I have in my mind this idea that direct instruction is the most effective pedagogical method yet invented, but we don’t do it because most existing teachers hate teaching that way. I wonder how, if at all, constructivism could be made to work with it, since otherwise the effectiveness of DI would seem to be another argument against pure constructivism.
Unfortunately, the Wikipedia article doesn’t help me understand how exactly this works. The list of methods—“tutorials, participatory laboratory classes, discussion, recitation, seminars, workshops, observation, active learning, practica, or internships”—seems to contain pretty much everything.
Trying to reverse-engineer from the sections on effectiveness and criticism:
students are divided into groups based on their skill level, so all students in the same group have similar skill level;
different groups are taught at different speed;
the groups are small;
the teaching “follows a script”;
there is a lot of repetition.
That… kinda sounds to me like traditional teaching, only with smaller groups and students divided by skill level, which seems like an obvious improvement (just don’t tell anyone who has “inclusion” as an applause light). The best results are for students with learning disabilities, where the obvious part is that of course it helps if they can proceed at their own speed, but the non-obvious part is that they seem to follow the same script (only slower) and it works great.
It also seems like a lot of secret sauce is in how exactly the scripts are prepared. It sounds plausible that having the best teachers prepare the script, and the others follow it, could be an improvement over each teacher trying their own methods. (The obvious next question is whether a teacher who merely follows a script couldn’t be replaced with a computer.)
most existing teachers hate teaching that way
Well, it is like mental Taylorism, so I would probably hate such job, too. The only fun part in this system is designing the scripts. Perhaps schools using this system should hire much less qualified teachers. I mean, following the script should not require university education, should it? Also it feels like a “heads I win, tails you lose” proposition for the teacher: if students learn well, praise goes to the system, if students fail, blame goes to the teacher (the Wikipedia article says the teachers are evaluated based on measurable student learning).
None of this is meant as an argument against the system, if it delivers good results (some studies say yes; at least one says no). But the system would require hiring a different kind of person as a teacher (someone who doesn’t mind just following the script), and a different kind of education for such teachers (why teach them all the things they will not be allowed to use anyway).
I wonder how, if at all, constructivism could be made to work with it
Based on the description in Wikipedia, it is not clear how much the specific scripts help create mental models. Perhaps they already do. A constructivist would probably disagree with giving a ready-made model, but it is also an improvement over memorizing passwords.
Thank you! Sounds very interesting, but those 700+ pages will take a while to read.
EDIT:
After reading the first 90 pages, here are my notes:
The model of instruction explained in this book is completely “waterfall”. First you specify a standard, that is what the student is supposed to know at the end of the course. Then you create a very detailed curriculum, making sure that everything mentioned in standard is learned at some point. Then you teach, following the curriculum, and then you test, preferably shortly after teaching. (Ideally, one should test students both before and after the lesson; this is how you show they actually learned something.) The students that fail provide a useful feedback about which parts of curriculum need to be improved.
Communicate in a way that allows only one interpretation.
When you are providing examples, make them different from each other; the thing you are trying to teach should be the only thing they have in common. (For example, it is a mistake to explain the concept of “red” by only giving examples of red circles.) Also provide negative examples. On the test, use examples and negative examples other than the ones you used to teach.
During explanation, ask students to repeat the keywords and the key phrases after you.
Not bad, but I wish these guys would write more briefly.
I have in my mind this idea that direct instruction is the most effective pedagogical method yet invented, but we don’t do it because most existing teachers hate teaching that way. I wonder how, if at all, constructivism could be made to work with it, since otherwise the effectiveness of DI would seem to be another argument against pure constructivism.
Unfortunately, the Wikipedia article doesn’t help me understand how exactly this works. The list of methods—“tutorials, participatory laboratory classes, discussion, recitation, seminars, workshops, observation, active learning, practica, or internships”—seems to contain pretty much everything.
Trying to reverse-engineer from the sections on effectiveness and criticism:
students are divided into groups based on their skill level, so all students in the same group have similar skill level;
different groups are taught at different speed;
the groups are small;
the teaching “follows a script”;
there is a lot of repetition.
That… kinda sounds to me like traditional teaching, only with smaller groups and students divided by skill level, which seems like an obvious improvement (just don’t tell anyone who has “inclusion” as an applause light). The best results are for students with learning disabilities, where the obvious part is that of course it helps if they can proceed at their own speed, but the non-obvious part is that they seem to follow the same script (only slower) and it works great.
It also seems like a lot of secret sauce is in how exactly the scripts are prepared. It sounds plausible that having the best teachers prepare the script, and the others follow it, could be an improvement over each teacher trying their own methods. (The obvious next question is whether a teacher who merely follows a script couldn’t be replaced with a computer.)
Well, it is like mental Taylorism, so I would probably hate such job, too. The only fun part in this system is designing the scripts. Perhaps schools using this system should hire much less qualified teachers. I mean, following the script should not require university education, should it? Also it feels like a “heads I win, tails you lose” proposition for the teacher: if students learn well, praise goes to the system, if students fail, blame goes to the teacher (the Wikipedia article says the teachers are evaluated based on measurable student learning).
None of this is meant as an argument against the system, if it delivers good results (some studies say yes; at least one says no). But the system would require hiring a different kind of person as a teacher (someone who doesn’t mind just following the script), and a different kind of education for such teachers (why teach them all the things they will not be allowed to use anyway).
Based on the description in Wikipedia, it is not clear how much the specific scripts help create mental models. Perhaps they already do. A constructivist would probably disagree with giving a ready-made model, but it is also an improvement over memorizing passwords.
The theory behind it is described here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303721842_Theory_of_Instruction_Principles_and_Applications
Thank you! Sounds very interesting, but those 700+ pages will take a while to read.
EDIT:
After reading the first 90 pages, here are my notes:
The model of instruction explained in this book is completely “waterfall”. First you specify a standard, that is what the student is supposed to know at the end of the course. Then you create a very detailed curriculum, making sure that everything mentioned in standard is learned at some point. Then you teach, following the curriculum, and then you test, preferably shortly after teaching. (Ideally, one should test students both before and after the lesson; this is how you show they actually learned something.) The students that fail provide a useful feedback about which parts of curriculum need to be improved.
Communicate in a way that allows only one interpretation.
When you are providing examples, make them different from each other; the thing you are trying to teach should be the only thing they have in common. (For example, it is a mistake to explain the concept of “red” by only giving examples of red circles.) Also provide negative examples. On the test, use examples and negative examples other than the ones you used to teach.
During explanation, ask students to repeat the keywords and the key phrases after you.
Not bad, but I wish these guys would write more briefly.