Passion and Precision: Response to "Curriculum-Based Assessment and Direct Instruction: Critical Reflections on Fundamental Assumptions.".

Perhaps that was because with the best will in the world, they couldn't make sense. They were speaking a language that was accurate for their experience but out of phase with the language of (others).... The simple truths of each language sounded like nonsense to speakers of the other. (Hardison, 1989, p. 7) * There seems no room for compromise between those espousing an empiricist/behavioral orientation towards special education and those espousing a holistic orientation. Typically, the advocates of each position know" the other approach is wrong, harmful, and antiquated. The empiricist tradition is often accused of being mechanistic. hi a similar vein, since holistic approaches are not data based, they are deemed not worthy of further discussion by many hard-line empiricists. Through the issues it raises, Heshusius' (1991) essay makes a contribution. The emotional tenor of the essay reflects the intensity of the conflict. However, its uncompromising stance typifies several unfortunate tendencies. The first is the danger of polemics. The second is a lack of understanding and empathy for alternative points of view. And the third is the vast distance between rhetoric and reality. As noted in the opening quotation, Heshusius speaks a different language" from me and many of my colleagues. Using that language, she has presented at best an incomplete, and at worst a distorted, picture of direct instruction (DI). For example, merging curriculum-based assessment (CBA) and DI--two disparate traditions--assists Heshusius rhetorically, but does not reflect the realities of practice. She also includes statements that are rhetorical distortions and oversimplifications of the DI philosophy, for example: "mastering skills is ... seen as separate and prior to involvement in learning for intrinsic relevant purposes" (p. 320), and her assertion that empiricists fail to see that children and rats "function at different levels of complexities" (p. 321). The purpose of this essay is twofold. I wish first to respond to Heshusius with a balanced picture of some of the key ideas within the DI tradition. More broadly, I wish to reflect on Heshusius' essay from a more applied perspective--one that incorporates the realities of class-rooms. THE HEART OF THE MATTER The DI tradition relies on two pillars: an empathy for students' desire for success and an understanding of students' need for clarity, especially when confronted with new or demanding material. The artful modulation of intellectual challenge with success and clarity represents the core of DI. To this end, the DI movement has attempted a more precise understanding of teaching and learning. Admittedly, in the early years some issues were oversimplified-jtist as holistic educators such as Heshusius and Poplin currently oversimplify. More recently, research from cognitive psychology and teacher cognition has forced a reexamination of some earlier conceptions. As Heshusius notes, we have been grappling with increasingly complex learning situations, in which several responses to a question make sense or the knowledge base is not well defined (Gersten, Carnine, & Woodward, 1987; Gersten & Dimino, in press). The resulting refinements of key DI concepts represent both a shift in our thinking and an enrichment of the DI tradition. However, clarity and student success-the initial cornerstones of the movement--remain at the heart of this tradition. Heshusius states that in DI, "student-generated ideas are to be avoided" (p. 319). She supports that assertion by citing a 1986 article by Gersten, Woodward, and Darch which discussed the need for precision, clarity, and focus in teaching students with disabilities. This is a case of ignoring context to distort the author's intent. The example in the article described a teacher attempting to convey technical material--in this case information on oceanography--to a group of low performing students. …