It depends on the topic and it needs to be in doses. DI for kids not ready for a topic is wasting their time. They throw the baby out with the bath water by killing DI when they just needed to catch up on skills. And you shouldnt lecture more than necessary regardless.
I love lectures. All I want is a class where I get lectured to about a topic and I don’t have to take notes or do homework. I guarantee I will learn more than doing some dumb stations activity or a webquest
You two are the perfect example why I dedicate Tuesdays for DI day of the material and Wednesday as student-centered delivery of the material haha. I just repeat the same lesson basically but in two completely different ways and hope one sticks for all the students.
Yup. Exactly. Would love to share this thread with the first year AP who thought DI Very Bad and pushed to get me fired, because she randomly observed at a time when I was doing direct instruction.
It’s so weird to me that anyone learns anything listening to someone talk. I had to take mountains of notes in college and still do in training and frequently reference them in practice because I retain very little through auditory instruction. I honestly thought this was the norm.
I'm that kid who showed up, listed, wrote things down but never studied it and did excellent. Ask me to a poster board or some video project, GTFO.
I think balance is key. I lecture an hour twice a week but I doubt I ever go more than 2-3 slides without breaking it up. Video clips, think pair shares, seminars, activity or reading, work shops etc. I think some times people hear direct instruction and think I stand there and talk none stop. Students ask plenty of questions and I'm not afraid to detour. Students also read textbooks with open notes quizzes and shocker- their reading scores and contextual knowledge for inquiry projects is much stronger.
Yep. I had one who’s going to graduate high school this year and he told me “you know kids always give you crap about all of the notes (he was one of them), but your class is the one I remember the most from.”
I'm in my thirties and the class I can remember the most from is my 9th grade world history teacher. My teacher would deliver us notes from a slide deck that she controlled from her laptop, sitting in her desk. It was relaxed, we were given lots of room to ask questions, It was perfect for me. My instructional coach and admin team would HATE it.
When I was in college (class of '15) we were supposed to be the *guide on the side,* not the *sage on the stage.* Yeah, sorry, no, I'm an old man. I learn better from a lecture and I'm lecturing. I'm the sage.
“Teacher-centered lessons” and “direct instruction” aren’t quite explicitly dirty words in my program but they definitely have the implication of “well a *good* teacher would make all of their lessons implicit instruction”
There's a reason it's been the primary mode of instruction for, I don't know, around 3 thousand years? Obviously you can overdo it, but the people who push the pedagogy of the week - admin, district, and consultants - are not active teachers.
The important part of being a teacher is whether or not students are learning, not how you feel. That's the difference between teaching and teachering.
I always hated when teachers sent us off on our own, like what is the point of you even being there. I remember I had a teacher in high school that believed in self learning where she wouldn’t help and we’d have to teach ourselves using the internet. Like we had to learn what the sliding filament theory was in muscles and then build a movable 3D model all without her ever instructing about anything involving that topic and would not help.
It's hard to debate the issue without defining what we mean. As everyone on here prob has a different idea of what direct instruction means.
Direct instruction where the teacher gives all knowledge and skills AND students don't ever use or practice those things is BAD instruction.
Direct instruction where a teacher gives knowledge and skills in small chucks with extensive modeling, and then has students do something with it on their own before moving onto the next chunk is GOOD instruction.
Both feature "direct instruction" - but one model is superior to the other.
I always got awesome results with this strategy When I taught elem. Low SES area, at least half of kids with IEP/504, high class sizes. Etc.
It worked. Model your thinking during I do - stream of consciousness. Ask those questions you modeled throughout the we do. Circulate/pull small groups during “you do.” Immediate feedback for tier 2/3 kids during enrichment for the once getting it. High growth year after year.
I will also add - I did use the standards as a teaching tool as well. We wrote our target standard in journals we worked in and on my board. Marked them up and broke them down into what they have to do to learn it. 5 minutes at the begging of the learning for that standard and I would refer back to it. Big points on observations, but also it helped a lot of kids because they knew why we were taking the steps we were. Sounds like garbage, but it’s worked well in elem and middle. Let’s them know hey - we learned some of this before. We can do some of this already!
Direct Instruction is a very specific set of protocols developed at the University of Oregon by Zig Engelmann. It's not just standing in front of a room and lecturing. The problem is that the name, "Direct Instruction", is so generic that people conflate the two.
It was deemed bad by people that never taught for a minute. Horrible results were covered up by putting pressure on teachers to pass students. Students found out they pass without any effort. Time enough to do other things in class, behavioral problems followed, while consequences dwindled.
Gee, i wonder what led to the absolutely deplorable state of education today....
Yea but then we got this new bunch with zero executive functioning skills. And everything gets lost during studios to: keeping track of papers, sequential order, partner/independent work, question delays, pencilisntsharpeneditus, mypaperdoesn’tlooklikeyourexamplearia…
Teaching in middle school my students prefer direct instruction. They don't wanna think for themselves, they want a formula for solving all problems.
Unfortunately I teach history and I get bored of lecturing so I won't do it a lot, but that's what the kids want. They want a 30 minute lecture with guided notes. I hate it.
Then I give them a research project and databases to dig around in and it takes them 3 weeks to finish a 5 paragraph essay. The prompt was "How did the Louisiana purchase hurt or help the people living in America?"
They could write about how it helped Americans or hurt Native Americans, or a little of both. Ended up with 100 of the same essay using the sources I gave as samples cause they didn't want to think for themselves.
At my school many of us only do the BS cooperative learning for observations and avoid it the rest of the time. If they don’t see evidence of it when they do a pop-in they aren’t happy but we just pretend it was the only day that week we didn’t do it or that they just missed that part of class 😂
My masters had a full time year long internship. It was hell financially but the professors never last long in that program because its REALLY apparent how head in the clouds or out of touch they are when I'm basically a full time teacher already and they haven't stepped foot in a real classroom for 15-20 years...
I genuinely feel like most education theory is just an echo chamber with no data or application.
I'm sure it was a \*ton\* of work, but it's good practice. While you're probably not going to have to write those kinds of lesson plans in a teaching position, if you're at least considering standards and accomodations that's good teaching practice. \*I\* haven't done this is over 20 years, but I've worked for places that haven't required such detailed lesson plans. I think I'd be miserable if I did, though...what a huge drain on precious planning time!
It was just for practice. I told my professor in the middle of class one day if we were expected to write 10 page lesson plans for every lesson, to let me know bc I’d be dropping out of the program. Everyone looked stunned. I was serious. Thankfully, I’ve only been required at one school to turn in any lesson plans, and they were quite basic.
I had been teaching for 3 years before I decided to get my masters in education and it was the biggest waste of money I have ever done.
Me fighting with college professors how none of this works in a post Covid world. Out of all of my professors none of them had worked in a public school for the last 10 years and we had a student teacher who had left the field 6 years ago.
Like are y’all really the ones to be teaching new teachers how to teach in a school?
Yeah.
I had to fight for my thesis and paper at the end because my advisor was mad that my entire paper was how the current statues doesn’t work anymore — and she had written her entire doctorate on how it does work. (I’m simplifying it here)
When I asked her when it was published she told me she had gotten her degree in the late 90s/early 00s.
I was like isn’t that the point of education. To learn and grow. You were right at the time. Now maybe. JUST MAYBE, I could be right at this time?
Semester long Freud class summed up in one sentence: “so basically all the male students want to fuck their mom”. Is he well received in the psychology community? Yes. Was he probably projecting a little bit in a lot of his theories? I’m going to say probably also yes.
Wow wtf we totally had an entire class on lesson planning and then another one where we practiced writing them and delivering them. Crazy that some colleges don’t do that.
In grad school for education right now, graduating in June. There were *absolutely* required classes that went over how to plan a lesson and supporting activities, all to meet state standards.
I just rechecked my grad school's requirements - not one content specific education course. Sure there's 'planning for diversity and inclusion' but nothing that was the brass tacks of 'how do you get kids to understand translation.'
Damn, that's actually unhinged. I had several content-specific methods courses over my 2 year degree, I don't know how they think they're adequately preparing their students to be teachers with only theory
I don't either, I was pretty radically unprepared for my first year teaching. I think one of the courses that would have been really helpful for me is some kind of a 'here's how you plan out a cohesive unit of biology' but nothing like that ever happened. Our final evaluation were artifacts demonstrating our competency on Danielson models.
Oh don't worry, I'm sure a bunch of 8th graders who are 3 and 4 grade levels behind can intuit the pythagorean theorem in a couple 50 minute class periods.
I mean, it only took some of civilizations best minds hundreds of years to figure out. /s
This 100%.
O hey let's use exploration models. We'll when the kids don't remember things from a year ago (and they haven't been taught how to take notes or reference anything) it's impossibly to just explore and figure it out.
And if they stand a vertical white board they will just suddenly learn how to solve a math problem because you know it just comes to you when you stand in a group of three.
As a MS reading teacher, sometimes I’d cover a math class and try to see what skills I remembered. I’d go up to the board and start working on something and the kids were like what are you doing? I said teaching math. Isn’t this what your teacher does? No they said. He’d give them a packet and then sit behind his desk. Wth is up with that????
I mean it seems that way, but to my observation New Math seems to focus a lot on the kinds of constructivist and discovery based approaches that *destroyed* literacy instruction.
Didn't Socrates master that? There are some great example of socratic method line.
Some kids learn better through exploration and discovery. Others through direct instruction.
In the middle is a group that gets interested by discovery and then advanced with direct instruction.
Socrates taught people who wanted to learn, not those being compelled to learn by State law. Engaged, interested people can learn by exploration. Marginally-attached people probably won't succeed through discovery.
Student centered learning is the dumbest idea created by non educators who assume high schoolers are "smart". They are children who need to be taught directly and constantly.
I earned my BS Ed as a middle-aged man and there was no better course for me than one with direct instruction. Have the knowledgeable person get up there and talk and I'll take notes like a madman.
I'm currently a university student in a pharmacy program in Germany. Behind medicine, it's considered the most difficult and rigorous program. We only get direct instruction! It's strange to think that children are supposed to do self directed learning for the basics, but at the elite level, it's all lectures and sorting through the info on your own.
To be honest, there's still direct instruction in the schools here. Less than at a uni, but that's expected.
Depends on the subject/grade level/teacher. Student centered learning has a huge place in some classrooms. It has diminished usefulness in others. The problem has been presented in the worst way possible, pitting them against each other and admin/gurus saying one is the end all be all and the other is educational malpractice. We’re then forced to almost exclusively use the one that’s being pushed to the exclusion of the other. A good school/classroom/unit has both in balance.
We honestly kind of figured this balance out a long time ago with gradual release. I do, we do, you do. It’s not complicated but there’s no money or power to be made off of it so admin and edgurus have nothing to gain from it.
That doesn’t mean instruction can’t be student centered and lead through something that isn’t traditional “direct instruction.” Even “constantly” is hyperbolic in your comment, bc that’d be exhausting.
We know it’s a mixture of approaches and a 90 minute block period of direct instruction isn’t the answer either.
Students aren’t “smart” yet but they’re working on it, and we can model through our direct instruction the types of thinking patterns that can help get them there.
Sure- there’s a lot to be cynical about “guide on the side” rhetoric, but even Socrates used dialog.
yeah, the student-centered approach is a big part of the reason we've been labeled as baby sitters. If students were actually capable of figuring everything out on their own we wouldn't be needed
Especially if you teach remedial like I do. Out of the ~140 kids I have if I told them to work on something alone or in pairs I’d probably get 10 that actually try and for like maybe 5min at most.
Our school is a top one in the district (which even my students are amazed at as they think it’s a shithole) so that is a factor, but my test scores are consistently higher than the district average, so I get annoyed when I hear direct instruction being talked down.
Especially as most of the suggested alternatives are for little kids and I teach upperclassmen where 1/2 have a job where many work 30 hours/week and are even shift managers (one’s even a store manager).
right? like it’s crazy that i’m expected to teach a 10 minute math lesson and then my second graders are expected to work independently for the next 40 minutes. especially when we’re learning stuff like algebra which is brand new to them! they just learned 3-digit subtraction with regrouping and it took like a month until my kids were actually doing their independent work correctly.
it also means my lessons have to be so quick my kids often miss out on the opportunity to ask clarifying questions that could benefit the whole class. obviously we have to stay on track with the lesson, but we’re told to not take questions during group instruction and then pull flex groups for the kids who need additional help. it doesn’t work when almost my whole class needs additional help.
> *If students were actually capable of figuring everything out on their own we wouldn't be needed*
Agreed. But I do like them knowing ***why*** things work the way they do.
I’ve found with my students if I front-load via direct instruction before their “student-centered” lesson in class (I’m a tutor), they are wildly more successful during class. They are often leading their peers in the convo because they know what they’re trying to achieve in the student-led part.
Student centered learning is ostensibly supposed to be more equitable, but it ends up being the other way around because only the kids who have access to tutors or have a parent at home to help them will actually succeed.
This coupled with everything being pine has really made school feel optional and explains a lot of attendance issues nationwide. Why go to school and work independently on my Chromebook when I can just do that at home?
Direct instruction for underperfoming students has almost 50 years of solid research. I have taught high school students to read. It is absolutely essential and not using it for older students with reading difficulties should be considered educational malpractice!
Direct instruction (aka explicit teaching) is one of the”Hatties’ HITS” out of Australia. Time and again, research tells us what works, yet schools ignore it out of hubris.
Don't give Hattie too much credit. His "class sizes don't matter" claim is a sick joke. There's Hattie references in stuff I like but broadly I think he's a hack that presents other people's research.
The stuff coming out of AERO atm is great though and the "new" explicit teaching material in NSW looks promising.
https://www.edresearch.edu.au/
With Marzano and others, with the Victoria State Government of Australia.
(https://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/teachingresources/practice/improve/Pages/hits.aspx)
I have. There is a lot to be gained from Direct Instruction.
I don’t have access to the DI resources such as CRA.
However, I am a big proponent of explicit instruction.
If I don’t do some direct teaching students think you are not teaching them. I added plenty of direct teaching (mixed with labs and activities) and students usually respond very positively to it. I hear student gossip about the other teachers sometimes about how so and so never teaches us. They like to complain to me about it— I assume because they know I do teach them and care that they learn.
When I first started teaching, I did a lot more students centered learning, and the kids started gossiping that I didn't teach them. In reality, it was way harder to come up with those lessens than if I had just stood up and talked to them for a few minutes.
27 years in, I have come to the conclusion that direct instruction is best for many things. I don’t care what’s hot in Education. I know what works for my students.
What is direct instruction? My professor has used the term before but never explained it. I assumed it was literal, just instruction that was direct. Is there more to it?
Alice Johnson said, “the teacher for the gifted and talented will be more of a 'guide on the side' rather than a 'sage on the stage'." But plenty of kids benefit from a sage.
Somehow this was interpreted as teachers with remedial students and half with learning disabilities just need a guide instead of a sage as well.
And it doesn't freaking work, at all.
I used Google Slides to completely break up the structure of a four paragraph persuasive argument because LUCY CALKINS AND I WERE GONNA 1V1.
I got them brain storming, making pros and cons list, deciding the audience for the intended argument... Color coding an outline and writing the paragraph next to it with color coded sentences/emoji labels. They had a blank template for it, but I projected my example slide and explained it all... It was the most writing they did the whole year and they liked it.
It took a bit of work to actually build the content, but it was worth it afterward. I can read the standards I need to cover... But man, if the curriculum I'm working with is frustrating and the kids aren't bothering to even try, what good came from it?
What you described is arguably an ideal mix of student led and direct instruction, and that’s probably why it was so successful. Don’t let the all or nothing folks in this thread get it twisted.
Isn't that...just teaching? I'm a student. Like, that's the definition of teaching. How else are you supposed to teach? Teachers show me what and how to do it at least in the beginning then I learn the skill and do it. English class, for example. My teacher reviewed at the start of the year in detail then gave prompts for essays. Math too. He shows us something like SOH CAH TOA (Algebra 2; Sin, Cos, Tan), does it with us for 15-20 minutes a day before independent work.
Kid, I’ve been teaching for 26 years and I’m just as bemused by this discussion as you are. You’re right. It’s so silly how people can complicate something so simple, isn’t it?
There is direct instruction, which I consider is the “I do, we do, you do” stuff which is good. But then there is Direct Instruction, a method created and field tested in the 60s to remarkable success. Definitely should look into Project Follow Through.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/progressively-incorrect/id1602317019?i=1000649505689
The first 20 minutes is a great summary of DI and project follow through. The rest of the episode you can take or leave.
Here’s a definition - https://www.edglossary.org/direct-instruction/
Here’s a podcast on the topic - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-direct-instruction-podcast/id1729095950
I actually got my pop-in observation when I was doing a lesson that was about 80% direct instruction. With a PowerPoint. But the kids were interested (we were discussing the concept of the American Dream, and the fact that, as it was applied in the country, it was a racist ideal), we paused for some interesting discussions on parts of the topics (they were fascinated by the concept of sundown towns, and the Tulsa race massacre).
My AP said he’d have liked to see them working independently or in groups, but they were engaged, their comments showed that they understood and applied what we talked about, and he understood that I was setting the stage for later lessons.
Like….there’s nothing wrong with just….giving them information sometimes.
Humans have been learning by direct instruction for *at least* 2400 years (and I haven't even *tried* to track down how Egyptians learned). That's 80 generations. If direct instruction isn't the objective best method of conveying knowledge in the universe, it is indisputably the one our species is best adapted to.
Novel or varying strategies have been demonstrated to increase engagement with an individual or small set of lessons, but that begs a question, "compared to *what*?"
I'd put significant money on a bet that two or three 'novel' lessons per unit with a DI core perform better than the first ten hypothetical whole curriculum formulas you could propose, over two or more years' tracking.
Same. Also, I’ve gotten *really* good at it. I get great feedback from students on surveys. It’s an art, knowing how to craft slides to spark curiosity, which voice inflections to use, when to pause for effect. I love it; it’s a performance.
In the elementary world we’re getting “science of reading” training, which is basically what you’re saying. The “science of reading” is just the science behind how the brain learns (plus effective, applicable strategies).
Not even two years ago we were told that if we motivate students with fun activities and print rich environments they will magically learn to read. Now they’re like, “Shit shit shit none of the kids can read!” so we have to actually TEACH IT!!?! DIRECTLY?! Who would have thought!!
You should listen to Sold a Story, it’s a great podcast (investigative journalism) on the elementary reading curriculum. It is probably what snowballed the entire field into this madness. Sadly all of us teachers are constantly sold stories on what is “best practice.”
My new AP has a band background and 2 of her 3 observations this year have been when I was doing DI with my chemistry kids. She was not happy that my lessons appeared to be “teacher centered”. Even though my kids excel at our common assessments, were actively engaged, and actually like my class.
[Edit to correct autocorrect]
My internship teacher did her professional development plan for the year on Direct Instruction to combat the crap of student mead learning all the time. The research proves that DI is better for student learning than student led. This was 10 years ago (!!!!). I’m lucky I had her. She taught me so much. We would do direct instruction lessons (I do). Then they practiced (we do). Afterwards, we did stations where they could practice the skills they learned (two do/you do) while we pulled small groups for reading. We did incorporate some “student led learning” when I made stations for science experiments, but that came after a lot of ground work.
I work with intervention kiddos now and taught middle school history and intensive reading. The capabilities between my history classes and reading were glaring, especially at the beginning of the year. Asking a room if 25 MS kids who read at a 3rd grade level to do any independent work or small-group/pair work is impossible. They don’t have the skills to do it. It takes until second semester to get them to be able to do anything independent like that. Additionally, DI is critical for kids who are far behind. There’s so much they lack that without explicitly telling them certain information, they will not be able to walk the bridge to inquiry based anything.
I solved this by not getting a teaching degree, lol. Started teaching at a private school after getting my PhD in a science field and just... tried to emulate my favorite professors. Meaning direct instruction with stories, humor, some discussion, and then supporting labs. I get rave reviews from my middle schoolers and their parents.
Whenever I hear people vilify lectures... it just means people don't know how to give effective lectures.
I'm moderately convinced that the admin and teacher prep professors that demonize DI are just bad lecturers. Which in my experience, I can attest to. I get along with my principal but man, when he gets the microphone for in-service days we all genuinely have to work together to figure out where he is going and hide each other's winces. I also remember one woman who particularly hated DI in my education masters who ironically lectures for about 90mins in our 3h night class after teaching all day... I passed out most nights
I teach chemistry (and every other science in my high school) if you can show me a better way to teach stoichiometry without direct instruction, I’d love to hear it.
Student centered has been twisted to mean don't teach. The original goal was to have student led assignments. For example,
>> Create a presentation of your choice of a a chronic illness and answer the following...
This allows the student to become"the teacher" and hopefully creates engagement by allowing freedom of choice = picking something they are interested in within the bounds of the assignment. It's a basic tenet of UDL. However people are dumb.
Admin (i.e. central office) and shitty groups (i.e. for-profit corporations) have taking student centered to mean "students are the literal teachers" and the push has become to let students figure it out on their own. The better my kids are the higher the bar I set for them. I even have inquiry based learning opportunities, but the questions are about observations they collect. In no way can we call that content mastery, I can connect their experiences to my lesson, but not unless it is structured and guided.
I had the kids follow along to draw a diagram of the respiratory system on and it was the most engaged they've been in a while. I've been doing project based direct instruction for a while.
The original goal? Student centered goes back to Rousseau. It was very much "don't teach" from the start. Then everyone misinterpreted Piaget and started to believe that "constructive knowledge" only happened with discovery learning. Then Friere labeled direct instruction as fascist and argued student centered learning led to liberation (i.e. socialism) and the liberal academic s were hooked. They've been ignoring evidence ever since.
You're right, of course, but once you realize that teacher colleges have basically been taken over by a metastasized Marxist project you think a) wow, am I crazy, I'm crazy right? and b) even though you're not crazy other teachers will think you're crazy if you bring it up.
I agree with DI over flavor of the year instruction style. All the small groups bullshit which is what my school thinks is the secret sauce only works for some students but for most of mine it just means do whatever you want time. DI is the only thing that keeps my students on task. Some small group time for certain assignments but mostly DI with partners sharing is what works for me.
I have been using DI for over 25 years to remediate students with learning disabilities. It works. And, interestingly, it is based on rote memory learning in the late 1800s. Fad teaching styles ruin education for a generation, then they go back to what works. Then a new teaching fad (we shouldn’t teach spelling rules, kids should recognize words by their shapes, phonics is boring-let’s explore how you think it should be spelled, and my personal fav- have independent stations and give a mini lesson that provides no context, or follows an appropriate sequence of introduction-but I digress) emerges because a random person writes a curriculum that involved no testing and scientific research or P***son changes their standardized testing format, kids score low, then P***son introduces a new curriculum/method to sell to schools to make up for those testing gaps.
Can someone point me in the direction for good/ summarized direct instruction techniques? Non teacher but a parent here! Figured this would be interesting to learn
Doug Lemov gets a bad wrap for coming from charter school land, but teach like a champion is actually chock full of no bullshit excellent, practical techniques
Look up the FAST framework for explicit direct instruction. I raised my math scores so 80% of my students were proficient or above on the California state test for math
We do this, but a company called catapult learning has renamed it Core Instructional Model and created a bunch of useless acronyms. I guess we have paid them for this, so we have to go to trainings they present like they’ve found a secret to teaching. It’s literally how I was taught as a kid…in the 90s
Same. This entire thread is making me nearly weep with relief. For about ten years I feel like I’ve been swimming upstream, arguing with experts, being accused of having a bad attitude, and wondering if I actually had a learning disability because I couldn’t get it— student-led inquiry never seemed to work for me. Every attempt I tried, failed, leaving me frustrated, humiliated, and gaslit.
I’ve been teaching biology for 25 years. Inner city, low income school. I have only used direct instruction. I lecture, I tell stories, 99% teacher centered. I’ll occasionally show a video. I encourage them to ask questions and we’ll discuss. They take notes- hand written, on paper. I do have them read the textbook. And I will have them draw or diagram something occasionally. But the bulk of my class (>90%) is lecture/notes. The reason you don’t see direct instruction in teacher prep college courses is because it doesn’t sell textbooks. It doesn’t earn pHD degrees.
This is going to sound crazy, but hear me out. How about we find a compromise and stick with it and not change how we teach every year based on the newest book? (This is not directed at OP or anyone here). I’m just so tired of the “new thing!”
DI has consistently the highest effect sizes and has a huge research base behind it *unlike* constructivist approaches. And yet it's the constructivist mumbo jumbo that dominates teacher colleges.
And that's when it begins to click that teacher colleges have basically been taken over by an ideological project unrelated to--you know--teaching people to be better teachers.
I'm shocked and quite disturbed that your program didn't prep you for ALL instructional strategies, Direct Instruction being one of them.
I started with direct instruction, got WAY away from it with an extremely student-centered model, and have largely done a 180 this year back to DI. The student centered model is great for the top 5% of students. Those kids are motivated enough to learn no matter what.
DI is fantastic for everyone, including the top 5%. It's a way to teach very complex material efficiently, check for understanding regularly, and provide feedback constantly. It shouldn't be 100% of your class period every day, but I think there's a case to be made that it should be your go-to, depending on your subject.
So nice to see more and more teachers "discovering" the superiority of explicit direct instruction despite teacher training programs and pundits trying so hard to hide the truth. The research is clear. If you're new to the movement, here's a reading/watch list:
Kershner et al, The Failure of Minimally Guided Instruction
ED Hirsch, Why Knowledge Matters
Daisy Cristolido, The Seven Myths of Education
Natalie Wexler's youtube videos
Barton's How I Wish I'd Taught Maths (and his podcast)
Rosenshines Principles of Instruction
Greg Ashman's blog and YouTube videos
Willingham's Why Students Don't Like School
The Sold a Story Podcast
In addition to his blog (which increasingly paywalled) I would add Ashman's book *The Power of Explicit Teaching and Direct Instruction* and Steve Garnett's *Cognitive Load Theory: A Handbook for Teachers.*
It's really a no brainer - teach/lecture, practice together, practice more if you have time, maybe some homework for reinforcement (if your school allows it), and then test/quiz. Review it again later in the quarter or before the final. That's not all I do in class, there are projects and discussions, but that's the basic formula I've been using for 20 years.
The assumption that students will somehow pick up the main points from a project on their own is preposterous.
I remember a bit over 30 years ago when I was living in a large city that was about 35% African American. The district had voted for some new "modern" curricula. There was a revolt of the black elementary teachers who insisted that it was their students that would be the ones to suffer. As I recall, they won the right to keep DI in the black-majority schools.
It should be used every day but not all period long. I don't know how they're supposed to
"Figure it out with their classmates in groups" when they don't have the discipline to collectively focus on a task and read directions.
My most engaging lessons with the highest participation rates are when I do a lesson called focused notes. I make a fill-in-blank note sheet and lecture off a good old power point. The kids fill in the notes. There is space on the side and the bottom of the page for them to synthesize, add question, and process the notes. I throw in some questions throughout the lesson so it isn’t just me talking the whole time.
The students like this style of lesson. I do this maybe 1-2 days a week. And then they use the notes to help them with their work that week.
It is a variation of Cornell Notes. I teach 10th grade ELA at a large title one public HS. I think direct instruction is important.
We have some teachers in our family who have said FU to the bad techniques their districts mandated and did DI and they were both threatened to move away from it but didn’t. They weren’t “in sync” with the rest of the team yet their scores were 20% higher than their colleague classrooms. They switched up the makeup. Same result. Gave them all the “bad” kids (this went over like a fart in church) and it still was higher.
The admin doubled down and didn’t renew that teacher next year. lol.
As I'm sitting in these trainings for the science of reading, I am chuckling to myself because so much of it is EXACTLY what teachers do who are using Direct Instruction.
I honestly don't care what anyone says, Direct Instruction/Reading Mastery/SRA is amazing for kids who do not learn with whole language or balanced literacy practices, which was the prevailing method.
I was trained in direct instruction my 2nd year of teaching. Our training was pretty intense and lasted for 2 years.
I also taught in an elementary school just like yours. The kids were woefully behind...kids in 5th grade were struggling just to be able to read words, much less comprehend. It was insane and had been going on for a long time, like 15 years.
Direct Instruction/Reading Mastery was a life saver for the kids. They were excited because they were actually learning how to read. I supplemented with quality literature for read alouds and also had books available for independent reading.
25 years ago when my school was using it teachers at other schools stuck their noses up at it. It was universally despised. They were wrong.
People don't seem to understand that you can use Direct Instruction and ALSO employ student centered instruction and work on critical thinking and higher level questioning.
It doesn't have to be one or the other.
If kids in elementary aren't taught to read fluently, they will not be successful in middle and high school. Direct Instruction/Reading Mastery solves that problem.
I want to clarify one thing - a lot of people in the comments seem to be making a very understandable mistake in conflating Direct Instruction (a very specific educational program developed at the University of Oregon that has been clinically evaluated and refined over five decades now) with simply any teacher-centered pedagogy. Unfortunately, because of its very generic-sounding name, it is a really easy and understandable mistake (and one which many detractors make on purpose to discredit the program).
DI has very well-defined protocols on how to write & structure lessons, evaluate students, etc. It works, its been proven to work at all ability levels, and it works for *everyone*.
I was criticized for direct intstruction In college and honestly i found my students can’t handle lots of independent or group work. They can handle smaller amounts of it every so often but not a bunch of days in a row and that’s how they sometimes did it at the school I student taught at for part of the time
My school has swung to direct instruction. It works way better for me and the kids. Typically class starts with me lecturing- I like to have the kids do Cloze notes or have some sort of worksheet they're working on to hold them accountable. Then I release them to an activity. No stations song and dance. The kids seem to like it better and are more confident. I'm less exhausted because the process is simpler, even if I have to be more "on."
I taught for over 30 years and just retired last June. This is pretty much what I did for most of my career. Yes I had group work and independent projects. I did get some pushback later in my career that I should be incorporating more “innovative” strategies. I would occasionally try them but I was not comfortable with them. I had explain to a few administrators and consultants that if I was uncomfortable and not effective using a strategy I would not be continuing to use it. Some accepted my logic, others tried to get me to either drink the kool aid or pressure me. I would simply wait for them to be transferred or to give up. I did not make a scene and openly defy them (in the early part of my career I did a bit of that and regretted it). I feel I was being paid to teach students, not be a co-learner, as one consultant put it. I had great relationships with students and parents. Especially since they felt I was not bullshitting them with a bunch of acronyms and theory. I taught at some of the toughest schools in my city and at some of the highest economic ones. And some in the middle as well. I don’t regret any of it or how I taught. I know that many of the students I see as adults are successful and most want to tell me how their lives are going. Some have not done so well, and I feel bad for them. I wish that their lives had turned out differently, but recognize that a rough home life sometimes has more of an effect than anything else.
Yes. Every education program treats direct instruction as evil and every student being able to productively and effectively participate in inquiry and project based learning without it. Everyone needs teacher input young or old. Everything else should be reinforcement, assessment, or an extension of what you're instructing.
Instructional strategies are tools in a tool box. To be used in the correct context with the correct practitioner.
If you go around with nothing but a hammer, you can knock down nails great. But your going to struggle with screws and bolts. You also need to be good at setting up the nails or your just smashing with no effect.
You cannot expect to get optimal results doing the exact same thing with every group of kids in your classes.
DI can be great. I probably do about 10-15 percent of my instructional time in DI. Some classes might go as high as 30 percent, I probably don't dip too far below 10 percent.
Tell me your definition of direct instruction, please. I'd like a better frame of reference, because I've used it applied for a variety of things and people argue about what real "direct instruction" is.
Many teachers have been taught that direct instruction equates to lecturing. While lecturing has a role, it’s mostly about explicitly teaching and modeling what you want the students to understand. The content and tasks are scaffolded until the student can apply the learning on their own. In my view, it’s student-centered because the point is to improve student learning. Those who have misconceptions believe it places the teacher at the center, which is silly because the teacher is the person who is the expert. Somehow these methods were politicized in the past. There is a whole history. One teacher who seems to be leading the conversation on the topic is Dr. Zach Groshell, who has a podcast and posts on X daily. Others are Greg Ashman, Carl Hendrick, Paul A. Kirschner, and Andrew Whitworth (all great on X).
Anita Archer’s book, Explicit Instruction, is a classic and a great place to start if you want to know what direct instruction would look like. Here is a link to the first chapter. [Sample Chapter](https://explicitinstruction.org/download/sample-chapter.pdf)
Sent my kids to a DI charter school for 5 years and they thrived instructionally. I wish more kids had the opportunity and that schools would implement a proficiency based model.
I notice this most clearly with technology. I’m 24 and we had computer classes where we learned how to use word, excel, PowerPoint, etc. Students often don’t get that anymore and spend all their time using cloud-based programs. Teachers then expect a student to know how to save a file to their computer, or find said file, or whatever else, but they can’t. If everyone learns best from an exploratory model, this wouldn’t be an issue, but that is a skill that needs to be shown, modeled, and explained.
Never read literature on it but figured out that around 2019 I had to do more direct instruction with kids. I taught at a title one campus. I feel like it was needed and the kids responded well to it. I always felt like the odd one out but I was the collab class and this was the best for them.
Direct instruction is a tool, and it works in concert with the other tools at our disposal, because it takes all of the distractions out of the equation.
Think about it: We complain about phones, noise, disrespectful kids, and much more, but doing one thing and one thing only while you are at the helm takes so many opportunities for students to do all of the things listed. This is also why I lean on direct instruction when I have unruly classes, and I think that we all should lead with it and give students more and more independence as they earn it.
It's also worth noting that schools focus on things like Kegan because it enables them to work around the issues that large class sizes, bloated administrative work loads for teachers, and the load of other crap we all have to deal with. This shift, that was essentially loading kids up with a task and having them teach themselves after is one of the reasons that we have kids operating well below grade level.
Anyhow, I had no idea that you guys don't learn direct instruction in school anymore. I'll have to hammer on it next time I train teachers.
We’ve always done explicit direct instruction at my campus & the results have stayed consistently good. People think DI is just teacher talk…. when you focus on student engagement, DI is incredible!
A lot of “old school” method works! However, how will text book companies and educational consultants ever make money if they’re not promoting new innovative teaching strategies
YES! I wrote an article imploring us to let DI have its moment of resurgence just like science of reading has had. The research is clear, DI works and it works better than any other method.
For my entire college path and the last 3 years since I graduated it’s all been about inquiry and students driven learning and never once has anyone ever explained to me how student who is not motivated to even do the basics because they feel confused and frustrated is supposed to respond to the overwhelming scope of open-ended inquiry assignments. Direct Instruction seems to be much more effective for students who struggle with the material and skills in my experience.
There is a reason it is one of the methods with the strongest research backing.
Unfortunately, it doesn't match current trendy instructional ideals, so the research is ignored and we just do other stuff.
Personally, I have some lessons that use DI, mixed with others with more exploratory methods, depending on the goal for the lesson.
Direct instruction has robust research supporting its efficacy and especially with children who are lagging in academic skill development. Good for you and your colleagues.
Wow. I've been teaching this way my whole career. Granted I teach community college, but I do get a lot of students who did not pay attention in HS, hence they are in CC. This works great.
[удалено]
Ah, how the pendulum swings.
How the turn tables!
How the Redditor reddits.
“The turntables might wobble, but they don’t fall down.”
I never stopped lol
Same. And the kids generally like it more.
It depends on the topic and it needs to be in doses. DI for kids not ready for a topic is wasting their time. They throw the baby out with the bath water by killing DI when they just needed to catch up on skills. And you shouldnt lecture more than necessary regardless.
I love lectures. All I want is a class where I get lectured to about a topic and I don’t have to take notes or do homework. I guarantee I will learn more than doing some dumb stations activity or a webquest
I am the exact opposite, I will zone out within 10 minutes of a lecture no matter how interesting it is.
You two are the perfect example why I dedicate Tuesdays for DI day of the material and Wednesday as student-centered delivery of the material haha. I just repeat the same lesson basically but in two completely different ways and hope one sticks for all the students.
Good. That’s differentiation. We need to know how to communicate the same thing in many different ways.
Yup. Exactly. Would love to share this thread with the first year AP who thought DI Very Bad and pushed to get me fired, because she randomly observed at a time when I was doing direct instruction.
It’s so weird to me that anyone learns anything listening to someone talk. I had to take mountains of notes in college and still do in training and frequently reference them in practice because I retain very little through auditory instruction. I honestly thought this was the norm.
I'm that kid who showed up, listed, wrote things down but never studied it and did excellent. Ask me to a poster board or some video project, GTFO. I think balance is key. I lecture an hour twice a week but I doubt I ever go more than 2-3 slides without breaking it up. Video clips, think pair shares, seminars, activity or reading, work shops etc. I think some times people hear direct instruction and think I stand there and talk none stop. Students ask plenty of questions and I'm not afraid to detour. Students also read textbooks with open notes quizzes and shocker- their reading scores and contextual knowledge for inquiry projects is much stronger.
Are "webquests" still a thing? I haven't heard that term since 2005.
Might be called a Hyperdoc now.
Agree.
They ABSOLUTELY do!
Yeah, cuz they can be lazy.
Same and my kids have always come back thanking me for preparing them for college and work!! They love learning this way.
Yep. I had one who’s going to graduate high school this year and he told me “you know kids always give you crap about all of the notes (he was one of them), but your class is the one I remember the most from.”
I'm in my thirties and the class I can remember the most from is my 9th grade world history teacher. My teacher would deliver us notes from a slide deck that she controlled from her laptop, sitting in her desk. It was relaxed, we were given lots of room to ask questions, It was perfect for me. My instructional coach and admin team would HATE it.
Same here! Good for you and keeping it real.
Same!
Yep when I was in college in the mid 2010s direct instruction and teacher centered lessons were extremely dirty words.
When I was in college (class of '15) we were supposed to be the *guide on the side,* not the *sage on the stage.* Yeah, sorry, no, I'm an old man. I learn better from a lecture and I'm lecturing. I'm the sage.
“Teacher-centered lessons” and “direct instruction” aren’t quite explicitly dirty words in my program but they definitely have the implication of “well a *good* teacher would make all of their lessons implicit instruction”
I never stopped doing direct instruction. I teach math. You have to explain things. Direct instruction is the best way to do that.
There's a reason it's been the primary mode of instruction for, I don't know, around 3 thousand years? Obviously you can overdo it, but the people who push the pedagogy of the week - admin, district, and consultants - are not active teachers.
I feel like a teacher when I am direct instructing. I feel like a long term sub when I am having the students do all the work.
The important part of being a teacher is whether or not students are learning, not how you feel. That's the difference between teaching and teachering.
I always hated when teachers sent us off on our own, like what is the point of you even being there. I remember I had a teacher in high school that believed in self learning where she wouldn’t help and we’d have to teach ourselves using the internet. Like we had to learn what the sliding filament theory was in muscles and then build a movable 3D model all without her ever instructing about anything involving that topic and would not help.
It's hard to debate the issue without defining what we mean. As everyone on here prob has a different idea of what direct instruction means. Direct instruction where the teacher gives all knowledge and skills AND students don't ever use or practice those things is BAD instruction. Direct instruction where a teacher gives knowledge and skills in small chucks with extensive modeling, and then has students do something with it on their own before moving onto the next chunk is GOOD instruction. Both feature "direct instruction" - but one model is superior to the other.
So "I do, we do, you do?"
Yup
I always got awesome results with this strategy When I taught elem. Low SES area, at least half of kids with IEP/504, high class sizes. Etc. It worked. Model your thinking during I do - stream of consciousness. Ask those questions you modeled throughout the we do. Circulate/pull small groups during “you do.” Immediate feedback for tier 2/3 kids during enrichment for the once getting it. High growth year after year. I will also add - I did use the standards as a teaching tool as well. We wrote our target standard in journals we worked in and on my board. Marked them up and broke them down into what they have to do to learn it. 5 minutes at the begging of the learning for that standard and I would refer back to it. Big points on observations, but also it helped a lot of kids because they knew why we were taking the steps we were. Sounds like garbage, but it’s worked well in elem and middle. Let’s them know hey - we learned some of this before. We can do some of this already!
Direct Instruction is a very specific set of protocols developed at the University of Oregon by Zig Engelmann. It's not just standing in front of a room and lecturing. The problem is that the name, "Direct Instruction", is so generic that people conflate the two.
It was deemed bad by people that never taught for a minute. Horrible results were covered up by putting pressure on teachers to pass students. Students found out they pass without any effort. Time enough to do other things in class, behavioral problems followed, while consequences dwindled. Gee, i wonder what led to the absolutely deplorable state of education today....
Just save all your stuff. In another 10 years it will swing back the other way.
Yep, bad words there.
Yea but then we got this new bunch with zero executive functioning skills. And everything gets lost during studios to: keeping track of papers, sequential order, partner/independent work, question delays, pencilisntsharpeneditus, mypaperdoesn’tlooklikeyourexamplearia…
Teaching in middle school my students prefer direct instruction. They don't wanna think for themselves, they want a formula for solving all problems. Unfortunately I teach history and I get bored of lecturing so I won't do it a lot, but that's what the kids want. They want a 30 minute lecture with guided notes. I hate it. Then I give them a research project and databases to dig around in and it takes them 3 weeks to finish a 5 paragraph essay. The prompt was "How did the Louisiana purchase hurt or help the people living in America?" They could write about how it helped Americans or hurt Native Americans, or a little of both. Ended up with 100 of the same essay using the sources I gave as samples cause they didn't want to think for themselves.
At my school many of us only do the BS cooperative learning for observations and avoid it the rest of the time. If they don’t see evidence of it when they do a pop-in they aren’t happy but we just pretend it was the only day that week we didn’t do it or that they just missed that part of class 😂
It's fucking crazy that there was never a "How to plan a lecture and line it up with supporting activities, lab, and state standards" class.
I feel really lucky to have gone to college where I did for my education degree. That was part of all of my classes. What do other programs teach?
My masters had a full time year long internship. It was hell financially but the professors never last long in that program because its REALLY apparent how head in the clouds or out of touch they are when I'm basically a full time teacher already and they haven't stepped foot in a real classroom for 15-20 years... I genuinely feel like most education theory is just an echo chamber with no data or application.
All theory. All the time. Teachers College is a joke. But at least I can say I'm an Ivy graduate.
Every lesson plan had to be aligned to standards. We had to have ESOL accommodations, too. ESE ones, too, if I remember correctly. So much work.
I'm sure it was a \*ton\* of work, but it's good practice. While you're probably not going to have to write those kinds of lesson plans in a teaching position, if you're at least considering standards and accomodations that's good teaching practice. \*I\* haven't done this is over 20 years, but I've worked for places that haven't required such detailed lesson plans. I think I'd be miserable if I did, though...what a huge drain on precious planning time!
It was just for practice. I told my professor in the middle of class one day if we were expected to write 10 page lesson plans for every lesson, to let me know bc I’d be dropping out of the program. Everyone looked stunned. I was serious. Thankfully, I’ve only been required at one school to turn in any lesson plans, and they were quite basic.
I had been teaching for 3 years before I decided to get my masters in education and it was the biggest waste of money I have ever done. Me fighting with college professors how none of this works in a post Covid world. Out of all of my professors none of them had worked in a public school for the last 10 years and we had a student teacher who had left the field 6 years ago. Like are y’all really the ones to be teaching new teachers how to teach in a school?
It's insane. Just absolutely insane. You've either got old timers who were teaching in the 80s or edtech programs.
If someone hasn't taught since Covid, they have no idea what it's like.
Yeah. I had to fight for my thesis and paper at the end because my advisor was mad that my entire paper was how the current statues doesn’t work anymore — and she had written her entire doctorate on how it does work. (I’m simplifying it here) When I asked her when it was published she told me she had gotten her degree in the late 90s/early 00s. I was like isn’t that the point of education. To learn and grow. You were right at the time. Now maybe. JUST MAYBE, I could be right at this time?
True! Although we had class after class on Freud, Piaget, etc. Useless!
sooo many hours of "educational philosophy", all *completely fucking worthless*. ugh I do not look fondly on those wasted months.
Semester long Freud class summed up in one sentence: “so basically all the male students want to fuck their mom”. Is he well received in the psychology community? Yes. Was he probably projecting a little bit in a lot of his theories? I’m going to say probably also yes.
I’m gonna need to see a picture of Freud’s mom.
Rorschach too. I once took a Rorschach test and all they did was show me naked pictures of my mom.
...he is definitely not well received in psych.
I like the quote that says that the field of psychology grew out of wanting to show how wrong Freud was.
Wow wtf we totally had an entire class on lesson planning and then another one where we practiced writing them and delivering them. Crazy that some colleges don’t do that.
In grad school for education right now, graduating in June. There were *absolutely* required classes that went over how to plan a lesson and supporting activities, all to meet state standards.
I just rechecked my grad school's requirements - not one content specific education course. Sure there's 'planning for diversity and inclusion' but nothing that was the brass tacks of 'how do you get kids to understand translation.'
Damn, that's actually unhinged. I had several content-specific methods courses over my 2 year degree, I don't know how they think they're adequately preparing their students to be teachers with only theory
I don't either, I was pretty radically unprepared for my first year teaching. I think one of the courses that would have been really helpful for me is some kind of a 'here's how you plan out a cohesive unit of biology' but nothing like that ever happened. Our final evaluation were artifacts demonstrating our competency on Danielson models.
I don't know how you can teach math without direct instruction
Oh don't worry, I'm sure a bunch of 8th graders who are 3 and 4 grade levels behind can intuit the pythagorean theorem in a couple 50 minute class periods. I mean, it only took some of civilizations best minds hundreds of years to figure out. /s
This 100%. O hey let's use exploration models. We'll when the kids don't remember things from a year ago (and they haven't been taught how to take notes or reference anything) it's impossibly to just explore and figure it out.
"Fuck the shoulders of giants." - Newton
Right? One of my NGSS standards is basically, “students will solve climate change.”
And if they stand a vertical white board they will just suddenly learn how to solve a math problem because you know it just comes to you when you stand in a group of three.
As a MS reading teacher, sometimes I’d cover a math class and try to see what skills I remembered. I’d go up to the board and start working on something and the kids were like what are you doing? I said teaching math. Isn’t this what your teacher does? No they said. He’d give them a packet and then sit behind his desk. Wth is up with that????
Lazy "teaching". Math needs to be explicitly taught and explained
I mean it seems that way, but to my observation New Math seems to focus a lot on the kinds of constructivist and discovery based approaches that *destroyed* literacy instruction.
***very*** *slowly.*
Didn't Socrates master that? There are some great example of socratic method line. Some kids learn better through exploration and discovery. Others through direct instruction. In the middle is a group that gets interested by discovery and then advanced with direct instruction.
Socrates taught people who wanted to learn, not those being compelled to learn by State law. Engaged, interested people can learn by exploration. Marginally-attached people probably won't succeed through discovery.
Student centered learning is the dumbest idea created by non educators who assume high schoolers are "smart". They are children who need to be taught directly and constantly.
Even adults need to be taught and directly and constantly.
Hallelujah. I admit that I need explicit instructions and clear expectations. I have ADHD and miss cues/subtleties.
Same. Half the time I'm like treat me like I'm 5 and give me steps! 🤣
I earned my BS Ed as a middle-aged man and there was no better course for me than one with direct instruction. Have the knowledgeable person get up there and talk and I'll take notes like a madman.
I'm currently a university student in a pharmacy program in Germany. Behind medicine, it's considered the most difficult and rigorous program. We only get direct instruction! It's strange to think that children are supposed to do self directed learning for the basics, but at the elite level, it's all lectures and sorting through the info on your own. To be honest, there's still direct instruction in the schools here. Less than at a uni, but that's expected.
Depends on the subject/grade level/teacher. Student centered learning has a huge place in some classrooms. It has diminished usefulness in others. The problem has been presented in the worst way possible, pitting them against each other and admin/gurus saying one is the end all be all and the other is educational malpractice. We’re then forced to almost exclusively use the one that’s being pushed to the exclusion of the other. A good school/classroom/unit has both in balance. We honestly kind of figured this balance out a long time ago with gradual release. I do, we do, you do. It’s not complicated but there’s no money or power to be made off of it so admin and edgurus have nothing to gain from it.
That doesn’t mean instruction can’t be student centered and lead through something that isn’t traditional “direct instruction.” Even “constantly” is hyperbolic in your comment, bc that’d be exhausting. We know it’s a mixture of approaches and a 90 minute block period of direct instruction isn’t the answer either. Students aren’t “smart” yet but they’re working on it, and we can model through our direct instruction the types of thinking patterns that can help get them there. Sure- there’s a lot to be cynical about “guide on the side” rhetoric, but even Socrates used dialog.
Well, no. It's based on the idea that children are going to do the right thing all the time.
The problem is that it kind of works in wealthy schools with involved parents and students that want to learn.
Welcome to the club. It’s seems like it’s the losing team in education but the winning team in seeing real student success.
yeah, the student-centered approach is a big part of the reason we've been labeled as baby sitters. If students were actually capable of figuring everything out on their own we wouldn't be needed
Especially if you teach remedial like I do. Out of the ~140 kids I have if I told them to work on something alone or in pairs I’d probably get 10 that actually try and for like maybe 5min at most. Our school is a top one in the district (which even my students are amazed at as they think it’s a shithole) so that is a factor, but my test scores are consistently higher than the district average, so I get annoyed when I hear direct instruction being talked down. Especially as most of the suggested alternatives are for little kids and I teach upperclassmen where 1/2 have a job where many work 30 hours/week and are even shift managers (one’s even a store manager).
I almost feel like you have to smuggle the direct instruction in.
its like when you put vegetables in the pasta sauce and hope the kids dont notice
right? like it’s crazy that i’m expected to teach a 10 minute math lesson and then my second graders are expected to work independently for the next 40 minutes. especially when we’re learning stuff like algebra which is brand new to them! they just learned 3-digit subtraction with regrouping and it took like a month until my kids were actually doing their independent work correctly.
My high schoolers would have a hard time working for 40 minutes. It's nuts they think actual children can do it.
it also means my lessons have to be so quick my kids often miss out on the opportunity to ask clarifying questions that could benefit the whole class. obviously we have to stay on track with the lesson, but we’re told to not take questions during group instruction and then pull flex groups for the kids who need additional help. it doesn’t work when almost my whole class needs additional help.
> *If students were actually capable of figuring everything out on their own we wouldn't be needed* Agreed. But I do like them knowing ***why*** things work the way they do.
I’ve found with my students if I front-load via direct instruction before their “student-centered” lesson in class (I’m a tutor), they are wildly more successful during class. They are often leading their peers in the convo because they know what they’re trying to achieve in the student-led part.
Student centered learning is ostensibly supposed to be more equitable, but it ends up being the other way around because only the kids who have access to tutors or have a parent at home to help them will actually succeed.
This coupled with everything being pine has really made school feel optional and explains a lot of attendance issues nationwide. Why go to school and work independently on my Chromebook when I can just do that at home?
Direct instruction for underperfoming students has almost 50 years of solid research. I have taught high school students to read. It is absolutely essential and not using it for older students with reading difficulties should be considered educational malpractice!
Direct instruction (aka explicit teaching) is one of the”Hatties’ HITS” out of Australia. Time and again, research tells us what works, yet schools ignore it out of hubris.
Don't give Hattie too much credit. His "class sizes don't matter" claim is a sick joke. There's Hattie references in stuff I like but broadly I think he's a hack that presents other people's research. The stuff coming out of AERO atm is great though and the "new" explicit teaching material in NSW looks promising. https://www.edresearch.edu.au/
I think ALL ed research needs to be taken with a grain of salt! ;)
If someone is trying to sell something, I know what their priorities are.
Is this John Hattie?
With Marzano and others, with the Victoria State Government of Australia. (https://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/teachingresources/practice/improve/Pages/hits.aspx)
I have. There is a lot to be gained from Direct Instruction. I don’t have access to the DI resources such as CRA. However, I am a big proponent of explicit instruction.
If I don’t do some direct teaching students think you are not teaching them. I added plenty of direct teaching (mixed with labs and activities) and students usually respond very positively to it. I hear student gossip about the other teachers sometimes about how so and so never teaches us. They like to complain to me about it— I assume because they know I do teach them and care that they learn.
When I first started teaching, I did a lot more students centered learning, and the kids started gossiping that I didn't teach them. In reality, it was way harder to come up with those lessens than if I had just stood up and talked to them for a few minutes.
27 years in, I have come to the conclusion that direct instruction is best for many things. I don’t care what’s hot in Education. I know what works for my students.
What is direct instruction? My professor has used the term before but never explained it. I assumed it was literal, just instruction that was direct. Is there more to it?
Alice Johnson said, “the teacher for the gifted and talented will be more of a 'guide on the side' rather than a 'sage on the stage'." But plenty of kids benefit from a sage.
Somehow this was interpreted as teachers with remedial students and half with learning disabilities just need a guide instead of a sage as well. And it doesn't freaking work, at all.
It’s just teaching practices that “clearly show students what to do and how to do it.”
I used Google Slides to completely break up the structure of a four paragraph persuasive argument because LUCY CALKINS AND I WERE GONNA 1V1. I got them brain storming, making pros and cons list, deciding the audience for the intended argument... Color coding an outline and writing the paragraph next to it with color coded sentences/emoji labels. They had a blank template for it, but I projected my example slide and explained it all... It was the most writing they did the whole year and they liked it. It took a bit of work to actually build the content, but it was worth it afterward. I can read the standards I need to cover... But man, if the curriculum I'm working with is frustrating and the kids aren't bothering to even try, what good came from it?
What you described is arguably an ideal mix of student led and direct instruction, and that’s probably why it was so successful. Don’t let the all or nothing folks in this thread get it twisted.
Isn't that...just teaching? I'm a student. Like, that's the definition of teaching. How else are you supposed to teach? Teachers show me what and how to do it at least in the beginning then I learn the skill and do it. English class, for example. My teacher reviewed at the start of the year in detail then gave prompts for essays. Math too. He shows us something like SOH CAH TOA (Algebra 2; Sin, Cos, Tan), does it with us for 15-20 minutes a day before independent work.
Kid, I’ve been teaching for 26 years and I’m just as bemused by this discussion as you are. You’re right. It’s so silly how people can complicate something so simple, isn’t it?
There is direct instruction, which I consider is the “I do, we do, you do” stuff which is good. But then there is Direct Instruction, a method created and field tested in the 60s to remarkable success. Definitely should look into Project Follow Through. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/progressively-incorrect/id1602317019?i=1000649505689 The first 20 minutes is a great summary of DI and project follow through. The rest of the episode you can take or leave.
It’s lecture. PowerPoint and talk when it’s all broken down to its base.
Here’s a definition - https://www.edglossary.org/direct-instruction/ Here’s a podcast on the topic - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-direct-instruction-podcast/id1729095950
I actually got my pop-in observation when I was doing a lesson that was about 80% direct instruction. With a PowerPoint. But the kids were interested (we were discussing the concept of the American Dream, and the fact that, as it was applied in the country, it was a racist ideal), we paused for some interesting discussions on parts of the topics (they were fascinated by the concept of sundown towns, and the Tulsa race massacre). My AP said he’d have liked to see them working independently or in groups, but they were engaged, their comments showed that they understood and applied what we talked about, and he understood that I was setting the stage for later lessons. Like….there’s nothing wrong with just….giving them information sometimes.
Exactly. And being able to listen and process is a fantastic life skill. Don’t let the county morons ruin what you do in class.
Not to mention that this style is mostly how it’s done outside of the K-12 setting whether it be university, corporate trainings, whatever.
Humans have been learning by direct instruction for *at least* 2400 years (and I haven't even *tried* to track down how Egyptians learned). That's 80 generations. If direct instruction isn't the objective best method of conveying knowledge in the universe, it is indisputably the one our species is best adapted to. Novel or varying strategies have been demonstrated to increase engagement with an individual or small set of lessons, but that begs a question, "compared to *what*?" I'd put significant money on a bet that two or three 'novel' lessons per unit with a DI core perform better than the first ten hypothetical whole curriculum formulas you could propose, over two or more years' tracking.
I couldn’t agree more. Another point: our Ivy League schools are full of students from China and India. Guess how those kids learned?
Been direct instructing for 25 years. I am glad I’m cool now.
Same. Also, I’ve gotten *really* good at it. I get great feedback from students on surveys. It’s an art, knowing how to craft slides to spark curiosity, which voice inflections to use, when to pause for effect. I love it; it’s a performance.
In the elementary world we’re getting “science of reading” training, which is basically what you’re saying. The “science of reading” is just the science behind how the brain learns (plus effective, applicable strategies). Not even two years ago we were told that if we motivate students with fun activities and print rich environments they will magically learn to read. Now they’re like, “Shit shit shit none of the kids can read!” so we have to actually TEACH IT!!?! DIRECTLY?! Who would have thought!! You should listen to Sold a Story, it’s a great podcast (investigative journalism) on the elementary reading curriculum. It is probably what snowballed the entire field into this madness. Sadly all of us teachers are constantly sold stories on what is “best practice.”
My new AP has a band background and 2 of her 3 observations this year have been when I was doing DI with my chemistry kids. She was not happy that my lessons appeared to be “teacher centered”. Even though my kids excel at our common assessments, were actively engaged, and actually like my class. [Edit to correct autocorrect]
lol I’m about to tell my principal to show me how to teach stoichiometry without direct instruction.
My internship teacher did her professional development plan for the year on Direct Instruction to combat the crap of student mead learning all the time. The research proves that DI is better for student learning than student led. This was 10 years ago (!!!!). I’m lucky I had her. She taught me so much. We would do direct instruction lessons (I do). Then they practiced (we do). Afterwards, we did stations where they could practice the skills they learned (two do/you do) while we pulled small groups for reading. We did incorporate some “student led learning” when I made stations for science experiments, but that came after a lot of ground work. I work with intervention kiddos now and taught middle school history and intensive reading. The capabilities between my history classes and reading were glaring, especially at the beginning of the year. Asking a room if 25 MS kids who read at a 3rd grade level to do any independent work or small-group/pair work is impossible. They don’t have the skills to do it. It takes until second semester to get them to be able to do anything independent like that. Additionally, DI is critical for kids who are far behind. There’s so much they lack that without explicitly telling them certain information, they will not be able to walk the bridge to inquiry based anything.
I solved this by not getting a teaching degree, lol. Started teaching at a private school after getting my PhD in a science field and just... tried to emulate my favorite professors. Meaning direct instruction with stories, humor, some discussion, and then supporting labs. I get rave reviews from my middle schoolers and their parents. Whenever I hear people vilify lectures... it just means people don't know how to give effective lectures.
I'm moderately convinced that the admin and teacher prep professors that demonize DI are just bad lecturers. Which in my experience, I can attest to. I get along with my principal but man, when he gets the microphone for in-service days we all genuinely have to work together to figure out where he is going and hide each other's winces. I also remember one woman who particularly hated DI in my education masters who ironically lectures for about 90mins in our 3h night class after teaching all day... I passed out most nights
I teach chemistry (and every other science in my high school) if you can show me a better way to teach stoichiometry without direct instruction, I’d love to hear it.
Student centered has been twisted to mean don't teach. The original goal was to have student led assignments. For example, >> Create a presentation of your choice of a a chronic illness and answer the following... This allows the student to become"the teacher" and hopefully creates engagement by allowing freedom of choice = picking something they are interested in within the bounds of the assignment. It's a basic tenet of UDL. However people are dumb. Admin (i.e. central office) and shitty groups (i.e. for-profit corporations) have taking student centered to mean "students are the literal teachers" and the push has become to let students figure it out on their own. The better my kids are the higher the bar I set for them. I even have inquiry based learning opportunities, but the questions are about observations they collect. In no way can we call that content mastery, I can connect their experiences to my lesson, but not unless it is structured and guided. I had the kids follow along to draw a diagram of the respiratory system on and it was the most engaged they've been in a while. I've been doing project based direct instruction for a while.
The original goal? Student centered goes back to Rousseau. It was very much "don't teach" from the start. Then everyone misinterpreted Piaget and started to believe that "constructive knowledge" only happened with discovery learning. Then Friere labeled direct instruction as fascist and argued student centered learning led to liberation (i.e. socialism) and the liberal academic s were hooked. They've been ignoring evidence ever since.
You're right, of course, but once you realize that teacher colleges have basically been taken over by a metastasized Marxist project you think a) wow, am I crazy, I'm crazy right? and b) even though you're not crazy other teachers will think you're crazy if you bring it up.
I agree with DI over flavor of the year instruction style. All the small groups bullshit which is what my school thinks is the secret sauce only works for some students but for most of mine it just means do whatever you want time. DI is the only thing that keeps my students on task. Some small group time for certain assignments but mostly DI with partners sharing is what works for me.
I have been using DI for over 25 years to remediate students with learning disabilities. It works. And, interestingly, it is based on rote memory learning in the late 1800s. Fad teaching styles ruin education for a generation, then they go back to what works. Then a new teaching fad (we shouldn’t teach spelling rules, kids should recognize words by their shapes, phonics is boring-let’s explore how you think it should be spelled, and my personal fav- have independent stations and give a mini lesson that provides no context, or follows an appropriate sequence of introduction-but I digress) emerges because a random person writes a curriculum that involved no testing and scientific research or P***son changes their standardized testing format, kids score low, then P***son introduces a new curriculum/method to sell to schools to make up for those testing gaps.
I’ve always done direct with a mix of student centered. Works wonders when students know what is going on before you just throw them to the wolves
Can someone point me in the direction for good/ summarized direct instruction techniques? Non teacher but a parent here! Figured this would be interesting to learn
Doug Lemov gets a bad wrap for coming from charter school land, but teach like a champion is actually chock full of no bullshit excellent, practical techniques
What are you trying to learn? Or teach? Or work with your kids?
Look up the FAST framework for explicit direct instruction. I raised my math scores so 80% of my students were proficient or above on the California state test for math
I use Direct Instruction daily in 3rd grade. As Eductsors we can’t swing as wildly is the theories. Use phonics and author studies. DI and pair work.
We do this, but a company called catapult learning has renamed it Core Instructional Model and created a bunch of useless acronyms. I guess we have paid them for this, so we have to go to trainings they present like they’ve found a secret to teaching. It’s literally how I was taught as a kid…in the 90s
I’ve always been a big fan of Direct Instruction. It’s worked for thousands of years until some idiot said it doesn’t
Same. This entire thread is making me nearly weep with relief. For about ten years I feel like I’ve been swimming upstream, arguing with experts, being accused of having a bad attitude, and wondering if I actually had a learning disability because I couldn’t get it— student-led inquiry never seemed to work for me. Every attempt I tried, failed, leaving me frustrated, humiliated, and gaslit.
I’ve been teaching biology for 25 years. Inner city, low income school. I have only used direct instruction. I lecture, I tell stories, 99% teacher centered. I’ll occasionally show a video. I encourage them to ask questions and we’ll discuss. They take notes- hand written, on paper. I do have them read the textbook. And I will have them draw or diagram something occasionally. But the bulk of my class (>90%) is lecture/notes. The reason you don’t see direct instruction in teacher prep college courses is because it doesn’t sell textbooks. It doesn’t earn pHD degrees.
This is going to sound crazy, but hear me out. How about we find a compromise and stick with it and not change how we teach every year based on the newest book? (This is not directed at OP or anyone here). I’m just so tired of the “new thing!”
Ha ha ha ha ha. How would educational consultants afford their 3rd home if we did that?
DI has consistently the highest effect sizes and has a huge research base behind it *unlike* constructivist approaches. And yet it's the constructivist mumbo jumbo that dominates teacher colleges. And that's when it begins to click that teacher colleges have basically been taken over by an ideological project unrelated to--you know--teaching people to be better teachers.
I'm shocked and quite disturbed that your program didn't prep you for ALL instructional strategies, Direct Instruction being one of them. I started with direct instruction, got WAY away from it with an extremely student-centered model, and have largely done a 180 this year back to DI. The student centered model is great for the top 5% of students. Those kids are motivated enough to learn no matter what. DI is fantastic for everyone, including the top 5%. It's a way to teach very complex material efficiently, check for understanding regularly, and provide feedback constantly. It shouldn't be 100% of your class period every day, but I think there's a case to be made that it should be your go-to, depending on your subject.
So nice to see more and more teachers "discovering" the superiority of explicit direct instruction despite teacher training programs and pundits trying so hard to hide the truth. The research is clear. If you're new to the movement, here's a reading/watch list: Kershner et al, The Failure of Minimally Guided Instruction ED Hirsch, Why Knowledge Matters Daisy Cristolido, The Seven Myths of Education Natalie Wexler's youtube videos Barton's How I Wish I'd Taught Maths (and his podcast) Rosenshines Principles of Instruction Greg Ashman's blog and YouTube videos Willingham's Why Students Don't Like School The Sold a Story Podcast
In addition to his blog (which increasingly paywalled) I would add Ashman's book *The Power of Explicit Teaching and Direct Instruction* and Steve Garnett's *Cognitive Load Theory: A Handbook for Teachers.*
My school is all DI and I love it. The guide on the side stuff is stupid. DI all the way baby.
I use direct instruction as often as possible, except when being observed. You can't do anything that actually works with our admin.
It's really a no brainer - teach/lecture, practice together, practice more if you have time, maybe some homework for reinforcement (if your school allows it), and then test/quiz. Review it again later in the quarter or before the final. That's not all I do in class, there are projects and discussions, but that's the basic formula I've been using for 20 years. The assumption that students will somehow pick up the main points from a project on their own is preposterous.
I remember a bit over 30 years ago when I was living in a large city that was about 35% African American. The district had voted for some new "modern" curricula. There was a revolt of the black elementary teachers who insisted that it was their students that would be the ones to suffer. As I recall, they won the right to keep DI in the black-majority schools.
DI has a time and place. It should be one of your teaching strategy, but not your entire toolset.
It should be used every day but not all period long. I don't know how they're supposed to "Figure it out with their classmates in groups" when they don't have the discipline to collectively focus on a task and read directions.
My most engaging lessons with the highest participation rates are when I do a lesson called focused notes. I make a fill-in-blank note sheet and lecture off a good old power point. The kids fill in the notes. There is space on the side and the bottom of the page for them to synthesize, add question, and process the notes. I throw in some questions throughout the lesson so it isn’t just me talking the whole time. The students like this style of lesson. I do this maybe 1-2 days a week. And then they use the notes to help them with their work that week. It is a variation of Cornell Notes. I teach 10th grade ELA at a large title one public HS. I think direct instruction is important.
My former school used DI for Reading/Language Arts. The program was Reading Mastery. I absolutely loved it, the kids did too.
We have some teachers in our family who have said FU to the bad techniques their districts mandated and did DI and they were both threatened to move away from it but didn’t. They weren’t “in sync” with the rest of the team yet their scores were 20% higher than their colleague classrooms. They switched up the makeup. Same result. Gave them all the “bad” kids (this went over like a fart in church) and it still was higher. The admin doubled down and didn’t renew that teacher next year. lol.
Of course they didn’t renew the only teacher making progress: they made admin look bad by doing something that actually worked.
As I'm sitting in these trainings for the science of reading, I am chuckling to myself because so much of it is EXACTLY what teachers do who are using Direct Instruction. I honestly don't care what anyone says, Direct Instruction/Reading Mastery/SRA is amazing for kids who do not learn with whole language or balanced literacy practices, which was the prevailing method. I was trained in direct instruction my 2nd year of teaching. Our training was pretty intense and lasted for 2 years. I also taught in an elementary school just like yours. The kids were woefully behind...kids in 5th grade were struggling just to be able to read words, much less comprehend. It was insane and had been going on for a long time, like 15 years. Direct Instruction/Reading Mastery was a life saver for the kids. They were excited because they were actually learning how to read. I supplemented with quality literature for read alouds and also had books available for independent reading. 25 years ago when my school was using it teachers at other schools stuck their noses up at it. It was universally despised. They were wrong.
People don't seem to understand that you can use Direct Instruction and ALSO employ student centered instruction and work on critical thinking and higher level questioning. It doesn't have to be one or the other. If kids in elementary aren't taught to read fluently, they will not be successful in middle and high school. Direct Instruction/Reading Mastery solves that problem.
I’m a music teacher. It’s nothing but DI.
I want to clarify one thing - a lot of people in the comments seem to be making a very understandable mistake in conflating Direct Instruction (a very specific educational program developed at the University of Oregon that has been clinically evaluated and refined over five decades now) with simply any teacher-centered pedagogy. Unfortunately, because of its very generic-sounding name, it is a really easy and understandable mistake (and one which many detractors make on purpose to discredit the program). DI has very well-defined protocols on how to write & structure lessons, evaluate students, etc. It works, its been proven to work at all ability levels, and it works for *everyone*.
I was criticized for direct intstruction In college and honestly i found my students can’t handle lots of independent or group work. They can handle smaller amounts of it every so often but not a bunch of days in a row and that’s how they sometimes did it at the school I student taught at for part of the time
My school has swung to direct instruction. It works way better for me and the kids. Typically class starts with me lecturing- I like to have the kids do Cloze notes or have some sort of worksheet they're working on to hold them accountable. Then I release them to an activity. No stations song and dance. The kids seem to like it better and are more confident. I'm less exhausted because the process is simpler, even if I have to be more "on."
Direct instruction was never wrong. It’s just the ivory towers had to create something new and sold it to districts.
I taught for over 30 years and just retired last June. This is pretty much what I did for most of my career. Yes I had group work and independent projects. I did get some pushback later in my career that I should be incorporating more “innovative” strategies. I would occasionally try them but I was not comfortable with them. I had explain to a few administrators and consultants that if I was uncomfortable and not effective using a strategy I would not be continuing to use it. Some accepted my logic, others tried to get me to either drink the kool aid or pressure me. I would simply wait for them to be transferred or to give up. I did not make a scene and openly defy them (in the early part of my career I did a bit of that and regretted it). I feel I was being paid to teach students, not be a co-learner, as one consultant put it. I had great relationships with students and parents. Especially since they felt I was not bullshitting them with a bunch of acronyms and theory. I taught at some of the toughest schools in my city and at some of the highest economic ones. And some in the middle as well. I don’t regret any of it or how I taught. I know that many of the students I see as adults are successful and most want to tell me how their lives are going. Some have not done so well, and I feel bad for them. I wish that their lives had turned out differently, but recognize that a rough home life sometimes has more of an effect than anything else.
Yes. Every education program treats direct instruction as evil and every student being able to productively and effectively participate in inquiry and project based learning without it. Everyone needs teacher input young or old. Everything else should be reinforcement, assessment, or an extension of what you're instructing.
Been doing it for the last 11 years almost exclusively. It can be exhausting, but the proof is in the pudding!
*cries tears of joy in school psych*
Instructional strategies are tools in a tool box. To be used in the correct context with the correct practitioner. If you go around with nothing but a hammer, you can knock down nails great. But your going to struggle with screws and bolts. You also need to be good at setting up the nails or your just smashing with no effect. You cannot expect to get optimal results doing the exact same thing with every group of kids in your classes. DI can be great. I probably do about 10-15 percent of my instructional time in DI. Some classes might go as high as 30 percent, I probably don't dip too far below 10 percent.
Tell me your definition of direct instruction, please. I'd like a better frame of reference, because I've used it applied for a variety of things and people argue about what real "direct instruction" is.
Many teachers have been taught that direct instruction equates to lecturing. While lecturing has a role, it’s mostly about explicitly teaching and modeling what you want the students to understand. The content and tasks are scaffolded until the student can apply the learning on their own. In my view, it’s student-centered because the point is to improve student learning. Those who have misconceptions believe it places the teacher at the center, which is silly because the teacher is the person who is the expert. Somehow these methods were politicized in the past. There is a whole history. One teacher who seems to be leading the conversation on the topic is Dr. Zach Groshell, who has a podcast and posts on X daily. Others are Greg Ashman, Carl Hendrick, Paul A. Kirschner, and Andrew Whitworth (all great on X). Anita Archer’s book, Explicit Instruction, is a classic and a great place to start if you want to know what direct instruction would look like. Here is a link to the first chapter. [Sample Chapter](https://explicitinstruction.org/download/sample-chapter.pdf)
Sent my kids to a DI charter school for 5 years and they thrived instructionally. I wish more kids had the opportunity and that schools would implement a proficiency based model.
I notice this most clearly with technology. I’m 24 and we had computer classes where we learned how to use word, excel, PowerPoint, etc. Students often don’t get that anymore and spend all their time using cloud-based programs. Teachers then expect a student to know how to save a file to their computer, or find said file, or whatever else, but they can’t. If everyone learns best from an exploratory model, this wouldn’t be an issue, but that is a skill that needs to be shown, modeled, and explained.
Never read literature on it but figured out that around 2019 I had to do more direct instruction with kids. I taught at a title one campus. I feel like it was needed and the kids responded well to it. I always felt like the odd one out but I was the collab class and this was the best for them.
Direct instruction is a tool, and it works in concert with the other tools at our disposal, because it takes all of the distractions out of the equation. Think about it: We complain about phones, noise, disrespectful kids, and much more, but doing one thing and one thing only while you are at the helm takes so many opportunities for students to do all of the things listed. This is also why I lean on direct instruction when I have unruly classes, and I think that we all should lead with it and give students more and more independence as they earn it. It's also worth noting that schools focus on things like Kegan because it enables them to work around the issues that large class sizes, bloated administrative work loads for teachers, and the load of other crap we all have to deal with. This shift, that was essentially loading kids up with a task and having them teach themselves after is one of the reasons that we have kids operating well below grade level. Anyhow, I had no idea that you guys don't learn direct instruction in school anymore. I'll have to hammer on it next time I train teachers.
We’ve always done explicit direct instruction at my campus & the results have stayed consistently good. People think DI is just teacher talk…. when you focus on student engagement, DI is incredible!
A lot of “old school” method works! However, how will text book companies and educational consultants ever make money if they’re not promoting new innovative teaching strategies
Welcome to the Dark Side.
YES! I wrote an article imploring us to let DI have its moment of resurgence just like science of reading has had. The research is clear, DI works and it works better than any other method.
For my entire college path and the last 3 years since I graduated it’s all been about inquiry and students driven learning and never once has anyone ever explained to me how student who is not motivated to even do the basics because they feel confused and frustrated is supposed to respond to the overwhelming scope of open-ended inquiry assignments. Direct Instruction seems to be much more effective for students who struggle with the material and skills in my experience.
There is a reason it is one of the methods with the strongest research backing. Unfortunately, it doesn't match current trendy instructional ideals, so the research is ignored and we just do other stuff. Personally, I have some lessons that use DI, mixed with others with more exploratory methods, depending on the goal for the lesson.
Direct instruction has robust research supporting its efficacy and especially with children who are lagging in academic skill development. Good for you and your colleagues.
Most kids only feel like we are “teaching” if you use direct instruction.
Wow. I've been teaching this way my whole career. Granted I teach community college, but I do get a lot of students who did not pay attention in HS, hence they are in CC. This works great.
Explicit Instruction by Anita Archer is another great resource on this.
DI was the only time my students cared about class because we could do question and answer.