There is a common misconception that Direct Instruction (DI) programs were not developed or intended for core instruction. Often, DI is relegated to the role of intervention for low-performing students. However, as described below, DI was designed from the beginning to provide core instructional programming in reading, math and language arts to all students. DI has been widely used and validated to be effective as core instruction for a wide range of learners as noted in the following section, What Results Can Schools Expect? The developers of DI advocate for a comprehensive, full-immersion model using DI as the core instructional curriculum for all students—with all interventions conducted within the DI core.
DI Designed as Core Programs
As mentioned previously, Direct Instruction programs incorporate a unique, step-by-step approach to learning that requires placing students in the program matching their current skill level and teaching students to a high level of mastery daily. Students are provided with carefully designed, clear instruction that teaches skills at the point where students place. Students with fewer skills are placed at a lower point in the program and given additional practice on critical skills as needed. Students with more skills are placed at a higher point in the program. Students can be provided with instruction on a Fast Cycle/Skip Schedule to accommodate an accelerated pace based on their rate of mastery. In the DI math program, Connecting Math Concepts: Comprehensive Edition (CMCCE), additional “parallel” lessons are provided for students who could benefit from extra practice.
Direct Instruction programs are not designed to be used in conjunction with other programs. Mixing other instructional approaches in the same subject matter with DI can confuse students because of the specific strategies used in the DI programs. For example, Reading Mastery (RM) initially teaches students the sounds letters make, rather than the names of the letters. Students learn letter names later in the program after they have mastered the sounds. Many students, especially at-risk students, may become confused if they receive instruction in RM for part of the day and then receive instruction in another program that teaches letter names. This ultimately slows students' overall progress in learning to read.
Because of its design and proven effectiveness with a wide range of students (discussed below), many educational organizations agree that DI programs are appropriate as core instructional programs. From the Florida Center on Reading Research: "Direct instruction is appropriate instruction for all learners, all five components of reading, and in all settings (whole group, small group, and one-on-one)."
DI Core Programs as Part of the Comprehensive DI Reform Model
Since the late 1960s, DI programs have been incorporated into an integrated, systemic approach to reforming schools—the comprehensive Direct Instruction reform model (also called the full immersion Direct Instruction model). Schools adopting the comprehensive DI model implement DI programs as the core programs in most or all major subject areas (reading, language arts, spelling and mathematics). This allows for students to receive effective instruction with Direct Instruction throughout the day as a means for accelerating their performance in all major subject areas. For a description of the comprehensive Direct Instruction model, see the Developer’s Guidelines.
The comprehensive Direct Instruction model has been recognized by such organizations as the American Association of School Administrators (AASA), the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), the National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP), the National Education Association (NEA), New American Schools (NAS) and the Coalition for Comprehensive School Improvement (CCSI). Federal funds have been used to implement the comprehensive Direct Instruction model for decades. Hundreds of schools implemented the Direct Instruction model for literacy as part of Reading First, a federally funded program focused on implementing proven early reading instructional methods in classrooms. Currently, the comprehensive DI model is being implemented in approximately 300 schools in the U.S. Over the years, thousands of schools have implemented the Direct Instruction model with DI programs used as the core programs for instruction.
Differentiating through Direct Instruction
Teachers in non-DI classrooms are faced with the dilemma of providing instruction to accommodate a wide spectrum of student skill levels. In an attempt to customize curriculum and instruction, teachers often use differentiated strategies, which require them to design and present variations of lessons at different skill levels. Direct Instruction is designed to accommodate varying levels of student skills without the need for designing several variations of the same lesson. In the DI model, students are grouped homogeneously by skill level in all subject areas. This allows teachers to work with groups of students with similar skill sets and avoids the need to design separate activities or “teach to the middle”. With DI, students receive lessons at different places in the same instructional sequence – with each student at his/her appropriate instructional level. All students eventually cover the same material; high performing students are placed higher in the instructional sequence and receive the content before lower-performing students.
With students grouped homogeneously, teachers can more easily adjust instruction to meet all students’ needs. Teachers may offer additional practice in specific skills to low performing students to ensure mastery prior to moving on to more advanced material. In contrast, teachers may follow a “skip-schedule” of lessons for high performing students to allow them to reach more challenging material more quickly. Additionally, DI groups are flexible in order to respond to changes in student performance. Students who require additional practice can be moved to a lower performing group while those students who are ready for more advanced material can be moved to a higher performing group. In this manner, instruction becomes more efficient, as students at all performance levels master more material in a shorter time than in mixed-ability groups.
Adjusting instruction in DI is facilitated through in-program mastery tests, which appear every 10 lessons in most DI programs. The high frequency of these tests provides timely information to teachers about student mastery of critical skills and concepts taught in the DI programs. This allows teachers to respond quickly to students’ needs and tailor instruction to individual students. By analyzing the tests, teachers can identify problems of student mastery quickly and correct errors before they become habits. In contrast, teachers using non-DI programs often only receive information on student mastery of critical skills and concepts through end-of-chapter or end-of-unit tests. In the meantime, students may develop serious misunderstandings about the skills or content presented in the program.
Using DI Effectively as an Intervention Only
Quite often, schools implement DI to support students who are struggling in the core program. Unfortunately, this usually requires students to utilize competing strategies, which is difficult for students, especially at-risk children. Dual-program instruction also presents problems for teachers, who must learn two different programs, two different instructional approaches and possibly two different assessments. Administrators must monitor and provide support for the two programs. And they must develop a system for determining when the second program is to be used, for how long, and with which students.
Teachers and administrators may have difficulty determining when and how a second program should be used, especially when the two programs are not compatible. The cost of two programs adds unnecessary expense to school budgets because DI programs contain all of the components teachers need to be successful with students representing the full range of learners. Any diversion from the DI programs will lead to less impressive results than a full, undiluted, comprehensive DI implementation. For DI to be utilized successfully with struggling students, schools need to implement DI as a replacement core so that the students receive instruction in DI exclusively until they complete the DI program sequence. For example, if a student is placed into Reading Mastery, he or she needs to complete the program through the highest level, Grade 5, before returning to the regular program. Students are often not successful if they are returned to the regular program before completing the DI series, which can cause students, teachers and administrators to become frustrated.
Early identification is critical to meeting the needs of struggling students with Direct Instruction as a replacement core. Students should be identified for Direct Instruction as early as possible in the school year or in their school career. If possible, students should be identified for DI in the summer before school starts. If students receive DI only after they fail to keep up in the regular program for several weeks, months or even years, their learning will be delayed in comparison to those students who are placed directly into DI. This represents lost instructional time – instructional time students and teachers will never get back.
