Skip to main content

Direct instruction revisited: A key model for instructional technology

Abstract

Rooted in behavioral theory, particularly the radical or selectivist behaviorism of B.F. Skinner (1953, 1954, 1966, 1968, 1974), the direct instruction (DI) approach to teaching is now well into its third decade of influencing curriculum, instruction, and research. It is also in its third decade of controversy. Our purpose is to present the DI model with the notion that the designer can and should use the model effectively based on appropriate assessment of the learners, content, context, and task at hand. To accomplish our goal, we begin with a general discussion of the basic DI framework, followed by a summary of the major DI models that have been used in live instructional contexts. We then shift to a review of how DI has been used in technology-based learning environments. Finally, we conclude with a look into the future of DI.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Adams, G.L., & Engelmann, S. (1996).Research on Direct Instruction: 25 Years beyond DISTAR, Seattle: Education Achievement Systems.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Anderson, L. M., Evertson, C. M., & Brophy, J. E. (1979). An experimental study of effective teaching in first grade reading groups.The Elementary School Journal, 79, 527–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ausubel, D. P. (1968).Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bereiter, C., & Engelmann, S. (1966).Teaching disadvantaged children in the preschool. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bock, G., Stebbins, L., & Proper, E. (1977).Education as experimentation: A planned variation model (Volume IV-A & B). Effects of Follow Through models. Washington, D.C.: ABT Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Brophy, J.E., & Good, T. L. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.),Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.) (pp. 328–375). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cashwell, T. H., Skinner, C. H., & Smith, E. S. (2001). Increasing second-grade students' reports of peers' prosocial behaviors via direct instruction, group reinforcement, and progress feedback: A replication and extension.Education and Treatment of Children 24 (2), 161–175.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cazden, C. B. (1992).Whole language plus: Essays on literacy in the United States & New Zeland. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1996). Looking at technology in context: A framework for understanding technology and education research. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.),Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 807–840). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Corno, L., & Snow, R. E. (1986). Adapting teaching to individual differences among learners. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.),Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.) (pp. 605–629). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Delquadri, J., & Greenwood, C. (1981). The importance of “opportunity to respond” in the education of the black minority students. Paper presented at The Council for Exceptional Children Conference on The Exceptional Black Child, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Documentation Reproduction Service No. ED204893)

  12. Duffrin, E. (1996). Direct instruction making waves. Catalyst 8 (1), 1–11. Available: http://www.catalyst-chicago.org/09-96/096main.htm Accessed on July 3, 2002

    Google Scholar 

  13. Edmondson, J., & Shannon, P. (2002). The will of the people.The Reading Teacher, 55, (5), 452–454.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Eggen, P. D., & Kauchak, D. P. (2001).Strategies for teachers: Teaching content and thinking skills. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Engelmann, S. (1980).Direct instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Engelmann, S., & Bruner, E. C. (1969).DISTAR reading I (Teacher's presentation book, student material, and teacher's guide). Chicago: Science Research Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Engelmann, S., & Carnine, D. (1969).DISTAR arithmetic I (Teacher's presentation book student material, and teacher's guide). Chicago: Science Research Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Engelmann, S., & Osborn, J. (1969).DISTAR language I (Teacher's presentation book, student material, and teacher's guide). Chicago: Science Research Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Engelmann, S., & Osborn, J. (1972).DISTAR language program. Chicago: Science Research Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Fisher, C. W., Berliner, D. C., Filby, N. N., Marliave, R., Ghen, L. S., & Dishaw, M. M. (1980). Teaching behaviors, academic learning time, and student achievement. In C. Denham & A. Lieberman (Eds.),Time to learn. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Fitzgerald, G. E., & Semrau, L. P. (1998).Hypermedia and direct instruction: Do the paradigms fit? A demonstration of a learner-centered hypermedia program in classroom observation skills. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (San Diego, CA, April 13–17, 1998). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 419527).

  22. Frieberg, H.J., & Driscoll, A. (2000).Universal teaching strategies (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Gagné, R. M. (1977).The conditions of learning (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Gagné, R. M. (1985).The conditions of learning (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Gersten, R., Baker, S., Pugach, M., Scanlon, D., & Chard, D. (2001). Contemporary research on special education teaching. In: V. Richardson (Ed.),Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed.) (pp. 695–722). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Good, T. L., & Grouws, D. A. (1979). The Missouri mathematics effectiveness project.Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 355–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Good, T. L., & Grouws, D. A. (1981). Experimental research in secondary mathematics classrooms: Working with teachers. Final Report Washington, DC: National Institute of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED219261)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Gunter, M. A., Estes, T. H., & Schwab, J. (1999).Instruction: A models approach (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Hunter, M. (1976).Improved instruction. El Segundo, CA: Theory Into Practice.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Hunter, M. (1982)Mastery teaching. El Segundo, CA: Theory Into Practice.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Hofmeister, A. M., Engelmann, S., & Carnine, D. (1986).Mastering fractions, Core concepts in science and mathematics videodisc program. Washington, DC: Systems Impact Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hofmeister, A. M., Engelmann, S., & Carnine, D. (1988). Developing and validating science education videodiscs. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED297943).

  33. Hunter, M. (1982).Mastery teaching. El Segundo, CA: Instructional Dynamics.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Jacobsen, D., Eggen, P., & Kauchak, D. (1993).Methods for teaching: A skills approach (4th ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Jalongo, M.R. (1999). Editorial: On behalf of children.Early Childhood Education Journal 26,(3), 139–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Joyce, B., Weil, M., & Calhoun, E. (2000).Models of teaching (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Madaus, G. F., Airasian, P. W., & Kellaghan, T. (1980).School effectiveness: A review of the evidence. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Nero and Associates. (1975).A description of follow through sponsor implementation processes. Portland, OR: Nero & Associate, Inc. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED128926)

  39. Papert, S. (1980).Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Rentfrow, R. K. (1972).Intensive evaluation of Head Start implementation in the Tucson early education model. Arizona Center for Educational Research and Development, University of Arizona, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED071778).

  41. Rieber, L.P. (1992). Computer-based microworlds: A bridge between constructivism and direct instruction.Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(1), 93–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Rosenshine, B. (1970). The stability of teacher effects upon student achievement.Review of Educational Research, 40, 647–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Rosenshine, B. (1971).Teaching behaviours and student achievement. London: National Foundation for Educational Research.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Rosenshine, B. (1979). Content, time, and direct instruction. In P. Peterson & H. Walberg (Eds.),Research on teaching: Concepts, findings, and implications. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Rosenshine, B. (1985). Direct instruction. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.),International encyclopedia of education, Vol. 3 (pp. 1395–1400). Oxford: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching functions. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.),Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.) (pp. 376–391). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Schunk, D. H. (2000).Learning theories: An educational perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). A time for telling.Cognition and Instruction, 16(4), 475–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Sfondilias, J.S., & Siegel, M.A. (1990). Combining discovery and direct instruction strategies in computer-based teaching of mathematical problem-solving.Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 17(4), 130–134.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Shambaugh, R. N., & Magliaro, S. G. (1997).Mastering the possibilities: A process approach to instructional design. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Skinner, B. F. (1953).Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Skinner, B. F. (1954). The science of learning and the art of teaching.Harvard Educational Review, 24 (86–97), 99–113.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Skinner, B. F. (1966). The phylogeny and ontogeny of behavior.Science, 153, 1205–1213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Skinner, B. F. (1968).The technology of teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Skinner, B. F. (1974).About behaviorism. New York: Vintage Books.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Dolan, L. J., & Wasik, B. A. (1996).Every child, every school: Success for all. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Slocum, T. A., & Marchand-Martella, N. (2001). Introducing the Journal of Direct Instruction.Journal of Direct Instruction, 1 (1) 1–2.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Stallings, J. A., & Stipek, D. (1986). Research on early childhood and elementary school teaching programs. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.),Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.) (pp. 727–753). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Steele, M. M., & Steele, J. W. (1999). DISCOVER: An intelligent tutoring system for teaching students with learning difficulties to solve word problems.The Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 18 (4), 351–359.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Swanson, H. L. (2001). Searching for the best model for instructing students with disabilities.Focus on Exceptional Children 34 (2), 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988).Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in social context. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Tobias, S. (1982). When do instructional methods make a difference?Educational Researcher, 11, 4–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Viadero, D. (2002). Studies cite learning gains in direct instruction schools.Education Week 21 (31), p. 15.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978).Mind and society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Watkins, C. (1997). Project Follow Through: A case study of contingencies influencing instructional practices of the educational establishment. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Magliaro, S.G., Lockee, B.B. & Burton, J.K. Direct instruction revisited: A key model for instructional technology. ETR&D 53, 41–55 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504684

Download citation

Keywords

  • Instructional Technology
  • Direct Instruction
  • Intelligent Tutoring System
  • Independent Practice
  • Solve Word Problem