An Exploration of Direct Instruction: Why Teaching Matters

Abstract

Why Teaching Matters is a question at the heart of all instruction. While the answer seems obvious, actual teacher-led teaching, or direct instruction, has taken backstage in the last decade to a more constructivist approach where student-centered; project-based learning, and inquiry inform students learning. This paper argues that alongside this student-centered approach, there is a need, depending on the context, for a teacher-led, direct instruction approach. Studies show that direct instruction is indeed a robust pedagogy leading to student attainment in both short-term retention and long-term proficiency. The author invites readers to consider direct instruction as a potent teaching and learning model, replacing the dichotomy of teacher-centered versus student-centered with a collaboration between the two. This paper presents findings from a study by the researcher illustrating teachers and learners’ perspectives on Direct Instruction. Findings indicate a preference from the learners for this approach and a flexibility among teachers to adopt the methodology most appropriate for their context. This paper contributes to knowledge by filling a gap in the field on the perspectives of learners and teachers on Direct Instruction and by bringing to the forefront an alternative discussion around teaching pedagogy.

1 Introduction

1.1 Understanding Direct and Indirect Instruction

To begin this paper, it is first important to explore the history and establish key definitions around what direct and indirect Instruction are. These terms are interchangeable with teacher-centered (direct instruction) and student-centered approach towards education (indirect instruction). Direct Instruction refers to “any academic instruction that is led by the teacher” (Rosenshine, [46], p. 1). Indirect instruction refers to a student-led and student-centered learning process [20].

Prior to the 1960s and 1970s, the traditional teacher may have used the infamous ‘chalk and talk’ approach where learners are typically passive and the teacher is seen as the font of all knowledge [7]. The move toward indirect instruction, or a more student-centered classroom, was born from several influences outlined below.

1.1.1 New Understandings Around Learning Theory

Primarily, John Dewey (American Philosopher, 1859–1952) challenged traditional notions of the role of the teacher and learner and brought to light ideas of students as participatory active learners, where the curriculum should reflect students’ real-life needs. Dewey’s philosophy is encapsulated in this quote: “the child becomes the sun about which the appliances of education revolve; he is the center about which they are organized” [9, p. 51]. Through Dewey’s lens, a child-centered education involves viewing the student as a whole person, with cultural and familial considerations, whose basic needs such as the physiological need to be met for them to succeed academically [22]. Dewey’s philosophies have withstood the test of time and have left an indelible imprint on the fabric of educational theory [55]. Dewey’s approach falls under constructivist theory which has had much sway in shaping educational philosophy. In its simplified definition, constructivism argues that learning happens as students construct meaning and that they are the architects of their own learning [10].

A further branch of constructivism is social constructivism famously associated with Vygotsky (Soviet Psychologist, 1896–1934), who emphasizes the need for social interaction to facilitate learning [33]. Vygotsky’s theories transfer to today’s classrooms in several activities, namely the widespread use of group work, project-based learning, and the need to scaffold or stage learning working within the ‘zone of proximal development’ [30].

1.1.2 Learning Style Theory

Alongside our deepening pedagogical understanding of educational philosophy and reform, another shift took place that did much to bolster the argument for indirect instruction: that of learning styles theory. While the jury is still out on the credibility of learning style theory; in its heyday, it was embraced in academic circles and an educational game changer in propelling student-centered learning into the spotlight. The reason for this is that the main tenet of learning style theory is that we all learn differently, therefore, if we accept that as true, then the next logical conclusion is that we must teach differently to try to accommodate these different needs. Teachers around the globe soon began to ask the question: How can our teaching styles match students’ learning styles? What ensued was the questionable practice of adapting teaching styles to suit student learning preferences, citing increased motivation and attainment as a result [51]. It was widely believed, and still for some, that learning style theory: “can impact a student’s ability to learn and comprehend. Therefore, knowledge of different learning styles is essential for teachers” [29, p. 1].

From the learning styles, movement classroom practice began to endorse more student-centered classroom techniques. For example, showing films to support visual learners, incorporating reflection activities for reflective thinkers, and group work for those learners who learn through interpersonal relationships [54]. Current literature suggests that the foundations of learning style theory are thin and asks us to question their adoption in the classroom [15]. The implications for this paper are that theories instrumental in advancing Indirect student-centered learning are not always on firm footing, thus inviting a re-examination of Direct Instruction.

1.1.3 Sage on the Stage Versus Guide on the Side

Another key influence that exemplifies this dichotomy between direct and indirect instruction is most fittingly illustrated by King [24] in her metaphors of ‘Sage on the Stage’ versus ‘Guide on the Side’. In this analogy, King equates the stage on the stage to a teacher who imparts knowledge to her learners through a traditional model of transmitting the information. She reiterates that “such a view is outdated and will not be effective for the twenty-first century” [p. 30]. The guide on the side model is where learning is contracted as learners assimilate and make sense of latest information. This leans on information processing theory where students reconstruct information in meaningful ways. These terms sage on the stage and guide on the side are much used in education, with educators often aspiring to be the guide on the side [36].

1.2 Evidence to Support Indirect Instruction

This view that indirect instruction is the gold standard in teaching is further buttressed by substantial empirical evidence. School-based research presents numerous studies in defense of indirect instruction. A 2014 study by Friedlaender et al. [14] argues the success of student-centered learning across high schools in California when compared to traditional teaching. A similar study in New England argues that indirect instruction leads to higher engagement and deeper learning [43]. Researchers in Higher Education sing from the same song sheet in their unanimous praise of Indirect Instruction, for example in Europe:

It [Indirect Instruction] has become the key principle underlying the intended reforms enhancing the quality of teaching and learning in European HE [26, p. 69].

This thread is woven throughout global research, with academics purporting the efficacy of a student-centered classroom alongside positive student feedback [53].

To compare the two approaches of direct and indirect instruction, the core attributes of each pedagogy are summarized by Sawant and Rizvi [48] as follows:

Teacher-Centered/Direct Instruction

• Students are passive recipients of knowledge

• Knowledge is acquired without contextual awareness

• Accuracy is key

• Teacher’s role is to give information

• Competitive

• Assessment measures learning

• Single discipline

Student-Centered/Indirect Instruction

• Students construct knowledge by synthesizing information

• Inquiry, critical thinking, and problem-solving

• Teacher’s role is to guide and facilitate

• Students are active learners

• Interdisciplinary

• Mistakes are part of learning

• Assessment to guide learning

Compare phrases from the table above such as ‘students are passive recipients’ to describe direct instruction to ‘students construct knowledge’ to describe indirect instruction, and the narrative beginning to emerge here is one where teacher-centered is often viewed as inferior in some ways. Clearly, student-centered is the preferred approach, the perceived academically sound approach, and simply ‘the best way’ [21]. It is now time to turn our attention to the ‘sage on the stage’, to ascertain whether this bad press is warranted or not.

1.3 Evidence to Support Direct Instruction

In 2015, the BBC launched an ‘edutainment’ series ‘Chinese School: Are Our Kids Tough Enough?’ The purpose was to gauge the impact of Chinese teachers on the attainment of British students. These Chinese teachers adopted a traditional teacher- led approach and results showed students scored 10% higher over a 4-week period when compared to classes without Chinese teachers [56]. While lacking academic rigor, this increase in attainment speaks volumes in support of Direct Instruction.

In a study of literature over the last 50 years examining the effectiveness of direct instruction, Stockard et al. [52] analyze 328 studies to determine conclusive findings. Their examination crosses over subject-specific and general attainment and the affective domain and perceptions of learning. Results across the board were consistently positive demonstrating the value of this approach. They close by saying:

Certainly, our nation’s children deserve both effective and efficient instruction. As one of the anonymous reviewers of our article put it, “Researchers and practitioners cannot afford to ignore the effectiveness research on DI” [p. 503].

Earlier research by Lockery and Maggs [31] reports the overwhelming success of direct instruction with over a decade of research to support their findings. The researchers examined the use of direct instruction across a range of subjects from mathematics to language and across a range of subjects from special needs to mainstream to gifted.

These results are not surprising when you consider that the pedagogical foundations of direct instruction are good classroom practice based on carefully sequencing tasks, guided instruction, proficiency checks, and modeling; peppered with student activities [32]. In this model, responsibility is transferred to the learners strategically, but only after the material is presented. Guided instruction is an exemplary practice that is not only key to understanding the power of direct instruction, but which also elevates it from its traditional view where students are perceived as being ‘told’. The diminishing role of the teacher in student-centered instruction has led to hesitancy among educators to take center stage again as and when needed. However, guided instruction provides a bridge between the two. Students are still afforded considerable time to practice and experiment with new concepts, however, first, they are taught, they are presented with information, where the teacher personally invests in carrying these concepts to the learners in ways as varied as storytelling, lectures, or question and answer sessions [6]. Adding to our knowledge base on guided instruction is the backing of neuroscience and the development of cognitive support pedagogy which cites sequencing, chunking, mass practice, and modeling as key classroom practices for optimal learning [35]. These strategies serve to address the limitations of working memory, therefore, supporting the brain to process and retain learning [46]. It is also worth noting here that while there is much empirical evidence to support guided instruction in the classroom, there is little to support minimally guided instruction, and of that much to suggest that it only serves to widen the achievement gap between low and high achieving students [27].

Despite these glowing testimonials, direct instruction continues to invoke the ire of those in support of indirect instruction [25]. This is more of a philosophical divide with a discrepancy between evidence-based practice and the philosophical adoption of inquiry-based learning. Indeed, the diatribe against direct instruction can at times be unsatisfyingly punitive. Described as a ‘harsh, inflexible, and depersonalizing approach’ (Jalongo, 1999, as cited in Hempenstall [17] p. 13). Further, “teachers are driven to meet accountability standards and often sacrifice the needs of the students” [5, p. 50]. Finally, Kassem [23] claims a Direct Instruction approach may “prevent students’ educational growth because …teachers do most of the work” (p. 134). There appears in the literature a naïve construct of what Direct Instruction/teacher-centered translates to in the classroom, often described as authorization and controlling, as Emaliana [11] describes it:

all questions which are raised by students, if any, are answered directly by teachers without students’ involvement. In designing the class activities, teachers control every single learning experience (p. 60).

These are not isolated critiques of Direct Instruction, and despite evidence pointing to its efficacy: “its popularity and subsequent implementation have not enjoyed such support” [32, p. 143].

Like all other teaching modes, direct instruction, when done well, is engaging, memorable, effective, and provides many opportunities for practice. To dismiss it in favor of indirect instruction is a loss to educational practice; the message here is to consider how these two approaches can work alongside each other.

As the interview findings in this study demonstrate, teachers who choose, at times, to adopt a teacher-led classroom approach, do so with consideration of the learners and imagination in the planning.

1.4 Summary

The literature provides evidence in support of both direct and indirect instruction as valuable tools in a teacher’s repertoire. Both approaches have a strong foothold in educational theory, and both have empirical evidence to support their efficacy. Despite this, direct instruction is often seen as the lesser of the two, as it is the least adopted and has received unwarranted criticism. To dig deeper into this phenomenon, the researcher conducted her own study outlined in the following section.

2 Research Study

This research study is an exploration, triggered by reading about the impact and renaissance of Direct Instruction. The author’s interest was piqued by this reading and a natural curiosity arose about its place and effectiveness in the author’s context. As she began to experiment with a more teacher-led classroom approach, she found informal student feedback to be positive, thus initiating the need for a more formal study. This is a small-scale, mixed methods study with participants enlisted from the author’s place of work, the research aimed to answer two questions. Data was collected through interviews with faculty members and a student survey.

• 1. How do students perceive the efficacy of Direct and Indirect Instruction?

• 2. What are faculty pedagogical beliefs toward Direct and Indirect Instruction?

3 Findings

3.1 Faculty Interviews

While the literature points to evidence in support of direct instruction, the literature also indicates a reluctance on the part of teachers to adopt this approach [17] (Vitale and Kaniuka, 2009). This reluctance is born from several factors, citing a key argument that direct instruction impedes higher order thinking based on rote learning and memorizing facts [12]. While this argument has been debunked, supported by evidence from neuroscience (Willingham, 2009) this negative perception still seems to linger. One purpose of the interviews was to establish faculty perceptions of direct and indirect instruction to see if these concurred with the literature, or not.

Key Themes Three themes emerged as significant that address the question: What are faculty pedagogical beliefs toward Direct and Indirect Instruction?

• Impartiality

• Flexibility

• Teacher Care

These themes will be examined in the discussion section.

3.2 Student Survey’s Findings

Alongside the interviews, further inquiry was undertaken by surveying students to gauge their learning preferences; be it direct or indirect instruction. Convenience sampling was employed as the students were in the researcher’s class at the time of the research. With any dual role, there is always the potential for conflict of interest [39], however, the researcher’s primary role here was one of the classroom teachers. To address ethical concerns, there was a clear distinction between the teaching and the research; simply put, class time was for teaching, and time out of class was allocated for research. Research participation was completed voluntarily, and students were assured there was no grade allocation, thus minimizing conflict of interest. Informed consent was applied, as those who volunteered to be part of the research were told clearly, both verbally and in writing, what was expected of them, confidentiality was assured, and the right to withdraw at any stage was given. 24 students volunteered out of a class of 40. All students were Emirati females, ranging from Year 1 to Year 4 in their degree programs in an English medium tertiary institution.

The survey comprised of fourteen questions, eight closed quantitative, and four open-ended qualitative. The survey was conducted online using Microsoft forms. Questions were validated and informed by theory, adapted from the work of Murphy et al., Teacher-Centered versus Student-Centered Teaching [37]. Survey questions aimed to address the question: How do students perceive the efficacy of Direct and Indirect Instruction? Four open-ended questions were included in the survey to elicit the students’ deeper perspectives on Direct and Indirect instruction.

The literature is not as clear-cut with student perceptions of direct learning as those of teaching faculty, with studies providing evidence for the efficacy of both. Context is a significant consideration here, with ability, cultural considerations, and motivation; to name a few, all playing a part in students’ preferred learning styles.

3.3 Quantitative Questions

Questions Two and Three directly distinguish student preferences between learning best independently and learning best through teacher explanation (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1

Comparison direct and indirect instruction

Twenty-two out of twenty-three responses selected five stars for question two indicating a strong agreement to learning best through teacher explanation. In contrast, two out of twenty-three responses selected five stars for question three, with the majority placed at two or three stars. Responses to question six, illustrated in Fig. 2, further validate the responses to questions two and three, with seventeen out of twenty-three participants ‘strongly agreeing’ that the teacher talking and explaining the lesson is a preferred teaching and learning style.

Fig. 2

Teacher talking as a preferred teaching method

To confirm the answers above and to avoid any bias toward direct instruction, questions four and five gave alternate options as learning preferences (Figs. 3 and 4). Note, the question stems remain consistent throughout the instrument, as both good practice and to avoid any bias.

Fig. 3

Group project work as a preferred teaching method

Fig. 4

Independent work as a preferred teaching method

Questions four and five determine student perceptions toward both group work and independent work illustrated in figures three and four. Fifty-four percent of students indicate that group work is a teaching method they prefer with strong agreement or agreement. Seventy-three percent of students indicate that flipped/independent work is a teaching method they prefer with strong agreement or agreement. Figure five below visually illustrates students’ comparative, preferred learning styles (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5

Students preferred learning styles

4 Discussion

The following section highlights and explores salient points from the findings which address the research questions and contribute knowledge to the field.

4.1 Faculty Interviews

From the faculty interviews, the first point of discussion is that it was apparent from the linguistic and non-linguistic clues that there was no inherent bias or strong preference for either Direct or Indirect Instruction. Responses were insightful, and considered, without any negative associations affixed to Direct Instruction. A general theme of openness to its use in the classroom when contextually appropriate permeated the interviews. This is interesting and diverges from the literature which indicates a more negative perception of direct instruction among teachers [49]. One explanation to account for this is that these teachers are all highly educated, well-read, and regularly engaged in high-quality professional development. Consequently, classroom practice is impacted as this knowledge and skill development go hand in hand with openness, and a desire to learn and explore [16]. This is the foundation of effective education as it addresses student learning:

For teachers and school and district leaders to be as effective as possible, they continually expand their knowledge and skills to implement the best educational practices [34, p. 3].

Secondly, flexibility was a key characteristic that stood out in these teachers as they spoke of switching between direct and indirect Instruction regularly; as and when needed. One variable to be considered here that may account for this flexibility is the impact of COVID-19 on teaching which may lead to a more teacher-led/direct instruction approach [40]. Additionally, these teachers are all experienced, averaging 20-plus years in each profession, and as Berliner [4] reasons, experienced teachers often demonstrate more flexibility than those new to the profession.

Participant One: It depends on the type of students I am working with. My approach [now] is a lot more teacher-centered because the students, um, you know, are very needy. They need a lot of help. So, there are students who have just finished high school and, um, they are new, it's the first semester at college. They do not have good study skills. They do not understand the micro steps required to keep up with a course. If I were working with more advanced-level students who were self-motivated and responsible and had good study skills, I would not need to do so much, helping, reminding, and supporting.

Participant Two: Uh, I do both. And, uh, or, I mean, I'd prefer to get beyond reductions and binaries and see things in terms of, uh, continuums and contextual. I would say that I am somewhere in the middle, I do believe in the need for explicit instruction. That is a part of human learning, not just something associated with the classroom, but for any kind of learning. So, I mean, somebody might characterize me as teacher-centered points in the lesson when it is necessary to give students the information; most important is whether it is comprehensible to learners? Is it meaningful to I mean, an effective story could keep people spellbound for an extended period and would, you know, be transformational in terms of learning.

Participant Three: Prior to COVID, a lot more student-centered, a lot more letting them do a lot more talking, but I had noticed that during the COVID time, we’ve, we tended to, uh, because of the limited, uh, access and the limited sort of ability for the students to do things, even though we use Nearpod and dilute and all sorts of other things. I would say I've, I have changed my sort of approach, not voluntarily, but just pure necessity too, to make sure that the students get enough content, and they understand what is going on. So, I have tended to do a little bit more, uh, teacher-led.

Participant Four: It depends on the individual and their level of understanding. Do they need to go back and look at the material again? Because you assume you cannot assume that we are all on the same page, even if they have done the flipped work, because their, their perception, their mindset, we know we are all different for me, it is both. For me, it must be both. And I like to have a mixture.

A third key finding is that participants demonstrated a philosophy of teacher care, of putting the needs of the student first, this notion of feeling cared for by the teacher, is what Noddings says is key to academic success and is conveyed “by providing carefully for the steady growth of the children in their [teachers] charge” [, p. 676]. What the comments above illustrate is a dedication and commitment to the ‘steady growth’ of the students under the guidance of these teachers. This is particularly apparent in participant three who acknowledges that his preference is for a student-led classroom as it is the way he was taught and his general modus operandi, however, he recognizes that there is a place in the classroom for more Direct Instruction, or as he refers to it ‘lecturing.’38

As a young child, I grew up in the times when I was at school, a teacher-led approach was out the window. It was all student-led. It was all, you know, um, collaborative activities where we were allowed to do to be more, have more control over our learning and that kind of stuff. So, from an exceedingly early age, I have been in that kind of mode. I think you do need to lecture every now and then, there, there is a place for lecturing.

4.2 Summary: Faculty Interviews

To summarize, the interviews provide evidence to show that teachers in the author’s institution carry no reluctance toward direct instruction and all transfer it to their classroom practice to different extents. This is contrary to literature and shows both professionalism and the wisdom that comes through decades of experience. Teachers also convey an enormous sense of care toward their students, making consistent concerted efforts to provide them with classroom experiences that are meaningful to them and to ensure learning happens. Finally, a recurring theme is flexibility, which may come from experience and that these teachers are all expatriates, teaching outside their home country. The expatriate experience has often been noted as being one to facilitate more creativity and flexibility when compared to the non-expatriate working experience [13].

4.3 Student Surveys

The survey begins by asking students how they believe they learn best. The answers to questions three and six corroborate the findings from question two and provide further evidence to suggest these students respond well to teacher explanations. One reason for this may be that teacher-centered is a style these students are accustomed to, coming mostly from government high schools where free and independent thought often takes the second stage to rote learning and memorization [41].

The findings from questions four and five reveal two things. Firstly, they confirm the findings from questions two, three, and six above, that the teacher explaining, and ‘teaching’ is a preferred learning style. Secondly, they also validate that while ‘teacher explanation’ is preferred, there is also substantial support for group work and independent work, i.e., student-centered Indirect Instruction approach. The lean toward direct instruction is albeit greater, however, there is evidence to suggest these students learn well from both approaches and this balance needs to be considered.

In terms of preferred learning styles, it is interesting to note here that ‘group project work’, which we can infer translates to Indirect Instruction, scores the lowest, and ‘teacher explanation’ scores the highest. This is interesting on several levels and can be explained through a cultural lens. Relevant to this discussion is Hofstede’s cultural dimension theory [18] of which the United Arab Emirates scores highly at 90 in Power Distance. Hofstede’s application of Power Distance describes the “extent to which a society accepts the fact that power in institutions and organizations is distributed unequally” (p. 45).

What this suggests is that power, from those in authority, such as teachers, is seen in the United Arab Emirates as hierarchical. A student-centered approach, however, views teacher authority as more democratic and equal and may not resonate with deep-seated cultural norms. Interestingly, a student's response as to why she preferred the teacher explanation for learning was: the teacher knows best.

However, contrary to this, one might expect group work to be ranked highly, as seen in Hofsteden’s cultural trajectory, individualism scores low at 25 as the United Arab Emirates is designated to be a more collectivist culture (ibid). This collectivism is evidenced frequently in family and societal norms but does not transfer as strongly to the researcher’s classroom dynamic. One logical explanation for this may be that this research was conducted during the pandemic when classes were online and group work was notoriously difficult [8]. It is also important to keep in mind that these findings do not indicate a general aversion to group work, they merely indicate that in order of preference, group work does not score as highly as, for example, teacher-led or working with a partner.

The survey closes with four open-ended questions to elicit participants’ perspectives. Question 13 asks about group work: Does working together in your group help you learn? Why or why not? Results corroborate the findings illustrated above. Out of 23 responses, five participants indicated they did not like group project work, and four students were neutral. Those who did not like the group explained it was because students did not share the work equally. Fourteen out of twenty participants report group work as effective citing reasons such as being able to help each other. To explain these findings, it may be useful to refer to the role of guided instruction. These findings suggest that while group work may be perceived as satisfactory practice, the place of teacher lead is still seen as highly valuable in terms of introducing and presenting material, this concurs with the work of Bentham [2].

Questions ten and eleven dig deeper to elicit participants’ responses around the role of the teacher and corroborate the findings from questions 2, 3, and 6 above by asking:

Q. 10: Does the teacher explaining the lesson to you help you learn? Why or why not?

Q. 11: What do teachers do to help you understand? What do teachers do that makes it difficult for you to understand? What is it about your best teacher explanations that help you learn?

All 23 participants responded consistently positively to question ten: Does the teacher explaining the lesson to you help you learn? Why or why not? This indicates that the teacher explaining the lesson was viewed as helpful to learning. The reasons given include:

• better than depending on myself

• difficult learning on my own

• it helps me understand

When asked to explain what it is that teachers do in the classroom to support learning, the keyword of ‘explanation’ emerges:

• They explain slowly and repeat in a gentle voice.

• they explain using examples and stories and talk nice; in an interesting way

• They listen to me, and they explain in a straightforward way in simple words and make review the next class

A study by Andergassen [1] supports these participants’ views in arguing that clear teacher instruction and repetition are key to learning. In fact, the spiral curriculum’s basis stems from repetition, to facilitate deepening learning from each cycle of repetition [50].

4.4 Summary: Surveys

The responses to the survey questions indicate that these learners overall prefer a more teacher-led, direct instruction classroom approach. These findings are robust as triangulation was used to compare results across questions. This may be due to cultural factors as noted above through the work of Hofstede [19] and through societal factors when considering previous learning experiences from more teacher-led style government schools [3]. However, it does not mean that these participants do not also respond well to student-centered, at times, there is certainly no aversion to this approach. However, this survey analyzed preferences which clearly reveal these students learn more from a more teacher-led approach. Another explanation from these results may be found in the timing of this study which was conducted during the pandemic when all classes were online, and therefore, the need for teacher support was greater [42].

4.5 Recommendations

The results of this research study reveal positive perceptions from both faculty and students around direct instruction. To validate this study's findings, a direct instruction model is recommended in the classroom with a pre- and post-intervention and control group research design to measure the impact of direct instruction more accurately. Direct instruction would be guided by theory following the recommended stages below [45]:

• Introduction—setting the scene

• Presenting new material

• Teach

• Guided practice

• Feedback

• Independent practice

To address the limitations mentioned below, it is recommended a further study incorporates more participants and is conducted across institutions to elicit a range of responses.

4.6 Limitations

A: Sample size. The author acknowledges that one limitation of this study, is the number of interviews at four, this may be deemed less than needed for saturation [44]. However, the literature is divided on this, with no consensus on firm numbers, and a recognition that small sample sizes are the norm in qualitative research as the aim is for depth rather than breadth [47]. In a busy institute, relying on faculty goodwill to donate their time, this is the response rate the author received; however, as responses are consistent, there are some clear generalizations to be made here.

B: Timing. This study was conducted during the pandemic when all classes were online. Teaching and learning experiences were different than ‘the norm’ and for some, more challenging with added stresses. This may factor into the credibility of the responses. This timeliness may also be considered a strength, however, as the reality of teaching online and lockdowns may become the new normal [28].

C: This research study was conducted at one Higher Educational institution which may not be representative of HE in the UAE.

5 Conclusion

This paper has sought to bring to the forefront of academic discussion the merits of direct instruction; an oft-seen lesser cousin to indirect instruction. It has illuminated findings from the literature to show both empirical evidence in support of this approach, and a hesitancy among academics to afford it the gravitas or classroom attention it deserves. Perhaps shaped by enduring perceptions of a didactic model of tired teachers delivering content without consideration of their learners. A new vision of direct instruction has now emerged with guided instruction evidenced as a proficiency practice and which works in tandem with indirect instruction to provide an optimal learning experience.

This paper’s title: An Exploration of Direct Instructions: Why Teaching Matters invites academics, teacher practitioners, and researchers to revisit the role that direct instruction plays in education. Importantly, this approach is not viewed in the light of being a replacement for or substitute for indirect instructions, which have proven effectiveness. The teaching methodology is not a winner takes all competition, these approaches are not opposites, and this idea that in learning:

One position must be correct and prevail, while the other must be flawed and thus vanquished (Hannafin and Land, 2000, p. 22) is unreasonable, pedagogically unsound, limiting, and importantly it robs us of the tools at our disposal. Our job as educators is to make sense of these approaches, learn how to successfully transfer their ideals into classroom practice, and to determine in which context they are most beneficial. This is how we wield our authority and direct our knowledge, because; in simple terms: teaching matters.