When I wrote about your comment regarding 'access points' I hope
you know I wasn't being critical of you. I just figured you knew
how I felt about all this stuff of reinventing the wheel as we've
talked about it many times. It is definitely the SITUATION!
Besides, I know all too well that you do know about, use, and
teach, the whole idea of task analysis and diagnosis and
prescription....which I LOVE. I know that some are getting these
ideas whether or not they are ever implemented!

On 1/03/09, Jan wrote:
> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>

Share This Post | Report This Post

Next Post >>

Posts on this thread, including this one