Y’all we are here to discuss math instruction again. The focus of this post is on some recent discussions on the following jargon
explicit instruction
“I do, we do, you do”
direct instruction
Direct Instruction (yes, the capitalization is important)
Rhetorical Questions to Ponder
Has anyone ever corrected you on how to pronounce their name?
Have you ever pulled up directions on your phone?
Have you ever communicated with a tax professional on how to submit taxes? Or used a tax software (e.g., TurboTax)?
Have you ever looked up a video on the "world wide web” to figure out how to do something? For example, I had to look up how to fix a dryer belt previously. And I had to look up how property taxes worked on buying a new car in Oklahoma.
Have you ever looked up how to pronounce a word you’ve read but have never said aloud? Or looked up a name of a student in your class so you say it correctly the first day rather than guessing?
I hope these questions point a pretty clear picture. We ALL look for step by step guidance everyday. This new knowledge might be a quick learning of a declarative fact (e.g., how do a pronounce their name?) - or in other cases allow us to deeper our knowledge on a much more complex schematic structure of related knowledge (e.g., filing taxes). Yet, in no way has the quick information gleaned through a video model, “dehumanized,” “stifled creativity,” or “led to compliance training.” These quick bits of information build a rich knowledge based - and if done well - build a more rich schema of organized knowledge to then USE for creative activities, new developments, x, y, and z.
One more QUICK STRONG OPINION I want to Bring to the Top
I strongly appose the use of I do, We do, You do as a way to explain instruction. I see many people use it perhaps to simplify the explanation of explicit instruction. It reminds me of the meme below.
It is an inadequate explanation for what actually would occur during a solid instructional lesson using explicit instruction. I do not want to get too far off task at the beginning of this post - but here are two quick examples of why this “simple” explanation does not align with many definitions of explicit instruction.
“Most” explanations of explicit instruction suggest priming prior knowledge at the beginning of a lesson. For example, using retrieval practice (which come in a variety of flavors of activities) would occur at the beginning of the lesson so students practice retrieving prior knowledge. This retrieval will build the durability of knowledge, but also help build a stronger connection of how the day’s new knowledge will integrate with this old knowledge. If this is our working definition of explicit instruction, then it does not start with, “I do”.
Explicit instruction never states peer-to-peer learning is forbidden. In actuality, explicit instruction highlights the importance of student opportunities to respond. Peer to peer opportunities to respond (through turn and talk, write and share, etc) are beneficial if the expectations are modeled and students actively engage in the directed prompt.
The Bird App
I have a difficult relationship with the bird app. On the positive side I have made many connections with amazing people and learned so much through people sharing content through the app. On the negative side, I occasionally express a more negative side of myself by getting into arguments over math stuff on the app. But it is a vehicle for sharing information to a wider audience and that is where I found the following information for our discussion.
Artifact #1
The first artifact aims to identify what is wrong with using the “gradual release of responsibility” (the author then inaccurately stated this is I do , We do, You do - more on this later) to teach math (see here).
It does not allow for rich problem-solving experiences
It does not allow for students to showcase their way of thinking
It limits creativity
It limits diverse problem-solving experiences
It assumes that the teacher knows best
Artifact #2
In response to this post someone posted the following slide. I had previously seen this shared in the bird app a couple or many (?) months ago, but I cannot remember what conference it was shared from. The "hashtag” on this slide is from OAME2023 which has not happened yet (see here).
Compliance: I do, we do, you do.
Competition: Individual > Collective
Fear: Performance > Learning
Power: Emphasis on answer getting and speed.
Working Definitions for Terms
In my experience, along with some other anecdotes from friends, and from published articles (see here from one example of many stating, “teacher-led” and “procedures”) there is a discrepancy in definitions that make discussion difficult.
Explicit Instruction
In one description of explicit instruction, Archer & Hughes (2011) provide:
16 core elements that comprise explicit instruction
6 teaching functions that comprise an explicit instruction lesson plan
6 principles that underpin the philosophy behind explicit instruction
8 ways to maximize instructional time
You can read the entire first chapter for free here (what, wow, cool)!
In another article, Hughes et al. (2017) identified 68 articles that provided a description or definition for explicit instruction between the years 2000 and 2016. They identified 75% of articles described the following components as being integral to explicit instruction
Segment complex skills
Draw students attention to important features of the content through modeling or think alouds
Promote successful engagement by using systematically faded supports/prompts
Provide opportunities for students to respond and receive feedback
Create purposeful practice opportunities
The authors identified additional elements identified in 50% to 74% of articles:
Content components
select critical content
sequence skills logically
verify students have the necessary prerequisite knowledge
Design components
provide clear statements of goals and expectations
present examples and non-examples
Delivery components
maintain a brisk pace
present information to help students organize knowledge
direct instruction (small d, small i)
Yes, specifying the letters as lower case is important here - it is not me just being annoying. Rosenshine identified 10 principles that appear to relate to student learning. I will not list them out because the link above will route you to an open source article that describes each principle. The key here is to identify that di and explicit instruction are similar - BUT not identical so the terms are not interchangeable.
Direct Instruction (capital D, capital I)
Yes, once again specifying the capitalization of the letters is important here. Some refer to this as “Big D, Big I”. DI refers to the philosophy of instruction pioneered by Siegfried Engelmann and Wesley Becker. In fact, if you want to read all about the philosophy underlying DI you can read it here for FREE here (Carnine & Engelmann, 2016). Here is a recent meta-analysis of research investigating the effectiveness of DI programs. There were 70 studies that measured math outcomes and the mean effect size estimate was large.
Explicit vs. di vs. DI
Rather than me writing this out - listen to people way smart than me, Drs. Jenny Root & Sarah Cox here.
Dr. Root references how Dr. Diane Browder uses the metaphor that di is like a list of ingredients you can mix together to make a recipe from scratch, whereas DI is “takeout” - it is already assembled for you.
Comments on Artifact #1
Claim #1: It does not allow for rich problem-solving experiences
I have yet to see a definition of explicit instruction, direct instruction, or Direct Instruction that states students should not have access to “rich problem-solving experiences.” Perhaps in many of these models of instruction, the teacher would ensure students have mastered the declarative facts needed to access the “rich problem-solving experience,” before presenting it.
Claim #2: It does not allow for students to showcase their way of thinking
I have observed plenty of explicit instruction lessons that go something like this, “Can you solve it this way? Can you solve it another way?” This inherently is allowing students to think about another related way to address the problem through their own thinking. This allows for a rich discussion to take place on which way might be (a) more efficient, (b) less likely to make errors, and (c) how the two ways relate.
Claim #3: It limits creativity
Creativity is fostered by having a host of declarative, procedural, and conceptual facts automatized. If these things are automatized it allows a learner to make connections and “do things” that we might categorize as creative.
Claim #4: It limits diverse problem-solving experiences
I am unsure how this is different than Claim #1?
Claim #5: It assumes that the teacher knows best
The teacher should know more math than the children they are teaching - so yes that should be accurate. I am not sure that was the intended meaning of this claim though. I’m going to make an assumption (yes I know what happens here) that the post was meaning a teacher will disregard any student thoughts, questions, alternative ideas in math because “they know best.” I have not seen it written in descriptions of di, DI, or explicit instruction that students are blank slates with nothing to share of importance. IN FACT, the image with a quote below is from Dr. Anita Archer who has written a lot on explicit instruction
Hence, the interactive communication that takes place between the teacher and student is integral for learning to occur.
Thank you; very clear explanation of what is involved in explicit instruction and debunking of some of the claims made against it. Some of the artifacts you present surfaced in a recent review of our book Traditional Math, in which the reviewer states "Their dogged devotion to the “I do, We do, You do” lesson-planning strategy certainly provides a clear classroom structure for teachers to imitate, but it severely limits the creativity of the teacher and it forces form to drive content."