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 evidence-based research according to a recent presentation by Dr Ken Rowe.

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. However, in contrast to teacher-directed methods of teaching there is strong evidence that exclusive emphasis on constructivist approaches to teaching is not in the best interests of any group of students, and especially those experiencing learning difficulties.

ACER has trialled a professional development (PD) program to support teachers to improve literacy and numeracy outcomes for students with learning difficulties in years 4, 5 and 6. The program was developed in response to a request of the Australian Government Department of Education, Science and Training. The material used in the Intervention Project is titled: Working Out What Works (WOWW) Training and Resource Manual: A teacher professional development program designed to support teachers to improve literacy and numeracy outcomes for students with learning difficulties in Years 4, 5 and 6. The PD program, which included information about children’s auditory processing capacity, has been informed by findings from a comprehensive review of evidence-based research.

For the purposes of the research, students with learning difficulties were defined as those in mainstream schools in years 4, 5 and 6 who experience a learning difficulty and whose literacy and numeracy achievements are below national benchmark standards.

The study sample included 56 schools: 35 intervention schools and 21 reference schools. Intervention schools included those whose teachers were provided with professional development in effective, evidence-based strategies for students with learning difficulties in Reading and Numeracy during February/March 2005. For comparative purposes, teachers from participating reference schools did not receive this PD during February/March 2005, but were provided with this same PD during May 2006.

Pre- and post-test data from students were collected in March 2005 and again in September 2005. Initial analyses indicate that in March 2005 there were no significant differences between intervention and reference school students’ average Reading and Numeracy achievements. However, in September 2005 there were significant improvements in the Reading and Numeracy achievements of students in intervention schools compared with those in reference schools. Given the short duration between the March and September 2005 assessment periods, this result is remarkable.

The findings also indicate that the behaviours of students in intervention schools were significantly more positive compared with the behaviours of students in reference schools, especially their attentive behaviours in the classroom. Again, given the short duration between the March and September 2005 assessment periods, these results are particularly encouraging. Other studies have shown that repeated under-achievement by students (especially in literacy) is strongly related to increasing disengagement at school, low self-esteem, as well as disruptive and dysfunctional externalizing behaviours at school.

The findings were consistent with the qualitative information obtained from case study visits to schools.

The most effective interventions with students with learning difficulties were:

• Direct instruction;

• Strategy instruction; and

• Combined direct instruction and strategy instruction.

This is supported by a large body of evidence-based research that indicates superior effects of initial direct instruction and strategy instruction approaches to maximising student learning. So what made the difference to students’ learning and achievement progress for those in the intervention schools? Simply, teachers in the intervention schools were taught how to teach via direct/explicit instruction teaching methods.

Educational effectiveness for all students is crucially dependent on the provision of quality teaching by competent teachers who are equipped with effective, evidence-based teaching strategies that work, and the maintenance of high teaching standards via strategic professional development at all levels of schooling.

It is important to note that the relative utility of direct instruction and constructivist approaches to teaching and learning are neither mutually exclusive nor independent. Both approaches have merit in their own right, provided that students have the basic knowledge and skills (best provided initially by direct instruction) before engagement in ‘rich’ constructivist learning activities. The problem arises when constructivist learning activities precede explicit teaching, or replace it, with the assumption that students have adequate knowledge and skills to efficiently and effectively engage with constructivist learning activities designed to generate new learning.

While it is not feasible to legislate quality teaching into existence, the fact that teachers and teaching make a difference should provide impetus and encouragement to those concerned with the crucial issues of educational effectiveness, quality teaching and teaching standards, to at least invest in quality teacher recruitment, pre-service education and professional development.

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.

This article is based on a background paper by Dr Ken Rowe, Research Director, Learning Processes, Australian Council for Educational Research presented at the NSW DET Office of Schools Portfolio Forum in July.

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

This article was originally published in Side by Side, published by the NSW Department of Education and Training, Issue 4, September 2006, page 12.

« Back to eNews