Reading Spotlight Blog - The Good, the Bad, & the Ugly

My first experiences with Direct Instruction were explained in my 9-25 Blog Post:

Direct Instruction

            All of our primary teachers jumped on the DI bandwagon enthusiastically.  I never heard complaints about changing to this program because they trusted me and the research that I did, as well as all the confidence I inspired by teaching their struggling readers effectively. They had great hope that the program would be successful with their students and that our school would be removed from the state’s list of poor readers.

The Good, the Bad and Ugly of Direct Instruction

The Good (as I see it)

1. Clear objectives + sequencing (professionals plan well-thought-out lessons—no planning for teacher, just review of lesson beforehand)
2. Written script –formalizes word choice, less misunderstanding, good for absentees, subs as well
3. Teacher modeling, a very effective instructional strategy
4. ALL students encouraged constantly to participate in several ways
5. Guided practice (Many struggling readers don’t get enough in traditional reading programs.)
6. MASTERY IMPORTANT in this program. Students are constantly monitored for understanding (much better than just “hoping” they learn)
7. Independent practice built-in, and on an appropriate reading level through continual testing

As a reading specialist dealing daily with classroom reading failures, I found that, before this program was initiated, most of my struggling readers usually did not get enough PRACTICE in the skills that teachers taught. Most textbooks and workbooks do not provide enough exercises for many students. I consider this lack of sufficient practice the main cause of poor American eight grade reading results.*

(That’s also why I built my website in retirement, and I provide TPT with low cost, enjoyable, PRACTICE materials. I have made it my life’s work now. I enjoy every minute of it!)

The Reading Spotlight TPT Store

The Bad (comparatively)

1. Requires certain formulas for vocabulary, format for questioning, presentation, etc. which require teachers to learn new strategies, sometimes difficult, especially at higher reading levels
2. Requires continual, time-consuming, student testing (to be at correct reading level and to assure mastery) (actually, good and bad)
3. Ordering process difficult with many books needed initially
4. Requires teachers to constantly encourage active participation of all students— teachers always busy and involved
5. Requires keeping tabs on students individually—who is learning and who is not
6. Requires fix-up strategies to encourage mastery in those who have not mastered lesson
7. Bookkeeping can be overwhelming.

The Ugly (as I see it)

Our administration really wanted both the primary and intermediate levels of our school to have the same reading program, although I encouraged the intermediate level to choose their own program. The administration, however, directed them into DI because no teacher among the intermediate level wanted to invest the time to explore successful programs with students of high poverty at their levels. (Remember that three-inch book from my first post about Direct Instruction Part 1?) The intermediate level teachers were unhappy when they were “forced” to go along with DI. I will say that DI gets more difficult as the levels progress, and teachers really must be on their toes while learning new vocabulary, methods of teaching, monitoring, reinforcement, and fix-up strategies.

As the reading specialist who knew something about DI,  I bore the brunt of the unhappiness.

© Reading Spotlight 2025