tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post685483815425572298..comments2024-03-26T04:19:38.862-07:00Comments on kitchen table math, the sequel: state testCatherine Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03347093496361370174noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-13294400768800933422007-03-28T09:41:00.000-07:002007-03-28T09:41:00.000-07:00Thanks!I'll have to read that!Thanks!<BR/><BR/>I'll have to read that!Catherine Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03347093496361370174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-67773066994687060642007-03-27T23:29:00.000-07:002007-03-27T23:29:00.000-07:00I actually read Engleman's Rubric for Identifying ...I actually read Engleman's <A HREF="http://zigsite.com/PDFs/rubric.pdf" REL="nofollow"><B>Rubric for Identifying Authentic DI Programs</B></A> (PDF) yesterday, and I have been enlightened. He shows that what makes a particular set of lessons DI is way more than just a script, drills, and a particular layout on the page.<BR/><BR/>(Yes, the title uses <I>rubric</I>, which the constructivists had managed to turn into a dirty word for me, but this is actually meaningful)<BR/><BR/>The rubric can be used to see whether the <B>Coach</B> books are (generic) direct instruction, or Direct Instruction (TM).Andy Langehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07236449876931455848noreply@blogger.com