Project Follow Through contained several major problems, but it doesn't take a researcher to recognize the biggest problems of Direct Instruction.
Scripted curriculum might sound good to some people, but it has two major flaws: first, it destroys any possibility of differentiated instruction. Secondly (and related), it insures mediocre performance by students.
Scripted curriculum tells teachers exactly what to do during every moment of the day, from hand gestures to exact words. In most places that implement this, any deviance from the script is grounds for reprimand.
How many HN users would like to learn in this environment? How many of you think you could learn like this? I'm willing to wager that many of you would answer 'no' to both of these questions.
Project Follow Through contained several major problems...
For example?
...first, it destroys any possibility of differentiated instruction.
No, it merely destroys the possibility of ad-hoc differentiated instruction. I know a girl who teaches DI. She showed me her script and it contained differentiated instruction - "Try { block (a) } catch { try block (b) }."
Block (a) and Block (b) are different instructional scripts. They are also told to directly answer questions when the student has them.
Secondly (and related), it insures mediocre performance by students.
I'd love to see some sort of argument for this.
How many HN users would like to learn in this environment? How many of you think you could learn like this?
Actually, I suspect many HN users learn from a method like this. I certainly do, although I skip the middleman and just read the book directly.
This is also the exact same method that, for example, Salman Khan or ai-class.com uses. The only difference is that he performs the script as well as writing it.
However, you are correct that punishing deviation from the script is a bad idea. Rather, teachers should be punished for bad performance. This gives teachers an incentive to stick to the script, unless they are quite sure their ad-hoc methodology is superior to the expert methodology.
Direct Instruction is fundamentally opposed to differentiated instruction because it only allows for one way of learning. With differentiated instruction, the teacher recognizes that each student learns differently and that there are many avenues to learning.
Direct Instruction insures mediocre performance by forcing the class to move at the same pace. Students who could do much more are prevented because the structure does not allow it.
Finally, Direct Instruction cannot even come close to touching active instruction. I know Salman Kahn is held up as some great person around here, but Kahn academy isn't all that great for most people, and it definitely cannot come close to the effectiveness of learning by doing.
I'm a person who learns very easily from books, but in my time as a teacher, I've found that I'm an edge case. Most people need specific, hands-on time, in order to really learn the material. Otherwise, what you tend to get is a lot of short-term, cram for the test results that don't really matter because they don't represent real learning.
There is not enough space here, nor do I have enough time to do a thorough critique of Project Follow Through, but they're easy enough to find.
Direct Instruction is fundamentally opposed to differentiated instruction because it only allows for one way of learning.
No, DI only allows for one way of teaching. The one way of teaching can incorporate multiple ways of learning, as I mentioned in my previous post.
Regardless, it doesn't matter whether DI is opposed to differentiated instruction - all that matters is whether it works. All the data I've seen suggests it does. You've provided no evidence to the contrary.
Direct Instruction insures mediocre performance by forcing the class to move at the same pace.
This is an argument against all lecture-based classes, not DI specifically. Are you arguing against all lectures?
Finally, Direct Instruction cannot even come close to touching active instruction.
Scripted curriculum might sound good to some people, but it has two major flaws: first, it destroys any possibility of differentiated instruction. Secondly (and related), it insures mediocre performance by students.
Scripted curriculum tells teachers exactly what to do during every moment of the day, from hand gestures to exact words. In most places that implement this, any deviance from the script is grounds for reprimand.
How many HN users would like to learn in this environment? How many of you think you could learn like this? I'm willing to wager that many of you would answer 'no' to both of these questions.