| |
| ▲ | zozbot234 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Follow_Through_(project) for starters, one of the largest educational studies ever conducted: "The results of Follow Through did not show how models that showed little or no effects could be improved. But they did show which models—as suggested by the less than ideal conditions of the experiment—had some indications of success. Of these models, Siegfried Engelmann's Direct Instruction method demonstrated the highest gains in the comparative study. [T]he models which showed positive effects were largely basic skills models. ..." | | |
| ▲ | mlyle 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Ugh. I was wondering whether it was going to be Follow Through. You understand it was a terribly conducted study, and analyses of the data by other parties have drawn the exact opposite conclusion? There's a reason why I'm particularly skeptical to what you're saying, btw: we know from pretty high quality research lasting decades that the combination of tutorial instruction plus mastery methods are supremely effective. The big problem is, these approaches don't scale. Structured recitation in a classroom is basically the opposite of this approach. On the other hand: Direct Instruction could be a way to hit a minimum quality level in schools which have suffered from instructional quality problems. It's also worth noting that modern Direct Instruction is much, much less recitation-based than you imply. Just one piece of anecdata: the private school I'm at was much more scripted and regimented around this type of philosophy 15 years ago. The private school down the road is still there. We've really pulled away in performance since broadening methods and doing a lot more of the open-ended inquiry that you look down your nose at. Indeed, the engineering programs that I teach share very few features with DI, and have gotten nationally recognized results. | | |
| ▲ | zozbot234 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Structured recitation in a classroom is basically the opposite of [tutorial instruction plus mastery methods]. Reference for this statement? From a rather abstract POV, it seems to be the closest thing to "mastery methods and tutorial instruction" that can actually scale to a large class size and engage all students by default. Also, what method can be most effective in a "nationally recognized" engineering program (most likely with highly recognized students to match) has very little bearing on what's most effective for marginalized and disadvantaged students who may have significant challenges with basic skills. | | |
| ▲ | mlyle 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Also, what method can be most effective in a "nationally recognized" engineering program (most likely with highly recognized students to match) Part of what got my attention and asking you for citations: > > > As an important point, the merit of this kind of education is by no means exclusive to disadvantaged students! For more anecdata: I coach a MS competitive math team as an elective. Anyone can join. It's not selective. Our school is roughly 3% of the middle school students in our chapter, but we routinely take >50% of the top 12 spots. We don't do rote but just explore ideas and compare approaches. Also, students in the program on average pick up about .7 years of math skills beyond what similar control students at our school do during that time. I came into this job thinking I was going to be all teaching and demonstrating methods, and doing a bunch of drill-and-kill, etc. In practice that's where I've been least effective personally and where the classroom has been a sad place to be. During COVID, I was a substitute teacher in an 8th grade science classroom and I was teaching physics. We recited definitions and drilled and killed. The students did well in the material, but developed no great love for me or physics, and didn't do better in their next year of science classes than students who had been taught in a more informal, exploratory way. The students that I taught physics still actively avoid my programs. > Reference for this statement? In tutorial instruction, students study materials beforehand and come ready to debate, critique, and defend ideas in "class." It's about engaging with concepts actively. On the flip side, Direct Instruction is more structured and teacher-led, focusing on clear, step-by-step teaching with a ton of overlap between sessions and very clear structured measurement of basic tasks. | | |
| ▲ | zozbot234 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > In tutorial instruction, students study materials beforehand and come ready to debate, critique, and defend ideas in "class." This seems to be what's often called the "flipped classroom" approach. You're right that this is not directly "teacher led" in a material sense, but only inasmuch as the equivalent effort happens outside the classroom. The "debate, critique, and defend" approach shares both the "immediately applicable practice" and the "quick feedback" features of DI - there's clearly "a ton of overlap" between studying a lesson on one's own and later debating, critiquing or practically applying the same content in class. Just because it might not be literal "blabbing back" doesn't mean that much of the same underlying dynamics is not involved. | | |
| ▲ | mlyle 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > This seems to be what's often called the "flipped classroom" approach. A flipped classroom falls short of tutorial instruction. Often, it's just recorded lessons presented outside school time to leave more time for using the classroom in other ways. Homework in conventional primary classrooms is not helpful and may be harmful, and as best as I can tell, this includes flipped lessons and textbook readings. We've got a pretty big mountain of data accumulating on this topic. I'm trying to flip some topics in AP Microeconomics and it's really hard to do in an effective way. Actually: I find in AP Micro I am doing things much closer to how you describe, because I'm micro-optimizing for (students doing well on the AP Micro exam) instead of (producing students that I feel understand economics in a generally useful way). > "quick feedback" features of DI I think pretty much everyone agrees quick feedback and measurement is valuable. Having one clean expected answer that the class says together is one way to get this, and I guess it's perhaps the one that requires the lowest instructor skill and thus is most repeatable. But I would say, for example, that Khan Academy does it much better-- pacing things to each student, providing individualized feedback, supporting spacing effects through mastery challenges, and allowing questions whose responses would not be said the same by all students. It's trickier, though: you need to stand in the back of class to tamp down on device misuse. And in the end students do work in exchange for recognition from their instructor in a well-functioning classroom, which is hard to get if they're spending most of their time trying to please a computer. | | |
| ▲ | zozbot234 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Somewhat offtopic, but I'm surprised that "device misuse" is that big of an issue. I suppose that these are most likely school-provided and school-administered devices, so they should arguably allow for some sort of time-based kiosk mode where the student is restricted in what they can do on the device. Aside from that, I do in fact agree wrt. on the potential of Khan Academy and similar systems - they seem to have the potential get closest to the "Bloom's two sigma" result of fully individualized instruction. | | |
| ▲ | mlyle 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > I suppose that these are most likely school-provided and school-administered devices, so they should arguably allow for some sort of time-based kiosk mode where the student is restricted in what they can do on the device. In our case, schools purchase and bring their own devices past elementary school. But even with technical measures, there are a nearly infinite number of ways to screw around. > they seem to have the potential get closest to the "Bloom's two sigma" result of fully individualized instruction. They don't, though. In my experience, there's 3 reasons why a student will devote effort to improvement in a classroom. In order of their efficacy and difficulty to instill: 1. Pressure from grades/the gradebook. In my experience, this is only weakly effective. Even in my environment where families are really achievement focused. There is too much of a delay; even if things are updated in Khan or the gradebook nigh-immediately, the measure doesn't become consequential for a long time. 2. Social pressures in the classroom: desire to not look foolish; relationship with an adviser; desire to please the teacher; effects of appropriate praise; desire to do fun things that other students are doing. 3. True interest and independent engagement in the subject. You could alternatively view this also as a scale of how quick and effective feedback is. By #3, the student starts to measure themselves. Khan or DI will have a hard time taking a student to #3. Khan's a super-strong, super immediate version of #1; DI is a very weak version of #2 (but possibly the easiest to implement). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
