Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 7:16 pm Post subject: Direct Teaching vs. Indirect Teaching
As we learned on previous lesson that there are two dominant styles of teaching. These are Direct Teaching and Indirect Teaching... We also learned that Direct Teaching favors Behaviorism on the other hand Indirect Teaching favors Constructivism. According to your past experiences (like pred351 or etc) which teaching style would you choose if you were a teacher right now? and Should we use them interchangeably from time to time? Dont forget to consider available time, materials to cover and high order thinking skills...
Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 7:54 pm Post subject: Educational approaches (comprehension)
I think approach of a teacher should change in terms of behaviourism, cognitivism, and constructivism according to mostly content. These terms also include wide meaning and they can be described in different ways in any situation.
From my past experiences in Pred 351, I favor behaviouristic approach when I explain the use of materials in that experiment, or the educational program of driving licance need to experiences in driving. So this education program needs behaviouristic approach. Education is a wide area and, especially developing in body disciplines for example; education in sports, dance education, musical education, generally behaviouristic approach can be loomed large at some parts. In math education I can also turn to this approach in some situations for example, teaching a specific solution method (for example "sandwich method").
I think, each approach can be needed for all contents and a teacher should use them interchangeable.
Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 8:16 pm Post subject: Direct and Indirect Teaching (comprehension)
I think we can use direct and indirect teaching interchangeably as we discussed during the lecture. If the time is less, direct teaching is more useful. Because indirect teaching takes more time but it is more effective according to me. We discussed and experienced both of them last semester and I found out that “constructivism” that I see indirect teaching make students find out themselves so understand better. For instance, you want to go somewhere. In first case someone take you there and in second case you search the map and go there yourself with little help. In first case the probability of forgetting the way is higher I think. Because according to me, the most you participate in learning, the best you understand. However, if the time is limited, we should mix both of them and lecture all topics instead of use indirect style and mention some of topics.
Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 9:42 am Post subject: direct and indirect teaching
Teachers can use both direct and indirect teaching interchangeably of course. It doesn't depends on only choice's of instructor. There are also some other conditions that determine the type of instruction. These factors may be time limitation, students' characteristics, the amount of materials and the conditions of classroom. As Aysun mentioned above, if the time is limited, the best choice is direct teaching. Conversely, if the time is available, indirect teaching will be best choice. Time is the most effective factor for determining the type of instruction. Moreover, the characteristics of the students affects the choice of instructor while deciding whether direct or indirect teaching. Some students can misuse the time while doing an activity or they engage different things during an activity or a group working. In these sense, the teacher generally don't prefer to use indirect teaching, or s/he tries to control those stdents to involve the lesson by giving extra effort. Other factor is the amount of material. If there is no or less material for a classroom activity or group working, the teacher generally prefer the direct teaching, and vice virse. Finally, the classroom size or environment may affect the choice of the teacher. If the classroom is small, the teacher maynot apply a group activity or an experiment for science courses.
Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 3:17 pm Post subject: direct and indirect teaching
First of all I agree with you about time and materials. I want to mention my generalization.
Although we are supposed to use direct and indirect teaching interchangebly, according to my observations some courses focuses mostly on one of the teaching methods. For example mathematics and science courses.
In science courses teachers are expected to use mostly laboratories and with students, they are expected to conduct experiments which remembers us the constructivisim approach as we learned from pred 351 and hence favors indirect teaching. Ok it also includes direc teaching but i dont want to focus on science courses.
As for mathematics courses (my favorite), when you look carefully to the topics especially to M.E.B's 6th 7th 8th grade mathematics books, you will see that there are a lot of formulas as usual. For example you are going to teach 'roots or trigonometric ratios' in mathematics, you should use direct teaching, behaviorism approach, because you want your students to memorise the ways about getting rid of the root or the formulas sine cosine tanjant and cotanjant. You cannot proove or explain what is sine function. you just say sine of an angle(in a right triangle of course) is the opposite side over hypotenuse. Thats it this is memorization and it is direct teaching. However when you teach geometry for example the number 'π'(pi) you may use indirect method and find a circle measure the circumference then divide it with diameter. You get the number pi.
I am not trying to say to you use direct teaching more in mathematics, we see that indirect teaching and direct teaching are used interchangebly even in a same course ,ex. mathematics, I just tried to focus on some courses favors mostly one teaching method..
Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 8:51 pm Post subject: Direct and Indirect Teaching (comprehension)
I think of course we should use direct and indirect teaching interchangeably from time to time. As we talked about direct and indirect teaching in the class, when the time is limited and there is no available materials teachers prefer to use direct teaching. On the other hand, when the time and the materials are available they prefer to use indirect teaching. I believe that many teachers still use direct teaching because of considering it is easier to apply. When I think also my experiences in pred 351, I see that it is more effective to use indirect teaching or “constructivism” to develop students thinking abilities. For example; we tried to apply constructivism instead of behaviorism. Of course we were compelling to use this approach, because time was limited sometimes to encourage students to discuss the information. For this reason, in some cases we also used direct teaching. To sum up, I think we should apply direct and indirect teaching interchangeably to provide students effective and efficient learning.
Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 11:44 am Post subject: Interchangeable use of styles ( comprehension )
I want to attract your attention to another aspect. We usually think that teachers who do not have sufficient materials and enough time use direct teching style. But sometimes teachers can use diret teaching style, while they are using various types of metarials as my chemistry teacher at high school. He prefered using overhead-projector to writing the subject on the board. Also, he was giving extra worksheets and problems to make us be familiar with the style of ÖSS problems. As you all know, a student can be able to solve the problems to be succesfull on the exams, it is not enough having extra worksheets. However we had been seeing different kinds of examples, we never had a choise to solve them by ourselves in the class. Thus, we had problems on learning the things we had done in class. Therefore, a teacher should check whether the students learn or not, while using his/her style. To provide learning, they/we should use direct and indirect styles interchangeably from time to time.
Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 1:47 pm Post subject: about styles
We learned differrent kinds of teaching styles in our previous lessons and generally we are adviced to use constuctivism as a teaching style because in this style learner is making knowledge his internal part and not forgetting it.Memorization is not adviced.However ,I think; application of constructivism is harder than others due to some external factors like time,materials as mentioned in the question.
In our math lessons teachers are using direct teaching style because there is not enough time,there are many students.A teacher cannot control everbody personally.Also he cannot give everbody some materials to learn ,like pexamples.
I want to use constructivism in my courses but it seems to me that I will not be able to do these because of such reasons.But if I have available conditions I want to apply it.Therefore I will generally use behavioristic method.Of course this teaching style has many opportunities and we will make use of these.
To conclude a teacher can apply different styles.
Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 6:26 pm Post subject: both teaching styles are required
As we have discussed in the class, there are some criterias for teachers to decide which learning style is appropriate for a specific lesson. these criterias are time, material etc. At this point I think the teacher's prefered teaching way,his experience, and his choise between behaviourist and constructivist method is directly related to the teaching style and will critically affect his teaching style. And I believe a teacher who is experienced in indirect style can efficiently teach a topic which is seemed to be appropriate to be taught in direct style.
What I want to say is time and material are not the only criterias to choose a teaching style. Another point that Semih mentioned -with a generalization- is the type of the lesson. some lessons like philosophy, history or literature ,which have a lot of reading material and requires to know a lot of information, seem to fit well with direct style of teaching.
i agree that subject, time, materials and the opportunities in terms of instructional resources that ministry gives for our school and the books that we use in our classes determine our flexibilty between direct and indirect teaching. However, anotherpoint that i want to mention about is that time and resources can be shared and also be developed between teachers. We may can create internet sites, or participate in sharings in the internet. From this and all points of view it is clear that materials is the crucial point that routes a teacher to indirect teaching.
The last point that i want to mention is that letting the students create groups and do the instruction can may be considered as indirect teaching. it is also a question mark for me that how can we create a better indirect instruction with an instruction provided by the student groups in the class? May be we can evaluate the presenting group's constructivist instruction skills in our rubrics and guide them in some points. Also we can give tasks to presenting group to achieve in their presentation.
As a conclusion we must share our experiences to provide better indirect teaching and that we can use student presentations if it is needed, however we must control and route their instruction styles.
Like my friends sayings our learning style is directly related to class condition, time students' characters and etc. Like my friends say, ıf the time is limited, we should use direct learning still. otherwise if time is enough we use indirect learning still. We should make many activities as providing students' attendence in lecture.
In addition, ın last lesson one of our friends mention about his primary school condition. His class consist of two class level so it was a crowded class. Thus in this class condition, not only time is limited but also crowded, we must use direct style.
In conclusıon, our learning style is changeble condition to condition.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum