The Empirical Support for Direct Instruc

The Empirical Support for Direct Instruction Barak Rosenshine

Generally, direct instruction is here defined more broadly than it usually is when  Clear correlational findings on teacher behaviors -> Student performance on standardized and researcher-developed tests.       —> “Direct instruction” seems to be a highly interactive process. What does this mean for flipped classrooms?      —> Idea: Logarithmic review pattern built into lesson planner!      —> How does Papert’s mathematics fit into this discussion of ill-structured tasks? Papert claims CS is an ideal environment for learning to algorithmically manipulate expert processes. 

Kirschner et al. (2006) have argued that constructivist types of teaching do not fit the findings on human cognitive architecture.

Central theory: structured repetition leads to expertise. Don’t have any problem with the strategies suggested here What are the “comparison practices” Can we talk some more about the assessment measures?

Jonassen’s reply:

I have argued that constructive learning is most likely engaged and embodied in problems to be solved. The conceptual glue that binds constructionist, project-based, and inquiry-based learning is a problem to solve… However, direct instmction, by its very nature, relies on some form of task analysis. Direct instruction aims to teach an articulated skill or body o f infomiation… However, many problems, such as dilemmas, have no known solution at alL I question whether it is possible to directly teach such ambiguous outcomes. Although it is possible to analyze and articulate the many perspectives 011 such problems, their solution requires learner commitments and knowledge construction.

Perhaps the most significant difference between direct and problem-based /earning (especially for ill-structured problems) is the way tlrat learning is assessed. When no accepted or “correct” answer exists, how can we assess student production or reproduction? Instead, we assess students’ ability to generate an argument sup- porting the viability o f their solution.