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 prerequisite 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 instructional 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, objectives, 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 performance, 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. successfully within a range of tools that promote a range of types of learning within contemporary learner-centered pedagogy (e.g., Eggen & Kauchak, 2001; Gersten et al., 2001; Schwartz & DI: HISTORY, CONCEPTS, AND MODELS Bransford, 1998; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). For example, Schwartz and Bransford reported their DI has been used to describe a range of instruc- research that illustrates that there is a "time for tional models used in face-to-face learning con- telling" within a problem-based learning texts-all designed to promote on-task student approach. Gersten and colleagues described behavior by the teacher's effort to monitor and how recent theoretical frameworks have helped control student classroom attention and persis- to elaborate the conceptualization of DI, and tence (Como & Snow, 1986). The various models offered examples of contemporary DI research have emerged from primarily behavioral tradi- that focus on the learning of explicit strategies, tions; however, over time the models have concepts, and higher order thinking skills. reflected the prevailing theoretical orientation to Tharp and Gallimore situated DI within a range and interpretation of teacher-directed actions in of strategies that comprise their "teaching as a classroom. Moreover, these models may not be assisted performance" model. Eggen and entitled DI per se, but share key components Kauchak asserted that "the model can also be (e.g., Tobias, 1982) that translate very well into used to teach other forms of content such as design features of live, as well as technology- generalizations, principles and academic enhanced or technology-driven, instruction. rules" (p. 287). These components are: 44 ETR&D, Vol. 53, No. 4

1. Materials and curriculum are broken down research using the information processing into small steps and arrayed in what is model of human memory. These models, based assumed to be the prerequisite order. in process-product research, served as the foundation of thousands of studies relating teacher 2. Objectives must be stated clearly and in behavior and student achievement in the 1970s terms of learner outcomes or performance. and 1980s (e.g., Anderson, Evertson, & Brophy, to 3. Learners are provided with opportunities 1979), and continue to current practice with with what they connect their new knowledge Slavin's "Success for All" program (Slavin et al., already know. 1996). Next, we address the work of Robert 4. Learners are given practice with each step or Gagn6 (1977, 1985), whose development of combination of steps. events of instruction clearly situated teacher-led 5. Learners experience additional opportunities models into cognitive psychology and the to practice that promote increasing responsi- instructional design literature. We close this sec- bility and independence (guided and/or tion with a discussion of variations on the DI independent; in groups and/or alone). model that includes expository instruction (Jacobsen, Eggen, & Kauchak, 1993) and teach- 6. Feedback is provided after each practice ing-as-assisted-performance (Tharp & opportunity or set of practice opportunities. Gallimore, 1988). These variations represent The fundamental design principle that con- important examples of the evolution of the DI nects these components is the fact that learners model-ones that appropriately advance the are actively engaged in the relevant curriculum model in light of new understandings of how in order to build knowledge, skills, and disposi- people learn and how to design learning envi- tions related to the goals and objectives of the ronments that meet stated learning objectives. lesson. This frequent opportunity-to-respond enables ongoing assessment and correction when needed (Delquadri & Greenwood, 1981). Based Models The clear goal of this model is that learners will Behaviorally develop mastery and automaticity of the target skills, knowledge, and dispositions. Bereiter and Engeimann (1966) and Engelmann A number of empirically supported DI mod- (1980) designed their DI approach to be "the els have appeared in the literature in the last most efficient way to teach each skill" was that learn- four decades. Our historical tour through some (Engelmann, p. xi). The premise consis- of the major models describes the nuances of ers are expected to derive learning that is each model and illustrates the richness of DI as a tent with the presentation offered by the teacher. useful instructional strategy across a range of Learners acquire information through choice- learning environments. The order of model pre- response discriminations, production-response sentation also reveals a bit of the evolution of DI discriminations, and sentence-relationship dis- that was prompted by the ongoing research on criminations. The key activity is for the teacher in learning and instruction. We begin with the to identify the type of discrimination required design a specific sequence work of Bereiter and Engelmann (1966). These a particular task, and only the researchers are often credited with pioneering to teach the discrimination so that is the research on DI, which, at that time, was teacher's interpretation of the information based on principles of behavioral psychology possible. Rapid questioning, frequent testing, including overt responding, frequent and spe- continuous interaction, and positive reinforce- promote cific feedback, and contingency management. ment are all key instructional tools that Bereiter and The next stop in the tour is with exemplar mod- learning. The perspective of in els developed from the effective teaching Engelmann was that DI is sufficiently broad approach research (e.g., Brophy & Good, 1986), which interpretation to serve as a teaching of applications. began to merge the well-established theoretical that has an unlimited number concepts from behavioral psychology with the Over the course of 15-plus years, Engelmann's programs as newly instantiated principles based on the DI model framed such successful DIRECT INSTRUCTION 45

DISTAR (e.g., Engelmann & Osborn, 1972), Proj- an increased opportunity to respond. In essence, ect Follow Through (Nero & Associates, 1975; the students succeeded because of the high rate Stallings & Stipek, 1986), and the Tucson early of feedback and subsequent responding. Essen- education model (Rentfrow, 1972). tially, the idea was that "success breeds success" The initial DI model (Bereiter & Engelmann, (Stallings & Stipek, 1986). 1966) established a three-stage, systematic teach- The data-driven nature of the DI model, with ing design driven by continuous assessment of frequent opportunities for student response and learning. The general process included (a) an teacher feedback, reflects the integration of con- introduction to the new content to be learned, (b) tinuous assessment throughout this design. the main presentation of the lesson, and (c) prac- Behavioral assessments of learning focus on the tice with immediate feedback. At first, practice collection of data related to learning outcomes would be teacher directed, with the entire class (Schunk, 2000), that is, how the learner's behav- responding to quickly paced, strategically ior changes as a result of the instruction. DI les- sequenced questions from the instructor. Once sons rely on several inherent approaches to data the teacher was certain that the students were collection in order for the teacher to monitor stu- ready to apply the newly learned concepts, the dent learning. Oral responses in group-based students were shifted to independent practice, interactions provide the instructor with infor- closely monitored by the teacher to ensure only mation related to how well students are grasp- correct interpretations and applications of the ing the targeted content, as well as correcting targeted content. This approach-introduction any misconceptions so that only accurate inter- of new concepts, interactive presentation and pretations of the new concept are taught. Writ- application of the concepts, and guided prac- ten performances and direct observations allow tice-would serve as a standard for future varia- the teacher to gauge progress and assess the tions on the DI model. Table 1 compares the learner's ability to apply the newly acquired models, highlighting the consistency of instruc- concepts during independent practice. Such tional procedure and distinguishing features. emphasis on continuous assessment suggests Engelmann's (1980) DI model "attempts to that DI may have been one of the first teaching control every variable in the teaching environ- models to incorporate data-based decision mak- ment" (p. 80) through scripted tasks and lessons. ing, as the teacher based choices related to pre- This releases the teacher to focus on: sentation strategies, timing, examples, and "* The presentation and communication of the practice readiness on student response data. information to children. Engelmann (1980) acknowledged two poten- "* Students' prerequisite skills and capabilities tial problems with this model: external attribu- to have success with the target task. tions for success, and the need to experience the model for at least one year in order to accrue "* Potential problems identified in the task anal- long-term benefits. ysis. "* How children learn, by pinpointing learner successes and strategies for success attain- The "Effective Teaching" DI Models. ment. During the 1970s and through the mid-1980s, a "* Learning how to construct well-designed number of variations and elaborations of tasks. Engelmann's (1980) model were designed and The students would increase their self-esteem tested using a process-product paradigm and and self-confidence through their academic characterized in the well-known effective teach- achievement, providing motivation for subse- ing literature. The general teaching procedure quent tasks. Berieter and Engelmann's (1966) across these models was to begin with some research made important contributions to edu- type of opening activity, next to enact the main cational research by illustrating how students lesson presentation, and then to give students from disadvantaged homes were able to opportunities for practice. Three specific models increase language and school success through reported high success rates and were widely 46 ETR&D, Vol. 53, No. 4

Table 1 El Comparison of components across three Effective Teaching models.

Basic Direct Instruction Engelmann's DirectInstruction model Rosenshine's Explicit Teaching model

Introduction 1. Introduction of new concept based 1. Review: Review homework on previously mastered skills and Review relevant previous learning knowledge Review prerequisite skills and knowledge for the lesson

Main Presentation 2. Presentation: Fast-paced, scripted 2. Presentation: of the Lesson explanation or demonstration State lesson goals and/or provide designed to elicit only one interpre- outline tation of concept. The target concept Teach in small steps must be reinforced with Model procedures appropriate examples and Provide concrete positive and negative nonexamples. examples Use clear language Check for student understanding Avoid digressions

Practice 3. Students are provided with 3. Guided practice: More time High opportunities to verbally respond, frequency of questions or guided either through a set of questions or practice tasks, in order to indicate their All students respond and receive learning of the concept and their feedback ability to connect it to further High success rate examples. Continue practice until students are 4. Feedback: Teacher either confirms fluid correct student response or provides 4. Corrections and feedback: corrections and repetition of the Give process feedback when answers missed items. are correct but hesitant 5. Independent practice: After group Give sustaining feedback, clues, or work, students engage in self- reteaching when answers are incorrect directed practice in workbooks. Reteach when necessary Teacher monitors progress and 5. Independent practice Students receive provides guidance when needed. help during initial steps or overview Practice continues until students are automatic (where relevant) Teacher provides active supervision (where possible) Routines are used to give help to slower students 6. Weekly and monthly reviews DIRECT INSTRUCTION 47

Table 1 E] continued,

Basic Good & Grouw's Direct Instruction Strategiesfor Effective Teaching model Hunter's Design of Effective Lessons model

Introduction 1. Daily review (first 8 minutes except 1. Anticipatory set: Mondays): Provide a mental set that causes Review concepts and skills associated students to focus on what will be with the homework learned Use to glean diagnostic infor- Collect and deal with homework mation about students' ability to assignments connect with topic Ask several mental computation 2. Objective and purpose: exercises Present objective to students to clearly communicate what they are supposed to learn from the lesson Present purpose to students so they know why the information is relevant to them

Main Presentation 2. Development (about 20 minutes): 3. Input: of the Lesson Briefly focus on prerequisite skills and Conduct a task analysis on final concepts objective to determine the knowledge Focus on meaning and promoting and skills that need to be acquired student understanding using lively Use pedagogies that will facilitate the explanations, demonstrations, process kinds of learning intended (e.g., explanations, illustrations, etc. discovery, discussion, reading, Assess student comprehension using listening, lecture, observation) process/product questions (active 4. Modeling: interaction); using controlled practice Demonstrate the processes and products Repeat and elaborate on the meaning that facilitate learning-these can be portion as necessary live or filmed, but must enable students to perceive directly what is to be learned

Practice 5. Seatwork (about 15 minutes): 5. Checking for understanding: Provide uninterrupted successful Determine if the students understand practice what they are supposed to do in the Momentum-keep the bali rolling- lesson's task through questioning get everyone involved, then sustain 6. Guided practice: Practice the new involvement knowledge or skill under direct teacher Alerting-let students know their work supervision will be checked at end of period 7. Independent practice: Assigned only Accountability-check the students' after teacher is reasonably sure that work students will not make serious errors 6. Homework assignment: Assign on a regular basis at the end of each math class except Fridays Should involve about 15 minutes of work to be done at home Should include one or two review problems 7. Special reviews Weekly review & maintenance: conduct during the first 20 minute each Monday, focus on skills and concepts covered during the previous week Monthly review & maintenance: conduct every fourth Monday, focus on skills and concepts covered since the last monthly review 48 ETR&D, Vol. 53, No. 4 integrated into practice in K-12 settings: (a) Rosenshine also brought attention to the or Rosenshine's (1979) explicit teaching model, need to modify lessons based on the material for diffi- Good and Grouws's (1979) strategies for effec- content to be taught. His modification additional monitoring, tive teaching model, and Hunter's (1982) design cult content emphasized on presentation, of effective lessons model. In addition to repre- with the lesson cycle focused independent senting DI models that are supported by sound guided practice, and supervised research and practice, these models were practice. selected for this chapter because they represent and Grouws's strategiesfor effective teaching DI variations that were sensitive to contextual Good model. Focusing on the teaching and learning of needs, discipline, and the changing landscape of Good and Grouws's (1979) educational theory and practice. Rosenshine's mathematics, resulted in a scripted procedure that model was designed to be sensitive to differ- research included both instructional and management ences in student ability and complexity of sub- While following the basic DI proce- ject matter. Good and Grouws's model was strategies. dure, this model offered suggested lesson man- designed for the teaching of mathematics. This strategies and time allotments for each model is included to illustrate how DI was mod- agement phase of the lesson, including weekly and ified for a particular subject matter context. practice intervals (see Table 1). Hunter's model was designed to incorporate the monthly new cognitive principles, as well as to become Although there are clear alignments with the and more user-friendly for K-12 teachers with a aforementioned DI procedures, Good closer alignment with well-established educa- Grouws's (1979) model began to emphasize the tional practices. cognitive dimension of learning. In Table 1, note the focus on meaning and conceptual under- Rosenshine's explicit teachingmodel. The central standing of mathematics, along with the devel- theme in Rosenshine's (1979) and Rosenshine opment of automaticity with computation and and Stevens's (1986).model is that teachers need procedures. Good and Grouws's (1981) research to enact intentionally clear and well-defined les- indicated that teachers who used this model sons. The six functions of each lesson include (a) used more problem-solving procedures. More- review, (b) presentation, (c) guided practice, (d) over, there were significant differences in favor corrections and feedback, (e) independent prac- of the students who were taught using this tice, and (f) weekly and monthly reviews. The model in terms of problem-solving scores and major instructional strategies include teaching gains in achievement. in small steps with student practice after each step, guiding students during initial practice, Hunter's design of effective lessons model. Mad- name" in and providing all students with a high level of eline Hunter became a "household development in the 1980s. successful practice. The specific steps of this teacher professional a widely teaching model are listed in Table 1. She developed and disseminated known and used teaching model that merged Note the strong parallels between Engel- the well-engrained and more highly regarded mann's and Rosenshine's models. Both have a features of DI with more current ideas and ver- clear emphasis on frequent teacher-student biage from cognitive psychology. Her lesson interaction to present information, ask ques- cycle model (Hunter, 1976; 1982) became the tions, guide practice, and provide feedback and centerpiece of K-12 professional development reinforcement. Rosenshine, in extending the and teacher evaluation programs because of its model, added guidelines to suit different stu- resonance with practitioners and ease of use for dents and difficult material. To meet student administrators who were conducting observa- needs, Rosenshine suggested the teacher pro- tional evaluations of teachers. vide slower students with more review, less pre- follows the basic DI proce- sentation, more guided practice, and more The Hunter model however, she connects independent practice. For faster students, he dure (see Table 1), behavior with internal processing suggested less review, more presentation, less observable initial phase is guided practice, and less independent practice. inferences. For example, her DIRECT INSTRUCTION 49 called an "anticipatory set" and provides the designers with a framework for creating instruc- introduction to the lesson by trying to connect tional lessons in which every component speaks with a "mental set" that the children already directly to empirically based principles of learn- hold. When she explains the nuances of modeling. Although the major components of Gagn.'s ing, Hunter alerts teachers to pay attention to model fit the basic DI procedure (i.e., introduc- student perception and knowledge acquisition. tion, presentation, practice), the full model pro- Hunter's model represents a direct instructional vides clear direction for lesson design and, more model that was designed for practitioners who relevant for this discussion, the design of tech- were trying to infuse the concepts and terminol- nology-enhanced or technology-driven instruc- ogy used by cognitive psychologists into the tion. However, whereas Gagn. recommended existing strategies of earlier DI models. following the sequence of events as published, Frieberg and Driscoll (2000) purported that the sequence could be modified based on the needs Gagn6's Events of Instruction Model of the learner, context, and content.

Robert GagnO (1977, 1985) made enormous con- Table 2 outlines Gagnd's (1977, 1985) events tributions to the instructional theory literature. organized according to the basic DI procedure, His work consistently merged current learning and elaborated with the learning processes and theory and instructional practice. His events of principles that his events support. It is for this instruction model has provided instructional reason that we separate Gagn6's model from the

Table 2 El Gagn6's Events of Instruction model.

Basic Connections with Possible Connections with DirectInstruction Events of Learnersand Design Featuresof Procedure Instruction Instruction InstructionalTechnology

Introduction 1. Gaining attention Motivation phase: Attention gained through use 2. Informing the learner expectancy of auditory and/or visual of the objective Apprehending phase: stimuli attention and Presentation of information selective perception through appropriate media types

Main Presentation 3. Stimulating recall of Acquisition phase: Prerequisite knowledge can of the Lesson prerequisite learning coding and storage be assessed through quizzing 4. Presenting the stimulus entry or assessment tools materials Retention phase: Information presented through 5. Providing learner memory storage appropriate media types guidance

Practice 6. Eliciting the performance Recall phase: retrieval Guided practice can be 7. Providing feedback with Generation phase: teacher-led through tele- performance correctness transfer communications or self- 8. Assessing the perform- Performance phase: paced through computer- ance responding based interactions. 9. Enhancing retention and Feedback phase: Corrective feedback can be transfer reinforcement provided, based on learners' responses Automated remediation can be designed into program Retention and reinforcement through application of new knowledge in scenarios through various media types 50 ETR&D, Vol. 53, No. 4 effective teaching models and highlight his and control. Lesson objectives are clearly deline- to ensure work as foundational to the design of instruc- ated, and questioning is convergent met. Examples are tional technologies. His work reflects a blending that the objectives are are gradually of the behavioral and cognitive frameworks, and planned to ensure that students "scaffolded" toward the target concept, abstract for these authors, serves as a bridge across per- was articu- spectives on learning. Also in Table 2 are specific relationship, or generalization that examples from instructional software or dis- lated in the objective. tance education course activities that support The teacher follows a sequence of steps that each event. are designed to bring students closer and closer to defining the concept in terms that make sense to them (Eggen & Kauchak, 1993). Concepts are clarified through the development of definitions Expository Teaching and connections with students' prior knowledge. Active participation is encouraged to Expository teaching is a teacher-centered ensure that the teacher can assess student prog- approach to learning content that parallels the ress. Students must provide their own examples goals and features of its predecessor, DI to promote practice. Feedback is rendered (Jacobsen et al., 1993), yet dearly is oriented immediately to ensure that misconceptions are toward cognitive- or information-processing- not developed. Table 3 illustrates the compo- based learning. Rather than strengthening stu- nents of expository teaching as they relate to DI. dent behaviors, this model is designed to strengthen students' cognitive structures (Joyce et al., 2000). Ausubel (1968) is often cited as the Assisted Performance originator of this model (e.g., Freiberg & Teaching as Driscoll, 2000). the social construction Expository teaching is used in order to help Research that emphasizes to include and elab- students learn concepts, principles, generaliza- of knowledge has continued that DI makes to the tions, and rules. Aligned with the DI tradition, orate on the contribution environments the two major advantages of the model are time creation of successful learning

Table 3 D Current direct-instruction-related models.

Basic Direct Instruction Procedure Expository Teaching Teaching as Assisted Performance

Intxoduction 1. Visual presentation of targeted Instruction concept, abstraction, or generalization 2. Inform learner of intended learning outcome

of 3. Define concepts, abstractions, Modeling Main Presentation Questioning the Lesson or generalizations 4. Link to prior knowledge Feeding-back 5. Provide positive and negative Contingencyimanagement examples

Practice 6. Classify or explain teacher examples Cognitive structuring Types 1 &2 7. Provide additional examples Feeding-back (Jacobson, Eggen, & Kauchak; 1993, Questioning 190-191) DIRECT INSTRUCTION 51

(e.g., Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). The theoretical teaching as assisted performance makes explicit and empirical work of Vygotsky (1978) has iden- the need for teachers to directly plan and inter- tified two critical elements of DI as essential to vene with teacher-directed instruction based on learning from a social perspective (Eggen & student needs as evidenced in their practice. See Kauchak, 2001). Vygotsky's use of the notion of Table 3 for the explicit connections between scaffolding and his construct of the zone of prox- teaching as assisted performance and DI. imal development (ZPD) are instantiated in the teaching as assisted performance model (Tharp & Gallimore). Although the model expands Summary beyond scaffolding and the ZPD1, these concepts are addressed here to illustrate the impor- The DI model has enjoyed a more than 30-year tant elaborations of DI into a new perspective on history of framing successful learning experi- learning and teaching. ences. The model has evolved to address current For Vygotsky (1978), scaffolding refers to the understandings about learners and learning, but instructional support provided to students as maintains the central purpose of promoting stu- they learn new skills, content, and dispositions. dent on-task behavior through explicit instruc- Information is broken down into manageable, tion, ongoing support, and student engagement smaller chunks of recognizable knowledge; in successful practice. The DI model is well skills are broken down to subskills to ensure a suited to the design of technology-enhanced and sequential, step-by-step acquisition of the target technology-based instruction because of its clear objectives aided by teacher guidance, question- structure and potential for providing learners ing, hints, and so forth. Essential in this process with opportunities for practice and immediate is a task analysis that thoroughly examines what feedback, especially in asynchronous learning is to be learned, and the trajectory of the devel- environments. opment of knowledge to meet that objective. The ZPD is, according to Vygotsky (1978), the "distance between the actual developmental TECHNOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS OF DI level as determined by individual problem solving and the level of potential development as DI continues to hold potential as an effective determined through problem solving under teaching method, particularly in technology- adult guidance or in collaboration with more mediated learning environments. Computer- capable peers" (p. 86). Eggen and Kauchak based programs have been designed to model (2001) asserted that the ZPD is "instructional instructor-led DI approaches while leveraging paydirt" (p. 278) in that it is within this time, the technological ability to provide feedback, place, and space that teachers are most effective remediation, and guided practice, all essential in helping students learn. From a DI perspective, components of the DI process and all of which teachers are striving to meet each student within contribute to its effectiveness. The following sec- the zone by a clear analysis of the task, constant tion provides examples of computer-based assessment of understanding and provision of implementations of DI that demonstrate the par- support when and as needed, and practice first ticular advantages of technology to instantiate with the teacher, then with peers, then indepen- this model. dently. Tharp and Gallimore's (1988) notion of

Successful Applications of 1 Tharp and Gallimore (1988) identified six components to Computer-Mediated DI their teaching model: (a) modeling, (b) contingency managing, (cWfeeding back, (d) instructing, (e) questioning, and (f) cognitive structuring. Although all these teaching One of the first technology-based programs to strategies have clear connections to DI, the two selected for implement the DI approach was developed by this article are highlighted to illustrate how DI has transcended current theory on learning and emerged as a key the originators of the DI method. Core Concepts, model for the design of successful learning environments. a reading, math, and language videodisc pro- 52 ETR&D, Vol. 53, No. 4 gram, was developed by the originators of the Merging Pedagogies Through Technology DI approach (Hofmeister, Engelmann, & Carn- ine, 1986, 1988). In this instructional program, brief segments with narration and animation Although viewed as an "instructive" design with were used to break down complex skills into strategy (Rieber, 1992), DI can be combined open-ended strategies to provide dynamic small steps, model problem-solving strategies, more and meaningful learning experiences (Fitzger- present a wide range of examples, review rele- ald & Semrau, 1998; Rieber; Sfondilias & Siegal, vant preskills, provide discrimination practice 1990). Fitzgerald and Semrau described The and cumulative review, and frequently assess Classroom Behavior Record, a hypermedia pro- through weekly progress student learning gram that implements DI methods for training studies over seven checks. Five experimental educators and health care professionals in obser- effec- years have demonstrated the program's vational skills. While the use of hypermedia to tiveness for low-achieving students. A naturalis- engage students in DI may sound paradoxical, tic study found that the constant review was the program is based on the stages of learning essential for low-achieving students, and the model (Gagnd, 1977) and facilitates learner variety of activities within each lesson helped progression through the hierarchical phases keep students interested and motivated (Adams (acquisition, fluency, generalization, and main- & Engelmann, 1996). tenance) with the inherent flexibility of a nonlin- ear system. Rieber contended that constructivist Another basis for the creation of such pro- and instructivist strategies are not mutually grams is the teaching of complex skills or sub- exclusive, and described how the two are inte- of which is a program jects, an example grated within a microworld program called designed to teach the solution of mathematical Space Shuttle Commander, a computer-based word problems (Steele & Steele, 1999). Project learning environment modeled after the LOGO Discover is an intelligent tutoring system com- system (Papert, 1980). prising 11 independent programs, based on the Sfondilias and Siegal (1990) utilized a unique DI instructional approach. As students work combination of DI and discovery methods in a through each program, the system collects infor- computer-based program to teach learners the mation about their performance and makes rec- process to determine equations for parabolic through the cogni- ommendations regarding sequencing and graphs. Learners are guided tive routine for creating the correct equation, and practice options. In accordance with the DI then presented with an exploration situation in model, the first program provides a pretest to which they attempt to make their graph resemble assess their existing knowledge and an introduc- a target graph, based on their inputs into the cor- tion to the process of solving word problems. relating equation. Feedback allows them to learn teach the eight steps The next three programs from their mistakes, and errors in the cognitive involved in the solution of word problems, each routine will prompt the system to repeat the rou- aspect incorporating practice and corrective tine until the learner has mastered it feedback. The next five programs provide practice opportunities particularly related to the Recent Iterations of DI eight steps, with problems automatically based the steps that the learner finds problematic. on The current emphasis on accountability and students in-depth prac- The next program gives high-stakes testing in education has opened the tice, with incorrect responses being met with door for commercial software products based on hints or coaching. Successful performance on the DI model. Courseware packages such as this program (more than 90% correct) directs the SuccessMaker Enterprise by Pearson Digital learner to the posttest, less than 90% correct Learning (http://ndlb.pearsonedtech.com) and leading students to more practice based on their PLATO Learning (http://www.plato.com) individual needs. claim to use DI methods to address student per- DIRECT INSTRUCTION 53 formance mandates of the No Child Left Behind customize the experience to the needs of the (NCLB) Act. Both packages provide pre- and individual learner. Synchronous systems such postassessment of learners with integrated prac- as CentraOne allow for assessment of content tice and additional assessments throughout the knowledge prior to engagement in a live, audio- instructional programs, designed to closely conference with a teacher. In such a session, the monitor student progress and customize the instructor has the ability to present relevant learning experience based on individual needs. information verbally, supported by a variety of While PLATO has evolved over the past 40 years visual tools, such as a shared whiteboard, text- from a large-scale mainframe program to a com- based chat spaces, and software applications. prehensive courseware system for K-12 and Conferencing systems such as these also allow adult education, it has maintained the aforemen- the teacher to conduct real-time questioning and tioned features that signify the DI approach to provide appropriate feedback, addressing the instruction. human component often missing from asynchronous instruction. The tool's capacity to support asynchronous practice is based on quizzing The Future of DI and testing instruments designed by the instructor, which can also provide automated, correc- Recently, DI seems to have fallen out of favor in tive feedback. Features of the aforementioned terms of philosophical trends of learning and types of Web-based systems can be blended to instruction (Duffrin, 1996; Edmondson & Shan- offer a hybrid approach to DI, in which some non, 2002). However, this model still serves as a aspects are live and some asynchronous, viable and effective teaching approach in many depending on the needs and constraints of the classroom settings, and has been shown to participants. increase students' problem-solving skills (Good & Grouws, 1981). Maintaining the tradition of DI will likely see the pendulum swing back to being one of the most empirically tested forms of its favor in the near future, especially given fed- instruction, research on the DI model continues eral and state mandates related to standards- (i.e., Cashwell, Skinner, & Smith, 2001; Swanson, based performance in schools. Advances in 2001; Viadero, 2002). In an effort to support the learning technologies are ready to support and dissemination of such studies, the Journal of implement this long-standing teaching method Direct Instruction was established in 2001 as a in more efficient and personalized ways. Stand- peer-reviewed forum to disseminate contempo- alone computer-based systems offer the flexibil- rary research regarding DI (Slocum & Marc- ity of either supplementing DI in the classroom hand-Martella, 2001). or providing entire self-contained units of instruction. Networked distance delivery sys- With the exponential growth of distance education, DI holds potential as a teaching method tems supply the same possibilities to geographi- cally dispersed learners, with the added ability that can be effectively implemented on a wide scale in distributed learning environments, par- of interacting with an instructor either synchro- ticularly through Web-based instruction. As nously or asynchronously. When the instruc- previously described, computer-based instructional task calls for the teaching of discrete skills tion can efficiently execute all phases of the DI and knowledge in an interactive and guided for- approach in an individualized and self-paced mat, DI remains a proven approach. With the manner. However, networked systems can add ability to exemplify the DI method through increased flexibility in that instruction can be innovative, mediated experiences, instructional computer based, instructor led, or a combination technology may hold the key to the continuing of both. Asynchronous course template systems evolution of the DI method. D such as Blackboard or WebCT possess the ability to conduct preassessments of knowledge, pres- Susan G. Magliaro [sumagsallvt.edu] and Barbara B. ent content information in a variety of formats, Lockee are Associate Professors and John K. Burton and provide varied levels and types of practice is Professor, all in the Department of Teaching and and postassessment with corrective feedback to Learning at Virginia Tech. 54 ETR&D, VoL. 53, No, 4

REFERENCES I (Teacher's presentation book, student material, and teacher's guide). Chicago: Science Research Associates. Adams, G. L., & Engelmann, S. (1996). Research on Engelmann, S., & Carnine, D. (1969). DISTAR arithme- Direct Instruction: 25 Years beyond DISTAR. Seattle: tic I (Teacher's presentation book, student material, Education Achievement Systems. and teacher's guide). Chicago: Science Research Anderson, L. M., Evertson, C. M., & Brophy, J. E. Associates. (1979). An experimental study of effective teaching Engelmann, S., & Osborn, J. (1969). DISTAR language I School in first grade reading groups. The Elementary (Teacher's presentation book, student material, and Journal,79, 527-32. teacher's guide). Chicago: Science Research Associ- Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educationalpsychology: A cogni- ates. and Winston. tive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart, Engelmann, S., & Osbom, J. (1972). DISTAR language Bereiter, C., &Engelmann, S. (1966). Teachingdisadvan- program.Chicago: Science Research Associates. Upper Saddle River, taged children in the preschool. Fisher, C. W., Berliner, D. C., Filby, N. N., Marliave, R., NJ: Prentice Hall. Ghen, L. S., & Dishaw, M. M. (1980). Teaching Bock, G., Stebbins, L., & Proper, E. (1977). Education as behaviors, academic learning time, and student experimentation:A plannedvariation model (Volume IV- achievement. In C. Denham & A. Lieberman (Eds.), A & B). Effects of-Follow Through models. Washington, Time to learn. Washington, DC: National Institute of D.C.: ABT Associates. Education. behavior Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L. (1986). Teacher Fitzgerald, G. E., & Semrau, L. P. (1998). Hypermedia and student achievement. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), and direct instruction:Do the paradigmsfit? A demon- of research on teaching (3rd ed.) (pp. 328- Handbook stration of a learner-centered hypermedia program in 375). New York: Macmillan. classroom observation skills. Paper presented at the Cashwell, T. H., Skinner, C. H., & Smith, E. S. (2001). annual meeting of the American Educational Increasing second-grade students' reports of peers' Research Association (San Diego, CA, April 13-17, prosocial behaviors via direct instruction, group 1998). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED reinforcement, and progress feedback: A replication 419527) of Children 24 and extension. Educationand Treatment Frieberg, H. J., & Driscoll, A. (2000). Universal teaching (2), 161-175. strategies (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Whole language plus: Essays on lit- Cazden, C. B. (1992). Gagn6, R. M. (1977). The conditions of learning (3rd ed.). New York: eracy in the United States & New Zealand. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. College Press. Teachers Gagn6, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning (4th ed.). and Technology Group at Vanderblt. Cognition New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Looking at technology in context: A frame- (1996). Gersten, R., Baker, S., Pugach, M., Scanlon, D., & work for understanding technology and education Chard, D. (2001). Contemporary research on special research. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), education teaching. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Hand- Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 807-840). book of research on teaching (4th ed.) (pp. 695-722). New York: Macmillan. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Snow, R. E. (1986). Adapting teaching to Como, L., & Association. individual differences among learners. In M. C. Good, T. L., & Grouws, D.A. (1979). The Missouri Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd mathematics effectiveness project. Journal of Educa- ed.) (pp. 605- 629). New York: Macmillan. tional Psychology, 71,355-362. Delquadri,J., & Greenwood, C. (1981). The importance Good, T. L., & Grouws, D. A. (1981). Experimental of "opportunity to respond" in the education of the research in secondary mathematics classrooms: black minority students. Paper presented at The Final Report. Washington, Council for Exceptional Children Conference on The Working with teachers. DC: National Institute of Education. (ERIC Docu- Exceptional Black Child, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC ment Reproduction Service No. ED219261) Documentation Reproduction Service No. J. (1999). Instruc- ED204893) Gunter, M. A., Estes, T. H., & Schwab, A models approach (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn Duffrin, E. (1996). Direct instruction making waves. tion: & Bacon. Catalyst 8 (1), 1-11. Available: http://www.cata- El Segundo, lyst-chicago.org/09-96/096main.htm. Accessed on Hunter, M. (1976). Improved instruction. July 3,2002. CA: Theory Into Practice. Mastery teaching. El Segundo, CA: Edmondson, J., & Shannon, P. (2002). The will of the Hunter, M. (1982). people. The Reading Teacher 55, (5), 452-454. Theory Into Practice. Carnine, D. (1986). Eggen, P.D., & Kauchak, D.P. (2001). Strategies for Hofmneister, A. M., Engelmann, S. & teachers: Teaching content and thinking skills. Boston: Masteringfractions, Core concepts in science and mathe- Allyn &Bacon. matics videodisc program. Washington, DC: Systems Engelmann, S. (1980). Direct instruction. Englewood Impact Inc. & Carnine, D. Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology. Hofmeister, A. M., Engelmann, S., Engelmann, S., & Bruner, E. C. (1969). DISTAR reading (1988). Developing and validating science education DIRECT INSTRUCTION 55

videodiscs. (Eric Document Reproduction Service covery and direct instruction strategies in computer- No. ED297943). based teaching of mathematical problem-solving. Hunter, M. (1982). Mastery teaching. El Segundo, CA: Journalof Computer-BasedInstruction, 17(4), 130-134. Instructional Dynamics. Shambaugh, R. N., & Magliaro, S. G. (1997). Mastering Jacobsen, D., Eggen, P., & Kauchak, D. (1993). Methods the possibilities: A process approach to instructional for teaching; A skills approach (4th ed.). Columbus, design. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. OH: Merrill. Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New Jalongo, M.R. (1999). Editorial: On behalf of children. York: Macmillan. Early Childhood EducationJournal 26,(3), 139-141. Skinner, B. F. (1954). The science of learning and the art Joyce, B., Weil, M., & Calhoun, E. (2000). Models of of teaching. Harvard EducationalReview, 24 (86-97), teaching (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. 99-113. Madaus, G. F., Airasian, P. W., & Kellaghan, T. (1980). Skinner, B. F. (1966). The phylogeny and ontogeny of School effectiveness: A review of the evidence. New behavior. Science, 153,1205-1213. York: McGraw-Hill. Skinner, B. F. (1968). The technology of teaching. Engle- Nero and Associates. (1975). A description of follow wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. through sponsor implementation processes. Portland, Skinner, B. F. (1974). About behaviorism. New York: OR: Nero & Associate, Inc. (ERIC Document Repro- Vintage Books. duction Service No. ED128926) Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Dolan, L. J., & Wasik, B. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and A. (1996). Every child, every school: Success for all. powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Rentfrow, R. K. (1972). Intensive evaluation of Head Start Slocum, T. A., & Marchand-Martella, N. (2001). Intro- implementation in the Tucson early education model. ducing the Journal of Direct Instruction. Journal of Arizona Center for Educational Research and Devel- Direct Instruction, 1 (1) 1-2. opment, University of Arizona. (ERIC Document Stallings, J. A., & Stipek, D. (1986). Research on early Reproduction Service No. ED071778). childhood and elementary school teaching pro- Rieber, L.P. (1992). Computer-based microworlds: A grams. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research bridge between constructivism and direct instruc- on teaching (3rd ed.) (pp. 727-753). New York: Mac- tion. Educational Technology Research and Develop- millan. ment, 40(1), 93-106. Rosenshine, B. (1970). The stability of teacher effects Steele, M. M., & Steele, J. W. (1999). DISCOVER: An intelligent tutoring system for teaching students upon student achievement. Review of Educational Research, 40, 647-662. with learning difficulties to solve word problems. Rosenshine, B. (1971). Teaching behaviours and student The Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science achievement. London: National Foundation for Edu- Teaching, 18 (4), 351-359. cational Research. Swanson, H. L. (2001). Searching for the best model for Rosenshine, B. (1979). Content, time, and direct instructing students with disabilities. Focus on Excep- instruction. In P. Peterson & H. Walberg (Eds.), tional Childre,n 34 (2), 1-15. Research on teaching: Concepts,findings, and implica- Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to tions. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan. Ife: Teaching, learning, and schooling in social context. Rosenshine, B. (1985). Direct instruction. In T. Husen & Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), Internationalencyclopedia Tobias, S. (1982). When do instructional methods make of education, Vol. 3 (pp. 1395-1400). Oxford: Per- a difference? EducationalResearcher, 11, 4-10. gamon. Viadero, D. (2002). Studies cite learning gains in direct Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching func- instruction schools. Education Week 21 (31), p. 15. tions. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The develop- teaching (3rd ed.) (pp. 376-391). New York: Macmil- ment of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, lan. MA: Harvard University Press. Schunk, D. H. (2000). Learning theories: An educational Watkins, C. (1997). Project Follow Through: A case perspective.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. study of contingencies influencing instructional Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). A time for practices of the educational establishment. Cam- telling. Cognition and Instruction,16(4), 475-522. bridge, MA: Cambridge Center for Behavioral Stud- Sfondilias, J.S., & Siegel, M.A. (1990). Combining dis- ies. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: SOURCE: PAGE(S): 41-55 WN: 0500403447008

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it is reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in violation of the copyright is prohibited.