I think lots of secondary teachers are somewhere between 'ok' and 'pretty good' at explicit teaching. I think of my Yr 12 History classes about 7-8 years ago. I was good at delivering concise lectures, but not as good at revisiting content as I could have been (I used a weekly rather than daily review.) I was good at teaching essay writing using a gradual release model, but often skipped the 'we do' phase when teaching other skills/content. I was good at whole class/individual feedback on assignments, but feedback during lessons was greatly lacking.
I would have told you I was teaching explicitly (I, and others, had actively pushed against an inquiry model at our school) and I guess I was, I just wasnt doing it as well as I could have. What I know now is that really good explicit teaching constitutes consistent, deliberate practice.
I think most secondary teachers who love their content area can get on board with EDI, but they need to see it in action and/or have it explained properly and meaningfully- not coming from a vague news article like the ones we see about 'going back to basics'.
The main thing I have noticed arising from this debate is the Dunning Kruger effect. Commentators exposing how little they know and being so unwilling to learn. I think your approach is a good one - see who is open minded or fence sitting and present them with information and evidence. You could have quotes Project Follow Through but I doubt it would have made a difference.
To add an American example to the presumably long list of inaccurate claims of "direct instruction" from Australia and other countries: I recently wrote a post in response to a claim by Lucy Calkins, a prominent Balanced Literacy advocate, that she was a "strong proponent" of "direct, explicit instruction." I analyzed a sample third-grade lesson from her curriculum to evaluate that claim--focusing not on the unsystematic approach to phonics for which she has frequently been pilloried but rather on her equally flawed approach to reading comprehension and writing, which has often been overlooked.
Long story short: Calkins' lesson on "Summarizing Narrative Nonfiction" failed to meet what I think cognitive scientists would consider "direct, explicit instruction" in at least two respects.
First: Her "instruction" on writing a summary was little more than an injunction (frequently heard in reading comprehension lessons) to figure out what was important. This isn't much help to a student who needs explicit guidance in how to do that.
Second: Rosenshine's Principles and others derived from cognitive science seem to assume that the principles will be applied to instruction in substantive content or a truly transferable skill. But, like most reading comprehension instruction, "summarizing narrative nonfiction" doesn't fit into either of those categories.
The instruction in Calkins' lesson consisted of having third-graders collectively analyze what was important in a biography of one person and then attempt to apply that "skill" independently to various biographies of their own choosing--which might be about people they know absolutely nothing about. If you lack a certain level of relevant background knowledge, you will not be able to summarize a text or determine what's important, and no amount of "explicit instruction" in the supposedly abstract skill of summarizing will help.
Where could I find a quality online option to learn what excellent EDI would consist of and look like? There is no professional development of the sort available where I teach. As you say, I think I apply EDI naturally to lessons, but no doubt it is some Frankenstein version of EDI/Inquiry/random teaching.
I think lots of secondary teachers are somewhere between 'ok' and 'pretty good' at explicit teaching. I think of my Yr 12 History classes about 7-8 years ago. I was good at delivering concise lectures, but not as good at revisiting content as I could have been (I used a weekly rather than daily review.) I was good at teaching essay writing using a gradual release model, but often skipped the 'we do' phase when teaching other skills/content. I was good at whole class/individual feedback on assignments, but feedback during lessons was greatly lacking.
I would have told you I was teaching explicitly (I, and others, had actively pushed against an inquiry model at our school) and I guess I was, I just wasnt doing it as well as I could have. What I know now is that really good explicit teaching constitutes consistent, deliberate practice.
I think most secondary teachers who love their content area can get on board with EDI, but they need to see it in action and/or have it explained properly and meaningfully- not coming from a vague news article like the ones we see about 'going back to basics'.
The main thing I have noticed arising from this debate is the Dunning Kruger effect. Commentators exposing how little they know and being so unwilling to learn. I think your approach is a good one - see who is open minded or fence sitting and present them with information and evidence. You could have quotes Project Follow Through but I doubt it would have made a difference.
To add an American example to the presumably long list of inaccurate claims of "direct instruction" from Australia and other countries: I recently wrote a post in response to a claim by Lucy Calkins, a prominent Balanced Literacy advocate, that she was a "strong proponent" of "direct, explicit instruction." I analyzed a sample third-grade lesson from her curriculum to evaluate that claim--focusing not on the unsystematic approach to phonics for which she has frequently been pilloried but rather on her equally flawed approach to reading comprehension and writing, which has often been overlooked.
You can find the post here: https://nataliewexler.substack.com/p/is-lucy-calkins-really-a-proponent
Long story short: Calkins' lesson on "Summarizing Narrative Nonfiction" failed to meet what I think cognitive scientists would consider "direct, explicit instruction" in at least two respects.
First: Her "instruction" on writing a summary was little more than an injunction (frequently heard in reading comprehension lessons) to figure out what was important. This isn't much help to a student who needs explicit guidance in how to do that.
Second: Rosenshine's Principles and others derived from cognitive science seem to assume that the principles will be applied to instruction in substantive content or a truly transferable skill. But, like most reading comprehension instruction, "summarizing narrative nonfiction" doesn't fit into either of those categories.
The instruction in Calkins' lesson consisted of having third-graders collectively analyze what was important in a biography of one person and then attempt to apply that "skill" independently to various biographies of their own choosing--which might be about people they know absolutely nothing about. If you lack a certain level of relevant background knowledge, you will not be able to summarize a text or determine what's important, and no amount of "explicit instruction" in the supposedly abstract skill of summarizing will help.
Where could I find a quality online option to learn what excellent EDI would consist of and look like? There is no professional development of the sort available where I teach. As you say, I think I apply EDI naturally to lessons, but no doubt it is some Frankenstein version of EDI/Inquiry/random teaching.