I am starting to see some interesting analysis of Sold a Story season 2, much of it outside my two fields of math education and special education. I added to the recommendations I made in my last post on what to read to learn about Project Follow Through. Here I have added analysis of the podcast’s second season, and/or more contextualization of the history of Direct Instruction. I will add more as I find it so feel free to send me anything that seems interesting (comment here, email me, or tag me on Bluesky).
Analysis of Sold a Story Season 2and/or Direct Instruction
Highly recommend this series of blog posts from Nick Covington and Trevor Aleo on the series, where they talk about each episode. They bring a strong knowledge of learning theory, as well as current shenanigans of those who seem to want to define learning and teaching (and research on learning and teaching) very narrowly. Lots to explore with their extra links. A literacy perspective.
The podcast Have You Heard (cohosts Jennifer Berkshire and Jack Schneider) has a brand new episode about Zig Engelmann and the history of Direct Instruction, with Jack Schneider reflecting on his conversations with Zig for the book chapter (#227 Lessons of Last Resort: the Forgotten History of Direct Instruction)
Education policy professor Yong Zhao’s book What works may hurt: Side effects in education. (2018) has a chapter about the side effects of Direct Instruction which is a very informative read.
Michael Pershan wrote a blog post about how direct instruction (not Direct Instruction) is the most prevalent pedagogy in US schools. It caused a wee bit of a furor on the twitter. Michael is a math teacher who writes thoughtful posts about research and learning, and has written a book about Worked Examples (which is considered a variant of explicit or direct instruction). So it was strange to see so many reacting to his posts as if he was some kind of brainwashed “only pure math discovery for ever and ever” guy. He is not that guy. I think it was because his accurate assessment reveals a less-than-sturdy assumption behind a back to basics movement: the children are learning math through inquiry-based teaching methods and it is not working. Some of them are, but most American children are not. https://pershmail.substack.com/p/direct-instruction-is-the-american
Robert Kaplinsky has a blog post that (so far, I think he may add to it) does two kind of analyses on the podcast. First, he found the original report for Project Follow Through and reproduced a lot of it, which is really helpful. Second, his recent additions are about the episode in which they discuss the school in Texas that used the curriculum. Also, the comments are fun to read.
will add more as I find it
Original Sources on Project Follow Through
Stebbins, L. B., & Others, A. (1977). Education as Experimentation: A Planned Variation Model. Volume IV-A: An Evaluation of Follow Through. Abt Publications
This is the full report from the final evaluation team (Abt). Robert Kaplinsky tracked down the whole version here .
Anderson, R. B. (1977). The Effectiveness of Follow Through: Evidence from the National Analysis. Curriculum Inquiry, 7(3), 209–226. https://doi.org/10.2307/1179724
This article, written by a member of the Abt Evaluation team, goes point by point into the critiques of the study design, measures etc., and presents the findings of the team that also connects to the critics.
This special issue of Curriculum Inquiry is all about the report, and has other articles of note in it.
House, E., Glass, G., McLean, L., & Walker, D. (1978). No Simple Answer: Critique of the Follow Through Evaluation. Harvard Educational Review, 48(2), 128–160. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.48.2.j2167r4594027x87
This is the most often discussed response to the evaluation, published the next year, by a group of scholars in evaluation who were commissioned to write a report by the Ford Foundation. This is part of a special issue of Harvard Educational Review that is focused on additional analysis of the evaluation.
Anderson, R., Pierre, R. S., Proper, E., & Stebbins, L. (1978). Pardon Us, But What Was the Question Again?: A Response to the Critique of the Follow Through Evaluation. Harvard Educational Review, 48(2), 161–170. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.48.2.6160014378p45183
This is the response to the the response- what Anderson and colleagues (from Abt) wrote in response to House et al. 1978. Also part of the special issue in Harvard Educational Review.
Kennedy, M. M. (1978). Findings from the Follow through Planned Variation Study. Educational Researcher, 7(6), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.2307/1175762
This is written by an official at the US Department of Education.
House, E. R. (1979). The Objectivity, Fairness, and Justice of Federal Evaluation Policy as Reflected in the Follow Through Evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 1(1), 28–42. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737001001028
This is one of my favorite articles because it gives a lot of tea about the history of the evaluation.
More recent commentary/analysis of the original report (2002- current)
Berliner, D. C. (2002). Comment: Educational Research: The Hardest Science of All. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 18–20.
This commentary from prominent researcher Berliner discusses Project Follow Through as an example of an unsuccessful quantitative study.
Engelmann, S. (2007). Teaching needy kids in our backward system: 42 years of trying. ADI Press.
This is a LONG book that gives lots of insight into the development of Direct Instruction. This goes deeply into the ire of Direct Instruction advocates that the success of Direct Instruction was ignored by the educational elite. Expect published versions of letters back and forth between major players. If you want to learn about Direct Instruction, I don’t think there is a better source than this book. You might like it, you might hate it, but at least you are getting the information direct from the source.
Woodward, J. (2004). Mathematics education in the United States: Past to present. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(1), 16–31.
This is a history of mathematics education that includes special education research. Highly recommended for a historical analysis of this intersection, and mentions Project Follow Through.
Zhao, Y. (2018). What works may hurt: Side effects in education. Teachers College Press.
I love the premise of this book from an international education policy expert: we should not just be researching the effects of educational interventions, but the unintentional side effects. The chapter on side effects of Direct Instruction includes analysis of Project Follow Through.
Other citations
Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021017
de Jong, T., Lazonder, A. W., Chinn, C. A., Fischer, F., Gobert, J., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Koedinger, K. R., Krajcik, J. S., Kyza, E. A., Linn, M. C., Pedaste, M., Scheiter, K., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2023). Let’s talk evidence – The case for combining inquiry-based and direct instruction. Educational Research Review, 39, 100536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100536
Stockard, J., Wood, T. W., Coughlin, C., & Rasplica Khoury, C. (2018). The Effectiveness of Direct Instruction Curricula: A Meta-Analysis of a Half Century of Research. Review of Educational Research, 88(4), 479–507. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317751919
Leave a Reply