Following the many approaches, theories, and development through cognitive, conceptual, constructivist styles of teaching, the Direct Instruction allows a constant source of inspiration, support, encouragement, and motivation. By starting the education of life applied to myself, my family, my daily actions in all I do, this action applies the appropriate knowledge, dispositions, and performances in developing diverse approaches to strategies that are constructive, consistent and reflective of sound practice. As we prepare to use current research, knowledge, and technology to empower our future to serve and be sensitive and responsive to the unique needs for ourselves, others, and the diverse society in which we practice, the course with Direct Instruction advocates and models quality education and a lifelong learning experience. The interest in this path will allow for more understanding and example of how to enjoy the day and to just learn keeping it simple moment to moment. I am a strong believer that “actions speak louder than words” and through research and reading of many books, articles, and journal writings I have found that the way to allow students to grab hold of learning is allowed through the testing and costly way of implementing the action of Direct Instruction. With my interest in Social Studies as my choice of subject study, the core curriculum has undergone many changes whereas the focus has been placed on other areas of study. Through the history of Siegfried Engelmann (Engelmann, S., & Carnine, D. (1982). Theory of instruction: Principles and applications. New York: Irvington.) between 1966 to 1969, Siegfried Engelmann was heavily involved in projects aimed at exploring the extent to which special instructional methods and innovative curricular approaches would enhance the learning of children and young adults. Carl Bereiter and Siegfried Engelmann studied the effects of intensive instruction on the acceleration of cognitive performance. They demonstrated that well-crafted instruction could boost cognitive skills. The second project was a direct challenge to Jean Piaget's interpretations of intellectual development. The research did a critical evaluation of the kinds of information that young children needed before they were able to "conserve" liquid. In contrast to Piaget's view that children's intellectual development was a function of stages of development and time, Engelmann demonstrated that intelligence could be taught. It was during this period that he formalized the logic and methods for Direct Instruction. From 1969 to 1972 he and his colleague, Dr. Wesley Becker, were involved in the U.S. Office of Education's Project Head Start. The period between 1969 and 1993 was an important one for Engelmann and Direct Instruction, also known as the Follow Through. In spite of the fact that Engelmann's Direct Instruction was the only model to yield consistent beneficial outcomes for students, Direct Instruction was rejected by the majority of the educational establishment. It appeared that Direct Instruction was not endorsed or supported because the theory and methods espoused by Engelmann were inconsistent with the dominant thinking of American educators. In describing the rejection of Direct Instruction by the educational establishment, the American Federation of Teachers (American Federation of Teachers, 1998) asserts that Engelmann's programs were criticized for being too rigid and for emphasizing basic skills. The outcome data were discredited and ignored. Schools of Education in universities, boards of education, the Ford Foundation and commercial publishers argued against the research and the data, and they won. Opinion triumphed over given proven data. With the following of Richard Nadler, an open opinion editor for the K.C. Jones Monthly, he has presented information, reviews, and results gathered with the history of the Direct Instruction (DI). Through the...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document