Behavior and Social Issues

, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp 37–42 | Cite as

Working Smart: Using What We Know

  • Ed Schaefer
  • Jane Feinberg-DiNapoli
  • Paul McKinney


J/P Associates is a consulting firm which implements school-wide, whole-system programs of Direct Instruction. Administrators as well as teachers and ancillary personnel receive pre-service and in-service training including in-classroom coaching to conduct high quality Direct Instruction lessons. The critical indicator of teacher performance is student learning, which is evaluated using both program-based criterion-referenced, as well as norm-referenced (standardized achievement), tests. Teaching is adjusted as needed based on student performance. In an evaluation, when a school implemented this on its own, significant achievement gains were noted. When then again implemented with appropriate support and training, scores increased even more. Some classes of mostly minority students obtained top scores in the state.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adams, L., & Englemann, S. (1996). Research on direct instruction-25 years beyond Distar. Seattle, WA: Educational Achievement Systems.Google Scholar
  2. Becker, W.C. (1992). Direct instruction: A twenty-year review. In R. P. West & L. A. Hamerlynck (Eds.), Designs for excellence in education (pp. 71–112). Longmont, CA: Sopris West.Google Scholar
  3. Carnine, D., Granzin, A., & Becker, W. (1988). Direct Instruction. In J. Graden, J. Zins, & M. Curtis (Eds.), Alternative education delivery systems: Enhancing instructional options for all students (pp. 327–349). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
  4. Carnine, D., Grossen, B., & Silbert, 1. (in press). In J. Bloc, T. Guskey, & S. Everson (Eds.), Choosing research-based school improvement innovations. New York: Scholastic.Google Scholar
  5. Delpit, L. D. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people’s children. Harvard Education Review, 58, 280–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Edmonds, R., & Frederickson, N. (1978). Search for effective schools: The identification and analysis of city schools that are instructionally effective for poor children. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Center for Policy Studies.Google Scholar
  7. Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 39, 15–27.Google Scholar
  8. Gersten, R., Darch, C., & Gleason, M. (1988). The effectiveness of academic kindergarten for low-income students: Analysis and discussion. Elementary School Journal.
  9. Good, T., & Brophy, I. (1986). School effects. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  10. Haney, W. (1977). Reanalysis of follow through parent and teacher data. Boston: Huron Institute.Google Scholar
  11. Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1988). Student achievement through staff development. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  12. Loucks-Horsley, S., & Hegert, L. (1985). An action guide for school improvement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  13. Murphy, I., Weil, M., Hallinger, O., & Mitman, A. (1985). School effectiveness: A conceptual framework. Educational Forum, 49, 361–374. Scholar
  14. Stebbins, L., St. Pierre, R., Proper, E., Anderson, R., & Cerva, T. (1977). Education as experimentation: A planned variation model. Vol. IV, A-D. An evaluation of Follow Through. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ed Schaefer
    • 1
  • Jane Feinberg-DiNapoli
    • 2
  • Paul McKinney
    • 3
  1. 1.J/P AssociatesLewesUSA
  2. 2.Valley StreamUSA
  3. 3.BaldwinsvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations