[IAEP] versus, not

[Kathy Pusztavari]

"DI works up to a point for appropriate subject matter. The point at which
it fails to work adequately, regardless of subject matter, is in the
development of the learner's ability to learn without further instruction."

Wow, do you have evidence of that?  I mean, are you saying that Project
Follow Through was a billion dollar scam with tens of thousands of unwitting
students in the research group?

To this day, I fight the myth that Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) creates
robots when used with children with autism.  Teachers look at my son and
actually tell me to my face, wow, he certain doesn't have robot like issues.
This is because in an early behavior program, youngsters with autism often
don't even know how to copy your words or actions.  But you build up from
there.  You move up to identifying things.  Then identifying features and
functions.  Then answering and asking questions. 

Just because everything is broken down in DI (much like my ABA example
above) doesn't mean that they can't be built up into very, very complex
ideas, skills, and knowledge.  With basic skills and knowledge, these kids
now have the tools to generalize.  In fact, if you look at kids with autism,
they are a wonderful test group.  They are often unmotivated to learn.  Not
succeeding really turns them off to learning.  These kids aren't necessarily
mentally retarded, just very unmotivated.  Yet DI seems to work with them.
I'm not the only one who thinks kids with autism are a good canary in the
coal mine, so did BF Skinner when he wrote "Verbal Behavior" - essentially
how to teach communication.  Just because I use kids with autism as examples
doesn't mean this information doesn't transfer to typical kids - it really
does - just at an earlier age.

-Kathy "I don't think so" Pusztavari 

-----Original Message-----
From: Edward Cherlin [mailto:echerlin at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 3:46 PM
To: Albert Cahalan
Cc: solutiongrove at gmail.com; kathy at kathyandcalvin.com; iaep
Subject: Re: [IAEP] versus, not

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 2:31 AM, Albert Cahalan <acahalan at gmail.com> wrote:
> Around here
> it often seems I'm the only person willing to accept that the 
> independently reviewed evidence favors Direct Instruction. It's like 
> some kind of idealistic reality denial is going on.

By no means, Albert. You are the only person insisting that DI works, and
everything else doesn't. It's like some kind of Nominalist reality denial is
going on. ^_^

You argue in precisely the manner of the British ship captain who conducted
the _second_ clinical trial of orange juice against scurvy, after the
successful first trial. He had the juice boiled down "to concentrate the
active ingredient" (thus decomposing all of the Vitamin C/ascorbic acid).
His vigorous use of his tainted study held back adoption of citrus in the
British Navy for years, and killed a significant number of sailors. The fact
that _you_ don't know how to use a method fails to make that method
worthless.

DI works up to a point for appropriate subject matter. The point at which it
fails to work adequately, regardless of subject matter, is in the
development of the learner's ability to learn without further instruction.
--
Silent Thunder (??/???????????????/????????????? ?) is my name And Children
are my nation.
The Cosmos is my dwelling place, The Truth my destination.
http://earthtreasury.org/worknet (Edward Mokurai Cherlin)