I tried to fix the ones I could catch!
If I felt my child was not being served well in the school they were in, and that my support wouldn't be enough to fix that, I would check into other options too. I can definitely appreciate your frustration 
That is really interesting. I can see where something so forced is not a good thing and can have bad outcomes, after the fact.
This thread has been closed by the original poster.
-
@.twist.: The OP asked about a school that proudly touts DI as its primary method of teaching, which is what people responded to. That's a far cry from saying that they'd never put their kid in a school that uses it ever, which as you pointed out would be basically impossible.
-
Bah. It doesn't matter. This thread was interesting. Thanks ladies!
-
@.twist.: Absolutely! In that case, I would love to see how they make it work. Maybe they are using the buzz word Direct Instruction because it is becoming trendy in those circles, but their actual instruction is more well rounded? Or maybe my understanding of Direct Instruction is not what it actually is today, which is also entirely possible. I would definitely be interested to learn more about how they do things.
But, to be quite honest, if my understanding of DI is at all accurate, I personally WOULD be scared to have my child in that type of environment. I think you may have gotten that vibe from the teachers on here (or at least from me), because I truly do not believe that most students would get a quality education that will serve them in the real world in that type of environment. I don't believe a teacher can be effective if the majority of their teaching comes from a script and does not take into account the individual students being taught. Again, I could be wrong about what exactly it entails...but my understanding is that the majority of the day is spent in lecture format, with lots of call and answer and expecting students to follow along as the teacher gives information, which has a place in all classrooms, but I do not believe is a productive way for children to learn if that is the only method used, especially those younger than high school.
ETA: I see you deleted your last response. I was certainly not trying to shut down conversation.
-
@Mrs. Lion: haha thanks for your response. I wasn't sure my earlier comment would be taken the right way, but you don't seem to hate me for it.
I totally, totally see what you're saying. I think too much of anything is not a good thing.
-
@.twist.: so I worked for a long time in a KIPP school, which is a charter. The original model of the schools included direct instruction models. It was highly scripted, included a lot of choral response type things. It provided a ton of structure for students who didn't have very much at home. It seemed really effective for a lot of students. Students who hadn't had any success before were starting to have a lot of success and the scores on standardized tests were amazing. Then they started tracking the data of what happened to those students after they left the KIPP schools. Despite the fact that they passed very rigorous entrance exams to excellent high schools and colleges, A large percentage were dropping out or failing out in the first year. They simply didn't know what to do with themselves in a less structured environment, and in a classroom that required that level of critical thinking. So the model evolved. KIPP schools are still pretty highly structured as far as classroom management and behavior. But they don't use rote memorization very much, except for things like math facts. Student responsibility and ownership of their own warning is emphasized instead , because the research supports it. I don't think a school that primarily uses DI is going to ruin children. I just don't think it's as effective. i've often had this conversation with parents.I've had many parents tell me that they just want their kids to memorize stuff like they did. It's really hard for parents to hear that the education they had isn't as effective for the modern world as the education that we're trying to give their kids. I'm really sorry that you are in a situation where you feel like there arent good options for your kids. I truly hope you find something that feels right for your family.
Eta: sorry for all the typos. I'm exercising and typing on my phone
I tried to fix the ones I could catch!
-
@mediagirl: I was trying to answer your original question by relating what I knew about it and that the structure supposedly worked better for my students than the abstract curriculum they were switched to. If you observe the school and like what you see then it's your choice as the parent.
-
@.twist.: Not at all!
I appreciate your perspective, and I hate that you feel so stuck 
If I felt my child was not being served well in the school they were in, and that my support wouldn't be enough to fix that, I would check into other options too. I can definitely appreciate your frustration 
-
@travellingbee: Great points.
In HS, a lot of the classes do use DI, especially history. They have a lot of content to "cover." Although "coverage" does not necessarily lead to long-term retention or understanding.
What is left out is depth. It's hard to have a deep understanding of a subject unless you work with the information, synthesize it with other information, apply it to new situations. But most classrooms (in the public high schools I have experienced) will do a bit of both, DI and then something else. I know nothing about charters. What I worry about for a young child is creativity, not just becoming an artist, but learning different ways of thinking and problem solving.
Because our country has become so test-focused, direct instruction "feels" like the only way to ensure that teachers are teaching the same things, you can assess it. But the assessments themselves are problematic. How can a multiple choice test show what a student really knows and is capable of? The new tests are a bit different and hopefully better, but it remains to be seen.
-
@travellingbee: multitasking!
That is really interesting. I can see where something so forced is not a good thing and can have bad outcomes, after the fact.My thoughts though (and I am by no means an expert [been googling DI for 2 days now], or a teacher), are that if my kid is in a class of 15, with a structured curriculum and well behaved children (and from my understanding that is a requirement of these systems!), if there IS a problem, they will have the time to actually focus on my kid and help them move past the part they're stuck with. So, memorization and regurgitated knowledge doesn't seem like such a problem. Unless I'm truly missing something and they just don't CARE if my kid doesn't understand the content as long as he can spout it out. But that's not at all what I'm reading about in the many articles I've found.
-
This comment has been deleted by the original poster.
-
@Mrs Green Grass: what you said about coverage reminds me of a little teacher joke:
A man was talking to his neighbor and he said "I taught my chickens French!" The neighbor says. "Really? That's amazing! How did you do it?" Man: "oh it was easy. I taught them five new words each day." Neighbor: "wow! How many words can they say?" Man:"oh they can't say anything. But I taught the words." So basically, just because you teach it doesn't mean they learn it.
-
@Torchwood: Actually:
<<@mrs. lion said "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.">>
<<@daniellemybelle said: "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.">>
<<@charm57 said "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.">>
<<@sarac said "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.">>...and I'm too lazy to see if there were others.
-
@JoyfulKiwi: yes. I was being sarcastic.
@travellingbee: this last comment by you was very helpful. Well, the one before the last one. The one about KIPP.By starting this conversation, I wanted to know what people who had experience with Direct Instruction could tell me about it. I realize now I didn't say that and just asked for opinions. Big. Fat. Ooops on Hellobee!! I felt I got a lot of responses that were purely negative from teachers who had never taught it. Yes, some had experience with it and offered what they could, which I really appreciate. I got frustrated when the conversation turned negative and then to politics and things not related to the topic at hand.
Thank you to everyone for this very interesting conversation. Haha.
-
@.twist.: you're right! It's not how I teach, and I probably wouldn't choose it for my child, given my current situation of public schools. But that doesn't mean it's not a viable option. and that it's not effective for any students. It very well might be a great environment for your LO!
-
@travellingbee: : ) It's kind of like how kids can "read" when they are 2 because they have memorized the book. It doesn't mean that they understand the letters or words or sentences or can actually "read" in a different situation.
-
@.twist.: I think the problem with that is what the kids are actually learning. I don't really care about kids memorizing content. I care about them developing the deeper understandings. So if the goal is "here's the info, study it, remember it for the test" but they never get to the "now use this information, draw your own conclusions, relate it to what you know about the world" part of the learning (because those things can't be lectured or memorized) then I feel like it isn't so much that they aren't getting what they are taught, but that they aren't being taught the right things. So on a test, or on paper, it may look like they know the information, because for the moment they do.
My view is that teaching content is not the goal...teaching thinking is. With modern technology and constant access to information, learning to think critically about what is true and what is not is vital. And if your teacher is constantly giving you the information and you never have to find it yourself, you never develop those skills.
-
I have been following this thread and wonder why DI is so great for high risk/ underserved kids? Don't these kids deserve the chance to think critically too? Are classrooms these days a free for all and other methods don't require children to pay attention or behave well?
What if a child asks "why?" in a DI classroom? Is there room for natural curiosity and are the instructors equipped to go off script?
I only read the Wikipedia page before coming back here to read all the responses and on Wiki it said DI is great for developmentally delayed/ challenged students. That kind of made sense to me given the constant reinforcement/ reminders caregivers must do to teach life skills.
-
Second attempt due to phone throwing tantrum.
@Mrs. Lion: I agree with everything you've said.
As a teacher, I would be very wary of putting my child in a school that focuses on Direct Instruction. In the research I have read, Direct Instruction is not supported. I would prefer to put my child in a school that focussed on mixed instructional methods, including self-directed and inquiry learning.
In her schooling, I want DD to learn to think critically, be creative, question, explore, know how to find answers to questions and understand the whys and hows behind the things she learns, as I believe these are the skills that will be valued in the future workforce and are the skills that will enrich her life both now and in the future. I don't believe DI promotes this.
I have taught in a number of school systems (trained in New Zealand and currently certified to teach in the US state I live in). I taught for a few years in Japan, where DI is the standard model. I can say it is easier on the teacher. Planning is a breeze. It is very easy to present a lesson from the front, much easier than managing students working independently and in groups. The city I was living in was moving away from a DI model though (albiet slowly) because, while my students were awesome test takers, they struggled with thinking creatively and critically.
(I don't know if every Japanese city was moving away from it, or just mine).
-
@Mrs. Lemon-Lime: It's not at all (good). It ends up coming from a top-down approach telling teachers you will be on this page in the book on this day. Like the above post says, it takes the thinking away from the teacher too. A lot of schools have added more "seat time" for underperforming groups. It feels like a longer school day will help them "catch up." The problem comes when lawmakers are making educational choices. They often sound good, but are not good practice.
-
@farawayviolet: oh interesting about Japan! I went there on a teaching Fellowship in 2006. We observed in a lot of schools and we met with school boards and government officials. At that time, they talked a lot about how they were having trouble with creative and critical thinking. They were looking at American schools as a model for how to make some changes. Ironically, American schools were looking at Japanese school so that they could make changes to be more similar to Japan.
proof that no one has it just right, and a balance is probably necessary.
-
@travellingbee: It is really interesting. I think the US (and NZ) put a lot of stock in things like TIMMS and PISA, which, while they can have some great uses - PISA in focus can give awesome information about specific angles of educational performance and I have used them a bunch in my thesis, they tend to often favour countries like Japan/Korea etc, which have a strong DI focus. This makes a lot of sense - DI tends to lead to excellent test taking ability, but I think it can lead to an assumption that because these countries did the best in these exams, their systems are the best, which isn't necessarily true.
Don't get me wrong, I learned a whole lot teaching in Japan since NZ is so much further in the other direction (well past the US). It is interesting though.
I also think cultural attitudes toward education and teaching can't be ignored.
-
@Mrs. Lemon-Lime: the complaints I was hearing were that after switching the students didn't have enough mastery of basic concepts (or sufficient classroom management) to engage in more involved discussion. In reality I thought anything would have been better than the total lack of curriculum they replaced it with so I can see why it was so frustrating for teachers who suddenly had no guidance.
-
@mediagirl: just popping in to address your last post...I was so strong in my initial post because I believe it and live the education system every day. It's not that I would never send my child to a school that had direct instruction (all schools do, and should). Nor do I think that direct instruction is the worst thing in the world - I can guarantee all of the teachers on this thread use some form of direct instruction on a daily basis -it's just that I believe it needs to be balanced by a lot of other practices.
I said that I would absolutely would not send my child to a school that focuses on Direct Instruction as their primary practice and I stand by that. @Mrs. Lion has said pretty much everything that I would have in her latest posts so no need for me to reiterate it all.
I stand by my comments and believe they were appropriate to your original question as asked.
-
@mediagirl: I think in your response to @Torchwood: you are mixing up my feelings about DI and direct instruction (lower case). Again, these are not the same thing. I used direct instruction in my classroom (mini-lessons) on a daily basis in every subject, as part of a more diverse methodology. I did not use Direct Instruction in my classroom, as I understand it, and would not put my kids in a school that did. I apologize if I was unclear.
I am sorry you didn't get the responses you were hoping for.
ETA: Discussion of schools is inherently political, especially when you ask why certain schools would use this type of program when so many teachers clearly do not think it is the best choice. You can't talk about educational choices in schools without touching on politics....which is unfortunate. I wish that was different, but unfortunately it is the frustrating reality.
-
@Mrs. Lion: I absolutely am not mixing up your feelings. Torchwood said DI. If you think she is talking about di, great. But what she wrote was DI. I definitely know your feelings on the topic. Very well.
I'm going to ask @mrbee to close this thread before I go jump off a building.
Thread Closed
Subscribe to our newsletter
- Google Plus
- Stumbleupon
- Twitter
- Facebook
- Pinterest
- Favorite1
104 comments