The Real Goal of Direct Instruction
In my last article , I shared a Harvard study that led the researchers to two important findings:
1. Students often believe they learn more in lectures and traditional-based instruction compared to active learning experiences.
2. However, this perception is not reality. The students who experienced active learning outperformed traditional learning peers (even though they felt the opposite).
We see that active learning outperforms direction instruction, yet, we know there is still a need for direction instruction.
Whether you are teaching something for the first time, reviewing, or working through a mini-lesson -- direct instruction can be valuable when used correctly. However, when used as a way to simply impart information, it can be boring, dry, and plain ineffective as a instructional strategy.
So, what then is the purpose and real goal of direct instruction?
In our book, Empower, John Spencer and I lay out the case that direction instruction (as a form of consumption) is not all bad. In fact, it can be a really great tool for inspiring and ultimately leading to creativity. Here's what John says about this cycle :
Creativity doesn’t happen in a vacuum. When you look at makers, they are often critical consumers of the same type of work they create. Chefs love great meals. Musicians listen to music. Architects often visit new cities and tour buildings to find inspiration. Filmmakers watch videos. Engineers often study objects within their world. Computer scientists view other people’s lines of code. Writers read tons of books. Artists visit art museums. Fashion designers are constantly looking at other people’s outfits.
In other words, creative types consume what they love.
There’s often this ongoing cycle that starts with critical consuming. This consuming is intentional and mindful. Here, you are asking questions and seeking out new ideas. You’re curating information and geeking out on your craft. This leads to inspiration. You might mash-up multiple ideas or take a different angle or a fresh perspective to a problem. Often, you plan and design. But sometimes you play and experiment. This, in turn, leads to creative work. This could involve solving a problem, planning an event, creating art, building a system, or planning an event.
The Problem With Most Direct Instruction
The issue I saw in my own class was that a lot of the direct instruction was aimed at explaining, and not enough storytelling. It was guided by my need to "cover content" and less about inspiring my students’ curiosity. It was an easy way to go through the curriculum, but it was not effective at engaging my students most of the time.
When I made the switch to Project-Based Learning, Inquiry-Based Learning, and Design Thinking I still used direct instruction, but in different ways.
I love this idea from Real PBL authors , Ross Cooper and Erin Murphy, that Direct Instruction can be useful in three separate ways:
Proactive - in anticipation of a need
Reactive - after students demonstrate a need
Learning Detour - when students take their work in unexpected directions
We were discussing this graphic and the goal/purpose for direct instruction inside the Learning Facilitators Community and two fantastic posts were made with some great insights:
Simply discussing and having conversations around Direct Instruction (and its purpose) may be one of the most powerful types of PD we can do.
Then taking action and identifying how, when, and for what purpose we are using direct instruction leads to thoughtful practice, and ultimately more time for student discussion and creativity.
Would love to hear your thoughts on direct instruction! Join the conversation in our free Learning Facilitators community here!
