Page 212 - Making Instruction Work

chap 17 3/11/97 5:12 PM Page 198

198 making instruction work

If, on the other hand, you were asked to pile them up alpha-
betically, then the order in which you piled them would mat-
ter.You’d have to put down the A before the B, and the B before
the C.

So What?

What does this have to do with instructional sequencing?
Just this. There is always a sequence of lessons; that is, one les-
son always follows another. But there doesn’t always have to be
a prescribed order; that is, they don’t always have to be studied
in the same sequence by each and every student. To under-
stand this point, look back to the example skill hierarchy in
Chapter 8. Notice how many of the skills are independent of
one another—that is, shown side by side. Though all of these
skills must be learned before the terminal objective (the one at
the top) can be practiced, the order in which they are learned
doesn’t matter—any one of them could be productively
learned before any of the others is attempted. And when the
order doesn’t matter, it is better to let the students decide on
the sequence in which they will do the learning. Having some
control helps their motivation to learn.
Traditionally, the only guidelines for sequencing instruc-
tional activities have been, “Teach your lessons in a logical
sequence,” and “Teach from the simple to the complex.” That’s
about as helpful as telling someone to “be good.” Those rules
are just too vague and have too many possible meanings. After
all, everyone believes they teach in a logical sequence. But if
you look to see what they are in fact doing, you will find that
some use a historical sequence, teaching that which happened
first, what happened next, and so on. Others teach “theory”
before practice. Others claim to teach from the simple to the
complex, but usually use a sequence that is opposite to the one