Direct Instruction
What is Direct Instruction?
Direct Instruction (“capital DI”) refers to highly structured, scripted, research-based, published curricula. The curricula are grounded in research-based teaching strategies, such as explicit instruction and frequent opportunities to respond (OTRs), so students learn more in less time. The programs provide sequenced examples, data-based decision guidelines, teacher scripts, student workbooks, pre-designed lessons, and error correction procedures so you can focus on monitoring student responses and supporting individual progress. This is different from direct instruction (“small DI”), which is a set of practices that can be incorporated into any lesson to support student achievement (e.g., guided practice, immediate feedback, explicit teaching, etc.).
Why Direct Instruction?
DI includes purposefully sequenced and scripted lessons, ensuring that students have the prerequisite knowledge to master new material and have the support they need to correct errors. The specific way of organizing instruction was originally intended to support disadvantaged learners based on the mindset that the education system was failing them.
In the 1960s, the U.S. government funded the largest educational research study examining nine approaches for teaching at-risk students and how well the skills taught are maintained. Direct Instruction was the most successful intervention, as it was the only model with positive results across reading, math, and problem-solving outcomes for low-income students. A more recent meta-analysis of over 300 studies from the past 50 years showed consistent positive effects of DI across all academic areas, age groups, and diverse populations.
A major benefit is that, as the teacher, you don’t have to worry about designing such carefully structured lessons, as these are scripted for you and materials are provided, including fidelity checklists and placement tests. What you are responsible for is grouping, pacing, and repetition – individualization comes out of these decisions.
“If the student hasn’t learned, the teacher hasn’t taught – that’s not a slogan, it’s an operating principle.” – Siegfried Engelmann
Guiding principles (Engelmann, 1980)
1. When possible, teach a general case
“A general case” refers to adequate examples and nonexamples for students to be able to understand and identify critical features of a concept. This promotes generalization and maintenance as students can apply this learning to situations outside of these lessons.
2. Teach the essentials
DI curricula are created to focus on the most important content first as foundational knowledge to build on in future lessons. They avoid unnecessary information so that students can focus on learning the information that is relevant to the skills they are building.
3. Keep errors to a minimum
It is essential to provide immediate corrective feedback, use clear modeling and guided practice until the student independently responds correctly. Provide praise when students experience success to maintain motivation and provide extra practice until responses are consistently accurate.
4. Adequate practice
Along with multiple opportunities to respond throughout each lesson, reviewing previously mastered content ensures continued fluency and the ability to build on past knowledge in future lessons.
5. All students can learn
With effective instruction, repetition, immediate feedback, and sufficient time engaging with the material, all student is capable of learning.
Key components
- Content analysis (ensures students have mastered pre-requisites and promotes generativity)
- Selecting and sequencing examples
- Clear, repetitive communication
- Highly structured lessons
- Strategies that minimize errors and maximize mastery
- Immediate corrective feedback
- Choral responding and signals
- Fast pace
- Frequent OTRs
- Repetition until mastery
- Recurring practice and review past material in conjunction with new learning
- Grouping based on skill level
Grouping students
Placement
Each program comes with a standardized placement assessment. Follow the administration directions precisely and place students at a level where they can respond accurately around 80% of the time. Group students at similar instructional levels based on their performance on the placement test (not on IEP goals, grade level, or teacher judgment). Students should be placed in groups that maximize their opportunity to be successful. For example, one student may learn best in a small group of two, and another may be able to effectively participate in a large group lesson. Many children with significant support needs thrive in smaller instructional settings. Each group should complete one full lesson per session. Collect data using mastery tests and by tracking response accuracy during lessons. Re-evaluate grouping every 5-10 lessons and document group changes when they occur.
Collaboration
- BCBAs: support data analysis and taking fidelity data
- Teachers: coordinate content with DI program and classroom instruction, schedule DI sessions daily
- Paraprofessionals: lead review sessions, collect data on response accuracy during lessons
Troubleshooting
|
Group is progressing very slowly. |
|
Student is making a lot of errors. |
|
Some students finish the lesson faster than others. |
|
Scheduling conflicts/limited staff |
|
Behavior issues during lesson |
|
If the student is clearly not mastering the skill |
|
Other issues |
|
The group may be too large or contain too many skill levels – split them into smaller, more homogenous groups. |
|
They may be placed in too advanced a group – re-administer the placement assessment. |
|
They may be at a different skill level than the rest of the group – re-administer the placement assessment or split into two groups. |
|
Combine groups or rotate lessons on alternate days |
|
The lesson may be too slow or not engaging enough – increase pace, add more tangible reinforcers (token economy, occasional stickers, reward at the end of the lesson), or make smaller groups. |
|
Target prerequisites or remove advanced skills that are not the target of the lesson. |
|
Consult a coach, instruction/curriculum specialist, administrator, or other team member, or turn to online resources. |
References
Engelmann, S. (1980). Direct Instruction. Educational Technology Publications.
Morrell, R. F. (1998). Project follow through: Still ignored. American Psychologist, 53(3), 318–318.
Slocum, T. A., & Rolf, K. R. (2021). Features of Direct Instruction: Content analysis. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 14(3), 775–784. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-021-00617-0
Stockard, J., Wood, T. W., Coughlin, C., & Rasplica Khoury, C. (2018). The effectiveness of Direct Instruction curricula: A meta-analysis of a half century of research. Review of Educational Research, 88(4), 479–507.