Your question is a good one. Learning to effectively teach Direct Instruction is an evolution--as it is for any other approach or methodology.
When I conduct a training, I share how important it is to stick to the wording of the script --especially the first time you teach a program. I fully and completely understand how hard that is to do. (Note that kids are not ever randomly placed into a level. They are tested--and placed at a starting point where they will immediately feel successful.) Sticking to the script is definitely a leap of faith as some of the things asked of the teacher seem counter intuitive. Yet, everything in the script has a reason for being there...even if the reason is not immediately obvious (and trust me that many times it is not). Keep in mind that these scripts did not come out of thin air. They were extensively field tested with real teachers and real kids. Programs are revised multiple times before they are published. Having said all of that--Here's what is not scripted: the students' mistakes. The teacher needs to learn how to successfully meet the students' needs. Several correction procedures are taught and practiced during training and learning how to use them effectively is part of what makes teachers and kids successful. So yes, sticking to the script is important. But there is room to add some things while still maintaining fidelity. I'll give you a good example. Earlier this year I modeled a Corrective Reading Decoding B2 lesson for a teacher who had only ever taught Reading Mastery 1 and 2 and Language for Learning. She's very good at these other Direct Instruction programs...but CR Decoding B2 was new to her. After the lesson she commented on how I had faithfully stuck to the script, while also addressing the specific student needs that came up within the lesson. Two quick examples of what I added during story reading from this lesson (FYI Story reading is done out loud--everyone takes turns reading a few sentences. After about 100 words have been read with 98% accuracy, the teacher asks comprehension questions--this continues until the story for the lesson is complete) Anyway during story reading, I added a fluency correction for a student that needed help with learning how to phrase better. I also added a comprehension correction, modeling how to go back into the story to find the answer. I did these things seamlessly, they did not compromise the fidelity to the program. And they were not part of the script. We completed the lesson to mastery in the 45 minute period. The teacher I was working with understood what I was doing and why. Coaching is so very important. Amy > Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 11:27:40 -0600 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: [MOSAIC] direct instruction > > In response to Amy's post regarding the "pluses" of direct instruction I > respectfully ask - how do you respond to those who expect "fidelity of > implementation" when you say it's ok for teachers to veer from the > script? That, to me, is the biggest problem with direct instruction and > teacher scripts - that teachers are NOT allowed to use their expertise > and that they have to follow the script no matter what. > Carrie > K-8, Illinois > _______________________________________________ > Mosaic mailing list > [email protected] > To unsubscribe or modify your membership please go to > http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/options/mosaic_literacyworkshop.org. > > Search the MOSAIC archives at http://snipurl.com/MosaicArchive. > _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_howitworks_022009 _______________________________________________ Mosaic mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe or modify your membership please go to http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/options/mosaic_literacyworkshop.org. Search the MOSAIC archives at http://snipurl.com/MosaicArchive.
