Direct Instruction in very remote schools: a rejoinder to Guenther and Osborne (2020)

被引:1
作者
Buckingham, Jennifer [1 ]
机构
[1] MultiLit Pty Ltdm, Level 7,Bldg C,11 Talavera Rd, Macquarie Pk, NSW 2113, Australia
关键词
Direct instruction; reading;
D O I
10.1017/jie.2020.18
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
In an article published in this journal, Guenther and Osborne (2020) use data from the reading test of the National Assessment Program for Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) to evaluate the effectiveness of the Flexible Literacy for Remote Primary Schools program in its first 3 years of implementation. However, their analysis has some serious flaws, including that the 'post-intervention' data were actually collected from the start of the implementation period. This calls their conclusions that the program was ineffective into question.
引用
收藏
页码:171 / 172
页数:2
相关论文
共 11 条
[1]  
Assessment Curriculum and Reporting Authority (ACARA), 2016, MIN STAND READ
[2]  
Coughlin C., 2011, 20114 NIFDI
[3]  
Dawson GK, 2018, EVALUATION FLEXIBLE
[4]  
Grossen B., 2013, EVALUATION ACAD PROG
[5]   Did DI do it? The impact of a programme designed to improve literacy for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in remote schools [J].
Guenther, John ;
Osborne, Samuel .
AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF INDIGENOUS EDUCATION, 2020, 49 (02) :163-170
[6]  
Hattie J, CAPE YORK ABORIGINAL
[7]  
Hattie JAC, 2009, VISIBLE LEARNING: A SYNTHESIS OF OVER 800 META-ANALYSES RELATING TO ACHIEVEMENT, P1
[8]  
Kimberley Development Commission, 2020, KIMB SCH PRO
[9]  
National Institute for Direct Instruction (NIFDI), 2015, DI VS DI TERM DIR IN
[10]  
Rosenshine B., 2012, AM EDUC, V12, P39