= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Misha comments on Another treatment of Direct Instruction getting more into the technical details of the theory - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
Comments (33)
I went to the library and checked out a copy of Theory of Instruction. There's a three day weekend ahead, and I'm hoping that before the end of it I'll be able to explain what DI is all about to everyone else here, and judge whether or not it's worth anything. Wish me luck!
Thanks! If you've already read the AthabascaU open module, that might not be too hard (not that I've ever tried to skim just the section and chapter summaries without having read everything else before in order, and can't do so now, of course.)
Honestly though, I have to keep coming back to the argument: "The results from Project Follow-Through show DI walloping all competing models (including the default 'traditional' education), and the meta-analysis of all the other studies doing direct experimental comparisons says that's typical, so that phenomena needs an explanation. One very likely candidate for that necessary explanation should be that DI theory actually knows what it's talking about, even if it seems very confusing at first."
Which seems like a damn reasonable argument to me, but...