Robert Slavin and colleagues reported that reading programs that provide extensive professional development on instructional strategies which promote student participation, strengthen phonics competence, and explicitly teach comprehension strategies are the best bets for improving reading achievement. The clearest examples of the programs that led to the highest achievement were Direct Instruction and Success for All.
Writing in the December 2009 issue of the Review of Educational Research, Professor Slavin and colleagues reported the results of their examination of 142 studies. They wanted to determine whether curricula, technology, instructional processes, or combinations of curricula and processes produce greater reading achievement. The curriculum group included core reading programs, such as Reading Street and Open Court Reading. The technology group included programs that employ computers or similar methods such as computer-assisted instruction, multimedia (e.g., Reading Reels, or Writing to Read). The instructional process group included approaches that provide teachers effective strategies for teaching reading, such as Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS) and Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC). The combined curriculum-and-instructional-process group included programs that function as core curricula and also provide detailed professional development about using instructional strategies, such as Direct Instruction and Success for All. The researchers separated the studies into two groups: those with outcomes at the (a) beginning reading level vs. upper elementary level.
Continue reading ‘Go for DI and SFA’
In the spirit of the end-of-the-year and end-of-the-decade lists mania that seems to grip us (ahem!) periodically, over on On our Minds, Sarah Trabucchi had a post last week entitled “The Decade’s 10 Big Ideas in Education.” Ms. Trabucchi list was the product of the “education brains” at the publisher, Scholastic.
What’s on the list? It includes alternate paths to teaching, transformative technology, accountability, data-driven instruction, charter schools, the rise of digital content, a focus on adolescent literacy, books are the new black, it takes a village, the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act.
Continue reading ‘What matters in education?’
Writing in the Chronicle of Higher Education under the headline “Matching Teaching Style to Learning Style May Not Help Students,” David Glenn describes the hook of a forth-coming paper the examines the popular, but unsupported, notion that instruction must be differentiated according to personal characteristics of the learners.
If you’ve ever sat through a teaching seminar, you’ve probably heard a lecture about “learning styles.” Perhaps you were told that some students are visual learners, some are auditory learners, and others are kinesthetic learners. Or maybe you were given one of the dozens of other learning-style taxonomies that scholars and consultants have developed.
Almost certainly, you were told that your instruction should match your students’ styles. For example, kinesthetic learners—students who learn best through hands-on activities—are said to do better in classes that feature plenty of experiments, while verbal learners are said to do worse.
Continue reading ‘Learning styles gets academic attention’
Over on Kitchen Table Math the contributor who identifies himself as SteveH has a delightful post about some new test results. Here’s the lead:
Recent testing has shown improvement in shoe tying by fourth and eighth graders over the past two years, although the growth has been stagnant in some districts. Urban school activists, however, can be encouraged by the statistical improvement in areas with populations of 250,000 or more. This continues an upward trend that started 6 years ago when this testing began.
Jump over to Testing Shows Improvement in Shoe Tying.
My colleague and friend, Jim Kauffman, published an editorial in the Charlottesville (VA, US) Daily Progress over the past weekend. It’s a good one.
In his view, most educational reform proposals miss the mark. They overlook the critical element. Make a note about what element you think is ignored, then read Professor Kauffman’s editorial. I suspect that many readers of Teach Effectively will have notes about the same overlooked factor that he identifies.
I’d point readers to the Daily Progress for a chance to read it, but I can’t find the article on that Web site. However, thanks to the author, I have a PDF of the editorial. Download it by clicking on the accompanying image or by following this link.
Bob Dixon, an instructional designer who can run circles around just every other instructional designer whom I know, has initiated a service to which I want to refer readers: instructionalsolutions.blogspot.com. Here’s his explanation:
I’ve been reading posts about dyslexia, reading disabilities, learning disabilities, autism, and such. Many courageous people are fighting battles on large fronts on behalf of students so labeled. Here and there in these discussions, however, I see a relatively specific question about a specific problem a real student is having right now with some specific task. Such questions often get responses that are far too general to address the specific question identified. That seems to me like a small gap in the discussions that could possibly be closed. I’m going to give that a shot, using a blog in a sort of “backward” fashion. I’m hoping that parents, teachers—anyone, really—will post very specific, concrete problems on the blog. If a student is having a severe spelling problem, for example, list what the words should be and what the student wrote. If a students appears to be “dyslexic,” give a sentence and tell exactly what the student says when reading that sentence. If a student doesn’t have a clue about the first step in a simple geometric proof, post the proof and say the student writes absolutely nothing for the first or second step. If the student can’t remember a list of anything, provide the list and describe how the student studies it and what happens. You try the offered solutions and report back on their relative success.
Although it’s a tad off point for Teach Effectively, I call readers’ attention (both of you!) to one of a set of articles that appeared in the Los Angeles Times as part of an examination of bogus therapies for Autism. In this article, “Autism therapies can get undeserved credit,” investigative journalists Trine Tsouderos and Patricia Callahan examine the tension between heart-felt testimonials and cold, hard scientific evidence. It’s worth a read, as are several other articles about Autism therapies that they’ve written since May of 2009.
Usually, the people who are mislead by the therapies discussed by Ms. Tsouderos and Ms. Callahan are parents. However, educators can be mislead similarly and the therapies about which they are misled do not have to be medical or specific to Autism. All one needs is a glittery idea that connects just a tad with science and personal experience and is supported by testimonials from people who seem to have authentic credentials….
Link to read “Autism therapies can get undeserved credit.” For more about the stories by Ms. Tsouderos and Ms. Callahan, see entries on EBD Blog for 23 May 2009, 21 November 2009, and 7 December 2009
Over on LD Blog last August I posted a note about how the educational system’s failure by one student serves as an illustration of the refusal to adopt effective teaching practices, favoring ideology instead. I pointed to coverage of a story about a boy named Miguel, a 12-year-old student to whom a local education agency apparently denied appropriate educational services.
The case of Miguel illustrates how educators reject reasonable and evidence-based methods in favor of ideologically driven policies. In place of employing powerful instructional practices and adapting instruction to individuals, schools too often explain away students’ difficulties. They make what amount to excuses!
In contrast to this sorry state of affairs, I was happy to see a post by Pam Wright of Wrightslaw regarding explicit statements about “methodology” in students’ Individual Education Plans.
By including frequent references to the need to use scientific, research based instruction and interventions, Congress clarified that methodology is vitally important. By requiring the child’s IEP to include “a statement of special education, related services and supplementary aids and services, based on peer reviewed research …” (Section 1414(d)(1)(A)) Congress clarified that IEPs must include “research-based methodology.”
Given schools’ failure to adopt evidence-based methods and implement them faithfully, it seems to me increasingly important that those parents who have the clout of an IEP employ that instrument to secure appropriate services for their children. I’ll continue to post entries here on Teach Effectively that identify techniques, procedures, practices, and methods that have strong track records for effectiveness, hoping that parents and advocates can use the contents of these posts to request evidence-based methods for their children.
Link Ms. Wright’s “Methodology in the IEP” from Wrightslaw and to “Miguel might show us what’s wrong” from LD Blog.
Recent Comments