As far as these debates being "behind us"--I suspect they'll always be with us.
Peter
>>
>
>I suppose the issue is one of terminology, but because language is the
>means we have to think together, I'll push the point, especially since
>it's at the heart of a by-now longstanding debate that I had thought was
>behind us. I see nothing wrong with direct instruction. Isn't
>explication direct instruction? Isn't providing a definition direct
>instruction? Isn't telling it how it is direct instruction? I often ask
>for direct instruction and I am grateful when I get it. The issues that
>underlie the concerns of Applebee and Betty Zan, I think, are ones of
>when, of what, how much, and for whom direct instruction is appropriate
>in a given task context. These seem to me to be extremely interesting
>and important questions that we can't take up together as long as we
>keep direct instruction out of the kit of good pedagogical resources.
>
>- Judy
>
>
>Judy Diamondstone
>Graduate School of Education
>Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
>10 Seminary Place
>New Brunswick, NJ 08903
>
>diamonju who-is-at rci.rutgers.edu
>.................................................
>
>
Peter Smagorinsky
University of Oklahoma
College of Education
Department of Instructional Leadership and Academic Curriculum
820 Van Vleet Oval
Norman, OK 73019-0260
(405)325-3533
fax: (405)325-4061
smagor who-is-at aardvark.ucs.uoknor.edu
psmagorinsky who-is-at uoknor.edu