Update: A slightly revised version of this post has been published in the Australian Journal of Indigenous Education https://doi.org/10.1017/jie.2020.18
The ‘Flexible Learning for Remote Primary Schools’ (FLRPS) program was funded by the Australian Government in 2014 for the implementation of Direct Instruction (DI) and Explicit Direct Instruction in 34 remote and very remote schools in Western Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory. The programme was funded on the basis of extensive research showing DI’s effectiveness in improving academic outcomes, particularly for disadvantaged and minority children in the US. The FLRPS program was delivered by Good to Great Schools Australia with an initial implementation period of three years which was subsequently extended to 2019.
Direct Instruction is a specific program of explicit instruction with a sequenced curriculum and scripted model for teaching. It is sometimes referred to as ‘big D.I.’. The teaching model known as direct instruction, or ‘little d.i.’, is a general set of principles that can be applied to any lesson in any curriculum. The FLRPS program used ‘big D.I.’.
Note: A revised version of this post has been published in The Educational and Developmental Psychologist https://doi.org/10.1017/edp.2020.12
A rejoinder to Bowers, J. S. (2020). Reconsidering the evidence that systematic phonics is more effective than alternative methods of reading instruction. Educational Psychology Review, Online first. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09515-y
There is strong agreement among reading scientists that learning the phonological connections between speech and print is an essential element of early reading acquisition. Meta-analyses of reading research have consistently found that methods of reading instruction that include systematic phonics instruction are more effective than methods that do not. This article critiques a recent paper by Jeffrey S. Bowers that attempts to challenge the robustness of the research on systematic phonics instruction. On this basis, Bowers proposes that teachers and researchers consider using alternative methods. This article finds that even with a revisionist and conservative analysis of the research literature, the strongest available evidence shows systematic phonics instruction to be more effective than any existing alternative. While it is fair to argue that researchers should investigate new practices, it is irresponsible to suggest that classroom teachers use anything other than methods based on the best evidence to date, and that evidence favours systematic phonics.
Dr Jennifer Buckingham
By Jennifer Buckingham
The earth has revolved around the sun three times since the last set of results from the OECD’s international student assessments known as PISA – Program for International Student Assessment — were released. Unfortunately, Australia has once again slipped against global standards.
24 September 2019
NAPLAN has been in the political cross-hairs since it was introduced in 2008. It becomes big news at least four times year – when the tests are held in May, when the preliminary national results are released in September, when the full national report is published in the following March, and when the My School website is updated with the individual school results in April.
Over the past year or so, in addition to these flashpoints there has been widespread discussion about various reviews and inquiries into the NAPLAN assessments and the ways in which the results are reported.