Hellobee Boards

Login/Register

Have you heard of the Direct Instruction teaching model?

What are your thoughts on it?

  1. T.H.O.U.

    wonderful clementine / 24134 posts

    @mediagirl: Can you describe it a bit or in what context you are talking about? From a quick search, it seems like thats a broad term.

  2. mediagirl

    hostess / wonderful persimmon / 25556 posts

    @T.H.O.U.: I'm curious if anyone has experience with this approach to teaching. Google can direct folks to what it is with a quick search (as you noted). There are some schools around here who use this technique. I'm curious what people think about it.

  3. mamimami

    grapefruit / 4120 posts

    It's pretty old school. That's what I would call traditional instruction. Some element of DI is present in almost all teaching except super cutting-edge project-based learning.

  4. Mrs. Lion

    blogger / grapefruit / 4836 posts

    @mediagirl: I am far from an expert and have not been trained in it, but from the little bit of research I did it did not sound like any way I would want to teach or have my kids learn. It is pretty much the opposite of what I believe in.

  5. mediagirl

    hostess / wonderful persimmon / 25556 posts

    @Mrs. Lion: you're on the montessori side of things, right?

  6. daniellemybelle

    cantaloupe / 6669 posts

    It's interesting - I think most people have a negative gut reaction to Direct Instruction, but the way it is currently used is actually pretty new and considered innovative.

    My husband works in the education space, and we went to dinner with a couple in which the husband was a teacher who uses Direct Instruction. He was a HUGE proponent and said that he was able to focus on his kids a lot more because lesson planning and execution was already handled. The lessons are research based and apparently the research shows that this method really works.

    Having said that, it still rubs me the wrong way for my own child because I like the idea of a more free, creative classroom environment. BUT - I will say that I can see why it is being supported among high-risk kids who may not have the most experienced teachers.

  7. Mrs. Lion

    blogger / grapefruit / 4836 posts

    @mediagirl: eh, I like montessori for practical life stuff mostly. I like teaching independence. But not all kids will be successful in a montessori school environment.

    I believe there is a place for direct instruction (lower case...not the all encompassing Direct Instruction that some charter schools use). Sometimes you have to directly teach content to kids. But the world has shifted and school can't just be about teaching kids content...they need to learn how to think, and how to be continuous learners for the rest of their lives. Drilling facts may create kids who can quickly call back those said facts, but I want to teach kids to problem solve, to work together, to figure things out. I think to effectively teach you have to include some direct teaching of information, but I believe overall the classroom is the place for the project based/inquiry based learning approach. I have seen it work. I've seen kids who aren't traditionally "good" academic students learn to love learning for its own sake, and I think it creates an environment where all kids can thrive.

  8. mrs. tictactoe

    blogger / pomegranate / 3201 posts

    In teacher school (not the technical term, lol), we were given this model as the "bad" or "lazy" way to teach. Basically, the teacher gives the students all of the information and they regurgitate it in the form of tests or written assignments. The students are empty buckets that the teacher is supposed to fill. The teacher knows everything and the students know nothing.

    I see a place for direct instruction and don't think it's always as evil as it can be portrayed. I think a good balance is important.

  9. mrs. tictactoe

    blogger / pomegranate / 3201 posts

    @Mrs. Lion: yes to all of this

  10. .twist.

    pineapple / 12802 posts

    @mediagirl: I'm curious to know what your opinion of it is?

    One of the schools I'm looking at for L is a Charter school with DI as a base teaching method. I'm not totally familiar with this type of schooling and it's something that I want to talk to them about before we send L there.

    Like some of the others have mentioned, I think there are other types of learning that are really important to a child's development. So, I don't really know where I stand but I should probably figure it out sooner, rather than later.

  11. mediagirl

    hostess / wonderful persimmon / 25556 posts

    @.twist.: I don't really have an opinion of it other than parents I know here who send their kids to this school are extremely happy with how much their children learn. A friend sent her daughter to the private school's kindergarten to get her in before the cut-off. She had to pull her before 1st grade because of finances and had to send her daughter to K at the public school because of that cut-off issue. They're halfway through the school year and she feels like she hasn't learned half of what she learned halfway through the school year at the private school. The student body in general is better behaved, too.

    A private school with this teaching method is coming to our small town and it would make our life very easy to send her there. While I can read about it, I really feel when the time comes to make a decision, I would need to ask permission to sit in on a class or two to get a feel for how this teaching method works.

    From what I've read, I'm not sure if this teaching method would have worked for me. But my kid may learn in totally different ways than I do.

  12. .twist.

    pineapple / 12802 posts

    @mediagirl: I have gotten the same response, general feeling, from parents who have sent their kids to the school I mentioned above. To be honest, when I look at all our options for schools, this seems like the best option. Our public schools are kind of a disaster. We aren't religious and I'm not totally interested in sending L to a Catholic school. We can't afford a fully private school. This charter school is kind of a neutral in between with greeeeeat reviews.

  13. Mrs. Lion

    blogger / grapefruit / 4836 posts

    @mediagirl: I am pretty sure most charter/private schools will let you sit in and see how it works. I know that Thales Academy in Apex will let you observe...if the school you are looking at won't, maybe you could check them out (although I personally wouldn't ever even pretend to consider that school for my child...but that's another story haha).

    I would warn you though...that these schools may seem impressive when you watch them for a short period of time, and it may seem like kids are learning more, but I would question what it is they are learning, and whether or not there was that much value in the information that the kids are learning. Just because they can recite facts doesn't actually mean they are learning.

    For example...a 2 year old who can count to 30 may sound impressive, but if you give them 5 blocks and they can't count 5 blocks, they haven't really learned to count...they are just reciting.

    If the majority of what they are learning can easily be told to you in seconds via Siri, I would argue that the education they are receiving will not necessarily put them at an advantage in the long run.

  14. lilteacherbee

    cantaloupe / 6791 posts

    We have several charter schools in this area who use this method. Your parents have probably heard about them since they've been in the news a lot!

    I have mixed feelings. Teaching pre-k, direct instruction is wayyy on the other side of what we do. Sometimes, though, I think it would work with certain kids better than other methods. In college, I tutored 5 year olds and basically taught them how to read using direct instruction and it worked really well one-on-one. Some kids I've had in pre-k go onto kindergarten at a school that does direct instruction and their parents say the structured environment really improved their behavior.

    I just can't imagine doing that all day, for every subject. As a teacher, that would drive me crazy!!

  15. lilteacherbee

    cantaloupe / 6791 posts

    @Mrs. Lion: "Just because they can recite facts doesn't actually mean they are learning."

    YES. Exactly!

  16. erinpye

    pomegranate / 3706 posts

    Not a fan. Just because a method raises standardized test scores, doesn't mean it's worthwhile. Regurgitating facts doesn't mean someone is smart and knows how to think and apply those facts, and memorized material is often quickly forgotten. Think about what you remember from school--chances are it's only the stuff you found interesting, not the stuff you were forced to learn/ memorize.

  17. Mrs. Jacks

    blogger / pineapple / 12381 posts

    The challenger programs use this model and I've found that it doesn't foster critical thinking needed to be a self-directed learner. For that reason I don't like it. Kids who have come out of challenger tend to be externally motivated by threats and punishment rather than internally motivated to learn on their own.

  18. spaniellove

    honeydew / 7916 posts

    I started teaching in an urban district just after they did away with Direct Instruction and heard a lot of grumbling from the older teachers about how DI served the population better by focusing on skills and facts, whereas the new reading curriculum was never properly implemented and was too abstract for learners without a solid foundation and home support.

  19. Mrs Green Grass

    pomelo / 5628 posts

    I teach HS English and if I am being observed by Admin., I'd better not be using direct instruction! Basically it means lecture. It's an efficient method for getting information across quickly, but it is not well-linked to retention without many other methods of instruction.

    I have never heard of it as a preschool method. Intuitively, it does not make sense to me. I'll have to read more about those charters.

  20. Mrs. Lion

    blogger / grapefruit / 4836 posts

    @Mrs Green Grass: I literally cannot fathom trying to get kids pre-k-3rd to learn this way. My 4th graders "could" have, but they would have HATED it....and therefore would have shut down and not learned anything anyway.

  21. Charm54

    cantaloupe / 6885 posts

    There is absolutely no way in hell I would send my child to a school that focuses on Direct Instruction, especially at the elementary level. It goes against all of my pedagogical research and beliefs. Unless it is being used differently in Charter Schools (I don't know, there are no Charter Schools in my province, so I am unfamiliar if they have a different definition of DI) - it is traditionally thought of as an outdated practice in the education field, especially in the early years.

    I do think that it can have its place in middle/high - but even then it needs to be a small piece that is counterbalanced with lots of problem solving/critical thinking/discussion/innovation/etc etc etc.

    As a second grade teacher, I know that it is not age-appropriate for my students to listen and absorb information for hours at a time. In order to learn the skills that they would need to do that, they would have to give up many other critical skills that I believe are more vital and important in today's world (such as the aforementioned creativity/critical thinking/ability to form and substantiate an opinion/etc)

    In my classroom, we do mini-lessons - short bursts of instruction that are then scaffolded and sandwiched between independent/partner/group work. My general rule of thumb is that my instruction can be measured in the same number of minutes as their age. My 7 year olds, for example, can sit for 7 minutes and listen, before they go off and practice that skill themselves.

  22. spaniellove

    honeydew / 7916 posts

    @Mrs. Jacks: Reading your comment, it makes sense now that the teachers I worked with were saying this. They were definitely teachers who worked with coercion and threats, and from what I hear there was a lot of chanting going on.

  23. Mrs. Lion

    blogger / grapefruit / 4836 posts

    @Charm54: This is exactly how I taught as well....except with 10 minute mini lessons since my kids were 10 I love the readers workshop model, where students engage in real reading for the majority of the reading block, with two short mini lessons throughout the block. I did something similar with math as well and had a lot of success! In fact, my last 2 years I was learning about and implementing a "flipped classroom" approach, where the direct teaching took place at home via youtube videos so that we had more time for small group instruction and problem solving in the classroom. Basically, my teaching could not be more opposite of the Direct Instruction model.

    Standardized tests don't measure understanding, problem solving ability, or the skills needed to work with others toward a common goal....and all of these are skills that employers are going to be looking for when these kids get out of school.

    An employer isn't going to care at all whether you can recite the presidents of the united states (assuming a student even retains that information after the initial "learning" takes place)...they are going to care that they can use critical thinking to take a problem and solve it, and that they know how to take the initiative to get something done without having someone constantly giving directions.

  24. Charm54

    cantaloupe / 6885 posts

    @Mrs. Lion: Yes!! Love Reading/Writing Workshop. Daily 5 model is also an amazing early literacy program - short mini-lessons sandwiched between 20-30 minute rounds where students are working on their own (read to self, read to someone, work on writing, word work, listen to reading -ie: REAL literacy activities!!) Totally transformed my classroom and it is amazing what young learners can do.

    I am totally fascinated by Flipped ! I went to the Microsoft Global Forum where I met a lot of middle/high teachers using that model. Did you have any success with it?

    We seem to always have the same educational beliefs. Maybe we should open our own school together LOL

  25. Mrs. Lion

    blogger / grapefruit / 4836 posts

    @Charm54: Yes, my students LOVED it! They watched the video at home and had to take notes to show what they learned, and then the following day I met with small groups while they worked. They were allowed to sign up for when they wanted to meet with me and we did a rotation kind of like Daily 5. They could decide whether they wanted to work with me, work with a partner, or work independently on that day's practice. I would work with a small group during the first rotation, and then during the rest of the time I would check in with individuals to see how they were doing. Kids that finished their practice early could go on to the challenge activity of the day, but only after their work had been checked for accuracy.

    And we used Daily 5 too, I just didn't throw that term out there because I wasn't sure how widespread it was In 4th we really just did Daily 3 though...I had my kids reading independently for at least 45 minutes every day.

    This is making me miss my classroom so much

  26. Charm54

    cantaloupe / 6885 posts

    @Mrs. Lion: that is awesome!!! I may be moving up to middle school in a year or two (mixed emotions about that! ) so flipped is something I would definitely want to check out with that age group. Thx for the info!

  27. T.H.O.U.

    wonderful clementine / 24134 posts

    @Charm54: @Mrs. Lion: can I come join your school? I'll be your tech lead!

  28. Mrs. Lion

    blogger / grapefruit / 4836 posts

    @Charm54: ooh yeah, it would be awesome with middle They would (hopefully!!) be even more self sufficient haha!

    @T.H.O.U.: Um yes, absolutely!

    And, because I am feeling feisty....I will just add, this is how charters were SUPPOSED to be formed...teachers with innovative ideas trying them out to see how they worked...not a way for politicians and businessmen who want to turn public schools into money making businesses to make some extra cash. But I digress....

  29. sarac

    pomelo / 5093 posts

    I would literally never subject my child to this kind of learning environment. But I can see how it might be useful in an already underserved population.

  30. lilteacherbee

    cantaloupe / 6791 posts

    @Mrs. Lion: I'll come teach pre-k

    And yeah, our charter schools are in trouble all the time for failing to report all kinds of financial sketchiness. It's crazy. DH teaches 3rd grade and he has kids who he tries to retain and their parents end up sending them to the charter school and they somehow push them to the next grade. Then, a couple years later, they end up back at a public school and are even more behind.

  31. mrsjyw

    GOLD / wonderful apricot / 22646 posts

    This is pretty prevalent in Korea, though it may be changing now. But for all intents and purposes as a nation they rank one of the highest as far as test scores, etc. do I think it works? Yah, stats show that they're academically learning faster. Do I think that school is more than just learning how to read and write and other solely academic purposes? Yep.

    For being one of the "smartest" nations, Korea also has one of the highest suicide rates, plastic surgery rates, etc. I know I'm looping together some big general topics . But from a societal perspective, I am glad not to be raising my kid in the korean school system where kids are taught via DI all day at school then again at tutoring centers until late night hours.

    Just Eta: I went to prek, kindergarten, and half of first grade in Korea. I didn't like it then and don't have fond memories of it. I excelled in school here and it wasn't anywhere near the amount of DI that is the central focus of their teaching system. I have cousins who had school hours from 8am - 10pm at night beginning in grade school. And I think that's just crazy.

  32. Mrs. Lion

    blogger / grapefruit / 4836 posts

    @mrsjyw: I completely agree...

  33. JoyfulKiwi

    nectarine / 2667 posts

    @mediagirl: I've taught Pre-K through 2nd in various SES populations and I don't like the idea of Direct Instruction as the basis/philosophy of teaching. I would not be able to teach that way to early childhood students and I would not like my child in that environment. Like Mrs.Lion said, direct instruction (lower-case) is a *tool* that I believe is actually essential for learning, because children do need to see & hear facts, information, & the learning process modeled for them. Yet, that is just one small piece of growing a successful learner. Before and after receiving "direct" instruction, a child needs to activate and utilize so many different parts of their brain (beyond memorization) in order to retain and apply knowledge. I've been in one school that used direct instruction as the bulk of their proscribed teaching method & it was hell - on me & and the poor kindergarteners.

    @Charm54: and @Mrs. Lion: I am LOVING your discussion here! Yes to so, so many of the points you've brought up. Writer's Workshop & Daily 5 were two of my most favorite teaching tools in my classrooms. And I completely agree with your point about how charter schools are often not serving children's best interests, as people without a solid understanding of how children learn try to make school into a for-profit business.

  34. Orchid

    clementine / 927 posts

    I was taught that way and it's still used in my country. It does seem a bit much in for very young children, however, it works well in other parts of the world. Honestly, I think kids today can benefit from having a bit more direct instruction but they've been trained to have super short attention spans and to require lots of bells, whistles and entertainment to learn. When they get to college and grad school they'll have to deal with quite a bit of it.

  35. Mrs Green Grass

    pomelo / 5628 posts

    @mrsjyw: honestly that's exactly what I was thinking. We have a very high Asian population at my school and Asian countries do the best on most standardized texts. But I don't necessarily think that's a good thing for many of the reasons you mention...

  36. honeybear

    nectarine / 2085 posts

    I think lectures have an important place in education and I don't see them as incompatible with active thinking/analysis as opposed to rote memorization. It seems to me that the criticism of lecture-style teaching as requiring only regurgitation is more a critique of the tests that are being given than the instructional method. There is no reason you can't write an exam that requires analytical thought even though you've taught via lecture.

    However, the "how" and "when" changes my answer to the question of what I think about it. Using mostly lecture-style methods in Kindergarten is quite different than using them on high schoolers (and the category "school-aged kids" covers a lot of territory!).

  37. travellingbee

    hostess / papaya / 10219 posts

    This seems like a funny statement to me, that a school would say it uses "direct instruction". It just means the teacher giving information to the students. All schools except Montessori use direct instruction in the classroom, but why hang your hat on that? to me it's like saying "In our kitchen we use a stove. That is the basis of our cooking." Great, most people do. But you don't ever use the oven? You don't ever use the grill? You don't ever do the dishes? You've never used blender? KitchenAid? It's just weird. I've worked in public schools, and charter schools. I have been a teacher, an administrator, an instructional coach, and an interventionist. I would never send my child to a school that touted its use of direct instruction, like I would never go to a restaurant that touted its use of the stove.

  38. Mrs. Jump Rope

    blogger / coconut / 8306 posts

    @mrs. tictactoe: that sounds exactly how I was taught growing up!

  39. Mrs. Lion

    blogger / grapefruit / 4836 posts

    @travellingbee: Yes! This exactly!

Thread Closed

This thread has been closed by the original poster.

© copyright 2011-2014 Hellobee