[NLA] Constructivist vs Direct Instruction

[Catherine B. King]

Tom, Eileen and others:

To the question about best "approaches" to teaching in adult
education and literacy, i.e., direct instruction,  or what George
talks about as constructivist teaching.

First, we are talking about a shift from "what" we teach to
"how" we teach, or from content to methods, and the relationship
between these two.

Second, we don't have to recreate the wheel to get some insight
into questions about method because some of what is done in
general education research is applicable to adult education--not
all, but some.

Third, the field of methods is to teaching what the field of
applications is to bridge-building.  That is, teaching is like bridge-
building in that you have the theory and the content, but you still have
to do the configurations to make the fit--in the right way, at the right
place, under the right circumstances, etc.

Fourth, this configuring to fit is never exactly the same for all places
in bridge building, and less so for teaching.  This is so because,
unlike bridges, land and water, (1) human beings are conscious and
developmental and, (2) if we have our foundations right, we don't
expect the same level or ranges of predictability from students that
we do from, say, earth, water, temperatures, etc. where bridges are
built.

In fact, and fifthly, in the foundations of education there are three
gaps that mark vast differences between conscious and non-
conscious data with regard to predictable outcomes:

(A) the gap of creativity where the student may or may not add to
the questions and answers in any field of study--fields of study where
we don't yet know everything.  It's not just a body of knowledge but
a body of changing questions.

(B) the gap of self-development where part of education is not merely
passing down a body of knowledge but helping the student become self-
aware, self-directed and self-creating, e.g., bridges don't self-develop.

(C) the political gap where, in our country (a democracy) part of the
mandate for any educational institution is to (what Tony Blair calls)
"enable" students to become politically aware and participatory.

Again, none of the above ABC is about teaching a "body of knowledge,"
but rather about the more integrative function of education--to educate
the whole human being.  (We haven't mentioned the spiritual, but not
because it's not important.)

Sixth, in teaching and methods, choices about the field of applications
are not the charge of the theoretician but of the teacher in the classroom.
Concomitantly, and because students are so different, different methods
must be available to use for the teacher for applications at the appropriate
time, place, way, etc.  A trained teacher becomes an artist in his-her field
of applications where their on-the-spot timing and use of appropriate
methods cannot often be known ahead of time but must be ordered
according to the emergence of the right moment in the classroom.
Knowing one's specific students is, obviously, key.

I teach a course at National University using a textbook called
"Models of Teaching" (Joyce, Weil, Calhoun/Allyn and Bacon,
Boston, 2000, sixth edition).   The authors draw from several fields,
i.e., sociology, psychology, philosophy, etc..  Here several different
models are grouped into four different families:  social, personal,
information-processing (variations of direct instruction) and behavioral.
Most of my teachers recognize early that each of the very defined and
exact models is drawn from a more undifferentiated model of a
regular conversation between persons.

>From having read some of the EFF literature, my take on it is that
it seems to be that they are taking into account

(1) the foundational realities in the classroom (i.e., the gaps
between conscious and non-conscious data) and

(2) the area of professional applications (teachers in the classroom)
where an educational optimum is for the teacher to make informed
and creative on-the-spot choices in terms of student need and
responses--something that cannot, in principle, be applied as
"canned" with any hope of good outcomes--especially for adults
who think of teachers as more equals, and therefore in conversation
with them, than as "authority" models as k-12 students do.

The point in having the above course in a Masters program for
teachers is that teachers, in fact, become artists when they enter the
classroom--their field of applications.   The course makes them aware
of

(1) what each of them normally "fall into" with regard to teaching styles
and methods--because we all fall into a style and method when we enter
the classroom; and

(2) what other varieties of methods are available.

In adult education, a volunteer tutor, who may have no experience
teaching also will "fall" into a specific model or combination of models--
they are pretty much all covered in the text.   But I think most program
managers and volunteers on this list will attest to the fact that most
are doing their applications as "art" as they teach, in the sense that
they are sensitive and listening and continually hearing and adjusting
to what the student wants and can do at the moment.  Most know
when they have pushed the adult student too far or when the adult
student-conversant wants more.

In other words, the more undifferentiated conversational model--from
which all teaching is derived--is still the best, and most of us are
already trained well in that--especially if we have volunteered our time
to help someone else where our motivation is clear.

As far as adult education classroom teaching is concerned, I would ask
the program managers and teachers here if adult education teachers
do a more or less formalized version of the conversation model, and if
they probably "fall" into one or several of the more defined models--
depending on the material to be taught and the temper of the class.

There is also the "Mertens" text I have mentioned here before which
is much more technical and distinguishes classical, statistical, and
dialogual methods of research as paradigmatic changes.  These
changes have their direct correlatives in teaching methods.  Jack
Mezirow is also a must-read when considering any adult education
foundational considerations and/or changes.

If we make conceptual transformations of meaning, what George
is calling "constructivist" as different from "direct instruction" are
"dialogual" and less differentiated but conprehensive notions of the
different models the text (above) takes into account where direct
instruction is but one of several adequate approaches.  What makes
a teacher adequate is their ability to move around in the models
and "strike" a match at the right time place with the right person.

But it is my view that EFF has captured and begun to correct a
long-standing set of oversights in all of education, not to mention
science.  But perhaps I haven't really answered the question that
Tom is asking because it may not meet with what he wants things
to look like or with what he would like to happen.

Regards to all,

Catherine King
Adjunct Instructor
Department of Education
National University
San Diego, CA



----- Original Message -----
From: Eileen Eckert <eileeneckert at hotmail.com>
To: <nla at lists.literacytent.org>
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 5:55 PM
Subject: Re: [NLA] Constructivist vs Direct Instruction


> Tom and others,
> If there were a study that "answered" the research question, "Which
approach
> to teaching is more effective in the domain of adult education and
literacy,
> constructivist or direct instruction?" would you accept the results? Would
> others on the list? What factors would affect whether you'd accept the
> hypothetical study's findings?
>
> By the way, I don't know of a study that has attempted to answer that
> question, though I can think of some that have contributed to my own
> understanding of it.
>
>
>
> >From: Thomas Sticht <tsticht at znet.com>
> >Reply-To: nla at lists.literacytent.org
> >To: <nla at lists.literacytent.org>
> >Subject: [NLA] Constructivist vs Direct Instruction
> >Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 14:26:31 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> >George Demetrion has indicated that the Equiped For the Future project at
> >NIFL follows a constructivist approach to instruction, which, at least as
> >discussed by some educators,  involves problem-posing, project-based,
> >discovery learning methods. At least two members of the proposed new NIFL
> >board, Jean Osborn of Illinois and Douglas Carnine of Oregon have
> >advocated for direct instruction, in which students are directly taught
> >knowledge and skills relevant to some area (domain) of learning in a
> >transmission and reception of knowledge learning method.
> >
> >I'm wondering if anyone knows of any research-based evidence for the
> >relative effectiveness of these two approaches to teaching in adult
> >education or literacy instruction?
> >
> >Tom Sticht
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >NLA mailing list: NLA at lists.literacytent.org
> >http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/nla
> >LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy
> >http://literacytent.org
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> NLA mailing list: NLA at lists.literacytent.org
> http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/nla
> LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy
> http://literacytent.org


_______________________________________________
NLA mailing list: NLA at lists.literacytent.org
http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/nla
LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy
http://literacytent.org