As one who lectures, amid a very popular groundswell of support for active learning, I am frequently given to doubts. For me, it's less a question of whether to lecture, as it is when to lecture. For large introductory foundational courses students are required to cover a lot of ground. Much of this is accomplished through reading, but providing perspective and highlighting the salient aspects of debated issues falls to the instructor.So anyway, this caught my eye...from Education Next:
Should teachers stand in front of the class and present the material to be learned? Or should learning be more dynamic, with students solving problems, either on their own or under the teacher’s guidance? Which approach yields the most student learning?
Opinion on this question is deeply divided. “The sage on the stage” versus “the guide on the side” is how the debate is often framed. Proponents of the former ruled the education roost throughout the 19th century, but in the 20th century a child-centered doctrine, developed by John Dewey in the gardens surrounding the University of Chicago’s Laboratory School, then refined at Columbia University’s Teachers College, gained the high ground, as “inquiry-based” and “problem-solving” became the pedagogies of choice, certainly as propounded by education-school professors. In recent years, the earlier view has staged something of a comeback, as KIPP and other “No Excuses” charter schools have insisted on devoting hours of class time to direct instruction, even to drill and memorization...When Guido Schwerdt and Amelie Wuppermann of the University of Munich figured out a way to test empirically the relative value of the two teaching styles (see “Sage on the Stage,” research), it is worth trumpeting the findings. These analysts took advantage of the fact that the 2003 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Survey (TIMSS) not only tested a nationally representative sample of U.S. 8th graders in math and science, but also asked their teachers what percentage of class time was taken up by students “listening to lecture-style presentations” rather than either “working on problems with the teacher’s guidance” or “working on problems without guidance.” Teachers reported that they spent twice as much time on problem-solving activities as on direct instruction. In other words, U.S. middle-school teachers have drunk deep from the progressive pedagogical well.
To see whether this tilt toward the problem-solving approach helps middle schoolers learn, Schwerdt and Wuppermann identified those 8th graders who had the same classmates in both math and science, but different teachers. Then they estimated the impact on student learning of class time allocated to direct instruction versus problem solving. Under which circumstance did U. S. middle-school students learn more?
Direct instruction won. Students learned 3.6 percent of a standard deviation more if the teacher spent 10 percent more time on direct instruction. That’s one to two months of extra learning during the course of the year.
The students who benefited most from direct instruction were those who were already higher-performing at the beginning of the year. But even initial low performers learned more when direct instruction consumed more class time...
10 comments:
I thought this was an interesting article to read. I tend to like the idea of learning through discovery and working through problems. However, after seeing this research my views may change. I was shocked by how much of a difference the amount of direct instruction time can make. I will definitely look into this type of research more to see if there are similar findings.
I was intrigued by this article, as I am finishing my second round of Education Foundation classes at EKU; I myself have wondered which approach actually works more efficiently. All through my middle school and high school education, I was grouped into classes with other gifted students like myself, so to me, my course work was easy, and I don't remember paying attention to which classes I learned better in. My background as a "gifted student" makes things more stressful when I begin to think about how I will teach my students, many of whom will not be what is considered "gifted" so this article definitely has provided some insight and pedagogical tips as to how to most effectively instruct my students in the classroom. Much more interesting to me is that direct instruction is the most effective method. One would think that allowing students to solve problems in groups and to use their other peers as tools to solve problems would evoke more student learning and comprehension, but as the results of the study proves that the good old fashioned direct lecture does work better!
When I read this stuff, I feel very old. Barak Rosenshine has been pushing "direct instruction" since the 1960's. Sometimes it works; sometimes it doesn't. Almost always it is important to observe the direct instruction rather than get it from a questionnaire. If the effect is .036 of a standard deviation and that amounts to a year of instruction, that means the standard deviation is over 20 years. Hum!
Skip Kifer
When it comes to instruction I personally prefer a more dynamic lesson because there’s more to it than just listening to the teacher lecture. I find that, for me, when a teacher lectures all the time I tend to get really bored in that class and zone out. I’m not saying that teachers should never lecture I’m just saying that I think a good balance of both in a lesson plan would be most effective, because too much problem solving and you can’t be sure students are getting the necessary information.
Old School versus New School ways of teaching is a debate which each teacher must come to a conclusion about in order to determine which way they think their students will learn best in their class. I personally was surprised at the results that direct instruction overall helped students learn more about a subject, especially when it was one to two extra months of learning! I do think that most teachers choose to have a more old school approach to teaching, at least that is what my educational experience would suggest. My first experience with a class that was truly and solely an inquiry-based instruction was in my second semester of college in a biology class. I have never enjoyed any of the sciences. So naturally it was my first reaction to dread taking a biology class. However I ended up looking forward to the class because of the way the class was structured. I felt as though I learned so much in class time, with doing projects, labs, and group work. We all were responsible for our own learning, but my professor facilitated the class in a way where I was retaining so much more information than I feel I normally would. I wish that I would have been exposed to this teaching style sooner.
On the opposing side, I went through practically my entire educational career with majority direct instruction and I feel as though I have learned a lot. I would agree with Dr. Day concerning that there is a certain time for lecture. For foundational classes or any classes where a lot of information needs to be covered in a short amount of time (for example; a history class), then direct instruction is very appropriate for that setting. However having only an old school type of learning will become dull and monotonous to students.
Overall, I think that using new school techniques to keep learners engaged and active in their learning should be incorporated into a classroom where direct instruction is used too. This way students are not only receiving the content but retaining it. Introducing inquiry based skills to students will also help them when their learning is solely dependent on them, this way they have the ability to learn in any teaching environment and will be prepared for higher education and also the work force.
-Samantha Utz
Dear Richard,
I work for Fayette County Public Schools. I'd like to know what the status of the case of
Rosalind Hurley Richards is. I'd also like to know about Jill Cowan! Suit or no suit? I'd love to know whether these fine teachers will be vindicated. Thank you.
I can still hear a professor of education saying that this teaching style, "Sand and Deliver" he called it, didn't work. Actually I learned less in his educationclass where he said nothing and had spend precious time on group projects and presenations. Clearly, he either didn't want to teach, or he had nothing woth listening to....
I'm not surprised that math and science teachers at the 8th grade level used more independent problem-solving than direct instruction. After all, math and science tend to be subjects that must be learned by actually solving problems on your own. It's very interesting to learn that more direct instruction is more effective for higher-performing students. I would be curious to see if these same results were true in the English and Social Studies subject areas. I feel that we as teachers would benefit from further research on this so we can plan the amount of time we spend on each instruction style accordingly.
When it comes to teaching I believe you need to have a balance of direct instituiton and let students solve problems as well. However, this information was quite interesting and very surprising. I would have thought that direct institution would have been lower in pecentage than the dynamic, solving problem aspect. I will definetly take this into consideration when I begin teaching.
Skip: When I read anything anymore I start feeling old. I have a birthday with an ugly number in front of it this month.
Kaitlin, Chelsie, Samantha and Sammy: Remember - NEVER be persuaded by any single study. ...and never commit fully to one type of instruction. Conditions matter.
May 3, 2011 6:08 PM: I still haven't been able to get to court (so I don't know anything about where Cowan stands). But a decision on Hurley-Richards is not our yet. The next set of appeals rulings are due out May 6th.
Post a Comment