SKINNER PARTLY BEHIND DI, BUT HE DIDN'T LIKE CONTENT \doc\web\98\06\skinr.txt Rovarose@aol.com 8/4/98 "Skinner devised his theory of learning in order to facilitate communism. In his book, "Walden Two" he minutely describes how his theory of "operant conditioning" could be utilized in the "social engineering" necessary to form the perfect communist community, which he described in great detail. He was against a knowledge-based curriculum, and believed that innate intelligence would carry the day" "success in subsequent math courses is impossible unless children master addition facts to a fluency level of being able to solve 50-60 addition problems per minute." Date sent: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 17:43:14 EDT Send reply to: core-net@TUCC6.TUCC.Trinity.Edu From: Rovarose@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: direct instruction Originally to: core-net@TUCC6.TUCC.Trinity.Edu In a message dated 98-08-04 10:19:28 EDT, you write: << However, I strongly believe the teaching method, or pedagogy, is very important. >> Keta, I share your ambivalence about "direct instruction". It seems to me the term is used two ways; both to designate the idea that "we should tell the kids explicitly what we want them to know" (which certainly seems like a very good pedagogic method to me), and also to mean ("DI") a specific style of classroom teacher-behavior as developed by Ziggie Englemann and others now at U Oregon. As I understand it, DI demands a very tightly scripted "act" from teachers, as if they are striving for a system that will be "individual proof". I wonder if such a system could become universal, in spite of their success in scientific studies. I also wonder if their success is not due to a few details that they accidentally include, which has nothing to do with pedagogic style. A few months ago I read a fascinating DI article that included the finding that success in subsequent math courses is impossible unless children master addition facts to a fluency level of being able to solve 50-60 addition problems per minute. It makes very good sense! They found that speed is very much a better predictor of future math success than accuracy on testing the kids. (If giving enough time, a kid could get 100% correctly by counting fingers). Such skill is hardly daunting. There are only 36 addition facts that need to become automatic (9x9=81, divide by two because 2+3=3+2, then throw out the "one plusses" as baby stuff). Kids don't need to "drill until blue in the face", but they need a lot of practice in first and second grade. DI provides this. Similarly in reading. As Core-netters know, I believe the great secret in getting all kids to be at grade level by the middle of the first grade is to get them to be able to instantly recognize the 1000 most common single- syllable words in the language. (There about 1200 total, I believe). This will automatically get all children to understand that words must be analyzed as composites of known syllables; otherwise smooth reading is impossible. Perhaps in some way the DI method ensures that kids can do this. They emphasize rapid and accurate group responses to my understanding. I would think they would have to emphasize monosyllabic words to do this. Maybe any old pedagogic method would work in reading if Dr. Hirsch's wisdom were universally understood by teachers. It is summarized in the following paragraph from page 63 of his "Cultural Literacy": "Skill in reading is like skill in chess in many respects. Good reading, like good chess, requires the rapid deployment of schemata that have already been acquired and do not have to be worked out on the spot. Good readers, like good chess players, quickly recognize typical patterns, and, since they can ignore many smallscale features of the text, they have space in short-term memory to take in an overall structure of meaning. They are able to do all of this because, like expert chess players, they have ready access to a large number of relevant schemata. By contrast, unskilled readers lack this large store of relevant schemata and must therefore work out many small-scale meaning relationships while they are reading. These demanding tasks quickly overload their short-term memories, making their performance slow, arduous, and ineffective". I also wonder about the theoretical background of DI, though I admit it wouldn't make any difference if it really works. As I understand it, DI is an outgrowth of the psychologic theories of BF Skinner. Skinner devised his theory of learning in order to facilitate communism. In his book, "Walden Two" he minutely describes how his theory of "operant conditioning" could be utilized in the "social engineering" necessary to form the perfect communist community, which he described in great detail. He was against a knowledge-based curriculum, and believed that innate intelligence would carry the day. Skinner also argued that his research had proved that terms like "mind", which imply the functional integrity of individual people, as opposed to group interaction, have no useful meaning. That is why we now always see the word "cognitive" used when writers actually mean "mental". Good discussion lately, folks! Bob