4 ms·

>Direct Instruction (DI) was found to be the best teaching method by far, the last time they did any serious research. Do you have any good links that describe

>Direct Instruction (DI) was found to be the best teaching method by far, the last time they did any serious research. Do you have any good links that describe what this is? All I seem to be able to find is pages talking about how good it is, but none with a description of it that made any sense to me.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
wisty 16y ago
It's a faddy method, but one that works. It puts a lot of emphasis on fundamentals, but students who focus on fundamentals (in class) are found to be able to do creative stuff with the material out of class. "Wax on, wax off, now go kick ass". It's very anal, like I said. The teachers get a DI textbook (made up by the inventor of DI). The teacher reads from the text book, and asks the whole class to respond on cue. The whole class responding on cue is an important point, as it keeps the students thinking. "Everybody, what's 12 * 8?" It uses lots of repetition, and a few standardised instructions to the class. "Everybody open your books, to page 23. One two three. Everybody should have their books open. Put your finger on the word "MY". One two three ... Now everybody read out load ..." Interesting factoid - "The Pet Goat" (think 911, George W. Bush in a classroom) was a DI book.
- patio11 16y ago
  This is similar to the Japanese pedagogical style at my university, and our grads ROFLstomp peer schools' grads at speaking ability. "Class, you are going to the cinema this afternoon at five. Where are you going? Everyone." "I am going to the cinema at five.". "Good. Patrick, you." "I am going to the cinema at five.". "Good. Patrick, ask Tom. Tom, you are going to the restaurant at seven." Repeat an hour a day every day for three years and you get really effing good. (Conversations in the third year are, obviously, more elaborate.)
  - Evgeny 16y ago
    This is very close to how they taught me English long ago in a Soviet school! I have to say I can't complain.
- RBerenguel 16y ago
  Hard-wiring the fundamentals is also the way Korean go players (go is an oriental board game, you maybe saw it in "A beautiful mind", "Pi" and some other movies, or read about it in Kawabata's "The Master of Go") develop their skills. And they have passed from "amateurs" to dominate the pro levels. Now China and Japan are starting to teach in the same way to their prodigies.
  - wisty 16y ago
    There's a book currently on my wish-list called "Why Children Hate School", about a cognitive psychologist's take on education. He strongly stresses how important it is to drill fundamentals. The human brain is terrible at doing things it hasn't practised, and tends to avoid doing things that it doesn't know how to do. That's why people switch off when you talk about statistical significance - their brains don't remember statistics so they go to sleep instead of thinking. The path of least resistance is always ignoring things, unless you already know 80% (made up number) of what's being said. DI is better than more appetising methods (i.e. ones that teachers think they would enjoy learning in), because it drills fundamentals, but I think that better methods could be built using cognitive principles. Musicians stress practising scales, martial artists practice basic techniques, programmers practice Fizzbuzz every damn time someone links to that article, and everyone practices speaking in front of the mirror. But school-kids don't practice learning.
    - lutorm 16y ago
      This is fine. Just don't forget that training independent thought is just as crucial.
      - wisty 16y ago
        People tend to be pretty good at this anyway, especially if your education system has enough drill work in class that you can reduce the amount of homework kids do. Creative, open-ended homework is a huge time-sink.
    - RBerenguel 16y ago
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  It also makes teachers more or less interchangeable and easily replaceable cogs in the education machine. I wonder why most educators oppose it?
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- michaelchisari 16y ago
  However, contrast that method with the Finnish system, which is nothing like that, and the top education system in the world. http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB120425355065601997-7Bp8YFw7Yy1n9bdKtVyP7KBAcJA_20080330.html http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB120425355065601997-7B...
  - wisty 16y ago
    It's hard to say whether the Finnish system is really that good. You have a few confounding factors: * a middle-class society with no language problems * less pressure on the students regarding exam scores. Things that Finland seems to do well (from your article): * "What they see is a relaxed, back-to-basics approach." Really, education gets screwed up terribly by all the pressure. But can you imagine the uproar if teachers stopped teaching the tests? * "The Norssi School is run like a teaching hospital, with about 800 teacher trainees each year. Graduate students work with kids while instructors evaluate from the sidelines." When is the last time you heard of a US schools training their teachers? I know teacher-training happens, but it's really half-assed. And like I said, DI isn't necessarily the best method possible. But there hasn't been any decent research since. It's like we've found that washing hands saves lives in hospitals, but nobody has bothered to break anything else down statistically, or research why washing hands is good (hint - germs), or even wash hands!
    - vacri 16y ago
      Why do you say no language problems? They have different problems - educating in two languages, Finnish for home use (a unique language no-one else uses) and English to be competitive in the wider world. The article even makes mention of the issues of English. I think the confounding factor is not "a middle-class society" rather than "a democratic socialist society", where everyone is given the chance to perform instead of being damned by the location of their birth within their country. None of this 'born in poor location, local schools don't have funding' crap. If the US could get rid of it's endemic Just World fallacy, half of it's problems would be solved...
      - 16y ago

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

wisty 16y ago

It's a faddy method, but one that works. It puts a lot of emphasis on fundamentals, but students who focus on fundamentals (in class) are found to be able to do creative stuff with the material out of class. "Wax on, wax off, now go kick ass". It's very anal, like I said. The teachers get a DI textbook (made up by the inventor of DI). The teacher reads from the text book, and asks the whole class to respond on cue. The whole class responding on cue is an important point, as it keeps the students thinking. "Everybody, what's 12 * 8?" It uses lots of repetition, and a few standardised instructions to the class. "Everybody open your books, to page 23. One two three. Everybody should have their books open. Put your finger on the word "MY". One two three ... Now everybody read out load ..." Interesting factoid - "The Pet Goat" (think 911, George W. Bush in a classroom) was a DI book.

patio11 16y ago
This is similar to the Japanese pedagogical style at my university, and our grads ROFLstomp peer schools' grads at speaking ability. "Class, you are going to the cinema this afternoon at five. Where are you going? Everyone." "I am going to the cinema at five.". "Good. Patrick, you." "I am going to the cinema at five.". "Good. Patrick, ask Tom. Tom, you are going to the restaurant at seven." Repeat an hour a day every day for three years and you get really effing good. (Conversations in the third year are, obviously, more elaborate.)
- Evgeny 16y ago
  This is very close to how they taught me English long ago in a Soviet school! I have to say I can't complain.
RBerenguel 16y ago
Hard-wiring the fundamentals is also the way Korean go players (go is an oriental board game, you maybe saw it in "A beautiful mind", "Pi" and some other movies, or read about it in Kawabata's "The Master of Go") develop their skills. And they have passed from "amateurs" to dominate the pro levels. Now China and Japan are starting to teach in the same way to their prodigies.
- wisty 16y ago
  There's a book currently on my wish-list called "Why Children Hate School", about a cognitive psychologist's take on education. He strongly stresses how important it is to drill fundamentals. The human brain is terrible at doing things it hasn't practised, and tends to avoid doing things that it doesn't know how to do. That's why people switch off when you talk about statistical significance - their brains don't remember statistics so they go to sleep instead of thinking. The path of least resistance is always ignoring things, unless you already know 80% (made up number) of what's being said. DI is better than more appetising methods (i.e. ones that teachers think they would enjoy learning in), because it drills fundamentals, but I think that better methods could be built using cognitive principles. Musicians stress practising scales, martial artists practice basic techniques, programmers practice Fizzbuzz every damn time someone links to that article, and everyone practices speaking in front of the mirror. But school-kids don't practice learning.
  - lutorm 16y ago
    This is fine. Just don't forget that training independent thought is just as crucial.
    - wisty 16y ago
      People tend to be pretty good at this anyway, especially if your education system has enough drill work in class that you can reduce the amount of homework kids do. Creative, open-ended homework is a huge time-sink.
  - RBerenguel 16y ago
yummyfajitas 16y ago
It also makes teachers more or less interchangeable and easily replaceable cogs in the education machine. I wonder why most educators oppose it?
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
michaelchisari 16y ago
However, contrast that method with the Finnish system, which is nothing like that, and the top education system in the world. http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB120425355065601997-7Bp8YFw7Yy1n9bdKtVyP7KBAcJA_20080330.html http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB120425355065601997-7B...
- wisty 16y ago
  It's hard to say whether the Finnish system is really that good. You have a few confounding factors: * a middle-class society with no language problems * less pressure on the students regarding exam scores. Things that Finland seems to do well (from your article): * "What they see is a relaxed, back-to-basics approach." Really, education gets screwed up terribly by all the pressure. But can you imagine the uproar if teachers stopped teaching the tests? * "The Norssi School is run like a teaching hospital, with about 800 teacher trainees each year. Graduate students work with kids while instructors evaluate from the sidelines." When is the last time you heard of a US schools training their teachers? I know teacher-training happens, but it's really half-assed. And like I said, DI isn't necessarily the best method possible. But there hasn't been any decent research since. It's like we've found that washing hands saves lives in hospitals, but nobody has bothered to break anything else down statistically, or research why washing hands is good (hint - germs), or even wash hands!
  - vacri 16y ago
    Why do you say no language problems? They have different problems - educating in two languages, Finnish for home use (a unique language no-one else uses) and English to be competitive in the wider world. The article even makes mention of the issues of English. I think the confounding factor is not "a middle-class society" rather than "a democratic socialist society", where everyone is given the chance to perform instead of being damned by the location of their birth within their country. None of this 'born in poor location, local schools don't have funding' crap. If the US could get rid of it's endemic Just World fallacy, half of it's problems would be solved...
    - 16y ago