ID Phase II Design--Direct Instruction, Problem-based learning, Anchored Instruction

Through reading articles assigned for this week, I mainly understand concepts of as well as distinctions and sort of connections between two educational ideas that are direct instruction (DI) and problem-based learning (PBL).

When first read these two concepts, I soon thought of Behaviorism and Constructivism that we have learnt before. Problem-based learning, as illustrated in Chapter 34, is a "student-centered instructional approach", which aims for "students’ active construction of knowledge" through "deep engagement with meaningful problems" (Hmelo-Silver, 2004). These descriptions are similar to what we have learnt about constructivism which also requires students' own construction of knowledge, authentic learning environments and so on. While emphasizing student-centered design and active self-directed student learning, PBL still addresses scaffolds as important components, saying that students need extra guidance to engage in problem-solving. Likely, constructivism also asks for more detailed and carefully planned instruction. Reviewing Chapter 7, I found out PBL was indeed developed during the early years of constructivist movement, which should draw more and more attention in these days. Especially with the facilitation of advanced technology and multimedia, however complex the problems are, instructors could find a proper way to represent them to the students, such as VR, AR techniques are used in medical instruction field now, just as where PBL originated.

Direct Instruction, as articulated by Magoliaro, Lockee and Burton (2005), is rooted in Behavioral theory, which follows, as well as develops the pattern of Behaviorism.  Consisting of modeling, reinforcement, feedback and successive approximations, DI reminds me of ADDIE instructional model, which is carefully structured and step-by-step. DI emphasizes teachers' taking control of the instruction, learning being universal and even the rejection of learners' mind and free will, which sound like the total opposite of contemporary trend of constructivism and customized instruction. Thus is DI out of date? Quite opposite, Magoliaro, Lockee and Burton (2005) argue that DI is exactly suitable to be conveyed with the continuously developed instructional technologies. Although there is evidence proving that DI can also facilitate high-level learning including problem-based learning and higher order thinking skills,  many educators doubt it, saying "saying it is the method of choice for low-level tasks." Relating to DI's perfect convey with computer-based ID argued by the authors, does it mean our current instructional technology is not functional enough for high-end education? Specifically, is it true that we could use instructional technologies to learn basic knowledge or be trained for tests while we could not be inspired or motivated as we do in real classes?

PBL and DI look opposing at the beginning, while both concepts evolve as time passes, especially DI, which also focuses on students' participation, problem-solving and so on. Thus in our practical instruction, there may not be pure application of a single model or theory. Professor Chang once asked that since different learning theories leading to quite different learning goals, could they be combined in a instructional design actually? I believe my answer is positive since we do expect such a learning outcome, that learners acquire various levels of skills. Take our group project as an example. As we want learners to be able to ask questions in classes in their foreign language English. Basic questioning sentences could be taught with DI while the way to come up with questions closely related to the topic may ask for problem-based learning.

References:
Magliaro, Lockee, Burton 2005

Hmelo-Silver 2004

[IDT] Chapter 34