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: [email protected]. 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) contention that “the most important single factor influencing learning is what the learner already knows” (p. 332). Learning that builds effectively on the learner’s current knowledge is said to be within the student’s zone of proximal development (ZPD). The ZPD establishes what the learner already knows, and can do with minimal assistance by a teacher or peer – following which the individual is expected to undertake learning tasks independently. Hence, the role of the teacher is to be a facilitator of learning (rather than a director or an orchestrator), and to provide opportunities for individual learners to acquire knowledge and construct meaning through their own activities, and through discussion, reflection and the sharing of ideas with other learners with minimal corrective intervention (Cambourne, 2002; Daniels, 2001; McInerney & McInerney, 1998, 2002 2006; Selley, 1999; Von Glasersfeld, 1995). Sasson (2001, p. 189) refers to constructivism as “... a mixture of Piagetian stage theory with postmodernist ideology” that is devoid of evidence-based justification for its adoption as an effective method of teaching. Similarly, in highlighting the inappropriateness of constructivism as an operational theory of teaching, Wilson (2005, pp. 2-3), posits: ... We largely ignore generations of professional experience and knowledge in favour of a slick postmodern theoretical approach, most often characterised by the misuse of the notion of constructivism. ... Australian operational views of constructivism ... confuse a theory of knowing with a theory of teaching. We confuse the need for the child to construct her own knowledge with a form of pedagogy which sees it as the child’s responsibility to achieve that. We focus on the action of the student in the construction of knowledge rather than the action of the teacher in engaging with the child’s current misconceptions and structuring experiences to challenge those misconceptions. ... The constructivist theory of knowing has been used to justify a noninterventionist theory of pedagogy, whereas it is a fair interpretation to argue that constructivism requires vigorous interventionist teaching: how, after all, is a student with misconceptions supposed to challenge them unaided? How does she even know they are misconceptions? We need, instead, a view of teaching which emphasises that the role of the teacher is to intervene vigorously and systematically; that is done on the basis of excellent knowledge of a domain and of student conceptions and misconceptions in that domain, assembled from high quality formative assessments; and that the purpose of the intervention is to ensure that the child’s construction of knowledge leads her to a more correct understanding of the domain. These assertions by Wilson are consistent with expressed concerns that most faculties and schools of education in Australian universities currently providing pre-service teacher education 4 For example, see: Coltheart (2005b); Ellis (2005); Farkota (2003a, 2005); Hattie (2003, 2005); Purdie and Ellis (2005), Rowe (2005b, 2006); Westwood (2004, 2006); Wheldall (2006). _____________________________________________________________________________________ ACER: Improving Learning Effective Teaching Practices 4 K.J. Rowe _____________________________________________________________________________________ base their programs on constructivist views of both learning and teaching. Westwood (1999), for example, highlights the results of a small South Australian study which found that most teachers (79%) had been strongly encouraged to use a constructivist approach in their initial teacher education courses and during in-service professional development programs. Even more notably, 67 per cent of the teacher trainees in this study indicated that constructivism was the only teaching approach to which they had been exposed in their teaching method courses. Commenting on these findings, Westwood (1999, p. 5) declares: At the same time as constructivist approaches have been promoted, direct teaching methods have been overtly or covertly criticised and dismissed as inappropriate, with the suggestion that they simply don’t work and are dull and boring for learners. The message that most teachers appear to have absorbed is that all direct teaching is old-fashioned and should be abandoned in favour of student-centred enquiry and activity-based learning. In commenting on what is arguably the most comprehensive report on initial teacher education and professional development compiled to date, Teachers Matter (OECD, 2005), Caldwell (2006, p. 112) observes: The focus of training programs for teachers has been overwhelmingly on initial teacher education, which includes training on pedagogy, the subject matter that the pre-service teacher aims to teach and, often, subject-specific pedagogy. This report suggest that pre-service education needs to be more focused on the things teachers will be expected to know and do once in the classroom. This is excellent advice, provided that teacher educators and in-service professional development providers base their curricular for teaching practice on findings from the extensive body of research evidence that clearly indicates what works (e.g., see cited references given in footnote 4). The fact that this is most often not the case is alarming (Rowe, 2005a,b, 2006). For example, in highlighting the evidence indicating that failure in student learning is strongly linked to deficiencies in teaching practice, Wheldall (2006, p. 177) notes: [A] necessary condition for learning to take place is effective instruction, but we hardly ever seem to employ it in schools! This is particularly evident in the teaching of reading. In spite of the failure of so-called whole language in teaching reading [a constructivist orientation], this is the approach that most teachers identify with and which dominates practice in our schools. ... This frustration with ineffective instruction in reading and related skills led to our development of MULILIT [Wheldall & Beaman, 2000]. By employing a rigorous, intensive, systematic, skills-based program of instruction, we have demonstrated that low progress readers can make extraordinary progress. These observations correspond with the purpose of the present paper, namely to highlight local and international evidence-based research findings that identify ‘best’ teaching practice for student learning, especially for those who experience learning difficulties. Compared with constructivist pedagogies, the key elements of Direct Instruction and the research evidence that support its utility are worth noting here – albeit briefly. Key features of Direct Instruction and its research-base Direct instruction (DI) – sometimes referred to as explicit instruction – “is a systematic method for presenting learning material in small steps, pausing to check for student understanding, and eliciting active and successful participation from all students” (Rosenshine, 1986, p. 60). DI modes of instruction are well grounded in findings from evidence-based research in cognitive science (see references cited in footnote 2), and give little attention to the ‘causes’ of underachievement, learning difficulties, or to students’ underlying abilities (Casey, 1994). Thus, DI 5 See: de Lemos (2002, 2004a); Fielding-Barnsley and Purdie (2005); Louden et al. (2005a-c); Rohl and Greaves (2004); Rowe (2005a, Appendix 2); Westwood (1999, 2004, 2006). 6 For recent and more comprehensive accounts of Direct Instruction, see: Ellis (2005, pp. 28-33); Farkota (2003b, 2005), Purdie and Ellis (2005, pp. 21-25), McInerney and McInerney (2006, pp. 174180); Westwood (2006, pp. 16-19). _____________________________________________________________________________________ ACER: Improving Learning Effective Teaching Practices 5 K.J. Rowe _____________________________________________________________________________________ programs are designed according to what, not who, is to be taught. Individual differences among students are allowed for through different entry points, reinforcement, amounts of practice, and correction strategies (see: Engelmann, 1980, 1999; Farkota, 2003a,b, 2005; Hempenstall, 1996, 1997). Direct Instruction is based on both the theory and evidence that learning can be greatly accelerated if instructional presentations are clear, minimise misinterpretations, and facilitate generalizations (Northwest Regional Education Laboratory, 2003). The principles upon which DI approaches are based include: • all children can learn, regardless of their intrinsic and context characteristics; • the teaching of basic skills and their application in higher-order skills is essential to intelligent behaviour and should be the main focus of any instructional program, and certainly prior to student-directed learning activities; and • instruction with students experiencing learning difficulties must be highly structured and permit large amounts of practice (Block, Everson, & Guskey, 1995; Bowey, 2000; Engelmann, 1999). Evidence for the utility of DI for the acceleration of student learning has been well demonstrated in findings from Project Follow Through, the largest and most costly research study in the history of education, in which both constructivist ‘student-centred’ (or ‘studentdirected’) models of teaching and ‘teacher-directed’ models were evaluated in terms of student learning gains. The project began in 1967 with President Lyndon Johnson's ‘war on poverty’ and was government-funded until 1995 (Grossen, 1995). This massive government initiative was aimed at breaking poverty cycles by providing disadvantaged students with a ‘better education’. Over a period of almost 30 years and at cost of more than one billion US dollars, Project Follow Through included over 70,000 students in more than 180 schools. The project’s objective was to identify teaching methods that are demonstrably effective in improving the academic performance of students in America's underprivileged schools – from at and below the 20th percentile level to the 50th percentile levels (Adams & Engelmann, 1996). In the final analysis (Stebbins et al., 1977) students being taught under the Direct Instruction model scored close to the 50th percentile in every subject, while for the other student-directed models, students consistently scored beneath the 20th percentile. Analysts of Project Follow Through evaluation data were unanimous in their agreement that teacher-directed methods of instruction resulted in consistently stronger student learning gains than those obtained from student-directed methods (Bereiter & Kurland, 1981; Lindsley, 1992; Stebbins et al., 1977). An analysis of the comparison data reported by Engelmann et al. (1988) also showed that of all the teaching models evaluated in Project Follow Through, the student-directed models consistently obtained the lowest achievements in all subjects. Meta-analytic syntheses of findings from more than 500,000 evidence-based studies of influences on student learning outcomes, including teaching methods, provide support for these results. For example, from such syntheses, Hattie (2003) has rank-ordered average effect sizes of commonly studied influences on student learning, as summarised below in Tables 1a and 1b, from which several features of the data are notable. First, of the 32 ‘influences’ listed, 29 have 7 For the original report of findings from Project Follow Through, see Stebbins et al. (1977). Similarly, for more complete descriptions of the curriculum and the philosophies of instruction evaluated in Project Follow Through, see Kinder and Carnine (1991). 8 Meta-analysis is a statistical method used for summarising findings from many studies that have investigated a similar problem. The method provides a numerical way of assessing and comparing the magnitudes of ‘average’ results, known as effect size (ES) – expressed in standard deviation (SD) units. An effect size is calculated as the difference in performance between the average scores of a group in a trial or experimental condition and those in a comparison condition, divided by the SD of the comparison group (or more often, divided by the pooled SD of both groups). An effect size ≤ 0.3 is regarded as ‘weak’; 0.5 is considered ‘moderate’; and 0.8 or larger as ‘strong’. _____________________________________________________________________________________ ACER: Improving Learning Effective Teaching Practices 6 K.J. Rowe _____________________________________________________________________________________ positive effects – 20 of which are related to teachers (i.e., 69%). Second, of the 14 stronger effects given in Table 1a (ES > 0.4 SDs), 11 (~79%) are influenced by teachers. Third, teacherdirected practices that constitute key features of Direct Instruction modes of teaching have strong effects on student learning outcomes (i.e., ES > 0.65 SDs), namely: Instructional & Assessment Feedback, Instructional Quality, Direct Instruction, and Remediation feedback. Table 1a Stronger Influences on Student Learning Influence Effect Size Source of Influence Feedback (instructional & assessment) 1.13 Teacher Students’ prior cognitive ability 1.04 Student Instructional quality 1.00 Teacher Direct instruction 0.82 Teacher Remediation feedback 0.65 Teacher Students' disposition to learn 0.61 Student Class environment 0.56 Teacher Challenge of Goals 0.52 Teacher Peer tutoring 0.50 Teacher Mastery learning 0.50 Teacher Parent involvement 0.46 Home Homework 0.43 Teacher Teacher Style 0.42 Teacher Questioning 0.41 Teacher Source: Adapted from Hattie (2003, p. 4). Table 1b Weaker Influences on Student Learning Influence Effect Size Source of Influence Peer effects 0.38 Peers Advance organisers 0.37 Teacher Simulation & games 0.34 Teacher Computer-assisted instruction 0.31 Teacher Testing 0.30 Teacher Instructional media 0.30 Teacher Aims & policy of the school 0.24 School Affective attributes of students 0.24 Student Physical attributes of students 0.21 Student Programmed instruction 0.18 Teacher Ability groupings 0.18 School Audio-visual aids 0.16 Teacher Individualisation 0.14 Teacher Finances/money 0.12 School Behavioural objectives 0.12 Teacher Team teaching 0.06 Teacher Physical attributes (e.g., class size) -0.05 School Television -0.12 Home Retention -0.15 School Source: Adapted from Hattie (2003, p. 4). In commenting on these findings, Hattie (2003, p. 4) notes: _____________________________________________________________________________________ ACER: Improving Learning Effective Teaching Practices 7 K.J. Rowe _____________________________________________________________________________________ ... the focus is to have a powerful effect on achievement, and this is where excellent teachers come to the fore – as such, excellence in teaching is the single most powerful influence on achievement. As can be seen from a sample of the possible influences, the major influence near the top of this chart [Table 1a] is in the hands of the teacher. (Although we note some at the bottom, which highlight that it is excellence in teaching that makes the greatest differences, not just teachers). Given the compelling findings of Hattie’s work (as well as that of Swanson, 1999; Swanson & Deshler, 2003), the results of Project Follow Through outlined above, together with the syntheses of research on effective methods for the teaching of reading documented in the reports of the National Reading Panel, one might well ask why these findings have failed to impact the policies and practices throughout the educational community. In an analysis of why the results of Follow Through were not acted on, Watkins (1995) asserted that: “parochial vested interests that work to either maintain the status quo or to advance self-serving models can prevent the implementation of teaching methods, approaches, or practices that clearly have an impact on student learning outcomes” (p. 61). Vested interests can be those of policymakers, faculty staff in higher education institutions, teachers, school district administrators, publishers, and the general public. For instance, Watkins observed that policymakers frequently develop policy that is based on public support, or the ideological views of academic, social and political pressure groups, rather than on empirical evidence. They often rely on inaccurate or incomplete information that others provide. Stakeholders who exert power but ignore the evidence, all too frequently influence them unduly. From their analyses of findings from Project Follow Through, Bereiter and Kurland (1981) also noted competing pedagogical philosophies that prevailed at the time. But, “Philosophies don’t teach kids. Events teach kids...” (p. 16). The events that need to happen for students with and without learning difficulties are those devised by teachers for implementation in their classrooms. Above all, these events should be informed by a thorough evidence-based knowledge of what works, why it works, and how it works. To this end, the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER), with funding support from the Australian Government Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST), has developed a trial teacher professional development (PD) package entitled: Working-Out What Works (WOWW) Training and Resource Manual (Hoad et al., 2005). A brief description of the recent national Project in which the WOWW PD package has been used, together with key findings, are of interest to all stakeholders throughout the educational community. The ‘Third Wave’ Project Beginning in June 2004, the purpose of this Project was to conduct research aimed at improving the literacy and numeracy outcomes of students with learning difficulties who are in Years 4, 5 and 6 in mainstream government, Catholic and independent schools. That is, the Project was primarily designed to identify, implement and evaluate school-based, ‘third wave’ intervention programs and teaching strategies that improve the literacy and numeracy learning of students 9 In particular, see NRP (2000a,b), and related references including: Camilli, Vargas and Yurecko (2003); Center (2005); Ehri et al. (2001); Rowe (2005b, pp. 20-23). 10 The DEST contract for the Project has been jointly directed by Ken Rowe (ACER Research Director) and Andrew Stephanou (ACER Senior Research Fellow), and managed by Kerry-Anne Hoad (Manager of ACER’s Centre for Professional Learning). The final report from the Project is currently being prepared (see: Rowe, Stephanou et al., 2006). 11 For the purposes of this Project, the ‘target group’ refers to students with learning difficulties located in mainstream schools in Years 4, 5 and 6 (or equivalent years) who do not meet national literacy and/or numeracy benchmark standards. Note that ‘first-wave’ teaching refers to regular classroom instruction, ‘second-wave’ refers to initial intervention for students experiencing learning difficulties, and ‘third-wave’ refers to intervention strategies for students continuing to under-achieve and/or experience learning difficulties during the middle years of schooling. _____________________________________________________________________________________ ACER: Improving Learning Effective Teaching Practices 8 K.J. Rowe _____________________________________________________________________________________ with learning difficulties. The Project design and methodology to date has consisted of three parts, each of which have occurred in parallel to ensure mutual support: Part 1: Literature review, and identification of participating government, Catholic and independent schools, and clusters; Part 2: Development and administration of data gathering tools, including diagnostic/ developmental assessments of student achievement progress in Reading and Numeracy (calibrated against National Benchmark standards for these domains), based on the principles of objective measurement (i.e., Rasch measurement). Part 3: Development, implementation, and evaluation of effective evidence-based ‘thirdwave’ intervention strategies and related professional development programs that are demonstrably effective in supporting school-based interventions for students with learning difficulties. Evaluation methods also included qualitative Case Study visits to selected schools undertaken during March 2006. The literature review of the available evidence-based research literature was conducted by ACER researchers Drs Nola Purdie and Louise Ellis (Purdie & Ellis, 2005), from which the WOWW PD Manual was produced (i.e., Hoad et al., 2005). The review clearly identified two major strategies that consistently indicate larger positive effects on students’ learning and achievement progress than are obtained from any other strategies alone or in combination (i.e., Direct Instruction and Strategy Instruction). Specific emphasis on these teaching strategies was deemed important on three counts: (a) their ‘effectiveness’ as teaching methods are firmly grounded in findings from evidence-based research, (b) they are largely unknown to teachers (apart from those familiar with the relevant published research), and (c) with few exceptions, current in-service teacher PD programs in these strategies are not provided by State/Territory education jurisdictions, nor by most Australian higher education institutions. The project evaluation and data-gathering methodology has been based on a pre-test/post-test design among a sample of 56 participating schools: 35 intervention schools and 21 reference schools, with 694 students in the numeracy component and 653 in the reading component – across Years 4, 5, and 6 (or Years 5, 6 & 7 for QLD, SA and WA schools). Intervention schools included those whose teachers were provided with professional development (PD) in effective, evidence-based strategies for ‘third wave’ 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. In each of the State capital cities: Adelaide, Brisbane, Hobart, Melbourne, Perth and Sydney, the whole-day PD provided to intervention school participants during February/March 2005 included training in Direct Instruction (DI) and Strategy Instruction (SI). The DI PD was presented via a specially prepared DVD demonstrating delivery of lessons using Elementary Math Mastery (Farkota, 2003b) and Corrective Reading (SRA, 2002). In addition to the specific training provided in these teaching methods, training was provided in Strategy Instruction, How Children Best Learn, and in Auditory Processing (Rowe, Pollard & Rowe, 2005, 2006; Victoria 2001). The training was supplemented by a comprehensive package of related teaching manuals and support materials for use in mainstream classrooms. 12 For recent expositions of Strategy Instruction, its practical applications and supporting research evidence, see: Ellis (2005, pp. 33-43); Purdie and Ellis (2005, pp. 28-31). 13 It is interesting to note that Recommendation 5 from the report of the parliamentary Enquiry Into the Education of Boys (Commonwealth of Australia, 2002, pp 107) reads: The Committee recommends that: (a) all State and Territory health authorities ensure that kindergarten children are fully tested for hearing and sight problems; and _____________________________________________________________________________________ ACER: Improving Learning Effective Teaching Practices 9 K.J. Rowe _____________________________________________________________________________________ Pre-test/post-test data from students in both intervention and reference schools were collected in March 2005 and again in September 2005. In addition to the collection of repeated measures of students’ achievements in Reading and Numeracy, repeated measures of students’ externalizing behaviours were obtained for three domains: Sociable, Attentive and Settled, from teacher-ratings on the Rowe Behavioral Rating Inventories 12-Item Teacher Form (Rowe & Rowe, 1997, 1999). Repeated measures of students’ experiences and attitudes towards school were also collected for three domains: Enjoyment, perceived Curriculum Usefulness and Teacher Responsiveness – employed in earlier longitudinal studies (e.g., Rowe, 1995; Rowe & Hill, 1998). Data analyses and statistical modelling of have taken into account the measurement, distributional and structural properties of the data. The results of key findings are summarised below. Student achievement growth Following are key findings arising from the analyses of students’ achievements in the March and September 2005 assessments of Reading and Numeracy, derived from fitting multivariate models to the obtained data, using STATISTICA (StatSoft, 2005) – as summarised in Figures 1.1, 1.2 and 2 presented below. Intervention effect: F(1, 648) = 17.619, p = 0.00003 (Adjusted for March 2005 Reading Score) Vertical bars denote 95% confidence intervals Reference Schools Intervention Schools 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 R ee ad in g S co re (S ep te m be r 20 05 ) March 2005 Average Sept 2005 Average Figure 1.1 Plot of mean-point estimates bounded by 95% confidence intervals for students’ Reading scores in September 2005, adjusted for their March 2005 scores: Intervention and Reference schools (b) the Commonwealth and State and Territory governments jointly fund the implementation of the strategies used in the Victorian study on auditory processing in primary schools throughout Australia. Implementation should include: • professional development for all primary school teachers to raise awareness about the normal development of auditory processing in children; • the provision of the relevant auditory screening tests and training to equip teachers to administer preliminary tests with referral to specialised support where needed; and • professional development for teachers in practical classroom management and teaching strategies to address the needs of children with auditory processing difficulties. _____________________________________________________________________________________ ACER: Improving Learning Effective Teaching Practices 10 K.J. Rowe _____________________________________________________________________________________ Intervention effect: F(1, 688) = 7.419, p = 0.00662 (Adjusted for Marach 2005 Numeracy Score) Vertical bars denote 95% confidence intervals Reference Schools Intervention Schools 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 N u m er ac y S co re ( S ep te m be r 20 05 ) March 2005 Average Sept 2005 Average Figure 1.2 Plot of mean-point estimates bounded by 95% confidence intervals for students’ Numeracy in September 2005, adjusted for their March 2005 scores: Intervention and Reference schools These summaries provide graphical plots of the adjusted mean-point estimates of students’ measured achievements (in intervention and reference schools) on the constructed Reading and Numeracy scales, bounded by 95% confidence intervals. That is, a mean-point estimate between its upper and lower intervals is indicates that ‘we can be confident’ that the computed mean lies somewhere between these intervals. To interpret the graphs, when the confidence intervals for any pair of plots overlap, the difference between their mean-point estimates is not statistically significant at the 95% level (i.e. p > 0.05). Conversely, when the confidence intervals for any pair of plots do not overlap, the difference between their means IS statistically significant. (i.e., p ≤ 0.05). Initial analyses of the data indicated that in March 2005 there were no significant differences between intervention and reference school students’ average Reading and Numeracy achievements, at each of the target Year levels. However, the findings summarised in Figures 1.1 and 1.2 indicate that in September 2005 there were significant improvements in the achievements of students in intervention schools compared with those in reference schools (adjusted for their measured achievements in March 2005). The findings indicate that (on average), the professional learning, plus its implementation and support provided to intervention school teachers during and subsequent to the 2005 State Training Days, had significant positive effects on learning difficulties students’ achievement progress in Reading and Numeracy. Given the short duration between the March and September 2005 assessment periods (i.e., ~ 6 months), this result is remarkable.