Jump to content

Direct Instruction

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FeatherPluma (talk | contribs) at 19:27, 18 May 2016 (→Effectiveness: move to direct instruction - merge as discussed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
This redirect is about a particular pedagogical model, as is found in DISTAR and related programs. For more general discussion, see direct instruction.

In place of that proposal, a newer proposal is:


Direct Instruction (DI) is an instructional method that is focused on systematic curriculum design and skillful implementation of a prescribed behavioral script.

On the premise that all students can learn and all teachers successfully teach if given effective training in specific techniques, teachers may be evaluated based on measurable student learning. A frequent statement in discussions of the methodology is "If the student doesn't learn, the teacher hasn't taught." (Tarver, 1999)

Direct Instruction was originally developed in the 1960s by Siegfried Engelmann and the late Wesley C. Becker of the University of Oregon, and it was one of the approaches used in the federally funded research and implementation program called Project Follow Through.

It is sometimes used in resource room programs in schools.


Philosophical critiques

Some critics of DI see it as a betrayal of the humanistic, egalitarian foundations of public education, or as a "canned" or "teacher proof" curriculum deliverable via unskilled teachers.[1] DI has been criticized for being so inflexible that it "handcuffs" teachers.[2] More radical critics argue that the entire history of public education in the United States has been a political one, designed primarily to domesticate lower socio-economic groups, and that DI is in keeping with this broader, historical purpose. Libertarian and traditional conservative critics see the approach as too authoritarian and susceptible to political agendas.[citation needed] Some proponents see DI as a means to promote social justice.[3]

See also

References

  1. ^ From behaviorism to humanism: Incorporating self-direction in learning concepts into the instructional design process. In H. B. Long & Associates, New ideas about self-directed learning. Norman, OK: Oklahoma Research Center for Continuing Professional and Higher Education, University of Oklahoma, 1994 (Roger Hiemstra & Ralph Brockett)
  2. ^ Hoover Institution Policy Review
  3. ^ Kim, T. & Axelrod, S. (2005). Direct Instruction: An Educators’ Guide and a Plea for Action. The Behavior Analyst Today, 6.(2), Page 111-123 BAO
  • Adams, G. L., Slocum, T. A., Railsback, G. L., Gallagher, S. A., McCright,S. A., Uchytil, R. A., Conlong, W. W. & Davis, J. T. (2004). A critical review of Randall Ryder's report of Direct Instruction reading in two Wisconsin school districts. *Journal of Direct Instruction, 4*(2), 111-127.
  • Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning: A Synthesis of over 800 Meta-analyses Relating to Achievement. New York: Routledge.
  • Schweinhart, Lawrence J., David P. Weikart, Mary B. Larner. 1986. Consequences of three preschool curriculum models through age 15. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 1, 1, 15-45.
  • Tweed, Anne, NSTA President, 2004. Direct Instruction: Is It the Most Effective Science Teaching Strategy?, NSTA Web News Digest, 15 December 2004.


See also

Crawford, D., Engelmann, K.E., & Engelmann, S.E. (2008). Direct Instruction. In E.M. Anderman & L.H. Anderman (Eds.) Psychology of Classroom Learning: An Encyclopedia. New York: Macmillan. Template:Philosophy of education sidebar

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Direct_Instruction&oldid=720921548"