Using Direct and Explicit Instruction to Teach Skills in Reading

everybody believes in direct instruction - even whole language teachers

*This is an excerpt from my book, ‘Understanding the Science of Reading: Context Matters’ published by Guildford. It will be out sometime in 2026.

The term “direct and explicit instruction” is often used to sell products or to persuade state legislators to make bad decisions. This chapter unpacks the terms ‘direct instruction’ and ‘explicit instruction’.

The Basic Elements of Direct Instruction

Direct instruction is a structured form of teaching where students receive information directly from the teacher (Rosenshine, 1979). Sometimes called the elements of effective skills instruction (Johnson, 1999; Pressley, Harris, & Marks, 1992), it’s been around for years. Siegfried Engelmann is said to have “invented” direct instruction in the early 1960s (Wood, 2017). He was working in advertising, analyzing the type of input needed to maintain viewer retention. He applied what he learned there to the design of instructional programs and techniques for teaching children.

In the late 70’s, Madeline Hunter repackaged direct instruction and put it in the form of a lesson plan format consisting of the seven elements in Figure 12.1 (Hunter, 1984). She described it as a scientific method for teaching. (Sound familiar?) If it were followed explicitly, it was said, the teacher was guaranteed to be successful, and that all students would learn.

Figure 12.1. Hunter lesson plan format

1. anticipatory set

2. purpose

3. input

4. modeling

5. check for understanding

6. guided practice

7. closure

Every few years, somebody claims to have discovered direct instruction and repackages it into a commercial product or service. However, all good teachers use direct instruction in some form to teach necessary skills. You don’t need special training or expensive products to do it. And it comes in a variety of forms. Below are the basic elements of direct instruction. These can be used to effectively teach a skill of any kind and in any area.

Purpose Statement

A clearly defined purpose. This is can be put in the form of a statement or single sentence that states exactly what it is that you want students to learn. A clearly stated purpose defines the learning experience and provides focus for the lesson. Everything that follows should support the purpose statement.

Input

The input is the specific information that students need to know in order to learn the skill. This would include a description of the skill, how to use it, and either the modeling of the specific steps or a demonstration with examples. The input should be well-organized with a logical structure to enhance students’ understanding. Using list or outline form enables the sequence and structure of the lesson to be easily seen during both the planning and teaching of the lesson.

• Identification of the procedural components with demonstration. If the skill involves several steps like a study skill strategy (see Figure 12.2), the skill should be introduced along with the specific steps. A description should include what it is, why it’s used, and how it’s used. Next, cognitive modeling is used to demonstrate the skill. Here the teacher thinks out loud while going through each step.

Figure 12.2. Example input for a reading sub-skill

1. We read informational text differently than stories

2. We use special skills called study skill strategies.

3. Read and Pause is one of these

4. Here are the steps:

a. read a paragraph

b. pause

c. do I understand?

d. review or resume

5. Watch as I demonstrate this skill.

• Identify with examples. Skills such as identifying letter-sounds or recognizing letter-patterns do not have specific steps (see Figure 12.3). In these cases, the letter-sound or letter-pattern is introduced along with many examples. To illustrate, the short /a/ lesson in Figure 12.3, would include many examples of CVC short /a/ words. Students would see them and be able to practice reading them several times.

Figure 12.3. Example input for a reading sub-skill

1. This is the letter a

2. It is a vowel

3. It makes the short /a/ (ah) sound as in:

a. hat

b. man

c. lap

d. fan

e. ant

Guided Practice

Guided practice is sometimes referred to as scaffolded instruction. This is where the teacher takes the whole class through each step of the skill several times. The goal is to provide the support necessary for students to use the skill independently. Here, they use, apply, or practice the skill several times as the teacher monitors their performance in order to assess their level of learning (formative assessment). Small group activities can be effective here because they enable the teacher to see many students simultaneously and to hear their thinking processes as they discuss ideas with others. Guided practice is used with a gradual release of teacher responsibility. This means that less support is provided each time the skill is practiced until students can use the skill independently.

Independent Practice

Independent practice is a practice of what students already know or can do. Students are practicing their learning by using or applying the new skill (see Figure 12.4). Independent practice should be used to reinforce the skill that was just taught. It should not be used to challenge students or to get a dispersion of scores. If successful, students should be able to complete independent practice with 95% to 100% success ratio. Again, this is practice of what has already been learned. This is not the place to evaluate their learning.

“But, how do you know if they’ve learned?”

There are other times and places to assess learning. And if guided practice is done correctly, you already have a good sense of this.

Figure 12. 4. Examples of independent practice.

Independent practice for teaching a skill: Ms. Jamison. Ms. Jamison used direct instruction and guided practice to teach the short /a/ sound to her 2nd-grade students. Guided practice consisted of students working in pairs to complete a worksheet under her direction. For independent practice, students described something that makes them mad (short /a/ word). It is also appropriate to use worksheets here as long as they reflect what was practiced in guided practice. It is sometimes useful for students to work in pairs on a worksheet, as the conversation that takes place often enhances learning.

Revisit, Review, and Reapply

Mastery of any skill does not happen in a single setting. Learners must encounter new skills in a variety of situations and settings over time for mastery to occur. Good teachers revisit skills, review them, and apply them at successively higher levels over time. They evaluate to document mastery, not to catch failure.

Methods vs. Strategies

I recently was a conversation with a person who insisted that whole language practitioners are against direct instruction. Of course, this is a silly statement. Direct instruction is a pedagogical strategy. A pedagogical strategy is a tool like a screwdriver. To say one is against direct instruction is to imply one is against screwdrivers. Whole language practitioners are not against screwdrivers. They’re against using screwdrivers to pound in nails or drill holes. Meaning that they’re against direct instruction as a method, but not as a strategy. Let’s differentiate between these two.

A Strategy is Not a Method

A method. A method is a process or procedure used for obtaining a goal. It’s a way of doing things that often includes specific steps to be followed in a regular, defined order. A method in education usually refers to a defined process or specific set of techniques that are used exclusively in a prescribed fashion for instruction in a particular subject area (Johnson, 2021). Some examples are: reading methods, math methods, or social studies methods. Direct instruction as a method for teaching reading would be the exclusive or predominant use of this pedagogical strategy to teach a predefined set of skills in a predetermined order. While direct instruction is a small and necessary part of learning to read, it is far from sufficient.

A pedagogical strategy. Pedagogy refers to the science and art of teaching. A pedagogical strategy is a specific teaching technique that is used selectively across subject areas for a specific purpose across the curriculum. Direct instruction is one such pedagogical strategy. It should not be considered a method. There are instances when direct instruction is the most effective strategy to use. There are other instances when it is the least efficient strategy to use. Like any pedagogical strategy, its effectiveness is dependent on how it is used and for what purpose (Peterson, 1979). When teachers have the autonomy to flexibly apply and adapt it to particular situations, direct instruction can be a very powerful strategy for teaching skills.

There’s plenty of research to support direct instruction as a pedagogical strategy (Hattie, 2008). However, just because it’s been shown to be effective with one group for one thing does not mean that it will be effective for all groups for all things. While direct instruction is effective for learning low level facts and skills, it is not very effective for higher level learning (Eppley & Dudley-Marling, 2018; Heshusius, 1991; Peterson, 1979). It’s an effective strategy. It’s not an effective method.

The Basic Elements of Explicit Instruction

We turn nowto the explicit instruction. Explicit is clear and defined. If it’s not explicit it would be implicit. Implicit is that which is not clear or ill-defined. In other words, it’s implied, inferred, or ambiguous. I don’t know of any teacher or scholar who is in favor of using implicit, implied, inferred, ill-defined, or ambiguous instruction.

Thus said, there are specific pedagogical strategies, such as discovery learning or problem-based learning (Johnson, 2017), where students have an experience first in order to notice or discover concepts or skills; however, these pedagogical strategies are used pursuant to a particular purpose and are always followed by very explicit instruction. And just like direct instruction, these are pedagogical strategies that can be effectively used for certain purposes. But also, like direct instruction, they should not become methods or the sole types of instruction.

Practicing What You Preach

When SoR enthusiasts argue passionately for direct and explicit instruction, they’re inferring that these are not being used. This is a common mischaracterization of balanced literacy and whole language. As stated above, balanced literacy and whole language practitioners use instruction that is very explicit and very direct. In fact, it should be called more-direct instruction because it often occurs directly in the context in which it is used. This is much more direct than teaching skills in isolation, apart from real reading contexts, and expecting transfer to take place.

Using terms like “direct instruction” and “explicit instruction” to make a case for reading policies and programs should be preceded by very direct and explicit language defining exactly what these are. Much of the confusion related to reading instruction is a result of the purposeful inexplicitness of the language and terms used. In this sense, the SoR perpetuates this confusion and misinformation by failing to practice what they preach: explicitness. As described in Chapter 16, important terms are often thrown around without adequate understanding (see Figure 16.4). They just sound good. To prove my point, ask the reading specialists at the Minnesota Department of Education to define terms use on their own website:

Figure 16.4. Important-sounding words.

• structured

• evidence-based

• culturally responsive

• three-cueing system

• systematic

• scientific

• diagnostic

• prescriptive

• direct

• explicit

• extensive

• sequential

• cumulative

• logical order

REFERENCES

Allington, R.L. (2011). Research on reading/learning disability interventions (pp. 236-264). In S.J. Samuels and A.E. Farstrup’s (Eds.) What research has to say about reading instruction, (4th ed.). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Anderson, R. C., Wilson, P.T., & Fielding, L. G. (1988). Growth in reading and how children spend their time outside of school. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 285-303.

Braunger, J., & Lewis, J.P. (2008). Building a knowledge base in reading (2^nd ed.). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Eppley, K., & Dudley-Marling, C. (2018). Does direct instruction work?: A critical assessment of direct instruction research and its theoretical perspective. Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy, 14, 1-20.

Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning. Routledge.

Heshusius, L. (1991). Curriculum-based assessment and direct instruction: Critical reflections on fundamental assumptions. Exceptional Children, 57, 315-328

Hunter, M. (1984). Knowing, teaching and supervising. In P. Hosford (Ed.), Using what we know about reading. (pp. 169-203). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.