My immediate reaction to the question of choosing between 'guided
discovery' and 'direct instruction' is that it all depends ... and not
simply on the choice between efficiency and effectiveness.
What has been missing from the discussion so far, to my mind, has been any
specification of context. In particular, no mention has been made of:
1. Whether the learners have a reason (other than successful test
performance) for mastering the theoretical knowledge at issue. If they
do, for what purpose do they see it being useful and interesting to them?
2. How familiar are they with the domain to which this theoretical
knowledge pertains? Do they have inquiries to which it would be
relevant and helpful?
3. How old are the learners and what experience do they already have with
making sense of theoretical knowledge in the domain in question?
Although theoretical knowlege - or theoretical knowing, to put what I
consider to be a preferable slant on the issue - is important for
certain, rather specialized activities, it is by no means the only, or
even the most important mode of knowing in everyday life and in making
the decisions that we are called on to make at countless moments
throughout each day. The first question to ask, therefore, it seems to
me, is _why_ should students engage in this mode of knowing?
While academics thrive in the world of theories, this is a rarefied
atmosphere that is not immediately appealing to most people, and
particularly not to the majority of school-age students _unless_ they can
see its relevance to matters of concern to them.
Nor does theoretical knowing make much sense or enter into people's
understanding of the world, I would argue, unless it grows out of modes of
knowing rooted in practical experience - as it typically has done when
it is viewed from a cultural-historical perspective. Theoretical knowing
is, both phylogenetically and ontogenetically, the latest mode of
knowing to emerge; this needs to be remembered when planning learning and
teaching.
On this basis, I recently proposed that:
"One obvious implication of this is that the development of theoretical
knowing should be given high priority in the middle years of schooling
and beyond, once basic literacy and numeracy are well established. And,
indeed, this is already the case. However, there is a second implication
which is equally important. Just as, in human history, theoretical
knowing arose on the basis of knowledge derived from a broad base of
practical activity, so the same sequence should hold in school. In one
sense it might be argued that this, too, is already the case: the early
years of schooling provide ample opportunities for practical experiences
of many kinds. However, what I am proposing is that this should be the
pattern for each new area of study: there should, wherever possible, be
opportunities for gaining first-hand, practical experience of tackling
problems in the relevant domain so that there will be a perceived need
for the theoretical constructs that provide a principled basis for
understanding those problems and making solutions to them. By the same
token, since theoretical knowing should not be treated as an end in
itself, there should also be opportunities to put the knowledge
constructed to use in some situation of significance to the students so
that, through bringing it to bear on some further problem, they may
deepen their understanding. It is this interplay between theory and
practice, involving different and complementary modes of knowing, that is
one of the key features of the inquiry approach to classroom activities
that I proposed [in earlier messages]."
Direct instruction, I would contend, is only likely to be appropriate
when learners already have a personal basis of interest and understanding
to engage with it in a way that genuinely extends their understanding.
If I appear to be ranting, please forgive me. I have seen so many
students completely turned off by unasked-for direct instruction in
theoretical modes of knowing for which they are completely unprepared.
Gordon Wells, gwells who-is-at oise.utoronto.ca
OISE/University of Toronto
The paper from which I quoted can be read - by anyone who is interested at:
http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/~gwells/dialogic-inquiry.txt