Direct instruction is systematic instruction for mastery of basic skills, facts, and information. In other words, it is a lecture method: teacher talks, students listen. When I think about direct instruction, the first image that comes to my mind is the teacher from the Peanuts cartoons, “Wah wah, wah wah wah wah…” But does this mean that direct instruction is completely useless?
When it comes to basic facts, direct instruction actually is useful, to a certain extent. Basic facts are information that does not change. The Declaration of Independence was presented to the public on July 4, 1776. That date will never change. It is something that students ought to know about our country. Dates are bits of information that direct instruction is useful for. However, there is so much more to an event than a date, and that is where direct instruction should end.
Once the students know the basic events and dates of history, it is time for a history teacher to move beyond direct instruction. The impacts of events in history are far more important than rote memorization of exact dates. Once they know the sequence of events, a teacher can move into exploration. Have the students explore the impact of the Declaration of Independence. Why was it significant? These things can be taught by direct instruction, but should they? No. Your students will miss it, anyways. Most students will tune you out before you get to this part. Allowing them to discover things for themselves keeps them involved. They will get more out of a lesson than direct instruction can ever impart.
So, direct instruction does have a place – for a few minutes. After that, everyone has tuned you out, just like the teacher in a Peanuts cartoon.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
"Withitness"-are you with it?
Many teachers believe that in order to be “effective” you have to give your students the impression that you have “eyes in the back of your head” and see everything they do. Bogus. First of all, I hate to disillusion you, but no one actually has eyes in the back of their head. As a teacher, you will miss things. While it is important to try to be aware of the general going-ons, trying to “catch” every bad thing that your students are doing gives you little time for anything else. How can you effectively helping Susie if you’re spying on Johnny and Alex? And it is spying. Leave them alone, for pity’s sake. Try trusting your students. Constantly watching them gives them the impression that you don’t trust them, and you expect them to fail. What kind of first impression is that? It starts you off on the wrong foot. Would you like it if, the first day of class, your teacher said, “Since I know that you are untrustworthy, I will be working extra hard to catch you in all of your wrong-doings”? Probably not.
Besides, in the end you are just setting yourself up. I don’t generally consider myself a naughty student, but even I could not resist that challenge. Any time a teacher tells me that they WILL see every bad thing I do, I try to get away with more. It becomes a game to see how much students can get away with while the teacher’s back is turned. Even though you, as a teacher, think that you are in complete control of your classroom, really your students are running amok behind your back. They aren’t learning, they’re mocking you.
Some teachers argue that “withitness” is important so that you know who started conflicts. Most likely, you will miss who started it anyways. Have you ever tried asking your students what happened? I know, it takes time because then you actually have to listen to your students. What a concept. By trusting them to tell you what is happening, you have a much greater chance of figuring out what actually happened than you would if you just assumed that, since you are “withit”, you actually caught the beginning. Even if you caught the beginning of it in your classroom, who says that the conflict started in your classroom?
Teachers who need to resort to this tactic are the ones who cannot be bothered with gaining the respect of their students. They will claim that they have it, but intimidation doesn’t equal respect. Their students don’t really respect them. Teachers who gain respect are the ones who care about their students. They are firm without being dictatorial. They “control” classrooms through mutual respect, not fear. Respect must be earned, not forced. Am I “withit”? Heck no, and proud of it.
Besides, in the end you are just setting yourself up. I don’t generally consider myself a naughty student, but even I could not resist that challenge. Any time a teacher tells me that they WILL see every bad thing I do, I try to get away with more. It becomes a game to see how much students can get away with while the teacher’s back is turned. Even though you, as a teacher, think that you are in complete control of your classroom, really your students are running amok behind your back. They aren’t learning, they’re mocking you.
Some teachers argue that “withitness” is important so that you know who started conflicts. Most likely, you will miss who started it anyways. Have you ever tried asking your students what happened? I know, it takes time because then you actually have to listen to your students. What a concept. By trusting them to tell you what is happening, you have a much greater chance of figuring out what actually happened than you would if you just assumed that, since you are “withit”, you actually caught the beginning. Even if you caught the beginning of it in your classroom, who says that the conflict started in your classroom?
Teachers who need to resort to this tactic are the ones who cannot be bothered with gaining the respect of their students. They will claim that they have it, but intimidation doesn’t equal respect. Their students don’t really respect them. Teachers who gain respect are the ones who care about their students. They are firm without being dictatorial. They “control” classrooms through mutual respect, not fear. Respect must be earned, not forced. Am I “withit”? Heck no, and proud of it.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Effective?
“Effective teachers”. What does that mean? We are told, as teachers, to strive to be the “most effective.” But who gets to define effective? Someone on Capitol Hill, far removed from the classroom who has no idea what teachers do on a regular basis? Effective teachers is a bald-faced lie. There is no such thing.
There is no way to define effective. It is a word beyond definition in the world of education. What makes an “effective” teacher to me is someone who is able to communicate and reach their students. Someone who instills a love of learning within their students. Someone who never stops trying, no matter how resistant their children are to learning. Someone who approaches each day as a new day to motivate their students to love learning. Not to force their students to memorize facts and perform, but to love learning. That, to me, is an “effective” teacher.
But that definition of an “effective” teacher would most likely be fired under our current regime of education. “Effectiv”e, according to that system, is a teacher who produces “results” and “smart” children. But test performance is not the only way to measure education. Some of the “smartest” children are the ones who look at the world in a different way, and these are some of the children who perform worst on a test. But these are the innovators of the future, and their unique perspective ought to be treasured. Why should all children have to learn the same and think the same? When has that ever produced anything but sameness?
As educators, I think our job is not to be “effective.” It is to be unique. It is to make a difference in the lives of our students and give them a chance to realize their full potential, even if that potential does not perfectly fit the standards for a “smart” child. Since when are smart children the only ones worth our time and attention?
There is no way to define effective. It is a word beyond definition in the world of education. What makes an “effective” teacher to me is someone who is able to communicate and reach their students. Someone who instills a love of learning within their students. Someone who never stops trying, no matter how resistant their children are to learning. Someone who approaches each day as a new day to motivate their students to love learning. Not to force their students to memorize facts and perform, but to love learning. That, to me, is an “effective” teacher.
But that definition of an “effective” teacher would most likely be fired under our current regime of education. “Effectiv”e, according to that system, is a teacher who produces “results” and “smart” children. But test performance is not the only way to measure education. Some of the “smartest” children are the ones who look at the world in a different way, and these are some of the children who perform worst on a test. But these are the innovators of the future, and their unique perspective ought to be treasured. Why should all children have to learn the same and think the same? When has that ever produced anything but sameness?
As educators, I think our job is not to be “effective.” It is to be unique. It is to make a difference in the lives of our students and give them a chance to realize their full potential, even if that potential does not perfectly fit the standards for a “smart” child. Since when are smart children the only ones worth our time and attention?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg){kind=small}