A major element of teaching with examples is being clear about what something is and what it isn’t so they learn a “general case” rather than isolated facts. Here are five principles from Direct Instruction:
1. Wording Principle: use the same wording whenever possible.
2. Set Up Principle: During initial teaching of a concept, pair examples with non examples that
differ in a single feature, so only
one interpretation is possible. In later lessons, use additional examples to further expand the range of the concept.
3. The Difference Principle: To illustrate the boundaries of a concept, juxtapose examples with non-examples that are just slightly different except in the one critical feature and indicate that they are different.
4. The Sameness Principle: To show the range of the concept, we should juxtapose examples of the concept that differ from one another as much as possible and yet still illustrate the concept and indicate that they are the same. This sequence is intended to foster generalization.
5. The Testing Principle: Finally, to test if students understand the new concept, we should juxtapose new, untaught examples and nonexamples in a non-predictable order. This helps us rule out that students are just guessing.
Come learn about explicit and direct instruction - and DI - in this YouTube live stream next week. Click the link for when it streams for your time zone!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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 👍
When I watch good math teaching, I see purpose and urgency in the instruction - "not a minute to waste". This on its own is not to everyone's taste, same with the concept of bell-to-bell teaching. These teachers "teach briskly" both for attention and to fit in more practice. 1/
Kids like these teachers. It feels like they are athletes getting their reps in. The briskness makes it so other kids don't have time to disrupt the learning. But above all, they feel successful because they are getting adequate practice and seeing their own rapid growth. 2/
One technique among many is to time the students for speed and accuracy. The teacher gives more problems than can possibly be done in a minute and the students track on a graph how many can complete over several weeks. This allows for goal setting and progress monitoring. 3/