The origins of Direct Instruction lie in the genius of Siegfried Engelmann who chose to study the process of learning and instruction from a new vantage point. In the early 1960s, Engelmann worked in advertising, where he began analyzing what type of input was necessary to induce retention. His work on these marketing strategies led him to develop techniques for teaching children, initially his own two sons. These early experiments led to the first Direct Instruction programs and techniques. Engelmann realized the relation between what his sons learned and how he instructed them and applied this knowledge to his work with education researcher Carl Bereiter at the Institute for Research on Exceptional Children in Champaign, Illinois (1964-1966). In 1964, they formed the Bereiter-Engelmann preschool, where they would begin using and testing direct instruction techniques with disadvantaged children. While conducting this research, Engelmann developed the central philosophy of Direct Instruction, which is if a student fails to learn it is not the fault of the student, but rather the instruction.
Throughout the 1960s, Engelmann conducted research on the effectiveness of his instructional techniques and programs in order to better understand how children of different backgrounds and varying skill levels learned. His experiments were designed to understand how to instruct children as efficiently and effectively as possible and how appropriate instruction differs for children of different backgrounds and skills. Engelmann utilized a scientific approach to analyze each variable of instruction to determine the most efficient and effective instructional approach. Through his experiments, Engelmann determined disadvantaged students had a deficit in language skills in comparison to their more affluent peers, which hindered their learning rate. This lack of language skills made the acquisition of reading skills more difficult, so Engelmann began focusing on developing language and reading skills in tandem. This research solidified Engelmann’s theory that students’ acquisition of knowledge and development of skills is dependent on the teacher’s appropriate instruction, which needs to be adjusted based on the child’s skill level. A teacher must recognize and understand the students’ skills as well as what type of instruction they need to progress and acquire new skills so they become confident and successful students.
Direct Instruction was designed to maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of instruction, while simultaneously recognizing students’ skill levels in order for them to receive the appropriate instruction to prevent them from being overwhelmed and falling behind the achievement of their peers. Engelmann determined students must establish mastery of skills in order to progress in their studies and therefore students should be instructed in small groups based off of skill level opposed to grade level. By establishing mastery, students can more easily progress to more complex areas of studies because they will not need as much review of the fundamentals the new material is based off of. Additionally by establishing mastery students gain confidence in their skills and ability to succeed. Engelmann initially intended Direct Instruction to be used with at-risk students to allow them to learn more in less time so they could attain the same skills of their more affluent peers by the end of elementary school. By catching up with their peers by the end of elementary school, the at-risk students would have the confidence and ability to compete on a level playing field as they progress in school. The success of Direct Instruction is dependent on the proper placement of students into classrooms based on their skill level, the use of appropriate academic curriculum, and adequate instruction from teachers. Engelmann’s philosophy of instruction and early research with young children would lead to the development of DISTAR in the 1960s as well as all subsequent Direct Instruction programs.
Over 40 years of research have documented the efficacy of Direct Instruction programs. The National Institute for Direct Instruction (NIFDI) maintains an Office of Research and Evaluation to compile and expand this research. Its mission includes:
NIFDI’s research office complies fully with the federally established guidelines for the protection of human subjects. For instance, reports of research never identify students or teachers by name. Schools are identified only with permission. Only qualified research staff members may access data. For more information on NIFDI's compliance with Human Subjects Requirements, please contact the Office of Research for a copy of NIFDI's Board Policies and Procedures.
As a non-profit organization founded by the creator of Direct Instruction, the National Institute for Direct Instruction pursues opportunities to conduct high quality research on the effects of Direct Instruction on a wide range of students in different settings. Additional information regarding participation in a research study is outlined below. NIFDI is interested in partnering with sites that can help us demonstrate the positive effect of the full immersion (comprehensive) model of Direct Instruction on student achievement. We have found that the maximum benefit of the model for students takes place at the earliest grade levels. We are generally most interested in beginning the implementation of DI in early childhood programs or at primary grade levels then expanding the implementation by a grade each year into the intermediate grades. This way, students' performance is accelerated as they progress through the grades. It also allows NIFDI to meet our goal of demonstrating the effect of the DI approach, as cohorts coming up from the primary grades will perform at a much higher level than current students.
What opportunities are available?
Current opportunities include:
What are the benefits of participating?
NIFDI will:
What will be expected of participating schools?
Participating schools will implement Direct Instruction curricula fully with select students. This will involve:
What are the steps for setting up a research site?
NIFDI is a small, non-profit organization that supports implementations of DI in about 60 schools across the country (plus 3 schools in Australia). As a small organization, we cannot afford to fund many research projects. We must fund only those projects with the highest prospects for success. Below is a summary of the process of establishing a research project to ensure success and how this process applies to schools.
STEP 1
Step one in establishing a research project involves jointly determining the focus of the project (grade ranges, subject areas, duration, student and teacher involvement) and the key parameters of the research project (the research design, measures used, form of assignment, etc.).
STEP 2
The second step in establishing a research project is to review the DI model for the grade levels and subject areas agreed to by both parties. The implementation of DI is successful only when certain requirements are met, and these requirements vary slightly by grade level, subject area and the performance level of the students. There are a number of elements required for a successful implementation. These requirements are outlined in the Essential Elements handout.
STEP 3
The third step in establishing a research project is to develop a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that serves as a guiding document for the research project. The MOU lists the requirements of the school or district for implementing the DI model and providing access to students and data. It also lists the benefits that the school and district will receive, including free training and coaching by NIFDI, free materials for the focus areas of the research project, and small stipends for teachers who participate in surveys. The MOU includes a confidentiality commitment by NIFDI that no individual students will be identified in any publications resulting from the study. Below is a sample MOU. The agreement is customized to reflect the joint agreement NIFDI and the school or district develop together.
The above steps are the most important ones involving the school/district directly. The remaining steps in the research process are internal to NIFDI and don't involve directly involve the school or district: conducting the research and publishing the results.
I think this might be appropriate for my school. What should I do now?
If this opportunity sounds like a potential fit for your school or district, please complete and submit the Check-Off Form for Implementing the Full Immersion Direct Instruction Model. You can fax your completed form to Kurt Engelmann at 541.683.7543.
