Tag Archives: Direct instruction

I Do, We Do, You Do – The importance of Scaffolding

Posted on by

It’s not a bad analogy to think of learning as if you were building a house.

Although you’re going to need help, when the house is finished it will all be yours. Firstly, it’s important that the foundations are strong, if not what follows may be unstable and at worst collapse. Then slowly but surely, you place one brick on top of another. The whole process requires planning, time, motivation and a significant amount of effort. But when the roof is finally on and you move in, you should feel rightly proud of what you have achieved and hopefully believe it’s all been worth it.

Although the house now looks strong and well-built, a short while ago it was covered in scaffolding, which was essential if the house was ever to be finished.

And that’s a nice introduction (hopefully) to this months’ blog, something that helps make learning possible but at the end can no longer be seen – Its name scaffolding!

Scaffolding (background – bear with me)
The term scaffolding first appeared in the work of Jerome Bruner in the 1960s and more formally when he published his ideas in the early 70’s. According to Bruner when a learner first encounters a new concept, they need help from an expert or teacher but as the learner becomes more independent in their thinking and acquires new skills and knowledge, the support can be gradually removed. The implication is that the learner will be able to achieve far more with scaffolding than would have been possible on their own.

Bruner’s ideas were not his alone and were an extension of some of the work of Lev Vygotsky and his thoughts around the zone of proximal development (ZPD). The diagram shows what a learner can achieve on their own compared to what is possible with guidance.

Direct instruction – I do- we do – you do
Its very easy to be underwhelmed by both Bruner and Vygostky, in simple terms all they are saying is that, people can learn more if they are supported and helped by an expert, Wow! But their work underpinned a popular and very practical technique, a form of Direct Instruction, called, I Do – We Do – You Do.

As you might know from previous blogs, I am a big fan of Direct Instruction, largely because there is evidence that proves it works. But sometimes it’s hard to convince others as to its merits because the term “instruction” sounds like you are telling the learner what to do, which some believe in particular Constructivists that this is not the best way to teach. Yet few would argue with this model, partly because it seems sensible, is practical and effective.

In addition, it’s one of the most popular techniques used in Professional Education, this is because of the very tight time constraints, levels of technical detail that have to be learned and the high stakes nature of the exam.

Here’s how it works.

  • I Do – In this phase the teacher should model the new learning having broken the content into small chunks, using worked examples and step by step instruction. The learners should have their pens down (Tablets, PCs closed) so they can focus on what the teacher is doing. Pace is important, the modelling should not be rushed, questions can be taken at the end.
  • We Do – This is when the scaffolding starts to take effect. In this phase the learners have a go on their own or at least attempt part of the task before stopping to check if they are on the right track, maybe confirming their understanding. The teacher needs to remain alert and might have to step in to clarify an area that seems to be holding everyone back. It may prove necessary to stay at this stage for some time, there is little point moving on until everyone is happy to do so.
  • You Do – Finally, once the learners are confident with the steps required, they are ready to have a go completely on their own. The whole process is effectively a gradual release of responsibility, giving the learner more and more control over their own learning until they become independent. There could also be a need for some levels of personalisation because some learners will take longer than others to master the new content.

This is not the only way you can use scaffolding, there are many other techniques but I hope that you can see its one of the most effective.

Video – don’t be put off by the simple nature of this video, it explains it very well.

Inquiry based learning is harmful – ouch!

Posted on by

Can I ask you a question, would you prefer to discover something for yourself or be told what you should know?

Choices as to how you want to learn are to a certain extent personal, perhaps even a learning style, but shouldn’t we be asking which is the most effective, and when it comes to that, we have evidence.

The problem is you might not like the results, I’m not sure I do.

The headline for this month’s blog is not mine but an edited one from John Sweller, of cognitive load fame, in a paper published this August by the Centre for Independent Studies in Australia. Although I have written about some aspects of Inquiry based learning before (IBL), it’s worth taking a closer look, especially given the impact Sweller believes IBL type methods have had in Australia. He suggests that the countries rankings on international tests such as PISA have reduced because of a greater emphasis on IBL in classrooms across the country.

But first…..

What is inquiry-based learning?
Inquiry based learning can be traced back to Constructivism and the work of Piaget, Dewey, Vygotsky et al. Constructivism is an approach to learning that suggests people construct their own understanding and knowledge of the world, through experiencing it and reflecting on those experiences. This sits alongside Behaviourism (see last month’s blog) and Cognitivism to form three important theories of learning.

As a process IBL often starts with a question to encourage students to share their thoughts, these are then carefully challenged in order to test conviction and depth of understanding. The result, a more refined and robust appreciation of what was being discussed, learning has taken place. It is an approach in which the teacher and student share responsibility for learning. There are some slight variations to IBL that include Problem-based learning (PBL), and Project-based learning (PjBL), in these rather than a question being the catalyst, it’s a problem.

This method is intuitively attractive and promoted widely in schools and higher education institutions around the world. Which is what makes Swellers argument so challenging, how can someone “learn better” when they are being told as opposed to discovering the answer for themselves?

What’s wrong with it?
To answer this question, I will quote both Sweller and Richard E Clark who challenged enquiry-based learning fifteen years ago in a paper called, Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work.

Unguided and minimally guided methods… ignore both the structures that constitute human cognitive architecture and evidence from empirical studies over the past half-century that consistently indicate that minimally guided instruction is less effective and less efficient than instructional approaches that place a strong emphasis on guidance of the student learning process.

The cognitive architecture they are refereeing to is the limitation of working memory and the need to keep cognitive load to a minimum e.g. 7+-2. In the more recent paper Sweller goes onto explain how the “worked example effect” demonstrates the problems of IBL and the benefits of a more direct instructional approach. If one group of students were presented with a series of problems to solve and another group given the same problems but with detailed solutions, those that had the worked example perform better on future common problem-solving tests.

“Obtaining information from others is vastly more efficient than obtaining it during problem solving“. John Sweller

In simple terms if a student (novice) has to formulate the problem, position it in a way that they can think about it, bring to bear their existing knowledge, challenge that knowledge, the cognitive load becomes far too high resulting in at best weak learning, and at worst confusion.

“As far as can be seen, inquiry learning neither teaches us how to inquire nor helps us acquire other knowledge deemed important in the curriculum.” John Sweller

What’s better – Direct instruction?
Sweller is not simply arguing against IBL, he is comparing it and promoting the use of direct instruction. This method you might remember requires the teacher to presents information in a prescriptive, structured and sequenced manner. Direct Instruction keeps cognitive load to a minimum and as a result makes it easier to transfer information from working to long term memory.

Best of both worlds
It may be that so far this blog has been a bit academic and does little more than promote direct instruction over IBL, my apologies. The intention was to showcase IBL, clarify what it is and point out some of the limitations. In addition to highlight how easy it is to believe that something must be good because it feels intuitively right. And in that IBL is compelling, we are human and learn from asking questions and solving problems, it’s what we have been doing for thousands of years. But that alone does not make it the best way to learn.

The good news is these methods are not mutually exclusive, and for me John Hattie, coincidentally another Australian has the answer. He says that although IBL may engage students, which can give an illusion of learning, if you are new to a subject (a novice) and have to learn content as opposed to the slightly deeper relationship between content, then IBL doesn’t work. Also, if you don’t teach the content, you have nothing to reason about.

But, there is a place for IBL…..its after the student has acquired sufficient knowledge that they can begin to explore by experimenting with their own thoughts. The more difficult question is, when do you should do this, and that is likely to be different for everyone.

One for another day perhaps.

Synergy – Direct Instruction part 2

Posted on by

Last month’s blog introduced the idea that Direct Instruction (DI) which is a highly structured form of teaching was a very efficient way of delivering information. The challenge was that in a world where knowledge is largely free “drilling” information using rigid methods does little to develop the skills most valued by employers.

Earlier this year in an attempt to identify some of these higher-level skills, I am not a fan of the term soft skills, LinkedIn analysed hundreds of thousands of job advertisements. They produced a top 5, which are as follows: Creativity, Persuasion, Collaboration, Adaptability and Time management. We might add to this, the ability to think for yourself which in some ways underpins them all.

The modern world doesn’t reward you for what you know, but for what you can do with what you know. Andreas Schleicher

This month I want to expand on what DI is but also add to the argument that DI (teacher led) and discovery based (Student led) are not mutually exclusive, in fact when used together they work better than on their own.

Direct Instruction is learning led
The main reason that despite its many critics DI fails to go away is because of the significant amount of evidence that proves it works. And the reason it works is because it presents information in a brain friendly way.

Cognitive load, this is a very common instructional terms and refers to the limitation of short term or working memory to hold sufficient information at any one time. As a result, it’s better not to bombard the brain with too much information, meaning its more effective for students to reduce distraction and be presented with content broken down into smaller chunks, sequenced and taught individually before being linked together at a later date. This is one of the most important aspects of DI. Avoiding distraction refers not only to external distractions e.g. your mobile phone but information that is not required or is unnecessary in arriving at the desired learning outcome

Retrieval and spaced practice are both used in direct instruction and have been mentioned in previous blogs. They are well researched and the evidence is compelling as to their effectiveness.

Using examples to teach is also something strongly promoted. It is argued that the brain has the ability to use examples to build connections, ironically without DI e.g. if we are talking about pets and we said that a cat is an example of a pet but we already knew a cat was also an animal we could link the two. Next time when the term cat is mentioned we would know it was both a pet and an animal.

Discovery based (Student led – Autonomous – Constructivism)
Many of the discovery-based learning techniques have their roots in the work of psychologists Jean Piaget, Jerome Bruner, and Seymour Papert. The core argument is that self-discovery and the process of acquiring information for yourself makes that information more readily available when it comes to problem solving. In addition, it encourages creativity, motivation, promotes autonomy, independent learning and is self-paced.

It is not however without instruction. Teachers should guide and motivate learners to look for solutions by combining existing and new information, help students avoid distraction and simplify what to a student may appear complex. To expect the student to figure everything out for themselves would be incredibly inefficient and although might lead to a truly original idea is most likely to result in a feeling of wasted time and solutions we already know or are wrong.

Critical thinking processes such as reasoning and problem solving are intimately intertwined with factual knowledge that is stored in long-term memory Daniel Willinghams – Why Students Don’t Like School.

2 + 2 = 5 = Synergy
DI and the many discovery-based learning methods can be used together because together they are far more powerful and effective. Think more of them in terms of a venn diagram with highly effective learning in the middle where the circles overlap and DI in one circle and discovery based in the other. The mix is up to the teacher which in turn is dependent on the time available, the nature of the subject, their judgment of the students and the desired outcome.

You cannot tell students how to think but you can provide them with the building blocks, helping them learn along the way before giving them real world challenges with problems they will have to solve for themselves. Then its into the workplace where the real learning experience will begin.

Learn faster with Direct Instruction – Siegfried Engelmann

Posted on by

What we need to learn is changing, knowledge is free, if you want the answer just google it. According to the World Economic Forum’s Future of Jobs Survey, there is an ever-greater need for cognitive abilities such as creativity, logical reasoning and problem solving. And with advances in AI, machine learning and robotics many of the skills previously valued will become redundant.

No need for the Sage on the stage
These demands have led to significant change in the way learning is happening, no longer should students be told what to think, they need to be encouraged to think for themselves, Socratic questioning, group work, experiential learning and problem based learning have all become popular, and Sir Ken Robinson Ted lecture, do schools kill creativity has had 63 million views.

Sir Kens talk is funny and inspiring and I recommend you watch it, but I want to challenge the current direction of travel or at least balance the debate by promoting a type of teaching that has fallen out of fashion and yet ironically could form the foundation upon which creativity could be built – Direct Instruction.

Direct Instruction – the Sage is back
The term direct instruction was first used in 1968, when a young Zig Engelmann a science research associate proved that students could be taught more effectively if the teacher presented information in a prescriptive, structured and sequenced manner. This carefully planned and rigid process can help eliminate misinterpretation and misunderstanding, resulting in faster learning. But most importantly it has been proven to work as evidenced by a 2018 publication which looked at over half a century of analysis and 328 past studies on the effectiveness of Direct Instruction.

Direct Instruction was also evaluated by Project Follow Through, the most extensive educational experiment ever conducted. The conclusion – It produced significantly higher academic achievement for students than any of the other programmes.

The steps in direct instruction

It will come as no surprise that a method of teaching that advocates structure and process can be presented as a series of steps.

Step 1 Set the stage for learning – The purpose of this first session is to engage the student, explaining specifically what they should be able to do and understand as a result of this lesson. Where possible a link to prior knowledge should also be made.
Step 2 Present the material – (I DO) The lesson should be organised, broken down into a step-by-step process, each one building on the other with examples to show exactly how it can be applied. This can be done by lecture, demonstration or both.
Step 3 Guided practice – (WE DO) This is where the tutor demonstrates and the student follows closely, copying in some instances. Asking questions is an important aspect for the student if something doesn’t make sense.
Step 4 Independent practice – (YOU DO) Once students have mastered the content or skill, it is time to provide reinforcement and practice.

The Sage and the Guide
The goal of Direct Instruction is to “do more in less time” which is made possible because the learning is accelerated by clarity and process.

There are of course critics, considering it a type of rote learning that will stifle the creativity of both teacher and student, and result in a workforce best suited for the industrial revolution rather than the fourth one. But for me it’s an important, effective and practical method of teaching. That when combined with inspirational delivery and a creative mindset will help students develop the skills to solve the problems of tomorrow or at least a few of them.