[NLA] Constructivist vs Direct Instruction

[Eileen Eckert]

>From Catherine: 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.

If we are only talking about direct instruction vs. constructivism as 
methods, then there is no either/or, and adding to the teachers' "toolboxes" 
(such a popular metaphor these days--wonder what that says about the mindset 
guiding professional development efforts!) makes sense. But the approach 
that teachers "fall into," as Catherine says, reflects their underlying 
beliefs about knowledge, teaching, and learning. I suppose it's possible to 
add techniques by engaging only in what Mezirow calls content reflection and 
process reflection, but he also talks about "premise reflection," coming to 
be aware and critical of the underlying beliefs and assumptions that guide 
practice. If my "premise" is that teaching means transmitting knowledge, 
then my use of "constructivist" techniques is going to look very different, 
and the outcomes for students will be different, than if my premise is that 
learners construct knowledge for themselves with help, guidance, and 
resources I make available.

Several of the NIFL board nominees have advocated for the use of direct 
instruction. EFF staff are building EFF as a constructivist framework. The 
stance they take does not seem as important to me as the extent of their 
willingness to <impose> it on everyone else. I believe that <requiring> 
people to use "best practices" that conflict with their mental models 
negates the "best" in those practices.

In many discussions I hear a struggle and tension over whether and how much 
to trust practitioners. There are many statements about how practitioners 
know best, but at the same time we see an effort to develop policy that most 
effectively dictates to practitioners. If practitioners know best, then 
policymakers shouldn't need to struggle with what "best practices" to 
dictate to the field and how. Instead, policy should be focused on how to 
provide resources and develop accountability and reporting measures that 
allow practitioners to grow and that allow the field to demonstrate the full 
range of learner accomplishments.

In my view, if there is research on direct instruction vs. constructivism, 
the best use for it wouldn't be for policy formation, it would be for 
practitioners to use as a part of their own reflection, critical thinking, 
and development. But that would mean shifting resources from the research 
and policymaking level to the field so that practitioners have the time and 
money to engage in more authentic and collabortative professional 
development. The people who make those decisions aren't likely to 
re-allocate themselves into a less important role (and possibly out of a 
job).


Eileen

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.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