[NLA] Constructivist vs Direct Instruction

[Catherine B. King]

Hello Debbie:

You probably know that the questions you proposed in
your post were answered by Eileen in hers.  That is,
first you asked:

". . . whether you think this skill (moving around in the models
and 'striking' a match at the right time and place with the right
person) can be specifically taught, or if this type of judgment
is acquired by experience and reflection?"

First, this type of judgment was acquired by experience and
reflection and subsequently researched as such and developed
into theory so that we may pass it along to others so they don't
have to re-create the wheel through their own experience.
And, it can be "taught," but teaching it is not a guarantee of
its adequate employment.   As Eileen suggested, the more
force is involved, the less likely good teaching practices will be
employed, the less likely students will respond, the less likely
good outcomes will be evident, etc., etc.

To your second question,  ". . . how can the concepts . . . in this
post be incorporated into ongoing professional development?"

And Eileen answered:

". . .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.

Research . . . "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
collaborative professional development. "

EFF is more empirical and developmental and (from my
reading of it), as policy foundation, reflectively recognizes the
force-of-the-dialogue in continuing development in adult
students, teachers, AND policy makers, rather than the force
of "requirements" that attempt to act as an invisible
hand-in-the-back of teachers.

These attempts are de facto an intrusion into the distinctly
legitimate field of applications in education, or in the creative-
artistic space where the dialogue between the individual
teacher and the individual student is worked out daily.

Requirements, like laws, are always a part of a complexly
ordered system.  And any educational system is no different.
However, it is dialogual, rather than "required" forces that have
always taken the lead in the past to continually improve system,
and those within the system, and that have been the forces that
have led us to what any of us would view as progress in not
only education, but any camp at all.   Eileen comments:

"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" (NIFL board nominees
I assume) "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."

As I understand it, from the point of view of EFF the meeting of
"best practices" with what teachers "fall into" is where dialogue
begins, and where teachers have a chance to develop (like in
my classes), to self-correct, and to bring that development and
self-correction into the classroom where "applications" can
occur accordingly through the impetus of the teacher.

Whereas, from the point of view of "requirements" (and the
hints underlying what they mean by "direct instruction,") the
meeting of best practices and the teacher's currently-used
models is where (1) the dialogue is subverted or oppressed,
(2) the "best practices" become "imposed," and (3) teachers
do or die.

Here, best practices--that may indeed be best as theory--enter
the field of applications not through a teacher but rather through
a fear-inspired puppet--they enter without the correlative impetus
of an understanding and motivated (save by fear) teacher who
truly identifies with what is truly best.   My guess is that none of the
NIFL board members are, or would be, well-motivated by such
requirements in their own field.

And we all know that, unlike some k-12ers, our adult students are
intensely keen to grasp the broad outlines of such a well-formed
puppet.  So they vote with their feet.  And the "outcomes" that
are the presumed impetus of policy makers are themselves
subverted by their own misguided efforts to make things better.

"Direct instruction" as a method is, indeed, one of many methods
that may be employed in teaching or one that some teachers
"fall into" because of their own backgrounds; and as Judy Titzel
from Providence, RI says in her note, some kinds of content are
better suited to direct instruction--but not all.  If the argument is
about one or the other, it is my view that it is grounded in either a
completely naive set of positions, or in a highly charge political
agenda, or both.

Regards to all,

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


----- Original Message -----
From: Debbie Yoho <dwyoho at earthlink.net>
To: NLA LIST <nla at lists.literacytent. org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 1:30 PM
Subject: Re: [NLA] Constructivist vs Direct Instruction


> Generally when Catherine King posts to the list, I don't have the time to
> give well-deserved full attention to her pithy postings.  But this time I
> am so glad I paused to really absorb her summary of this thread:
>
> "What makes a teacher adequate is their ability to move around in the
models
> and "strike" a match at the right time and place with the right person."
>
> Yes, indeed.
>
> Catherine, I'm interested to know whether you think this skill can be
> specifically taught, or if this type of judgment is acquired by experience
> and reflection?
>
> In other words, given that we can't all sign up for Catherine's courses,
> how can the concepts she so clearly enuciated in this post be incorporated
> into ongoing professional development?
>
>
>
> Deborah W. Yoho
> Co-moderator, NIFL-Health  and
> Executive Director
> Greater Columbia Literacy Council
> 2728 Devine Street,  Columbia, SC  29205
> 803-765-2555   Fax  803-779-8417   dwyoho at earthlink.net
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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