Hellobee Boards

@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.

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.

@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.

@Mrs. Lion: yes to all of this

@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.

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

YES. Exactly!

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.

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.

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.

@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.

@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

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

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.

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.

@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.

@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...

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.

@travellingbee: Yes! This exactly!