A from Edutopia titled, “Dispelling Myths About PBL and Direct Instruction” had me quite confused today. In the tweeted video, the speaker, Dr. Darling-Hammond, explained how it would be incorrect to assume that Project-Based Learning (PBL) and direct instruction are antithetical because they are actually complementary instructional techniques that mix well. If direct instruction were defined as simply “telling students things on occasion”, or if PBL were defined as simply “assigning projects on occasion”, I’d agree. However, when we define direct instruction as a whole system – that of I do, We do, You do, and epitomized by and recommendations from – it seems that they are quite a bit less compatible than Dr. Darling-Hammond would like.

Cognitive Load Theory

Cognitive load theory (Paas & van Merriënboer, 2020) supports direct instruction. In order to reduce the burden on working memory during initial learning, cognitive load theory recommends providing models and examples upfront, and then slowly fading these supports as learners grow in expertise. Problem solving without direct guidance in the form of models and examples is highly cognitively demanding for learners (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006), with the possible exception of students who already have prior knowledge about the content, or are blessed with exceptionally strong working memory abilities. For students who struggle to control and manage their learning in the best of conditions, asking students to self-regulate their learning during a open-ended project presents an insurmountable – and unnecessary – challenge that is mitigated by providing direct guidance from the beginning of instruction.

Is an initial teacher-led “I do” phase typical of PBL? Well, in Trev Mackenzie’s Inquiry Cycle (below), learning begins with Determine Your Focus, Start with an Essential Question, Brainstorm Questions, and so on. Never in the cycle – not even at the beginning – do we see an explanatory phase with tons of cognitive load-reducing examples.

A central tenet of PBL is that teachers empower students to initiate a personal inquiry and then provide supports as a guide on the side. When teachers say that they are providing “direct instruction” during project time, what they mean is that they circle around the room in a guiding role to provide “just-in-time” help and feedback. Of course, this reduces the amount of guidance a teacher can provide any one student by a factor of 25-30, assuming that all students are attended to evenly, and it requires that teachers study up on 25-30 different project topics, which each require their own unique sets of models and examples. In every instance of PBL that I have encountered, an “I Do” phase where students are given models, examples, and partially solved problems to solve in small steps before they’re allowed to attempt to solve similar problems, is entirely missing. Teachers cannot even try to integrate an “I Do” phase into their PBL instruction (other than to make futile attempts at teaching like creativity and critical thinking, but I digress) due to the rather obvious fact that it’s impossible to teach everyone about the same thing when everyone is doing completely different projects. This facet of PBL puts it completely at odds with recommendations from cognitive load theory and direct instruction.

Rosenshine’s Principles of Instruction

Rosenshine’s Principles of Instruction (2012) is a popular instructional model that most afficianadios of direct instruction, and Rosenshine himself, consider to encapsulate the major techniques of direct instruction. I have put the 10 Principles in the column on the left in the table below. As you can see, direct instruction is a teacher-led whole system that comprises more than just telling, and that requires full guidance from the beginning of instruction, and a gradual release of responsibility to make way for independent practice (as opposed to independent discoveries or inquiries) once teacher-determined material has been internalized.

On the right side of the table I’ve added two popular PBL models that I have personally seen used, and implemented as an instructional coach, in PBL schools. PBL is a child-led system where students ask questions and investigate problems that are important to them. What is absent is a teacher delivering foundational content and orchestrating deliberate, scheduled practice until skills become automatic. Contrary to Dr. Darling-Hammond’s insinuation that it is silly to think of PBL and direct instruction as two separate, incompatible methodologies, it is clear to me that Rosenshine’s definition of direct instruction is quite different, and largely incompatible, with popular forms of PBL.

It should be mentioned that it is entirely possible to use direct instruction – I do, We do, You do – to facilitate a project. I did it all the time as a design teacher, and I see it happening daily at the arts-focused school that I currently work at. But in no way are these direct instruction units “based” on a project, but rather the project is assigned after foundational knowledge and skills are taught as a means for independent practice and application of the taught material. This fundamental difference seems to be lost on Dr. Darling-Hammond and the legions of tweeters who seemed to agree with her statements on Twitter. As an instructional leader, I will continue to advocate that schools provide students opportunities to engage in projects, but the idea of a whole unit, or semester, or year, turning into a project. Nor can I support an instructional design where the majority of the instructional guidance provided comes “just-in-time” (i.e., a teacher circling around the room to meet the needs of students as they come up, often one at a time). This sort of instruction unfairly disadvantages students who struggle to process too many elements of information at a time and students who do not already have vast stores of prior knowledge by way of family background and investment. I do think there is a role for project-based learning in after-school programs.

I can anticipate some people challenging this post by either saying, a) I’ve misrepresented either di or PBL, or b) Arguing that it doesn’t matter what we call things as long as each teacher uses the best techniques at their disposal to meet the needs of their learners.

For a), feel free to enlighten me by posting some literature in the comments below. For b), I cannot agree with this position. We are a profession; custodians of an intellectual technique; who should know the names of things in the technique better than the average person off the street. In the event of murky definitions, whether they be between traditionalism and progressivism, pure discovery and guided discovery learning, one-way lecturing and interactive explicit teaching, and so on, we should be in the business of specifying, clarifying, and refining the definitions of the techniques that we’ve come to use. We should be striving to co-construct a common language around teaching rather than shrugging our shoulders or claiming a moral high ground through the fallacious reasoning of false compromise.

References

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.

Paas, F., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2020). Cognitive-load theory: Methods to manage working memory load in the learning of complex tasks. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29(4), 394–398.

Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of Instruction: Research-based strategies that all teachers should know. American Educator, 12–20.