A problem in many classrooms is the inability of teachers to effectively teach students. This can be a result of many different variables including lack of content knowledge, poor classroom management, ineffective teaching methods or others. To minimize this problem and help teachers better transfer knowledge to their students, researchers have explored the process of cognitive development and effective teacher behaviors on the achievement of students. This research led to the development of many different classroom strategies. One of the most researched strategies is direct instruction. This paper will explore the various research and the most basic methodology behind direct instruction programs.
Direct instruction is a method of classroom management that begins with review of material, and then proceeds with briskly paced presentation of new material to maintain student attention, guided practice, and independent practice (Magliaro, Lockee, & Burton, 2005). Direct instruction developed from two separate strains of research: previous research done on cognitive processing (Rosenshine, 1995) and studies of effective classroom teachers (Rosenshine, 1995; Brophy, 1979; Good & Grouws,1979). There are numerous methods of direct instruction that have been developed, however, each method is teacher-centered and incorporates the most basic parts of direct instruction. This means that the teacher disseminates information to the student instead of allowing students to discovery knowledge.
Over the years there have been a few names associated with direct instruction that have established some of the most basic methods of direct instruction. One of the earliest methods of direct instruction was established by Engelmann (Magliaro et al., 2005). However, Engelmann’s work evolved into a system of direct instruction that relies on scripted teacher communication and involves constant questioning by the teacher and whole-class responses from students (Kozioff, LaNunziata, Cowardin, & Bessellieu, 2000). This form of direct instruction has been proven to be very effective in raising student achievement, especially in at-risk schools (Grossen, 2004; Kim & Axelrod, 2005; Shippen, Houchins, Steventon, & Sartor, 2005). In this system of direct instruction the teacher becomes less independent in formulating lessons for the class and is primarily relegated to following scripts and prompts. This form of direct instruction will not be the focus of this paper. The principles of direct instruction evolving from the research of Rosenshine (1995), Brophy (1979), and Good and Grouws (1979) will be examined in this paper.
In one of the earliest researches done which contributed to direct instruction, Brophy (1979) examined teacher behavior in the classroom and related it to student achievement. He compared the achievement of students to the behaviors those students’ teachers exhibited during class. Brophy outlined eight behaviors that lead to higher student achievement. The eight behaviors include: (a) students being seated at the beginning of class, (b) an introduction to the lesson including an overview of what was to be learned, (c) guided and individual practice, (d) questioning students, (e) not allowing students to call-out in class, (f) wait time, (g) praise used sparingly, and (h) criticism used sparingly and only to correct. These behaviors were later implemented in direct instruction methods.
Good and Grouws (1979), studying mathematics instruction in Missouri, also studied the effects of teacher behavior on student performance. They found six behaviors of effective teachers: (a) class taught as a whole, (b) presented information clearly, (c) task-focused, (d) created a learning environment, (e) expected high achievement from students, and (f) teachers experienced fewer class disruptions. Good and Grouws then incorporated these findings into a program of instruction. The program included :
Rosenshine (1995), basing his method of direct instruction on both cognitive processing and effective teacher behaviors, developed a very similar method. Rosenshine suggested three steps in helping students with their cognitive development: (a) developing students’ background knowledge, (b) helping students’ process information, and (c) helping students to organize acquired knowledge (pp. 262-263). These principles were derived from research about how students transfer short term memory into long term memory. In addition to the cognitive strategies a teacher can use, he also suggested three broad categories of classroom structure: (a) present new material in small steps, (b) guide student practice, and (c) provide for practice (pp. 264-265). Rosenshine then developed a program that teachers could follow that incorporated previous research. The program included:
Direct instruction has been implemented into classrooms for various subjects. There is evidence that suggests that direct instruction by teachers is more effective than other methods of teaching in math (Rittle-Johnson, 2006), reading (Mathes et al., 2003; Grossen, 2004; Shippen, Houchins, Steventon, & Sartor, 2005), physical education (Ayers et al., 2005), history (Twyman, McCleery, & Tindal, 2006), and even in learning metacognitive skills (De Jager, Jasen, & Reezigt, 2004). This may be more than just because a particular method is used, but rather because the direct instruction model requires that teachers use smaller steps in relating knowledge. Therefore the knowledge given to students is more explicit than broad generalizations given in unstructured methods (Ryder, Burton, & Silberg, 2006).
Mathes et al, compared the effectiveness of small group direct instruction to peer-assisted learning in the area of reading for struggling first graders. Students in the direct instruction group were taught explicitly by teachers, allowed to practice, and then teachers gave constant feedback on student work. In the peer-assisted group, students that were successful readers tutored struggling readers one-on-one. The findings of the research determined that both systems were successful in helping struggling students succeed in reading. However, the students who were in the direct instruction group significantly outgained the students in the peer-assisted group. The research suggested two reasons for this: (a) teachers knew the content of the material to be learned much better than students and (b) teachers were better able to judge the progress of student learning and therefore pace lessons better than student peers. The benefit of the direct instruction model in this case is that teachers were able to correctly model correct behavior or knowledge and then allow practice for students to internalize the material.
In a study comparing the effects of discovery learning, direct instruction, and self-explanation on students learning mathematics, it was found that direct instruction was most successful when it came to student achievement (Rittle-Johnson, 2006). The study compared four methods of instruction: invention with no self-explanation, invention with self-explanation, direct instruction with no self-explanation, and direct instruction with self-explanation. The study attempted to determine whether discovery learning or direct instruction was more beneficial to student learning in mathematics and whether self-explanation contributed to student learning or not.
To determine what methods worked best Rittle-Johnson (2006) required students in the discovery learning group to study a mathematics problem and then develop a method to solve similar problems. This method of learning was called invention. Students who were in the direct instruction group were taught what formulas to use and then were given practice before tested for the study. Students who were prompted to use self-explanation in addition to invention or direct instruction simply gave themselves an explanation as to why a particular formula or method was used to find a correct answer. The results of the study revealed that students using invention with no self-explanation performed lowest. Students that used invention with explanation and students that used direct instruction with no self-explanation were similar in achievement. Students that used direct instruction with self-explanation scored significantly higher than any other group. The research showed that one of the problems with invention was that many times the students failed to use the correct formula to solve a mathematics problem. Conversely, students using direct instruction almost always used the correct formula to solve a mathematics problem. The benefit of direct instruction in this case is the fact that before students were tested, student practice and teacher feedback allowed teachers to correct students’ wrong applications of formulas.
Twyman, McCleery, and Tindal (2006) studied the benefits of using direct instruction methods versus only lecturing and reading for teaching concepts in history. The authors contended that because most history teachers rely on textbooks for their lectures and since most textbooks relate history concepts poorly that students don’t gain the kind of complete understanding of history. Tywman et al., suggested that because direct instruction uses small steps in its presentation of material and slowly works toward broad concepts, that direct instruction was a much better method for teaching history than straight lecture from a textbook. After grouping students into groups that used lecture and reading or direct instruction, student achievement was compared. The results showed that students exposed to direct instruction teaching methods understood historical concepts much better than lecture and reading. The greatest benefit of direct instruction in teaching history is the use of small steps in instruction. A teacher can slowly bring a student through various stages of understanding a concept before the whole concept is presented.
Ayers et al., (2005) studied the benefits of direct instruction on a non-academic subject: physical education. In the case of this study students were to learn how to do a standing long jump. Three methods were used: practice only, direct instruction without feedback, and direct instruction with feedback. The research indicated that students who only practiced the standing long jump performed poorer than the other two groups. The research also found that students instructed using direct instruction that used feedback significantly outperformed the other two groups. By using the two forms of direct instruction the authors intended to verify whether it was necessary to include all parts of a direct instruction method to produce the most achievement in students. The authors suggested that the more direct instruction methods that are included in teaching a skill, the more effective the teaching will become. This is because direct instruction methods are logical sequences: appraising students about information to be learned, filling in missing knowledge, step by step giving new knowledge and finally practice and review. The one step is removed, the whole suffers.
Another area of where direct instruction has been studied which does not involve academic learning is the area of the development of metacognition: the ability of a learner to be aware of his own learning and establish skills to help himself learn. De Jager, Jansen, and Reezigt (2004) questioned whether the learning of metacognitive skills by students was best learned through unstructured classroom methods, direct instruction or cognitive apprenticeship. One of the beliefs in question was whether a teacher-centered approach could adequately teach students metacognition as well as more student-centered approaches have. The results of the research showed that both direct instruction and cognitive apprenticeship were superior to not using a method at all. There were no differences in learning metacognitive skills though direct instruction or cognitive apprenticeship. This research suggests that direct instruction is a proven method for classroom teaching, that it is also at least as capable in other less academic types of learning. This is because the direct instruction method considers a student’s own mental scheme and works to build broader schemes for understanding through its step by step process whether or not the learning is academic only or not.
The research on direct instruction is extensive and positive. It has shown that applying the principles of direct instruction into almost any kind of learning can be useful. However, there is research that indicates that direct instruction may have limits and that point out possible weaknesses in the method.
Research conducted by Ryder, Burton, and Silberg (2006) studied students in both suburban and rural schools that used both direct instruction and traditional instruction methods over a 3-year period. The study examined the effects of reading achievement. The authors found that in urban schools the direct instruction approach was much less effective than traditional instruction. However, in suburban schools the direct instruction method was much more effective than the traditional approaches. This may suggest that different students or even different cultural backgrounds may require different ways of learning. Nevertheless, the researchers did suggest in their discussion section that the system being used may not be as important as the ability of a teacher to be detailed in administering the program and disseminating information, which is part of the direct instruction methodology: presenting information clearly.
Other research suggesting that direct instruction has limitations or weaknesses examined students’ self-regulatory behaviors in either direct instruction classrooms, during seat-work, or in small groups (Stright & Supplee, 2002). They found that students in direct instruction classrooms were more organized than either of the other groups but were less attentive, monitored their work poorly, and less likely to ask questions. The authors also found weaknesses and strengths concerning seat-work and small groups also. This research though has limitations and may suggest weaknesses rather than empirically state them because the study only examined the behavior of a very small sample of students in 3rd grade. Because only a small number of students were studied, results cannot be considered conclusive without further study.
Further research should examine other applications of direct instruction and whether the method can be tweaked or how the system can be augmented to suit various teaching situations. Nevertheless, the current research firmly establishes direct instruction as a sound system of instruction.
The question then arises, how can a teacher implement direct instruction into their unique classroom? Different subjects may require different types of learning. History includes factual knowledge, but also requires that students know how to form concepts around historical events and future implications. Science also involves factual knowledge as well as some conceptual knowledge. English teaches rules about language and then expects students to be able to apply those numerous rules correctly in many different written situations. Mathematics is a building block subject that builds from simple concepts and eventually requires students to apply correct formulas and methodology to arithmetic problems. Each subject has its own peculiarities. This is to say nothing of the difference in presenting information in elementary versus secondary grades. However, the direct instruction method is both specific enough and generic enough in its application to meet the needs of almost any subject matter.
The first key to successfully implementing direct instruction is to know what is to be taught (Slavin, 2006). A teacher that teaches through a textbook without understanding where the knowledge is leading will fail to impress upon students what the most vital of information is. The teacher may be apt to spend too much time on pet information rather than on information that is vital to gain the fullest understanding of the subject being taught.
Secondly, the teacher must begin class promptly and clearly present the material during the lesson and give students any prerequisite knowledge they may need to be able to understand the lesson (Good & Grouws, 1979; Rosenshine, 1995; Huitt, 1996). If a teacher does not give students a roadmap of where they are going they may very well get lost on the way. In addition, if the teacher gives new material and the students do not have an existing scheme to place this new material in or the teacher does not provide one for the students to use, then the material is much more likely to be forgotten or may be understood incorrectly (Rosenshine, 1995).
After the teacher has given the lesson objectives to the class and filled in any needed background knowledge for the lesson, the teacher should begin to present the lesson. The teacher should see this process as a quickly paced step-by-step process. The teacher gives smaller bits of information and checks student understanding by constantly questioning students for feedback (Good & Grouws, 1979; Rosenshine, 1995; Huitt, 1996; Twyman, McCleery & Tindal, 2006). The teacher does not move onto the next bit of information until students gain understanding of the current information. Each step-by-step bit of information should eventually lead up to and reinforce the lesson objectives as a whole. The teacher should also seek to use various examples, analogies, and demonstrations to teach the lesson (Huitt, 1996).
Next, the teacher should give students a chance to successfully practice what they have learned (Brophy, 1979; Good & Grouws, 1979; Rosenshine, 1995; Huitt, 1996). The practice should be guided at first so that students know what is expected of them. Guided practice is when a teacher works out a few example problems for the class or has a student work out a problem or question for the entire class. After the class knows what and how to practice and are actively working, the teacher should check individual work to make sure that students fully understood the material in the lesson. If the teacher finds that too many students are struggling with the practice, then the teacher will need to go back and re-teach the information.
The teacher will also need to provide for constant review (Good & Grouws, 1979; Rosenshine, 1995; Huitt, 1996). This may include briefly reviewing information in the next lesson, during the next week, into the following month, or even further. This kind of review allows the knowledge and concepts learned during the lesson to become a permanent part of the students’ long term memory and mental schemes.
Finally, the teacher needs to understand that reducing classroom interruptions and giving students feedback is necessary at all steps (Good & Grouws, 1979; Rosenshine, 1995; Huitt, 1996; Mathis et al., 2003; Ayers et al., 2005). The more interruptions tha occur in the classroom the more likely students will lose focus on learning. In the area of feedback, teachers should question students during the lesson, during practice, and during extended review. If the teacher fails to provide students with appropriate feedback then the students may assume that their knowledge or concepts are correct and continue on incorrectly. Feedback allows the teacher to know where students are along the continuum of learning and allows teachers to correct misconceptions by students. If a teacher follows all the basic steps of the direct instruction method without using feedback properly, the method may be largely unsuccessful.
Different researchers have developed slightly different plans of direct instruction, but each plan follows the foundational steps of direct instruction. The basic steps that must be followed are as follows:
When these steps are followed the teacher will be able to successfully implement direct instruction methods into the classroom. Complete success with direct instruction may require some practice and effort. Some direct instruction programs provide people to train teachers in the systematic use of the direct instruction programs, but if the teacher simply understands the basics of direct instruction and applies common sense implementation will be successful.
Ayers, S. F., Housner, L. D., Dietrich, S., Ha, Y. K., Pearson, M., Gurcitch, R., Pritchard, T., & Dell’Orso, M. (2005). An Examination of Skill Learning Using Direct Instruction. Physical Educator, 62(3), 136-145.
Brophy, J. E. (1979). Teacher Behavior and Student Learning. Educational Leadership, 33-45.
De Jager, D., Jansen, M., & Reezigt, G. (2005). The Development of Metacognition in Primary School Learning Environments. School Effectiveness and School Improvements, 16(2), 179-196.
Good, T. L. & Grouws, D. A. (1979). The Missouri Mathematics Effectiveness Project. Journal of Education Psychology, 71, 355-362.
Grossen, B. (2004). Success of a Direct Instruction Model at a Secondary Level School With High-Risk Students. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 20, 161-178.
Huiit, W. (1996). Summary of principles of direct instruciton. Education Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved 12/13/2006, from http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/instruct/dirprn.html.
Kim, T. & Axelrod, S. (2005). Direct Instruction: An Educators' Guide And A Plea For Action. The Behavior Analyst Today, 6(2),111-121.
Kozioff, M. A., LaNunziata, L., Cowardin, J., & Bessellieu, F. B. (2000). Direct Instruction: Its Contribution to High School Achievement. High School Journal, 84(2), 54-77.
Magliaro, S. G., Lockee, B. B., & Burton, J. K. (2005). Direct Instruction Revisited: A Key Model for Instructional Technology. Educational Technology Research & Development, 53(4), 41-55.
Mathes, P. G., Torgesen, J. K., Clancy-Menchetti, J., Santi, K., Nicholas, K., Robinson, C., & Grek, M. (2003). A Comparison of Teacher-Directed versus Peer-Assisted Instruction to Struggling First-Grade Readers. The Elementary School Journal, 103(5), 459-480.
Rittle-Johnson, B. (2006) Promoting Transfer: Effects of Self-Explanation and Direct Instruction. Child Development, 77(1), 1-15.
Rosenshin, B. (1995). Advances in Research on Instruction. The Journal of Educational Research, 88(5), 262-271.
Ryder, R. J., Burton, J. L., & Silberg, A. (2006). Longitudinal Study of Direct Instruction Effects From First Through Third Grades. Journal of Educational Research, 99(3), 179-197.
Shippen, M. E., Houchins, D. E., Steventon, C., & Sartor, D. (2005). A Comparison of Two Direct Instruction Reading Programs for Urban Middle School Students. Remedial and Special Education, 26(3), 175-182.
Slavin, R. E. (2006) Educational Psychology. Boston, MA: Peason.
Stright, A. D. & Supplee, L. H. (2002). Children's Self-Regulatory Behaviors During Teacher-Directed, Seat-Work, and Small-Group Instructional Contexts. The Journal of Educational Research, 95(4), 235-244.
Twyman, T., McCleery, J., & Tindal, G. (2006). Using Concepts to Frame History Content. The Journal of Experimental Education, 74(4), 331-349.