| |
|
|
PDF (4p, 140k)
-
What is
it?
Direct Instruction (usually abbreviated as DI)
is one specific model of teacher-directed explicit instruction.
It is distinguished from other approaches to explicit teaching,
or direct instruction (di), by its emphasis on both the importance
of instruction (how a student is taught) and the importance of curriculum
design (what the student is taught, in what order). The central
elements of the DI philosophy are:
- Teachers are responsible for student learning.
- Curriculum design is a critical variable in student
achievement.
- The goal of DI is to accelerate student learning
by maximizing efficiency in the design and delivery of instruction.
Efficiency is achieved when students generalize beyond the specific
material in the lesson. In DI, curriculum design is the key to assuring
generalizations. DI curriculum design principles are based on Engelmann's
theory of learning and generalization, which posits that:
-
- The student does not first learn something in a
concrete singular sense and then generalize to some larger set. Even
the initial learning is a generalization.
- Generalizations can be taught explicitly and systematically
by using examples and nonexamples to communicate critical sameness among
sets of exemplars.
- Generalizations represent efficiency.
-
- For whom is it intended?
-
DI is intended for all students from whom we can
expect reasonably high levels of academic achievement. DI has been
used successfully with a broad range of students, including those
with learning disabilities. Specific DI programs have been developed
in a number of subject areas and at various grade-levels.
-
- How does it work?
-
Over 50 specific DI programs have been published
for teaching language, reading, writing, spelling, mathematics, and
science. These pro-instruction and for remedial settings, to a videodisc
series for teaching core concepts in mathematics and science. Each
program contains detailed descriptions of both the content to be presented
and the procedures to be used to teach that content effectively.
-
- Curriculum Features.Scripted lessons provide
carefully worded explanations, carefully selected and sequenced examples,
and carefully structured demonstrations. The lessons are designed to
ensure clear communication of preselected generalizations that have
many applications and that provide foundations for increasingly complex
learning.
-
- The DI reading curricula are representative of
other DI programs. The reading curricula provide many examples of generalizations
that students learn en route to becoming independent readers. Phonemic
awareness and phonics generalizations are emphasized in the beginning
stages of reading instruction. General strategies for isolating, blending,
and identifying phonemes in spoken words are taught before
- letter-sound correspondences. Gradually, letter-sound
correspondences are introduced (in a logical sequence) and integrated
with the phonemic awareness skills. Letter-sounds are taught in conjunction
with blending and sounding-out strategies and high-utility sight words
so that students can start to read stories before all letter-sound correspondences
are mastered.
Automatic decoding is achieved by daily practice
of reading words in isolation. Fluency is achieved by repeated readings
of decodable passages to specified levels of accuracy and rate. As
passage reading becomes fluent, the emphasis shifts from decoding
to comprehension instruction. Included among the comprehension strategies
taught are: distinguishing between relevant and irrelevant evidence;
identifying contradictions; using analogies (comparisons) to communicate
relationships; distinguishing between literal and inferential questions;
and identifying cause and effect.
-
- High-application generalizations emphasized in
other DI curricula are: morphographic spelling patterns; connections
among the elements of number families; sameness in the applications
of ratios and proportions to solve a variety of problems; and how convection
plays a central role in various earth science phenomena.
Delivery Features. Delivery techniques
and classroom management procedures are described in teacher materials
that accompany each DI program. DI delivery features include: rapid
pacing, choral group responding mixed with individual turns, corrective
feedback and re-teaching, reinforcement, review and practice, and
progression from teacher-directed instruction to independent application.
Students are generally taught in homogeneous skill groups. Ongoing
mastery testing is used to monitor student progress, and student groupings
change as students progress at different rates.
How adequate is the research
knowledge base?
Direct instruction has been the focus of
considerable validation and feasibility research. A high level of
effectiveness has been demonstrated by individual research studies,
research reviews, and technical reports of informal studies:
- Data from Project Follow Through (with disadvantaged
students in grades K-3) showed superior results for DI when compared
to other models of instruction on measures of basic skills, cognitive-conceptual
skills, and affective skills. Follow-up studies with Follow Through
students revealed lasting advantages through high school for students
taught with DI in grades K-3 (see references 2 & 5).
- A recent review of 34 research studies comparing
DI interventions to a variety of other instructional programs showed
that (a) 87% of the post-treatment means favored DI, compared to only
12% that favored non-DI approaches, and (b) 64% of statistically significant
outcomes favored DI, compared to only 1% that favored non-DI approaches
and 35% that favored neither (see reference 1).
- Statistical integration of the data from the 34
studies referred to above showed large DI gains for (a) both regular
education and special education students, and (b) both elementary and
secondary students. Large DI gains were found (c) in a variety of academic
subjects, (d) whether gains were measured using norm-referenced or criterion-referenced
measures, and e) whether the studies lasted up to 1 year or over 1 year.
- Six of the 34 studies discussed above were targeted
at improving the reading and/or math skills of students with learning
disabilities. The average post-treatment performance of these students
was more than one standard deviation above that of the comparison groups.
Similar large positive effects were reported in three other sources:
an earlier integrative analysis of the effects of DI in special education
(see reference 7), a recent integrative analysis of the most effective
intervention programs in special education (see reference 4), and an
integrative analysis of the effects of DI videodiscs for teaching math
and science (see reference 3).
- Over 50 studies validate various specific features
of DI programs, including the selection and sequencing of instructional
examples, the specific wordings that facilitate learning and prevent
mislearning, feedback on oral reading errors during repeated readings,
pacing, the size of instructional groups, and teacher attention and
other forms of reinforcement.
- How practical is it?
-
Each DI program is described thoroughly in a set
of teacher materials tailored specifically to the target content/skill
domain. The materials include scripted lessons as well as procedures
for measuring and monitoring individual and group progress. These
materials greatly shorten the time and effort required for teachers
to learn to use DI effectively. Although assuring ease of use and
reliability of implementation, the DI instructional materials are
seen by some teachers as highly constraining and incompatible with
their established instructional practices. A second practical limitation
of the DI approach is that, although it is intended as a general instructional
approach, the approach cannot be used readily to teach skills or content
in areas for which detailed instructional materials and scripts have
not yet been developed. The effectiveness of on-site teacher adaptations
of DI materials has not been established.
-
- How effective is it?
- In sum, our review of the work on DI indicates
that it is an effective and reliably implementable instructional approach
for students with LD in those skill and content domains studied to date.
Thus, practitioners should Go For It as a viable instructional option
where warranted. Our only qualifications are that practitioners and
administrators will need to ascertain the fit of DI with their own educational
philosophy and teaching practices. They should also be aware that on-site
modifications to the DI approach are not advisable until further research
clarifies which components of the complete instructional 'package' are
essential for effective learning.
-
- What questions remain?
-
Questions have been raised about the efficacy
of DI for students of different ages with different skill levels and/or
different learning problems. Many people assume that DI (a) may be
used successfully to teach disadvantaged students, but not students
with LD, (b) may be used successfully to teach a variety of low-performing
students, but not average- and high-performing students, (c) may be
used successfully with elementary students, but not with middle or
high school students and adults, (d) may be used effectively to teach
decoding but not reading comprehension, (e) may be used effectively
to teach rudimentary academic skills, but not higher- order cognitive
skills, and (f) may be used successfully to increase academic achievement,
but not to increase motivation or self concept. Not one of these assumptions
is supported by research on DI (see reference 6).
However, two important questions do remain. The
first question has to do with the efficacy of DI practices at the
middle and high school levels, since published DI curricula are not
available for many of the subjects taught at those levels. Until recently,
published DI programs for students beyond the elementary grades were
designed to be used primarily for remedial or corrective instruction
in reading, math, and spelling, and efficacy studies have shown them
to be effective with that group. Within the last decade, a series
of DI videodisc programs for teaching math and science and a two-volume
U.S. History textbook have been developed and used with diverse groups
of students. Early research on those programs indicates positive effects
equal to, if not greater than, those for some of the earlier DI.
-
- The second question has to do with how students
who have been taught with DI in the elementary grades fare in middle
and high schools where DI is not used. The answer is, we don't know.
We do know, however, that middle and high school special education students
with academic learning problems make tremendous gains in reading, spelling,
and math when taught with existing DI curricula. We also know that disadvantaged
students taught with DI in grades K-3 in Project Follow Through continued
to show the benefits of that DI approach in high school, though the
benefits diminished the longer the students spent in traditional curricula.
We still need to explore how to provide effective DI at these higher
grade levels.
-
- How do I learn more?
-
Information about Direct Instruction Programs:
- Association for Direct Instruction (ADI), PO Box
10252, Eugene Oregon 97440.
- Effective School Practices.: A DI journal. Bonnie
Grossen, Editor, PO Box 10252,Eugene, Oregon 97440.
- Engelmann, S., & Carnine, D. (1991). Theory
of instruction: Principles and practices. ADI Press. References to effectiveness
studies:
- Adams, G. L., & Engelmann, S. (1996). Research
on Direct Instruction: 25 years beyond DISTAR. Seattle, WA: Educational
Achievement Systems.
- Bereiter, C., & Kurland, M. (1981 - 1982).
A constructive look at Follow Through results. Interchange, 12, 1-22.
- Fischer, T. A. & Tarver, S. G. (1997). Meta-analysis
of studies of mathematics curricula designed around big ideas. Effective
School Practices, 16, 71-79.
- Forness, S. R., Kavale, K. A., Blum, I. M., &
Lloyd, J. W. (1997). Mega-analysis of meta-analyses: What works in special
education. Teaching Exceptional Children, 29(6), 4-9.
- Meyer, L. A. (1984). Long-term effects of the Direct
Instruction Project Follow Through. Elementary School Journal, 84, 380-394.
- Tarver, S. G. (1998). Myths and truths about Direct
Instruction. Effective School Practices, 17, 18-22.
- White, W. A. T. (1988). Meta-analysis of the effects
of Direct Instruction in special education. Education and Treatment
of Children, 11, 364-374.
-
|
|
