Details

Published: 28 April 2025

Hits: 201

The initial program: Reviews supporting Direct Instruction program effectiveness is available at: https://www.nifdi.org/resources/hempenstall-blog/403-reviews-supporting-direct-instruction-program-effectiveness.html

*****************************

Reviews supporting Direct Instruction program effectiveness: Part 2

Direct Instruction: The Power to Change it All (2024)

“Substantial proportions of our nation’s students do not meet even basic levels of academic proficiency. This has lifelong implications for students and for society as a whole. But this dire situation could change. I base this conclusion on a systematic, quantitative review of the studies of Direct Instruction conducted with colleagues Tim Wood, Cristy Coughlin, and Caitlin Khoury.

Direct Instruction (DI) is a highly structured, research-based method of instruction developed by Siegfried Engelmann and his colleagues beginning in the 1960s. It assumes all students can succeed with appropriate instruction. If students are not learning, the problem does not lie with the student but with the teaching. Based on this assumption, Englemann and his colleagues, based on years of research and testing, developed curricula designed to be effective and efficient.

Because DI was first developed in the 1960s there are many studies of its effectiveness, and my colleagues and I examined that literature using the statistical technique of meta-analysis. With help from our marvelous university librarians, we found 377 studies of DI. From these we calculated more than 4,600 estimates of DI’s effectiveness, called “effect sizes.” Because effect sizes are commonly used in research, we could compare the data from the DI literature to effects found for other curricula. 

Our results were striking—so striking and so strong that we checked and rechecked the results to make sure they were correct. We also used a range of statistical methods to look for any conditions that might alter our findings. But, no matter how we sliced the data we got the same results. The effect sizes associated with DI were about twice as strong as the average found with other curricula. These strong effects appeared across more than 50 years of research, in studies with students of all types of backgrounds, in different types of schools, in studies with various methodologies, and in comparisons with a wide range of alternative curricula. The strong effects appeared with both academic and affective outcomes. Students taught with DI not only had higher academic achievement; they also had greater confidence in their ability to learn and succeed. There were only two factors that affected the magnitude of DI’s impact: dosage and fidelity. Students did even better when their teachers adhered more closely to the programs’ guidelines and when they were taught with DI for a longer period.

From these data, it seems clear the widespread use of DI could do much to increase student achievement. Yet, it is not widely used and, in fact, many in the educational community appear to be quite antagonistic toward its use.

My co-authors and I are social scientists, with backgrounds in sociology, psychology, and history. We believe empirical evidence and scientific research provide vital information for addressing difficult social problems. Thus, it is hard for us to understand the opposition to DI and the “curriculum wars.” We know these views are deeply embedded in the culture of the education profession. But we also know teachers and administrators care deeply about their students and want them to do well. We also know cultures and social institutions can change.

We sincerely hope the results of our study can help turn the tide of educational thought and policy. The data show all students can learn if they are given appropriate instruction. It is time for educators to work with policymakers and the public for change. Our students deserve no less.”

Direct Instruction: The Power to Change it All (2024) Voyager Sopris Learning Dr. Jean Stockard 

https://www.voyagersopris.com/blog/edview360/direct-instruction-the-power-to-change-it-all

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Recent Research: Reviews of Direct Instruction (2025)

“Even though research on Direct Instruction has been available for nearly 50 years, more continues to appear. Current research examines both the effectiveness of Direct Instruction programs and the most effective ways to deliver them.

The recent studies confirm the findings of earlier decades. Efficacy studies continue to find that students in Direct Instruction have higher achievement scores than those using other programs. These results occur with students in general education and those in special education. They occur when comparisons are made to basal texts or to “constructivist” approaches. They occur with preschoolers through adults. They occur with students from many different communities and demographic backgrounds.

Recent work also continues to examine how teachers and schools can be most effective in their use of Direct Instruction programs. The research confirms the importance of following NIFDI guidelines in implementation. The research also highlights the importance of having strong training and coaching programs for teachers and supportive administrative structures.

Because there is such a large amount of research literature on Direct Instruction, a number of researchers have systematically summarized the findings. These summaries have included both extensive reviews of the literature and statistical meta-analyses. Again, these summaries consistently find strong evidence of Direct Instruction’s effectiveness.”

Reviews of Direct Instruction. National Institute for Direct Instruction (NIFDI). https://www.nifdi.org/research/recent-research.html

Direct teaching/instruction (2023)

“Direct teaching/instruction is a step-by-step, lesson-by-lesson approach to teaching which is scripted and follows a pre-determined skill acquisition sequence. The aim of using direct teaching/instruction is to take local variation and teacher/child idiosyncrasy out of instruction (Luke, 2014) and for children to learn through imitation. It is also used as a general term for the teaching of skills by telling or demonstrating. It is a common approach used for the teaching of handwriting, as well as phonics, letters and numerals.

If utilised effectively, possible characteristics may include: explicit and scaffolded.

Direct teaching/instruction unpacked

Teachers may:

• control content, activities and lesson pacing
• use pre-planned sequences of content and activities (fixed, linear and incremental)
• use behaviouristic learning principles (getting children's attention, reinforcing correct responses, providing corrective feedback, practising correct responses)
• place children in ability/achievement groups.

Children may:

• follow and participate in structured class routines
• follow a series of instructions
• acquire content or skills through rote learning, drill and repetition
• practise content or skills using worksheets and workbooks
• produce a desired action/behaviour/product.”

Download the approaches of age-appropriate pedagogies in action: direct teaching/instruction (PDF, 182KB) to further explore the approach.

Direct teaching/instruction.

Early Childhood Education and Care

https://earlychildhood.qld.gov.au/sector-news-and-resources/teaching-and-learning-resources/age-appropriate-pedagogies/approaches/direct-teaching-instruction

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Reviews of Direct Instruction. The National Institute for Direct Instruction.

“While decades of well-designed, scientific research show that Direct Instruction programs are highly effective, the programs have faced criticism. Some of these involve how DI affects students. For instance, some suggest that DI is less effective than other types of instruction, such as the “constructivist” or “discovery” approaches, or that it has no long-lasting impact on students’ achievement. Others suggest that it is only appropriate for disadvantaged students or those with learning difficulties. Some even claim that exposure to Direct Instruction results in poor self-image, behavior problems, or other problems for students. The accumulated evidence counters each of these claims. The research conclusively shows that Direct Instruction is more effective than other curricular programs and that the positive effects persist through high school. The positive effects occur with students of all ability levels and social backgrounds. Students exposed to Direct Instruction also have greater self-esteem and self-confidence than students in other programs, primarily because they are learning more material and understand that they can be successful students. 

Other criticisms focus on the Direct Instruction programs and their use by teachers. Some suggest that Direct Instruction is only “rote and drill” and that teachers don’t like it because it hampers their creativity. Again, the research evidence counters these claims. Rather than involving a “rote and drill” approach, DI programs are designed to accelerate students’ learning and allow them to learn more material in a shorter amount of time. The programs are technical and prescriptive, designed to make teachers more effective, much like the prescribed techniques for surgeons and pilots ensure optimal results for their patients and passengers. Yet, just as surgeons and pilots’ personalities create the atmosphere of an operating room or plane, the individual personalities and creativity of DI teachers permeate their classrooms and interactions with students. The research shows that teachers like DI programs because they help their students learn more and they become more effective teachers.

Others suggest that using separate elements of the programs will result in outcomes that are just as good as using the full DI programs. Yet, the research shows that using only some of the elements of DI programs, what is sometimes called “direct instruction” or “little di,” is far less effective than using the true Direct Instruction programs developed by Engelmann and associates.

The claim that Direct Instruction programs are not effective has been promulgated in recent years by the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC), which is funded by the United States Department of Education to provide reviews of curricular programs. Careful analyses of the WWC reports show that they can be very misleading and provide inaccurate summaries of the research. As a result, some WWC reports give positive ratings to programs that researchers have found to be ineffective and negative ratings to programs that the research has found to be highly effective.

The scientific literature emphasizes the importance of multiple tests, or replications, of studies to ensure that conclusions are accurate. Over the last five decades, there have been many studies of Direct Instruction’s efficacy, and researchers have reviewed and summarized this vast literature. They have found strong and consistent evidence of DI’s effectiveness.

Two approaches are typically used in such analyses: systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses. Both approaches begin with a delineation of the topic to be covered. For instance, some have looked only at studies of reading or of mathematics. Some have focused on studies of whole school reform. Some may look only at special populations, such as students with disabilities. Systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses may also use methodological criteria to limit the range of studies examined, such as sample size or the nature of the research design. Once the researchers have determined the topic and criteria to be used, they try to amass all the relevant studies and then carefully examine their findings.

The procedures used to summarize the findings differ slightly for the two approaches. Systematic literature reviews usually involve narrative summaries of the results. They describe the nature of each study and compare and contrast conclusions. These reviews usually include simple tallies of the outcomes, noting the proportion of results that are positive, negative, or indeterminate. Meta-analyses use a more statistical approach. They translate results into a common numerical metric, usually an effect size, and statistically analyze variations in the metric and factors that might influence it. All of the literature reviews and meta-analyses of Direct Instruction materials have found strong evidence of their effectiveness.”

For more, see the work of:

• Professor Sara Tarver - University of Wisconsin
• pdf Writings of Gary Adams and Siegfried Engelmann

Reviews of Direct Instruction. The National Institute for Direct Instruction. https://www.nifdi.org/research/reviews-of-di.html

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Intervention at the Scale of Learning Loss. (2023)

“Direct Instruction (DI) is a teaching methodology, suitable for both targeted intervention and alternative core instruction, that is proven to close gaps and accelerate learning. It’s a precise, efficient, and effective way to ensure students gain mastery of foundational skills. When implemented with fidelity, Direct Instruction can help us address the scale of this crisis.

Intervention to Meet the Moment

In Direct Instruction, skills are introduced gradually, reinforced, and continually assessed, so that no student can fall behind. Content is delivered via scripted and quickly paced lessons, while teachers correct errors immediately and motivate students with positive reinforcement. It’s scalable and proven by decades of research.

Direct Instruction is based on two assumptions: All students can learn when taught correctly, regardless of history and background; and all teachers can be successful, given effective materials and presentation techniques.

It’s been said that DI programs “cut the fluff and teach the stuff.” Explicit instruction allows teachers to be precise, and the carefully designed scope and sequence ensures that students master prerequisite knowledge before moving on to new skills, disregarding information that’s unnecessary for later learning.

As district leaders develop strategies to address compounded academic losses at scale, I would encourage them to consider DI programs for targeted intervention or core instruction to help students gain ground in essential skills. Here are a few ways DI can accelerate growth:

Emphasis on Foundational Skills

Direct Instruction reading programs — examples from our portfolio include Reading Mastery Transformations and Corrective Reading — always ensure sufficient time is dedicated to foundational literacy skills. They have long been aligned with the fundamental principles of the Science of Reading, focused on developing word recognition skills in early grades and ensuring all students reach mastery.

The efficiency of DI programs, through a targeted focus on the most important skills, empowers students to become proficient readers quickly, building their confidence. Teachers will gain confidence, too, watching their students make progress in response to efficient, precise instructor-led lessons. It’s that precise instruction of the most important skills that will ultimately drive the acceleration needed to close post-pandemic gaps.

When it comes to foundational literacy skills, particularly in this post-COVID environment, every instructional moment is precious. DI can help teachers and administrators feel confident that they are maximizing instructional time with students.

Homogenous Grouping

While learning losses ultimately affected all learners, they didn’t affect all learners in the same way, and many teachers are faced with a more diverse set of student needs than ever before. Direct Instruction utilizes homogenous grouping according to students’ instructional needs to enable teachers to differentiate at scale. Coupled with DI’s placement tests, homogenous groups let teachers know exactly where students should begin instruction to obtain the necessary skills and reach mastery of important concepts.

Importantly, homogenous groups ensure that all students, rather than just some students, can master the foundational skills being taught.

Gradual Release Model

DI lessons follow a gradual release model, where the teacher models a skill, students practice together, most often through unison response, and finally, students practice and apply skills on their own. Carefully designed scaffolding ensures mastery, as students only practice new skills following prerequisites. The difficulty of the material increases gradually but steadily, keeping students in their zone of proximal development. As a result, students are expected to perform at a high level of mastery — at least 85–90%.

Innovative Application of Proven Pedagogy: The Walk to Read Model

Learning losses of the scale we’re facing today require research-proven pedagogy implemented with fidelity — but they also require innovative thinking from district leaders. Schools facing staggering gaps may consider adopting Direct Instruction programs and implementing the Walk to Read model, a whole-school approach that achieves efficient teaching by grouping learners based on need across classrooms and sometimes grade levels.

In the Walk to Read model, all students from all grades take a placement test. Blocks of time are set aside for targeted small-group instruction in homogenous grouping. The approach allows for more targeted and efficient instruction, minimizes planning, and provides clear assessment monitoring. The Walk to Read model can be overwhelming, but DI’s pedagogy makes it possible, and the improved outcomes make it worth it.

Walk to Read models have long been common in Title 1 schools but may play a vital role in schools across the country as we look to meet the scale of losses with large-scale interventions.”

For more on Direct Instruction, see:

Literacy & Math Intervention Programs | Direct Instruction McGraw Hill. Direct Instruction (DI) is the efficacy-proven methodology at the core of our PreK-12 literacy and math tiered. Every teaching and learning journey is unique.  www.mheducation.com”

Eisele, M. (2023). Direct Instruction Meets the Moment: Intervention at the Scale of Learning Loss.  McGraw Hill. https://medium.com/inspired-ideas-prek-12/direct-instruction-meets-the-moment-intervention-at-the-scale-of-learning-loss-9bdc1c39ad8ccGraw Hill

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Success for Every Student: The Research Behind Direct Instruction (2024)

“Direct Instruction (DI) is a highly structured method of teaching based on the assumption that all students can learn if given appropriate instruction. Decades of research shows this method of teaching can help change the stagnant levels of U.S. student achievement. Our expert will share these research results and describe DI’s potential to dramatically change patterns of student achievement in the United States

Hundreds of studies show how DI can promote outstanding gains in student achievement and self-confidence. Its positive impact is documented with students from many different backgrounds, in schools with vastly different characteristics, and when compared with all other types of curricula. The gains are both statistically and substantively significant and large enough to dramatically alter current patterns of student achievement. Join noted researcher and educator Dr. Jean Stockard as she describes evidence about DI’s effectiveness, why the programs were and continue to be so successful, why they are not utilized on a large scale in American schools, and most importantly, how they might be used in future years to dramatically reduce school failure and accelerate academic and social success. 

If you’re a policymaker, administrator, or teacher, this presentation is for you! Dr. Stockard will share:

• The theory underlying DI, its development, use, and history
• Research from hundreds of different studies regarding DI’s effectiveness looking at students with varying characteristics, in different settings, and studying different areas
• Ways in which the systematic use of DI could alter patterns of student achievement
• What teachers, students, and concerned citizens could do to help bring this about.”

Dr. Jean Stockard. (2024). Success for Every Student: The Research Behind Direct Instruction. 

________________________________________________________________________________________________

The case for Direct Instruction (2023)

“Abstract

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.

Evidence to support Direct Instruction

The DI approach was one of the major models evaluated in Project Follow Through (Becker, 1977; Bereiter and Kurland, 1981; Stebbins et al., 1976), the largest educational experiment ever conducted by the United States government to evaluate the effectiveness of leading instructional approaches to teach young students in underserved communities. Over 200,000 children in 178 communities were included in the study, which initially investigated 22 different models of instruction. 

Project Follow Through was evaluated in 1977, nine years after the project began. The results from that evaluation were strong and clear. Students who received Direct Instruction demonstrated significantly higher academic achievement than students taught by any of the other approaches. 

Interestingly, those students also demonstrated higher self-esteem and self-confidence, as indicated by agreed-upon affective measures. No other Follow Through model achieved results that approached the positive impact of DI on students. 

Follow Through was just the first of many subsequent investigations on the efficacy of Direct Instruction. Recently, Stockard et al. (2018) conducted a meta-analysis of 318 studies published between 1961 and 2016 focused on DI. The studies in the meta-analysis utilised 431 study designs, resulting in almost 4,000 effects. In the meta-analysis, the authors found overwhelming evidence of the effectiveness of the DI approach across different student populations and content-areas. Specifically, they found statistically significant positive effects of the DI approach in reading, mathematics, language and spelling. In All Students Can Succeed: A Half Century of Research on the Effectiveness of Direct Instruction (2020), Stockard et al. provide a more comprehensive discussion about the extensive history of research on DI.

Defining features of Direct Instruction

The DI approach has two distinct but related major components: the design of instructional content (what to teach) and the delivery of that instruction to students (how to teach). The philosophy of Direct Instruction is deceptively simple: students learn best when their teachers are provided with well-designed instructional programmes and support in implementing those programmes. This discussion of the DI approach begins with the design of instructional programmes, the least understood of the two components.

Instructional design

All DI programmes include carefully developed design features: an incremental step structure for multiple ongoing topics within each lesson, massed practice of newly introduced material, pre-teaching of prerequisite skills, cumulative introduction and review (interleaving), and a system for placing students at their appropriate skill level and adjusting instruction to address differential progress by individual students.

The goal of these design features is to reduce ambiguity for students and to achieve what is often referred to in the literature as faultless communication (Slocum and Rolf, 2021; Twyman and Hockman, 2021). Each DI lesson is designed so that new material accounts for only 10 to 15 per cent of the lesson; most of each lesson is focused on practice and review to ensure that students are highly successful and able to independently apply their knowledge to new examples.

Before the DI programme designers develop individual lessons, they analyse subject matter content to identify the most generalisable concepts, skills or themes, i.e. ‘big ideas’. For example, DI programme designers agree that reading instruction in second grade (equivalent to Year 3 in UK schools) should shift emphasis from learning to read to reading to learn. 

As a result, the second grade DI reading programme focuses on big ideas found in non-fiction texts, such as those in science and social studies, to prepare students to read textbooks that they will encounter later in school. One such big idea included in the reading programme is refraction. After teachers introduce how light bends when it goes through a magnifying glass (initially using student-friendly language and later introducing the term ‘refraction’), they lead students in applying that knowledge of refraction to how the human eye works, and later how a camera works.

Another example of a generalisable concept (i.e. big idea) often overlooked in typical mathematics programmes but taught explicitly in DI mathematics curricula is the concept of equality. While many programmes teach the label for the equals symbol (=), students are rarely taught its conceptual meaning. Students in DI mathematics programmes (as early as kindergarten or Year 1) are introduced to an equality rule along with the equals symbol. That rule is ‘You must end up with the same number on this side of the equals and the other side’. The DI curriculum initially provides teachers with easy examples to use in teaching students ‘how to make the sides equal’. Later, the equality rule is applied to all arithmetic operations and becomes the basis for understanding equivalent fractions, algebraic equations, etc.

Once the DI programme designers analyse the instructional content and identify the big ideas, they do the following: 

• Articulate explicit step-by-step strategies that teach students when and how to apply the important concepts and/or skills
• Identify the prerequisite knowledge necessary to understand the steps in the strategies (e.g. new vocabulary)
• Select appropriate examples (introductory examples for initial practice and discrimination or non-examples for practice over time)
• Construct appropriate sequences that facilitate interleaving new content with previously taught content (i.e. cumulative introduction)
• Provide sufficient practice and review.

The instructional design process developed by DI programme designers is far more rigorous than most educators are aware of. However, the programme design features are a necessary but not sufficient component of the DI approach. To be successful, the DI programme designers also make specific recommendations for delivering instruction.

Instructional delivery

Observers of teachers using DI programmes readily see that the programmes are scripted, incorporate choral responding, use positive feedback and provide recommendations for systematically correcting errors. Because DI programmes incorporate unconventional instructional delivery techniques (e.g. use of scripts and choral responding), aspects of this type of instructional delivery tend to generate the most controversy. For example, the use of choral responding misleads some to conclude that DI is nothing more than rote memorisation, rather than an effective and surprisingly enjoyable delivery technique for increasing student engagement. Moreover, a guiding principle of DI is that content is only taught by rote when it can’t be taught in any other way (e.g. letter–sound correspondences). Others criticise the use of scripts as being too confining and boring. But in reality, skilled DI teachers deliver lessons with energy and expressiveness. 

Teachers new to DI benefit from extensive professional development and instructional coaching. Frequent in-class observations along with modeling and feedback by DI experts assists teachers in successfully implementing DI programs.

Final thoughts and challenges

One of the most significant challenges to those advocating for more widespread implementation of DI lies in the pervasive misunderstandings about the approach.  Resistance to implementing structured programs, like the DI programs, is common. Often teachers are encouraged to write their own instructional programs but without formal training in instructional design. In addition, the process of selecting instructional programs by both teachers and administrators rarely includes examining well-designed research on the effectiveness of those programs.  With respect to the debate between advocates of teacher-directed instruction and student-centred instruction, the fact is that a truly ‘student-centred’ approach to education is one in which student learning takes priority over everything else. To date, one of the best routes to achievement for all students has been shown to be DI, ironically making it a more truly student-centred approach.

• Becker W (1977) Teaching reading and language to the disadvantaged: What we have learned from field research? Harvard Educational Review 47(4): 518–543.
• Bereiter C and Kurland M (1981) A constructive look at Follow Through results. Intercha

Stein, M., & Rolf, K. R. (2023). The case for Direct Instruction. Impact, 19, 14-16.

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

Just How Effective is Direct Instruction? (2021)

“Abstract

Despite overwhelming evidence in support of Direct Instruction, this research-validated curriculum has not been widely embraced by teachers or school administrators. The Direct Instruction model, developed and refined by Engelmann and colleagues over the past 50 years, has been the focus of numerous research studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. Although its efficacy cannot be doubted, the significance of Direct Instruction’s impact may be misunderstood. We attempt to clarify the importance of Direct Instruction with help from the binomial effect-size display. 

Binomial effect-size displays allow for intuitive and informative data-based decision making by clearly conveying the real-world importance of treatment outcomes through a juxtaposition of the relative proportions of success. The limitations of analyzing effect sizes in absolute terms are discussed. Using the binomial effect-size display as a framework, we present a series of dichotomies in an attempt to answer the question: Just how effective is Direct Instruction?

Direct Instruction is perhaps the most heavily researched educational model (Borman et al., 2003; Hattie, 2009). More than 500 individual research reports have been identified on DI, and an entire journal was once dedicated to its exploration (Stockard et al., 2020). This mountain of data has been analyzed, summarized, and scrutinized elsewhere, and it is not our intent to provide another systematic review. Rather, we provide some commentary on the vast amount of research on DI and offer some perspective on the interpretation of their results. The love/hate divergence is the first in a series of dichotomies that we present to help clarify some of the ambiguities that are inherent with complex statistical analyses. Because, regardless of which side of the aisle you stand, everyone should have access to the basic facts.”

Mason, L., & Otero, M. (2021). Just How Effective is Direct Instruction?. Perspectives on behavior science, 44(2-3), 225–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-021-00295-x

Literacy outcomes for Very Remote Indigenous schools (2021)

“Abstract: In the journal article Did DI do it? The impact of a programme designed to improve literacy for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in remote schools, Guenther and Osborne (2020) compare schoolwide NAPLAN reading scale scores for 25 Very Remote Indigenous schools implementing Direct Instruction through the Flexible Literacy for Remote Primary Schools Program (‘Flexible Literacy’ or ‘the program’) with those for 118 Very Remote Indigenous schools not involved with the program, to assert the program has not improved literacy outcomes. Good to Great Schools Australia (GGSA) undertook an analysis of the same school data for Reading, Writing, Spelling and Grammar and Punctuation scores. 

Our findings contradict theirs. In all areas, schools participating in the program show significant growth compared with all Australian and all Very Remote Indigenous schools. In Reading, schools involved in the program from 2015 to 2017 averaged 124% growth, while the average growth for comparable ages was 19 and 34% for Australian and Very Remote Indigenous schools, respectively. In Grammar and Punctuation schools involved in the program in the same period grew 180%, whilst growth for Australian schools was 15%, and for Very Remote Indigenous schools, 28%. 

These contrasting results illustrate the importance of evaluating growth to assess the impact of educational programs, rather than achievement alone, particularly in the case of Very Remote Indigenous schools where achievement levels are far below Australian grade levels. Guenther and Osborne’s comparison of achievement across schools rather than measuring growth within schools obscures real gains and is misleading.”

Pearson, N. (2021). Direct Instruction on literacy outcomes for Very Remote Indigenous schools. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education 50, 402–411. 

https://ajie.atsis.uq.edu.au/ajie/article/view/319/260

________________________________________________________________________________________________

See a range of DI support documents –  mostly in Indonesian, but it can be switched to English: 

“The research was to describe the Direct Instruction Method for Increasing Of study result Nationality Learning sub title environment treatment in Elementary School of Nipa-Nipa Makassar. Type of this research was Classroom Ation Research which based on several steps, such as planning, action implementation observation, evaluation, and reflection. Subject of the research were II class students SD Inpres Nipa-Nipai Makassar as many as 27 students. Data collection used observation and the next test analyzed by descriptive method. The result of the research showed that the Direct Instruction Method could improve learning result of students in II class SD Inpres Nipa-Nipa Makassar. In this case based on the improvement average value of learning result from 54.23% in cycle I became 78.63% in cycle II and the increase of average value is eleven percent. So, this research is considered successful on minimal criteria completeness from 34% at cycle I to 81% at cycle II.”

 https://www.academia.edu/116865209/PENINGKATAN_HASIL_BELAJAR_PKn_MELALUI_MODEL_PEMBELAJARAN_DIRECT_INSTRUCTION_PADA_SISWA_KELAS_II_SD_INPRES_NIPA_NIPA_KOTA_MAKASSAR

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Features of Direct Instruction: Interactive Lessons (2021)

“Abstract

Direct Instruction (DI) teaches challenging academic content to a range of diverse learners. In order to do so, DI includes a complex system for organizing and directing teacher–student interactions to maximize learning. This system includes: instructional formats that specify the interactions between teacher and student, flexible skills-based groupings, active student responding, responsive interactions between students and teachers, ongoing data-based decision making, and mastery teaching. In this article, we describe each of these main features of the system, define their functions, reveal how they are interwoven throughout all DI lessons, and provide specific examples of their application during instruction. Our goal is to describe and clarify critical features of DI lesson presentation and teacher–student interaction so that instructional designers, teachers, and other practitioners can use existing DI programs effectively and include these features in newly developed programs. 

Conclusion

DI uses an elaborate set of strategies and procedures to organize and deliver instruction. Building on the underlying content analysis (Slocum & Rolf, this issue), concept analysis (Johnson, this issue), and juxtaposition of items (Twyman, this issue), effective lesson design and delivery ensures that the products of instructional design contact learners in a powerful and interactive form. DI strategies and procedures for lesson delivery ensure that communication is clear, skills are built smoothly and systematically, and teachers respond effectively to student performance. The sequence of formats, items selected, and fading of scaffolds across a program create a choreography of steps that teachers and students perform to build elaborate repertoires of student behaviors. The systems for interaction, assessment, and decision making enable teachers and students to enter a dance in which each partner is responding to the other. By becoming exquisitely sensitive to student performance, teachers can lead students through the dance of learning. By coming under the control of student behavior, teachers can bring student behavior under the control of complex academic content.

Many of the strategies, procedures, and techniques that make up DI are similar to those used by ABA practitioners with individual clients. DI programs specify and coordinate a coherent system made up of these elements to teach challenging academic content to groups of students. ABA practitioners who are new to DI programs will find modified forms of familiar strategies. This is both a blessing and a curse. ABA practitioners often recognize and understand the importance of these strategies (e.g., the emphasis on mastery learning and using prompt fading sequences). However, the functions of some of the exercises in DI programs are not obvious. A practitioner who is too quick to modify exercises may fail to build fluency on important prerequisites for future skills. DI programs elaborately implement highly refined behavioral principles to positively affect individuals’ lives. We hope that this article will increase the widespread use of DI programs by ABA practitioners, support behavior analysts in their ethical obligation to develop competency when implementing new approaches (Behavior Analyst Certification Board, 2014), and inspire the incorporation of DI features into new instructional programs that address previously overlooked domains.”

Rolf, K. R. & Slocum, T. (2021). Features of Direct Instruction: Interactive Lessons. Behavior Analysis in Practice.[DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]

Teach More in Less Time With DI Principles and Procedures (2021)

“Six articles in this special section suggest how behavior analysts can use and adopt DI instructional design features and presentation methods in their practice.

A first-time observer of a well-taught DI lesson is struck by the high-energy level: the rapid pacing, the teacher’s verbal and visual signals, and students’ choral responses stand out readily from typical teaching methods. Each of these more evident elements of DI plays an important role in students’ learning. The casual observer, however, is seldom aware of the sophisticated instructional design at the foundation of DI. A series of three articles takes us inside DI to see how lessons are designed.

In “Features of Direct Instruction: Content Analysis,” Tim Slocum and Kristen Rolf explain the role of content analysis in developing DI programs and provide a brief sketch of general methods for conducting a content analysis. To illustrate how effective content analysis works, they share examples in five content domains: spelling, basic arithmetic facts, Earth science, basic language, and narrative language.

To prevent students from learning misrules because of the way concepts are introduced (e.g., triangles are blue, the numerator is always less than the denominator), instructional examples must be selected and sequenced to avoid ambiguity and yield maximum generalization to untaught examples.0

In “Creating the Components for Teaching Concepts,” Kent Johnson and Andrew Bulla outline the steps for developing instructional materials for teaching a concept in any curricular domain. To learn the limits or boundaries of a concept, students respond to examples and nonexamples that are similar to one another except for the critical feature that makes them different. To learn the range of a concept, students identify examples that differ from one another as much as possible yet still illustrate the concept.

Building on the two previous articles, “You Have the Big Idea, Concept, and Some Examples . . . Now What?” by Janet Twyman and Adam Hockman shows the utility and importance of considering Engelmann and Carnine’s (1991) principles of juxtaposition when teaching a new discrimination or a set of related stimuli (i.e., concept teaching). What they present in the article (and encourage readers to practice) is just the beginning of what it takes to consider logical and research-demonstrated strategies as part of one’s efforts to improve student learning.

Once a lesson is designed, it has to be delivered. “Features of Direct Instruction: Interactive Lessons” by Rolf and Slocum describes the features of DI lesson presentation that maximize student learning: instructional formats that specify the interactions between teacher and student, flexible skills-based groupings, active student responding, responsive interactions between students and teachers, ongoing data-based decisions, and mastery teaching.

As the previous articles illustrate, examples are essential in learning something new. Fortunately, this special section provides those as well. In “Ten Instructional Design Efforts to Help Behavior Analysts Take Up the Torch of Direct Instruction,” Trina Spencer shows how the DI model and technology are transferrable and applicable to behavior-analytic practice. 

The article features a detailed planning guide showing behavior analysts how to put the power of DI into practice to establish generative repertoires efficiently, regardless of the population they serve or the repertoires they build. A case example illustrates how DI’s instructional design and instructional delivery strategies were incorporated into a program for teaching narrative language skills to children (Spencer & Petersen, 2020).

In “Guidelines for Facilitating Direct Instruction of Generalized Social Behavior,” Terrance Scott and Erick Dubuque describe how practitioners can use general case programming (GCP; Horner et al., 1982). Based on DI principles of instructional design, GCP is a systematic strategy and set of techniques for identifying the full range of relevant stimulus variations and response requirements learners must navigate to perform successfully in novel environments. Scott and Dubuque provide guidelines and a case example of how to select and sequence instructional examples most likely to produce maximum generalization to untaught situations.”

Heward, W.L., Twyman, J.S. (2021). Teach More in Less Time: Introduction to the Special Section on Direct Instruction. Behav Analysis Practice 14, 763–765 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-021-00639-8

Age-Appropriate Pedagogies Direct Teaching Instruction (2022)

“Age-appropriate pedagogies: Event-based approach 1 Direct teaching/instruction is a term often used interchangeably with explicit teaching and can be misconstrued to mean a didactic or rigid approach to teaching (Fisher, Frey and Hattie, 2016). In the context of early childhood classrooms it is an effective approach when used for short periods of time to teach specific skills, for example letter/ sound knowledge as a key component of learning to read, a skill necessary for all aspects of learning. 

The role of the teacher in direct teaching/instruction is predetermined and specific with the teacher introducing factual information or skills through teacher initiated processes and procedures. Teacher decision-making When selecting the approach of direct teaching/ instruction teachers consider: • young learners’ interests and capabilities • their own interest, skills, capabilities and philosophies • the Australian curriculum • evidence of learning • school and community contexts.

Direct teaching/instruction is also intended to introduce new skill sets and knowledge that young learners acquire, replicate and with practise, transfer to new learning situations. When implementing this approach teachers make decisions in relation to the: • scope and sequence of lessons to build skills, for example, the introduction of a school-based social skills program • organisational context including ability grouping, and whole class, small groups or individual instruction • selection of resource materials including charts, props, rhymes, auditory cues • choice of instructional language used to identify the goals of the session and each step in the sequence of activities • introduction of direct instruction within a unit of work for example, when a specific skill may be needed to undertake the next phase in an investigation and the frequency of practise necessary to master the skill. 

Direct teaching/instruction is a step-by-step, lesson by lesson approach to teaching which is scripted and follows a pre-determined skill acquisition sequence. The aim of using direct teaching/instruction is to take local variation and teacher/child idiosyncrasy out of instruction (Luke, 2014) and for young learners to learn through imitation. It is also used as a general term for the teaching of skills by telling or demonstrating. It is a common approach used for the teaching of handwriting, as well as phonics, letters and numerals. 

Direct teaching/instruction Age-appropriate pedagogies Age-appropriate pedagogies: Direct teaching/instruction 2 Key drivers of direct teaching/ instruction The key drivers that underpin direct teaching/ instruction provide a framework for teachers to discuss the benefits of this approach with colleagues and parents. The capacity to articulate why a particular approach is used helps to reassure parents of the potential benefits for their child in terms of short-term and long-term educational outcomes. The key drivers also help to shape teachers’ decisions in ways that support young learners’ holistic development, a critical aspect of contemporary education (see Age-appropriate pedagogies for the early years of schooling: Foundation paper). Age-appropriate pedagogies for the early years of schooling: Foundation paper). Direct teaching/ instruction is based on view that taking a structured, sequenced approach to teaching content and processes enables all young learners to learn new skills. 

This pedagogical approach is considered a time efficient and effective process for assisting young learners to master new skills and with mastery apply those skills to new learning situations. Ownership: The lesson is teacher-initiated and the locus of control remains with the teacher throughout the lesson. Purpose is explicit: The learning experience has a clearly stated purpose and the lesson is sequenced with a set of steps to follow that are explained to young learners. 

Time: Lessons are short with a concentrated focus on skill development. Feedback: Feedback is immediate and specific to ensure mastery of skills. Transfer: Factual, content-driven skills are taught systematically with the intent that skills and knowledge are reproduced in other contexts as skills are mastered. What skills do young learners need to engage in direct teaching/ instruction? To participate effectively in direct teaching/ instruction sessions young learners need to be able to: • understand and follow instructions • focus attention on task requirements • respond to teacher-directed questions • demonstrate self-regulation skills for example, persist when faced with the challenges of learning new skills • draw on visual and auditory memory for example, when learning to form letter shapes young learners may draw on existing knowledge of the shape of a letter and the auditory cues provided by the teacher about how to form the correct letter shape • understand the difference between individual learning experiences that are self-paced and directed, and group learning situations where the individual works and responds as part of a group. Implementing direct teaching/ instruction in the classroom As one of seven age-appropriate approaches, direct teaching/instruction is most commonly associated with the teaching of specific skills. This approach may be used in whole class contexts and small groups, to teach skills within a specific unit of work related to the Australian Curriculum to support general capabilities. 

In the early years of schooling direct teaching/ instruction may be evident when teaching young learners the routines and expectations for classroom participation. In the first example of direct teaching/ instruction, handwashing routines are connected to Australian Curriculum health and physical education learning area and to personal and social capability. Age-appropriate pedagogies: Direct teaching/instruction 3 Handwashing routines (beginning of Prep) Step Teacher Action Learners’ Response Introductory discussion Short discussion/questions about the importance of hygiene Respond to questions Focus activity handwashing rhyme Introduce the rhyme and repeat Choral response from class Model Model the steps involved with specific language 1. First turn the tap on and wet your hands 2. Next, press once for the soap 3. Then wash on the front, on the back and in between 4. Now turn the tap and rinse your hands 5. Shake and dry Observe and listen Regular practise Provide daily opportunities to practise skills and use rhyme as an auditory cue Perform handwashing routine while being monitored Australian Curriculum Health and Physical Education Strand: Personal, Social and Community Health Content Description: identify actions that promote health, safety and wellbeing ACPPS006 Substrand Description: Contributing to healthy and active communities 

Elaboration: understanding the importance of personal hygiene practices, including hand washing, face washing, nose blowing and toilet routines. In the second example of direct teaching/instruction, the handwriting lesson is connected to the Australian Curriculum English learning area. Creating texts (Prep) Step Teacher Action Learners’ Response Introductory finger rhyme exercises Engage whole class in finger rhymes to exercise hands in preparation for handwriting lesson Join in familiar finger rhymes Specific handwriting rhyme Use rhyme as an auditory cueing device Choral response from class Model Model the formation of a letter on whiteboard Observe and listen Guided instruction Provide scaffolds for young learners using specific language about where to start, the direction for the letter formation and where to stop 

Perform handwriting activity while being monitored Feedback Observe handwriting attempts and provide specific feedback about each young learner’s attempts Observe and listen Age-appropriate pedagogies: Direct teaching/instruction 4 Independent learning Encourage young learners to produce text as part of daily routines e.g. small group activities across learning areas, in routines (sign in) and authentic writing for a purpose (invitation, card) 

Apply new skills for example, to make a sign, print name, write a message, write a story Identify and use resources such as alphabet charts to support independent writing Australian Curriculum English Strand: Literacy Substrand: Creating texts Content Description: Produce some lower case and upper case letters using learned letter formations Elaborations: • adopting correct posture and pencil grip • learning to produce simple handwriting movements • following clear demonstrations of how to construct each letter (for example where to start; which direction to write) • learning to construct lower case letters and to combine these into words • learning to construct some upper case letters. 

Reflection helps teachers to identify how their decisions influence the breadth, depth and quality of educational opportunities which young learners experience, the learning that is occurring, and how achievement standards are being met. Teacher self-reflection on understanding of direct teaching/ instruction • In which learning areas, and to what extent, do I direct content, activities and lesson pacing? • For what purpose do I use pre-planned sequences of content and activities (fixed, linear and incremental)? • Which behaviouristic learning principles do I employ (getting children’s attention, reinforcing correct responses, providing corrective feedback, practising correct responses)? • What data informs the ability/achievement groups that I use? • In what ways does my planning demonstrate a strong understanding of the Australian Curriculum learning area/s and associated achievement standard/s that underpin this approach?”

Direct teaching/instruction. Age-appropriate pedagogies Age-appropriate pedagogies: Direct teaching/instruction. 

Key drivers of direct teaching/instruction. (2022)

https://pdf4pro.com/view/age-appropriate-pedagogies-direct-teaching-instruction-6d4292.html#google_vignette

https://earlychildhood.qld.gov.au/sector-news-and-resources/teaching-and-learning-resources/age-appropriate-pedagogies/approaches/direct-teaching-instruction

Applications of Direct Instruction with Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (2023)

“Developed by Siegfried ("Zig") Engelmann and colleagues, direct instruction (DI) has been recognized as an effective and replicable teaching model for decades. Although rooted in many principles of learning that behavior analysts utilize in daily practice, DI is not a common a component of behavior analytic services for learners with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). This may be attributed to behavior analysts' unfamiliarity with research evaluating the efficacy of DI with learners with ASD. This article synthesizes findings across studies evaluating DI with learners with ASD. The review addresses the contributions of the studies to date and identifies additional areas of research that may lead to more learners with ASD benefitting from DI.” 

Frampton, Sarah & Munk, Greg & Shillingsburg, Laura & Shillingsburg, M. Alice. (2023). A Systematic Review and Quality Appraisal of Applications of Direct Instruction with Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Perspectives on Behavior Science. 44. 10.1007/s40614-021-00292-0.

https://earlychildhood.qld.gov.au/sector-news-and-resources/teaching-and-learning-resources/age-appropriate-pedagogies/approaches/direct-teaching-instruction

________________________________________________________________________________________________

“Abstract

Direct Instruction has been the subject of empirical research since its inception in the 1960s and has garnered a strong research base to support it. Despite its proven efficacy, Direct Instruction is not widely implemented and draws much criticism from some educators. This literature review details the components of Direct Instruction, research to support it and reported attitudes towards it. 

The aspects of Direct Instruction that attract the most criticism are broken down to determine just what it is that educators do not like about it. In addition, this review attempts to outline possible ways to improve the landscape for Direct Instruction by reviewing research on how best to achieve a shift in beliefs when adopting change in schools. 

This includes pre-service teacher education and professional development and support for practising teachers as a means of improving rates of implementation of Direct Instruction. …

A large volume of research data exists to support the efficacy of Direct Instruction in both special and general education settings. The reality, however, is that the application of Direct Instruction is not widespread (Bessellieu, Kozloff, & Rice, 2001, p. 14; Hempenstall, 2013, ‘Why does DI evoke such rancour’, para. 2; Kim & Axelrod, 2005, p. 112; Lindsley, 1992, p. 21; Vitale & Kaniuka, 2009, p. 14; Watkins, 1995, ‘Funding Decisions’, para. 4). 

The purpose of this literature review is to explore Direct Instruction in detail and break down some of the reported reasons for its lack of support among the wider education community. 

In addition, it will explore suggestions for achieving improved rates of implementation and attitudes towards Direct Instruction. Articles were located by conducting a search of the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), PsycInfo and A+Education databases, in addition to Google Scholar. Each database was searched using the descriptor ‘direct instruction’ in addition to combinations of ‘direct instruction’ with the following additional terms: attitude, acceptance, resistance, implementation and social validity. 

‘Scripted instruction’ was also combined with the previous terms to maximise the number of relevant articles returned. No date limits were used when initially searching the databases; however, more recent articles were reviewed first in order to capture the most current data. An Internet search to locate professional organisations related to Direct Instruction was completed using the Google search engine, and this uncovered leads to additional articles. 

In addition, the reference lists of relevant articles were examined to locate additional resources that may not have been found in the database search. Articles were prioritised when they included empirical data on either implementation, efficacy, or teacher ratings of Direct Instruction. Since there were limited articles that included empirical data on teacher ratings and attitudes, qualitative and descriptive research on this area were also considered for inclusion.

Direct Instruction or direct instruction? It is important to note that there is some variation in terminology regarding Direct Instruction, specifically, the difference between what is sometimes referred to as ‘little’ direct instruction (di) (using lower case letters) and ‘big’ Direct Instruction (DI) (using capital letters). 

The pioneering Direct Instruction (DI) programs came from the work of Siegfried Engelmann, an early childhood educator, and his colleagues (Magliaro, Lockee, & Burton, 2005, p. 42). Engelmann wanted to eliminate the notion that student failure was the result of something inherently deficient in the child (Engelmann, 1967, p. 99, 1980, p. 29). Quite simply, if the child has not learned after instruction, it is the result of inadequate teaching, not the child's innate capabilities. Engelmann emphasised that all children can learn if instruction is designed independently of learner characteristics. That is, the focus is on what is being taught rather than who is being taught (Engelmann, 1980, p. 35). 

Engelmann (1980) specified key instructional variables that place responsibility for child learning on the teacher, under the premise that faultless instruction would result in maximum student learning (p. 30). This, he theorised, could be achieved by breaking tasks into small steps using task analysis, through explicit teacher-led instruction and teaching at a brisk pace (Engelmann, 1967, p. 99). Since the 1960s, there have been many programs created which are predicated on this instructional design, such as Reading Mastery, Spelling Mastery and Corrective Reading. These programs are typically referred to as DI (using capital letters), while instructional practices consistent with what happens in these programs, but not specific to a program (often published commercial programs), are referred to simply as ‘direct instruction’ (lower case) (Gersten, Woodward, & Darch, 1986, p. 18; Kame'enui, Jitendra, & Darch, 1995, p. 8; Proctor, 1989, p. 40). 

DI programs follow a script and predetermined curriculum. In contrast, ‘direct instruction’ can be implemented using any curriculum resource, not just an exclusively designed program. It refers specifically to the teaching strategies implemented, such as teacher-led instruction using explicit language. 

An example of ‘di’ appears in the book, ‘Direct Instruction Reading’ (Carnine, Silbert, Kame'enui, & Tarver, 2010). In essence, both DI and ‘direct instruction’ may look the same, but the difference lies in the predetermined scope and sequence of the content that is being taught (Kame'enui et al., 1995, p. 8). DI involves an all-encompassing curriculum, building on skills cumulatively throughout the course of the program and is based around a predetermined mastery criterion and outcomes. 

On the other hand, direct instruction can be implemented ‘ad hoc’, to any lesson, without connection to previous or future lessons (Gersten et al., 1986, p. 18). Throughout the literature, the term explicit instruction is sometimes used in place of direct instruction (di), as these two terms have come to share the same meaning. They are concerned with teaching behaviours and the resultant academic learning of the student (Baumann, 1988, p. 713; Gersten et al., 1986, p. 18; Kame'enui et al., 1995, p. 7; Proctor, 1989, p. 40). 

The fact that these two terms are interchangeable demonstrates that different researchers have, after separately reviewing research on effective instruction, arrived at the same conclusions. While definitions of di vary there is consistency in the description of core elements. That is, it refers to instruction that is teacher directed, has an academic focus, is goal oriented, and requires deliberate implementation (Gersten et al., 1986, p. 17; Kame'enui et al., 1995, p. 7; Kim & Axelrod, 2005, p. 114). 

Perhaps most recognisable in any definition of explicit or direct instruction is the use of demonstration, guided practice then independent practice (Baumann, 1988, p. 714; Gersten et al., 1986, p. 18; Proctor, 1989, p. 41), also known as ‘I do, we do, you do’. It is important to acknowledge that while DI is the specific branch of di most often attributed to the work of Sigfried Engelmann, Douglas Carnine, Carl Bereiter and their colleagues, other researchers are also credited with bringing attention to this instructional technology. 

Most notably, Rosenshine is recognised as publishing the earliest ‘definition’ of di (Gersten et al., 1986, p. 17; Kame'enui et al., 1995, p. 6) and has refined his definition over the years (p. 7). Rosenshine was most concerned with an emphasis on teaching behaviour and student achievement and less on curriculum design (Baumann, 1988, p. 714; Kim & Axelrod, 2005, p. 113). Put simply, all DI is explicit and direct, but not all explicit instruction or direct instruction is DI. 

Regardless of the distinction between DI and di, training and experience in DI equips educators to use explicit and direct teaching methods beyond the DI curriculum. In this way, DI could be viewed as an instructional stepping stone for practitioners to become more direct and explicit during less-specific learning opportunities. This review will focus on Direct Instruction or DI: those programs that have been specifically designed for publication so that they may be implemented as a complete curriculum.”

McMullen, Fiona & Madelaine, Alison. (2014). Why is there so much resistance to Direct Instruction?. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties. 19. 137-151. 10.1080/19404158.2014.962065

***********************************************