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.
View:Click Here
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.
View:Click Here
No comments:
Write comments