 |
 |
 |
 |
||
 |
 |
 |
|
||
 |
|
||||
 |
 |
|
|||
 |
|
||||
 |
|
||||
| |
|
|
|
||
| |
|
|
|
||
| |
|
||||
| |
|
|
|||
| |
|
||||
| |
|
||||
An Overview of Direct Instruction
by Nancy E. Marchand-Martella and Ronald C. Martella and Kristy Ausdemore
The landmark legislation known as IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, reauthorized in 1997 and amended again in 2004) requires "specially-designed" instruction for students with disabilities to meet their unique needs at no cost to the parents. Specially-designed instruction pertains to adapting content, methodology, or delivery of instruction to meet students' needs and to ensure their access to the general curriculum.
IDEA 2004 includes an increased focus on the use of scientifically-based instructional programs for use with students with disabilities. Scientifically based refers to using instructional procedures that are consistent with what is known scientifically to be effective. Interestingly, special rule for eligibility determination was made noting that students cannot be qualified for special education services if they lack appropriate instruction in reading or mathematics. Further, local educational agencies may use a process that determines if students respond to scientific, research-based interventions as part of the evaluation procedures for determination of a specific learning disability. This focus on research-based intervention ensures that students are qualified for special education services for the "right" reasons, not because they failed to receive adequate instruction.
One scientifically-based instructional program shown to be effective with special education populations is Direct Instruction. Direct Instruction programs are considered scientifically-based but, more importantly, are scientifically validated in that they have been shown to work through rigorous scientific experimentation.
What is Direct Instruction?
Direct Instruction (DI) is an explicit, scientifically-based model of effective instruction developed by Siegfried Engelmann in the 1960's. DI can be distinguished from other models of explicit instruction (such as direct instruction—di) by its focus on curriculum design and effective instructional delivery. Commercial DI curricular programs are typically published by Science Research Associates (SRA) (see www.sra4kids.com for a list of DI programs and www.adihome.org for further details on DI).
Guiding principles of DI include every child can learn if we teach him or her carefully and all teachers can be successful when given effective programs and instructional delivery techniques. Thus, ultimately it is the teacher who is responsible for student learning; students are not blamed for their failure to learn. One often hears the statement, "If the learner hasn't learned, the teacher has not taught" in reference to DI programs and instructional delivery (see Tarver, 1999 for further details).
The goal of DI is to "do more in less time"—accelerating student learning by carefully controlling the features of curriculum design and instructional delivery. There are three main components to the design and delivery of DI programs. These include: (a) program design, (b) organization of instruction, and (c) teacher/student interactions (see Marchand-Martella, Slocum, & Martella, 2004 for further details).
Program design relates to (a) careful content analysis that promotes generalization (teaching the "big ideas" of instruction); (b) clear communication (the "wording of instruction" as well as how instruction is sequenced and examples are introduced); (c) clear instructional formats (specifies what teachers are to do/say and what responses students should produce); (d) sequencing of skills (prerequisites are taught before a strategy is taught; easy skills are taught before more difficult skills; strategies/information likely to be confused are separated; instances consistent with a rule are taught before exceptions); and (e) track organization (activity sequences are targeted that teach skills over multiple lessons to ensure firm responding).
Organization of instruction centers on (a) instructional grouping (using flexible skill grouping as compared to "tracking"); (b) instructional time (increasing academic learning time—the time students are engaged with high success rates); and (c) continuous assessment (providing ongoing in-program assessments to inform instructional practice).
Teacher-student interactions include (a) active student participation (increasing opportunities for students to respond and receive feedback); (b) unison responding (increasing students' responding by having them chorally respond); (c) signals (providing a cue to evoke unison oral responses); (d) pacing (promoting active student engagement with brisk teacher pacing); (e) teaching to mastery (ensuring firm responding over time); (f) error corrections (minimizing student errors by carefully sequencing instruction; when errors do occur, using careful error correction procedures—model, lead, test, retest); and (g) motivation (enhancing motivation through high levels of student success).
DI includes programs in reading (Corrective Reading, Reading Mastery, Reading Mastery Plus, Horizons, Funnix, Teach Your Child to Read in 100 Easy Lessons, and Journeys), mathematics (Connecting Math Concepts, DISTAR Arithmetic, Corrective Mathematics, as well as various videodisc and videotape programs), writing (Basic Writing Skills, Expressive Writing, Reasoning and Writing, and Cursive Writing), spelling (Spelling Through Morphographs, Spelling Mastery, and Surefire Way to Better Spelling), language (Language for Learning, Language for Thinking, and Language for Writing), and content areas including history (Understanding U.S. History), chemistry/earth science/life sciences (videodisc/videotape programs), and science facts (Your World of Facts).
Example Direct Instruction Lesson
A typical DI lesson includes explicit and carefully sequenced instruction provided by the teacher (model) along with frequent opportunities for students to practice their skills (independent practice) over time (review). For example, if the sound /m/ appeared for the first time, the teacher might say, "You're going to learn a new sound. My turn to say it. When I move under the letter, I'll say the sound. I'll keep on saying it as long as I touch under it. Get ready. mmm" (model). "My turn again. Get ready. mmm" (model). "Your turn. When I move under the letter, you say the sound. Keep on saying it as long as I touch under it. Get ready." (independent practice). "Again. Get ready." (independent practice). If an error occurs during instruction, the teacher would model the sound ("My turn. mmm"), use guided practice ("Say it with me. Get ready. mmm"), and have students practice independently ("Your turn. Get ready"). A "starting over" would be conducted based on this error; this might include starting over at the top of a column or row of sounds so that students get increased practice on the /m/ sound. The /m/ would appear throughout the lesson and in subsequent lessons to ensure skill mastery (firm responding) over time (see Reading Mastery Plus Series Guide, 2002, for further details).
Research on Direct Instruction
"More than any other commercially available instructional programs, Direct Instruction is supported by research" (Watkins & Slocum, 2004, p. 57). Several independent reviews of research add to this strong support with particular focus on students with special needs (Carnine, Silbert, Kame'enui, & Tarver, 2004). For example, White (1988) found 25 investigations where Direct Instruction was compared to some other treatment. Not one of the 25 studies showed results favoring the comparison groups; 53% of the outcomes significantly favored DI with an average effect size of .84 (considered a large magnitude of change from pre to post assessments). Further, Adams and Engelmann (1996) analyzed 37 research studies involving DI programs compared to other treatments. When those studies involving special education students (n = 21) were analyzed separately, the mean effect size was .90 (considered a large magnitude of change from pre to post assessments). Finally, Forness, Kavale, Blum, and Lloyd (1997) conducted an analysis of various intervention programs for students receiving special education services and found DI to be one of only seven interventions with strong evidence of success.
Positive effects with at-risk populations have been noted by the American Federation of Teachers (1999), American Institutes of Research (Herman et al., 1999), and the Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk (Borman, Hewes, Overman, & Brown, 2002). DI offers sufficient validation as noted by Fuchs (1996) to warrant its use with special education populations. Thus, it is no surprise that DI is often referred to as a program for special education or at-risk students. This research base aligns with requirements in the newly amended IDEA 2004 on research-based programs. It is important to note, however that Direct Instruction programs are appropriate for talented and gifted students, grade level students, and those with diverse language backgrounds or "learning styles" (Watkins & Slocum, 2004).
Most academic programs require modifications to meet the needs of students who receive special education services (Carnine et al., 2004). These modifications include:
· identifying the most important tasks to teach so that priority topics are covered;
· providing clear directions on how to structure active student responding and teacher feedback;
· determining where students should be placed and how to monitor their progress once they receive instruction;
· adjusting the rate of instruction to ensure adequate practice and mastery; and
· controlling the vocabulary/syntax used to ensure student understanding.
These modifications take teacher time and energy to complete; essentially, teachers have to become curriculum designers—changing programs to meet the unique needs of students who struggle in school. In contrast, DI programs are uniquely designed to promote success for these students the first time—they do not require teacher modification to achieve student success. By their very nature, DI programs meet the needs of students who struggle academically.Summary
The goal of special education is to educate students so they can reach their full potential. In order to achieve this goal, effective instructional programs must be used. Such programs should be at least scientifically based (i.e., consistent with what is known scientifically to be effective in teaching reading). DI programs go beyond this scientifically-based requirement. DI programs are scientifically validated by over 30 years of research. Therefore, programs such as DI should be used with students who have special needs.
References
Adams, G. L., & Engelmann, S. (1996). Research on Direct Instruction: 25 years beyond DISTAR. Seattle, WA: Educational Achievement Systems.
American Federation of Teachers. (1999). Five promising remedial reading intervention programs. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved July 2004 from http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/downloads/teachers/remedial.pdf
Borman, G. D., Hewes, G. M., Overman, L. T., & Brown, S. (2002). Comprehensive school reform and student achievement: A meta-analysis (Report No. 59). Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk, Johns Hopkins University. Retrieved July 2004 from http://www.csos.jhu.edu
Carnine, D., Silbert, J., Kame'enui, E., & Tarver, S. (2004). Direct instruction reading (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Forness, S. R., Kavale, K. A., Blum, I. M., & Lloyd, J. W. (1997). Mega-analysis of meta-analysis: What works in special education. Teaching Exceptional Children, 19(6), 4-9.
Marchand-Martella, N. E., Slocum, T. A., & Martella, R. C. (Eds.). (2004). Introduction to Direct Instruction. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Science Research Associates. (2002). Reading Mastery Plus series guide, levels K-6. Columbus, OH: Author.
Tarver, S. (1999, Summer). Focusing on Direct Instruction. Current Practice Alerts; Division for Learning Disabilities and Division for Research, 2, 1-4.
Watkins, C., & Slocum, T. (2004). The components of Direct Instruction. In N. E. Marchand-Martella, T. A. Slocum, & R. C. Martella (Eds.), Introduction to Direct Instruction (pp. 28-65). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
White, W. A. T. (1988). Meta-analysis of the effects of Direct Instruction in special education. Education and Treatment of Children, 11, 364-374.
Drs. Nancy Marchand-Martella and Ronald Martella are professors in the Department of Counseling, Educational, and Developmental Psychology (CEDP) http://www.ewu.edu/x3360.xml at Eastern Washington University. Both teach in the graduate program in special education. Dr. Marchand-Martella's research interest is in the area of effective instruction for students with disabilities with particular emphasis in reading. Dr. Martella's research interest is in behavior management for students with disabilities and schoolwide behavior support systems. You can reach them at the Department of CEDP, Martin Hall 135, Eastern Washington University, Cheney WA 99004 or email them at nmartella@ewu.ed and rmartella@ewu.edu.
Kristy Ausdemore is a graduate student in special education at Eastern Washington University. Her specific academic interest is in effective instructional techniques for students with severe disabilities. You can reach her at ausdemore@hotmail.com.
Posted September 2005 by New Horizons for Learning
This article is in the public domain and can be freely copied and used in trainings as handouts at parent and community meetings, and in creating your school or district programs. (Please cite all sources of materials you use.)
This information is provided by:
Office of State Superintendent of Public Instruction
Special Education
P O Box 47200
Olympia, WA 98504-7200
(360) 725-6088
Fax (360)586-1631
E-mail: dgill@ospi.wednet.edu
You
are here: 
