Posts
During the inference trial, Brinster showed the youngsters both familiar and strange objects (for instance, a ball and a plumber's "T" connector). After saying a nonsense word ("blicket," for instance), she would ask them to either point to or grab hold of the "matching" item. Since a ball is a "ball," the children might conclude that the unfamiliar object — the "T" — was the "blicket".The article, based on a study by undergraduate researcher Meredith Brinster at the Johns Hopkins University Laboratory for Child Development, compares the effects of learning by "inference" compared to "direct instruction". I question whether the use of the term "direct instruction" is appropriate, considering that the term "direct instruction" is commonly used to refer to a specific pedagogy.
In the direct instruction trial, the child was simply shown an unfamiliar item and heard the nonsense word.
A short while later, Brinster would invite the children to play with typical, familiar toys in the Lab's waiting area. During the relaxed play period, she would bring out a "blicket" or a "dax" that the children had seen during the trial, and ask the youngsters a question.
"For instance, I might say, 'I think one of these is called 'blicket,' but I can't remember which one it is. Can you help me? Do you know which one is the 'blicket?'" Brinster said. "This way, I could ascertain how well they learned the word. Once we analyzed all of our data, it was clear that inference worked best."
According to Zig Engelmann, who is the father of "Direct Instruction", instruction must be "logically faultless",
Faultless Communication (Faultless Instruction): A sequence of instruction, frequently involving examples and non-examples in a well-crafted order, which logically leads to an accurate communication of the concept and eliminates the possibility of confusion.
For an example of faultless communication, please see http://psych.athabascau.ca/html/387/OpenModules/Engelmann/theory.shtml
Using the term direct instruction to describe simply giving a positive example as opposed to giving a negative example, overly simplifies the term, especially since true direct instruction would also include logical inference as described in the study.
My concern is that the work could be taken out of context to argue against a curriculum that has proven to be successful at raising the achievement of low SES students.
(I emailed the student mentioned in the study, to see if I could get a copy of the paper, and to express my concerns about terminology.)
Update: It's already started.
5 comments:
Most words are learned incidentally at a fast rate through repeated exposure in different contexts. That's the best way to learn new words and is an effective way to get a handle on the intricacies of polysemy in a painless and natural fashion. Fortunately, this is so. Otherwise it would truly be a nightmare to teach new words. Progress would be as slow as watching grass grow.
To some extent word study can be targeted by teaching selected words with definitions and in context. But it is difficult to convey correct usage and develop a fine sense for polysemy in this more abstract manner. Try it with the word "preclude", for example, and see if you can convey all the nuances and correct usage.
The same applies to teaching foreign languages. The English word "to know", for example, is rendered by two different words in Spanish, French and German among other languages (wissen, kennen, saber, conocer). Try to convey these distinctions in an abstract manner.
On a hilarious note, I was once handed a letter (written in poor English) from a Spanish-speaking country in a business context. The letter writer wanted to set up a dealership and said that they are "unrolling in the camp." This caused utter puzzlement by those reading the letter. I couldn't shake off the image for a long time but was able to decode it. The letter writer was trying to render the Spanish phrase "estamos desarrollando el campo" (we are developing the field) in English.
So I went over there and left a snark. ktm readers, pile on!
It's not comparable. In the first test, the kid has to point to (or grab hold) of the blicket. So we know the kid has to have been paying some attention.
In the second test, the kid is just shown the object and told the word. No feedback from them required.
Brinster therefore can't distinguish between these two explanations of her results:
1. Kids learn more when they need to infer information rather than be told it.
2. Kids learn more if they have to pay attention to a lesson.
Here is an example of how the same phrase can be positive and negative (an example of polysemy):
take advantage of
1. To put to good use; avail oneself of: take advantage of all educational opportunities.
2. To profit selfishly by; exploit: took advantage of the customer.
That's why nuances and proper usage are best learned through multiple exposures in different contexts.
Exactly instructivist
Post a Comment