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

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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)

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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).

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

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

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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).

  • 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

Authors and 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

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504684

Keywords

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