Implementing Direct Instruction (DI) effectively requires teachers and administrators to make student performance the focus of the staff’s efforts to improve the school.
Student performance determines:
1) placement in groups,
2) which instructional materials should be ordered, and
3) which levels of the programs teachers should receive training in.
Student performance also determines whether a problem exists. If students are not progressing through the program at mastery at an acceptable rate, then there is a problem. When effective administrators and coaches enter classrooms, they focus on student performance. If there is something unconventional about the classroom setup or the teacher’s delivery, but students are learning successfully, then there is no problem. If a teacher’s signal is unusual, for instance, but all children respond in unison, then there is no problem because a signal’s purpose is to prompt students to respond together. Similarly, if an instructional group is larger than recommended but all students can see the presentation book, respond together, and the teacher is able to monitor all of their responses, then there is no problem because the purpose of smaller groups is to ensure that teachers can monitor the responses of all students.
When administrators and coaches identify problems of student performance, they require accurate, current data on the progress of each instructional group and the performance of each student on in-program assessments. They may also need to get more specific information on the problem:
This comprehensive approach to problem-solving is critical because problems rarely solve themselves. They usually worsen and cause other problems to occur. So it is important to solve each problem as it occurs and not relent until it is gone!
IMPORTANT: If teachers aren't aware that a problem exists, they can’t solve it. If teachers aren't aware that they need assistance, they won’t ask for it. Regular in-class observations and weekly data analysis can uncover student problems and identify areas where teachers need assistance. To be effective in spotting problems, both in-class observations and data analysis require a focus on student performance. With student performance at the center, administrators and coaches can more easily talk about problems with teachers. Focusing on student performance keeps discussions away from “the blame game” of finding fault with staff members and keeps discussion centered on how to help all children succeed.
NIFDI services are interlocking components. Every component addresses a specific aspect of the implementation and without any one component, the overall effect on students' learning suffers. NIFDI's primary interest is working with schools to develop fully realized Direct Instruction schools where all children succeed. For this reason, NIFDI does not generally provide the components separately. An exception is made for pilot programs that could build toward comprehensive implementations of DI.
IMPORTANT: The description of each of these services is accompanied by a box like this one that describes the consequences of foregoing or not implementing any of the services fully. Foregoing any one service can have a negative effect on student performance.
DI Programs are based on years of research on how children learn and the most effective ways to teach. This work produced the two basic principles of effective instruction:
1) All children can learn when instruction is systematic, explicit, and efficient. Instruction must proceed in a logical and systematic fashion. Elements must be carefully sequenced so that students have the necessary preliminary understandings for new learning. The instruction must be very clearly presented to ensure that only one possible interpretation can result from the presentation. These elements help ensure that it is efficiently designed and will teach the maximum amount of material in the shortest amount of time. With systematic, explicit, and efficient instruction, students can mastery material more quickly and become more self-confident learners. Direct Instruction programs, developed by Siegfried Engelmann and colleagues, incorporate all of these elements of effective instruction. The programs are developed in a careful procedure that involves extensive logical analyses of the subject matter and strategies for testing the programs before they are published. These tests ensure that the programs are clear and explicit and that they efficiently present the material.
2) Poor achievement does not result from poor students, but from poor teaching. All students can learn. When students do not learn, the problem is not with the student, but with the instruction. Poor achievement occurs when material is presented in a confusing, illogical, or inconsistent manner. Years of research on how children learn show that even minor alterations in instructional presentations can produce confusion and slow children’s learning. Direct Instruction programs include extensive guidelines for teachers in how to present the material in ways that are logical, clear, and systematic and in ways that consistently reinforce children for their learning.
Project Follow Through, the largest educational experiment ever conducted, was the first large-scale documentation of DI’s superiority. Since that time many studies in a wide variety of settings have shown that children who receive Direct Instruction have significantly higher achievement, make more rapid educational progress, and have higher levels of self-esteem than students in other programs. Studies also show that as their students’ achievement increases, teachers who use Direct Instruction become more self-confident and assured of their professional abilities.
For more information on the history of DI, see:
Clear Teaching by Shepard Barbash
