"If a teacher teaches but learning does not occur, does the teaching have value" (Powell, 2005, p. 180)?  This is a difficult question to answer.  Did none of the students learn or just some of the students?  Either way, I think it would be critical for a teacher to evaluate their instruction techniques if learning is not occurring within his/her classroom. 

Ideally, I would think that the best method of instruction would be a blend of all the methods of instruction.  All students are individuals and have different learning styles, so to be able to give each student a fair chance of grasping the material it would only be fair to vary one's teaching methods.  I believe there is a time and place to use constructivist theories as well as direct instruction.  But, having all or nothing is not a good plan.

Constructivism is "teacher facilitation of students using higher order thinking skills to construct their own learning" (p. 193).  Thus, Bloom's Taxonomy would play a huge role in a constructivist classroom.  Students are learning to synthesize, analyze, and evaluate the content rather than solely memorize the information.  In a society where we value "teaching to the test," this seems like it would provide students with the best type of education for learning and retaining information while being able to apply it in different ways on a standardized test.  The benefit of this method would be that the students would be active participants in learning, which middle schoolers should enjoy, but still be able to be successful on the test.  However, some teachers believe that "constructivist teaching techniques are appropriate only for certain topics at certain times" (p. 194).  I, too, think that although this method seems great it would be difficult to teach some other things this way. 

Direct instruction would be a combination of lectures, note-taking, textbooks, worksheets, and whole class instruction.  I think a teacher could use direct instruction to preface a group project as well as use to give additional practice.  Some things, such as math facts or Greek/Latin stems, could be taught using the drill and practice technique associated with direct instruction.  But, again, this should not be the sole method of teaching within a classroom.

Inquiry-based learning is a great way for students to learn to critically think.  Students are engaged in a project that is usually open-ended and involves research skills in order to come to a conclusion.  Students are active participants in learning - much like the constructivist approach.

The inquiry-based and constructivist theories would be more apt to have cooperative learning groups than the direct instruction.  These theories would also be able to incorporate more reading and writing across the curriculum than a traditional direct instruction method due to alternative assessments.  Thus, as a future educator, I will try to incorporate more of the hands-on, social learning techniques with a touch of direct instruction within my classroom.  I know that all students can learn - but in different ways and at different rates.  Hopefully, I can reach all students with this special blend of teaching.

References.

Powell, S. (2005). Introduction to Middle School. New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.