Education increasingly operates under a compensatory logic: every deficit in civil society becomes schools’ responsibility. Children are not playing enough, so schools must provide play. They are not socializing enough, so schools must provide socialization.
This is one of progressive Ed’s lines of reasoning for their position, but it eats itself. Schools inherit responsibilities once distributed across society. Education expands beyond teaching and learning into emotional, social, nutritional, and therapeutic domains.
This creates a recursive dependency. The more schools absorb non-academic functions, the less other institutions perceive themselves as responsible for cultivating them. What begins as compensation gradually becomes erosion.
Direct Instruction (DI) provides a clear path for evaluating instructional design. Here are 20 rules and recommendations for effective programs:
1. Maintain stable difficulty. Difficulty should rise slowly and predictably so students never hit a sudden cognitive spike.
2. Tasks must allow high response frequency. Aim for roughly 9–20 learner responses per minute to keep attention, cognitive processing, and provide diagnostic data.
3. Lessons should contain multiple short “tracks” to coordinate and interleave knowledge and skills.
4. Roughly 10% of a lesson should be new material. Most of the block should be practice and application of already-taught content.
5. Every lessons should include cumulative review that integrates previously mastered content into current tasks.
I fundamentally believe we’re missing something when we talk about spacing and interleaving without talking about track design. @Kris_Boulton’s Substack is an excellent resource for learning about such blind spots. This is a case of cog sci providing principles without solutions.
What is track or “strand” design? First you have to understand atomization, or decomposition of material into its smallest units. This is aligned with cognitive load theory: kids are easily overloaded when given material that contains too many new elements
To teach an element, you have to teach it over multiple days to 1. harness spacing of that element and 2. Allow for spacing of other past elements. You also can’t violate the principle of 85:15 review. So you can’t design lessons in which only a single objective is mass taught.
The recording of my recent webinar on Direct and Explicit instruction is available on YouTube:
Here are some of my favorite slides!
1. Cognitive load theory suggests that novices are easily overloaded by unguided problem solving youtube.com/live/p-qMhvdy4…
2. Understanding limited WM gives rise to all sorts of techniques that can be used to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of instruction. For example, drawing on a blank canvas allows you to funnel just one item at a time into WM compared to presenting everything at once.
3. Economy of language is also important, as is unambiguous communication. Cutting out unnecessary words and tangents and highlighting essential information is the foundation of explicit teaching.
Students who do not know the material very well are in the acquisition stage of the hierarchy. They are novices, in the sense that they don't have much prior knowledge to draw from. It wouldn't be a good idea to have students work on an unknown problem on these whiteboards... 2/
because the students need models to think with and immediate feedback on errors. If you put kids without much prior knowledge at whiteboards, the students who know the material will take the lead, while the rest copy by rote or become confused and overloaded. 3/
As someone who taught LEGO class for two years, here's what I observed: 1. Kids that have LEGO at home are quickly bored of it at school, and not necessarily better at them 2. Teaching kids to do anything useful with them (make an arch) requires di, not discovery 🧵
3. The kids actually don't like free play with them for that long. They much prefer following the instructions. If your idea of good education is learning to read instruction manuals, then 👍 4. They are not a good way to teach math. Kids need to work problems to learn math.
5. A lot of fighting occurs with 30 kids and LEGO. Kids want to put their hands on other kids' stuff and steal parts. The kids loved when they didn't have to work with anyone. If your idea of a good education is separating students into corners of the room, then 👍