Gordon wrote,
> 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.
I thinking currently that it does not matter to use "direct instruction" or
"guided discovery" or other specific pedagogical instrument because tools do
not define values and goals they are used for. What is the matter is what
the teacher and student try to accomplish, their values, and beliefs.
It is a nice intellectual exercise to imagine when "direct instruction"
serves what I'd call the weaving teaching model (or collaborative
educational philosophy) and when "guided discovery" serves the transmission
of knowledge model of teaching. As to the latter, I remember a very
interesting research presented at the AERA several years ago about why so
many science teachers in traditional schools like hands-on activities:
Zahorik, J. A. (1995). Classroom interest, activities, and content. Paper
presented at the meeting of American Educational Research Association, San
Francisco.
I don't have this paper available (my office is on the other coast now) but
as far as I remember the paper, the findings seem to suggest teachers' using
hands-on activities is a way (at least) to get away from their own lack of
motivation and excitement about curriculum they have to teach.
What do you think?
Eugene