DIRECT INSTRUCTION

Evidence of positive effects on student achievement
Year introduced in schools		Late 1960's
Number of schools		150
Support developer provides schools
First-year costs      with new staff      with current staff reassigned		$244,000 $194,000
= Strong	= Promising		= Marginal
= Mixed, Weak		? = No Research

OVERVIEW

The primary goal of Direct Instruction is to increase student achievement through carefully focused instruction. In this approach, instruction involves identifying particular skills and showing students how to apply these skills in increasingly complex situations. The Direct Instruction model aims to provide intense, efficient lessons that will allow all children—even the lowest performing—to master academic skills.

Direct Instruction provides a model of instruction that emphasizes the use of carefully planned lessons, designed around a highly specified knowledge base and a well-defined set of skills for each subject. A central element of the theory underlying Direct Instruction is that clear instruction eliminates misinterpretations and can greatly improve and accelerate learning.

Direct Instruction grew from work on teacher-directed instruction begun by Siegfried Engelmann at the University of Illinois in the late 1960s and continued at the University of Oregon. There are currently several providers who contract with schools and districts on the implementation of this approach. The curriculum materials are published by Science Research Associates, a division of McGraw-Hill. Although the original focus was on reading, language, and math, the program has been expanded to include social and physical science, fact learning, and handwriting. The Direct Instruction model serves students in kindergarten through sixth grade in 150 schools and several thousand individual classrooms nationwide. It has been widely used among low-performing schools in high-poverty areas, but is marketed for all students.

EVIDENCE OF POSITIVE EFFECTS ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

Strength of the Research Base. Direct Instruction has a lengthy and rich base of empirical research. Eighteen studies describing the student achievement effects of Direct Instruction were available for this profile, including two research syntheses; nine of these studies also reported information on implementation. Of these, all but four scored high in the ratings of research strength. Not only is there a great deal of strong research on this approach, but there are many studies with similar findings, which raises confidence in the results. Further, of the 14 studies that used rigorous methodologies, five were conducted by independent researchers.

There are minor weaknesses with the research on Direct Instruction that should also be noted. First, the outcome research has focused more on reading and math than the other subjects that constitute the Direct Instruction curricula. Second, a great deal of the Direct Instruction research is over 10 years old. Only seven of the 37 studies covered in a recent analysis of the research on Direct Instruction were done in the 1990s, and several date back to the 1970s.

Effects on Students. Overall, there is strong evidence that Direct Instruction has a positive effect on student achievement. Adams and Engelmann's analysis (1996) showed that 32 of the 34 studies qualifying for inclusion in their meta-analysis demonstrate that Direct Instruction has a positive effect on student achievement. Their review found that Direct Instruction is effective in improving overall achievement, as well as achievement in language, reading, mathematics, spelling, health, and science. Several other studies, moreover, confirm and reinforce these findings. Of those studies reviewed for this profile, seven support Direct Instruction's positive effect on reading, 11 on mathematics, nine on language, and four on affective behavior and social skills. Direct Instruction also appears to improve chances for later success (e.g., graduation rates, application and acceptance to college rates). Research also suggests that students who begin Direct Instruction with low IQs seem to progress at the same rate as students who begin Direct Instruction with higher IQs (i.e., the approach is effective for both high- and low-achieving students).

Two studies investigated the relationship between the level of implementation of Direct Instruction and student performance on standardized tests. Using the Direct Instruction Supervision Code (DISC), these studies found a positive relationship between teacher ratings (i.e., level of implementation in a classroom) and student performance on standardized achievement measures (e.g., the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills reading assessment). However, the relationship varied depending on the component of the Direct Instruction approach being measured (e.g., pacing, format, correcting students).

Direct Instruction also appears to improve students affective behavior and social skills: self-esteem/concept, attitudes toward self and school, attribution of success or failure to self or outside, and sense of responsibility.

CENTRAL COMPONENTS

Organizational Change, Staffing, and Administrative Support. Direct Instruction makes limited organizational demands on schools. The most significant is a recommendation that all teachers of reading and English language arts be scheduled to teach that subject at the same time. This practice, which allows for cross-class grouping, also may be followed for other subject areas, depending on the implementation.

The developer encourages each school to have a peer coach (facilitator) to help instructional staff implement the program. Principals are expected to fulfill the scheduling requirements and monitor classroom activities. For multi-school implementations, districts are encouraged to delegate a project coordinator to serve as an accountability officer and administrative problem solver.

Curriculum and Instruction. The curriculum and methods of instruction are the most important aspects of Direct Instruction. Direct Instruction provides highly scripted and interactive lessons geared towards small, homogeneously grouped students. The reading, language arts, and math curricula can be used separately. Direct Instruction also covers science, social science, fact learning (cultural literacy), and handwriting.

Supplies and Materials. Schools must buy the required curriculum materials from the publisher. Teachers use "presentation books," spiral-bound lesson plans that enable highly scripted, rapid-paced instruction. Within these presentation books are instructions for monitoring and assessing student progress, and for providing immediate feedback to students. The model also offers materials designed specifically for older students who have not mastered basic skills.

Scheduling and Grouping. Students are grouped homogeneously for specific subjects. As some students may be weak in one subject and strong in another, the groups may be different for different subjects. Thus, some implementations encourage each major subject to be taught at a specific time to allow for cross-grouping.

Monitoring Student Progress and Performance. A placement test is used for initial assignment of students by performance level. The pace of instruction is set according to the performance level of each group. Since Direct Instruction relies so heavily on grouping students by achievement levels, frequent assessment of student progress is essential. According to the developer, teachers monitor student performance every five to 10 days, using such methods as calculating reading rates and error ratios. These data, as well as weekly grades, are used to regroup students according to level. Schools also continue to use state and locally mandated achievement tests.

Family and Community Involvement. Direct Instruction does not require family or community involvement. However, the developers recommend involving parents, by having parents use a Parent and Child Home Practice Guide to work on their child's skills at home.

SUPPORT THE DEVELOPER PROVIDES SCHOOLS

Professional Development and Technical Assistance. Professional development and technical assistance, consisting of training and in-class coaching, are essential elements of Direct Instruction. The developer recommends one week of training in Direct Instruction methods prior to implementation. During the school year, at least four days per month of coaching, observation, and modeling are recommended. In addition, the developer recommends weekly one-hour inservice sessions during which teachers may learn and practice Direct Instruction techniques.

The quantity, quality, pace, and content of professional development vary widely, depending on the contractor. However, as a general rule, the first year of implementation emphasizes training in strategies for assessing and instructing students, a schoolwide discipline program, and a single academic subject or pair of related subjects (usually reading or reading and language arts, for example). During the second year, teachers might be trained in the remainder of the curriculum, as well as more diagnostic and instructional strategies. The third year's training might focus on mastering the basics of Direct Instruction and introducing techniques for "hard-to-teach students." According to the developer, local teachers should be trained to coach and supervise so that after a period of three to five years, schools can be self-sufficient.

Implementation Requirements and Schools' Experiences. Although not required, the developer recommends that teachers vote to adopt Direct Instruction and discontinue any programs that conflict with it. Implementation then follows the path described under Professional Development and Technical Assistance. Two studies provide details on implementation of Direct Instruction in a single sample of inner-city elementary schools at different points in time. In these case studies of implementation, the school began to implement Direct Instruction over the summer and had less than two months to prepare. Thus, teachers, upon arriving for the new school year, had the challenge of implementing an approach with which they were not familiar, based on only two days of training.

According to the research, initial resistance to Direct Instruction can be high. Teachers may dislike the highly structured approach of Direct Instruction and unannounced visits and "correction" given by Direct Instruction staff. However, according to interviews with teachers after one and two years of implementation, teachers gradually developed a more positive attitude toward the program, with many citing the positive results that they had seen in students (e.g., improved test scores, better attitudes). Although some teachers continued to espouse ideological differences with the program's highly-scripted philosophy, most had accepted the program. Studies suggest that the project manager (and/or implementation provider) has a large influence on the success of the approach.

COSTS

The first-year cost of adopting Direct Instruction is $244,000. This cost covers professional development, including staff release time, materials, and additional staff. However, schools can reduce this cost to $194,000 by reassigning a current staff member to serve as the facilitator. An average school of 500 students and 20 to 25 teachers will incur costs for Direct Instruction for training and technical assistance, personnel, and materials. The developer estimates that technical assistance will cost $65,000 a year for three to five years. This includes direct costs for faculty training at the start of and during the school year. It does not include the cost of faculty time devoted to training. Release time is needed for instructional staff who will eventually serve as coaches and trainers. This amounts to five days of pre-implementation at the start of the school year for the entire faculty, plus at least one hour per week (or approximately 4.5 days per year) for each teacher. In addition, the developer requires schools to regularly submit data on student progress, which might require additional staff time. In addition, instructional materials, available from Science Research Associates, cost about $125 per student, or $62,500 for a school of 500 students.

Back to Approaches