Direct Instruction
Adapted from Daily Planning for Today's Classroom by K. Price and K. Nelson

"I do it, We do it, and You do it" summarizes the flow of instruction from teacher demonstration, guided practice as a whole group, and then the students do it by themselves. Direct instruction lessons are teacher directed. Lesson objectives and purposes are stated at the beginning of the lesson and then the teacher explains or demonstrates the information or skill. This approach presents information in small steps so that one step can be mastered before moving to the next step. The end result of the direct instruction lesson is that students demonstrate their new skill or knowledge independently, without help from anyone. The process is characterized by a teacher's explicit guidance of student learning toward specific objectives.

Direct instruction lessons are appropriate for teaching basic skills, facts, concepts, strategies, procedures, and knowledge which lends itself to being presented in small sequential steps. These lessons can also play an important role in lessons which emphasize higher level thinking. Higher level thinking cannot occur without having basic facts and content information. The content explicitly taught in direct instruction lessons may form the foundation for lessons which emphasize critical thinking and problem solving.

It is important to remember when planning a direct instruction lesson that the information to be presented should be done so in at least two ways. The student should hear the information and should be able to read it as well. Using an overhead projector with an advanced organizer, using the chalkboard, having a hand out all supplement a lecture and gives your students more opportunities to engage with the information.
The evaluation component of a direct instruction lesson is planned when the measurable lesson objective was written. (Review Learning Objectives in Module 1).

The following is an article that compares cooperative learning and a direct instruction technique - the lecture.

Journal of Instructional Psychology, March 2000 v27 i1 p53

A Comparison of Short Term and Long Term
Retention: Lecture Combined with Discussion
Versus Cooperative Learning. (Statistical Data
Included) Robert L. Morgan; James E. Whorton;
Cynthia Gunsalus.

Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2000 George Uhlig Publisher

A comparison of teaching techniques in an introductory college-level
course revealed lecture combined with discussion produced superior
short-term retention than that of cooperative learning in participating
students. However, minimal differences were noted in long-term. While
the investigation involved a limited number of students, the results do
suggest a need for additional studies on a larger scale. Suggestions for
improvement of instruction with each of these techniques are reviewed.

With an added emphasis on improving outcomes in higher education,
the skilled professor continually searches for effective instructional
procedures. Although often maligned, the lecture is a traditional,
common, and familiar teaching technique. A lecture is a well-prepared
oral presentation on a topic by a qualified person. It is often combined
with another popular teaching strategy, discussion. The many different
definitions of discussion as a learning tool include three basic elements:
(a) a group of people (b) brought together for face to face oral
communication (c) to share knowledge or make a decision (Bormann,
1975; Kahler, Morgan, Holmes, & Bundy, 1985).

Content drives some discussions (Kasulis, 1984). Characteristic of
these discussions is a teacher who introduces concepts or the structures
learning of new information. Discussions within formal classrooms are
often of this type. Participant sharing of insights or experiences is
another discussion technique (Segerstrale, 1984). The teacher
encourages exchange of information and does not attempt to dominate
the interaction. In the third type of discussion, the group analyzes a
problem or completes an assigned task (Wilkinson, 1984). The task
provides direction to the group discussion.

Cooperative learning is a method touted by many as an effective
instructional alternative to improve academic performance to
competitive learning or individualistic learning (Johnson, & Johnson,
1980). Typically, cooperative learning involves arranging opportunities
for small groups of students to work together to master material
(Moorman, 1994). More specifically, students demonstrate positive
interdependence in creating a single product. Individual accountability is
also expected during cooperative learning lessons.

Research dedicated to the individual teaching strategies of lecture and
discussion in higher education is expansive. However, research focusing
on the relationship between these two often-combined strategies is
limited. The present study compares college student performance using
two instructional formats, lecture combined with discussion versus
cooperative learning.

Method

Participants and Settings

During the 1997 fall semester, the researchers evaluated traditional
college student (aged 18 to 24 years) performance in an introductory
special education class. At the beginning of the semester, the 10
members of the class were given the opportunity to participate in the
study. The students had not received prior instruction in the course
content. During the course of the study, the students did not take
parallel courses.

Measurement System

The investigators established a measurement system to compare the
effects of lecture combined discussion versus cooperative learning.
Using guidelines suggested by Oosterhof (1996), multiple-choice tests
assessed concepts presented during each class. The tests had a total
possibility of forty correct answers (twenty responses focusing on
topics presented through lecture combined with discussion, twenty
responses addressing subjects presented through cooperative learning).
Addressing the concepts presented through lecture combined with
discussion and cooperative learning, the forty multiple-choice questions
were randomly presented to the students. The same achievement tests
were administered at the beginning and end of the class session in which
the interventions were applied. Students answered questions on an
achievement test that covered the information presented in each class.

Independent and Dependent Variables

The present study evaluated the relationship between lecture combined
with discussion and cooperative learning on the achievement test results
of students immediately following the intervention and up to four months
later. The independent variable in this experiment was the way that new
information was presented, either through lecture combined with
discussion or cooperative learning. The dependent variable was the
percentage of correct responses on the students' achievement tests.

Experimental Procedures

The investigators equally randomized the presentation of concepts
between cooperative learning and lecture combined with discussion. A
total of four lessons (i.e., two cooperative learning lessons, two lecture
combined with discussion) were presented during each session. Each
lesson lasted approximately 20 minutes. The lecture combined with
discussion were content driven. The teacher of the course introduced
key concepts and opportunities to discuss that were offered throughout
the lecture combined with discussion period. Utilizing a variation of the
new American lecture strategy (Silver, Hanson, Strong, & Schwartz,
1996), the investigators developed the lecture combined with
discussion lessons by: (1) identifying key concepts, (2) posing topical
questions, (3) providing visual organizers, (4) providing visual
organizers that required students to record specific information during
the lecture, and (5) focusing discussion by posing topical questions.

Cooperative learning lessons entailed a jigsaw activity in which students
were divided into teams of two to four individuals. Individual team
members completed equal portions of the total task assigned to the
team. Students were responsible for learning all aspects of the
information (Nattiv, Winitzky, & Drickey, 1991). The instructor
monitored individual and team efforts and provided task assistance
when necessary (Fisher, Schumaker, & Deshler, 1996).

In order to measure effectiveness of the instruction, forty item quizzes
were administered to the subjects at the beginning and end of each
class session. At the end of the semester, the instructor administered a
final examination that randomly evaluated key concepts presented
during the prior ten-week period. Four months after the end of the
semester, each subject was contacted and subsequently took the same
test to measure long term retention of taught concepts.

Results

The mean pretest percentages of correct responses for the lecture
combined with discussion method ranged from a low of 34 to a high of
68. The mean scores for the cooperative learning method ranged from
43 to 75. These data are presented in Figure 1. As summarized in
Figure 2, the mean posttest percentages of correct responses for the
lecture combined with discussion method ranged from a low of 40 to a
high of 89, and the mean scores for the cooperative learning method
ranged from 37 to 82. It is evident that the pretest scores were a bit
higher for the cooperative method topics, thus yielding less opportunity
for substantial gains. A total gain score was computed by adding each
of the gain scores for the 10 students with the two instructional
methods. The average gain score for the lecture combined with
discussion method approach was 146 points (minimum = 75, maximum
= 275). The average total gain score for the cooperative learning
approach was 77 points (minimum = -60, maximum = 120). Because
of the small number of participants in this investigation, no tests for
statistically significant differences were conducted. The average gain
scores are presented in Figure 3. The gain scores for the lecture
combined with discussion were substantially higher than those for the
cooperative method; much higher than would be expected due solely to
chance.

[Figures 1-3 ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

In addition to pretest and posttest scores, other data were collected.
An evaluation of the data for the final test revealed little difference
between lecture combined with discussion (mean = 63, minimum = 45,
maximum = 80) and cooperative learning (mean = 61, minimum 55,
maximum 70). A comparison of the data collected four months later
showed there continued to be little difference in long-term retention
(lecture combined with discussion: mean = 52, minimum = 40,
maximum = 70; cooperative learning: mean = 54, minimum = 45,
maximum = 70).

Discussion

Data indicated lecture combined with discussion yielding better
performance in producing short-term retention when compared to that
of cooperative learning. However, results were similar when comparing
long-term retention. The generalization of these data is limited,
however, because of the limited number of students involved in the
evaluation of the instructional procedures. Further research with a larger
group of students may mimic these results. Yet, the results of this study
benefit not only the investigators' teaching but also that of other college
and university instructors. Identification of better classroom techniques
benefits teacher instructional choices. Because of identified
effectiveness, college and university instructors enhance student
performance through these choices. Lecture combined with discussion
is one choice the skilled professor can make.

The advantages of lecturing are many and include: ease of preparation
and planning, orderly and systematic sharing of information to large
groups, stimulation of further learning, and preferred presentation
approach by many students. However, the lecture has its limitations:
measurement of learning is inconvenient, speakers can bias information,
speaker style may disturb some listeners, listener attention wanes after
approximately fifteen minutes, and long-term retention may be limited
(Kahler, Morgan, Holmes, & Bundy, 1985; Legge, 1974; Verner, &
Dickenson, 1967). Specific strengths of discussion involve: participation
in discussion keeps learners active, promotes development of
communication and collaboration, and encourages tolerance for other
points of view. There are possible limitations to discussion, however: it
requires learner participation, a few group members may dominate
discussion, teacher planning time may be extensive, and restriction in
time and space interfere with discussion (Kahler, Morgan, Holmes, &
Bundy, 1985).

An additional instructional choice the skilled professor can make
involves combining lecture with discussion and cooperative learning.
Reported benefits of cooperative learning include: increased retention,
use of higher level reasoning, better view and acceptance of others,
positive attitude, higher self-esteem, greater social support, positive
psychological adjustment, greater collaborative skills, better behavior
(Johnson, & Johnson, 1980; Slavin, 1991). The benefits may be offset
by the weaknesses of cooperative learning: difficulties in grading,
extensive teacher planning, ongoing need for teacher intervention, and
acceptance of cooperative learning as an effective method of instruction
(Vaughn, Bos, & Schumm, 1997). Effective use of cooperative learning
involves the skilled professor assuring individual accountability, teaching
collaboration and interdependence, providing opportunities for success,
offering a conducive room arrangement, structuring activities to match
academic goals, and enforcing a management plan (Goor, & Schwenn;
1993; Waldron, 1995). A teaching strategy that combines all of these
instructional procedures may exploit the advantages of each while
mitigating their individual weaknesses.

References

Bormann, E.G. (1975). Discussion and group methods: Theory and
practice (2nd ed.). New York: Harper and Row.

Fisher, J.B., Schumaker, J.B., & Deshler, D.D. (1996). Searching for
validated inclusive practices: A review of the literature. In E.L. Meyen,
G.A. Vergason, and R.J. Whelan (Eds.), Strategies for teaching (pp.
123-154). Denver, CO: Love Publishing Company.

Goor, M.B., & Schwenn, J.O. (1993). Accommodating diversity and
disability with cooperative learning. Intervention in School and Clinic,
29(1), 6-16.

Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1980). Integrating handicapped
students into the mainstream. Exceptional Children, 47, 90-98.

Kahler, A.A., Morgan, B., Holmes, G.E. & Bundy, C.E. (1985).
Methods in adult education (4th edition). Danville, IL: Interstate.

Kasulis, T.P. (1984). Questioning. In M.M. Gullette (Ed.) The art and
craft of teaching (pp. 38-48). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.

Legge, D. (1974). The use of talk in adult classes. In M.D. Stephens &
G.W. Roderick (eds.). Teaching techniques in adult education. London:
David and Charles.

Moorman, C. (1994). Cooperative learning. Nevada City, CA:
Performance Learning Systems, Inc.

Nattiv, A., Winitzky, N., & Drickey, R. Using cooperative learning
with preservice elementary and secondary education students. Journal
of Teacher Education, 42, 216-225.

Oosterhof, A. (1996). Developing and using classroom assessments.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill.

Segerstrale, U. (1984). The multifaceted role of the section leader. In
M.M. Gullette (Ed.) The art and craft of teaching (pp. 49-69).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Slavin, R.E. (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and
practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Slavin, R.E. (1991). Synthesis of research on cooperative learning.
Educational Leadership, 48(5), 71-82.

Silver, H.F., Hanson, J.R., Strong, R.W., & Schwartz, P.B. (1996).
Teaching styles and strategies: Interventions to enrich instructional
decision-making (3rd ed.). Woodbridge, NJ: Thoughtful Education
Press.

Vaughn, S., Bos, C.S., & Schumm, J.S. (1997). Teaching
mainstreamed, diverse, and atrisk students in the general education
classroom. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Verner, C., & Dickenson, G. (1967). The lecture: An analysis and
review of research. Adult Education, 17(2), 85-100.

Waldron, K.A. (1995). Introduction to special education: The inclusive
classroom. Albany, NY: Delmar Publishers.

Wilkinson, J. (1984). Varieties of teaching. In M.M. Gullette (Ed.) The
art and craft of teaching (pp. 1-9). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.

Robert L. Morgan, Principal, Cooperative School, Rawlins, WY.
James E. Whorton, Department of Special Education, University of
Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS. Cynthia Gunsalus, Department
of Education, Indiana Wesleyan University, Marion, IN.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr.
Robert L. Morgan, Carbon County School District One, P.O. Box
160, Rawlins, WY.