Details

Published: 06 November 2013

Hits: 39467

Dr Kerry Hempenstall, Senior Industry Fellow, School of Education, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia.

All my blogs can be viewed on-line or downloaded as a Word file or PDF at https://www.dropbox.com/sh/olxpifutwcgvg8j/AABU8YNr4ZxiXPXzvHrrirR8a?dl=0

This paper refers/adds to a piece I wrote back in 2013. I checked what age some of the papers might be. There are some of the published documents down to 2001!

It seems to me that there may be less criticism on DI now – and more publicity.

The original 2013 document can be found below. 

Why does Direct Instruction evoke such rancour?

https://www.nifdi.org/resources/hempenstall-blog/389-why-does-direct-instruction-evoke-such-rancour.html

The newer issues DI substance does appear much more than in the past. Lots of print with views on DI. Lets see!

Direct Instruction Works. So Why Is It Controversial

“ … Direct Instruction remains controversial in Australia. In an influential 2014 essay, Allan Luke, Emeritus Professor at Queensland University of Technology and an expert in “multiliteracies,” took aim at Direct Instruction. While begrudgingly acknowledging that Direct Instruction “can generate some performance gains in conventionally-measured basic skills of early literacy and numeracy,” he listed “many” criticisms. These criticisms range from “focusing on teacher control” to the “deskilling of teachers” and an opposition to tracking—Direct Instruction programs often use placement tests to determine which program is most suitable for each child.

The effectiveness of Direct Instruction aligns with the wide body of evidence from educational psychology and from correlational studies of teacher effectiveness that favors explicit approaches where teachers fully explain concepts and model tasks before asking students to do the same. Direct Instruction is not the only way of teaching explicitly, but it is understandable that Pearson would turn to this solid bet when attempting to address the problems of disadvantage in remote Australian schools.”

Ashman, G. (2022). Direct Instruction Works. So Why Is It Controversial? Quillette.

https://quillette.com/2022/05/14/direct-instruction-works-so-why-is-it-controversial

A series of DI from the Research Hub

Direct instruction and how it helps novice learners get the basics  (2020)

“Research from Clark, Kirschner and Sweller suggests that direct forms of instruction are much more effective than approaches that rely on students finding things out for themselves and that novice learners cannot simply copy the behaviours of experts.

In the case of problem-solving, for example, novice learners are usually less successful because they do not have sufficient knowledge to draw on. Experts, on the other hand, have a reservoir of knowledge that informs their decisions – they are not better at problem-solving in an abstract sense, they just know more.

Rosenshine’s research is clear that more effective teachers are good at sequencing learning from an initial phase of direct instruction to modelling in small steps, guided practice and independent practice.”

Tom Sherrington and Sara Stafford 2020

https://my.chartered.college/research-hub/direct-instruction-and-how-it-helps-novice-learners-get-the-basics/#:~:text=Direct%20instructionXA%20method,prior%20knowledge%20and%20low%20confidence

A move towards reconceptualising direct instruction in sport coaching pedagogy. (2020)

Cope, E. & Cushion, C. (2020). A move towards reconceptualising direct instruction in sport coaching pedagogy. Impact, issue 10, pp. 70-73.

https://my.chartered.college/impact_article/a-move-towards-reconceptualising-direct-instruction-in-sport-coaching-pedagogy/ 

Utilising direct instruction to train primary school children in decision-making skills in the science classroom. (2021)

“A longstanding debate in educational and psychological research is the effectiveness of constructivist teaching methods over direct instruction. Although constructivism can take many forms (such as discovery learning, inquiry learning, etc.), one common assumption widely shared in the research community is that learning is constructed by the individuals, who are active sense-makers, rather than being just a reflection of external events (Mayer, 2004; Tobias, 2009).

However, advocates of direct instruction (e.g. Kirschner et al., 2006) have provided evidence that it is significantly more efficient than discovery learning (minimal guidance during instruction) in teaching scientific concepts and processes.

Moreover, through a review of the literature, Alfieri et al. (2011) illustrate that unassisted discovery generally does not generate beneficial learning outcomes, and emphasise the need for teachers to support learners with scaffolded tasks, feedback and worked examples.

In the case of novice learners in particular, most of the researchers on both sides of the argument indicate how important direct instruction is when dealing with new content (e.g. Paas and van Gog, 2006; Tobias, 2009).

Having reviewed different areas of research, our hypothesis was that direct instruction is more effective than discovery learning instruction for introducing primary school students to systematic decision-making, a topic on which students have limited prior knowledge or training.”

Tsapali, M. & Ellefson, M. (2021). Utilising direct instruction to train primary school children in decision-making skills in the science classroom. Impact. Journal of the Chartered College of Teaching. Issue 5.

https://educationhq.com/news/direct-instruction-flexible-literacy-program-a-costly-failure-researchers-76001/

‘Engaging conceptual development within science through the use of concept cartoons: Harmonising direct instruction and constructivist pedagogy. (2023)

“Within science, misconceptions can occur for a range of reasons (e.g. an opinion based on incorrect thinking); however, misconceptions can be resistant to change. The consistency of misconceptions has been specifically noticeable during transition from primary to secondary science (Driver et al., 2014). Consequently, an investigation was structured to assess the impact of an intervention comparing direct instruction and constructivist approaches through the use of concept cartoons. Between 1987 and 1990, the Science Processes and Concept Exploration (SPACE) project explored children’s scientific conceptual development and misconceptions (Black and Harlen, 1993; Harlen and Qualter, 2018; STEM Learning, 2016).”

Buckler, S. & Moore, H. (2023). Engaging conceptual developing within science through the use of concept cartoons: harmonising direct instruction and constructivist pedagogy. Impact: Journal of the Chartered College of Teaching, 18. https://my.chartered.college/impact_article/engaging-conceptual-development-within-science-through-the-use-of-concept-cartoons-harmonising-direct-instruction-and-constructivist-pedagogy/ 

The Case for Direct Instruction (2023)

“For over 50 years, the best way to educate children has been heatedly debated by those who favour what might be described as ‘teacher-directed instruction’ and those who favour ‘student-centred instruction’. In this article, we contend that Direct Instruction (DI), a teacher-directed approach, offers educators, by several important measures, the most effective approach to meeting the academic needs of underperforming students.”

The case for direct instruction. Marcy Stein and Kristen Rolf 2023

https://my.chartered.college/impact_article/the-case-for-direct-instruction/

The case for combining inquiry-based and direct instruction (2023)

“Many studies investigating inquiry learning in science domains have appeared over the years. Throughout this period, inquiry learning has been regularly criticized by scholars who favor direct instruction over inquiry learning. In this vein, Zhang, Kirschner, Cobern, and Sweller (2022) recently asserted that direct instruction is overall superior to inquiry-based instruction and reproached policy makers for ignoring this fact. In the current article we reply to this assertion and the premises on which it is based.

We review the evidence and argue that a more complete and correct interpretation of the literature demonstrates that inquiry-based instruction produces better overall results for acquiring conceptual knowledge than does direct instruction.

We show that this conclusion holds for controlled, correlational, and program-based studies. We subsequently argue that inquiry-based and direct instruction each have their specific virtues and disadvantages and that the effectiveness of each approach depends on moderating factors such as the learning goal, the domain involved, and students' prior knowledge and other student characteristics.

Furthermore, inquiry-based instruction is most effective when supplemented with guidance that can be personalized based on these moderating factors and can even involve providing direct instruction. Therefore, we posit that a combination of inquiry and direct instruction may often be the best approach to support student learning.

We conclude that policy makers rightfully advocate inquiry-based instruction, particularly when students’ investigations are supplemented with direct instruction at appropriate junctures.”

Ton de Jong, Ard W. Lazonder, Clark A. Chinn, Frank Fischer, Janice Gobert, Cindy E. Hmelo-Silver, Ken R. Koedinger, Joseph S. Krajcik, Eleni A. Kyza, Marcia C. Linn, Margus Pedaste, Katharina Scheiter, Zacharias C. Zacharia. Let's talk evidence – The case for combining inquiry-based and direct instruction. Educational Research Review, 39,2023, 100536,

ISSN 1747-938X,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100536.

(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1747938X23000295)

Let's talk evidence – The case for combining inquiry-based and direct instruction. (2024)

In conclusion, while we welcome the acknowledgement of a need for explicit instruction by De Jong et al. (2023), we are bemused by their theory-free approach to inquiry learning with its limited evidence of effectiveness from randomised, controlled trials. They provide neither theory nor data to indicate when or how explicit instruction and inquiry learning should be used and combined.

Meta-analyses that are primarily concerned with program-based studies rather than randomised, controlled trials that examine one factor at a time reflect exactly the issues that Zhang et al. (2022) discussed in their article. De Jong et al. (2023) strongly object to the Zhang et al. (2022) conclusions, seemingly unaware that their own conclusions must inevitably flow from Zhang et al.’s (2022) analyses.

Data without theory is likely to appear random. Cognitive load theory provides an overarching theory that can be used to both generate data and organise it. The theory indicates both how and when explicit instruction and inquiry should be used.

One of the crowning glories of human evolution, our skill in rapidly communicating large amounts of information to each other, is a central principle of cognitive load theory: the borrowing and reorganising principle.

Cognitive load theory is concerned with how to organise instruction to maximally make use of this principle. It is a primary skill universally used by all humans including the readers and writers in the current exchange but is considered inappropriate by De Jong et al. (2023), under some undefined conditions, for learners in educational settings. Even worse, at times and for reasons that remain unclear, that skill is to be replaced by an inefficient procedure that we otherwise only use when communication from others is unavailable.

It remains a mystery to us why students, and only students, should, under unspecified conditions, be capriciously prevented from using what is arguably the most important evolved skill of our species, our unique ability to rapidly assimilate large amounts of novel information from other people.”

Sweller, John, Zhang, Lin, Ashman, Greg, Cobern, William and Kirschner, Paul A.. (2024). Response to De Jong et al.’s (2023) paper “Let's talk evidence – The case for combining inquiry-based and direct instruction”. Educational Research Review. 42, pp. 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100584

Direct/Explicit Instruction and Social Constructivist Practices in The Inclusive Classroom (2024)

“Effective educational practices play an instrumental role in student success. In the context of an inclusive classroom, it is crucial that educators use evidence-based practices to ensure all students to meet educational outcomes. This review focuses on two evidence-based pedagogies, namely direct/explicit instruction (DI/EI) and social constructive approaches, and their effects on the inclusive classroom. Special consideration is given to cooperative learning and concrete implementation guidelines are explored. Lastly, the complimentary effects of combining DI/EI and social constructivist practices are investigated to advance the argument for using a variety of evidenced-based practices within the inclusive classroom.”

Matthews, A. (2024). Direct/Explicit Instruction and Social Constructivist Practices in The Inclusive Classroom. ResearchGate, 29(1), 79-102. 10.37119/ojs2024.v29i1.738

Direct instruction 'Flexible Literacy' program a costly failure: researchers.(2020)

Geordie Little Published April 9, 2020

A $30 million direct instruction program aimed at boosting literacy results in very remote schools has failed, according to a new study.

Direct instruction 'Flexible Literacy' program a costly failure: Researchers. (2020)

Osborne said that the Flexible Literacy program has not only failed to achieve its goals, but that it has demonstrated potential harm in very remote schools.

The study, put out recently by the University of South Australia and the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education, found that both literacy outcomes and attendance dropped at schools participating in the Flexible Literacy for Remote Primary Schools Program.

The program, introduced in 2015, aims to improve literacy outcomes in remote schools with primarily Indigenous students. It has been subject to two evaluation reports so far, with a final evaluation scheduled to come out this year.

The study’s co-author, Associate Director of Regional Engagement (APY Lands) at UniSA Dr Sam Osborne, said that the program’s lack of success was “obfuscated” by the Government.

“In late 2017, there was a parliamentary review that came out just before Christmas,” he said.

“Simon Birmingham was the minister at the time who cited ‘green shoots of hope’ as the reason to put another $4.1 million into the program. Now, he's used the language of 'green shoots of hope' because the data clearly wasn't there to support the kinds of outcomes that they were hoping for.”

Osborne said that the program has not only failed to achieve its goals, but that it has demonstrated potential harm in very remote schools.

“Schools who used direct instruction had lower results in the three years that we looked at the NAPLAN data compared to the three years prior,” he said.

“They also had lower results than other schools, similar schools in the area, who didn't use the program. A secondary outcome, which is of some concern, was that we also looked at student attendance rates for schools using the direct instruction program and those results were significantly lower, more than 7 per cent for the three years that they ran the direct instruction program, and significantly lower than other schools in the region, similar schools who didn't use the direct instruction model.

“So initially we're looking at, ‘Did the program achieve what it set out to do?’, and the answer is no. And secondly, the program was evaluated twice and the data was available. It's of some concern that these results weren't  put out front to say, ‘Actually, this isn't achieving what it set out to do’.”

Edith Cowan University’s Associate Professor Dr Lorraine Hammond was involved with the program’s initial rollout. Speaking to EducationHQ, she identified several issues with Osborne’s study.

“Normally in comparison studies, the schools in this case are assigned randomly to the control and the comparison groups and this is to make them as similar as possible, and that just didn't happen,” she said.

“So that raises some questions about the actual methodology. And then also, they didn't explain how they chose the actual schools that they ... put as non-intervention schools in the end. So that for me raised a few issues. I guess in terms of their own [identified] limitations, they said that some of the schools didn't report pre and post results, so that, for me, is a bit of an issue as well.”

Hammond said that the schools which adopted the Flexible Literacy for Remote Primary Schools Program were likely to be in a worse initial position than other comparable schools.

“It's interesting in the sense that the schools who agreed to be part of the intervention were probably the ones who weren't doing so well, possibly the ones who had the highest changeover of staff, which is a big issue in these schools as well.

“Yeah, so lots of unanswered questions for me, but disappointing in the sense that I saw the impact of that particular intervention and that there is a massive gap between research and practice.

“Direct instruction is really effective and there's lots of meta analyses out there to show that, and certainly in the schools that I've worked in, we've got good results using it, but implementation is another thing.”

Hammond is currently involved in WA’s Kimberley Schools Project, another program which uses direct instruction in remote Indigenous schools.

“What we use is an unscripted approach. Teachers are encouraged to teach reading in a very structured way,” she said.

“And so I provide the professional learning for that and it's not unlike the model that comes from the direct instruction reading approach, but it's adapted for teacher use. In every school … there might be some children who are coming in at a very low level, and so they might be using something that's [designed for four-year-olds], even though they might be maybe five or six years of age. So we can adapt it accordingly.

“It gives a lot more control for teachers and I think that might have been one of the issues around the direct instruction program.”

Osborne said that the money used to fund the Flexible Literacy program could have been spent on extra support, resources and training for teachers.

“I suppose a question that comes up from this study is, if you've got a program that's $30 million across 30 small schools and it's not running the schools, it's teaching English, which is a component of a school program, then I think questions probably do need to be asked about the accountability and monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of such a program and why we've continued with an approach [when] it's been apparent for some time that the numbers haven't been good.

“And it leads us to more interesting and more important questions. If not direct instruction, then what else?”

Little, G. (2020). Direct instruction 'Flexible Literacy' program a costly failure: researchers. EducationHQ. https://educationhq.com/news/direct-instruction-flexible-literacy-program-a-costly-failure-researchers-76001/

This next segment is a broader document, and includes earlier periods.

 In a previous post (http://www.nifdi.org/resources/news/hempenstall-blog/403-reviews-supporting-direct-instruction-program-effectiveness), I listed those reports, syntheses, reviews, and meta-analyses that have offered support to Direct Instruction as a genuine evidence-based approach to instruction.

In this post, I want to consider what is Direct Instruction, and what are the criticisms that have impeded the model from achieving the strong acceptance in education that it deserves. As an avid reader of research in education for many years, I’ve been regularly bemused to read studies employing a wide range of recently developed programs, some of which clearly influenced by DI. Rarely is DI evaluated or even discussed by independent researchers.

Research supports explicit instruction

How has DI been viewed by educators? Obviously, those still enamoured with Whole Language, or those whose pre-service training was conducted by WL protagonists, are likely to be critical of explicit instruction generally. DI being perhaps the prime example of explicit instruction, and having had a long history, may have been a lightning rod for those who do not consider explicit instruction as appropriate. In my education readings, and in my experience in offering electives to teachers-in-training, it is frequently evident that many critics have little understanding of DI. They just know (or have been told) that they don’t like it!

Read more ...