Sunday, January 11, 2009
Direct Instruction
Post a response on our class blog that discusses three areas in your teaching field in which the use of the direct instruction model would be especially appropriate. Explain why this would be true. Take this opportunity to share whether you have used any of the models or programs discussed. For example, Madeline Hunter's 7-step model has been and continues to be very popular in school districts as a guide for lesson design. Also--DISTAR is currently being used in some parishes. Have you used this program or seen it in action? If so, what did you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
First of all let me begin saying that I have never heard of DISTAR until this assignment. I did not teach in the K-12 setting here in Louisiana. However I use direct instruction a lot in my course that I have taught in the past and currently. When I taught K-12 I used a more varied approach but with classes of 100 or more it can be difficult to do so.
DI is a very good approach when teaching students systematic approaches to problems. The Hunter Model works well for this purpose. By helping the students recall previous knowledge then start presenting the new information, then guide the students through the process, and finally check for understanding through independent practice.
DI is a very logical approach to large classes. It helps the teacher present information to a large group at one time. Although there are downfalls to DI in this type of setting, it is the most efficient manner to deliver a new topic.
DI is helpful for presenting very concrete ideas. When students do not need to process an abstract concept, DI can effectively be used to present the new information.
As for me, on a daily basis I use DI. It is difficult to teach to 100 different learning styles. I try to vary when I can on different topics but DI is what I usually result to. The model of DI that I use follows the Hunter Model. I usually begin each lecture with a quick review of what was covered the day before. Then I present the new information to the students occasionally seeking verbal responses from them. When it is time to teach them the problems that are involved, I begin with a problem that I work through with them. Then I follow up with posting a problem on the board and giving them some time to attempt the problem without assistance. I test for understanding by assigning homework for each chapter and a quiz following the completion of that chapter. This is a typically day for me.
Direct instruction is a more teacher-directed and active approach to teaching that involves continuous/ongoing assement of students' understanding. At first glance I DID, in fact, mistakenly assume it was directly related to DISTAR as I have previously taught in a school that used the DISTAR program. However, the two are CERTAINLY different! DISTAR was very robotic and monotone, to me. It left no room to teacher creativity nor student input except in the form "PROMPTS & RESPONSES." The school at which I was teaching used the reading component of DISTAR, and we called it "DI." (Which is why I proceeded to confuse it with Direct Instruction.)
My experiences with Direct Instruction (DI), on the other hand, have been pleasantly worthwhile. Specifically, the Madeline Hunter model which I have used as a model for creating my own lesson plans for years. Even now, as instructional coordinator at my school, I encourage begining teachers to use it as least as an "outline" to ensure that all important elements are included in their planning.
In my opinion, DI is especially useful in presenting skills that will build upon others. In linking past, present and future skills, student knowledge is better measured with this approach.
DI is also helpful in strategic learning. The ongoing student assessment and guided practice are critical to grasping such concepts. The guidance offered by the teacher and immediate feedback help to ensure success.
In using DI as an instructional method, the teacher directly links practice with the desired outcome, which helps direct the path for learning. As a classroom teacher, I continuously used DI, especially in math lessons. I would acquire the students' attention through the anticipatory set and then offer relevancy. This was usually followed by teacher demonstrations and guided practice. The lessons concluded with independent practice and checking for understanding. Any student, from this point, who still showed signs of confusion was assisted with one-on-one instruction and/or small group.
Deanna, I can see how DI would benefit a teacher who has a large group of students. With so many learning styles to accomodate, it seems to be the most efficient way to ensure that vital information for skill acquisition is gained prior to assessment. The Hunter Model offers a great approach that can be manipulated to fit each classroom's needs/style.
Direct instruction appears to be designed to enhance academic learning time.
I think that children who are struggling readers should be taught using direct instruction. Using direct instruction means that you are sure about the strategies you are going to use and you make sure that the students understand the goals. Direct instruction also provides constant interaction between students and the teacher. I would encourage teachers to use direct instruction in subject areas such as ELA and basic math skills. Research shows that students who are taught using direct instruction outperform students who are taught using other methods such as whole language method.
Going in and out of different teacher’s classrooms, I have observed that most are engaged in direct instruction using the Hunter approach. I observed them making a bold introduction to the lesson and guided practice as well as following the other steps in the Hunter plan. I would like to add that when I worked as speech therapist, I provided direct instruction to students who were deficient in the areas of articulation and language. By the way, I am not familiar with DISTAR; however, I will inquire about this week.
Deanna, you have made some interesting comments. I agree that DI is a good approach and it has some negative point(s). however, DI seems to be the number one approach with respect to presenting information to students.
GOOD JOB!!
Although many subjects can be taught through Direct Instruction, Math immediately came to my mind as well as Science and Art. All three subjects have clear objectives and lessons often have a very specific purpose we should convey to our students. Math, Science, and Art can easily seem disconnected to everyday life if the teacher does not help the student see relevance. As our class discussed in the post about project based instruction, motivation can work wonders. As with all subjects, pre-assessing student knowledge in these three subjects is beneficial to expose students to content they still need to learn, not mastered content and skills. As we teach Math, Science, and Art, concepts are related and often build on previous skills. Teachers must help students make connections within their learning (as emerging brain research supports). Moving at the students pace as we scaffold them in their learning is key. We must not “leave the children behind.”
I do use components of DI often (especially the “hook” and components including scaffolding), but I have not had much training in any specific model. In fact, my teaching style is a collection of many different ideas I’ve learned in classes and through observing. I have never heard of DISTAR.
Deanna, great response. 100 learning styles...whew! You have your work cut out for you. You post helped me understand DI even more. Thanks for sharing your day!
I got a little confused between definitions and examples of types direct instruction. I have had a very negative experience with direct instruction. We adopted a DI program at our school for 3 years, and rarely was true reading comprehension addressed, aside from "What color was the dog?" and "What did the cow say to the man?" Nor was any variation from the script by teacher or student welcomed or allowed. I can understand from an experimental standpoint how all variables must be accounted for; however, beyond the study setting, the 100% reliance on scripting is dysfunctional.
I often got in trouble for allowing teachable moments to occur, whereas I believe most of long-term effective learning occurs in and around teachable moments. Those are the conversations where academic principles can be connected with real life.
I have a problem with treating children like trained animals with clickers and other robotic group responses that limit variation which is normal for us all to have.
I took several write-ups for adding my own components to DI, but when the only questions the book asked of students were simple recall, none involving higher order thinking skills or practical relationship between what they were learning and what they already knew, there was no real learning going on. I added deeper questions and had the kids do creative writing responses, etc. to increase understanding of the skills.
That was MY experience with DI; however, from reading other's responses and doing research on other definitions of direct instruction, I can see that there are positive aspects which I was not introduced to.
After checking out the Hunter model, I can see that I already incorporate some of the aspects of direct instruction into my lessons, especially when the students are struggling on a concept. Certain subjects lend themselves to DI, ones that require a lot of drill and practice, like times tables, etc.
Overall, however, my opinion is that DI's repetitive format does not involve enough thought provoking question or the use of higher order thinking skills or creative problem solving to create strong, long-term learning. Even, or especially, lower-level students need to be taught to THINK, not simply regurgitate.
And that's my 2 cents!
I teach 4th grade mathematics, and much of what I teach is done through direct instruction. While I believe that a great deal of math instruction should be done through hands-on methods, I also feel that a lot of math should be done through the direct instruction method.
I personally use Madeline Hunter's 7-step model to teach math. I generally use this for process-driven concepts. For example, after I explain what division is through the use of manipulatives, I expand on this and teach long division with direct instruction.
Three ways that I use direct instruction in my classroom are:
1) teaching long multiplication
2) teaching long division
3) teaching input/output tables
and MUCH more!!! When I teach these concepts, I've found in past experience that students learn the step-by-step processes much better if you model the steps and guide them through the steps before letting them venture forward on their own.
I have never heard of the DISTAR program until I encountered it in this class. I am interested to learn more about it, but I wonder if it is a way for people to make money through the use of tried-and-true methods.
I think that Slavin and Hunter are much alike in their models. In my opinion, both models tend to drag out certain areas, such as objectives and standards, that I believe can be condensed. That's just my humble opinion, however!
Deanna, that is how I was taught and how I learn best. I feel that many students work best when they are guided and then let go to take their own baby steps forward.
Good post!
Sheila
Bekah, I agree that not all students can learn through direct instruction. Teachable moments sometimes are the best times for teaching!
Sheila
DI can be a great method to present information but it needs to be done with much thought about the presentation of the material. What I dislike about college faculty stereotypically is that just because they stand in front of a class and "spew" information they think they are teaching. This is the downfall of DI done poorly. I think that all college faculty need a course in methods and effective teaching.
Post a Comment