[NLA] Constructivist vs Direct Instruction

Tue Aug 13 11:59:49 EDT 2002

Some of my most memorable learning experiences have been those that allowed
me the ability to define the problem at hand and invited my fullest
participation in developing solutions. However, there have also been times
when I have learned a great deal from a terrific presentation, or a
passionate lecturer. 

So it seems to me that there are times when instead of questioning the
effectiveness of one approach over another, an equally important question to
think about might be which approach (or combination of approaches) lends
itself better to achieving the desired learning outcomes.

Ajit

Ajit Gopalakrishnan 
Associate Consultant 
Connecticut Department of Education 
25 Industrial Park Road 
Middletown, CT 06457 
Phone: (860) 807-2123 
Fax: (860) 807-2127 
mailto:ajit.gopalakrishnan at po.state.ct.us 

>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
>

-----Original Message-----
From: George E. Demetrion [mailto:sophocles5 at juno.com]
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 11:28 AM
To: nla at lists.literacytent.org
Subject: [NLA] Constructivist vs Direct Instruction

Tom and others:

A very quick response:

The relationship between the processes and content of learning are
complex, subtle, and intwined.  Also, EFF focuses on the learning domains
(the roles) as well as the processes of learning through the generative
skills.  One might also consider the Four Purposes:

Access
Voice
Independent Action
Bridge to the Future

as building on processes of learning as well as linked  to specific
content areas.  The entire EFF framework may be viewed as a set of
heuristics (tools) that have the potential of opening up learning through
an interface of various contexts with areas of knowledge that students
identify or discover as significant.

At times, such as learning how to fill out job applications, studying for
a GED or studying a diver's knowledge, there would be more of an emphasis
on transmission and reception of the received knowledge, though even
here, without internalization and adaptation, the impact of such
knowledge becomes questionable.  Moreover, the transmission model may be
more applicable if the distance between the highly specific goal and its
attainment  are not too wide.  It's one thing for a student scoring 235
on the CASAS to be aiming for the GED of that is the goal.  It is
altogether another issue if the person scoring 195 also has that goal.

Sitting in front of me is the massive NCSALL publication (739 pages),
"Toward a New Pluralism in ABE/ESOL Classrooms: Teaching to Multiple
'Cultures of Mind'" by developmental psychologist Robert Kegan and
others.  In his other work, Kegan is a strong proponent of processes of
development, which I suspect is carried over into this work, particularly
given the "Cultures of Mind" imagery conveyed in the title.

While  I haven't read it (though I stare at it occasionally and walk by),
I know that it conveys a lot of case study material (empirical,
ethographic, "research-based" evidence, that a critical analysis of, may
lend a good deal of insight to the issue Tom is raising.

Also, those working out of the EFF framework, Gardner's Multiple
Intelligences (see the new MCSALL publication, "Open to Interpretation: 
Multiple Intelligence Theory in Adult Literacy Education" by Silja
Kallenback and Julie Viens), Mezirow's Perspective Transformation, might
weigh in here, which would make for a fruitful discussion.

My own balanced constructivist approach draws a lot on John Dewey's
concept of growth as a working hypothesis, which I argue is fruitful that
get at some of the ways that adult literacy students learn.  I recommend
one of my essays in particular, "Motivation and the Adult New Reader:
Case Studies in a Deweyan Vein, which consists of a longitudinal study of
three students (hardly representative, to be sure, but, arguably,
fruitful).  That essay can be accessed on the NALD full documents web
page.  I also have a shorter piece floating around in the NLA and FOB
archives, which I use for tutor training titled "Moving Back and Forth
Between Instructional Materials and Highly Significant Learning."

Without putting a lot of thought into it at this moment, I suppose my
underlying thesis is that the learning that matters (whether concrete or
more abstract) is what students themselves view as significant, which
leads to a lot of pedagogical doorways, some more fruitful than others.

That's the short (20 minutes) version.

George Demetrion
sophocles5@ juno.com

____________________________________________________________
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
--------- End forwarded message ----------

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
_______________________________________________
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