Theory vs. Practice

 

It’s one thing to study learning theory but it’s another to put it into practice on real students. As an educator in training, I will discuss the direct instruction theory which I studied and attempted to apply during my fieldwork experience. The truth is theory always seems to make sense until we apply it in real-world situations. As an educator in training, I spent a considerable amount of time learning about the direct instruction theory. Although before my eye-opening application of this concept, I had my own perception of what it was and how to use it.

For me, direct instruction was always delivered through a lecture where I could inject humor and thought-provoking questions into the lesson. In my professional career as a historian, I like to establish a dialogue with my audience as I teach. Engaging them in a conversation causes them to be active learners. Let’s be brutally honest with ourselves, lecture can become boring, dry and dull very quickly without any creative measures added to it. In theory, direct instruction is meant to be a teacher-controlled strategy where the students function like sponges. But, does a sponge think? No! In my professional opinion, active learning takes place when students are engaged in active thought with the instructor. Teaching students how to be perceptive and deep thinkers is one of the most important things an educator can accomplish. For me, the only way to accomplish this with direct instruction is to betray the nature of the theory by teaching students to form concepts and definitions in their own words rather than spoon feeding one that has been pre-packaged for obedient robot-like thought.

The theory of direct instruction calls for repetition and automation which means the students should be able to repeat content they have been taught. However, this does not mean at all that they will truly learn the nature of the content taught. In our teaching of literacy, word callers do not understand what they have read. The same can be said for students who are taught to simply echo what they are taught in class. From here, it is reasonable to conclude that students who recite and echo content have not truly learned anything. If we take a look at Bloom’s taxonomy of higher-order thought, we will notice that memorization is located at the bottom of the pyramid. That is because it represents the lowest level of thought and does not give the student the understanding to interpret, demonstrate or create something original. Creativity is represented at the top of Bloom’s pyramid because it is the highest level of thought and understanding. In my professional opinion, creativity is the best demonstration that learning has occurred. The logic is simple. If a student understands content deeply enough, they will be able to apply it and create by drawing from their knowledge. For example, if a student can take a spoon-fed definition of a concept and interpret it in their own words, that student has learned.

If we take things one step further and recognize that in our diversifying classrooms, pre-packaged one size fits all concepts and definitions simply will not do the job. The truth is that times have changed and educators must validate all perspectives. This is very important when teaching Social Studies since there are multiple perspective about the same event or time period. For example, an American Indian student will not feel validated by the European lie, that is, the story of the first Thanksgiving. The bottom line is that we must encourage thought instead of the recitation of words or the memorization of manufactured concepts for a standardized exam. Automation, in my professional opinion, is not learning. If we return to my example from my professional lectures, I can safely assert that engaging the audience in thought as I feed them information is a better way of delivering direct instruction. As I deliver the information, I give them the tools to answer my thoughtful questions. In addition, since the audience is aware that I will call on them to respond to prompts, they pay attention. As a result, all my students have walked away from my classes and lectures having truly learned something.

Before I began my graduate education to be trained as an educator, I had no formal training. But I did have experience. I taught an 8-week class at Vassar College that I designed from scratch. I delivered my content through lecture, slides and prompts. I discovered that engaging my students in active thought resulted in learning. I felt surprised to learn the true theory of direct instruction and now after comparing my previous execution with the theory I have learned I believe that my own method is more effective. For most students, the situation would be reversed but for me, teaching has always been my dream and always is a long time to create a vision for the best ways to create the best learners. To conclude, I disagree with the existing theory of direct instruction but as a graduate student, I will humbly seek to learn more about why it is what it is. I believe that learning more will assist my efforts to re-invent how direct instruction is implemented in my classroom and my career.