Explicit Instruction and Learning Communities
Frances B. Bessellieu
New Hanover County Schools
Martin A. Kozloff
John S. Rice
Watson School of Education
University of North Carolina at Wilmington
Wilmington, NC
July, 2000
1
Explicit Instruction and Learning Communities
Abstract
Introduction
The concept of learning community is an important one.
For example,
in contrast to the concepts "mastery learning" or "effective instruction," it
directs the attention of educators to a larger set of variables that include:
1. The social context (e.g., the group and group processes) in which
teaching and learning occur.
2. The social positions, roles, and identities of students within the group.
3. The symbols, norms, and moral principles that refer to and guide
group activities above and beyond instruction on "content" itself.
4. The nature of students' and teachers' involvement in the group
process; e.g., attention, interest, self-control, enthusiasm, risk-taking,
effort, persistence, sharing, trust, and protection.
Although clearly not constituting, in and of themselves, sufficient conditions
for student achievement (certainly,
critical, as well),
the quality of teacher communication is
this article will present evidence which suggests that these
more sociological variables that describe the group and its members are
necessary conditions for student achievement. Moreover, there is, we will
argue, a powerful link between curriculum and instruction (i.e., what is
taught, and how it is taught) and the creation and maintenance of a positive
learning community.
The purpose of this article is twofold.
First, drawing on sociological
theory, we will more broadly and precisely define the concept of learning
community than is customarily the case, so that it may be used in a more
2
formal way to guide research, school reform, classroom instruction and
evaluation.
Second, drawing upon data gleaned from curricular reform
initiatives, first, at a single elementary school; and, second, from a summer
school initiative involving 486 students and 59 teachers, working at twenty
elementary schools in one school district in southeastern North Carolina, the
paper will show how an explicit instruction curriculum, Direct Instruction,
fosters learning communities.
Implicit and Explicit Instruction and Community
Despite its potential general applicability in school reform, in planning
and evaluating classrooms and instruction, and in training teachers, the
concept of learning community has been used primarily to describe and
prescribe classrooms and forms of instruction that are constructivist in
nature – i.e., approaches oriented by induction, and by implicit instructional
strategies
(DeVries & Zan, 1994; Erickson & Brandes, 1998; Evans, 1988;
Franquiz & Reyes, 1998; Marshall, 1998; McClurg, 1998; Parsons, 1998;
Pouravood, 1997).
Much of the implicit instruction discourse on learning
communities is characterized by terms such as the child-centered classroom,
developmentally appropriate practices, community of inquiry, knowledge
construction, collective expertise, progressive discourse, autonomy,
ownership, and so on. Tacitly, and – often – overtly, the writing in this vein
argues that other approaches (using more explicit forms of instruction)
require authoritarian teacher-student relationships (rather than
communities) and damage (rather than foster) children's cognitive and moral
development.
For example, in making a case for the constructivist
classroom, Brooks and Brooks assert,
A constructivist framework challenges teachers to create environments
in which they and their students are encouraged to think and explore.
3
This is a formidable challenge. But to do otherwise is to perpetuate the
ever-present behavioral approach to teaching and learning.
(Brooks &
Brooks, 1993)
In a similar vein, Udvari-Solner and Thousand write:
Constructivism challenges the assumptions and practices of reductionism
that have pervaded our educational practices for generations.
In a
deficit-driven reductionist framework, effective learning takes place in a
rigid, hierarchical progression... Learning, then, is an accumulation of
isolated facts. (Udvari-Solner & Thousand, 1995)
Our contention is that positions such as these stem from and perpetuate
fundamental misperception regarding explicit instruction. This misperception,
itself resting upon a false dichotomization of “good” versus “bad” forms of
instruction, is of vital importance, both for pre-service teachers and, most
critically, for school children. In the latter case, research has shown – as will
be discussed in some depth later in this article – (1) that all children can and
do benefit from explicit instruction, particularly when learning skills, rules,
and concepts upon which much subsequent learning depends; and (2) that
implicit instruction, particularly for at-risk children coming to school with
serious disadvantages in foundational skills, can be nothing short of
disastrous. In regard to pre-service teachers, to the extent that their
preparation as future teachers hinges upon this false dichotomy, they are
likely to be ill-equipped to serve those children who do poorly under a
regime of
implicit instruction. In short, no one instructional strategy is
appropriate for all children and/or for all content; and no one instructional
strategy fosters the creation and maintenance of a learning community.
The dichotomization of “good” versus “bad” forms of instruction is
interwoven with an implied dichotomization of the notion of community itself.
The Brooks and Brooks quote cited earlier, for example, refers to the
4
classroom community, again, as an environment in which all “are
encouraged to think and explore.” Examined as a rhetorical device, this
passage plainly characterizes the environment to which they refer as a
genuine community of learners; the accompanying message is that no
community is possible under the aegis of its opposite number, “the
ever-present behavioral approach,” which, implicitly, either discourages
thinking and exploration or encourages something other than thinking and
exploration.
Whether issuing from naivete or ideology, or some combination of the
two, there are a number of untenable assumptions underlying the discussion
and conceptualization of learning communities propounded by Brooks and
Brooks, and fellow travelers. Perhaps the most important of these
assumptions is that communities – “learning,” or otherwise – not only do not
require social control, but that social control must be altogether absent from
a social situation for a genuine community to exist. Thus, the problem with,
again, “the ever-present behavioral approach” – with its putative emphasis
upon teacher direction, explicit presentation of key ideas, student
memorization of said ideas, and practice until mastery or fluency is realized
– is that the teacher, and the curriculum, exerts control over the individual,
rather than allowing her the freedom to explore her own agenda. (Kohn
[Dates] is an especially ardent critic of behavioral approaches; it is,
however, not clear to what extent teacher education is in fact dominated by
behaviorism: see, for example, Kramer 1991; Sykes 1995; Gross 2000).
The latter point leads to a second problem with the conceptualization
of community informing the implicit instruction advocates’ writings. The
problem, here, centers on the assumed nature of the learners comprising the
community. The assumption is that the classroom is populated by what we
call “good faith learners” and/or “rational actors.” In the former instance, the
5
assumption is that implicit learning communities are inhabited by learners
with natural curiosity, enthusiasm for learning, a desire to “explore,” and a
naturally cooperative attitude. Plainly, this ignores a substantial minority of
students in any classroom, perhaps especially at higher grade levels.
Moreover, each of the phrases we have used to characterize the good-faith
learner comprises additional assumptions: e.g., the learner certainly does
have some degree of natural curiosity, but that neither logically nor
necessarily means that she is curious about the subject she is expected to
learn. She may well be more interested in “exploring” what is in her class
mate’s desk than in, say, why ice melts.
Implicit learning communities also assume a classroom population of
what is roughly the equivalent of the “rational actor” – an ideal-typical
construct from free-market economics theory. This rational actor, it is
assumed, will behave reasonably and act predictably because, among other
things, she has “perfect” knowledge: that is, she has all the information she
needs to make rational choices. This, of course, is a huge assumption,
whether in economics or in education. As with the “good faith learner,” a
substantial minority of the students in any given classroom will not fit the
rational actor prototype. Indeed, some proportion of children, as is
well-known, enter school utterly unprepared for what they will be asked to
do, and/or unaware of even why they are there. These children experience
implicit instruction – which relies heavily upon powers of inference and
induction which at-risk children generally do not possess – as a
fundamentally anomic experience (Durkheim 1933, 1951; Merton 1936), in
which they are unsure what to do with their curiosity, about what they
should explore, and so on. Nor will they get much guidance along those
lines. These, of course, are students at considerable risk for both educational
disadvantage and dramatically reduced life-chances.
6
In light of the inadequate conceptualization of community informing
much of the implicit instruction oeuvre, it seems prudent to examine what
we mean by community in greater detail. The next section undertakes that
examination.
The Elements of Community
Sociological theory helps to explain the essential components of
communities.
First, Georg Simmel (1909) described the origins of "society"
and the socializing effects of society in an early paper entitled "Social
interaction as the definition of the group in time and space."
Simmel wrote:
Society exists whenever several individuals are in reciprocal
relationship. This reciprocity arises always from specific impulses
or by virtue of specific purposes...That which constitutes
"society" is evidently types of reciprocal influencing.
Any
collection of human beings whatsoever becomes "society," not
by virtue of the fact that in each of the number there is a
life-content which actuates the individual as such, but only when
the vitality of these contents attains the form of reciprocal
influencing. (Simmel, 1909)
The implications of Simmel’s points in relation to schooling are significant
and quite clear. Children come to school and to classroom activities with
different impulses, purposes and skills.
As noted, no small number of
children come to school with no idea of what school is for or of how they are
supposed to behave, and with little skill in school behavior.
Lessons and
classroom activities, the class day, and school itself, are all, or can all be
forms, templates, or scripts.
Within these forms, teachers and students
exert reciprocal influence on each other.
A "society," in effect, comes into
7
existence.
With repetition of familiar forms of social interaction, each
member learns what to look and listen for, how to understand what he or
she sees and hears, when it is his or her turn and what he or she is
supposed to do within this society.
Gradually, Simmel says, "the isolated
side-by-sideness of the individuals (is transformed) into definite forms of
with-and-for-one-another" (Simmel, 1909) –
i.e., an experience of "we,"
which is to say, an element of community.
Simmel, however, does not explain how repeated performance of
teacher-student interactions within lessons fosters common understandings
and skills. George Herbert Mead does address this issue. Interactions
between teacher and students, or among students, are what Mead (1956)
called "social acts." Social acts have three phases:
1) one person initiates a
social act with a "gesture" (vocal or non-vocal); 2) the second person
interprets the meaning of the gesture; and 3) the second person then makes
an "adjustive response" (reaction) based on his or her interpretation of the
initiating gesture.
The first person interprets the meaning of the second
person's adjustive response, and makes his or her own adjustive response,
and the sequence continues.
For Mead, the meaning of a gesture is pragmatic meaning –
its
significance; i.e., literally what the gesture signifies about what will happen
or what is supposed to happen next.
For example, the meaning
(significance) of a smile from one person is that he or she is likely to
approach the person smiled at and is likely to speak in a pleasant tone
(signifying sentiments of liking).
When interacting persons come to share
the meaning of a gesture (i.e., they respond to it the same way), the
gesture is called a "significant symbol."
For example, both teachers and
children understand (can predict) the meaning of (i.e., what follows from) a
teacher saying, "Listen," or "My turn," or "Your turn," or "Say it with me."
8
And teachers and students come to share the meaning of
correctly read words versus incorrectly read words –
students'
namely, the teacher
will enact a correction routine and students will then "get it right."
These
significant symbols have at least three functions:
1. They are what members communicate about.
2. They are how members communicate.
3. They are a large part of the culture of the group or "society."
They
define "us."
As persons (now group members) come to better understand the
meaning or significance of gestures, they are better able to "take the
attitude" of the person making the gesture; i.e., to see things as he or she
does, and therefore to predict what he or she will do next or what he or she
expects the receiver of the gesture to do next. Schutz (1970) calls this the
assumption of a "reciprocity of perspectives"; i.e., each person assumes that
if she trades places with the other person, she will see what the other person
sees.
This assumption of a reciprocity of perspectives fosters
"intersubjectivity," or a "we-feeling," which appears to be much what Simmel
meant by "with-and-for-one-another."
The common understanding by
members that they are no longer individuals alone, but members of a "we,"
sharing the ability to take the attitude of other members, and sharing a
number of significant symbols, gives members an identity (a self) as
members, and also an incentive to protect the group by: (1) self-controlling
order-disturbing action; (2) attempting to control order-disturbing actions of
other members (e.g., reminding other members of the rules, as shown in the
earlier examples); and (3) enthusiasm about participation.
This, of course,
fosters learning the content of lessons.
Emile Durkheim offers a similar argument in The Division of Labor in
Society (1933) and in Suicide (1951), making still more explicit the role the
9
community always plays in organizing and shaping individual experience and
perception.
The influence of society is what has aroused in us the sentiments of
sympathy and solidarity drawing us toward others; it is society which,
fashioning us in its image, fills us with religious, political and moral beliefs
that control our actions.
To play our social role we have striven to
extend our intelligence and it is still society that has supplied us with tools
for this development by transmitting to us its trust fund of knowledge.
(Durkheim, 1951: pp. 211-212.)
If one substitutes the word “community” for “society” in Durkheim’s
passage, the salient points are, we think, quite clear. Although Americans,
and particularly Americans of baby-boom age or younger, chafe against the
notion that society is “fashioning us in its image,” the fact remains that this
is a function played by every culture/society in the history of the species. It
is this function which is manifested in cultural diversity; i.e., a Japanese
person is distinct from an American, an Arapaho, or a Syrian not on the basis
of innate personality differences, but on the basis of differences in the ways
that their respective cultures organize personality.i Geertz (1973, p. 50)
makes the point quite cogently:
Our capacity to speak is surely innate; our capacity to speak English is
surely cultural. Smiling at pleasing stimuli and frowning at unpleasing
ones are surely in some degree genetically determined . . . but
sardonic smiling and burlesque frowning are equally surely
predominantly cultural . . . . Between the basic ground plans for life
that our genes lay down . . . and the precise behavior that we in fact
execute . . . lies a complex of significant symbols under whose
10
direction we transform the first into the second, the ground plans into
the activity.
Durkheim, continuing this same line of thinking, avers that
Where collective sentiments are strong, it is because the force with which
they affect each individual conscience is echoed in all the others, and
reciprocally. The intensity they attain therefore depends on the number of
consciences which react to them in common...But for a group to be said
to have less common life than another means that it is less powerfully
integrated; for the state of integration of a social aggregate can only
reflect the intensity of the collective life circulating in it.
It is the more
unified and powerful the more active and constant is the intercourse
among its members.
(Durkheim, 1951: pp. 201-202)
In brief, Durkheim's argument is that: (1) to the extent members share
values and the meaning of symbols, and (2) to the extent that interaction is
frequent (so that the experience of sharing meanings is common and,
indeed, partly defines the group itself), there will be (3) stronger group
cohesion, which (4) increases the value of the group for its members and
reduces the likelihood of deviant behavior.
This is not merely for fear of
aversive consequences for deviant behavior, but because the existence of
the group is valuable and the self is defined in part by group membership.
Schutz makes still more contributions to an understanding of
community, and by extension, of learning communities.
For Schutz (1970),
members gradually develop a common understanding of their "reality."
not merely that they share the meaning of gestures.
It is
They develop shared
meanings ("typifications") of: (1) time (lesson time, quiet time, active time,
time when we are real smart); (2) space (lesson space, personal space); (3)
objects (our materials, my materials); (4) activities (enjoyable, boring,
individual, group); and (5) persons (members, nonmembers).
By acting
11
according to these typifications (e.g., settling down when lesson time begins
in lesson space), teachers and students: (1) enact these typifications; (2)
communicate to each other the vitality and the moral force of these
typifications ("Shhh, Jimmy. The teacher is telling us something."); and (3)
continue to sustain the cohesion of the group and their identities and skills
as members.
In addition, learning communities can be seen as "provinces of
meaning" for their members.
realities –
Schutz (1970) argues that we live in multiple
the reality of dreams, illness, the blues, religious experience, and
the workaday world of everyday life.
Each "reality" or province is somewhat
separated from the others by time and space, and by the special activities
used for entering or enacting the province and for leaving it.
For example,
members of a congregation engage in certain actions that enable them to
exit the world of daily life and enter the reality of religious experience.
Similarly, lessons can be seen as a province of meaning separate from the
world of the playground, the street, and the home.
Each of the theorists discussed in this brief overview of the elements of
community emphasize themes of reciprocity, mutuality, collective
identification, shared beliefs and sentiments. Each, in other words, tells us
that community is more than contiguity or mere aggregation, i.e., more than
individuals gathered in physical space; rather, a community comprises
collectively-held purpose, a set of dispositions, orientations, and motivations
common to a group of people. It is, in fact, these dispositions, orientations,
and motivations that define persons as a member of a group, and, by
extension, as not a member of some other group. The shared dispositions
(etc.) make possible the intersubjectivity, reciprocal influencing, and
ability
to take the attitude of the other, of which any meaningful use of the term
community depends.
12
A final quote, from the eminent social theorist and intellectual historian,
Robert Nisbet, provides a fitting summary to this section of the article.
Providing an overview of intellectual theory on the theme of community – an
overview covering the thought of Rousseau, Lammenais, Coleridge, Hegel,
Comte, LePlay, Marx, Tonnies, Weber, Durkheim, and Simmel – Nisbet
observes that
The word [community] . . . encompasses all forms of relationship
which are characterized by a high degree of personal intimacy,
emotional depth, moral commitment, social cohesion, and
continuity in time. Community is founded on man conceived in
his wholeness rather than in one or another of the roles, taken
separately, that he may hold in a social order. It draws its
psychological strength from levels of motivation deeper than
those of mere volition or interest, and it achieves its fulfillment in
a submergence of individual will that is not possible in unions of
mere convenience or rational assent. Community is a fusion of
feeling and thought, of tradition and commitment, of
membership and volition. It may be found in, or be given
symbolic expression by, locality, religion, nation, race,
occupation, or crusade. Its archetype, both historically and
symbolically, is the family, and in almost every type of genuine
community the nomenclature of family is prominent. (Nisbet
1966, pp. 47-48).
Having completed, now, this discussion of the key elements of
community, it is possible to turn to one of the core issues addressed in this
article: the powerful relationship between curriculum and learning
communities. Our contention is that the building –
and to a somewhat
lesser extent, the maintenance – of a learning community is greatly aided by
13
the use of explicit instruction and, by logical extension, of a curriculum
designed to be delivered explicitly. The curriculum to be discussed here,
because it was the curriculum selected by the New Hanover County School
District in southeastern North Carolina –
is Direct Instruction (DI). In what
follows, we will provide a relatively brief overview of
Description of Direct Instruction
Direct Instruction grew out of the work of Siegfried Englemann and Carl
Bereiter with disadvantaged children (1966).
Over the past 30 years, it has
been developed for teaching elementary through secondary language,
reading, math, higher-order thinking (reasoning), writing, science, social
studies, and legal concepts.
Indeed, Direct Instruction provides complete
K-6 curricula in reading and math.
The teaching methods and materials
have been rigorously tested in numerous experiments and field trials.
For
example, Direct Instruction was compared with eight other models in the
largest education evaluation ever conducted, called Follow Through
(1967-1995; one billion dollars; 75,000 children per year in 120
communities), sponsored by the then U.S. Office of Education and conducted
by the Stanford Research Institute.
A major source of data was scores on
the Metropolitan Achievement Test, the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory,
and the Intellectual Achievement Responsibility Scale.
The main results
were as follows (Adams & Engelmann, 1996; Becker & Carnine, 1981; Bock,
Stebbins, and Proper, 1977; Watkins, 1997).
1. Children who were taught reading, spelling, and math with Direct
Instruction were far superior in achievement to children taught with any
other method in both basic and higher-order conceptual skills (e.g.,
problem solving).
Most of the other "innovative" models did far worse
even than nonDI control schools.
14
2. Disadvantaged children taught with Direct Instruction moved from the
20th percentile on nationally-standardized tests to the 50th percentile.
In other words, Direct Instruction made them regular students in
achievement.
However, the standing of disadvantaged children receiving
some of the other (still used) nonDI curricula decreased relative to the
rest of the country.
3. Children taught with Direct Instruction developed higher self-esteem and
a stronger sense of control of their learning than did children receiving
the other forms of instruction.
This despite the fact that some of the
other curricula focused on self-esteem.
4. Finally, follow-up studies have been conducted with students taught with
Direct Instruction.
For example, Myer (1984) followed children
(predominantly Black or Hispanic) in the Ocean Hill-Brownsville section of
Brooklyn who had been taught reading and math using Direct Instruction
in elementary school.
At the end of the 9th grade, these students were
still one year ahead of children who had been in control (nonDirect
Instruction) schools in reading, and 7 months ahead of control children in
math.
(1988).
Similar results were found by Gersten, Keating and Becker
Former Direct Instruction students continued to out-perform
children who had received traditional instruction.
In addition, in contrast
to comparison groups of children who had not received Direct Instruction
in earlier years, former Direct Instruction students had higher rates of
graduating high school on time, lower rates of dropping out, and higher
rates of applying and being accepted into college (Darch, Gersten, &
Taylor, 1987; Meyer, Gersten, & Gutkin, 1983).
Following are some of the main features of Direct Instruction.
1. Direct Instruction focuses on cognitive learning--concepts, propositions,
15
strategies, and operations; e.g., solving problems and writing essays.
is not rote learning.
It
This is evident in the earliest Direct Instruction
curricula for language, reading, and math.
2. Curriculum development involves three analyses: the analysis of
knowledge, the analysis of teacher-student communication, and the
analysis of (student) behavior.
The curriculum developer first analyzes a
knowledge system (e.g., mathematics, literature) into logical classes and
relationships.
Next, these are transformed into the precise wording of
teacher presentations (instructional communications) designed to be
faultless; i.e., so logically clear that students will induce (construct) the
proper generalizations and discriminations and correctly use the concepts,
propositions, and strategies.
Finally, the curriculum developer specifies
activities of students (e.g., answers to questions, responses to math
problems and story texts) that will indicate whether students have made
the proper generalizations and discriminations, and correctly used
concepts, propositions and strategies.
The curriculum consists of
teacher-student communications during tasks (e.g., first grade students
write words that describe pictures) ordered into lessons arranged into
skill tracks (e.g., picture comprehension) within levels (e.g., Reading
Mastery II).
3. Instruction teaches concepts, strategies, and operations to greater
mastery and generality than typically is the case.
organizing instruction around big ideas.
This is facilitated by
For example, big ideas in a
Direct Instruction science curriculum include "the nature of science,
energy transformations, forces of nature, flow of matter and energy in
ecosystems, and the interdependence of life" (Kameenui & Carnine, 1998,
p. 119).
4. Concepts are not taught in isolation from each other.
Instead,
16
instruction involves strategic integration within and across subjects.
For
example, the concepts density, heat, and pressure overlap in a science
curriculum.
Instruction on each concept is a strand leading to a larger
concept (e.g., convection cell) that integrates the strands.
As a big idea,
convection is illustrated with air circulating in a room, liquid boiling in a
pot, and mantle, ocean and ocean-land convection.
5. The analysis of knowledge (numbers 2-4, above) is used to create
student-teacher communications that are "faultless" (logically clear) so
that all students will:
a. Grasp the concepts and their relationships; and
b. Engage in activities (e.g., reading, solving math problems) that reveal
understanding and provide practice.
6. Lessons (e.g., 10 to 45 minutes) are arranged logically so that students
first learn what they need to grasp later concepts.
7. Lessons (typically in small groups) are formatted so teachers know what
to say to provide faultless communication, and what to ask that enables
students to reveal understanding and/or difficulties.
The strategy to help
students get concepts (e.g., a balanced equation) is at first explicit, or
conspicuous, so students learn to use the strategy themselves.
In other
words, Direct Instruction teaches students to think skillfully.
8. Lessons (e.g., on reading) are followed by independent and small group
activity (e.g., writing stories) to give students practice and generalize
skills to new materials.
9. Gradually, instruction moves from a teacher-guided to a more
student-guided format.
This is called mediated scaffolding.
The move
to less scaffolding is achieved by teaching students problem-solving
strategies, fading assistance, and introducing more complex contexts--to
help students distinguish essential and inessential details.
In other
17
words, Direct Instruction fosters independence and higher-order thinking.
10.
Short proficiency tests are used about every ten lessons to ensure
that all students have mastered the material and to determine which
concepts need firming.
Frequent evaluation sustains the quality of
instruction and students' education; it prevents the drift towards
mediocrity or failure.
11.
Direct Instruction systematically addresses all eight phases of
learning.
These include acquisition, fluency building, endurance,
behavioral momentum, generalization (exemplars are different except for
the features that define "same") and discrimination (exemplars are similar
except for the features that define "different"); retention and
maintenance.
12. A school does not use Direct Instruction all day.
Rather, Direct
Instruction would most likely be used at the beginning of some class
periods, to review previous concepts and give students instruction on new
concepts that build on previous learning.
The rest of a class period would
be individual or small group work on generalizing or adapting what was
learned to new material or problems. The essential thing is that students
get the main concepts, principles, strategies and operations before they
are asked to use them.
13. Math and reading instruction are done in temporary ability groups that
may have students from different grade levels coming together for one
hour, and then returning to their home rooms.
tracks.
These groups are not
A student might be in a fast achievement group in math and in
the average-pace group in reading.
However, if a student's progress
accelerates, she would be moved to the fast group for reading.
14. The absolute outcome of instruction on any lesson must be mastery.
Every student in the group must be able to perform the skill
18
independently and without mistakes--firm and fluent.
Much research has
shown that mastery occurs when lessons have the following phases.
a. Attention and Focus.
No program can be successful unless everyone is
focused at the start of every lesson.
attention and focus directly.
If necessary, the teacher teaches
Usually, this does not take long.
Lessons
begin with an attention signal such as, "Okay, everyone, watch this."
b.
Orientation or Preparation.
The teacher orients students to the
lesson
by pointing out how the lesson builds on prior work.
This is written
into teacher presentation scripts.
c. Model.
In the next phase, the teacher demonstrates concepts,
propositions, strategies and/or operations addressed in that lesson.
The
teacher makes the concepts, rules and strategies explicit or conspicuous.
The particular ways teachers demonstrate are carefully designed; they
are called "formats."
For example, in a lesson on multiplying fractions,
the teacher says,
"You can see the problem 3-fourths times 2-fifths.
The multiplication problem for the top is 3 times 2.
6 on top.
20.
That's 6.
You write
The multiplication problem for the bottom is 4 times 5.
You write 20 on the bottom.
That's
I'll read the whole equation: 3-fourths
times 2-fifths equals 6-twentieths."
In some lessons, the model is repeated several times with different
examples so the children do not focus on irrelevant aspects of the
demonstration that would cause them to induce or learn the wrong rule.
For instance, if all the denominators in the math lesson were "2," the
students might conclude that the rule only applies to fractions that are
halves.
Demonstrations are carefully designed to eliminate such
ambiguous communications.
Again, a major premiss in Direct Instruction
19
is that students learn what they are taught.
If students make errors,
they were taught errors.
d.
Lead.
Often, the next step is leading students through the operation
just modeled.
This step is guided practice; teacher and students work
problems, sound out new words, or read passages together.
The teacher
transitions to having students respond alone when she feels the time is
right.
This often occurs as a group response, but every individual in the
group must respond precisely on signal.
However, students are never
singled out for corrections--to prevent embarrassment or even the
accidental reinforcement of attention-seeking.
Instead, if one student
hesitates or responds incorrectly, the whole group goes through a brief
correction procedure until all children are firm.
The point is for students
to internalize the concepts, principles and strategies previously modeled
by the teacher so they can apply them to more complex/advanced
concepts in subsequent lessons.
This facilitates generalization,
adaptation and maintenance.
e. Test.
"Tests" occur immediately after the teacher stops demonstrating
and leading.
She looks for accurate and quick (firm, fluent) actions from
students in response to her signals (e.g., questions).
When students
appear to be firm, the teacher gives opportunities for students to more
independently use what they appear to have learned.
This "test" does
two things: a) It gives students a chance to practice with less scaffolding
or assistance (the principle of "mediated scaffolding"); and b) It enables
the teacher to identify precisely what each student gets and does not get,
so she can prepare error correction procedures.
Continuing with
multiplying fractions, the teacher now says,
"Your turn.
Use lined paper.
Copy problem A and write the answer.
Remember, multiply the top numbers and write the answer on top.
Then
20
multiply the bottom numbers and write that answer on the bottom.
Raise your hand when you've worked problem A.
2/9 x 4/2 = ___
Check your work.
on the top.
You multiplied the top numbers, 2 times 4, and got 8
Then you multiplied 9 times 2 and got 18 on the bottom.
2-ninths times
4-halves equals 8-eighteenths.
Raise your hand if you got everything
right.
2/9 x 4/2 = 8/18
f. Feedback.
The teacher provides timely and genuine praise for new
learning, reading and solving problems without errors, and persistence.
g. Error correction.
Teachers are alert to mistakes and teach students to
identify and correct them.
learned.
This is because uncorrected errors will be
And if mistakes linger uncorrected, it is harder for students to
learn new material.
Helping students correct errors does not make
students dependent on the teacher.
In fact, correction procedures teach
students to observe and improve their own behavior.
The general error correction procedure is first to identify whether
errors are the result of a student's inattention and/or whether errors are
errors of facts, component skills or strategies.
If a student is paying too
little attention, the teacher might increase praise for small increases in
the attention and/or would praise other students for paying attention, to
provide models for a less attentive student.
In either case, the teacher
uses the same correction procedure; that is, she models the correct
answers or procedures again, leads students through the tasks again, and
then "tests" learning by giving new examples.
If the teacher decides that
a student has not mastered previous skills, she may drop back to a
previous lesson and teach the prerequisites.
If it is an attention or
21
behavior problem, she repeats the routine and uses praise as described
above.
h. Additional material.
The lesson continues with additional material
(e.g., multiplication problems) using the same strategies.
generalization.
This fosters
A major technique to show how things are alike (i.e., the
same concepts, propositions, rules, strategies and operations apply) is to
compare two things that are very different, except for a shared critical
element, and treat them alike; e.g., call them the same thing.
However,
to show how things are different (i.e., to foster discrimination), the
teacher juxtaposes examples (e.g., math problems, passages of poetry,
plants) that are very similar, except for an unshared critical element, and
treats them differently.
i. In future lessons, the teacher introduces, models, leads and tests
problems in which different strategies are used.
Then the teacher gives
students problems in which students alternate between one and another
strategy.
This teaches students to discriminate types of problems and to
select relevant strategies.
The Discovery of Direct Instruction Learning Communities
This paper grew out of research conducted by the first author on a pilot
implementation of Direct Instruction curricula--Reading Mastery and
Language for Learning--in three classes (K, 1 and 2) in an elementary school
whose population consists almost entirely of disadvantaged children.
Direct
Instruction is usually understood primarily as a form of communication that
helps students to acquire complex knowledge systems.
However, one of the
first findings of the research was marked change in the social behavior of
children.
For example, as early as the placement testing phase of the
implementation (October, 1998), students were told that the testing would
help their teachers select the right reading materials for the children.
The
22
students expressed interest in the testing process, making sure that every
student had the opportunity to meet with the researcher.
When the first
author (who conducted most of the testing) periodically visited classrooms,
the students asked when they would be starting to "do reading."
When the
materials arrived and were distributed to classrooms, the students were
excited that they could begin "reading" now.
Students were then placed in groups according to their skill level, with
a teacher who had chosen to teach a particular curriculum (reading or
language)
based on her interests and expertise.
After a three week
transition phase, teachers reported several interesting observations.
First,
the students were quite attentive, and disruptive behavior had decreased
significantly.
Second, students were making sure that all group members
were getting the opportunity to answer questions and respond to the
prompts.
Third, equity and equal participation became increasingly
important to the children.
their turn, for example.
Students would prompt other students to take
Fourth, students also became increasingly
concerned that everyone participate appropriately.
Fifth, students
self-correcting and helping others became routine in the groups.
For
example, when the teacher said, "We can play 'Say it fast' if everyone says
this together.", the children would visible straighten up , turn their eyes
toward the teacher and remind those sitting near them to pay attention.
This suggests that group contingencies became a powerful reinforcer within
the reading group.
More specific examples of changes that reflect the development of
learning communities include the following.
1.
Increased attention overall to lesson activities.
2.
Precise attention to signals from the teacher; e.g., "Get ready"; or
"Your turn" or "My turn"; and hand gestures.
23
3.
Precise attention to the behavior of other students--especially skill at
distinguishing between on-task and off-task behavior and between more
proficient and less proficient behavior.
4.
A decrease in off-task behavior.
5.
An increase in generally helpful behavior, such as helping other
students to give right answers or changing seating position so that other
students can see the teacher or the book she is holding.
6.
A great deal of enthusiasm about the lessons.
In other words, Direct Instruction lessons seem to foster precisely the skills
(perceptual, action), sentiments, and moral principles that enable students
and teachers to participate competently in them.
The lessons are not
adequately understood merely as one-way teacher "transmission" of
information, or even as two-way transmission of information.
Instead,
lessons are better understood as a larger whole--namely a learning
community--with shared understanding of aims, norms about appropriate
behavior and about the roles of students and teacher, values, and skills.
This is exactly what happens in Direct Instruction lessons, which are
scripted and which use the same formats (sequences of tasks and wordings)
from lesson to lesson.
For example, teachers and students are supposed to
engage in certain behaviors in response to each other.
lesson the teacher says, "What word?"
As part of a reading
Students say the word, and the
teacher acknowledges the correct response.
Or students make an incorrect
response, and the teacher corrects the error in a typical way (e.g., by giving
the correct answer and then re-asking the question).
These interaction
sequences are highly regular from moment to moment and from lesson to
lesson.
The result is that students learn not only subject matter (e.g., to
read), but also learn the "rules" and skills for social behavior in lessons.
fact, when teachers make mistakes, students invariably correct them.
In
24
These corrections reveal students' "commonsense" understanding of the
social order and moral obligations of lessons and the group.
Following are
some examples. The first set are examples of students "correcting" of the
errors of a substitute teacher.
1. "Sit on the chair."
"Miss S sits on the chair."
"Not on the floor here?" (Substitute teacher) "No, we gotta all see."
2.
"You gotta get us ALL to say it."
3.
"We get to read a whole thing (points to a column of words) by
ourself."
Three other students lean in and touch the columns of words on the
presentation book.
"Me and then JT and then N and then..."
4.
"Hold the book up here."
(higher)
"Not on your knee."
5.
"JT said it wrong. Make him do it again."
"He said 'Oh.' It's 'Ah.'"
"He's gotta do it again."
6.
"You ain't pointin' at the word."
7.
"That's not the sentence we're on." (referring to the story book)
8. "We can't do this Take Home!"
"Yeah, we didn't finish the story!!"
"I can't answer this question.
It's later.
We didn't finish."
The next set of examples reveal students' knowledge of appropriate behavior
during lessons, and how they attempt to preserve the social order.
9.
"Sit up, N (a student), you're slowin' us down."
10.
"It's not your turn, it's the teacher's turn now."
11. " It's not MY turn, it's your turn."
25
12. "Wait, E goes next, then S."
13. "I will help T."
14. "Watch me, T. I can do it first, then you can do it."
15. "Wait for C and S, they didn't say it good enough."
Interestingly, the concept of significant symbol is recognized by two of
the major curriculum developers and theorists of Direct Instruction.
Speaking of teacher communication, Engelmann and Carnine (in Theory of
instruction , 1991), write:
The communication must also provide a signal that accompanies each
example that has the quality to be generalized...(W)e must use some
form of signal to tell the learner, in effect, that these examples are the
same...The signal, typically a behavior such as saying "red" for all
examples that are red, also provides the learner with the basis for
communicating with us. (Engelmann & Carnine, 1991: p. 5)
Note that the high frequency and regular form of social acts (teacher-student
communication) in Direct Instruction lessons, combined with clarity
(faultlessness) in these communications, makes it even more likely that
events will acquire common meaning--become significant symbols.
This is
shown below in an excerpt from the curriculum called Corrective Reading.
Decoding B1, lesson 1.
Teacher:
You're going to say the first sounds in hard words.
Teacher:
Listen: slip. Say it. (Signal)
Students:
Slip
Teacher:
Good!
Teacher:
My turn to say the first sound in (pause) slip. sss.
Say the first sound.
(Signal)
Your turn.
26
Students:
sss.
Teacher:
Great!
Teacher:
My turn to say the next sound in slip: lll
Your turn.
Say that sound. (Signal). lll
Students:
lll
In summary, as a form of communication embedded within a larger
form of social organization (lessons), Direct Instruction appears to create a
true learning community in which members have: 1) high expectations of
achievement for themselves and the group; 2) clearly established standards
and accountability; 3) shared symbols; and 4) shared conceptions of time,
space, action objects and activities.
It is not possible at this time to assert
which has stronger causal influence--i.e., whether increasing achievement
fosters a learning community or whether a developing learning comunity is a
necessary condition for achievement.
However, this is a topic for future
research.
References
Adams, G.L., & Engelmann, S. (1996).
Research on Direct Instruction: 25
years beyond DISTAR. Seattle, WA: Educational Achievement Systems.
Becker, W., & Carnine, D.W. (1981).
Direct instruction: A behavior theory
model for comprehensive educational intervention with the minority.
S.W. Bijou & R. Ruiz (Eds.), Behavior modification:
In
Contributions to
education (pp. 145-210). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bereiter, C., & Engelmann, S. (1966).
Teaching disadvantaged children in
the preschool. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bock, G., Stebbins, L., & Proper, E. (1977).
Education as experimentation:
A planned variation model (Volume IV-A & B). Effects of follow through
27
models.
Washington, D.C.:
Abt Associates.
Brooks, J.G., & Brooks, M.G. (1993).
In search of understanding: The case
for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.
Darch, C., Gersten, R., & Taylor, R. (1987).
County Direct Instruction program:
elementary programs.
Evaluation of Williamsburg
Factors leading to success in rural
Research in Rural Education, 4, 111-118.
DeVries, R., & Zan, B. (1994).
Moral classrooms, moral children: creating a
constructivist atmosphere in early education. Teachers College Press.
Durkheim, E. (1933).
Press.
The division of labor in society. New York: The Free
(Originally published in 1893.)
Durkheim, E. (1951).
Suicide. New York: The Free Press. (Originally
published in 1897.)
Engelmann, S., & Carnine, D. (1991).
edition).
Eugene, OR:
Theory of instruction (revised
ADI Press.
Erickson, G.L. & Brandes, G. (1998).
Developing and Sustaining a
Community of Inquiry among Teachers and Teacher-Educators.
Alberta
Journal of Educational Research, 44, 1, 38-52
Evans, M. (1988).
Transferring the Excitement of What Is Learned in a
Community of Teacher Researchers to Classroom Communities of Pupils.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association.
San Diego, CA, April 13-17.
Finn, C.E., & Ravitch, D. (1996). Educational reform 1995-1996. A report
from the Educational Excellence Network.
http://www.edexcellence.net/library/epciv.html
Franquiz, M.E. & Reyes, Maria de la L. (1998).
Creating Inclusive Learning
Communities through English Language Arts: From "Chanclas" to
"Canicas." Language Arts, 75, 3, 211-20.
28
Gersten, R., Keating, T., & Becker, W.C. (1988).
Direct Instruction model:
students.
Continued impact of the
Longitudinal studies of Follow Through
Education and Treatment of Children, 11, 318-327.
Kameenui, E.J., & Carnine, D.W. (1998).
Effective teaching strategies that
accomodate diverse learners. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Marshall, S.P. (1998).
Creating Conditions for Developing and Nurturing
School Leaders. NASSP Bulletin, 82, 595, 75-84
Talent: The Work of
McClurg, L.G. (1998).
Building an Ethical Community in the Classroom:
Community Meeting. Young Children, 53, 2, 30-35
The social psychology of George Herbert Mead.
Mead, G.H. (1956).
Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Meyer, L. (1984).
Long-term academic effects of the Direct Instruction
Project Follow Through.
Elementary School Journal, 84, 380-394.
Meyer, L., Gersten, R., & Gutkin, J.
(1983).
Direct instruction:
Follow Through success story in an inner-city school.
A Project
Elementary School
Journal, 84, 241-252.
Parsons, S.
(1998).
A Science Education Learning Community Story
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for
Research in Science Teaching. San Diego, CA, April 19-22.
Pouravood, R.C.
(1997).
Chaos, Complexity, and Earning Community:
What Do They Mean for Education?
School Community Journal, 7, 2,
57-64
Schutz, A. (1970).
On phenomenology and social relations. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.
Simmel, G. (1909).
Social interaction as the definition of the group in time
and space." American Journal of Sociolgy, XV, 296-298.
Udvari-Solner, A., & Thousand, J.S. (1995). "Promising practices that foster
inclusive education. In R.A. Villa & J.S. Thousand (Eds.), Creating
29
inclusive schools (pp. 87-109). Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Watkins, C. (1997).
Project Follow Through: A case study of contingencies
influencing instructional practices of the educational establishment.
Cambridge, MA:
i.
Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies.
This is a point that tends to get lost on Americans because of our collective, and
powerful, emphasis on individualism. Note, however, the paradox implied in the
preceding sentence: the great value we place on individual rights and freedoms is a
collectively-held value. As such, however ironic it appears at face value, the most
fiercely individuated among us are, in actuality, the most thoroughly enculturated.
Moreover, our individualistic penchant has, in the past thirty-plus years become even
more pronounced, as scores of scholars have repeatedly emphasized (see, for
example, Gross 1985; Sennett 1976; Martin 1982; Rieff 1966; Zilbergeld 1982; Boyer
1985; Veroff, Douvan, & Kulka 1981; Russell 1993; Rice 1996; Inglehart 1977, 1991) –
a point that also calls into question the putatively “rigid” and controlling essence of
American culture.