2 Comments
author

Generally 80 % explicit and 20% other methods. This was discussed in an article by Anna Stokke as a rule of thumb: https://www.cdhowe.org/sites/default/files/attachments/research_papers/mixed/commentary_427.pdf

Expand full comment

Thank you for answering my question the other day and for the link to an earlier article on making a fetish of understanding, which I enjoyed reading. If direct or explicit instruction should be the primary modality for introducing concepts, over the course of the year, what percentage of time would ideally be dedicated to direct instruction? For the sake of argument, let's assume it's an Algebra I course. If we had to allocate time between direct instruction, individual in-class practice, collaborative work, non-graded (formative) assessments, graded (summative) assessments, other group work, thinking routines, metacognitive or self-reflection exercises, etc., what would the distribution of time look like? Would it be direct instruction all the time? In other words, in a traditional math classroom is there any place for other methods even if the dominant teaching modality is direct instruction? (FYI, I don't treat "direct instruction" and "lecturing" as synonymous but rather am using "direct instruction" to mean that the teacher demonstrates the concepts and procedures for students rather than a constructivist approach that starts by asking students to figure it out on their own).

Expand full comment