not necessarily a learning difficulty;
nonetheless a difference (Keaton, Palmer, Nicholas & Lake, 2007; Diliberto, Beattie, Flowers & Algozzine,
2008; Reutzel et al., 2014; Reid, Baker, Lasell & Eastin, 1993). Through a selection of methodologies and
data collection techniques, articles 1 to 2 focus on utilizing qualitative data and quantitative sources
using a mixed-methods design that combines interventions with quasi-experimental pre and post-test
collections of evidence with non-equivalent groups of students aged from mainly lower to middle
primary (Keaton et al., 2007; Diliberto et al., 2008; Mills, 2014, p. 135). Articles 3 and 4 however, focus
more on a content analysis design format that reviews past research and other sources of action
research through a systematic, objective, quantitative analysis of DI characteristics to formulate notions
of best practice (Reutzel et al., 2014, p. 411; Mills, 2014, p. 135).

The major questions being articulated through the articles relate to a process of determining the value
of DI in an educational context. These values are based on what DI brings to or can be incorporated
with, in terms of devepmentally appropriate reading practices such as; reciprocal teaching, modeling
syllable instruction through the step by step skills, successful core reading programs (CRP) and
comprehension (Keaton et al., 2007; Diliberto et al., 2008; Reutzel et al., 2014; Reid et al., 1993). The
current findings from these articles suggest DI is an effective reading development strategy that can be
according to Keaton and associates integrated with peer assisted learning strategies (2007). Research
article 2 concurs, and indicates benefits of increased word identification, attack, fluency and
comprehension in pre-test to post-test results (Diliberto et al., 2008). Article 3 adds to this content and

2
identifies modeling as the most frequently recommended explicit instructional tool for success (Reutzel,
Child, Jones & Clark, 2014), whilst Reid and associates agree and add reminders for using meaningful
and relevant contexts (1993). In reviewing and synthesizing the articles, the major theme that presents
is based on what benefits DI brings to developing core reading skills in primary settings. Therefore, the
general conclusions made from the readings indicate in a purely mainstream setting with students who
are described as having learner differences, DI is more likely to increase learning core reading skills
within a CRP if a DI approach is enacted and sustained.

Evidence based reading instruction – What evidence is found of increased learning in

comparative approach studies with DI?

The current research studies and articles found are as follows:

1. A Comparison of Activity-Based Intervention and Embedded Direct Instruction When Teaching

Emergent Literacy Skills (Botts, Losardo, Tillery & Werts, 2014).
2. Implementation and effects of explicit reading comprehension instruction in fifth-grade
classrooms (Andreassen & Bråten, 2010).
3. The Effectiveness of Direct Instruction Curricula: A Meta-Analysis of a Half Century of Research
(Stockard et al., 2018).
4. Comparison of Direct Instruction and Simultaneous Prompting Procedure on Teaching Concepts
to Individuals with Intellectual Disability (Çelik & Vuran, 2014).

From the above readings, these articles are attending to the comparative evidence DI presents when
contested against another learning approache or variables (Mills, 2014, p. 120). The authors discuss in
context to comparing effectiveness of DI against approaches such as; activity-based intervention,
reciprocal teaching and the simultaneous prompting procedure (Botts et al., 2014; Andreassen & Bråten,
2010; Çelik & Vuran, 2014). The scope of the articles cover students from emergent lower primary, to
middle and upper primary and aim to show evidence for or against DI. Through a selection of
methodologies and data collection techniques, all the articles involved utilise qualitative data sources
such as ‘active participant observation’ with a quantitative ‘parallel treatments design’ with other mixed
models that combine pre and post-testing data collections with interventions; analysing for covariance’s
(Mills, 2014, pp 133 -135). In conjunction, each article utilised an intervention approach where at least
55 girls and 48 boys were involved (Andreassen & Bråten, 2010, p. 524).

3
 The major question being articulated relates to a comparative analysis activity-based intervention,
reciprocal teaching and the simultaneous prompting procedure (Botts et al., 2014; Andreassen & Bråten,
2010; Çelik & Vuran, 2014). Essentially, each article questions which approach to reading instruction will
best increase student learning towards specific core reading skills, such as phonological awareness or
comprehension strategies; predicting, clarifying, questioning and summarizing (Botts et al., 2014;
Andreassen & Bråten, 2010; Çelik & Vuran, 2014). Whilst all three approaches are valid and successful in
their own right, the quantitative evidence proves DI as the most successful and although the studies
cannot be completely compared exactly for all of the core reading skills; each offers transferability of
qualitative statements made within (Botts et al., 2014; Andreassen & Bråten, 2010; Çelik & Vuran, 2014;
Mills, 2014, p. 170). Therefore comparatively, the author can suggest DI has demonstrated positive
effects on a highly structured, complex and explicit reading comprehension instruction (Andreassen &
Bråten, 2010, p. 553). Whereas also stating authors inferred greater success with a combination of
strategies for developing “phonemic awareness, guided oral reading, teaching vocabulary words, and
reading comprehension” in reading instruction (Çelik & Vuran, 2014, p. 176). In reviewing and
synthesizing the articles, the major theme that presents is based on comparative evidence for best
instruction. Therefore, the general conclusions made from the readings indicate DI is more effective
than most approaches, however, more studies need to be reviewed to completely conclude this to be a
credible statement (Mills, 2014, p. 171).

The effectiveness of DI in special needs settings – What evidence shows increased student
learning with mild to moderate learning difficulties?

The current research studies and articles found are as follows:

1. A Study of Direct Instructional Spelling Strategies and Their Effect on Students with Special
Needs Who are classified with Mild Mental Disabilities (Preast, 2009).
2. Effective Direct Instruction Practices in Special Education Settings (Englert, 1984).
3. Effective intervention for expressive grammar in children with specific language impairment
(Smith‐Lock, Leitao, Lambert & Nickels, 2013).
4. The Effectiveness of Direct Instruction for Teaching Language to Children with Autism Spectrum
Disorders: Identifying Materials (Ganz, 2009).
5. The Effectiveness of Direct Instruction in Teaching Students with Autism Spectrum Disorder to
Answer ‘‘Wh-’’ Questions (Cadette, Wilson, Brady, Dukes & Bennett, 2016).

4
 6. The First “R”: Evidence-Based Reading Instruction for Students with Learning Disabilities
(Ritchey, 2011).
7. Effects of Direct Instruction on Reading Comprehension for Individuals with Autism or
Developmental Disabilities (Head, Flores & Shippen, 2018).

From the above readings, these articles are relating to DI in context of students with mild to moderate
learning difficulties in the special needs primary setting. Within the articles, the authors discuss
independently in context to a specific disability that results in a learning difficulty such as; mild mental
health disabilities, language impairment, Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and other known
developmental disabilities (Preast, 2009; Englert, 1984; Smith‐Lock et al., 2013; Ganz, 2009; Cadette et
al., 2016; Ritchey, 2011; Head et al., 2018). The scope of the articles cover students from lower, middle,
upper primary and lower secondary and aim to show evidence for or against DI. Through a selection of
methodologies and data collection techniques, all articles except for 6 follow a mixed-method
qualitative and quantitative data source that relies on many ‘active participant observers’ (Mills, 2014, p.
133). In the case of article 2, authors also utilised a Direct Instruction Observation System (DIOS) which
was used to record by coding teachers' specific general management practices during direct instruction
and compared it to student outcomes (Englert, 1984, p. 40). Interventions were again a focus for all
studies except article 6, which focused purely on qualitative data from previous studies as the basis for a
content analysis of specialized reading instructions that students with Learning Difficulties (LD) in
reading will benefit from (Ritchey, 2011). However, articles 4 and 7 differed slightly with a ‘single-
subject multiple probe design’ based on one topic; naming objects and the other, students with just ASD
(Ganz, 2009; Head et al., 2018). Finally, article 5 added ‘multiple-baseline and probes’ designed to
provide an analysis of the relationship between multiple baseline variations such as interpreting answers
to the three ‘‘wh-’’ questions in reading comprehension (Cadette et al., 2016, p. 68).

The major questions articulated through the articles relates to questions surrounding the
effectiveness of DI in special needs settings, incorporating questioning of best practice reading
instruction though small experimental and control groups (Preast, 2009; Englert, 1984; Smith‐Lock et al.,
2013; Ganz, 2009; Cadette et al., 2016; Ritchey, 2011; Head et al., 2018). Including, questioning what an
effective teacher of special education enacts in direct instruction compared to others (Englert, 1984).
Whilst all questions are similar, article 3 evaluates the effectiveness of a school-based intervention
program for grammar, a writing component of literacy (Smith‐Lock et al., 2013). It is relevant to include
these findings based on the correlation between reading and writing; explaining that in order to write

5
and include correct grammatical structures, you likewise need to be able to identify and read them in a
book to create meaning (Englert, 1984). Current findings seems to suggest that whilst DI has a positive
impact on students with LD, evidence suggests that incorporating other strategies such as small group
instruction and increasing the quality of the targeted feedback further improves reading capabilities in
students with mental health, language impairment, ASD and developmental disabilities (Preast, 2009;
Englert, 1984; Smith‐Lock et al., 2013; Ganz, 2009; Cadette et al., 2016; Ritchey, 2011; Head et al., 2018).
This correlates with the content analysis by Ritchey and is extended by Englert’s suggestion of frequent
DI practice opportunities to correct errors (2011; 1984). Therefore, the major theme being articulated
through these articles relates to the specific domain of special needs and throughout all the differences
in disabilities covered; the research can be drawn back to permanent mild to moderate learning
disabilities (Preast, 2009; Englert, 1984; Smith‐Lock et al., 2013; Ganz, 2009; Cadette et al., 2016;
Ritchey, 2011; Head et al., 2018). Additionally, linking the above to quality teacher instruction and the
relatedness teaching through DI for reading and writing (Smith‐Lock et al., 2013). Therefore, the general
conclusions made from the readings indicate DI is an effective strategy for reading instruction; although
enhanced when mixed with others.

Within primary settings, what ‘conditions of use’ are linked to the most effective use of DI?

The current research studies and articles found are as follows:

1. A comparison of schools: teacher knowledge of explicit code-based reading instruction (Cohen,

Mather, Schneider & White, 2017).
2. A study of elementary school teachers' perceptions of the impact of direct instruction on closing
the achievement gap for special education students in reading (Wright, 2011).
3. Big Ideas in Special Education: Specially Designed Instruction, High-Leverage Practices, Explicit
Instruction, and Intensive Instruction (Riccomini, Morano & Hughes, 2017).
4. SPOTLIGHT on special education (Karge & Lasky, 2009).

From the above readings, these articles are relating to the effective use of DI in context of specific
conditions for further increased learning. Within the articles, the authors discuss the necessary skills to
enact DI, how to correctly intensify instruction and what major literature documents have found about

6
complimentary cognitive strategies (Cohen et al., 2017; Wright, 2011; Riccomini et al., 2017; Karge &
Lasky, 2009). Within this context, article 1 utilises a comparative or multivariate analyses of different
schools enactment of DI, with a measure of covariance (Cohen et al., 2017). In order to gauge the
teacher perceptions and knowledge surrounding DI, article 2 utilises a qualitative and quantitative data
collection survey approach with a Likert scale, responding to a series of DI statements (Wright, 2011;
Mills, 2014, p. 154). However, the final two articles are a content analysis, following reviews of
previously run studies, interventions and quantitative results to locate positive and negative findings for
DI (Riccomini et al., 2017; Karge & Lasky, 2009).

The major questions articulated through the articles relate to questions surrounding what specific
conditions exist for DI to connect and extend student learning. In doing so, each investigates in multiple
ways what necessary skills teacher need to enact DI, what does correct DI look like, and what
complimentary cognitive strategies best suit DI (Cohen et al., 2017; Wright, 2011; Riccomini et al., 2017;
Karge & Lasky, 2009). Therefore comparatively, the current findings from the selected articles suggest
that while DI is effective on its own and in combination with cognitive strategies, the majority of
teachers in the comparative school study did not possess the essential code-based reading knowledge or
application of skills to effectively teach struggling readers (Cohen et al., 2017, p. 51; Wright, 2011). This
result was then extended with other suggestions, such as decreasing group sizes to effectively monitor
and address student errors (Riccomini et al., 2017), while other authors suggested incorporating an
inquiry or discovery based approach with elements of DI to be most effective in a diverse classroom
(Riccomini et al., 2017; Karge & Lasky, 2009). In reviewing and synthesizing the articles, the major theme
presented is the acknowledgement of conditions for the effective use of DI in multiple situations.
Therefore, the general conclusions made from the readings indicate DI is an effective strategy for
reading instruction; although in a holistic approach, teachers need to consider how and when it is
utilised for best impact and consider using a mixed approach based on student needs. Most importantly,
it also highlights the need for teachers to possess deep understandings as to why the use of a scripted,
code-based reading program for mastery of language structure, phonics, and other code-based concepts
is used and what conceptual knowledge they need to have in order to correctly enact DI of core reading
skills.

7
What ‘best practice’ knowledge conflicts with DI? Issues of deep engagement with
curriculum: Drill and skill vs critical thinking.

The current research studies and articles found are as follows:

1. Explicit instruction in core reading programs (Reutzel, Child, Jones & Clark, 2014).
2. Meaningful Reading Instruction for Learners with Special Needs (Sears, Carpenter & Burstein,
1994).
3. Teaching Reading Comprehension to Special Needs Learners: What Matters? (Reid, Baker, Lasell
& Eastin, 1993).

From the above readings, these articles are researching the issues of deep engagement with curriculum,
in the context of drill and skill versus critical thinking. Within the articles, the authors discuss the
effective elements of DI in relation to meaning-based reading instruction, a whole language approach,
integrated instruction and concerns towards independence (Reutzel et al., 2014; Sears et al., 1994; Reid,
Baker et al., 1993). Within this context, the methodologies employed and data collected focus on a
qualitative approach that analyses content from existing archival sources such as other literature
reviews, textbooks, interviews and notable research journals (Reutzel et al., 2014; Sears et al., 1994;
Reid, Baker et al., 1993; Mills, 2014, p. 135). Most notably, article 2 is the only one to employ a
quantitative technique with an intervention program for 6 weeks in one special education resource
classroom (Sears et al., 1994). While this was done prior to 1994, the validity of the findings are
therefore in question when considering the 21st century special education classroom (Mills, 2014, p.
168).

The major questions articulated through the articles relate to questions surrounding what information
or studies conflict with DI in the context of teacher pedagogy and known best practice (Reutzel et al.,
2014; Sears et al., 1994; Reid, Baker et al., 1993). Including, what approaches may further connect and
extend students learning of the big ideas within curriculum and foster critical thinking strategies linked
to independence in later years of schooling (Reutzel et al., 2014). Therefore, after reading these articles,
the current findings suggest that while DI is effective in combination with cognitive strategies (Reid,
Baker et al., 1993); that is not enough, and suggests teachers should also be connecting and extending
students DI ‘drill and skill’ learning with approaches that foster a deep engagement with integrated
curriculum areas (Reutzel et al., 2014; Baker et al., 1993). Ultimately, developing ‘critical thinking skills’
instead of an overreliance on guided practice where teacher’s build DI into a holistic approach that is
differentiated and meets all learners needs (Reutzel et al., 2014; Baker et al., 1993). While only one

8
article has been located within the last 10 years, the third article from 1993, connects to many findings
from special education settings within the past 5 years. Therefore, the general conclusions made from
the readings cannot substantially come to an exact conclusion; although it suggests teachers should be
thinking about incorporating DI with critical thinking models to develop reading skills.

Conclusion

In summary, the major agreements synthesized from the articles focus on the evidence of DI’s
effectiveness in developing students reading skills, regardless of whether learner differences or
difficulties exist. DI has been advocated as an effective tool in bridging learning gaps and ultimately, is
the most time efficient approach to skills-based learning. However, many conditional suggestions have
been identified in the way in which DI’s is utilised and by who should teach it with quality knowledge.
Finally, the largest disagreement identified relates to how and when it should be enacted in the context
of best practice and pedagogical knowledge of how student’s best learn; suggesting meaning-based
reading instruction, a whole language approach and integrated curriculum instruction are more
important in the long run. Whilst this last point advocates for other approaches, clear suggestions have
admitted DI effectiveness in remedial teaching in mini group lessons and integration into inquiry or
discovery based approaches. In regards to the research question, ‘How effective is Direct Instruction in
teaching reading strategies to students with mild learning disabilities (Special Needs)?’. There is still
questions regarding the transparency and validity in older articles and the mixed opinions of teachers
surrounding this contested area for discussion. Additionally, the research project in question will need
to better filter articles that display a bias and aim to collect even amounts of evidence for and against
the topic. Therefore, using a wide ranging survey approach may be useless and a triangulation of
sources and multiple class observations may yield answers (Mills, 2014, p. 156).

Word Count: 3452

9
 References

Andreassen, R., & Bråten, I. (2010). Implementation and effects of explicit reading
comprehension instruction in fifth-grade classrooms. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.08.003

Botts, D. C., Losardo, A. S., Tillery, C. Y., & Werts, M. G. (2014). A Comparison of Activity-
Based Intervention and Embedded Direct Instruction When Teaching Emergent Literacy
Skills. Retrieved from https://doi-org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/10.1177/0022466912449652

Cadette, J., Wilson, C., Brady, M., Dukes, C., & Bennett, K. (2016). The Effectiveness of Direct
Instruction in Teaching Students with Autism Spectrum Disorder to Answer 'Wh-' Questions.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/10.1007/s10803-016-2825-2

Çelik, S., & Vuran, S. (2014). Comparison of Direct Instruction and Simultaneous Prompting
Procedure on Teaching Concepts to Individuals with Intellectual Disability. Retrieved from
https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1503770262?accountid=10382

Cohen, R. A., Mather, N., Schneider, D. A., & White, J. M. (2017). A comparison of schools:
teacher knowledge of explicit code-based reading instruction. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/10.1007/s11145-016-9694-0

Diliberto, A. J., Beattie, R. J., Flowers, P. C., & Algozzine, F. R. (2008). Effects of Teaching
Syllable Skills Instruction on Reading Achievement in Struggling Middle School Readers.
Retrieved from https://doi-org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/10.1080/19388070802226253

Englert, C. (1984). Effective Direct Instruction Practices in Special Education Settings. Retrieved
from https://doi-org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/10.1177/074193258400500208

Ganz, J. B. (2009).The Effectiveness of Direct Instruction for Teaching Language to Children

with Autism Spectrum Disorders: Identifying Materials. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/10.1007/s10803-008-0602-6

Head, C. N., Flores, M. M., & Shippen, M. E. (2018). Effects of Direct Instruction on Reading
Comprehension for Individuals with Autism or Developmental Disabilities. Retrieved from
https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/2042209753?accountid=10382

Karge, D. B. & Lasky, B. (2009). SPOTLIGHT on special education. Retrieved from

https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/211519901?accountid=10382

10
Keaton, J, M., Palmer, B. C., Nicholas, K. R., & Lake, V. E. (2007). Direct Instruction with Playful
Skill Extensions: Action Research in Emergent Literacy Development. Retrieved from
https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/236425025?accountid=10382

Mills, G. E. (2014). Action Research: A guide for the teacher researcher (5th ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Preast, S. D. (2009). A study of direct instructional spelling strategies and their effect on
students with special needs who are classified with Mild Mental Disabilities. Retrieved from
https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/288182676?accountid=10382

Reid, D. K., Baker, G., Lasell, C., & Eastin, S. (1993). Teaching Reading Comprehension to
Special Needs Learners: What Matters? Retrieved from https://doi-
org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/10.1177/105345129302800403

Reutzel, R. D., Child, A., Jones, C, D., & Clark, S. K. (2014). Explicit Instruction in Core Reading
Programs. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/674420

Riccomini, P. J., Morano, S., & Hughes, C. A. (2017). Big Ideas in Special Education: Specially
Designed Instruction, High-Leverage Practices, Explicit Instruction, and Intensive
Instruction. Retrieved from https://doi-
org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/10.1177/0040059917724412

Ritchey, K. D. (2011). The First “R”: Evidence-Based Reading Instruction for Students With
Learning Disabilities. Retrieved from https://doi-
org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/10.1080/00405841.2011.534928

Sears, S., Carpenter, C., & Burstein, N. (1994). Meaningful Reading Instruction for Learners
with Special Needs. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/20201333

Smith‐Lock, K. M., Leitao, S., Lambert. L., & Nickels, L. (2013). Effective intervention for
expressive grammar in children with specific language impairment. Retrieved from
https://doi-org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/10.1111/1460-6984.12003

Stockard. J., Wood. T. W., Coughlin. C., & Khoury, C. R. (2018). The Effectiveness of Direct
Instruction Curricula: A Meta-Analysis of a Half Century of Research. Retrieved from
https://doi-org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/10.3102/0034654317751919

Wright, C. W. (2011). A study of elementary school teachers' perceptions of the impact of direct
instruction on closing the achievement gap for special education students in reading.

11
 Retrieved from https://search-proquest-
com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/875563622?accountid=10382

Peer Reviewed Articles: 20

12