Abstract
The goal of Direct Instruction (DI) is to teach content as effectively and efficiently as possible. To do this, instructional designers must identify generative relations or strategies that allow the learner to respond correctly to untaught situations. The purpose of content analysis is to identify generative relations in the domain to be taught and arrange the content in such a way that it supports maximally generative instruction. This article explains the role of content analysis in developing DI programs and provides examples and nonexamples of content analysis in five content domains: spelling, basic arithmetic facts, earth science, basic language, and narrative language. It includes a brief sketch of a general methods of conducting a content analysis. It concludes that content analysis is the foundation upon which generative instruction is built and that instructional designers could produce more effective, efficient, and powerful programs by attending explicitly and carefully to content analysis.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
We use the term “generative” as Stokes and Baer used the term “generalization.” We prefer the former to avoid confusion with the narrower terms “stimulus generalization” and “response generalization.”
References
Carnine, D. (1991). Curricular interventions for teaching higher order thinking to all students: Introduction to the special series. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24(5), 261–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194910240050.
Carnine, D. W., Jones, E. D., & Dixon, R. C. (1994). Mathematics: Educational tools for diverse learners. School Psychology Review, 23(3), 406–427. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.1994.12085721.
Carnine, D. W., Silbert, J., Kame’enui, E. J., Slocum, T. A., & Travers, P. (2017). Direct Instruction reading (6th ed.). Pearson.
Coyne, M., Kame’enui, E. J., & Carnine, D. (Eds.). (2011). Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners. Pearson Prentice Hall.
Dixon, R. C. (1991). The application of sameness analysis to spelling. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34(5), 285–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949102400505.
Dixon, R. C., & Engelman, S. (2001). Spelling through morphographs. SRA/McGraw-Hill.
Dixon, R. C., & Engelmann, S. (2006). Spelling mastery. McGraw-Hill.
Engelmann, S. (1969). Preventing failure in the primary grades. Simon & Schuster.
Engelmann. S., & Osborn, J. (1976). DISTAR language I and II. SRA.
Engelmann. S., & Osborn, J. (1999). Language for learning. SRA/McGraw-Hill.
Favot, K., Carter, M., & Stephenson, J. (2018). The effects of an oral narrative intervention on the fictional narrative retells of children with ASD and severe language impairment: A pilot study. Journal of Developmental & Physical Disabilities, 30(5), 615–637. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-018-9608-y.
Graham, S. (1999). Handwriting and spelling instruction for students with learning disabilities: A review. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22(2), 78–98. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511268.
Graham, S., Morphy, P., Harris, K. R., Fink-Chorzempa, B., Saddler, B., Moran, S., & Mason, S. (2008). Teaching spelling in the primary grades: A national survey of instructional practices and adaptations. American Education Research Journal, 45(3), 796–825. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831208319722.
Haas, M. E. (1991). An analysis of the social science and history concepts in elementary social studies textbooks, grade 1–4. Theory and Research in Social Education, 19, 211–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.1991.10505637.
Harniss, M., Hollenbeck, K., & Dickson, S. (2004). Content areas. In N. Marchand-Martella, Slocum, & R. Martella (Eds.), Introduction to Direct Instruction (pp. 246–279). Pearson.
Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (2001) Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian approach to language and cognition. Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Herrnstein, R. J., Loveland, D. H., & Cable, C. (1976). Natural concepts in pigeons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 2(4), 285–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/0097-7403.2.4.285.
Hughes, D. L., McGillivray, L., & Schmidek, M. (1997). Guide to narrative language: Procedures for assessment. Thinking Publications.
Institute of Child Health & Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). U.S. Government Printing Office.
Johnson, K. R. (2008). Morningside mathematics fluency: Math facts (Vols. 1 – 6) [Curriculum program]. Morningside Press.
Johnson, K., & Bulla, A. J. (this issue). Creating the components for teaching concepts. Behavior Analysis in Practice.
Kelso, G. L. (2007). Language for learning: A relational frame theory perspective. . Paper presented at a symposium, Language for Learning, Children with Autism, and Relational Frame Theory (C. Watkins, chair), conducted at the Association of Behavior Analysis Convention, San Diego, CA.
Kim, S. Y., Rispoli, M., Lory, C., Gregori, E., & Brodhead, M. T. (2018). The effects of a shared reading intervention on narrative story comprehension and task engagement of students with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 48(10), 3608–3622. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-018-3633-7.
Nolet, V. W., Tindal, G., & Blake, G. (1993). Focus on assessment and learning in content classes (Training Module No. 4). University of Oregon, Research, Consultation, and Teaching Program.
Petersen, D. B., Brown, C. L., Ukrainetz, T. A., Wise, C., Spencer, T. D., & Zebre, J. (2014). Systematic individualized narrative language intervention on the personal narratives of children with autism. Language, Speech, & Hearing Services in Schools, 45, 67–86. https://doi.org/10.1044/2013_LSHSS-12-0099.
Poncy, B. C., McCallum, E., & Schmitt, A. J. (2010). A comparison of behavioral and constructivist interventions for increasing math-fact fluency in a second-grade classroom. Psychology in the Schools, 47(9), 917–930. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20514.
Post, Y. V., & Carreker, S. (2002). Orthographic similarity and phonological transparency in spelling. Reading & Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 15, 317–340. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015213005350.
Rolf, K. R., & Slocum, T. A. (this issue). Features of Direct Instruction: Interactive lessons. Behavior Analysis in Practice.
Simonsen, F. L., & Dixon, R. (2004). Spelling. In N. Marchand-Martella, T. Slocum, & R. Martella (Eds.), Introduction to Direct Instruction (pp. 178–205). Pearson.
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Appleton Century Crofts.
Spencer, T. D. (this issue). Ten instructional design efforts to help behavior analysts take up the torch of Direct Instruction.
Spencer, T. D., Kajian, M., Petersen, D. B., & Bilyk, N. (2013). Effects of an individualized narrative intervention on children’s storytelling and comprehension skills. Journal of Early Intervention, 35(3), 243–269. 10.1177%2F1053815114540002.
Spencer, T. D., Petersen, D. B., Slocum, T. A., & Allen, M. M. (2015). Large group narrative intervention in Head Start classrooms: Implications for response to intervention. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 13(2), 196–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X13515419.
Spencer, T. D., & Slocum, T. A. (2010). The effect of a narrative intervention on story retelling and personal story generation skills of preschoolers with risk factors and narrative language delays. Journal of Early Intervention, 32(3), 178–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053815110379124.
Spencer, T. D., Weddle, S. A., Petersen, D. B., & Adams, J. A. (2018). Multi-tiered narrative intervention for preschoolers: A Head Start implementation study. NHSA Dialog, 20(1), 1–28.
Stein, N. L. & Glenn, C. G. (1979). An analysis of story comprehension in elementary school children. In R. Freedle (Ed.), Multidisciplinary approaches to discourse processing (pp. 53–120). Ablex. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1980.0030.
Stein, M., Kinder, D., Rolf, K., Silbert, J., & Carnine, D. W. (2018). Direct Instruction mathematics (5th ed.). Pearson.
Stokes, T. F., & Baer, D. M. (1977). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10(2), 349–367. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1977.10-349.
Twyman, J. S. (this issue). You have the big idea, concept, and some examples….now what? Behavior Analysis in Practice.
Watkins, C. L., & Slocum, T. A. (2004). The components of Direct Instruction. In N. Marchand-Martella, T. Slocum, & R. Martella (Eds.), Introduction to Direct Instruction (pp. 28–65). Pearson.
Weddle, S. A., Spencer, T. D., Kajian, M., & Petersen, D. B. (2016). An examination of a multitiered system of language support for culturally and linguistically diverse preschoolers: Implications for early and accurate identification. School Psychology Review, 45(1), 109–132. https://doi.org/10.17105/SPR45-1.109-132.
Funding
Production of this manuscript was supported in part by a grant from the Department of Education, H325D170080.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of Interest/Competing Interests
Dr. Slocum is the co-author of the textbook Direct Instruction Reading. Ms. Rolf is a co-author of the textbook Designing Effective Mathematics Instruction: A Direct Instruction Approach.
Data Availability
Not applicable
Code availability
Not applicable
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Slocum, T.A., Rolf, K.R. Features of Direct Instruction: Content Analysis. Behav Analysis Practice 14, 775–784 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-021-00617-0
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-021-00617-0