Ik vond deze studie van Janet M. Dubinsky en Arif A. Hamid via Larry Ferlazzo. De resultaten lijken meer dan relevant. De onderzoekers suggereren dat actief leren beter is dan directe instructie vanwege wat er in de hersenen gebeurt. Ik wil het niet ontkrachten omdat ik een fan ben van Direct Instruction (let op, de auteurs gebruiken zowel Direct instruction als Direct Instruction), maar er gaat iets vreselijk mis als ze deze aanpak gaan beschrijven:

Direct instruction (DI) represents traditional pedagogy based upon transmission or transfer theory or the banking model. DI is often called teacher-centered, or sage-on-the-stage.

DI focuses upon traditional information transfer pedagogies like lecturing. The instructor organizes and delivers content that students listen to, annotate, hopefully internalize and then recognize appropriately or manipulate on a high-stakes exam. The roles here are clear: teachers deliver knowledge and students absorb it. The immediate value of acquiring the day’s knowledge portion may be low compared to the distal goal of finishing the course in good standing. All internalization and mastery occur when students study the material outside of class, at best doing problem sets, without any instructor guidance. Most frequently, students reread notes only in preparation for the exam (Karpicke et al., 2009). Students schedule their own studying and maintain their own motivation. Student agency for their learning depends upon how motivated they are to utilize optimal study techniques and metacognitive evaluation on their own. Motivation to learn is left up to each student and their long-term achievement goals.

Dus hoe denken de onderzoekers dat DI er uitziet (geïnspireerd door een tweet van Carl Hendrick):

Maar laten we eens kijken hoe Directe Instructie volgens Sigfrid Engelmann er in het echt uitziet:

Passief? Absoluut niet!

Abstract van de studie:

Throughout the educational system, students experiencing active learning pedagogy perform better and fail less than those taught through direct instruction. Can this be ascribed to differences in learning from a neuroscientific perspective? This review examines mechanistic, neuroscientific evidence that might explain differences in cognitive engagement contributing to learning outcomes between these instructional approaches. In classrooms, direct instruction comprehensively describes academic content, while active learning provides structured opportunities for learners to explore, apply, and manipulate content. Synaptic plasticity and its modulation by arousal or novelty are central to all learning and both approaches. As a form of social learning, direct instruction relies upon working memory. The reinforcement learning circuit, associated agency, curiosity, and peer-to-peer social interactions combine to enhance motivation, improve retention, and build higher-order-thinking skills in active learning environments. When working memory becomes overwhelmed, additionally engaging the reinforcement learning circuit improves retention, providing an explanation for the benefits of active learning. This analysis provides a mechanistic examination of how emerging neuroscience principles might inform pedagogical choices at all educational levels.