> 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.
I don't advocate throwing direct instruction out of the pedagogical toolkit,
either. The key is in knowing when direct instruction is appropriate. Because
my field is early childhood, most of my examples come from there. I refer to
Piaget's distinction between three kinds of knowledge (most likely there are
lots more, but this distinction works for me, and teachers tell me that it
helps them, too). Social-conventional (sometimes called arbitrary)
knowledge can only be gleaned from other people in some way--things like the
names of the days of the week, that Christmas is Dec 25, etc. Direct
instruction is highly appropriate for conventional knowledge. Physical
knowedge (round things roll down an incline) and logico-mathematical knowledge
(if A < B and B < C, then A < C) must be constructed by the knower. The
teacher has an important role to play in this construction, setting up the
environment in such a way that questions are asked, experimentation is valued,
collaboration is allowed, etc. But the teacher cannot put this knowledge in
children's heads for them. My objection to direct instruction is that in most
educational settings, all knowledge is taught as though it were
social-conventional, with little or no recognition of the constructive
process.
Betty Zan