It's curious that progressive ed advocates might invoke the toy study, which from what I understand involves same-day observation of behaviour, to support a conclusion about direct instruction's "short-term successes but long term damages". Even if the case could be made that this study was particularly pertinent to the question of direct versus indirect instruction, how does one connect the dots to such a conclusion? Seems to me they are conflating weather with climate with one hand while insisting on the distinction with the other.
It's curious that progressive ed advocates might invoke the toy study, which from what I understand involves same-day observation of behaviour, to support a conclusion about direct instruction's "short-term successes but long term damages". Even if the case could be made that this study was particularly pertinent to the question of direct versus indirect instruction, how does one connect the dots to such a conclusion? Seems to me they are conflating weather with climate with one hand while insisting on the distinction with the other.