Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T01:47:17.820Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why Not Direct Instruction?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 September 2016

Don Barnes
Don Barnes*
Affiliation:
Education Department of Western Australia
*
Balga District Guidance Office, Redcliffe Ave., Balga, W.A., 6061
Get access

Extract

Direct Instruction (D.I.) is a fairly recent model of teaching, but some of its underlying principles and strategies go back to the early 1970's (see the review by Rosenshine 1978).

The D.I. model of teaching is “an orientation that identifies major skills, selects and modifies commercial programmes that teach those skills, appropriately places students in the classroom programmes, and presents lessons each day in the most efficient manner possible” (Carnine & Silbert, 1979 p.11). D.I. focuses on such factors as increasing engaged time (the amount of time students actually spent on tasks relevant to the skill they are practising), improving the organization of the classroom to allow for more engaged time and carefully structuring the teaching programme to include an objective-based mastery learning paradigm, with frequent criterion-referenced testing to check that objectives have been met.

Central to the teaching programme is the task analysis of complex cognitive tasks such as reading, into hierarchies of component skills, which are then taught. Once students have been taught these component skills, they are taught how to combine them, to develop skills in the original, more complex task. (Carnine & Silbert, 1979 p. 11).

Type
Research Article
Information
The Educational and Developmental Psychologist , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , November 1984 , pp. 59 - 62
Copyright
Copyright © Australian Psychological Society 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abt. Associates., Education as Experimentation: A Planned Variation Model. (Vol. 4) Cambridge, Mass. Abt. Associates, 1977.Google Scholar
Arter, J.A. & Jenkins, J.R., Differential Diagnosis -Prescriptive Teaching: A Critical Appraisal. Review of Educational Research, 1979, 49, 517–555.Google Scholar
Becker, W.C., The National Evaluation of Follow Through: Behaviour-Theory-Based Programmes Come Out on Top. Education and Urban Society, 1978, 10, 431–458.Google Scholar
Becker, W.C., Engelmann, S., Camine, D., & Maggs, A., Direct Instruction Technology-Recent Developments and Research Findings. In: Karoly, P., & Steffens, J., (Eds.) Analysis of Behaviour and Therapy (Vol 2), N.Y.: Gardner, 1981.Google Scholar
Becker, W.C., Engelmann, S., & Thomas, D.R., Teaching 2: Cognitive Learning and Instruction. Chicago: S.R.A., 1976.Google Scholar
Becker, W.C. & Gersten, R., A Follow Up of Follow Through: The Later Effects of The Direct Instruction Model on Children in Fifth and Sixth Grades. American Educational Research Journal, 1982, 19, 75–92.Google Scholar
Branwhite, A.B., Boosting Reading Skills by Direct Instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 1983, 53, 291–298.Google Scholar
Camine, D., & Silbert, J., Direct Instruction Reading. Columbus: Merrill, 1979.Google Scholar
Engelmann, S., Sequencing Cognitive and Academic Tasks. In Kneedler, R., & Tavern, S., (Eds.), Changing Perspectives in Special Education. Columbus: Merrill, 1979.Google Scholar
Engelmann, S., & Camine, D., A Structured Program’s Effect on the Attitudes and Achievements of Average and Above Average Second Graders. In Becker, W.C. & Engelmann, S., (Eds.), Technical Report 76–1 Appendix B: Formative Research Studies. Eugene Oregon: University of Oregon Follow Through Project, 1976.Google Scholar
Gersten, R.M. & Maggs, A., Teaching the General Case to Moderately Retarded Children: Evaluation of a Five year Project. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 1982, 2, 329–343.Google Scholar
Gregory, P., Hackney, C., & Gregory, N., Corrective Reading Programme — an Evaluation. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 1982, 52, 3350.Google Scholar
Groff, P., The New Anti-Phonics. Elementary School Journal, 1977, 77, 323–332.Google Scholar
Groff, P., The Differences Over Reading: The Gap Widens. Reading, 1980, 14, 14–20.Google Scholar
Guerriero, C.A., What Are School Priorities? A Public Survey. Educational Leadership, 1980, 37, 344–345.Google Scholar
Henderson, E.H., Reading is not Decoding. Reading World, 1978, 17, 244–249.Google Scholar
Leach, D.J., Teachers’ Perceptions and “Problem” Pupils. Educational Review, 1977, 29, 188–203.Google Scholar
Lockerly, M., & Maggs, A., Direct Instruction Research in Australia: A 10 Year Analysis. Educational Psychology, 1982, 2, 263–288.Google Scholar
McFaul, S.A., An Examination of Direct Instruction. Educational Leadership, 1983, 40, 67–69.Google Scholar
Rochler, L., & Duffy, G., Matching Direct Instruction to Reading Outcomes. Language Arts, 1982, 59, 476–480.Google Scholar
Rosenshine, B.V., Academic Engaged Time, Content Covered and Direct Instruction. Journal of Education, 1978, 160, 38–66.Google Scholar
Sloane, P., & Latham, R., Teaching Reading Is. Melbourne: Nelson, 1981 Google Scholar
Smith, F., Psycholinguistics and Reading. N.Y.: Holt Rhinehart & Winston, 1973.Google Scholar
Stott, D.H., Helping Children With Learning Difficulties. London: Ward Lock Educational, 1978.Google Scholar