Fiery words from designers of Direct Instruction, a scripted behaviorist instructional model which competed with various reform models in the largest educational study ever conducted. It trampled all other models in every measure—including student affect! andymatuschak.org/files/1988-Eng
Conversation
Replying to
(I'm in the midst of a literature review on the evidence for constructivist, student-directed, and inquiry-based learning models. Results are candidly quite bleak thus far.)
5
12
Replying to
I think there is a false dichotomy between behaviorism and student-centered learning. Behaviorists are very serious about observing where students are at and adapting to individuals. With good student-centered learning, the teacher still provides feedback & suggestions. #not1bit
1
1
Yep, you’re definitely right. I suspect any path forward will learn much from all approaches; I’m trying to figure out “which pieces work well in which contexts, and how do we know?”
1
Replying to
Is the claim that children can’t learn language w/o systematic instruction? If so, did schools preceded language? I recall reading children not only pick up language w/o instruction, but will generate languages in their absence such as children creating sign languages.
1
2
No, the claim is weaker than that. E.g. for students who have grown up in households/communities with minimal attention or conversation (and who therefore possess language deficits), direct instruction remediated those deficits more reliably and rapidly than other methods.
1
Replying to
Thank you very much for this. It reminds me of a podcast I listened to a couple of years back where the reporter pointed out that we know one educational intervention that works brilliantly and delivers measurable results and we don't use it.
Desegregation.