Relevant Instruction Definition

First, the use of the “ relevance ” disclaimer is absolutely necessary because there are obviously circumstances under which no amount of instruction will produce any learning at all. I’ve already provided a purposefully absurd example of this in the form of instruction being delivered in a language unfamiliar to the learner, but even the classic learning total-time hypothesis eluded to earlier involving paired-associate learning (which is infi nitely more controlled than classroom learning) found it necessary to include a relevance-like disclaimer that is quite apropos to its use here.

But, in classroom learning, “relevance” is an unavoidably broad concept. To illustrate what is and is not meant by “relevant instruction,” let’s consider the following scenario: Assume the existence of two comparable classrooms (i.e., comparable with respect to the ability levels of the students and the skill of the teachers) that were taught the same instructional unit using the same pedagogical approach. Classroom A, however, received 30 minutes of instruction, while Classroom B received 60 minutes. Given our three determinants of school learning just advanced, we would predict the following results:

• The students in Classroom B would learn more than the students in Classroom A because they received more instruction. (Not twice as much, perhaps, but we do know that Classroom B students should learn more .) 
• Some students (whose identity we could predict based upon such things as previous test scores or their parents’ educational attainment) would learn more than others in both Classroom A and Classroom B. 4 (We’ve called this “propensity to learn,” which we’ll explicitly define shortly.)
• The identity of these children with greater and lesser propensities to learn will generally remain constant over time (given what we know about aptitude-by-treatment interactions and the voluminous research involving longitudinal test scores).

Now, let’s look at the concept of “relevance” within the context of these two classrooms. The easiest way to defi ne the term is to describe the conditions under which the learning occurring in Classroom B would not

exceed the learning occurring in Classroom A (or the difference would not be as great as expected). Consider, therefore, the following scenarios:

• • A large proportion of the students in both classrooms already know the instructional content. In a typical classroom, the teacher very seldom has the time or expertise to ascertain who does and does not know a particular topic or its component parts. Thus, the instruction will be relevant only to those students who have not mastered the topic; for those who have already learned it, the instruction will be irrelevant . A huge advantage of the use of instructional tests based upon explicit objectives (remember Popham’s work) is their ability to facilitate (a) the identification of subject matter that has already been mastered by almost everyone and hence does not need to be taught, and (b) the individualization of instruction (which by definition increases its relevance).
• The instructional content is too difficult for a large proportion of the students. This can occur if these students have not mastered prerequisite concepts. An obvious example is if these students’ reading level is below that at which their textbooks (or other instructional materials) have been written.
• The classrooms are too disruptive for students to attend to the instruction. If students can’t hear (or concentrate on) instruction, it will not result in learning and therefore will not be relevant.
• The two teachers involved aren’t exactly clear about what they are supposed to teach, hence they teach content that was not mandated and is not contained on the tests used to evaluate either learning or teaching. (Another advantage of explicit instructional objectives and tests keyed to them.)
• The teachers do not conscientiously teach the appropriate content (e.g., through laziness, a tendency to digress or teach other content, lack of sufficient knowledge about the particular content to teach it, and so on).
• The instruction is diluted by the teachers’ reliance upon time consuming games or hands-on activities that are inefficient as compared to direct instruction.
• The test used to assess the amount learned is not explicitly based upon the instructional content and nothing but that content. (All commercial tests pretty much fall into this category). Tests that do not assess learning are a huge problem for schools, and their use makes classroom instruction even more inefficient and ineffective.

And, of course, all of this assumes that the extra instructional time available in Classroom B is actually devoted to instruction and isn’t given over to noninstructional time-wasting activities. Defined more explicitly, then, relevant instruction is instruction that can be understood, attended to, and involves topics that have not already been learned and that are mandated by the curriculum (which assumes the existence of tests that match the curriculum as well).
Read More : Relevant Instruction Definition