|
1. The research says that
child-centred learning is the best way to teach children.
There is a huge amount of research
on teaching, and it is of varying quality. The type of research cited by
child-centred learning proponents is usually:
- small scale; and/or
- flawed; and/or
- off-topic; and/or
- supporting direct
instruction; and/or
- someone's opinion.
When an educator cites "the
research" to you, ask for specifics. If you do succeed in getting a
reference and would like to verify it, please contact mdare@sympatico.ca.
Large-scale, empirical research clearly
shows that direct instruction is the best known way to teach children basic
skills. (War Against the Schools' Academic Child Abuse, pp. 3-6)
2. Because all children learn
differently, we use a variety of methods to teach them. No one method is best.
It is true that children are very
different, and even the same children learn best from different methods at
different times. SQE does not claim that every child will learn better with
direct instruction and that no child can learn without direct instruction. We
simply state that direct instruction is the single best bet, and that it
should be the systematic starting point for teaching nearly all children
basic skills and knowledge.
Direct instruction is known to be
most effective for subject areas where the learning objective is the mastery
of well-defined skills or knowledge - mathematics, spelling and grammar, for
example. Direct instruction has not been shown to be superior for less
structured learning objectives, such as team-work or music appreciation.
Effective teachers use a variety
of approaches over the course of a day, taking into consideration the
learning objective, the number of children involved, the children's
characteristics, the resources available, and so on. Classroom studies show that,
in the absence of more compelling factors, direct instruction should be the
method of choice for teaching basic skills and knowledge. (Rosenshine and
Stevens, pp. 376-378)
3. But we do use Direct
Instruction.
Surprisingly few teachers are
familiar with the set of procedures used in direct instruction: presentation
of the new material in a clear, step-by-step fashion; checking for
understanding; guided practice; immediate feedback and correction;
independent practice; testing; and review. Accordingly, many teachers think
that they are using direct instruction just by teaching a lesson to the whole
class.
In order to determine whether a
teacher is using direct instruction, ask whether he/she includes all of the
elements of a lesson listed above, especially the immediate feedback and
correction.
4. Children should be allowed to
go at their own pace.
Child-centred learning is based in
part on the belief that one should wait until a child develops certain
concepts and skills spontaneously and on his/her own. Furthermore, it is
believed that some children are "late bloomers" and should not be
subjected to age-appropriate standards until they have had a chance to bloom.
In practice, this philosophy means
that a large number of children gradually fall behind the rest - and nothing
is done about it. There is no designated milestone at which someone steps in
and arranges for failing students to get extra help. As a result, a great
many children just get further and further behind until they have no
realistic chance of ever catching up.
Direct instruction teachers, in
contrast, do not let children go at their own pace. Instead, they set the
pace themselves and then use good direct instruction to enable the whole
class to move at that speed. Similarly, direct instruction teachers do not
wait for children to "become ready" or "bloom." Instead,
they help them to get ready - by teaching them carefully-sequenced skills and
knowledge, always first laying a foundation before adding the next item in
the series.
Are there exceptions? Of course.
Good direct instruction teachers encourage the occasional child who has
already mastered a skill to work on more advanced tasks.
5. We consider the higher-order
skills, like decision-making, computer literacy and research skills, to be
more important than the basic skills.
More advanced learning builds on
basic learning, and it is vain to try to reverse the order.
In order to master complex skills,
one must first develop the necessary sub-skills in a step-by-step manner.
Beginners do not become experts by immediately attempting the most difficult
repertoire; rather, they slowly and carefully develop the pre-requisite
abilities by means of hard work and constant feedback. There are no
short-cuts.
Test results show that Canadian
children are worse at the more complex mathematical problems than at the
basic ones, compared with other countries.
When children are encouraged to
tackle difficult tasks prematurely, they often devise crutches which are
useful as a coping strategy at the time but may be hard to throw away later.
An example would be primary children who develop "hunt and peck"
typing strategies and later have a difficult time making the transition to
touch-typing. It would be preferable to begin computer work by teaching the
pre-requisite skills, such as touch-typing and the various applications.
We agree that the higher-order
skills are more important than the basic skills but they cannot be achieved
without them.
6. We don't want to stifle the
children's creativity by subjecting them to the rote teaching and tedious
drill involved in direct instruction approaches.
Child-centred learning was
developed in reaction to the endless worksheets and mind-numbing memorization
which characterized some traditional classrooms in the past. However, the
pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction. A middle ground of some
worksheets, some memorization and some drill is best for most children.
There is no evidence that
child-centred classes are more creative than direct instruction classes. On
the contrary, there is good evidence that creative problem-solving occurs
only if the relevant data are so well-remembered that they can be recalled
quickly. (Rosenshine and Stevens, p. 378)
7. It is inhumane to subject
little children to tedious and stressful direct instruction schooling.
Most children enjoy good direct
instruction. They like drill and practice and seeing their skills improve.
They take pride in mastering difficult learning and doing good work. Visitors
to good direct instruction classrooms are struck by the children's attitudes
of purpose and engagement, as well as their pride and confidence in
themselves.
By contrast, child-centred
learning generates large numbers of students who lack the academic skills and
knowledge needed to lead a productive and fulfilled life. That is inhumane.
8. Some children are so
handicapped by social factors that they can't be good scholars.
Educators quite rightly point out
that many of their students are handicapped by factors such as neglectful or
abusive parents, poverty or English as a second language. On the other hand,
none of these conditions is new. If we were able to question teachers from
generations past, they would surely confirm that their students also suffered
from social handicaps. During the Depression and afterwards, for example,
poverty was the norm. Mothers died in childbirth, fathers went to war. And
immigrants have been coming to our shores ever since John Cabot led the way
in 1497. The schools have always been challenged by hard-to-teach students.
The best hope for disadvantaged
children is to get a solid education. That they can overcome their handicaps
and learn to be good scholars is clearly shown by the existence of certain
schools which manage to bring a high percentage of disadvantaged students up
to grade level or better. Without exception, these schools use direct
instruction. One example is Wesley Elementary School in Texas where the
students (mostly black, inner-city children) outperform the rest of Houston.
(Englemann, p. 134) Child-centred learning is least effective with primary
grade pupils and students of any age who come from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Disadvantaged children can learn, but they require direct instruction.
9. Many children are learning-disabled.
In North America, estimates of the
percentage of children who are learning-disabled range from one percent to
thirty percent. It has proven very difficult to define learning disabilities
or to establish which students have them. In practice, a student is often
designated learning-disabled when he/she is well below grade level and no
other explanation can be found. This diagnosis is obviously not very helpful,
not least since it doesn't reveal what needs to be done to help the student.
The term serves only to shift the responsibility for a child's academic
failures from the school to the child.
The number of
"learning-disabled" students has been climbing steadily since the
advent of child-centred learning. (In Ontario, in 1980, 35,352 children were
formally identified as learning-disabled; by 1993, there were 81,815.) The
vast majority of them respond well to direct instruction, although many have
become more difficult to teach as a result of the bad habits, such as
carelessness and disorganization, created by their exposure to child-centred
learning. In addition, many students have developed behavioural problems or
given up on themselves because they have been told that they are disabled. A
disproportionately-high percentage of "learning-disabled" students
drop out of school, turn to crime or commit suicide.
10. Your expectations are too
high.
International comparisons of
academic achievement indicate that Ontario students are outperformed by the
students in European and Pacific Rim countries ---and even by students in
many other Canadian provinces (Education and Training in Canada, pp. 11-22).
Curriculum comparisons tell the
same story. For example, the US's National Endowment for the Humanities
compared national achievement examinations in France, Germany, Japan, England
and Wales and found that all these countries were setting very high standards
for the humanities. (National Tests: What Other Countries Expect Their
Students to Know, pp. 9-112) A comparison of the mathematics and science
curricula of Manitoba with those of Czechoslovakia found that the Czech
curricula were two to four years ahead of the Manitoba curricula. (Macek, pp.
14-19) Another study looked at the Alberta mathematics, physics and chemistry
curricula in relation to those of Germany, Japan and Hungary. Once again, the
Alberta curricula were generally found to be behind those of the other
countries. (International Comparisons, pp.12-22) A fourth comparison examined
the "gateway" examinations given to average-achieving students in
France, Germany and Scotland. These exams demonstrate that a very high level
of accomplishment is required of all students in these countries. (What
Secondary Students Abroad Are Expected to Know, pp. 1-84)
There is no reason to believe that
Canadian children are less able than students in other countries. On the
contrary, they are being betrayed by a system that denies them the
opportunity to learn as much as their international counterparts. The
requirement is not for parents to lower their expectations, but rather for
educators to raise theirs.
|