Relative Effectiveness of Direct Instruction vs. Active Learning in the Teaching of Science
Résumé
This study compares two controversial pedagogy [5], [6], [8], [11]: direct instruction and active learning. As “performance” still used by teacher and institution as assessment indicator we have went measuring it in this research. Then, we question on effectiveness of two learning methods on acquisition of scientific knowledge. Direct instruction and active learning are there same impact in teaching of sciences? Must we choose between these two methods or use both? Scientific knowledge is it single assessment indicator?
Results of this work would show that direct instruction mobilizes especially memory strategy even though active learning mobilizes more conceptual strategies. Pupils are more successful in activities with memory strategies. But results would propose that direct instruction and active learning could be both necessary in scientific learning. It seems that knowledge wouldn’t be single indicator.
Direct instruction as described in this study is same in fact as “explicit instruction” presented in literature [1], [3]. It shows a long-term action on the performance far more effective than the active pedagogies. But active learning could develop capabilities and acquisition of attitudes as proposed by different authors [2], [9]. Finally, our work proposes that both of methods would be necessary in learning of sciences in order to create a link between knowledge, capabilities and attitudes. To assess scientific learning, we could propose new competency approach [10] because our study shows that “performance” usually used is no sufficient to measuring other than acquisition of knowledge.
Another didactical model, “allosteric model” proposed by Giordan [4], [7] could be a different approach in teaching of sciences. This method integrates structural teaching and proposes interaction and communication to develop knowledge, capabilities and attitudes within didactical environment.