Effective teaching practices for students with and without learning difficulties: Constructivism as a legitimate theory of learning AND of teaching?

Much of what is commonly claimed as ‘effective teaching practice’ and implemented during the early and middle years of schooling in Australian schools, for either mainstream students or for those experiencing learning difficulties, is not grounded in findings from evidencebased research. Of particular concern is that despite a lack of supporting evidence for its utility, the prevailing educational philosophy of constructivism (a theory of self-directed learning rather than a theory of teaching) continues to have marked influences on shaping teachers’ interpretations of how they should teach – aided and abetted by the content emphasis given during pre-service teacher education, as well as in-service teacher professional development programs. However, in contrast to teacher-directed methods of teaching there is strong evidence that exclusive emphasis on constructivist approaches to teaching are neither initially nor subsequently in the best interests of any group of students, and especially those experiencing learning difficulties. Following a brief outline of controversies surrounding ‘effective teaching practice’, this paper focuses on teaching strategies that are demonstrably effective in maximising the achievement progress of students during the early and middle years of schooling. Further, key findings are presented from a recent national project designed to identify effective teaching practices for Year 4-6 students with learning difficulties in Reading and Numeracy, drawn from government, Catholic and independent schools. These findings indicate that since teachers are the most valuable resource available to schools, an investment in teacher professionalism is vital by ensuring that they are equipped with an evidence-based repertoire of pedagogical skills that are effective in meeting the developmental and learning needs of ALL students. Contemporary understandings of ‘effective’ teaching practice Teaching strategies have long generated debate and ideological controversy, especially as to ‘best practice’. Two clear orientations have provided the basis for this controversy: direct (or explicit) instruction, and student-centred constructivist approaches. Whereas neither of these teaching methods alone (or their variants) is appropriate for engendering all types of learning (see: Purdie & Ellis, 2005; Westwood, 1999, 2006), the widespread and mostly unquestioning adoption of constructivist orientations towards teaching in most areas of the curriculum throughout Australian schools and higher education institutions is problematic. A key reason for this is that despite strong supporting evidence for the superior effects of teacher-directed approaches on student learning (i.e., direct instruction), the philosophy of constructivism (a cognitive theory of learning rather than of teaching) has enduring influences on the content of teacher education courses (see: Louden et al., 2005a; Rohl & Greaves, 2004; Rowe, 2005a,b), supported by prescribed literature such as: Cambourne (2002); McInerney and McInerney (1998, 2002, 2006), as well as on the content of in-service teacher professional development programs. Moreover, constructivist approaches to teaching prevail as predominant 1 Correspondence related to this paper should be directed to Dr Ken Rowe, Research Director, Learning Processes & Contexts research program, Australian Council for Educational Research, Private Bag 55, Camberwell, Victoria 3124, Australia; Tel: 03-9836-7489; Email: rowek@acer.edu. au. 2 See, for example: Adams and Engelmann (1996); Center (2005); de Lemos (2004a,b), Ellis (2005); Coltheart (2005b,c); Farkota (2003a,b, 2005); Hattie (2003, 2005), Hempenstall (1996, 1997); Hoad et al. (2005); Lindsley (1992); Purdie and Ellis (2005); Rowe (2005a,b, 2006); Stebbins et al. (1977); Westwood (1999, 2006); Wheldall (2006). _____________________________________________________________________________________ ACER: Improving Learning Effective Teaching Practices 2 K.J. Rowe _____________________________________________________________________________________ methods throughout school systems in many western countries, and are given high prominence in the content of curriculum standards (or essential learning) documents currently provided by all Australian States and Territory government departments of education and training. However, there is a strong body of evidence that exclusive emphasis on constructivist approaches to teaching are neither initially nor subsequently in the best interests of any group of students, and especially for those experiencing learning difficulties (see: Center, 2005; Farkota, 2003a, 2005; Moats, 2000; Swanson, 1999; Swanson & Deshler, 2003; Westwood, 1999; 2000, 2001, 2003a,b,c, 2004, 2006). For children from disadvantaged backgrounds who often do not have rich phonological knowledge and phonemic awareness upon which to base new learning, being taught under constructivist modes has the effect of compounding their disadvantage once they begin school (Munro, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000a,b). This is particularly the case for children from non-English speaking backgrounds including Indigenous children, where English may be their second or third language. Indeed, Farkota (2005) argues that many cases of learning difficulty and related under-achievement can be attributed to inappropriate or insufficient teaching, rather than to deficiencies intrinsic to students such as cognitive, affective and behavioural difficulties, as well as their socio-cultural backgrounds and contexts, with constructivist approaches being major protagonists. A brief explication of constructivist approaches to teaching is warranted here. The rationale for constructivism as a teaching method Teaching methods that are described as ‘student-centred’ tend to be aligned with constructivism – an established and widely espoused theory of knowing and learning3 – can be traced to advocates of active and experimental methods reflected in the work of educational theorists such as Ausubel (1968), Bruner (1961, 1966), Dewey (1933), Piaget (1954), Rousseau (1762, 1979) and Vygotsky (1978). More recently, advocates of constructivism have coined various labels for constructivist approaches to both learning and teaching, including: ‘anchored instruction’, situated learning’, ‘discovery learning’, ‘task-based learning’ and ‘scaffolding’ – each of which share many common features. Further, as noted by Westwood (2006): “‘problem-based learning’ (PBL) – also known as ‘issues-based learning’ – has gained popularity in recent years as a method for use in higher education, particularly in the medical, therapeutic and other professional fields where the ‘problem’ is often in the form of a ‘case study’” (p. 36). PBL encompasses many of the ‘student-centred’ approaches to teaching and learning for which the underlying rationale is essentially twofold: • students should be intrinsically motivated and actively involved in the learning process; and • subject matter studied should, as far as possible, be ‘authentic’, ‘interesting’ and ‘relevant’. The implicit assumptions underlying such rationale are that ‘intrinsically motivated’ learners, independent of explicit instruction provision, have acquired sufficient prior knowledge and skills (particularly basic literacy, numeracy and study skills) to engage effectively and productively for generating new learning in a given subject matter domain. The compelling evidence that this is not the case for medical students in the acquisition of differential diagnostic skills, for example, applies equally for children learning to read, write, spell and undertake mathematical computation. In the case of medical students, the necessity of explicit instruction by subject matter experts for efficient knowledge acquisition in the basic sciences of anatomy, physiology, biochemistry and pathology is foundational. Similarly, for children learning to read, write, spell and compute, explicit instruction in the alphabetic principle of letter-sound relationships (especially in English) and the mathematical principles underlying computation in number operations, space and measurement, are also foundational to literacy and numeracy learning. 3 For succinct outlines of the various types of constructivism, see: McInerney and McInerney (2006, pp. 3-4); Purdie and Ellis (2005, pp. 9-11). _____________________________________________________________________________________ ACER: Improving Learning Effective Teaching Practices 3 K.J. Rowe _____________________________________________________________________________________ Despite strong evidence for the limitations of exclusive constructivist methods of teaching, they are widely endorsed and practiced. For example, in their opening chapter titled: Effective teaching and learning–constructivist perspectives, McInerney and McInerney (2006, p. 3) write: These approaches explicitly emphasise the intrapersonal dimensions of learning and, in particular, posit that knowledge is not transmitted directly from one knower to another, but is actively built up by the learner through child-determined exploration and discovery rather than direct teaching. These claims are extraordinary on at least two counts: (a) they are not supported by findings from a large body of evidence-based research, and (b) give rise to deleterious effects of educators absolving their professional responsibility to be instructionally effective in teaching foundational knowledge and skills (e.g., Creemers, 1994; Hattie, 2003, 2005; Muijs & Reynolds, 2001; Rowe, 2005b, 2006; Slavin, 1994). Features of constructivism and their limitations for teaching practice The key element in constructivism is that the learner is an active contributor to the learning process, and that teaching methods should focus on what the student can bring to the learning situation as much as on what is received from the environment. This approach is expressed by Ausubel’s (1968) contentio