Direct Instruction in Science?

Words of Wisdom from a Proponent of Hands-On Instruction

Michael Horton
Science Coordinator
Riverside County Office of Education
 There is a plethora of research out there showing that Inquiry, Discovery, and student

engagement are how science is taught best. Richard Hake (2002) showed that students who are

actively engaged in learning physics far outperform the peers exposed to lecture in pre/post test

analysis. FOSS showed that students using kit-based science programs outperform their

traditionally instructed peers.

There is also a plethora of evidence showing that Direct Instruction is how arithmetic,

spelling, and reading are best taught. Zig Engleman has collected research showing that Direct

Instruction is the most effective way to teach language arts and mathematics. He has done meta-

analyses of research on direct instruction and has found a positive correlation.

There is also a plethora of evidence that lecture doesn’t work. Rebello and Zollman gave

students a pretest and then asked them to get the answers to those questions from a polished,

professional 14 minute video lecture. In most instances, except for simple recall questions, the

lecture did not increase the students’ knowledge and most students could not accurately

determine which questions were even answered during the lecture. Redish interviewed students

as they left a lecture and asked what the lecture was about. Students could only make the most

general statements about surface features of the lecture.

Research has shown that computer simulations work better than lecture or inquiry labs

(Keller, 2005).

Lecture did not increase the

students’ knowledge and most
students could not accurately
determine which questions
were even answered during
the lecture.

2
So, who is right?

They all are.

The president of the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), Anne Tweed,

summarized the situation well. In the Dec 15, 2004 NSTA Reports she concluded that a variety

of teaching strategies, including those that are inquiry-based as well as direct instruction

techniques are what is best for students (Tweed, 2004).

There are many misconceptions about Direct Instruction. Direct Instruction (with capital

letters) is different than direct instruction (with lower case letters). The type of direct instruction

that we were warned about in our Science Methods courses in college were warning about dry,

boring, 45-minute lectures not the precisely scripted, short lessons that involve a variety of

teaching methodologies as DI recommends.

“For clarity, DI is not a lecture approach (e.g., Freiberg & Driscoll, 2000). It is an instructional
model that focuses on the interaction between teachers and students. Key components of DI
include “modeling, reinforcement, feedback, and successive approximations” (Joyce, Weil, &
Calhoun, 2000, p. 337). Essentially, DI is “modeling with reinforced guided performance” (Joyce
et al., p. 337).

The science content standards run the gamut of skill levels. There are very few recall-

level standards in science, but the standards are spread out across the rest of the Bloom’s levels.

Just looking at the fourth grade physical sciences, there are no recall-level standards. At the

understand level, we see, “Students know electrical energy can be converted to heat, light, and

motion.” At the apply level, we have, “Students know electric currents produce magnetic fields

and know how to build a simple electromagnet.” At the analyze level, we find, “Students know

how to build a simple compass and use it to detect magnetic effects, including Earth’s magnetic

field.” At the synthesize level is, “Students know the role of electromagnets in the construction

of electric motors, electric generators, and simple devices such as doorbells and earphones.” In

3
fourth grade Investigation and Experimentation standards, we have an evaluate-level standard,

“Conduct multiple trials to test a prediction and draw conclusions about the relationships

between predictions and results.”

What is clear is that those fourth grade standards cannot be taught completely through

direct instruction. And doing so would be in direct conflict with the Science Framework for

California Public Schools which states, “Effective science programs reflect a balanced,

comprehensive approach that .”, “Effective science programs use multiple instructional

strategies and provide students with multiple opportunities to master the content standards.”, and

“Hands-on activities compose at least 20-25 percent of the science instructional time.”

So, what is a science teacher to do?

A variety of teaching
strategies, including
those that are inquiry-
based as well as direct
instruction techniques are
what is best for students.

Direct Instruction:
The tenets of Direct Instruction and the research behind what is effective in teaching science are

not in complete conflict with each other. The Direct Instruction model follows these steps:

1) Teach/Model/Demo
2) Guided Practice/Self Discovery
3) Independent Practice
4) Assessment

If a science teacher is given the flexibility of reversing steps 1 and 2 when appropriate, then that

model is very well-aligned with Levels of Inquiry theory.

4
Direct Instruction and Inquiry:

Levels of Inquiry theory states that there is a spectrum of depth of inquiry usually broken down

into four steps. The difference between the 4 steps is how much information the student is given

as shown in Chart 1 below.

Level AKA Question Procedure Answer

1 Cookbook or Validation Given Given Known
2 Structured Inquiry Given Given Not Known
3 Guided Inquiry Given Not Given Not Known
4 Open Inquiry Not Given Not Given Not Known
Chart 1. Levels of Inquiry

Reversing steps 1 and 2 in the Direct Instruction model automatically bumps the level of inquiry

up to level 2. In addition, the small change ensures that all students have the same background

knowledge because you gave them that knowledge. Marzano did a meta-analysis of 8 prior

studies and found that increasing a student’s background knowledge by one standard deviation

increases achievement by 25 percentage points. The teacher can refer back to this activity during

Direct Instruction to reinforce the experience and connect it with their newly-found background

knowledge. The teacher does not have to guess if students have the background knowledge or

not. This small change provides many benefits to the science teacher.

Increasing a student’s
background knowledge
by one standard
deviation increases
achievement by 25
percentage points.

5
A Deeper Look at Direct Instruction:
The simple 4 step-process of Direct Instruction is a good overview, but not sufficient to begin

creating lessons. Here is a more detailed look at DI and its components as explained by Tobias

(1982).

1. Materials and curriculum are broken down into small steps and arrayed in what is assumed to be
the prerequisite order.
2. Objectives must be stated clearly and in terms of learner outcomes or performance.
3. Learners are provided with opportunities to connect their new knowledge with what they already
know.
4. Learners are given practice with each step or combination of steps.
5. Learners experience additional opportunities to practice that promote increasing responsibility and
independence (guided and/or independent; in groups and/or alone).
6. Feedback is provided after each practice opportunity or set of practice opportunities.

So, let’s look at each of these steps as they apply to science instruction.

Step 1- Science curriculum providers for years have been encouraging teachers to deconstruct,

analyze, or backwards map standards. Both Understanding by Design and Professional Learning

Communities encourage teachers to break standards down into small steps.

In science, we need to break standards down into 1) Necessary background information 2) New

knowledge and 3) New skills.

In the fourth grade example, “Students know electric currents produce magnetic fields

and know how to build a simple electromagnet,” students must know what electric currents are,

what a circuit is, and that a battery provides energy in the form of moving electrons to a circuit to

approach the learning of this standard. By the end of the lesson, students should know what

magnetic fields are and how electric currents produce them. Students should also acquire the

skill of building electromagnets during this lesson. The narrative in the framework also suggests

other knowledge and skills that the student should gain.

Breaking down the prerequisite knowledge, knowledge to be gained, and skills to be

gained will allow the teacher to focus the instruction specifically on the targeted learning

outcomes. Identifying the knowledge and skills to be learned will also lead directly to authentic

6
assessment items to see if the students have learned the information and skills intended.

Breaking down the standards this way will also allow the teacher to focus their interventions on

the specific knowledge or skill that the student is lacking instead of re-teaching the entire lesson.

Step 2- Teachers have, through little fault of their own, identified what standard a student will be

learning each day. But posting a standard on a board does little to help the teacher identify

teaching strategies, figure out how to know if the student learned the concept or not, and figure

out how to fix the problem if they do not learn it. Taking those pieces created in Step 1 and

turning them into outcomes will lead to instructionally significant change. In the fourth grade

example above, the outcomes would be: 1) Students will be able to use a diagram to help them

explain how electric currents produce magnetic fields. 2) Students will be able to build an

electromagnet. 3) Students will use a compass to show that their electromagnet has two poles

(described in the Science Framework) 4) Students will use the compass to show that reversing

the orientation of the battery reverses the poles of the magnet.

Outcome 4 will be imperative if students are to understand how a motor, generator,

doorbell, and earphones work in the next standard. As such, the instruction in this area must be

precise and targeted to ensure that students are not allowed to not reach proficiency. Not being

proficient on this standard will guarantee that the student will not be proficient in two other

standards in this unit and more in future grade levels.

Step 3- In looking forward to the next standard, teachers can see that it is imperative that

students understand outcome 4. Without that knowledge, they will not be successful on the

following standard. Without understanding the prior standard, “Students know how to build a

7
simple compass and use it to detect magnetic effects. . .”, students will not be successful in

outcome 3. All of these connections must be made between the standards so as to not teach

science as an encyclopedia of facts. Linking concepts together will lead to longer lasting and

deeper learning.

In addition, step 3 is an opportunity to practice scientific inquiry. Connecting what you

already know to an activity that will be connected with what you are about to learn is what

inquiry is all about. In the fourth grade example, before instruction occurs, students can build an

electromagnet and pick up paper clips with it and see how it affects the compass that they built

yesterday. This connects yesterday’s learning to today’s inquiry activity which will provide

background knowledge that will make their learning of electromagnets deeper. Going from

yesterday’s compass to today’s electromagnet to today’s lesson on electromagnets is both Direct

Instruction AND inquiry.

Going from yesterday’s

compass to today’s
electromagnet to today’s
lesson on electromagnets
is both Direct Instruction
AND inquiry.

Step 4- Practice with each step can involve hands-on activities, working out physics equations,

writing similarities and differences between objects, classifying rocks into categories, or listing

adaptations of living creatures. Direct Instruction purveyors suggest that you do not instruct for

more than 10 minutes without providing time for practice, discussion, or other active

8
engagement. Flexibility is allowed as to what the practice looks like since the skills and

knowledge required in the science content standards are so highly varied.

This step is clearly aligned with active engagement of students in a rigorous science

curriculum. If the practice is directly linked to the outcomes in step 2 which were aimed at the

skills identified in step 1, then this also aligns with Direct Instruction.

Step 5- Taking the information and skills to the next level brings the learning up several levels

on Bloom’s Taxonomy. Having students create a product together such as a mousetrap car after

learning about the wheel and axle or a stable rocket after learning about center of mass and

center of pressure aligns with both engaging science instruction and Direct Instruction. Products

can be very creative such as a podcast, video clip, blog entry, poster, PowerPoint, newscast,

children’s book, or analogy as long as the product is connected to the practice in step 4 which

was connected to the activity in step 3 which was based upon the outcomes in step 2 which were

based upon the skills and knowledge identified in step 1.

Taking knowledge and skills learned to higher levels on Bloom’s Taxonomy is consistent

with both the science education research as well as Direct Instruction principles.

Step 6- Marzano (2008) did a meta-analysis showing that feedback that is given after an

assessment is more important than the assessment itself. Some forms of feedback can lead to

pre/post gains of more than 30 percentage points. Each step from 3 to 6 should be seen as an

opportunity for assessment. Observing a student or group of students using a compass is one

form of assessment. Reading their paragraphs about how electric current creates magnetic fields

is another. Explaining to a partner how to show that the orientation of the battery affects the

9
polarity of the magnet is another. Applying what they know about electromagnets to tomorrow’s

lesson on electric motors is another.

Each of these opportunities for formal or informal formative assessment brings with it the

opportunity for . . . no . . . the requirement of feedback. These formative assessments should

instruct the teachers on alternate teaching methods for those who are not proficient as well as

ensuring that students will be proficient on the summative assessments.

Feedback that is given

after an assessment is
more important than the
assessment itself.

That Doesn’t Sound Like Direct Instruction:

Many teachers get caught up in the 10-minute scripted lessons that are a very small part

of a Direct Instruction program. Those lessons are used for teaching the requisite knowledge

identified in step 1 of this process. Skills such as building an electromagnet will not be taught

this way, but academic language, concepts, relationships, and operations can be taught well

through these fast-paced, focused lessons. Because the science standards are a good mix of

knowledge, concepts, and skills, the science classroom will still be an engaging place where

numerous learning styles are addressed through a variety of research-based strategies including

inquiry and Direct Instruction.

The skills identified in step 1 are taught via hands-on activities, demonstrations, projects,

simulations, and other engaging activities. Group activities are highly encouraged in the Direct

Instruction model and science teachers are very accustomed to teaching this way.

10
So What Will This All Look Like?

Let’s take the fourth grade Physical Science standards as a model for a Direct Instruction

unit. First, let’s look at how we would apply the six steps to standard 1.c., “Students know

electric currents produce magnetic fields and know how to build a simple electromagnet.”

Step Task Product Assessment

1 Break down standard Prerequisite Knowledge:
into small pieces of Electric currents, compasses,
prerequisite knowledge, circuits
requisite knowledge, Requisite Knowledge:
and skills. Electric currents flowing
through a coil produce
magnetic fields.
The magnetic fields can be
strengthened by wrapping the
coil around an iron core.
Flipping the battery switches
the magnet’s poles.
Skills:
Students can build an
electromagnet. Students can
use a compass to identify the
poles of the electromagnet.
2 Turn the requisite a) Students will be able to use - Have students explain to a
knowledge and skills diagrams to explain how partner how electric currents
from step 1 into learning electric currents produce produce magnetic fields.
outcomes magnetic fields. - After testing an
b) Students will be able to electromagnet with and
demonstrate with a battery, without an iron core, have
wire, nail, and paperclips that students write their
an electromagnet with an iron conclusions about the
core is stronger than one experience.
without a core. - Have students draw a
c) Students will use the right diagram displaying their
hand rule to find the north pole understanding of how the
of an electromagnet. battery orientation affects the
d) Students will build an magnet’s polarity.
electromagnet with and - Have students demonstrate
without an iron core. the use of a compass to
e) Students will use a compass identify the poles of a magnet.

11
 to determine the poles of the
magnet.
Teach Teacher determines Item a) should be taught via - Clickers, whiteboards, or
which research-based Direct Instruction via a some other “all-respond”
strategies to use to bring focused 10-minute lesson methods throughout the
all students to success in using graphics when necessary lesson followed by an
the outcomes in step 2. Item b) will be a guided explanation to a peer.
inquiry activity where groups - Students will write a
of students will answer, summary paragraph at the end
“Which is stronger, an of the guided inquiry activity.
electromagnet with an iron
core or one without?”
Item c) Teacher creates a - Several electromagnet
Direct Instruction lesson to diagrams will be put on the
teach “The Right Hand Rule” screen or board and the class
for determining the north pole as a whole will point to the
of an electromagnet. direction that the north pole of
Item d) was incorporated into the magnet faces.
item b).
Item e) Students use their - Students will draw diagrams
knowledge of compasses to to show what they learned
perform a guided inquiry about the battery/magnetic
activity to answer the question, pole relationship that they
“How does the orientation of learned in the inquiry activity.
the battery affect the poles of
the magnet?” Note: To be
guided inquiry, this step must
be done before item c).
3 Connect today’s lessons Yesterday, students built a
to yesterday’s and compass in standard 1.b.
tomorrow’s Tomorrow, students will use
their knowledge of the
relationship between battery
orientation and magnetic poles
to explain how a speaker and
doorbell work.
4 Students practice each Item a) students write
step summary paragraphs, draw
diagrams, and discuss their
drawing/writing with a peer.
Item b) students will build two
electromagnets and measure
which is stronger.
Item c) students are given
numerous diagrams of
electromagnets and determine

12
 the orientation of the poles of
the magnet.
Item d) students will build two
electromagnets.
Item e) students use their
compass to determine the poles
of the magnet with the battery
in both orientations.
5 Extending the learning Students make a list of the Products are collected that
items around their homes that result from the suggested
utilize an electromagnet to extension activities.
operate. Students construct a
compass to determine which
direction their front door faces
and circle their home on a
Google Map.
6 Feedback is provided. During the two Direct
Instruction portions,
instantaneous whole-group
response is used to assess and
provide immediate feedback.
The teacher circles the room
during the inquiry activities to
assess learning, provide
feedback, and ask guiding
questions.
Feedback is given upon return
of these suggested extension
activities.

13
 Below is another way to break Direct Instruction down into steps. This list is longer but

is equally applicable to engaging science instruction.

1. Direct Instruction focuses on cognitive learning—concepts, propositions, cognitive strategies. It is not rote
learning.
2. Brief (5 minute) placement tests are given to ensure that each child begins with lessons for which he or she
is prepared.
3. Children are taught in small groups.
4. The children sit in front of the teacher—close enough that he or she can see and hear each one.
5. Lessons move at a brisk pace. This sustains children’s attention and results in a high rate of learning
opportunities per minute.
6. Instruction is organized in a logical– developmental sequence. All of the concepts, rules, and strategies that
students need in any lesson have already been taught. In addition, what they learn in any lesson is used in
later lessons. There is no inert knowledge.
7. Knowledge (e.g., how to solve 4 + X = 12, how to sound out words) is taught directly and explicitly. For
example, the teacher verbalizes her reasoning process while demonstrating the strategy for solving an
arithmetic problem. This enables students to internalize the teacher’s knowledge and become independent.
8. Instruction is aimed at mastery. The group and each child is always “firm” before the teacher moves to the
next exercise.
9. Teacher–student communication has a common format from lesson to lesson. This means that students need
to attend only to the content of the communication, and they do not have to figure out how the teacher is
communicating. The general format is Model, Lead, Test:
(a) Model: For example, the teacher says, “I can read this word the slow way. Listen. wh e n.”
(b) Lead: This step is guided practice; teacher and students work problems, sound out new words, or
read passages together. For example, the teacher says, “Read this word with me.
Get ready. wh e n.”
(c) Test: Children now do the exercise on their own. “Your turn to read this word the slow way. Get
ready...”
10. Gradually, instruction moves from a teacher-guided to a more student-guided format.
11. Direct Instruction would most likely be used at the beginning of some class periods. The rest of a class
period would be individual or small group work on generalizing or adapting what was learned to new
material or problems.

Direct Instruction focuses

on cognitive learning—
concepts, propositions,
cognitive strategies. It is
not rote learning.

14
The following quote about Direct Instruction is also in complete agreement with the ideas behind

rigorous, engaging science instruction.

“However, the real power of a DI program comes from the careful analysis of each skill taught.
The skill is broken down into its component parts, then each component skill is taught to mastery.
Afterward, the skills are combined into a larger context where different skills are utilized across
settings, resulting in generalized fluency” (Association for Direct Instruction, 2008).

Summary:

Although on the surface, Direct Instruction does not seem to be compatible with the research on

effective science instruction or with the California Science Framework, a deep analysis shows

that it is. If the focus is on using Direct Instruction to teach knowledge and concepts and

inquiry-based activities to teach concepts and relationships, the two ideas are completely attuned

with each other. It does not seem too much to ask for science teachers to use short, focused,

precise lessons that are directed at skills and concepts essential to learning the content standards

in their instruction. Those lessons may include Direct Instruction, hands-on activities, inquiry

activities, group work, take-home experiments, and projects when appropriate. Together, these

two models could make a huge impact on science instruction.

15