Content uploaded by Russell Monroe Gersten
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Russell Monroe Gersten on Nov 04, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
The Direct Instruction Follow Through Model: Design and outcomes.
Abstract
Outlines underlying assumptions and overriding principles of the direct instruction follow through model for kindergarten through 3rd-grade children. The rules governing the selection of features in the model are (1) teach more in less time and (2) control the details of what happens. The model's components (curriculum, increased teaching time, efficient teaching techniques, thorough implementation, and increased teacher expectations) are reviewed. Research findings are summarized, including achievement and affective data, performance of students with low IQs, and longitudinal results. Topics discussed as implications of the model include money and comprehensive services, the number of approaches needed for individualization, and self-directed learning. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
... Direct Instruction (DI) is an EBP with strong empirical support that has crossed the threshold from research to classroom implementation (Hattie, 2009). The success of DI is not altogether surprising given that it was developed with the explicit aim of giving all students the opportunity to access high quality instruction at a pace that may afford them the chance to catch-up with more advantaged peers (Engelmann et al., 1988). The two main rules of DI are: "Teach more in less time [and] . . . ...
... These rules are exemplified by DI's core instructional tactics. DI teachers describe the content of the lessons prior to instruction, present the content by modeling desired responses, provide individual and choral response opportunities to students, and provide differential consequences for responding (Engelmann et al., 1988). Instruction is provided to groups of students with matched abilities, allowing for more efficiency in instruction and close monitoring of student specific progress (Watkins & Slocum, 2004). ...
... To support teacher's implementation of instruction, curricula are developed with embedded scripts to follow and materials to use for a variety of different content areas. DI programs are designed to "control the details" (Engelmann et al., 1988) and promote both consistent implementation across instructors and a reduced amount of daily teacher preparation time. Over time, DI curricula have expanded to address educational areas such as reading (Engelmann & Osborn, 2008a;Engelmann et al., 2002), math (Engelmann et al., 2012), writing (Engelmann & Silbert, 1983), and language (Engelmann & Osborn, 2008b). ...
This article tells the story of how a public charter school serving students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) adopted Direct Instruction (DI) as their primary form of instruction. The journey from recognizing the need for evidence-based curriculum focused on academic skills to integrating DI on a daily basis was outlined using a common implementation framework. We measured results of the implementation process on student outcomes using reading scores obtained from the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement (KTEA-II Brief). Results for 67 students who participated in a DI reading program for at least 2 years suggest that the implementation of DI led to significantly improved reading scores; with some students demonstrating greatly accelerated rates of learning for their age. Our study suggests that the road to adoption of DI may be long, but the results are powerful for the individuals served. We offer our steps to implementation as a guide and resource to educators and behavior analysts eager to utilize DI in their settings.
... Given these barriers, one solution may lie in the adoption of procedures successfully implemented on a wide scale in similar contexts, provided ample evidence exists to support application with children with ASD. Direct instruction (DI) meets both criteria (Engelmann et al., 1988). ...
... Developed by Bereiter and Engelmann (1966), DI was designed to promote mastery of educational content through high rates of active group responding led by a trained teacher. DI consists of both clearly defined procedures to teach skills and carefully designed content to be taught (Barbash, 2012;Engelmann et al., 1988;Heward et al., 2006). DI includes scripts that indicate exactly how the instructor should present the lesson. ...
... DI is grounded in the principles of learning and the influence of these principles can be detected in the procedures and materials (Engelmann et al., 1988). First, DI establishes responding with systematic prompts, prompt fading, and checks for discrimination with similar targets. ...
Developed by Siegfried ("Zig") Engelmann and colleagues, direct instruction (DI) has been recognized as an effective and replicable teaching model for decades. Although rooted in many principles of learning that behavior analysts utilize in daily practice, DI is not a common a component of behavior analytic services for learners with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). This may be attributed to behavior analysts' unfamiliarity with research evaluating the efficacy of DI with learners with ASD. This article synthesizes findings across studies evaluating DI with learners with ASD. The review addresses the contributions of the studies to date and identifies additional areas of research that may lead to more learners with ASD benefitting from DI.
... It is also important to understand what to do when a student is in need of remedial interventions. Three scientifically supported instructional models-Direct Instruction (DI; Norris & Belfiore, 2014;Engelmann, Becker, Carnine, & Gersten, 1988;White, 1988), explicit instruction (Hughes, Morris, Therrien, & Benson, 2017), and Precision Teaching (PT; Johnson & Street, 2013;Binder & Watkins, 2013;Binder, 1996;Lindsley, 1992) are useful for guiding both instruction and remediation. The models are consistent with one another both conceptually and procedurally, but also complement one another by emphasizing somewhat different aspects of instructional design. ...
... Three principles of instructional design maximize the pace of student mastery: (a) students are placed in instruction at their level; (b) structure of the DI program is designed to ensure mastery of content; and (c) instruction is modified to meet the rate of each students' learning (NIFDI, 2015). DI instruction is characterized by efficiency (Engelmann et al., 1988;Kinder & Carnine, 1991), systematic error correction (Carnine, 1980;Gersten, 1985), and continuous assessment of student performance. White (1988) conducted a meta-analysis of the effects of DI on various academic skills for students identified for special education. ...
This dissertation study investigated the efficacy of a multi-component intervention package delivered via an online learning tool on math fluency for prerequisite algebra skills for three 6th-grade students. Students were referred by their math teacher due to concerns with academic performance. Target skills were individualized for each student based on screening assessments and measured continuously during both baseline and intervention. The multiple-probe across skills design demonstrated that students increased their math fluency on prerequisite skills. A staggered pattern of increases across skills for two participants indicated experimental control was achieved and student’s performance improved. The Quizlet® intervention package provided meaningful practice opportunities, immediate feedback, and prompting and modeling leading to increased performance on prerequisite algebra probes. For one participant there was no treatment effect. Discussion focuses on the potential utility of interventions delivered via technological applications for secondary education populations. Limitations are addressed and areas for future research are discussed. Advisor: Edward J. Daly III, Ph.D.
... They instead have espoused an implicit approach to teaching as better suited to the learner's construction of knowledge. In contrast, others (e.g., Engelmann, 1988;Liberman & Liberman, 1990) have insisted that explicit instruction is necessary for learners to master many basic concepts and is sufficient for the development of problem solving and higher order thinking. They view implicit teaching as ineffective and inefficient for many learners and for certain types of content. ...
... According to Stanovich (1994), explicit instruction and teacher-directed strategy instruction are effective for teaching word recognition skills, especially for at-risk children, children with learning disabilities, and for children with special needs. Numerous researchers have demonstrated explicit instruction to be effective in helping students at risk for learning problems acquire reading and spelling skills (e.g., Bradley & Bryant, 1985;Chall, 1983Chall, , 1989Engelmann, 1988;Evans & Carr, 1985;Iverson & Tunmer, 1993;Slavin et al., 1994;Wise, 1991). ...
Appropriate instruction in classrooms with diverse learners requires a variety of instructional methods to address individual needs. Many educators, however, find themselves philosophically tied to one instructional approach for every learner to the exclusion of other approaches. This allegiance to one method of teaching reduces choices for teachers and students. Strict adherence to a limited view of learning can also hinder inclusion efforts by denying some students appropriate instruction. A continuum of teaching methods that includes "explicit" and "implicit" instructional approaches is proposed as a more inclusive alternative. Research that supports a continuum of approaches is reported along with implications for classroom instruction and teacher education.
... A fim de gerar generalização intraclasses, é importante, também, que haja exemplos tão diferentes quanto possível para uma mesma classe. Além dos scripts, é necessário, ao final do ensino, testar com novos exemplos para verificar generalização (Engelmann et al, 1988). ...
Com o objetivo de caracterizar as tecnologias de ensino baseadas na Análise do Comportamento quanto aos seus diferenciais e apontar por que um programador de ensino deveria adotar uma ou outra, o presente trabalho apresenta e compara seis dessas tecnologias: Instrução Programada; Precision Teaching; Direct Instruction; Sistema Personalizado de Ensino; Programação de Condições para o Desenvolvimento de Comportamentos; e Interteaching. Tal comparação é feita a partir do papel dos organizadores e responsáveis pela condução do ensino e do aprendiz; recursos disponibilizados; critérios e meios pelos quais a aprendizagem é verificada; e quais os contextos de aplicação. Dentre as características comuns às tecnologias, e que as caracterizam como tecnologias analítico comportamentais, são destacados: o papel ativo assumido pelo aprendiz; a perspectiva do professor como um programador de contingências de reforçamento; o direcionamento do ensino para o uso além da sala de aula; a perspectiva de cada sujeito como único, com seu próprio ritmo de aprendizagem; e ensino a partir de passos graduais. Quanto à aplicabilidade, é visto que cada tecnologia possui peculiaridades que as tornam mais indicadas para alguns contextos do que para outros. Tais análises levam a perspectivas futuras, apresentadas ao final do artigo.
... Let's put it like this. Back when we did Project Follow Through (Engelmann et al., 1988), they had all these different models. A lot of them were pretty fluffy, like the British infant school, the Cognitively Oriented Curriculum by Weikart (1971), and so forth. ...
... Problemsolving is ultimately encouraged through both direct instruction and worked examples. Direct instruction generally encourages problem-solving by emphasizing organized, explicit instruction, repetition of content, and mastery of prior knowledge before moving on to more demanding content (Engelmann, 1980;Engelmann, 2014;Engelmann, Becker, Carnine, & Gersten, 1988). Worked examples encourage problem-solving by introducing a problem statement along with the presentation of the solution through a series of procedural steps to offer a high level of support to students (Chen et al., 2019). ...
The use of worked examples has been shown to be an effective instructional method for reducing cognitive load and successfully engaging in problem-solving. Extant research often views worked examples as an integrated part of direct instruction. Studies have examined the problem-solving effects of worked examples used in tandem with instructional explanations. However, a gap exists in research focusing on the individual problem-solving effects of example-free instructional explanations and worked examples containing no instructional explanation. This study uses a method in which worked examples are separated from direct instruction to examine the problem-solving effects of individual parts of such instruction, namely example-free instruction and worked examples containing no instructional explanation. Considering the importance of critical thinking skills in the current educational environment, the current study was conducted on a group of university students (n = 32) studying critical thinking in South Korea. Results showed that example-free instruction was more effective for problem-solving than worked examples containing no instructional explanation. Additionally, participants reported more efficient cognitive processing ability when critical thinking problems were presented through instructional explanation rather than worked examples. These results allow for a granular look at the different aspects of direct instruction and their effects on cognitive load and problem-solving.
A validated and reliable survey was administered to 89 teachers and school administrators across 27 schools in Western Australia to determine their attitudes towards Direct Instruction (DI). Results showed that contrary to the literature, participants in this sample felt positive towards this scripted approach. The teachers acknowledged DI was expensive and American in content but took a pragmatic view and were impressed with the results obtained. In contrast to previous research, they did not find DI boring, harmful or an approach that employs rote learning and believed it can meet the complex demands of classrooms and exist alongside inquiry learning.
We are in the midst of a global learning crisis. The National Center for Education Statistics (2019) reports that 65% of fourth- and 66% of eighth-grade students in the United States did not meet proficient standards for reading. A 2017 report from UNESCO reports that 6 out of 10 children worldwide do not achieve minimum proficiency in reading and mathematics. For far too many learners, instruction is riddled with confusion and ambiguity. Engelmann and Carnine's (1991) approach to improving learning is to design instruction that communicates one (and only one) logical interpretation by the learner. Called “faultless communication” this method can be used to teach learners a wide variety of concepts or skills and underpins all Direct Instruction programs. By reducing errors and misinterpretation, it maximizes learning for all students. To ensure effectiveness, the learner's performance is observed, and if necessary, the communication is continually redesigned until faultless (i.e., the learner learns). This “Theory of Instruction” is harmonious with behavior analysis and beneficial to anyone concerned with improving student learning—the heart and soul of good instruction.
Historical and contemporary data on educational achievement suggest that the United States is still very much a nation-at-risk. Less than half of fourth-grade students read proficiently. Moreover, in response to market demands, few behavior analysts work in educational settings focused on academic skill-building, and few teachers receive coursework in behavioral education. Behavioral science, however, is well-positioned to inform and benefit the practice of teaching. Behavioral education, or the methods of academic skill acquisition informed by the science of behavior, offers a framework for a scientific approach to education that can alter the current trajectory in educational outcomes. In this chapter, the benefits of a behavioral education approach are discussed, illuminating the positive outcomes achieved with students as a result of these practices. Additionally, the cultural and ideological variables influencing the adoption and implementation of behavioral education practices are considered, and solutions for a path forward are offered. The chapter is concluded with a proposed course syllabus to increase exposure to behavioral education content in the training of teachers and behavior analysts.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.