Judy, I certainly was not offended! You know how much I learn
from you...and how much you cause me to think and challenge my
own assumptions. I'm sorry if my post sounded as though I was
offended; I WAS tired last night....maybe that shone through.

I must say....and you know this already....that when someone
goes to a workshop or whatever and comes back with this new hot
idea that everyone is now trying....and it is an idea that
Madeline taught us 30 years ago....I find it discouraging.
When Brad mentioned the 'new' idea of access points as
differentiation, it triggered my automatic response:
AAARRRRGGGGHHHHH! Madeline's diagnostic and prescriptive
process is exactly that. We are still looking for ways to
differentiate and we're now coming up with Hunter's diagnostic
and prescriptive process??!! Yikes. Are we moving forward or
sliding backwards? I don't even want to ponder that response!

I did want to respond to one question in your other post.....the
question I always ask:

If we knew that one thing always worked, wouldn't we all be
using it?"

This IS the million dollar question because we do know what
works and, for many political reasons, we don't. I'm sure
we've talked about Project Follow-Through before,but it is the
best funded, best researched study in education. It compared
24 different models of teaching and the ONLY one that should a
major impact on student learning is direct instruction. Only
now are we seeing some recognition of that research by the
government because all mandated programs are direct
instruction. But, it has never been accepted by the education
community. So, when Schmoker says we know what works, but we
choose not to do it, he is referring to, among other things,
Project Follow-Through.

I am not necessarily advocating direct instruction for
everything because I do like and use the inductive models for
SOME things. But, even when using those models, there are
certain aspects of direct instruction as well as all the
principles of effective instruction, that are always used.
Examples would be teaching for transfer, teaching for long
retention, strategies of motivation, teaching to the objective
and on and on. BUT, the fact is that direct instruction has
been proven to be the thing that works.....and we are not all
using it. Don't ask me why...I can't imagine the answer. But,
it is discouraging!

The other thing I want to respond to....and I am pondering this
one daily....is the idea that teachers must make every strategy
their own. I see much that is good in that, and I certainly
practiced that when I was in the classroom. But Bruce Joyce,
Barak Rosenshine, and Jere Brophy all strongly believe that
should not be happening. Barak R., for example, is adamant
about this because he says when we take a well-researched
method which has a high effect size, and the teacher changes
it, then we will not get the results that we should be getting.
Then, when we don't get the stated results, we say the program
is unsuccessful. Bruce doesn't feel as strongly about this as
Barak does. Barak won't give an inch on this one. I see the
point of his argument....and I cannot disagree with it. When we
get a model of teaching, like direct instruction, that has been
proven to have a huge impact on students, and then the teacher
makes it her own, that same impact will not happen. That makes
absolute sense to me. Of course, this is the government
rationale for mandating certain programs, and I do see fault
with that. BUT, the basic idea of so many, that we cannot
change models of teaching that have proven results is also
true. How we resolve this, I don't know. Well, I think I do
know, but it's never been proven. It's the government mandate of
a PROGRAM that is bad. What the government should mandate is
that every teacher become an expert in various models of
teaching. That way the model could be implemented but the
teacher would know how to best apply that to the content he/she
is teaching. There is no research on this, but 10 years of my
own anecdotal records, show this to be the answer. Those
teachers who have had expert training in several models of
teaching, and can then make decisions about which is the best to
use in each situation, are having far better results than those
who do not have this training. And, just from an observer's
viewpoint, when I see these teachers teach, it is like watching
a symphony orchestra. Everything comes together; it is amazing.
But, staff development money is in short supply and I do not
ever see the day when teachers will be given such training.

On 1/03/09, judy3ca wrote:
> I sincerely apologize to both of you for my thinking aloud.
> I was trying to improve my instruction and was looking for
> help by considering possibilities.
>
> Jan, I wasn't questioning YOU, I was asking for elaboration.
> You shared Mike Schmoker's belief: "we know what works; we
> just don't DO it." I assumed from that (I know, I know, I
> should never assume) that you meant you knew what works. I
> fully agree with you that a lot of things work and, like
> Elaine said, it depends on the time and place and especially
> on the particular group of students we are working with. I
> really did not intend to offend you--in fact, I consider you
> my mentor and was looking for your advice.
>
> Sorry,
> Judy
>
>
>
>
> On 1/03/09, Jan wrote:
>> I have NEVER said there was one right way. I've used
>> direct instruction,
>> concept formation, concept attainment, synectics and a
>> few others. However there ARE researched based
>> PRINCIPLES which underlie all models of instruction and
>> generalize to everything we do in the classroom. Using
>> those appropriately is what I'm talking about.
>>
>>
>>

Project Follow-Through

Share This Post | Report This Post

Next Post >>

Posts on this thread, including this one