tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29868932.post5062258771875623379..comments2024-02-14T22:50:48.749+10:30Comments on Bill Kerr: the AEU and ACER evaluations of Direct Instruction Bill Kerrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00206808014093631762noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29868932.post-84314995316145949682014-07-08T23:10:37.393+09:302014-07-08T23:10:37.393+09:30The scripted delivery can be altered once a teache...The scripted delivery can be altered once a teacher is aware of what the script is trying to achieve by being worded a certain way.<br /><br />Plus, John Hattie's review of research is quite pertinent.<br /><br />See http://www.pinnacle.org.au/direct-instruction-facts-myths/ <br /><br />Cheers<br />ShaunShaun Killianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14179579096106781321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29868932.post-86512020294454197442013-12-03T10:12:14.155+10:302013-12-03T10:12:14.155+10:30Mike Williss wrote above:
"The US study Proj...Mike Williss wrote above:<br /><br />"The US study Project Follow Through cannot be cited uncritically. It is a contested study. Please read Richard Allington’s article here: <a href="http://www.educationnews.org/articles/what-do-we-know-about-the-effects-of-direct-instruction-on-student-reading-achievement-.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.educationnews.org/articles/what-do-we-know-about-the-effects-of-direct-instruction-on-student-reading-achievement-.html</a>"<br /><br />That article by Richard Allington is comprehensively replied to by Zig Engelmann here: <a href="http://www.educationnews.org/articles/allington-leveled-serious-allegations-against-direct-instruction.html" rel="nofollow"> Allington leveled serious allegations against Direct Instruction</a>Bill Kerrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00206808014093631762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29868932.post-59817511433597469732013-11-21T18:47:48.566+10:302013-11-21T18:47:48.566+10:30hi Mike,
para : "the Business Model prepared...hi Mike,<br /><br />para : "the Business Model prepared for the CYAAA"<br /><br />You still haven't provided a proper reference to this source. From clues now provided I can now see why it would be embarrassing for you to do that given the way you used it in your article. <br /><br />The correct Allan Luke reference is <a href="http://eprints.qut.edu.au/63824/" rel="nofollow">On explicit and direct instruction </a>. Important reference.<br /><br />I haven't read the John McCollow article. I agree with your general point here that anecodotal evidence is not enough, as clearly stated in my original article.<br /><br />I'm already familiar with Richard Allington's work and that new reference is useful. Everything about DI is contested, that is a focus of my research.(<a href="http://learningevolves.wikispaces.com/DI_indigenous_memes" rel="nofollow">DI_indigenous_memes</a>)<br /><br />Your "at its worst" argument and subsequent elaboration is not internally coherent with respect to any meaningful purpose of, or, the flow of the argument in your original article. Either Noel Pearson has good or bad ideas for helping disadvantaged remote indigenous students. Your article argued they were bad. My position is that they are probably good but also need further critical study and refinement.Bill Kerrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00206808014093631762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29868932.post-13487272546722895162013-11-21T15:49:34.070+10:302013-11-21T15:49:34.070+10:30Bill, Sorry, but that was the link at the bottom o...Bill, Sorry, but that was the link at the bottom of an article in the Australian Educator. However, it goes to a different study. The article I'd like you to look at is here:<br />http://eprints.qut.au/68324/1/explicit.pdf<br /><br />MikeMikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29868932.post-85965768221807607692013-11-21T15:42:22.690+10:302013-11-21T15:42:22.690+10:30Bill, I forgot to add this article by Allan Luke: ...Bill, I forgot to add this article by Allan Luke: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/59535 .<br /><br />Mike Mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29868932.post-18473019751524124212013-11-21T15:21:31.164+10:302013-11-21T15:21:31.164+10:30G’day Bill,
I still do check your blog occasional...G’day Bill,<br /><br />I still do check your blog occasionally and wasn’t surprised to see you had taken issue with my DI article.<br /><br />Of course, it wasn’t balanced. I said “At its worst…” but not “At its best…”.<br /><br />I didn’t point out that a teacher needs to play the piano with all ten fingers, and that a form of direct instruction is employed by most of us as part of that multifaceted approach without it being formally presented as DI.<br /><br />What I objected to was the scripted and controlled curriculum delivery that is seen “at its worst” in material like this: http://aaronkincaidportfolio.weebly.com/direct-instruction-social-studies-lesson.html . You will notice the wonderful advice given to meet the individual learning needs of students with disabilities!<br /><br />The quote that I didn’t source was from the Business Model prepared for the CYAAA. That referred to 2009 NAPLAN results. I know claims have been made for improvements through DI since then, but there is no hard data. If you look at the ACER Report (p. 26), you will see that the number of NAPLAN tested areas which had more than 20% missing data doubled between 2009 and 2012 and that the lack of data made comparisons between CYAAA schools and others impossible. In the absence of data (Hattie) I would say that the case for improvements on NAPLAN since the 2009 statement made by the Business Plan does not exist, and that the Business Plan statement still stands.<br /><br />Have you read John McCollow’s article in the Australian Journal of Indigenous Education on the CYAAA? I have my own hard copy, but I suspect it can only be accessed by payment, eg here: http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=099092697165983;res=IELIND <br /><br />John’s article is much more balanced, and I won’t put that in inverted commas. I’d recommend it. You will find some observations to support your view of DI, but they are not data – they are qualitative reflections of the type that you and Langer ridiculed when Hill wrote about the overthrow of the “Gang of Four” (“Marxism by the seat of his pants”, wasn’t it?). I repeat my point though, that the missing NAPLAN data does not help the advocacy of DI and indicates continuing problems with attendance and engagement.<br /><br />The US study Project Follow Through cannot be cited uncritically. It is a contested study. Please read Richard Allington’s article here: http://www.educationnews.org/articles/what-do-we-know-about-the-effects-of-direct-instruction-on-student-reading-achievement-.html <br /><br />Lastly, while I know we haven’t spoken for a while and that you repudiate the – what is it? – “stereotypically ‘left’ position” that you once so fervently embraced and that I fondly remember you for, your sarcastic reference to “this socially critical research officer” and your implication that I am not “genuinely interested in helping the most disadvantaged students in Australia” is a bit low.<br /><br />Regards<br />MikeMikenoreply@blogger.com