Embracing Precision Teaching and Direct Instruction
Overcoming Challenges for Meaningful Educational Reform
Introduction
Within education, students grapple with a host of challenges that extend far beyond the academic sphere, significantly impacting their potential to succeed in school. Issues such as hunger and poverty create an environment of food insecurity, hindering focus and energy levels. Family trauma, including divorce or loss, can weigh heavily on students, and some find themselves shouldering caregiving duties, making it challenging to balance academic and family commitments. Substance abuse poses a threat to both physical and mental health, affecting academic performance. Discrimination, in various forms, fosters isolation and hinders engagement within the academic community.
Moreover, the necessity to work, often a financial imperative, leads to exhaustion and limited time for studies, increasing the risk of burnout. In recent years, the culture of education has been undergoing transformative changes, with institutions recognizing the importance of support systems. Mental health services, counseling, and support networks are becoming integral components of university campuses. At the same time, initiatives for inclusivity, diversity, and flexible learning options aim to create a more accommodating and empowering environment for students of all backgrounds. As education adapts to these challenges, the hope is to foster an environment where students can thrive academically and personally.
Precision Teaching and Direct Instruction
The good news is that we already have a behavioral technology that would allow students to meet their academic potential, such as Precision Teaching and Direct Instruction. Developed by Ogden Lindsley in 1965, Precision Teaching applied the measurement of rate or frequency over time to measure student progress. Around the same time, Siegfried Engelmann, Wesley Becker, among others, developed Direct Instruction, designed to help failing inner-city schools improve upon math, reading, and language. Direct Instruction uses small groups of students with similar abilities, and a model including “I do” (instructor), “We do” (instructor and students), and “You do” (students practice on their own with instructor monitoring). During the 1960s, Project Follow Through, a comprehensive government-funded study, evaluated various educational interventions in high-poverty communities. Among the programs assessed, Direct Instruction stood out as the sole intervention that demonstrated significantly positive impacts across all measured outcomes.
So the question must be asked: Why don’t we see more Precision Teaching and Direct Instruction in schools? Cathy Watkins (1997) cites various factors that might have contributed (and continue to contribute) to this, such as public policy, educational philosophy, teacher training, school districts, publishers, and the public.
Public Policy
“Policy makers are generally concerned with funding for federal programs, and funding is determined largely by support. The position federal officials adopt with respect to teaching methods is thus most likely to be congruent with the position of the majority. Because the Direct Instruction and Behavior Analysis models represent a minority view in education, it was not entirely unexpected that policy makers failed to take a strong position in support of the Follow Through results.”
Project Follow Through: A Case Study of Contingencies Influencing Instructional Practices of the Educational Establishment (Watkins, 1997)
This shouldn’t be too much of a surprise. Those with the powers to make the changes had contingencies operating on them which resulted in their behavior supporting models other than Direct Instruction and Behavior Analysis. Watkins (1997) notes “Planning committees, advisory boards, and task forces were composed of representatives of universities and research centers. These professional educators generally represent philosophies that the Follow Through results suggest are not conducive to the development of effective teaching methods.” This essentially means that those in charge of making the policies were not going to decide against the philosophies they represented.
Educational Philosophy
Furthermore, the educational system was another major obstacle. Established teaching methods and curricula often have deep roots in educational institutions, and there is a natural resistance to adopting new approaches. This is especially true when “...the most successful Follow Through models were derived from a philosophical orientation that is discordant with traditional philosophical views” (Watkins, 1997).
Teacher Training
It cannot be assumed that teachers would acquire the skills necessary to implement Direct Instruction without specialized training. Watkins (1997) notes that “The sponsors of the Behavior Analysis Follow Through model found that teacher behavior was altered and maintained only when training provided modeling of the desired behavior, opportunities for the teacher to engage in the behavior, and feedback about his or her performance (Bushell, 1978). The conditions under which teachers acquired teaching behavior were essentially the same as the conditions specified by the behaviorally-oriented models as essential for learning to occur with children. In other words, the most effective way to train teachers to use effective teaching methods is to apply the principles on which those methods are based to the teacher training paradigm.”
School Districts
The primary objective of local administrators is to ensure the efficient operation of the system. Proposing anything divergent from established practices could prove disruptive, as administrators are unlikely to deviate without a compelling source of motivation, often in the form of external funding. The allocation of funds to Follow Through sites played a pivotal role in influencing the decisions of local districts to participate in the program. Notably, Follow Through stood out from other federally funded initiatives by actively monitoring and supervising the actual instructional practices in exchange for financial support. This meticulous system of monitoring led to a notable adherence to various instructional models.
While funding serves as an incentive for innovation adoption, it may not be adequate to guarantee successful implementation. In Project Follow Through, model sponsors established monitoring and feedback systems to ensure the accurate execution of instructional methods. However, typical school structures are not inherently equipped to provide such intensive supervision. Despite the apparent hierarchy in school systems, teachers, principals, and administrators often operate independently. Principals and administrators lack the motivation and skills to serve as effective instructional leaders. Consequently, instructional methods are poorly controlled and typically left to the discretion of teachers who may lack access to effective methodologies.
Publishers
The instructional decisions made by teachers are often heavily influenced by the educational materials they use. Unfortunately, these materials are generally not designed following the sophisticated programming principles that characterize the effective Direct Instruction model. The creators of instructional materials may not be expected to possess the skills necessary to develop highly effective materials, and it is unlikely that publishers will task them with doing so. The publishing industry typically responds to the demands of the educational establishment rather than taking the initiative to develop innovative instructional materials.
Designers of educational materials may not readily acquire the skills needed to create truly effective resources. The probability of publishers requiring them to do so is remote. Instead, publishing companies tend to react to the preferences and needs of the educational field. These companies rely on information obtained from their own consultants and advisors, often education professors, to stay informed about current trends in education. Education professors, being well-connected with the educational community, are in a prime position to predict the materials that educators are likely to adopt, as their teachings heavily influence educational practices.
Public
The public can only advocate for resources they are well-informed about. If the general public has no way of knowing that there are more efficient, effective teaching methods, there is little reason they’d suggest something not currently implemented by educators. Much of the results are not readily available to the public, and if they were, interpreting the results is frankly complex for even seasoned researchers and professional educators. Furthermore, the public has been misinformed by school personnel who are often deemed experts in teaching methods. What is often seen is that “Principles attribute academic failure to the child, the parents, or society (Carnine, 1984b). In other words, they place the blame on just about any factor except inadequate teaching methods. Consequently, parents are left to believe that no methods exist that are effective with their children (Watkins, 1997).” In short, the blame is placed on the individual rather than the environment. And those who do not believe they are directly impacted by the education system (e.g., perhaps they do not have school-aged children), are far less likely to speak out against current educational practices. The point Watkins (1997) makes is that the failure of the education establishment is EVERYONE’S problem; it is a cultural problem.
Conclusion
Given these multifaceted barriers to the broader adoption of Precision Teaching and Direct Instruction, it is evident that a concerted effort from all stakeholders—policymakers, educators, school districts, publishers, and the public—is necessary to drive meaningful change in the educational landscape. Overcoming these challenges requires a shift in perspective, recognizing the proven benefits of these methodologies and actively working to integrate them into mainstream education. This entails revising public policies to support effective teaching models, transforming educational philosophies to embrace evidence-based practices, providing specialized training for teachers, incentivizing school districts to adopt innovative approaches, urging publishers to align educational materials with effective instructional principles, and educating the public about the advantages of these methods. Only through such a comprehensive approach can we hope to address the systemic issues that hinder the adoption of Precision Teaching and Direct Instruction, thereby enhancing the educational experience for all students and enabling them to reach their full academic potential.
See you next time!