We have been doing a series on how all students, particularly those who are struggling, benefit from the provision of explicit instruction (Baker, Gersten, & Lee, 2002; Carnine, 1997; Doabler et al., 2012; Witzel, Mercer, & Miller, 2003). Van de Walle (2013) characterizes explicit instruction as highlystructured, teacherled instruction on a specific strategy. He explains how this approach can help uncover or make overt the thinking strategies that support mathematical problem solving for students with disabilities.
We started a list of the methods and elements of explicit instruction (see the previous two posts!). To continue this series of blogs, here are some additional elements of explicit instruction as well as examples and/or steps to carrying out these recommendations.
Using clear, concise, and consistent language that is not ambiguous, does not introduce irrelevant or unnecessary information into instruction, and is consistent across teacher models, whole group practice, and to elicit student responses so that students know what they are expected to do. Here are some suggestions to help with this element:

Providing a range of examples and nonexamples to help students determine when and when not to apply a skill, strategy, concept, or rule. Including a widerange of positive examples during instruction provides students with multiple opportunities to practice the using the target strategy or skill while including nonexamples can help reduce the possibility that students will use the skill inappropriately or overgeneralize it to inappropriate mathematics problems. For example, here are some examples and nonexamples of an algebraic expression:

Requiring frequent responses by relying minimally on individual student turns (e.g., asking students to raise their hand if they have the correct response) and relying more on the use of questioning to elicit various types of responses such as oral responses (e.g., having preidentified partners or groups of students such as boys/girls, 1s/2s, apples/oranges respond), written responses, and/or action responses (e.g., thumbs up/thumbs down). Increasing the number of opportunities students have to respond during the lesson promotes a high level of studentteacher interaction, helps keep students engaged with the content, provides multiple opportunities for student practice with and elaboration on the newly learned content, and can help you monitor student understanding. 
We have four more suggestions for mastering explicit instruction! Stay tuned!!
Baker, S. K., Gersten, R., & Lee, D. (2002). A synthesis of empirical research on teaching mathematics to lowachieving students. The Elementary School Journal, 103, 5173.
Carnine, D. W. (1997). Instructional design in mathematics for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 130141.
Doabler, C. T., Cary, M. S., Jungjohann, K., Clarke, B., Fien, H., Baker, S., Smolkowski, K., & Chard, D. (2012). Enhancing core mathematics instruction for students at risk for mathematics disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 44, 4857.
Van De Walle, J.A., Karp, K.S., & BayWilliams, J.M. (2013). Elementary and middle school mathematics: Teaching developmentally, 8th edition. Boston: Pearson.
Witzel, B. S., Mercer, C. D., & Miller, M. D. (2003). Teaching algebra to students with learning difficulties: An investigation of an explicit instruction model. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 121131.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please comment.