PANCHMAHAL/MAHISAGAR:-APL-1 CARD GHARAKOMA SARKARI KARMACHARIOE VINA MULYE ANAJNO LABH NA LEVA BABAT
Many questions regarding Theory of Instruction: Principles and Applications have arisen in the years since the
publication of the first edition in 1982. Is it a textbook? Why wasn't it named, Theory of DIRECT Instruction? Why is it
so difficult to read? How relevant is it to the current Zeitgeist of educational philosophy? And last-and least-is the cover
of the 1982 edition red or orange?
I propose at this publication of the revised edition, that Theory of Instruction is exactly what the title implies, and
further that my proposition is of potentially inestimable significance to the field of education.
Theory
First and foremost, Theory of Instruction is the articulation of a theory-not in the atheoretical sense “theory” is used
in educational jargon, but in the more precise sense well-established among scientists and philosophers of science.
Engelmann and Carnine's theory evolved the same way original natural science theories have evolved, through the
scrupulous application of logical analysis to existing empirical observation. The Engelmann and Carnine theory
possesses the most critical attributes of natural science theories: (1) it is exhaustive in that it covers everything from the
most basic motor skill instruction to the highest of the “higher order” thinking skills, and (2) it does so economically. In
short, it is parsimonious.
Engelmann and Carnine's theory builds logically from just two initial assumptions: that learners perceive qualities,
and that they generalize upon the basis of sameness of qualities. (This is not unlike the way Euclidean geometry derives
logically from a minimum of unproven and unprovable assumptions about points and lines.) If we accept Engelmann
and Carnine's simple assumptions and if we were to employ rigorous logic to any instructional problem, then the
instruction we would derive would fall within the constraints of the Engelmann and Carnine theory. We wouldn't come
up with the same instruction, but rather, with the same or similar instructional principles.
That is highly significant. Engelmann and Carnine don't look at the book when they develop instruction; they
developed most of their instruction before they wrote their book. They haven't memorized various sequences from their
own book, either. They simply apply the logic of their own theory to new content, and essentially recreate
manifestations of their theory. Put another way, one very good indication that Engelmann and Carnine are operating
within the framework of a theory is that they are constrained to adhere to their own theory. One can only religiously
conform to a theory that exists. It strikes me as absolutely fantastic that the published Direct Instruction programs–
before or after the theory book–are consistent in terms of how examples of given types are ordered and sequenced.
(Some variation exists due directly to refinements in the theory.) Absolutely no other published programs of any type
demonstrate such consistency, at such a level of detail. Absolutely no other published programs have an underlying,
consistent rationale for the examples they use and the order they use them in. It's quite likely that few authors of
publication of the first edition in 1982. Is it a textbook? Why wasn't it named, Theory of DIRECT Instruction? Why is it
so difficult to read? How relevant is it to the current Zeitgeist of educational philosophy? And last-and least-is the cover
of the 1982 edition red or orange?
I propose at this publication of the revised edition, that Theory of Instruction is exactly what the title implies, and
further that my proposition is of potentially inestimable significance to the field of education.
Theory
First and foremost, Theory of Instruction is the articulation of a theory-not in the atheoretical sense “theory” is used
in educational jargon, but in the more precise sense well-established among scientists and philosophers of science.
Engelmann and Carnine's theory evolved the same way original natural science theories have evolved, through the
scrupulous application of logical analysis to existing empirical observation. The Engelmann and Carnine theory
possesses the most critical attributes of natural science theories: (1) it is exhaustive in that it covers everything from the
most basic motor skill instruction to the highest of the “higher order” thinking skills, and (2) it does so economically. In
short, it is parsimonious.
Engelmann and Carnine's theory builds logically from just two initial assumptions: that learners perceive qualities,
and that they generalize upon the basis of sameness of qualities. (This is not unlike the way Euclidean geometry derives
logically from a minimum of unproven and unprovable assumptions about points and lines.) If we accept Engelmann
and Carnine's simple assumptions and if we were to employ rigorous logic to any instructional problem, then the
instruction we would derive would fall within the constraints of the Engelmann and Carnine theory. We wouldn't come
up with the same instruction, but rather, with the same or similar instructional principles.
That is highly significant. Engelmann and Carnine don't look at the book when they develop instruction; they
developed most of their instruction before they wrote their book. They haven't memorized various sequences from their
own book, either. They simply apply the logic of their own theory to new content, and essentially recreate
manifestations of their theory. Put another way, one very good indication that Engelmann and Carnine are operating
within the framework of a theory is that they are constrained to adhere to their own theory. One can only religiously
conform to a theory that exists. It strikes me as absolutely fantastic that the published Direct Instruction programs–
before or after the theory book–are consistent in terms of how examples of given types are ordered and sequenced.
(Some variation exists due directly to refinements in the theory.) Absolutely no other published programs of any type
demonstrate such consistency, at such a level of detail. Absolutely no other published programs have an underlying,
consistent rationale for the examples they use and the order they use them in. It's quite likely that few authors of
No comments:
Write comments