Child leaning centred

	Until relatively recently, children were taught the three R's in a fairly straightforward fashion. The teacher explained the lesson and then the children practised it. No other way of accomplishing the job even occurred to anyone until the 18th-century Romantic philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau began to advocate that educators "follow nature", slow down their students' intellectual growth and wait for them to demonstrate interest in a subject. Rousseau's ideas did not gain common currency, however, until they were adopted by the American social scientist John Dewey around the turn of this century. Dewey's recommendations, such as his emphasis on "learning by doing" and his belief that the process is more important than the product, were immediately hailed with enthusiasm by many American educators who began to implement them in American schools in the 1920's. The influence of "progressive" ideas grew steadily, but the full weight of the dogma did not fall on Ontario schools until the late 1960's when the Hall-Dennis Report was released.
What is Child-Centred Learning?
	Child-centred learning is considered to be a philosophy, as opposed to a methodology, and therefore no two classrooms are alike. Generally speaking, however, a child-centred teacher tries to create an environment which will motivate the children to discover new skills and knowledge. Teachers are no longer supposed to transfer facts into passive students' heads but rather facilitate their discovery of relevant information. As a result, teachers rarely stand in front of the class and teach a lesson. Instead, activity centres may be set up around the room with the children moving from station to station, or students might be assigned to work together in groups on a project. Relatively little whole-class teaching takes place; rather teachers use methods such as peer tutoring, individual and group projects, and teacher conferencing with one student while the rest of the class works alone.
Does Child-Centred Learning Work?
	There have not been many evaluations of the latest versions of child-centred learning, mainly because its proponents reject the validity of all tests. There are, however, indicators that suggest that there are serious drawbacks to child-centred learning. Child-centred classrooms generate large numbers of "learning-disabled" children who need remedial teaching. (The American Academic of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry estimates that learning disabilities affect as many as 15% of otherwise able school-children.) In England, which pioneered child-centred methods in the 1960's, recent tests have revealed that more than half of 11-year-olds failed to reach the required standard in English and math, while 45% of 14-year-olds achieved no more than the level expected of an 11-year-old in the core subjects of English, science and math. By age nine, the performance of Canadian students on international comparisons of academic achievement is already mediocre or worse. (Education and Training in Canada, pp. 11-18) In 1991, the average Canadian grade eight student was almost one year behind his 1966 counterpart in academic achievement (Education and Training in Canada, pp. 22-23) "Four out of 10 Canadian adults (38 percent) have some difficulty with everyday reading and math demands." (Learning Well, Living Well, p.5) "Fifty-five percent of Canadian Manufacturers' Association members say the performance of recent high school graduates rate poor or fair in meeting elementary job requirements." (Plant, Canada's Industrial Newspaper, p. 46) Parent groups have spontaneously arisen in many jurisdictions because they believe their children are not acquiring their basic skills. There is a steady increase in the number of children who are being home-schooled or sent to private schools or tutors.
A Better Method
	For centuries, good teachers have been successfully using methods now called direct instruction to teach basic skills and knowledge. In direct instruction, the teacher presents the new skill or knowledge clearly and simply to the students. Usually the lesson builds on previous learning. The students are then required to practise and extend the lesson and are given immediate feedback. Finally, the students are tested for mastery. Remediation and review are provided where necessary. Classroom comparisons over the last 20 years show how direct instruction can be implemented for the best results, consistently surpassing child-centred methods.
Comparing Approaches
	Prior to around 1980 when the proponents of child-centred learning began to refuse to take part, a number of comparative studies were carried out. One example was a comparison of 10 child-centred and 10 conventional classrooms in Etobicoke in the mid-1970's. When the conventional classrooms were found to be superior in most respects, the Etobicoke Board suppressed the study and implemented child-centred learning system-wide. (Holmes, pp. 3-7) A much larger comparison was carried out from 1968 to 1977 when the U.S. Government spent one billion dollars on the world's largest educational experiment, Project Follow-Through. In this study, the effectiveness of 13 different educational approaches was compared by testing tens of thousands of children who had been taught by one of the 13 approaches. Project Follow-Through proved that the Direct Instruction model was markedly better than the other approaches. Direct Instruction students placed first in reading, arithmetic, spelling - in fact in all the basic skills, including problem-solving. As well, Direct Instruction students had the highest self-esteem. In contrast, the extremely-progressive approaches, which featured child-centred learning, consistently got the worst scores. (The War Against the Schools' Academic Child Abuse, pp. 3-6) In addition, 153 smaller comparison studies were reviewed by Giaconia and Hedges who found that teacher-controlled forms of instruction were more effective in promoting academic achievement. (Giaconia and Hedges, pp. 579-602)
Educators are Ignoring these Studies
	The proponents of child-centred learning continue to deny the importance of direct instruction for teaching basic skills and knowledge. The decision to use child-centred learning is generally made on behalf of classroom teachers by their principals, boards and ministries/departments of education and faculties of education/teachers' colleges. Most teachers are on the receiving end of a great deal of persuasion, propaganda and even regulation designed to prevent them from using direct instruction. Thus, when parents ask their child's teacher to use direct instruction, the teacher often becomes defensive. Not only is he/she frequently discouraged by superiors from using direct instruction, but also direct instruction materials are often not available. In addition, few teachers have received training in the use of direct instruction. The responses which educators most often make to parents' requests for direct instruction, along with SQE's presentation of the facts, are listed on the attached pages.
What Should You Do?
	If your child is struggling with basic skills, we strongly encourage you to ensure that he/she gets help right away. Teaching a child basic skills is usually not very difficult, and Direct instruction children typically do very well in child-centred classrooms. It is generally harder to teach children basic skills once they have been exposed to child-centred learning because of the need to break bad habits like carelessness and disorganization. The key is to go right back to the start and take the time to build a solid foundation before beginning to add, step-by-step, progressively more difficult work. For more information and for suggestions regarding good teaching materials, contact Malkin Dare at mdare@sympatico.ca.
Does it Matter?
	First-grade marks in reading and arithmetic are powerful predictors of high school performance. (Simner and Barnes, p. 334). Basic skills and knowledge are critically important. All academic subjects are dependent on them.
Common Responses to Parents' Requests for Direct Instruction
	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.
Bibliography
	Education and Training in Canada, Economic Council of Canada, 1992 Engelmann, Siegfried, War Against the Schools' Academic Child Abuse, Halcyon House, 1992 Giaconia, R.M. and Hedges, L.V., "Identifying Features of Effective Open Education", Review of Educational Research, 1982, 52(4), pp. 579-602) Holmes, Mark, "Review of Early Childhood Study Project Evaluation", unpublished document, 1989 International Comparisons in Education: Curriculum, Values and Lessons, Alberta Education, 1992 Learning Well, Living Well, Government of Canada, 1991 Macek, J.J., Towards a Better Education, unpublished document, 1991 National Tests: What Other Countries Expect Their Students to Know, National Endowment for the Humanities, 1991 Plant, Canada's Industrial Newspaper, Feb. 12, 1996 Rosenshine, Barak and Robert Stevens, "Teaching Functions", in M.C. Wittrock (Ed.) in Handbook of Research on Teaching, 3rd Edition, 1986 Simner, Marvin L. and Michael J. Barnes, "Relationship Between First-Grade Marks and the High School Dropout Problem", in Journal of School Psychology, Vol. 29, pp. 331-335, 1991 What Secondary Students Abroad are Expected to Know, American Federation of Teachers, 1995