Description:
The Direct Instruction (DI) model stresses efficiency in returning to the basics of reading, language and mathematics. It promotes success, particularly in the area of testing, for all students and aims to make all students "feel smart because they realize they are smart."

The idea behind DI is to accelerate the learning process by eliminating the confusion factor. Using DI, teachers follow uniform, carefully prescribed instructional practices designed so that there is little to no chance that students will misinterpret information or directions. The goal is for all students to obtain 100% mastery of subjects taught through Direct Instruction. In order for the reform to be successful, educators must let go of a certain amount of autonomy and creativity without losing their dedication to the practice of teaching (www.nifdi.org).

Goal:
To improve and accelerate learning by eliminating minsinterpretation through the Implementation of well-developed and carefully planned lessons designed around small learning increments and clearly defined and prescribed teaching tasks.

(Reworded definition of Direct Instruction retrieved on November 22, 2003 from http://www.nifdi.org/)

Approach:
The Direct Instruction model cannot be implemented without purchase of detailed curricular materials for all subject areas. Professional Development and organizational training are designed to promote effective use of DI materials and optimize their benefits. All students, including Special Education students, are integrated and follow a single program sequence. Students in a particular sequence follow the same instruction and advance at the same rate (www.nifdi.org). This requires continual grouping and re-grouping according to perfomance level, which is consistently tracked through "Mastery tests" given every few lessons. Grouping may occur across classes or grade levels. Teachers and administrative staff engage in intensive training to understand the program and all of its elements (www.nwrel.org).

Although the National Institute for Direct Instruction gives a good introduction and contact information for how to get started, a more detailed exploration of DI can be conducted through other sites. The Association for Direct Instruction (ADI, http://www.adihome.org/phpshop/members.php) has more in depth question and answers concerning the program as well as a chat room and e-mail discussion group for member and interested parties. Other features such as journal articles, a newsletter and movie clips are also available.

Through Funnix, a reading program designed by Engelmann and others, at www.funnix.com, you can reach this link:
http://psych.athabascau.ca/html/387/OpenModules/Engelmann/EngelmannDI.html

The site is titled Engelmann's Direct Instruction and Project Follow through. It is interactive and contains a great deal of infomation including glossary links for important terms and people.

Connection with other organizations:
SRA/McGraw-Hill publishes the majority of Direct Instruction materials.

research:
"There are minor weaknesses with the research on Direct Instruction that should also be noted. First, the outcome research has focused more on reading and math than the other subjects that constitute the Direct Instruction curricula. Second, a great deal of the Direct Instruction research is over 10 years old. Only seven of the 37 studies covered in a recent analysis of the research on Direct Instruction were done in the 1990s, and several date back to the 1970s."
(http://www.aasa.org/issues_and_insights/district_organization/Reform/Approach/direct.htm)

"Overall, there is strong evidence that Direct Instruction has a positive effect on student achievement. Adams and Engelmann's analysis (1996) showed that 32 of the 34 studies qualifying for Inclusion in their meta-analysis demonstrate that Direct Instruction has a positive effect on student achievement. Their review found that Direct Instruction is effective in improving overall achievement, as well as achievement in language, reading, mathematics, spelling, health, and science. Several other studies, moreover, confirm and reinforce these findings. Of those studies reviewed for this profile, seven support Direct Instruction's positive effect on reading, 11 on mathematics, nine on language, and four on affective behavior and social skills. Direct Instruction also appears to improve chances for later success (e.g., graduation rates, application and acceptance to college rates). Research also suggests that students who begin Direct Instruction with low IQs seem to progress at the same rate as students who begin Direct Instruction with higher IQs (i.e., the approach is effective for both high- and low-achieving students)."
(http://www.aasa.org/issues_and_insights/district_organization/Reform/Approach/direct.htm)

Resources of interest include:
Bereiter, C. 1986. Does direct instruction cause delinquency? Early Childhood Research Quarterly 1:289-292.

Brent, G., and DiObilda, N. 1993. Effects of curriculum alignment versus direct instruction on urban children. The Journal of Educational Research 86(6): 333-338.

Gersten, R. M. 1985. Direct instruction with special education students: A review of evaluation research. The Journal of Special Education 19(1):41-58.

Gersten, R. M., Becker, W. C., Heiry, T. J., and White, W. A. T. 1981. The relationship of entry IQ level and yearly academic growth rates of children in a Direct Instruction mastery learning educational program: A longitudinal study of over 1500 children. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles, CA.

Gersten, R. M., and Carnine, D. 1984. Direct instruction mathematics: A longitudinal evaluation of low-income elementary students. The Elementary School Journal 84(4):395-407.

Gersten, R., Darch, C., and Gleason, M. 1988. Effectiveness of a direct instruction academic kindergarten for low-income students. The Elementary School Journal 89(2): 227-240.

Meyer, L. A. 1984. Long-term academic effects of the Direct Instruction Project Follow-Through. The Elementary School Journal 84(4):380-394.

Meyer, L. A., Gersten, R. M., and Gutkin, J. 1983. Direct Instruction: A Follow-Through success story in an inner-city school. The Elementary School Journal 84(2): 241-252.

Tarver, S. G. and Jung, J. S. 1995. A comparison of mathe-matics achievement and mathematics attitudes of first and second graders instructed with either a discovery learning mathematics curriculum or a direct instruction curriculum. Effective School Practices 13(2): 49-57.

Costs:
The Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory estimates that implementation of Direct Instruction will cost $68-75,000 per year for 3-5 years. Separate from this estimate is the cost of required curricular materials at $210 per child for the first year, $165 for the second and $65 thereafter. Schools must also support a full-time coordinator and cover release time for teachers and coaches to attend necessary training sessions (www.nwrel.org).

The American Association of School Administrators (AASA) estimates that "the first-year cost of adopting Direct Instruction is $244,000. An average school of 500 students and 20 to 25 teachers will incur costs for Direct Instruction for training and technical assistance, personnel, and materials. The developer estimates that technical assistance will cost $65,000 a year for three to five years. This includes direct costs for faculty training at the start of and during the school year. It does not include the cost of faculty time devoted to training. Release time is needed for instructional staff who will eventually serve as coaches and trainers. This amounts to five days of pre-implementation at the start of the school year for the entire faculty, plus at least one hour per week (or approximately 4.5 days per year) for each teacher. In addition, the developer requires schools to regularly submit data on student progress, which might require additional staff time. In addition, instructional materials, available from Science Research Associates, cost about $125 per student, or $62,500 for a school of 500 students."
(http://www.aasa.org/issues_and_insights/district_organization/Reform/Approach/direct.htm)

Implementation Sites:
Gunnison Elementary
682 South Main
Gunnison, UT 84634
435-528-7880
Contact: Elizabeth Jensen

City Springs Elementary
100 South Caroline Street
Baltimore, MD 21231
410-396-9165
Contact: Bernice Welchel

Dickey Hill Elementary
5025 Dickey Hill Road
Baltimore, MD 21207
410-396-0610
Contact: Jerome Butler

Hampstead Hill Elementary
500 South Linwood Avenue
Baltimore, MD 21224
410-396-9146
Contact: Sharman Rowe

As listed in NWREL's catalogue of school reform Models, November 22, 2003:NWREL catalogue 11/22/03