Direct Instruction: I ate the whole thing

“Where’s the other cake, Aunt Gail?” my nephew’s eyes narrowed suspiciously. That day he turned seven years old. Together we sifted the flour, beat the eggs and butter, and folded in the vanilla and chocolate. We poured the batter into TWO nine-inch round layer pans and pushed them in the oven. In his little 7 year-old-mind, TWO pans meant TWO cakes. 

While he rode bikes with his cousins, I stacked the layers on top of each other, swirling them with homemade frosting. Finally, I planted seven candles and shook brightly colored sprinkles on top. (Now does that sound like an aunt who would pull a fast one, who would perhaps hide the other cake in the dishwasher, or who would eat it all by herself?). But my little nephew accused me as if he had been betrayed, “Where’s the other cake, Aunt Gail.” I explained about layers and putting layers together. But he wasn’t buying. “There were two cakes, Aunt Gail.” 

Now the problem was that my little nephew had learning disabilities. One of the manifestations of learning disabilities is the difficulty of making connections. When other kids understand verbal explanations, my little nephew struggled concept presented in that manner. What this means is that some children (and some adults) need to see the connections explicitly. This is where direct instruction is so valuable. If I had been able to anticipate the misconception, I could have prevented it altogether by directly connecting two cakes into one as he looked on. Now I present this scenario to share with you when direct instruction is most valuable for children. If children have learning disabilities, direct instruction can be very helpful. So, this is in partial answer to ThirstForKnowledge’s question about when different methods of instruction are most beneficial. If I had used the appropriate method of instruction, my little nephew may have recognized all the love that went into that cake and remembered the event more fondly. Two cakes, indeed! (Now I am capable of eating a lot of chocolate cake.)

Direct Instruction: Driving on a freeway.

My first boyfriend taught me to drive in his brand new 1965 red, Mustang. (Wow, he must have been crazy, brave, stupid, or in love!) I was just 15 and dumb enough to take him up on it. It was a blast. We didn’t go out on the freeway at first. Instead I marched around a parking lot. Here’s the gas, the clutch. This is the way you steer. In fact, he didn’t even let me drive forward until I could drive backward. (Driving forward was a piece of cake after that!) Some educators think that students construct their own knowledge and learn best in authentic situations. Well, to some extent, for some types of knowledge, I can agree. But can you imagine me learning how to drive on a freeway! So, I guess I am saying that there is room for different types of instruction. Direct instruction (also called explicit instruction) is most appropriate for skills, such as reading, math, and for skills that are high stakes, such as learning how to drive. I don’t think it works so well for activities that require problem solving (unless you are teaching the process of how to problem solve). Now some people will argue with me. Some think that children learn best by  throwing them in the pool and letting them sink or swim, construct their own knowledge. Well, I’ve seen that work for some children. Some children float to the top and grab for the side of the pool. But overall, children are more likely to sink to the bottom, just like a rock. So, think about how you learned some of the basic skills you know today. Did you learn through explicit instruction or were you thrown into the pool and told, “You're own your own, kid?"

Direct Instruction: How I learned to swim.

 I  paddled around in the water but you wouldn't call it swimming.  I sat along the side of the pool  with green-eyed envy watching the graceful strokes of those who mastered the art of getting their face wet.  And at 42 years old I was definitely behind the curve and didn't have a moment to lose, considering that 5-year-olds could swim better than I could. So, I took private lessons - FROM AN 18 YEAR-OLD. (I put that in caps emphasizing the indignation of someone who at that time had been a teacher for many, many years.) Well, this little gal was a really good teacher. First, she got in the water with me. She didn't stand in high heels along the edge and bark out orders or lecture me on the theory of swimming. She didn't let me flail about, figuring it out for myself. She was chest deep in the water demonstrating how to breath from side to side. She modeled it, and then I did exactly what she did. At least I tried to. It took a few times to get it right. When I did it wrong, she stopped me immediately and modeled again. Next, she showed me the basic crawl stroke. Standing still in the water, I moved my head from side to side while stretching forward with my arms, one at a time. She took the skill apart, presented each piece to me, let me practice with feedback, then combined the components together. And that's how I learned how to swim. Within a couple of lessons, I was swimming like that proverbial fish. I was no longer banked along the sidelines whispering - I wish. I was swimming. And that my friends is direct instruction.

Good Teaching: Does your child’s classroom have all three?

Good teaching has three different components: (a) content, (b) classroom management, and (c) implementation of content. I think that all three are absolutely necessary for a young child (or even a high school student for that matter) to gain the most from their year’s experience.  First, the content is the ‘what’ of teaching. It is information that has been agreed upon, usually by the school, the district, and sometimes the state. Each subsequent year builds upon the previous year’s content. It is the information that is to be conquered throughout the school year in order to prepare the child for the next. Second, children need to be pay attention and be involved with the content in order to learn. (Somersaulting on the carpet not allowed unless it’s P.E. or recess). When working in groups are children paying attention to the task at hand or are they talking about other things that do not apply to the lesson, playing with small objects, or kicking each other under the table (I’ve seen both happening in classrooms.)?

Finally, how a teacher teaches the information is based upon different theories and philosophies of instruction. This is where different methods come into play (I’m approaching ThirstForKnowledge’s question here. So, I haven’t forgotten you. Just takes a little time to provide a framework.). For instance, in reading, there are two primary methods of instruction. Now I’m going to reduce two philosophies of teaching to their simplest denominators.  One method focuses upon the teacher providing a model and the child doing what the teacher did (direct instruction). The other method is a teacher provides opportunities for children to discover and figure it out for themselves (constructivism).  Now that is really, really simplified. We’ll come back to these ideas at a later time.

The important thing to think about is that none of these features alone is a hallmark of a good classroom. It is the interplay of all three that makes a GREAT learning environment. How well the teacher keeps children on task allows opportunities for the children to learn the content. But conversely, if the content is irrelevant, no matter how well-behaved the children are, they won’t learn anything of significance.  Now, your challenge is to see if your child’s class has all three of these components in place? When you visit, take a look around. 

Good Teaching: Academic Engagement

Years ago, I walked into my son’s first grade class and found all the little first graders sitting passively on the rug staring up at the TV.  They were totally mesmerized by Bert and Ernie. The morning schedule was 9:00 a.m. Sesame Street, 10:00 a.m. Electric Company. (It is true. This really happened! This is NOT academic engagement.) I guess, the most startling realization for me was that parents were not indignant that 2 hours of precious learning time was devoted to the Big Bird.  And I’m not against Sesame Street or the Electric Company. I just feel that children can be engaged in more productive activities when at school, especially on a regular basis. Please note that this was only one school and one class in my entire career as a parent and a teacher. But it brings up questions of what are the hallmarks of  ‘good teaching.’ One of the things I look for is academic engagement. 

Simply put, academic engagement means kids are actively involved in doing something productive that is directed towards an objective. Here’s an example, 20 little guys cross-legged on a rug, eyes on the teacher while the teacher poses questions related to a story. Here’s an example of not academic engagement, 5 little guys sitting cross-legged on the rug whispering to each other, 5 little guys doing summersaults on the outskirts of the rug, 5 little guys gazing at the ceiling, and 5 little guys answering questions posed by the teacher. So, in this case only 5 little guys are academically engaged. I’ve seen many examples of both scenarios. Academic engagement is measured by what the teacher is doing and what the children are doing in relation to what the teacher is doing. The objective may be important, the teacher may be doing something important, but some or most of the children are not actively engaged in a meaningful learning activity.  So, one of the characteristics of good teaching is academic engagement. And as every teacher knows, this is not as easy as it sounds.