Direct instruction revisited: A key model for instructional technology

Rooted in behavioral theory, particularly the radical or selectivist behaviorism of B.F. Skinner (1953, 1954, 1966, 1968, 1974), the direct instruction (DI) approach to teaching is now well into its third decade of influencing curriculum, instruction, and research. It is also in its third decade of controversy. Our purpose is to present the DI model with the notion that the designer can and should use the model effectively based on appropriate assessment of the learners, content, context, and task at hand. To accomplish our goal, we begin with a general discussion of the basic DI framework, followed by a summary of the major DI models that have been used in live instructional contexts. We then shift to a review of how DI has been used in technology-based learning environments. Finally, we conclude with a look into the future of DI.     

Examining instructional practices in Core-Plus lessons: implications for professional development

In the research reported in this article, we sought to understand the instructional practices of 26 secondary teachers from one district who use a problems-based mathematics textbook series (Core-Plus). Further, we wanted to examine beliefs that may be associated with their instructional practices. After analyzing data from classroom observations, our findings indicated that the teachers’ instructional practices fell along a wide continuum of lesson implementation. Analysis of interview data suggested that teachers’ beliefs with regard to students’ ability to do mathematics were associated with their level of lesson implementation. Teachers also differed, by level of instructional practices, in their beliefs about appropriateness of the textbook series for all students. Results strongly support the need for professional development for teachers implementing a problems-based, reform mathematics curriculum. Further, findings indicate that the professional development be designed to meet the diverse nature of teacher needs.     

Learning from physics instruction

Forty high school students participated in a study to investigate learning and remembering from physics instruction. At pretest, students received aptitude tests, an alternate form of achievement test (counterbalanced) and a word association (WA) test. Then the 40 students were divided into instruction (N = 28) and control (N = 12) groups. The control group received all subsequent tests but no instruction. The instruction group received physics instruction over five 2-hour sessions. At the end of each session, the WA test was administered; the alternate form of the achievement test was administered at the end of the last session. The instruction and control groups did not differ significantly in achievement at pretest. The instruction group showed a significant gain from pre- to posttest; no such gain was found for the control group. The instruction and control groups did not differ on the number of responses generated on the WA test at pretesting. The number of responses given by students in the instruction group increased significantly from test 1 (pretest) to test 6 (posttest). For the control group, the number of responses increased initially and then leveled out well below the instruction group data. When WA test responses were tallied for “constrained” responses (i.e., tallying only those concepts found in equations defining the stimulus word), the number of constrained responses increased consistently for the instruction group. For the control group, constrained responses showed an initial increase and then leveled out well below instruction group data. Finally, the aptitude, achievement, and WA data were intercorrelated. This analysis suggests that for students who perform well in solving problems at the end of instruction, the physics concepts became meaningful soon after they were introduced. Subsequently, these students were able to consolidate, in memory, the meaning of the concepts and the interrelations among these concepts in the form of equations. Students not able to solve problems at the end of instruction seemed to be completing the process of acquiring the meaning of the concepts.     

浅论多媒体教育技术与教育教学的最优化

教育教学的最优化是我国教育改革的一个重要目标,如何达到、采取什么样的措施来实现教育教学的最优化,是我们教育管理机构和广大教育工作者深入研究和不断探索的重大课题和孜孜追求的重要目标.运用多媒体教育技术是实现教育教学最优化的重要手段之一,如何在教育教学中推行多媒体教育技术,又是我们广大教育工作者不断实践、不断探索的重要课题.     

Learning from instruction: the case of mathematics

Starting from a brief analysis of adaptive competence in mathematics, this article describes a series of research-based characteristics of the kind of learning processes that should be elicited in students to facilitate and support in them the progressive acquisition of such competence. Four major characteristics are discussed in some detail: learning is constructive, self-regulated, situated or contextual, and collaborative. A rather new approach to transfer of learning is then presented in which transfer is conceived as the preparation for future learning. Throughout the article it is argued that, notwithstanding the progress made in research on learning from instruction, numerous and complex issues and problems remain for continued inquiry.     

Components of instruction toward a theoretical tool for instructional design

This article defines primary knowledgecomponents for entities, actions, andprocesses. It also defines primaryinstructional strategy components. It proposesthat a different combination of strategy andknowledge components is required for differentkinds of instructional goals. It furtherproposes that if these fundamentalstrategy-knowledge component combinations arenot present that there will be a decrement inthe student's effective and efficientacquisition of the desired knowledge and skill.It further proposes that the underlyingarchitecture of an instructional strategy is acombination of primary strategy components andprimary knowledge components appropriate for,and consistent with, a given instructionalgoal. Instructional components are a theoreticaltool. They are not a method or developmentprocedure. These instructional strategy andknowledge components can be imbedded in a widevariety of different instructionalarchitectures based on a variety of differentphilosophical orientations. It is hoped thatone of the primary benefits of instructionalcomponents is to provide a common vocabularythat will enable designers, theorists, andinstructional developers to more clearlydescribe their products and procedures.