Details

Published: 06 November 2013

Hits: 33066

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

First published Nov 11 2012 Updated 14/1/2018

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

New addition - March 2025 

You can find the original document at the end of this section.

Reviews of 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:

1. Professor Sara Tarver - University of Wisconsin
2.  pdf Writings of Gary Adams and Siegfried Engelmann

Recent Research

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 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 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

“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

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 not in English:

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

“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.”

The total here is worth going through completely.

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.

“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]

“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/

“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. 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

_______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

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

How does one make judgements about which educational programs/approaches deserve respect and implementation? One can go to the primary sources (original research), although this may be very time-consuming or one may feel unable to critically evaluate research merit. An alternative is to examine reviews of evidence performed by respected sources.

One focus involves whether particular programs incorporate the components considered crucial by relevant authorities. That is, is the approach in question theoretically plausible? Does it have the recommended elements to enable it to succeed?

How does Direct Instruction stack up theoretically?

The National Reading Panel (2000) issued a now famous report consequent upon a Congressional mandate to identify skills and methods crucial in reading development. The Panel reviewed more than 100,000 studies focusing on the K-3 research in reading instruction to identify which elements lead to reading success.

From a theoretical perspective, each of the National Reading Panel (2000) recommended foci for reading instruction (phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension) is clearly set out and taught in Direct Instruction literacy programs. An examination of the program teaching sequences in, for example, the Reading Mastery and Corrective Reading texts attests to their comprehensive nature.

However, these necessary elements are only the ingredients for success. Having all the right culinary ingredients doesn’t guarantee a perfect soufflé. There are other issues, such as what proportion of each ingredient is optimal, when should they be added, how much stirring, heating, cooling are necessary? Errors in any of these requirements lead to sub-optimal outcomes. For some examples of these important elements, see Direct Instruction: Explicit, systematic, detailed, and complex

Read more ...