‘Everyone’ seems to forget that these uber-detailed, highly scaffolded processes essentially & best served underachieving and slow learners. As specifically noted by their originators. While valuable as a set of principles to establish a learning floor, imagine being a bright student trapped in a class which never went pedagogically further. Any time I mention this to the gurus, it’s studiously ignored.
Siegfried Engelmann, who developed Direct Instruction (DI) because he believed that many students were failing due to ineffective instruction, rather than a lack of ability. His goal was to create a teaching system that would enable all children, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, to learn successfully thriugh lessons which were carefully designed and explicitly taught.
Key purposes behind Direct Instruction included:
Making learning reliable and predictable. Engelmann wanted teaching methods that consistently produced learning outcomes rather than leaving success to chance.
*Helping disadvantaged and struggling students succeed. The earliest Direct Instruction programs were created for preschool and elementary-age children from low-income backgrounds, with the aim of accelerating their academic progress.
Eliminating confusion in teaching. He believed lessons should be carefully sequenced, explicit, and structured so that students clearly understood what was being taught.
Testing the effectiveness of instruction. Engelmann's philosophy was that if students didn’t learn, educators should first examine the instruction rather than put the blame on the learner.
I did not know that about the origins of DI. That said, my understanding of DI is that the scaffold is the model itself, and these are faded until the student attains mastery. This is not the kind of scaffolding we see in schools, where the model is seen as the end result which is hidden until all the many steps have been completed.
I asked Claude to help me out here!
"What DI actually does with scaffolding:
Engelmann's model uses scaffolding precisely and temporarily. Support is carefully designed in at the point of initial instruction, then systematically faded as students demonstrate competence. The goal is always independent mastery — scaffolding is a means to that end, not a permanent feature.
Where the misconception comes from:
People sometimes confuse DI with general "highly supported" teaching. But Engelmann was actually quite critical of excessive scaffolding because it:
Creates learned helplessness
Prevents students from developing fluency and automaticity
Obscures whether the student has genuinely learned the content
What DI scaffolding actually looks like:
Worked examples → partially completed examples → independent practice — and this progression happens quickly and deliberately
Prompts are built into the lesson design but also built out on a planned schedule
Mastery criteria must be met before moving on, which means students are never propped up artificially to progress."
Teaching from a model, rather than towards a model, is exactly what I am advocating.
The other most important aspect here is that there is a timetabled plan to phase out any support, not just a woolly intention to do so.
We are doing a 30 day program at school to help students struggling in maths, who are below their grade level. Would giving complex tasks to such students help and not put them off ?
Given that two of the pieces of research were specifically about maths, it is even more relevant to your intervention group. So the trick is not to abandon them in a complex struggle, but to present them with it and then see where you have to step in later. They will only be put off if they don’t achieve eventual success.
‘Everyone’ seems to forget that these uber-detailed, highly scaffolded processes essentially & best served underachieving and slow learners. As specifically noted by their originators. While valuable as a set of principles to establish a learning floor, imagine being a bright student trapped in a class which never went pedagogically further. Any time I mention this to the gurus, it’s studiously ignored.
I hadn’t realised that this was a claim of the originators. That’s very useful. Can you point me to them Susan?
Siegfried Engelmann, who developed Direct Instruction (DI) because he believed that many students were failing due to ineffective instruction, rather than a lack of ability. His goal was to create a teaching system that would enable all children, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, to learn successfully thriugh lessons which were carefully designed and explicitly taught.
Key purposes behind Direct Instruction included:
Making learning reliable and predictable. Engelmann wanted teaching methods that consistently produced learning outcomes rather than leaving success to chance.
*Helping disadvantaged and struggling students succeed. The earliest Direct Instruction programs were created for preschool and elementary-age children from low-income backgrounds, with the aim of accelerating their academic progress.
Eliminating confusion in teaching. He believed lessons should be carefully sequenced, explicit, and structured so that students clearly understood what was being taught.
Testing the effectiveness of instruction. Engelmann's philosophy was that if students didn’t learn, educators should first examine the instruction rather than put the blame on the learner.
Hope that helps.
Hi Susan,
I did not know that about the origins of DI. That said, my understanding of DI is that the scaffold is the model itself, and these are faded until the student attains mastery. This is not the kind of scaffolding we see in schools, where the model is seen as the end result which is hidden until all the many steps have been completed.
I asked Claude to help me out here!
"What DI actually does with scaffolding:
Engelmann's model uses scaffolding precisely and temporarily. Support is carefully designed in at the point of initial instruction, then systematically faded as students demonstrate competence. The goal is always independent mastery — scaffolding is a means to that end, not a permanent feature.
Where the misconception comes from:
People sometimes confuse DI with general "highly supported" teaching. But Engelmann was actually quite critical of excessive scaffolding because it:
Creates learned helplessness
Prevents students from developing fluency and automaticity
Obscures whether the student has genuinely learned the content
What DI scaffolding actually looks like:
Worked examples → partially completed examples → independent practice — and this progression happens quickly and deliberately
Prompts are built into the lesson design but also built out on a planned schedule
Mastery criteria must be met before moving on, which means students are never propped up artificially to progress."
Teaching from a model, rather than towards a model, is exactly what I am advocating.
The other most important aspect here is that there is a timetabled plan to phase out any support, not just a woolly intention to do so.
Thanks for clarifying. That makes complete sense.
We are doing a 30 day program at school to help students struggling in maths, who are below their grade level. Would giving complex tasks to such students help and not put them off ?
Given that two of the pieces of research were specifically about maths, it is even more relevant to your intervention group. So the trick is not to abandon them in a complex struggle, but to present them with it and then see where you have to step in later. They will only be put off if they don’t achieve eventual success.
Hi Dominic,
Thanks for a really interesting piece. I can't get the hyperlink to the study you discuss to work.
Thanks for pointing that out. I've updated it with the correct link.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11251-026-09807-1?utm_source=snacks.pepsmccrea.com&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=culture-onboarding&_bhlid=af52974c1929b4864e6a54289313ecd861f06c15
Superb! Thank you.