All Direct Instruction programs are developed with extensive field testing. Most traditional programs are routinely published without first being subjected to extensive trials in actual learning situations. In contrast, Direct Instruction programs are field tested to determine the extent to which students actually master the material that is presented in a program and the extent to which teachers are able to follow the program’s presentation specifications.
Field testing begins as the Direct Instruction programs are being developed. The authors select several classrooms in which to field test the first version of the curriculum. These classrooms are selected to include a variety of students and teachers. At least some of these classes must include the lowest performing students who will be placed in the program. This is important because the lower-performers make all the mistake that higher performers make and additional mistakes that higher performers tend not to make.
Every activity in the field-test version of the program is assessed. Data are kept on the number of students who miss particular items and the incorrect responses that were made by the students. Rules are established about what student performance levels indicate a need to revise the teaching sequence. Student errors are analyzed to determine how the sequence of instruction likely led to the student problems. Revisions may include:
The revised version of the curriculum is then field tested and revised again. Data are kept on student performance on each item. In addition to the data on student performance, information on how long tasks take to present are collected as well as feedback from teachers about the clarity of directions.
Each element of this field testing procedure is essential to providing teachers with a program capable of being an effective instructional tool for all students. The extensive testing that underlies the development of Direct Instruction programs is the primary reason that they are so effective.
For more information on the theory and process that underlies the field testing of Direct Instruction programs, see:
Proactive administrative support and strong commitment to success are prerequisites for developing outstanding school-wide Direct Instruction (DI) implementations. When the school's principal and leadership team demonstrate that they are committed to implementing DI with high fidelity every day, and they communicate this commitment to the rest of the staff through words, deeds and actions, the prospect of success with DI increases substantially throughout the school. Isolated teachers may achieve considerable success implementing DI alone in an uncoordinated effort, but the effect of individual teachers implementing DI by themselves is usually far less than the effect of a schoolwide, coordinated implementation of DI lead by an actively involved administrator. Success with DI depends on many factors—schedules, assignment of paraprofessionals, professional development, data analysis—that cannot be controlled by individual teachers. These factors are most effectively implemented through a coordinated and systematic effort, which requires consistent and forward-thinking leadership.
Successful school leaders take decisive action through all stages of a DI implementation. They:
Observing Classroom Instruction
Regular classroom observations conducted by the administrator with focus on student performance are critical for a successful DI implementation. The administrator's presence in the classroom communicates a strong message to staff the commitment of the school to implement the model with fidelity. Direct observation by administrators also provides another set of eyes to identify possible instructional problems and assess the status of past problems. NIFDI trains principals and other administrators on conducting 5-minute observations that provide quick, comprehensive and powerful assessments of classroom instruction.
Ensuring Accountability for Student Success
The principal is the school's leader in the NIFDI accountability system. In addition to regular classroom observations, the principal can help ensure a successful implementation and quality instruction through active participation in weekly conference calls conducted with NIFDI. Each week, the principal attends a conference call between NIFDI and the school's leadership team, during which the progress of each instructional group is discussed. A summary of the call is provided to the school and describes the actions to be taken before the next call and designates who will take which actions. Principals can greatly facilitate the implementation by ensuring that the actions described are in fact taken before the next conference call.
IMPORTANT: A long-lasting commitment to implementing Direct Instruction (DI) with fidelity is a prerequisite to maximizing student achievement with DI. Student achievement may surpass historical levels after just a couple of years of DI, especially in the lower grades. Maximizing student achievement—especially in the upper grades—requires years of implementing DI with fidelity. Teachers usually require thorough program training and several years of expert in-class coaching and professional development before they become highly effective with DI. It takes several years for student performance in Kindergarten to reach its peak as Kindergarten teachers master DI techniques. It takes several more years for student performance in the upper grades to reach its peak as cohorts of students work their way up through the grades. If an elementary school contains grades K-5, it can take more than six years before an implementation reaches its full potential in the upper grades. Strong leadership must be in place for this time to maintain the school's commitment to implement the program with fidelity and maximize student performance for all students.
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.
