Direct Instruction Revisited: A Key Model for Instructional Technology Susan G. Magliaro Barbara B. Lockee John K. Burton Rooted in behavioral theory, particularly the radical or selectivist behaviorism of B.F. Skinner (1953, 1954, 1966, 1968, 1974), the direct instruction (DI) approach to teaching is now well into its third decade of influencing curriculum, instruction, and research. It is also in its third decade of controversy. Our purpose is to present the DI model with the notion that the designer can and should use the model effectively based on appropriate assessment of the learners, content, context, and task at hand. To accomplish our goal, we begin with a general discussion of the basic DI framework, followed by a summary of the major DI models that have been used in live instructional contexts. We then shift to a review of how DI has been used in technology-based learning environments. Finally, we conclude with a look into the future of DI. Rooted in behavioral theory, particularly what Skinner labeled the radical or selectionist behaviorism (see, e.g., Skinner, 1953, 1966), the direct instruction (DI) of Siegfried Engelmann (Bereiter & Engelmann, 1966) is now well into its third decade of influencing curriculum, instruc- tion, and research. It is also in its third decade of controversy (c.f., Gersten, Baker, Pugach, Scanlon, & Chard, 2001). To begin, we offer a definition and our stance related to DI—which has become the whipping post in some pedagogical camps, while the pan- acea in others. For clarity, DI is not a lecture approach (e.g., Freiberg & Driscoll, 2000). It is an instructional model that focuses on the interac- tion between teachers and students. Key compo- nents of DI include “modeling, reinforcement, feedback, and successive approximations” (Joyce, Weil, & Calhoun, 2000, p. 337). Joyce and colleagues specified the instructional design principles, which include the framing of learner performance into goals and tasks, breaking these tasks into smaller component tasks, designing training activities for mastery, and arranging the learning events into sequences that promote transfer and achievement of pre- requisite learning before moving to more advance learning. Essentially, DI is “modeling with reinforced guided performance” (Joyce et al., p. 337). Our intent in this article is to explicate the genesis, components, and permutations of DI as it has evolved in practice, and describe how it is being used in instructional technology. Three purposes undergird this article. (a) First, we believe that DI is a viable, time-tested instruc- tional model that plays an important role in a ETR&D, Vol. 53, No. 4, 2005, pp. 41–55 ISSN 1042–1629 41