Talk:Direct instruction

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Education Mid‑importance

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2019 and 10 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): E.Y.Flores.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

Discussion about this phrase:

"Direct instruction is not to be confused with Direct Instruction, a specific direct instructional model developed by Siegfried Engelmann and Wesley C. Becker."

Why should they not be confused? How are they different? I think that this article should at least have one statement about how these two VERY SIMILAR terms should be distinguished from one another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shredthegnarbrah (talk • contribs) 21:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is discovery learning here? Discovery learning is not part of direct instruction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.45.165.39 (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2018 and 7 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Klamb25.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

Support - Behaviorist paradigm unites Direct Instruction and Direct instruction, differences should be explained on the same page to avoid ambiguity issues. Stmullin (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely merge Direct Instruction and Direct instruction. It's pretty ridiculous that these are two different articles. I don't know what a behaviorist paradigm means, and I'm sure the average reader doesn't, either. I'm not sure it's appropriate to merge the resulting article into Personalized learning, but I think it's too early to know at this point how much sense that makes. Flyte35 (talk) 02:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, don't merge Direct Instruction and Direct instruction. One is a specific curriculum, while the other is a pedagogical approach. Instead, merge Direct instruction with Explicit instruction and make Direct Instruction its own article. Divers Alarums

Why? Isn't Direct Instruction just a type of Direct instruction? Flyte35 (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing and unbalanced article?[edit]

I just tried to make the german article about "direkte Instruktion" more clear because there is/was allot of confusion going on and I thought the english article should be better in this respect but it seems to me that this is obviously not the case. Its more like a complicated (really hard to understand) explanation of Engelmanns conception and not much about the general concept of direct instruction or/and how it works in general terms - like the way John Hattie did for his Meta-Analysis for example. The big section about "Effectiveness" is nice but maybe a bit too much compared to other parts of the article? The section with "Criticism" is in my opinion not worth to mention because there are just some sentimental statements. Greetings from germany and sorry for my scorching criticism (and bad english). --Phipus (talk) 10:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]