Newsletter
Volume 31 | 2008 | Number 3
From DT to DI: Using Direct Instruction to Teach Students with ASD
By Dr. Cathy Watkins, BCBA, California State University
What is Direct Instruction?
The term direct instruction is used in various ways in the literature. It is sometimes used to refer to any form of instruction involving direct interactions between teachers and students. It is also used to refer to set of effective teaching procedures identified by Rosenshine and Stevens (1986) that includes review, statement of goals, presentation of new material, opportunities for guided practice systematic corrections and feedback, and independent practice. The term has recently been used to refer to any type of structured teaching method.
It is easy to confuse the term direct instruction (not capitalized), which is a set of teaching practices, and Direct Instruction, which is a research-based, integrated system of curriculum design and effective instructional delivery based on over 30 years of development.
The Association for Science in Autism Treatment defines Direct Instruction as “A systematic approach to teaching and maintaining basic academic skills. It involves the use of carefully designed curriculum with detailed sequences of instruction…. Students are taught individually or in small groups that are made up of students with similar academic skills. Instructors follow a script for presenting materials, requiring frequent responses from students, minimizing errors, and giving positive reinforcement (such as praise) for correct responding.”
Direct Instruction is best represented by the commercially available programs developed by Siegfried Engelmann and his colleagues, most of which are published by Science Research Associates (SRA) (see www.sra4kids.com for a list Direct Instruction programs). The reader is referred to Introduction to Direct Instruction (Marchand-Martella, Slocum, and Martella, 2004) for detailed information about Direct Instruction programs in various content areas.
Research Summary
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 emphasizes the use of instructional methods that are research based. Direct Instruction programs are research-based but, more importantly, they are research-validated as effective with students with diverse learning needs, including students in special education and general education.
Numerous experiments that focused on how students learn most effectively shaped the many technical details of Direct Instruction programs (MacIver and Kemper, 2002). Controlled research studies provide empirical support for the specific instructional design principles and the instructional methods that provide the foundation for DI programs (Engelmann and Carnine, 1991; Becker and Carnine, 1980).
The first widespread dissemination and research on Direct Instruction was Project Follow Through, a federal compensatory education program authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Follow Through operated as a longitudinal research project to answer the question: What works to teach children who are at risk for academic failure? A national evaluation compared the performance of children in over 20 different instructional models representing a broad range of educational practices. The Direct Instruction model produced the highest level of positive impact on measures of basic skills, cognitive conceptual skills, and self-concept (Watkins, 1988).
A follow up study by Gersten, Becker, Heiry, and White (1984) provided evidence that Direct Instruction can meet the needs of all learners and is clearly effective with students who have a higher probability of failure. Students who entered the study with low IQ scores gained nearly as much each year in reading and math as other students in the Direct Instruction model - more than one year of achievement per year of instruction on the Wide Range Achievement Test.
More recently, the positive effects of Direct Instruction have been noted by the American Federation of Teachers (1999), the Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk (Borman, Hewes, Overman, Brown, 2002), and the American Institutes of Research (Herman, et. al, 2002), which identified Direct Instruction as one of only three school reform programs to have a “strong” record of evidence of positive effects on student achievement.
Although Direct instruction has been shown to be an effective teaching method for a variety of academic areas in both general and special education settings, there has not been controlled research on its application specifically to individuals with autism spectrum disorders. However, Direct Instruction contains a number of components that it seems reasonable to expect would be effective and beneficial.
Features of Direct Instruction
General Case Programming
Difficulty generalizing information and skills is a commonly noted characteristic of ASD (Sundberg and Partington, 1998). Therefore, it is particularly important that programs be specifically designed to teach generalizable skills and strategies. Identification of generalizable strategies that students can use to solve a wide variety of problems is the foundation of Direct Instruction.
Engelmann and Becker (1978) called this “general case programming” because the goal is to teach the general case rather than a set of discrete specific instances. A general case programming strategy is one that uses the smallest number of examples (stimuli) to produce the largest possible amount of learning. General case programming has been shown to enhance generalization, even with individuals with severe disabilities (e.g., Horner and Albin, 1988).
General case programming also refers to the design of instruction that clearly communicates one and only one meaning. This emphasis on bringing responding under the control of specific, relevant stimuli (Becker, Engelmann, & Thomas, 1975; Becker and Carnine, 1980; Horner, Bellamy, and Colvin, 1983) is a particularly important aspect of teaching children with autism spectrum disorders who often respond under inappropriate stimulus conditions.
Track Organization
The content of many instructional programs is organized in units or modules, where skills and strategies are introduced, practiced, and tested within a specified period of time. Information in one unit is seldom integrated into subsequent units, resulting in predictable difficulty with skill maintenance. In contrast, Direct Instruction programs are organized in “tracks.” Tracks are sequences of activities that introduce a skill, then develop and expand the skill across multiple lessons.
There are numerous advantages to designing programs in tracks. Student attention is better maintained because they do not work on a single skill for an extended period of time; instead lessons are made up of relatively short exercises that address a variety of skills. Difficult tasks are interspersed among easier ones. Newly introduced tasks are mixed in with well-practiced ones. Each lesson includes a variety of skills, formats, and difficulty levels.
The unique track design of Direct Instruction programs may be particularly advantageous for students with autism spectrum disorder because it provides natural variation in the presentation of tasks within a lesson.
Researchers in both autism and DI have addressed the composition of instructional sessions in terms of variety and type of tasks presented. Dunlap and Koegel (1980) compared a constant task condition in which a single task was presented throughout a session, to a varied task condition, in which the same task was interspersed with a variety of other tasks. The varied task session produced improved and stable levels of correct responding as compared to constant task sessions.
Similarly, interspersing instructional trials on known or maintenance behaviors with trials on acquisition tasks results in more responsiveness and fewer behavior problems (Horner, Day, Sprague, O’Brien & Heathfield, 1991). These results are consistent with Engelmann’s recommendation that maintenance tasks should be presented during instructional sessions in which new acquisition tasks are being taught. Direct Instruction programs carefully control task variation. About 10 - 15% of the material in each lesson consists of new learning or acquisition tasks. The remaining 85 - 90% of the tasks involve activities that provide review, practice, expansion, and application of previously learned information (S. Engelmann, personal communication, December 27,2007).
Scripted Presentation
One key distinction between Direct Instruction and other instructional programs is the explicit nature of instruction. Precise implementation is accomplished in DI programs through the use of scripts. How the teacher presents examples is explicitly stated. What the teacher says and does is specified. The instructions are not general, rather the exact words to use when presenting each task are provided. The teacher’s other behaviors, pointing, signaling for a response, etc. are precisely specified. The programs indicate where children are likely to make mistakes and precisely what the teacher should do to correct each error. Such attention to detail in the design of the program is essential for children with exceptional learning needs, because details make the difference between academic success and failure.
Scripts support the needs of students with ASD for consistency and predictability. Direct Instruction curricula may also benefit to children with ASD in that the scripted instruction allows for individuals other than certificated teachers to teach academic skills. Well-trained paraprofessionals and parents can deliver the programs and provide children with extra practice if necessary. The scripts also ensure consistency across all individuals who provide instruction to the child.
Formats
Exercises of a particular type are formatted or “patterned.” Patterned exercises are easier to teach and easier for children to follow. By learning how to present one exercise of a particular type, the teacher knows how to present similar exercises that appear in subsequent lessons. Formats are designed to be clear and concise to help students focus on the important aspects of examples. These patterned formats help students to be successful.
Formats change as students become proficient. Initially formats include a great deal of structure and support for students’ use of skill. However, the support that is so critical during initial instruction must be gradually reduced until students are using the skill independently. As students move through lessons, formats shift in a number of important ways: 1) from overt to covert responding, 2) from simple to complex contexts, 3) from prompted to unprompted formats, 4) from massed to distributed practice, 5) from immediate to delayed feedback. These instructional programming strategies facilitate the transition from teacher directed instruction to generalized and independent application of strategies and skills.
Pacing
Direct Instruction programs may be appropriate for children with ASD because they are fast-paced and can keep the child actively engaged, rather than allowing them the opportunity to focus their attention elsewhere. Lessons are characterized by a rapid and constant interchange between teacher and students. The teacher presents tasks quickly and moves quickly from activity to activity. This allows little “down time.” A quick pace is needed to present the many trials required for children to master critical skills and concepts. Academic learning time is maximized resulting in more learning and fewer behavior problems.
Research with both general education students and students with autism support the use of rapid pacing. For example, Carnine (1976) recorded off-task behavior, correct responding, and participation during beginning reading instruction for low-achieving first-grade children during two different rates of teacher presentation. Results showed that fast presentation was accompanied by a lower rate of off-task behavior and an increase in correct responding and participation.
Engelmann and Becker (1978) found that when teachers maintained a fast rate (12 responses per minute), students responded correctly about 80 percent of the time and were off-task only 10 percent of the time. However, when the rate was only four responses per minute, accurate responding dropped to 30 percent and off-task behavior increased to 70 percent of the time.
Similar studies have been conducted with children with autism. Koegel, Dunlap, and Dyer (1980) compared rapid pacing and slow pacing during instructional sessions with low-functioning autistic children. They found that short intertrial intervals (faster pacing) produced higher levels of correct responding and improving trends in acquisition than longer intervals between trials.
Similarly Dunlap, Dyer, and Keogel (1983), found that short intertrial intervals produced higher levels of correct responding and lower levels of self-stimulatory behavior in children with autism. These studies support the use of fast-paced instruction to promote responding and appropriate behavior of children with ASD.
Summary
Direct Instruction programs provide clear directions on how to structure active student involvement and frequent responding. Instructional formats ensure predictable teaching routines. Controlled teacher wording enhances student understanding. Content analysis guarantees that priority topics are taught. Careful sequencing of skills maintains high rates of student success as content becomes increasingly complex. Correction procedures ensure that students acquire critical content. Continuous progress monitoring and adjustments based on assessment information ensure adequate practice and skill mastery. Finally, Direct Instruction programs are specifically designed to foster generalization. Direct Instruction may provide an effective and practical option for teaching students with autism spectrum disorders.
References
- American Federation of Teachers, (1999). Five promising remedial reading intervention programs. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved December 2007 from http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/downloads/teachers/remedial.pdf
- Becker, W. C., Engelmann, S. E, and Thomas, D.R. (1975). Teaching 2: Cognitive Learning and Instruction. Palo Alto: Science Research Associates.
- Becker, W. C., Carnine, D. W. (1980). Direct Instruction: An effective approach to educational intervention with the disadvantaged and low performers. In B.B. Lahey & A.K. Kazdin (Eds.), Advances in clinical and child psychology. New York: Plenum.
- Borman, G.D., Hewes, G.M., Overman, L.T., Brown, S. (2002). Comprehensive school reform and student achievement: A meta-analysis (Report No. 59). Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk, Johns Hopkins University. Retrieved November 2002 from http://www.csos.jhu.edu.
- Carnine, D.W. (1976). Effects of two teacher presentation rates on off-task behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 9 (2), 199-206.
- Dunlap, G., and Koegel, R.L. (1980). Motivating autistic children through stimulus variation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 619-627.
- Dunlap, G., Dyer, K., & Keogel, R.L. (1983). Autistic self-stimulation and intertrial interval duration. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 88, 194-202.
- Engelmann, S. & Becker, W. C. (1978). Systems for basic instruction: Theory and applications. In A.C. Catania and T.A. Brigham (Eds.), Handbook of applied behavior analysis (pp. 325-377). New York: Irvington.
- Engelmann, S. & Carnine, D.W. (1991). Theory of Instruction: Principles and Applications. Eugene, OR: ADI Press.
- Gersten, R., Becker, W., Heiry, T., & White. (1984). Entry IQ and yearly academic growth in children in Direct Instruction programs: A longitudinal study of low SES children. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 6(2), 109-121.
- Herman, R., Aladjem, D., McMahon, P., Masem, E., Mulligan, I., O’Malley, A., et al (1999). An educator’s guide to schoolwide reform. Washington, D.C.: American Institutes for Research. Retrieved December 2007 from www.aasa.org/issues_and_insights/district_organization/Reform
- Horner, R. H. and Albin, R. (1988). Research on general-case procedures for learners with severe disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 4, 375-388.
- Horner, R. H., Day, H. M., Sprague, J. R., O’Brien, M., & Heathfield, L. T. (1991). Interspersed requests: A nonaversive procedure for reducing aggression and self-injury during instruction. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 265–278.
- Koegel, R.L, Dunlap, G., & Dyer, K. (1980). Intertrial interval duration and learning in autistic children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 91-99.
- Mac Iver, M. & Kemper, E. (2002). Guest editors’ introduction: Research on Direct Instruction in reading. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 7 (2).
- Marchand-Martella, N.E., Slocum, T.A., & Martella, R.C. (Eds.). (2004) Introduction to Direct Instruction. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
- Rosenshine, B. & Sevens, R. (1986). Teaching functions. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.). Handbook of Research on Teaching, 3rd Edition, New York, Macmillan.
- Sundberg, M.L., & Partington, J.W. (1998). Teaching language to children with autism or other developmental delays. Pleasant Hill: CA: Behavior Analysts.
- Watkins, C.L., (1988). Project Follow Through: A story of the identification ad neglect of effective instruction. Youth Policy, 10 (7), 7-11.