FAQ – Direct Instruction

This series of posts tackles some common issues that keep arising as I write about education.


You have described yourself as an advocate of ‘explicit instruction’. Is this the same thing as ‘direct instruction’ and, if so, why not use that term?


Discussing definitions is boring but sometimes necessary. Unfortunately, the term ‘direct instruction’ is ambiguous. I am going to follow Barak Rosenshine here in the way that I deal with this issue but, even then, it is worth noting that Zig Engelmann vehemently disagrees with Rosenshine. Basically, the term ‘direct instruction’ is fraught.

Rosenshine identifies no less than five meanings of ‘direct instruction’.

1. Academic instruction that is led by a teacher regardless of the quality of instruction.

2. The instructional procedures that were used by effective teachers in the teacher effects research.

3. Instructional procedures used by teachers when they taught cognitive strategies to students.

4. Instructional procedures used in the Distar (Direct Instruction Systems in Arithmetic and Reading) programs.

5. Instruction where direct instruction is portrayed in negative terms such as settings where the teacher lectures and the students sit passively.

The teacher effects research that Rosenshine identifies in Type 2 is the process-product research conducted from roughly the 1950s through to the end of the 1970s. Many people are unaware of this research because it seems to have gone out of fashion. Rosenshine has written an accessible article here that describes the features of this kind of instruction.

It is broadly this kind of direct instruction that I am referring to when I advocate ‘explicit instruction’. However, I also sometimes extend the meaning into Type 1, particularly when discussing the kind of large-scale correlational study described in this paper.

Type 3 is a specific kind of direct instruction aimed at teaching things like reading comprehension strategies. Although I am sceptical about the benefits of spending extended time on such instruction (see Willingham), I think this demonstrates that, even when the learning objective is somehow ‘higher order’, direct and explicit approaches are superior.

I do not directly advocate Type 4 Distar programs. However, I view these as a particular form of explicit instruction. I am intrigued by their adoption in Cape York and by some of the unique features of these programs – such as the scripting of lessons – and I think that, through Project Follow Through, they provide empirical evidence to support explicit instruction more generally.

Type 5 is the sort of direct instruction that people set-up in experiments when they want to prove that it’s ineffective. Typically, this kind of direct instruction is non-interactive. The problem here is that there are no mechanisms to ensure student attention. Some commentators tend to refer me to studies where traditional university lectures are compared to ‘active’ learning – which is often something as simple as adding the use of ‘clickers’ to the lectures – and then claim this is evidence against direct instruction and/or in favour of constructivism. It is worth noting that, in contrast, Type 2, 3 and 4 direct instruction are all highly interactive.

A good example of Type 5 direct instruction may be found in this paper.


12 Comments on “FAQ – Direct Instruction”

  1. […] approaches. I don’t suppose any K-12 teachers actually teach like this and it reminds me of Rosenshine’s fifth type of direct instruction; “Instruction where direct instruction is portrayed in negative terms such as settings where […]

  2. […] not reflect what we know from research, and the following passage from Chapter 1 seems to conflate explicit instruction with ‘simply providing lectures’ and is in direct opposition to the position described by Hattie [my […]

  3. […] instruction’ (which I call ‘explicit instruction’ for reasons outlined here), a key feature of which is that it is highly interactive. This is also a key characteristic of […]

  4. […] principal of the Cape York Academy in Aurukun lays some blame for the issues at the introduction of Direct Instruction in the school. So I felt the need to […]

  5. […] for ‘false’. I find mini-whiteboards work well in mathematics. Engelmann-style Direct Instruction programmes make use of choral responses. The key is to ensure that students feel relaxed enough to […]

  6. […] models that perform the best. For instance, in Project Follow Through, Engelmann and Becker’s Direct Instruction program, which breaks mathematics down into its component parts and then directly teaches and […]

  7. […] Many studies tend to use comparison methods that do not represent the best possible alternative. For instance, ‘active learning’ conditions involving college students are often compared to lectures and find a positive effect. This is fine as far as it goes but we are not justified in inferring that active learning is more effective than direct instruction because direct instruction is not lecturing.  […]

  8. […] There are teaching schemes that are specially designed to apply these principles and avoid student misunderstanding but they are unpopular and so are not widely used. Instead, most teachers are improvising their own programmes and so these ideas are critical. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s