Alice Shillingsburg, PhD., BCBA-D; University of Nebraska Medical Center, Munroe-Meyer Institute &
Sarah Frampton, PhD., BCBA-D; University of Nebraska-Omaha
Description: Direct Instruction (DI) is an approach to teaching that consists of a carefully designed sequence of instructional material and an explicit approach to delivering instruction to students. Although the techniques are continually being improved upon, the basic procedural components have been in place for decades. Developed by Bereiter and Engelmann (1966), DI was designed to promote mastery of the material by promoting active responding in students and deploying systematic teaching procedures by a trained teacher. DI includes scripted lessons, such that the teacher need only follow the instructions to present the material. The teacher orients the students to the exercise by describing the content about to be taught. The teacher then models desired responses and allows the students to practice. The teacher provides praise/reinforcement for correct responses and error correction following incorrect responses. Finally, the teacher allows opportunities for the students to demonstrate the skills with independence (Engelmann, 1980). Materials embedded in the curricula include multiple exemplars developed following a general case design (O’Neill, 1990). This prevents the teacher from needing to spend time selecting and creating materials to support the exercises.
Several commercially available DI curricula have been developed to address educational areas such as reading, math, writing, and language (e.g., Language for Learning, Reading for Mastery, Connecting Math Concepts). A placement test guides the teacher in selecting a starting point for each student. The post-test for each group of lessons informs the teacher as to whether additional practice is required or whether the student can move on to the next lesson. These factors empower the teacher to make data-based decisions to guide the intervention with their students (Watkins & Slocum, 2004). These procedures also ensure mastery and prevent the learner from moving ahead when foundational knowledge is still weak.
Research Summary: With an average effect size of .59 across 304 studies and over 42,000 students (Hattie, 2009), DI is one of the most effective instructional approaches that exists in education literature. DI has been shown to increase the academic skills of children in grades preschool to high school (Becker & Gersten, 1982; Weisberg, 1988), from various socioeconomic backgrounds (Gersten & Carnine, 1984), and with varying disabilities (Horner & Albin, 1988). Although Direct Instruction was not specifically developed to address the learning needs of children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD), several research studies have been conducted showing empirical support for its use with this population.
Some of the earliest studies of DI with children with ASD focused on selected portions of skills from the broader curricula. For example, in a series of studies, elementary aged children with ASD were taught skills related to inferences, use of facts, analogies, deduction skills, and identification within lessons pulled from the Corrective Reading Thinking Basics (Engelmann et al., 2002) program and the Language for Learning program (Engelmann & Osborn, 2008; Flores & Ganz, 2007; Flores & Ganz, 2009; Ganz & Flores, 2009). Subsequent studies have examined the effectiveness of entire lessons delivered over longer periods of time (Flores et al., 2013).
The first randomized clinical trial (RCT) of the Language for Learning program included 25 children with ASD (Shillingsburg et al., 2015). In this pilot study, participants were randomly assigned to Language for Learning or treatment as usual (TAU) waitlist for 13 weeks. Gains in expressive and receptive language were observed on curricular mastery tests in the intervention group, and these gains were maintained at 4 and 8-month follow-up visits. Additionally, caregivers endorsed the intervention as acceptable and beneficial for their children.
More recently, a large scale, multi-year RCT was conducted to further evaluate the effectiveness of the Language for Learning curriculum to improve language skills for young children with ASD (Scahill, et al., 2022). A total of 83 children between the ages of 4 and 8 years old were included. Results showed that 3 hours per week of DI sessions for 6 months resulted in improved outcomes for 54.8% of the treatment group, compared to only 21.9% of the waitlist control.
In addition to well controlled clinical studies of DI, recent research supports its successful implementation within schools (Vidovic et al., 2022). Taken together, it is clear that the support for DI as an educational and clinical intervention tool to improve language, math, and reading skills has grown substantially. In fact, two recent reviews have highlighted the strength of evidence for efficacy with learners with ASD (Frampton et al., 2022; Steinbrenner, et al., 2020).
Recommendations: Direct Instruction is an easy to implement, scripted program but training in implementation is still necessary to properly deploy the materials. If you are considering implementing DI in your school or practice, some recommendations and considerations are described below. Additionally, please visit the NIFDI – National Institute for Direct Instruction website and seek literature and training opportunities from experts. It is important that parents and other consumers inquire about the provider’s scope of competence when DI is recommended.
Notably, research studies have included a variety of implementers including researchers, parents, teachers, and paraprofessionals (Frampton et al., 2021). Thus, research supports the notion that the program is geared for a range of providers. As you consider implementing DI, providers should select curricula matched to the individual’s unique educational or treatment goals. Additionally, it is suggested that providers use the most frequently studied curricula with individuals with ASD, which include Language for Learning, Corrective Reading, and Reading Mastery.
It is also important to note that several studies describe modifications that were necessary when deploying DI with individuals with ASD. For example, implementors may need to utilize personally motivating reinforcers and supportive procedures to maximize the individual’s performance during lessons. Some students may need DI in a one-to-one learning context, and the correction procedures may need to be simplified. If one-to-one instruction is necessary to initiate instruction, systematically progress exposure to group learning contexts relying on performance data to guide decision-making. Implementors should consider collecting data throughout instructional sessions to identify challenges more sensitively, rather than relying exclusively on the results of the posttest. These data could include: the number of exercises per lesson completed correctly on the first attempt; the number of repetitions per exercise necessary; learner affect during instruction; and instances of challenging or disruptive behavior. In general, implementors should follow DI curricular guides for remedial instruction as needed following the posttest. If challenges are consistently identified with particular types of exercises, consider supplementing DI with discrete trial instruction to focus on those challenging skill areas.
It is not entirely clear what profiles of learners respond best to DI. Research on DI has predominately included children under the age of 14 and typically has included children who use vocal communication. However, some studies have begun to show efficacy of DI with those between the ages of 14 and 17 years (Frampton et al., 2021) and those who use Speech Generating Devices (SGD) to communicate (Frampton et al., 2020). Although a larger scale implementation study found an inverse relationship between age and outcomes for students receiving DI as part of their academic programming, these researchers also saw improvement in students who began DI late into adolescence (Vidovic et al., 2021). In one of the few studies to examine pre-requisite skills, children with language scores above 50 on standardized measures, tended to respond better to the Language for Learning DI curriculum than those with scores lower than 50 (Scahill et al., 2022).
Overall, Direct Instruction is an empirically supported intervention that has been demonstrated to make significant differences in learning outcomes. As stated above, more research is needed, especially on identifying whether individuals with autism are likely to benefit. Still, DI has been shown to be widely advantageous across many populations, and there are studies clearly supporting its use with individuals with ASD. It is important to match the individual to the approach, ensuring the curriculum is relevant and that the instructional staff are prepared. Training is needed, even though the materials are extremely clear, and the approach contains scripts for instruction. The best outcomes, however, depend upon training in implementation. Professionals need to consider scope of competence in evaluating their ability to implement this procedure, and should consider training, supervision, or referral as appropriate. Experts and resources exist for the approach, and it should be considered when deficits exist in basic skills.
References:
Becker, W. C., & Gersten, R. (1982). 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, 19(1), 75–92. https://doi.org/10.2307/1162369
Bereiter, C., & Engelmann, S. (1966). Observations on the use of direct instruction with young disadvantaged children. Journal of School Psychology, 4(3), 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-4405(66)90008-2.
Engelmann, S. (1980). Direct Instruction. Educational Technology.
Engelmann, S., Haddox, P., Hanner, S., & Osborn, J. (2002). Corrective reading thinking basics. Science Research Associates/McGraw Hill.
Engelmann, S., & Osborn, J. (2008). Language for learning. Science Research Associates.
Flores, M. M., & Ganz, J. B. (2007). Effectiveness of direct instruction for teaching statement inference, use of facts, and analogies to students with developmental disabilities and reading delays. Focus on Autism & Other Developmental Disabilities, 22(4), 244–251.
Flores, M. M., & Ganz, J. B. (2009). Effects of direct instruction on the reading comprehension of students with autism and developmental disabilities. Education & Training in Developmental Disabilities, 44(1), 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/10883576070220040601
Flores, M. M., Nelson, C., Hinton, V., Franklin, T. M., Strozier, S. D., Terry, L., & Franklin, S. (2013). Teaching reading comprehension and language skills to students with autism spectrum disorders and developmental disabilities using direct instruction. Education & Training in Autism & Developmental Disabilities, 48(1), 41–48.
Frampton, S., Munk, G., Shillingsburg, L., & Shillingsburg, M. A. (2021). A systematic review of applications of direct instruction with Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Perspectives on Behavior Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-021-00292-0
Frampton, S., Shillingsburg, M. A., & Simeone, P. J. (2020). Feasibility and preliminary efficacy of Direct Instruction for individuals with autism utilizing speech-generating devices. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 13, 648-658. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-020-00412-3
Ganz, J. B., & Flores, M. M. (2009). The effectiveness of direct instruction for teaching language to children with autism spectrum disorders: Identifying materials. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 39(1), 75–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-008-06002-2
Gersten, R., & Carnine, D. (1984). Direct instruction mathematics: A longitudinal evaluation of low-income elementary school students. The Elementary School Journal, 84(4), 395-407.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.
Horner, R. H., & Albin, R. W. (1988). Research on general-case procedures with learners with severe disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 11, 375–388.
O’Neill, R. E. (1990). Establishing verbal repertoires: Towards the application of general case analysis and programming. Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 8, 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392852.
Scahill, L., Shillingsburg, M. A., Ousley, O., Pileggi, M., Kilbourne, R., Buckley, D., Gillespie, S., & McCracken, C. E. (2022). A randomized trial of Direct Instruction Language for learning in children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2021.11.034
Shillingsburg, M. A., Bowen, C. N., Peterman, R. K., & Gayman, M. D. (2015). Effectiveness of the Direct Instruction Language for Learning Curriculum with children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. Focus on Autism and other Developmental Disorders, 30, 44-56.
Steinbrenner, J. R., Hume, K., Odom, S. L., Morin, K. L., Nowell, S. W., Tomaszewski, B., Szendrey, S., McIntyre, N. S., Yücesoy-Özkan, Ş., & Savage, M. N. (2020). Children, youth, and young adults with autism. National Clearinghouse on Autism Evidence and Practice.
Vidovic, J., Cornell, M., Frampton, S., & Shillingsburg, M. A. (2021). Adventures in Direct Instruction implementation: The devil is in the details. Behavior Analysis in Practice. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-021-00616-1
Watkins, C., & Slocum, T. (2004). The components of direct instruction. Journal of Direct Instruction, 3, 75–110.
Weisberg, P. (1988). Direct Instruction in the preschool. Education and Treatment of Children, 11(4), 349–363. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42899083
Citation for this article:
Shillingsburg, A., & Frampton, S. (2023). Direct Instruction: A treatment summary. Science in Autism Treatment, 20(01).
#Academic #BehaviorAnalysts #SchoolAge #Teachers
