Three things I learned from ‘Theory of Instruction’
“Structured pedagogy” was recently named one of the biggest drivers of learning in low and middle income countries, according to David Evans and Fei Yuan.
What is structured pedagogy, exactly?
According to Evans and Yuan it means “providing detailed lesson guides and training to teachers.” But this is so imprecisely defined that a well-meaning practitioner might not know where to start. You can find thousands of books on the science of learning, some of which tie into more structured methods and others tie into more exploratory methods. It’s difficult to parse through all of that in order to determine — what combination of structures and details most efficiently improves student performance?
Back in the 1970s, in the largest educational experiment ever in the U.S., something called “Direct Instruction” achieved massive student performance gains relative to several other pedagogical interventions. It’s five philosophical principles seem straightforward enough, and seem to be structured. But what does it mean to create a lesson guide that adheres to the Direct Instruction approach?
Because Direct Instruction is probably the most empirically-validated type of “Structured Pedagogy,” I decided to read Theory of Instruction by Doug Carnine and Zig Engelmann to figure out what makes Direct Instruction lessons distinct. It’s a dense and technical book — a tough but rewarding read.
Here’s part of what I learned…
Imagine you need to teach second graders what a fish is. How do you do that?
Many teachers would provide students with a definition and show a picture. I used to think this was a reasonable approach, until I read this startling statement…
“Fact: It is impossible to teach a concept through the presentation of one example.”
Theory of Instruction goes on to explain that — if you want to teach kids what a fish is, you have to show many examples so that it is perfectly clear what the essential features of a fish are: they have gills, fins and live in water.
You also need to show them which features are irrelevant in identifying a fish. Fish come in a wide range of colours, shapes and sizes — none of which are relevant for determining whether or not it is a fish. If you only show them several small fish, and later show them a big fish — they might think that the big fish isn’t a fish because it’s not small.
You also need to show students non-fish, so they can see exactly what the boundaries of the concept look like. If you only show them fish, what will they think when they see a dolphin or a crab? You have to show a range of positive and negative examples to effectively show the boundaries of the concept.
The reason I found this single fact — it’s impossible to teach a concept through the presentation of one example — so astonishing is because as I reflected on the thousands of lessons I’ve seen over the years, I realised that there had been this flaw — this now obvious, glaring flaw — right under my nose, that I had been missing for all this time.
It’s such a simple fact and yet — in classrooms all over the world, there are thousands if not millions upon millions of lessons that fall short — and as a result students are failing to learn.
Theory of Instruction is built around the logical notion that if a teacher’s presentation of something is consistent with a single interpretation, the learner will learn.
And in order to efficiently generate that single interpretation — you have to use precisely selected examples and words. In order to do so, you need guidelines far more specific than “one example is not enough.” This is where Carnine and Engelmann’s five juxtaposition principles come in.
Let’s take a look at how one of these juxtaposition principles would help us select various examples of fish more effectively.
If I want to show that a dolphin is different from a fish, I could easily display a very small minnow alongside a large dolphin. But this is not sufficient because students could easily draw the conclusion that a fish is small and a dolphin is large.
According to the difference principle, to show differences between examples, juxtapose examples that are minimally different.
Instead of showing a minnow and a dolphin, I should find a fish that is minimally different from a dolphin — a fish of similar size, shape and colour. I should explicitly draw students’ attention to the core feature that actually make them different — using gills vs. lungs to breath.
Teacher talk — more specifically, too much of it — is another area where many lessons go awry. One of the five juxtaposition principles addresses how to select the words we use to accompany the examples.
You can imagine a teacher pointing to a set of six images in a textbook while saying something like…
This is a fish.
Here is another fish.
Look at Picture 3. That is a different, larger fish.
This is a dolphin. It is not a type of fish.
This is a crab. A crab is not a kind of fish.
This is a fish.
According to the wording principle, to present the examples as clearly as possible, you should use the same wording on juxtaposed examples (or wording that is as similar as possible.)
On the first day of presenting a set of examples designed to teach ‘fish,’ a more efficient teacher presentation might sound something like,
This is a fish.
This is a fish.
This is a fish.
This is NOT a fish.
This is NOT a fish.
This is a fish.
If you don’t select your examples and words precisely — can students still learn what a fish is?
Of course!
But we are in the midst of a global learning crisis where time is of the essence. And thus—crafting lessons that will yield the most effective and efficient learning gains—is of the utmost importance. I found it encouraging that much of what I read in Carnine and Engelmann’s book has real, practical application in the contexts that need it most.
If structured pedagogy shows the most promise among low and middle-income country education interventions, instructional designers would be wise to study Direct Instruction.
Theory of Instruction is a good place to start.
By Sara Merlo, Manager of Learning Innovation at Bridge International Academies.
