Dickey45 says "balderdash" about some criticisms of Direct Instruction (DI).

... teachers insist people that learn through Direct Instruction are not "critical thinkers" and not very creative because Direct Instruction requires that the teacher do all the work (balderdash, I know).

Yes, balderdash about many of the popular "nots" for DI. DI teams removed some of the mystique from teaching-learning, as do other applied behavior analyses.

DI is effective and an efficient use of a learner's time. It contrasts with academic hide-and-seek, and is not politically correct.

At its core, DI is simply a codification and use of what public speakers, advertisers, parents, missionaries, field teachers, Peace Corp workers, and other non-professional educators have been doing for centuries. We follow a simple code (formula); some call it the 3Ts: "Tell 'em what you're going to tell 'em. Tell 'em. Tell 'em what you told 'em." DI users have been among the latter day appliers of this pattern.

They identified, simplified, tested, and used such simple, repeatable codes as 3Ts in instructional skill and academic content areas.

That was tedious work that probably took hundreds of thousands of disciplined hours(and robust meetings, as I remember). Few individual teachers take that kind of time to prepare any lesson. Few such lessons in PK12 beyond DI have similar disciplined effort behind it.

Loren (he's develooping Direct Learning) and Layne (he owns and edits multiple major websites) are two examples of how DI offered them the symbols and tools to enhance their creativity and critical thinking.

So, given this background, why do so many full time educators oppose DI?

Tablet PC Education Blog