How Much Freedom do we have to Challenge DI?

The path of a Direct Instruction (DI) educator and one that supports student-directed learning are often at odds with one another; there are options, however, that can include DI as a safety net, if used in more constructivist ways.

While there is a distinct contrast between a DI approach to teaching and one that is grounded in a purpose-based constructivist approach, there is room for teachers to support students in 1:1 and 1:2 scenarios in mini-lessons while other students are engaged in constructivist work such as PBL, design thinking, or action research. DI should be embedded in the feedback and further instructional loop by bringing students into a Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD - Vygotsky). This close proximity cannot be replicated when it is bumped up to the teacher speaking in DI fashion to the whole close in a 25:1 ratio classroom. When there is no room for extensive and elaborate dialogue - the DI cannot replace that conversation and learning that happens with and between teacher and peers.

While an engaging constructivist approach can make room for DI as a supportive tool in small settings, the DI approach used in the whole class makes no room for engaging and constructivist experiences.

What does this mean for the portrait of the graduate? In the DI fashioned education, students are turned out as compliant citizens who can do what they are told; in a constructivist education, grads are prepared to solve tomorrow's problems as they have experience in making meaning, inventing and innovating what may not yet be in a textbook.

This is particularly a concern with much curriculum that is mandated for charter schools. The emergence of test prep curriculum in particular, where students read a passage and answer, at nausea, multiple choice questions about the central and main idea - is frankly insulting to the lack of respect paid to honoring the communities that surround such schools. In such cases, DI works perfectly. Handbooks such as Teach Like a Champion fit well in a teaching world where only the teacher speaks, and students sit in silence or produce one word answers in automated style.

When the conditions for student learning remove their capacity to elaborate on what they are making sense of, they are knee deep in a memorization culture - with a completely unrealistic goal of dumping content into to their empty brains. Contrary to Hirsch's unfounded claims that there is a body of content that can fill these void spaces, students do come to school with rich contexts and experiences. There is no 'one-size fits' all "solution". There is much to connect with - and teachers who are given the freedom to design curriculum based on their student needs - will not need to "train" their students like obedient dogs.

So what does constructivist curriculum look like? By no sense are the examples on my website complete, but there are some samples there, placed in this parking lot at no charge for anyone interested in examples of curriculum that has been engaging and authentic for many students throughout my 40+ year career in education...far from perfection and ranking (where it is accepted that many students/schools fail) - as I'm hopeful education can contribute to a learning world that is for ALL students - not one that reflects compliance and acceptance of being mandated and controlled by others...you know a 'free world'? https://www.zpdschoolsandcurriculumdesign.com

Cheers, Barbara