I found this study by Janet M. Dubinsky and Arif A. Hamid via Larry Ferlazzo. The results seem to be breathtaking. They suggest that active learning is better than direct instruction because of what happens in the brain. I don’t want to debunk it because I’m a fan of Direct Instruction (do note, the authors use both Direct instruction and Direct Instruction), but something goes awfully wrong when they start describing this approach:

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.

So what they seem to think what DI looks like (inspired by a tweet of Carl Hendrick):

But let’s have a look at how Direct Instruction by Sigfrid Engelmann really looks like:

Passive? Hell no!

Abstract of the study:

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.