Direct Instruction
 | The neutrality of this article is disputed. |
Direct Instruction (DI) is an instructional design and teaching methodology originally developed by Siegfriend Engelmann and the late Wesley C. Becker of the University of Oregon. Although they came from different backgrounds--Engelmann was a preschool teacher while Becker was a trained researcher from the University of Illinois--both sought to identify teaching methods that would accelerate the performance of historically disadvantaged elementary school students.
The DISTAR (Direct Instruction System for Teaching Arithmetic and Reading) program gained prominence during Project Follow Through (1967-1995), the largest federally-funded experiment in public education.
Features of DI include:
- Explicit, systematic instruction based on scripted lesson plans.
- Ability grouping. Students are grouped and re-grouped based on their rate of progress through the program.
- Emphasis on pace and efficiency of instruction. DI programs are meant to accelerate the performance of at-risk students; therefore, lessons are designed to bring students to mastery as quickly as possible.
- Frequent assessment. Curriculum-based assessments help place students in ability groups and identify students who require additional intervention.
- Embedded professional development/coaching. DI programs may be implemented as stand-alone interventions or as part of a schoolwide reform effort. In both instances, the program developers recommend careful monitoring and coaching of the program in order to ensure a high fidelity of implementation.
Perspectives on Direct Instruction
One's perspective of DI often depends on what question they are asking: "Does DI conform to my personal philosophy of public education?" or "Is DI effective?" People responding "no" to the former usually see DI as a betrayal of the humanistic, egalitarian foundations of public education, or as a "canned" or "teacher proof" curriculum deliverable via unskilled teachers. More radical critics argue that the entire history of public education in the United States has been a political one, designed primarily to domesticate lower socio-economic groups, and that DI is in keeping with this broader, historical purpose.
Debates about the efficacy of DI have raged since before the final results of Project Follow Through were published; however, the empirical research base is quite settled on this question. A meta-analysis published by Adams & Engelmann (1996) finds a "mean effect size average per study...(as) more than .75, which confirms that the overall effect is substantial."
However, three-year study of methods of teaching reading showed that highly scripted, teacher-directed methods of teaching reading were not as effective as traditional methods that allowed a more flexible approach. The study, headed by Randall Ryder, professor of curriculum and instruction in the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee's School of Education, also found that teachers felt the most highly scripted method, known as Direct Instruction (DI), should be used in limited situations, not as the primary method of teaching students to read. Urban teachers in particular expressed great concern over the DI's lack of sensitivity to issues of poverty, culture and race.
The president of the National Science Teacher's Association (NSTA), Anne Tweed, also questions whether direct instruction is the most effective science teaching strategy. In the Dec 15, 2004 NSTA Reports she concludes that a variety of teaching strategies, including those that are inquiry-based (see inquiry-based instruction) as well as direct instruction techniques are what is best for students.