DOCSLIB.ORG

Direct Instruction Revisited: a Key Model for Instructional Technology

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Direct Instruction Revisited: a Key Model for Instructional Technology Direct Instruction Revisited: A Key Model for Instructional Technology D] Susan G. Magliaro Barbara B. Lockee John K, Burton Rooted in behavioral theory, particularlythe [0 Rooted in behavioral theory, particularly radical or selectivist behaviorism of B.F. what Skinner labeled the radical or selectionist Skinner (1953, 1954, 1966, 1968, 1974), the behaviorism (see, e.g., Skinner, 1953, 1966), the direct instruction (DI) approach to teaching is direct instruction (DI) of Siegfried Engelmann now well into its third decade of influencing (Bereiter & Engelmann, 1966) is now well into its curriculum, instruction,and research.It is third decade of influencing curriculum, instruc- also in its third decade of controversy. Our tion, and research. It is also in its third decade of purpose is to present the DI model with the controversy (c.f., Gersten, Baker, Pugach, notion that the designer can and should use Scanlon, & Chard, 2001). the model eff-ectively based on appropriate To begin, we offer a definition assessment of the learners,content, context, and our stance related to DI-which has become the whipping and task at hand. To accomplish our goal, we post in some pedagogical camps, while the pan- begin with a general discussion of the basic DI framework,followed by a summary of the acea in others. For clarity, DI is not a lecture approach (e.g., Freiberg major DI models that have been used in live & Driscoll, 2000). It is an instructionalcontexts. We then shft to a instructional model that focuses on the interac- review of how DI has been used in tion between teachers and students. Key compo- technology-based learningenvironments. nents of DI include "modeling, reinforcement, Finally, we conclude with a look into the feedback, and successive approximations" future of DI. (Joyce, Weil, & Calhoun, 2000, p. 337). Joyce and colleagues specified the instructional design principles, which include the framing of learner performance into goals and tasks, breaking these tasks into smaller component tasks, designing training activities for mastery, and arranging the learning events into sequences that promote transfer and achievement of pre- requisite learning before moving to more advance learning. Essentially, DI is "modeling with reinforced guided performance" (Joyce et al., p. 337). Our intent in this article is to explicate the genesis, components, and permutations of DI as it has evolved in practice, and describe how it is being used in instructional technology. Three purposes undergird this article. (a) First, we believe that DI is a viable, time-tested instruc- tional model that plays an important role in a ETR&D, Vol. 53, No. 4, 2005, pp. 41-55 ISSN 1042-1629 41 42 ETR&D, Vol. 53, No. 4 comprehensive educational program. The DI was found to be effective and superior to research indicates its usefulness in maintaining other models in everything from learning time on task, the learning of skilled perfor- engagement to achievement to student affect. mance, and high rates of success when designed As a selectionist model, DI is underpinned by correctly (e.g., Fisher et al., 1980; Slavin, Mad- the basic notion that behavior, like physical den, Dolan, & Wasik, 1996). Therefore, we characteristics, evolves or is selected by the envi- believe that instructional designers, software ronment. Those behaviors that work are selected designers, teachers and the like ought to know by the consequences that follow the behavior. its foundation, essential components, historical Since there are different consequences for the and current uses, and potential for designing same behavior in different environments, in contexts. (It is impor- instruction that promotes student success for behaviors are situated of a behavior particular instructional objectives. (b) Second, tant to note however that the cause in and related to the first, our experience with lay is not the context but rather the consequence, leaves do not cause a faculty (and some instructional technology prac- the same sense that high giraffe's neck to grow. Rather the consequence titioners) who design instruction, especially of longer neck mutations is to be able to eat online education, indicates a dearth of knowl- that few other animals can reach.) edge regarding the research and application of leaves models such as DI. Over the past two decades, DI has been over- Further, in behavioral-based is assumed that learners must be active used by some, maligned by others, and fre- DI, it In The Technology of Teaching, quently been wrongly equated with a pure (behaving) to learn. Skinner (1968) stated, lecture approach. DI is not for all uses, objec- tives, or learners; no approach is. DI is a useful tool for the appropriate purpose, objectives, and It is important to emphasize that a student does not passively absorb knowledge from the world around context, and the appropriate learners. (c) Finally, him but must play an active role, and also that action is over while DI has maintained its core principles not simply talking. To know is to act effectively, both time, it has evolved in response to new under- verbally and nonverbally. (p. 5) standings about learners and learning. We will these variations (e.g., expository elaborate on Moreover, in such models it is assumed that teaching) and the research that indicates their learning is universal, in the sense that the same utility. selectionist principles are involved in learning The DI model was created by Engelmann and from planeria to people; from shoe tying to tying his colleagues in the 1960s at the University of off the last suture in brain surgery (and every- Illinois at Champagne-Urbana under a Project thing in between). Selectionists might agree that Follow Through grant. The research first what we call higher level or higher order activi- appeared in 1966 (Bereiter & Engelmann). Sci- ties may separate us from the rest of the animal ence Research Associates published the first kingdom, but they believe that the way we learn implementation of the model known as Direct such things does not. Instruction System for Teaching And Remedia- Further, behaviorally based models reject tion (DISTAR), programs that addressed begin- logical positivism, mentalisms such as mind ning reading, language, and math (Engelmann (although not mental activity), and free will. As & Bruner, 1969; Engelmann & Carnine, 1969; might be expected, rejection of such concepts Engelmann & Osborn, 1969). Few models have causes passionate reactions even today. For been as researched as DI, including the largest example, an editorial in Early Childhood Educa- educational evaluation ever conducted compar- tion Journal (Jalongo, 1999) reported the author's ing it with 12 other models, across nearly 30 (and her classmate's) first reaction to a movie that years, and involving nearly 75,000 students at showed the DI curriculum, DISTAR, as a "harsh, 180 sites. In that large evaluation (Bock, inflexible, and depersonalizing approach" (p. Stebbins, & Proper, 1977; Watkins, 1997), as in 139) that she worried could resurface today. She numerous studies (e.g., Madaus, Airasian, & said that she would "like to see a stake driven in Kellaghan, 1980; Rosenshine, 1970, 1971, 1985), the heart of DISTAR" (p. 139). Yet, in the same DIRECT INSTRUCTION 43 editorial Jalongo conceded that DI "does have a Nowhere is DI more evident than in com- place"--that "it is the method of choice for low- puter-mediated learning environments. From level tasks such as learning to cut with scissors computer-aided instruction to distance learning or tying shoes" (p. 139). She also saw it as useful experiences, the basic tenets of DI are infused- for special needs children. with greater and lesser fidelity. And, although DI is no longer the most prominent instructional The issue, then, is not whether selection accounts for at least some behaviors or whether framework for the overall design of computer- behavioral approaches work with humans, the mediated applications (c.f., Cognition and Tech- issue is whether some other type of learning nology Group at Vanderbilt, 1996), DI is the evolved and "kicks in" that is unique to some strategy of choice when the learning objective requires higher level behavior in humans. Indeed that the learners have direct practice in what must be done, or said, or written (Cazden, although many critics would argue against DI as 1992). a model for higher level learning or perfor- mance, the model does work well in situations Consequently, our purpose here is not to pro- where motor skills or prerequisite intellectual mote DI as the only instructional framework to skills are involved (e.g., Gagnd, 1985). Such pre- promote learning, either in live or computer- requisite skills might include learning such mediated learning environments. Our purpose things as "mathematical procedures, grammati- is to present the DI model along with the notion cal rules, the states of New England, alphabetiz- that the designer can and should use the model ing, carburetor overhaul, scientific equations, effectively based on appropriate assessment of and the periodic table of elements to name a few" the learners, content, context, and task at hand (Gunter, Estes, & Schwab, 1999, p. 79). Moreover, (Shambaugh & Magliaro, 1997). To accomplish as Gunter et al. put it, "every teacher, in every our goal, we begin with a general discussion of subject, at every level of schooling has some the basic DI framework, followed by a historical learning objectives related to basic skills that trace of exemplar DI models that have been must be mastered before the learner can move to studied and used in live instructional contexts other levels of thinking and learning" (p. 79). over the past 30 years. We then shift to a review of how DI has been used in technology-based In fact, DI has re-emerged in recent years as a learning environments. Finally, we conclude viable instructional strategy that can be situated with a look into the future of DI.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • AN INTERVENTION SPECIALIST's JOURNEY THROUGH the ZONE of PROXIMAL DEVELOPMENT a Dissertation Submitted to the Kent State Univ
    AN INTERVENTION SPECIALIST’S JOURNEY THROUGH THE ZONE OF PROXIMAL DEVELOPMENT A dissertation submitted to the Kent State University College of Education, Health, and Human Services in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy By Carol A. Carrig May, 2016 © Copyright, 2016 by Carol A. Carrig All Rights Reserved ii A dissertation written by Carol A. Carrig B.S., Kent State University, 1978 M.Ed., Cleveland State University, 2004 Ph.D., Kent State University, 2016 Approved by _________________________, Co-director, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Alicia R. Crowe _________________________, Co-director, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Jennifer L. Walton-Fisette _________________________, Member, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Melody Tankersley Accepted by _________________________, Director, School of Teaching, Learning and Alexa L. Sandmann Curriculum Studies _________________________, Interim Dean, College of Education, Health Mark A. Kretovics and Human Services iii CARRIG, CAROL A., Ph.D., May 2016 Teaching, Learning and Curriculum Studies AN INTERVENTION SPECIALIST’S JOURNEY THROUGH THE ZONE OF PROXIMAL DEVELOPMENT (269 pp.) Co-Directors of Dissertation: Alicia R. Crowe, Ph.D. Jennifer L. Walton-Fisette, Ph.D. This self-study focused of an intervention specialist’s decision-making process in designing instruction for students with special needs and those at risk in learning. Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory and the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) provided the lens through which this research was conceptualized and viewed. The purpose of this research study was to utilize a reflective thinking practice in examining my part of the teaching/learning cycle discerning what information lead to decisions in creating scaffolds for students’ zone of proximal development.
    [Show full text]
  • The Components of Direct Instruction*
    CATHY L. WATKINS, California State University, Stanislaus and TIMOTHY A. SLOCUM, Utah State University Instruction is designed to serve this purpose. The Components Accomplishing this goal requires keen atten- tion to all aspects of teaching. It would be of Direct Instruction* much easier if we could focus on one or two “key issues” and produce measurably superior instruction, but this is not the case. Producing highly effective teaching requires that we Objectives attend to a wide variety of details concerning After studying this chapter you should be able the design, organization, and delivery of to instruction. If any one element of instruction is not done well, high-quality instruction in 1. Identify the three major elements of Direct other areas may not compensate for it. For Instruction. example, superior instructional delivery cannot make up for poorly designed instructional 2. Explain what it means to teach a general materials. Likewise, well-designed programs case. cannot compensate for poor organization. 3. Describe each of the five juxtaposition prin- Three main components enable Direct ciples and explain how they contribute to Instruction to accomplish the goal of teaching clear communication. all children effectively and efficiently: (a) pro- gram design that identifies concepts, rules, 4. Explain the shifts that occur in formats over strategies, and “big ideas” to be taught and time. clear communication through carefully con- 5. Explain what tracks are and how track design structed instructional programs to teach these; differs from more traditional instruction. (b) organization of instruction, including scheduling, grouping, and ongoing progress 6. Explain the guidelines for sequencing tasks.
    [Show full text]
  • Perspectives on Individual Instruction in Extension Education Lloyd William Wade Iowa State University
    Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Retrospective Theses and Dissertations Dissertations 1976 Perspectives on individual instruction in extension education Lloyd William Wade Iowa State University Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd Part of the Adult and Continuing Education Administration Commons, and the Adult and Continuing Education and Teaching Commons Recommended Citation Wade, Lloyd William, "Perspectives on individual instruction in extension education " (1976). Retrospective Theses and Dissertations. 6230. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd/6230 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Retrospective Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image.
    [Show full text]
  • Progressive Education: Why It's Hard to Beat, but Also Hard to Find
    Bank Street College of Education Educate Progressive Education in Context College History and Archives 2015 Progressive Education: Why it's Hard to Beat, But Also Hard to Find Alfie ohnK Follow this and additional works at: https://educate.bankstreet.edu/progressive Part of the Curriculum and Instruction Commons, Curriculum and Social Inquiry Commons, Educational Methods Commons, and the Social and Philosophical Foundations of Education Commons Recommended Citation Kohn, A. (2015). Progressive Education: Why it's Hard to Beat, But Also Hard to Find. Bank Street College of Education. Retrieved from https://educate.bankstreet.edu/progressive/2 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the College History and Archives at Educate. It has been accepted for inclusion in Progressive Education in Context by an authorized administrator of Educate. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Progressive Education Why It’s Hard to Beat, But Also Hard to Find By Alfie Kohn If progressive education doesn’t lend itself to a single fixed definition, that seems fitting in light of its reputation for resisting conformity and standardization. Any two educators who describe themselves as sympathetic to this tradition may well see it differently, or at least disagree about which features are the most important. Talk to enough progressive educators, in fact, and you’ll begin to notice certain paradoxes: Some people focus on the unique needs of individual students, while oth- ers invoke the importance of a community of learners; some describe learning as a process, more journey than destination, while others believe that tasks should result in authentic products that can be shared.[1] What It Is Despite such variations, there are enough elements on which most of us can agree so that a common core of progressive education emerges, however hazily.
    [Show full text]
  • Traditional Instruction Versus Direct Instruction: Teaching Content Area Vocabulary Words to High School Students with Reading Disabilities
    Traditional Instruction Versus Direct Instruction: Teaching Content Area Vocabulary Words to High School Students with Reading Disabilities Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctorate of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Kristall J. Graham Day, M.A. Graduate Program in Education The Ohio State University 2010 Committee: Dr. Ralph Gardner, III, Advisor Dr. Gwendolyn Cartledge Dr. Moira Konrad Copyright by Kristall J. Day 2010 Abstract Vocabulary knowledge impacts every area of reading achievement, yet important words are often not explicitly taught. There is published research to support the usage of direct instruction to teach vocabulary to younger children, but there are limited studies that have investigated the effects of direct instruction in teaching vocabulary to high school students with reading disabilities. The purpose of the current study was to compare the effects of the traditional approach (using context and the dictionary) to a direct instruction approach (REWARDS Plus scripted curriculum) when teaching science vocabulary words to high school students with reading disabilities. The study included three participants with reading disabilities in the 11th and 12th grades. An alternating treatments design counterbalanced across participants was used to compare the two methods of instruction. Traditional instruction included the methods employed in most high schools where students are asked to use the context of the sentence or a dictionary to figure out the meaning of unknown words. Direct instruction included the REWARDS Plus program, a published, scripted curriculum that utilizes explicit, systematic instruction. Data were collected on lesson assessments, maintenance assessments, generalization writing samples, and comprehension writing samples.
    [Show full text]
  • A Minefield of Dreams
    A MINEFIELD OF DREAMS TRIUMPHS AND TRAVAILS OF INDEPENDENT WRITING PROGRAMS Edited by Justin Everett and Cristina Hanganu-Bresch A MINEFIELD OF DREAMS: TRIUMPHS AND TRAVAILS OF INDEPENDENT WRITING PROGRAMS PERSPECTIVES ON WRITING Series Editors, Susan H. McLeod and Rich Rice The Perspectives on Writing series addresses writing studies in a broad sense. Consistent with the wide ranging approaches characteristic of teaching and scholarship in writing across the curriculum, the series presents works that take divergent perspectives on working as a writer, teaching writing, administering writing programs, and studying writing in its various forms. The WAC Clearinghouse, Colorado State University Open Press, and University Press of Colorado are collaborating so that these books will be widely available through free digital distribution and low-cost print editions. The publishers and the Series editors are committed to the principle that knowledge should freely circulate. We see the opportunities that new technologies have for further de- mocratizing knowledge. And we see that to share the power of writing is to share the means for all to articulate their needs, interest, and learning into the great experiment of literacy. Recent Books in the Series Chris M. Anson and Jessie L. Moore (Eds.), Critical Transitions: Writing and the Question of Transfer (2017) Joanne Addison and Sharon James McGee, Writing and School Reform: Writing Instruction in the Age of Common Core and Standardized Testing (2017) Lisa Emerson, The Forgotten Tribe: Scientists as Writers (2017) Jacob S. Blumner and Pamela B. Childers (Eds.), WAC Partnerships Between Secondary and Postsecondary Institutions (2015) Nathan Shepley, Placing the History of College Writing: Stories from the Incom- plete Archive (2015) Asao B.
    [Show full text]
  • A Theory-Based Meta-Analysis of Research on Instruction
    For more information visit McREL at www.mcrel.org Thank you for downloading A Theory-Based Meta-Analysis of Research on Instruction from the McREL Web site. Skip introduction Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL) is a private nonprofit corporation located in Denver, Colorado. We provide field tested, research-based products and services in the following areas: • Assessment, Accountability, • Mathematics and Data Use • Professional Development • Curriculum • Rural Education • Diversity • School Improvement and • Early Childhood Education Reform • Education Technology • Science • Instruction • Standards • Leadership and Organization • Teacher Preparation and Development Retention • Literacy PDFPDFdownload For more information visit McREL at www.mcrel.org Copyright Information u This site and its contents are Copyright © 1995–2006 McREL except where otherwise noted. All rights reserved. The McREL logo and “Converting Information to Knowledge” are trademarks of McREL. Other trademarks are the properties of the respective owners, and may or may not be used under license. Permission is granted to reproduce, store and/or distribute the materials appearing on this web site with the following limits: • Materials may be reproduced, stored and/or distributed for informational and educational uses, but in no case may they be used for profit or commercially without McREL’s prior written permission. • Materials may not be modified, altered or edited in any way without the express permission of Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning. Please contact McREL. • This copyright page must be included with any materials from this web site that are reproduced, stored and/or distributed, except for personal use. • McREL must be notified when materials are reproduced, stored and/or distributed, except for personal use.
    [Show full text]
  • 7Th Annual Ctconf-Opt.Pdf
    Proceedings of The Ninth Annual & Seventh International Conference on Critical Thinking and . Educational ReforDl August 6-9, 1989 Henry Steel Commager Dean ofAmerican Historians, addressing the First International Conference on Critical Thinking and Educational Reform Under the Auspices of the Center for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique and Sonoma State University From Previous Conferences: Michael SCriven llarriySiegel NeUPostman WID Robinson TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction 1 Histotyofthe Conference......................................................................... 7 The OrganJzation ofthe Conference................................................... 9 Conference'IheIne........................................................................................ 10 Map/Abbreviations....................................................................................... 15 Schedule............................................................................................................. 17 Presenters and Abstracts 46 Panels. 149 SpecJal Inte~t Groups............................................................................. 158 Videotape Resources ~ : ':........................ 159 National Council for Excellence inCritical1binking Instruction............................................................ 162 Center Description 164 Richard W. Paul Director, Center for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique Introduction Critical Thinking: What, Why, and How The Logically mogical Animal Ironically. humans are not simply the only
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of Direct Instruction and Cooperative Retelling Using a Collaborative
    The Impact of Direct Instruction and Cooperative Retelling using a Collaborative Podcasting tool on the Narrative Writing Skills of Upper Elementary School Children in the Inclusive Classroom Ofra Aslan A Thesis In the Department of Education Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Educational Technology) at Concordia University Montreal, Québec, Canada December, 2011 Ofra Aslan, 2011 CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES This is to certify that the thesis prepared By: Ofra Aslan Entitled: The Impact of Direct instruction and Cooperative Retelling using a Collaborative Podcasting tool on the Narrative Writing Skills of upper Elementary School Children in the Inclusive Classroom and submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Educational Technology) complies with the regulations of the University and meets the accepted standards with respect to originality and quality. Signed by the final examining committee: Chair Dr. C. Daniel-Hughes External Examiner Dr. L. Godard External to Program Dr. D. Pariser Examiner Dr. P. Abrami Examiner Dr. R. Bernard Thesis Supervisor Dr. R. Schmid Approved by Chair of Department or Graduate Program Director Dr. V. Venkatesh, Graduate Program Director December 12, 2011 Dr. B. Lewis, Dean, Faculty of Arts and Science ii ABSTRACT The Impact of Direct Instruction and Cooperative Retelling using a Collaborative Podcasting tool on the Narrative Writing Skills of Upper Elementary School Children in the Inclusive Classroom Ofra Aslan, Ph.D. Concordia University, 2011 To address the writing challenges experienced by many Normally Achieving students (NA) and students with learning disabilities (LD) in the inclusive classroom, this quasi-experiment study examined the outcomes of two technology-supported instructional interventions and an untreated control group with pretest and posttests, and posttest only, aimed at improving the narrative writing skills of cycle 3 (Grades 5 and 6) students.
    [Show full text]
  • The Effectiveness of Direct Instruction Curricula: a Meta-Analysis of a Half Century of Research
    RERXXX10.3102/0034654317751919Stockard et al.Effectiveness of Direct Instruction 751919research-article2018 Review of Educational Research Month 201X, Vol. XX, No. X, pp. 1 –29 DOI: 10.3102/0034654317751919 © 2018 AERA. http://rer.aera.net The Effectiveness of Direct Instruction Curricula: A Meta-Analysis of a Half Century of Research Jean Stockard and Timothy W. Wood University of Oregon Cristy Coughlin Safe and Civil Schools Caitlin Rasplica Khoury The Children’s Clinic, P.C. Quantitative mixed models were used to examine literature published from 1966 through 2016 on the effectiveness of Direct Instruction. Analyses were based on 328 studies involving 413 study designs and almost 4,000 effects. Results are reported for the total set and subareas regarding reading, math, language, spelling, and multiple or other aca- demic subjects; ability measures; affective outcomes; teacher and parent views; and single-subject designs. All of the estimated effects were posi- tive and all were statistically significant except results from metaregres- sions involving affective outcomes. Characteristics of the publications, methodology, and sample were not systematically related to effect esti- mates. Effects showed little decline during maintenance, and effects for academic subjects were greater when students had more exposure to the programs. Estimated effects were educationally significant, moderate to large when using the traditional psychological benchmarks, and similar in magnitude to effect sizes that reflect performance gaps between more and less advantaged students. K EYWORDS: Direct Instruction, meta-analysis, academic achievement The importance of explicit and systematic instruction has become a central element of discussions of effective instruction (e.g., National Reading Panel, 2000). Direct Instruction (DI), developed by Siegfried Engelmann and his col- laborators beginning in the 1960s, is often cited as an example.
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER 4: Direct Instruction
    04-Dell’Olio-45141.qxd 1/23/2007 2:18 PM Page 71 chapter Direct Instruction hen I ( J. M. D.) began my teacher preparation program in the late 1970s, I W was astonished to discover that elementary classrooms looked very different from the ones I remembered from the 1950s and 1960s. As I observed and partici- pated in classrooms at various grade levels, I enjoyed watching many types of instruc- tion, most of them models of teaching I had never seen before in a classroom. I also saw more familiar instruction. In time, however, it was clear to me that even in these conventional lessons, the teachers were doing some things that differed from the 04-Dell’Olio-45141.qxd 1/23/2007 2:18 PM Page 72 PART 2 The Models of Teaching instruction of my childhood experience. In my methods course, I learned to under- stand and appreciate those differences. Direct instruction, once described as interactive teaching (Stallings, 1975; Stallings, Cory, Fairweather, & Needles, 1978; Stallings, Needles, & Stayrook, 1979) and active teaching (Brophy & Good, 1986), is probably the model of teaching you are also most familiar with from your own K–12 school experiences. Direct instruc- tion is the kind of teaching children usually mimic when they play school. Your knowledge of the characteristics of well-designed direct instruction will serve you well when you need to develop a traditional lesson. We also believe you will have a greater understanding and appreciation of hands-on, discovery models of teaching if you learn the components and structure of a strong direct instruction lesson.
    [Show full text]
  • A Brief Introduction to Direct Instruction
    SCIENCE OF LEARNING / OVERVIEW Direct Instruction A brief introduction to direct instruction What is direct instruction? An overview Direct instruction is one of the most widely used methods of teaching, and it begins with the “clear and systematic presentation of knowledge” with the goal of helping students to develop background knowledge so that they may apply and link it to new knowledge (Kim & Axelrod, 2005). Direct instruction does not mean that learning is passive, or that teaching is reduced to drill- and-practice. Direct instruction is a systematic approach to teaching in which the teacher is very explicit about what students are to learn, the language of instruction clear, and allows teachers the opportunity to monitor their students while teaching, and to provide constructive feedback. Direct instruction should not be confused with rote instruction, which is an approach that requires students to memorize answers and repeat them in rote-like fashion. Direct instruction scaffolds instruction to meet the needs of each individual student. Direct instruction was an instructional method originally designed to address at-risk students within Baltimore public schools by Siegfried Engelmann, a professor at Johns Hopkins University. The program was first developed as DISTAR, or “Direct Instruction System for Teaching Arithmetic and Reading,” and focused on reading and maths. The original aim of direct instruction was to focus on reading instruction, and get all students to the same reading level using a reading strategy called phonics. How effective is direct instruction? The effectiveness of direct instruction has been well documented. Project Follow Through, a federally-funded educational programme in the United States, demonstrated empirical evidence for direct instruction as the most effective method (out of 22 forms of instruction), which produced positive results for teaching reading, arithmetic, language, spelling, and positive self- esteem.
    [Show full text]