Check the research. Direct Instruction was designed for students at risk, but it has been conclusively shown to be effective with all groups. And, kids LOVE it because it works and (for many of them) it's the first time they've been successful in school. Nothing motivates like success. Kids learn faster with this methodology, they learn basic skills better, they learn cognitive skills (higher order thinking and problem solving), and they excel in affective behavior (attitudes about school and self-worth). The data is clear. Don't fight to stay ignorant. Learn more about DI before you criticize it, for your child's sake.
I teach middle school math using direct instruction. The gains my students made in the direct instruction class vs. the traditional class was huge. In the traditional class many students will sit through the lesson and day dream. They may be asked 1 or 2 questions throughout the lesson, but for the rest of the time they are not focused on the lesson. In the DI class they are all responding consistently and are engaged for the entire lesson. DI is not used for all our students. It is used to catch students up who are at a lower level than they are supposed to be. It has worked great for the students that I have taught.
The tapping is important because, like the baton of an orchestra leader, the tapping enables choral responding. Choral responding is important for a couple of reasons. First, it keeps the kids involved, and actively responding contributes to learning. In traditional classrooms, kids are lucky if they get to respond once an hour--some can go days without responding. Second, choral responding on cue enables to hear when a child makes a mistake. When the teacher said, "Again," she had heard a mistake. Repeating the response allows the child to self-correct (as happened in the video). Or, repeating allows the teacher to begin isolating who is continuing to make a mistake for the sole purpose of coaching the child. Kids respond well to coaching because the intent is to help, not to embarass. It doesn't take long for everybody to get use to the tapping.
I think I would have cried and refused to go to school if teachers pressed me like that. I struggled with reading and at the time it was embarrassing, so for kids like me this would have just made me feel insecure in reading, although this is probably good for normal and above average kids.
Actually, DI was developed specifically for kids like you were. Prior to DI, those kids, like you, struggled to read and were embarrassed daily. DI changed their world. For the first time in their life, they learned easily and well. Because of the daily charting of their progress, presenting only a tiny chunk of new information at a time, using diminishing cues, and frequent feedback and lots of earned praise, they began to enjoy school, and their self-esteem grew by leaps and bounds (not because the teachers told them they were worthy but because the kids were achieving goals and they knew it). Please believe me. I know the comparative data. DI excels--not by a little but by a lot. Kids at risk advance more than 2 years for each year they are in a DI school (as measured by standardized tests). I can see why it looks threatening to you. But, because they are ability grouped and because they advance at their own best pace, they quickly learn to love reading, math, and all the other tool skills. They do not compare themselves with others, only against their own goals. Both kids and teachers help each other. The focus is on helping the individual. Kids drill each other and chart the results (number correct, number incorrect, and time--fluency is important). It's easy for kids to see that they are improving on a daily basis because they graph it themselves. They are not compared to each other, just to their own past behavior. So, kids are focused on continuous improvement--and they delight in the improvement of others as much as in themselves. The lessons are instantly adaptive. If the lesson isn't working (the lesson, NOT the kid), they change the lesson. If the student hasn't learned, the teacher or the materials haven't taught--that's the guiding rule. So, change the teaching until it works for that child. I've seen the results and they are so dramatic that I'm intolerant of schools that reject it before they understand the science underlying it. That's right, teaching is a science, a technology (the application of science, NOT expensive electronic media). Teaching is NOT an art, at least not primarily.
This school is the worst school you could ever send your kids to! I feel sorry for every child sent to that school. Parents, TAKE YOUR CHILD OUT OF THAT SCHOOL AND SEND THEM TO A BETTER SCHOOL THAT ENCOURAGES LEARNING!! YOUR TURNING THEM INTO ROBOTS! The teacher has used classical conditioning on your children! Teachers, you should all be ashamed of your selves! Also Direct Instruction your company needs to learnt hat children are not robots but humans that learn at different paces! Be ashamed!
Check the research. Direct Instruction was designed for students at risk, but it has been conclusively shown to be effective with all groups. And, kids LOVE it because it works and (for many of them) it's the first time they've been successful in school. Nothing motivates like success. Kids learn faster with this methodology, they learn basic skills better, they learn cognitive skills (higher order thinking and problem solving), and they excel in affective behavior (attitudes about school and self-worth). The data is clear. Don't fight to stay ignorant. Learn more about DI before you criticize it, for your child's sake.
And, kids LOVE it you say, based on what statistics?
I teach middle school math using direct instruction. The gains my students made in the direct instruction class vs. the traditional class was huge. In the traditional class many students will sit through the lesson and day dream. They may be asked 1 or 2 questions throughout the lesson, but for the rest of the time they are not focused on the lesson. In the DI class they are all responding consistently and are engaged for the entire lesson. DI is not used for all our students. It is used to catch students up who are at a lower level than they are supposed to be. It has worked great for the students that I have taught.
Tony Moore: Love you comments! For folks who do not know Tony, he knows what he's talking about. If he doesn't know, he doesn't talk.
Archive de 2006! Chez UA-cam, c'est l'équivalent du Déluge!
Clara with all respect you need to do a lot more research on Direct Instruction
that tapping is very disturbing
The tapping is important because, like the baton of an orchestra leader, the tapping enables choral responding. Choral responding is important for a couple of reasons. First, it keeps the kids involved, and actively responding contributes to learning. In traditional classrooms, kids are lucky if they get to respond once an hour--some can go days without responding.
Second, choral responding on cue enables to hear when a child makes a mistake. When the teacher said, "Again," she had heard a mistake. Repeating the response allows the child to self-correct (as happened in the video). Or, repeating allows the teacher to begin isolating who is continuing to make a mistake for the sole purpose of coaching the child. Kids respond well to coaching because the intent is to help, not to embarass.
It doesn't take long for everybody to get use to the tapping.
Thanks for the insight!
I think I would have cried and refused to go to school if teachers pressed me like that. I struggled with reading and at the time it was embarrassing, so for kids like me this would have just made me feel insecure in reading, although this is probably good for normal and above average kids.
Actually, DI was developed specifically for kids like you were. Prior to DI, those kids, like you, struggled to read and were embarrassed daily. DI changed their world.
For the first time in their life, they learned easily and well. Because of the daily charting of their progress, presenting only a tiny chunk of new information at a time, using diminishing cues, and frequent feedback and lots of earned praise, they began to enjoy school, and their self-esteem grew by leaps and bounds (not because the teachers told them they were worthy but because the kids were achieving goals and they knew it).
Please believe me. I know the comparative data. DI excels--not by a little but by a lot. Kids at risk advance more than 2 years for each year they are in a DI school (as measured by standardized tests).
I can see why it looks threatening to you. But, because they are ability grouped and because they advance at their own best pace, they quickly learn to love reading, math, and all the other tool skills. They do not compare themselves with others, only against their own goals.
Both kids and teachers help each other. The focus is on helping the individual. Kids drill each other and chart the results (number correct, number incorrect, and time--fluency is important).
It's easy for kids to see that they are improving on a daily basis because they graph it themselves. They are not compared to each other, just to their own past behavior. So, kids are focused on continuous improvement--and they delight in the improvement of others as much as in themselves.
The lessons are instantly adaptive. If the lesson isn't working (the lesson, NOT the kid), they change the lesson. If the student hasn't learned, the teacher or the materials haven't taught--that's the guiding rule. So, change the teaching until it works for that child.
I've seen the results and they are so dramatic that I'm intolerant of schools that reject it before they understand the science underlying it. That's right, teaching is a science, a technology (the application of science, NOT expensive electronic media). Teaching is NOT an art, at least not primarily.
can we say not letting children think outside the box!
Can we say helping low IQ kids climb out of the hole they were pushed into by midwits like you?
This school is the worst school you could ever send your kids to! I feel sorry for every child sent to that school. Parents, TAKE YOUR CHILD OUT OF THAT SCHOOL AND SEND THEM TO A BETTER SCHOOL THAT ENCOURAGES LEARNING!! YOUR TURNING THEM INTO ROBOTS! The teacher has used classical conditioning on your children! Teachers, you should all be ashamed of your selves! Also Direct Instruction your company needs to learnt hat children are not robots but humans that learn at different paces! Be ashamed!
They are helping low IQ kids climb out of the hole they were pushed into by midwits like you?