[IAEP] versus, not

[Kathy Pusztavari]

Bill, there is a difference between direct instruction and Direct
Instruction.  The latter (big D big I) is usually based on SRA's products
and outlined in the Direct Instruction Rubric.  Direct instruction (little d
little i) is usually a general set of guidelines teachers use to directly
instruction - to be a sage on the stage, to teach directly, to teach first
then...
 
I am only frustrated by SRA themselves.  The products are great and would be
extremely useful in teaching but they have a copyright stranglehold.  If
only I was an attorney and knew how to legally get around that....  Or if I
could find the millions (billions?) to buy it for public domain use.  I'm
telling you, people would have a fountain of curriculum they could use,
morph, etc.
 
 
-Kathy

  _____  

From: iaep-bounces at lists.sugarlabs.org
[mailto:iaep-bounces at lists.sugarlabs.org] On Behalf Of Bill Kerr
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 9:47 PM
To: Kathy Pusztavari
Cc: iaep
Subject: Re: [IAEP] versus, not


Kathy,

I haven't read the books you cite but I do as a teacher frequently use
direct instruction.  That was strongly implied in my initial post.
Nevertheless, I'm sure I could do it better. When I read your response my
first thought was that you had not read my post carefully.

btw this discussion does mirror an earlier one b/w Patrick Suppes and
Seymour Papert - well covered in Papert's 'The Childrens Machine' and
Cynthia Solomon's 'Computer Environments for Children' 

Both Suppes and Papert argued that computers could improve education but in
different ways. Cynthia Solomon found that there was a greater need for
direct instruction approaches in disadvantaged areas. But that did not make
her a DI only advocate. My own experience in teaching in disadvantaged
schools for the past dozen years is consistent with that.


On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Kathy Pusztavari <kathy at kathyandcalvin.com>
wrote:


"eg. I would see direct instruction as a must for autistic children but
don't see that it follows as a general model for all education "
 
The problem is that at least 20% of our kids in the US qualify as either
special ed or learning disabled in some form.  So you would be leaving out
about 20% of the population (especially when teaching reading and math).
 
Math can be improved greatly through Direct Instruction.  If you have not
taught Connecting Math Concepts and other non-DI curriculum, I would like to
know why you would say such a thing.  DI would make most, if not all kids
LIKE math at the early levels (Kindergarten - 8th grade).  It makes them
succeed because it is mastery based.  If you want to see brilliant
curriculum development, you should look at SRA DISTAR I & II, Connecting
Math Concepts (A-F) and Essentials for Algebra.  
 
-Kathy

  _____  

From: iaep-bounces at lists.sugarlabs.org
[mailto:iaep-bounces at lists.sugarlabs.org] On Behalf Of Bill Kerr
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 5:21 PM
To: Walter Bender
Cc: iaep; Sugar-dev Devel; community-news at lists.sugarlabs.org
Subject: [IAEP] versus, not


On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 7:43 AM, Walter Bender <walter.bender at gmail.com>
wrote:


===Sugar Digest===

I encourage you to join two threads on the Education List this week:
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2009-April/005382.html, which
has boiled down to an instruction vs construction debate; and
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2009-April/005342.html, which
has boiled down to a debate of catering to local culture vs the
Enlightenment. I encourage you to join these discussions.


Agree that these are important discussions 

Need to be careful about the use of the versus depiction of these
discussions IMO, this tempting shorthand can create the wrong impression

eg. I would see direct instruction as a must for autistic children but don't
see that it follows as a general model for all education (special needs are
special) or that we should even think it is possible to have a correct
general model. I don't think there is one and good teachers swap between
multiple models all the time.

no one on this list has argued overtly against  "the enlightenment" or that
local culture ought not to be taken into account, eg. Ties said "think
practical", the response was of the nature that our context demands we do <a
certain course of action>

however, I do think the roll back of enlightenment principles is not well
understood (http://learningevolves.wikispaces.com/nonUniversals) and that a
better understanding might persuade more people of the need to keep
searching and struggling for different ways to go against some of  the tide
of local culture - there is a recent interesting comment thread on mark
guzdial's blog which is worth reading from this point of view
http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK3F4TMBURELZZK 




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/attachments/20090505/9ea5cbc6/attachment-0001.htm