Posts
It is interesting therefore to learn that direct instruction and mastery learning are recommended methods of teaching for students with learning disabilities. (Rosenberg, et al., 2008). It is also interesting to note that over the past two decades, the number of students with learning disabilities has increased. In 2006, approximately 2.6 million students were identified with learning disabilities, more than three times as many as were identified in 1976-1977. Although one reason for this growth might be better means of diagnoses of specific disorders, there has still been growth. Between 1990 and 2004, 650,000 additional students were identified with learning disabilities, representing a 31% increase at a time when the overall student population grew by only 15%. (U.S. Department of Education, 2006).
The increase in the number of students with learning disabilities raises the interesting question (if not uncomfortable for some), of whether the older way of teaching (direct instruction and mastery learning) may have had unintended benefits. According to Rosenberg, et. al. (2008), one factor associated with the identification of students with learning disabilities is the lack of access to effective instruction. Rosenberg et. al, also note that up to 50% of students with learning disabilities have been shown to overcome their learning difficulties when given high-quality instruction. Is the shift toward inquiry-based teaching resulting in more students being identified with learning disabilities?Are these students who in earlier days would have swum with the rest of the pack?
To answer this question would take a good bit of solid research. I hold it out as a research project for anyone willing to take it on, perhaps as a dissertation for a PhD.It would certainly provide some research that Sherry Fraser could cite. At the very least it might even result in helping people learn.
from: It Works for Me: An Exploration of "Traditional Math" Part III
by Barry Garelick
timeline
- In 1985, the NCTE issued its resolution urging the abolition of formal instruction in grammar. ("[T]he use of isolated grammar and usage exercises not supported by theory and research is a deterrent to the improvement of students' speaking and writing and...that NCTE urge the discontinuance of testing practices that encourage the teaching of grammar rather than the improvement of writing." Jeremiah Reedy review: War Against Grammar by David Mulroy)
- In 1989, the NCTM released its standards. ("Computational algorithms, the manipulation of expressions, and paper-and-pencil drill must no longer dominate school mathematics." -- National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), Professional Standards for Teaching Mathematics, 1991 - Illinois Loop)
- Beginning around 1990, constructivist teaching became commonplace in the classroom starting around 1990.
- "Between 1990 and 2004, 650,000 additional students were identified with learning disabilities, representing a 31% increase at a time when the overall student population grew by only 15%. (U.S. Department of Education, 2006)."
I would love to see Caroline Hoxby conduct a natural experiment to find out whether learning disabilities increased first in schools that were eary adopters for constructivist teaching and curricula.
dyslexie, vraiment?
NBT
10 comments:
One of my favorite pet peeves is the 'specific learning disability in mathematics'. Our IEPs are riddled with this vernacular. My question in every IEP meeting (with the Specialists) is "Could you tell me what the specific disability is?"
Even though I've been asking this question for five years now, in three different schools, the answer is always... crickets chirping. Stupid me, I always figured that some 'expert' has found some specific thing that keeps kids from learning math. What I've come to realize is that the 'specific learning disability' is code for 'the child is really far behind in math'.
Since I'm usually buried in the classroom I can't do the research to find out what's going on but my strong suspicion is that many learning disabilities are simply manifestations of curricula madness. This is where you take the child who has sunk behind their peers, reduce their workload, shove a calculator in their hands, expect less, and write an ed plan to formalize it all.
When I'm lucky enough to get one of these kids to stay after school for more practice everything gets clearer for my little untrained mind.
The timelines here are off. Ed schools were *not* promoting direct instruction, phonics, math facts etc. before the 1980's -- they were havens of "progressive" mush even then -- certainly back into the 60's, and likely before. Why were DI and the results of PFT so vilified, if direct instruction and non-constructivist theories held sway?
It's likely the stranglehold of the constructivist cult on education schools and curriculum development has increased and solidified since the 80's, but it certainly was well-entrenched before that.
It's one reason the man who developed Open Court Reading (the only phonics basal reading program available for many years) finally had to sell it to a major publisher, because he could not win any viable market share in the constructivist climate -- and that was the 60's-80's.
I fell victim to the "spell it like it sounds" instructional method in the early 60's. My mother was told by the teacher not to correct my spelling.
I have yet to fully recover from that instructional fad.
Not much has changed, my son's teacher in 1st grade told parent volunteers not to tell the children how to spell anything, and that the students should look around to "discover" the words correctly written somewhere in the room. Never mind that very few of them could read.
JoAnne C
Anonymous - I'm sure you're right & I should get your comment pulled up front.
My understanding, from Robert Slavin's textbook (and from palisadesk, I believe) is that ed schools were at least teaching something in the way of direct instruction & classroom management prior to the mid 1980s.
Another factoid: I've just been going through archives of the Journal of Educational Psychology. In the 1970s the journal was publishing behavioral research looking at the effects of various classroom interventions on student achievement.
Today you see a lot of studies on motivation, which is a student-centered concept: the student's motivation is what matters, not the positive reinforcement provided by the environment.
My guess is that while ed schools have been progressive for a very long time, they've gotten much worse, particularly in the wake of the 60s.
Students here are now discovering everything, including how to read and how to spell.
They're doing "word study" in grades 4 & 5, which involves "looking for a pattern" instead of being taught what the pattern is and then practicing it to the point of automaticity.
My understanding, from Robert Slavin's textbook (and from palisadesk, I believe)
I'm no fan of Slavin, but I haven't read the textbook in question (let's hope it is more credible than his own "research" into Success for All, aka "Success for a Few, Big Bucks for Me").
There have always been *some* ed schools who taught fairly rigorous programs in instructional methodology, design, curriculum development, classroom management and so on -- but they were and are few and far between.
The 70's were a hotbed of "discovery learning," "look and say," "language experience," "New Math," "journal" writing in K-2 and so on. I happened into a program that *did* teach some useful courses on assessment, program design, methodology, statistics and so forth, but it was an exception at the time and was likely due to the department chair who was a very rigorous instructivist herself. She was not a colleague of Engelmann but did have the same attitude -- if the student didn't learn, the teacher didn't teach.
It was an unusual program and emphasis however. Colleagues who ment through education certification programs elsewhere at the same time (and before) got mostly mush. "Progressive" education was in full swing at the time (late 70's) and had been so for some years alteady.
One difference however is that basic arithmetic was still on the agenda of most curricula then, whereas now it has dropped below the horizon entirely in some jurisdictions.
The discovery learning that was tried in the 60's, based on math textbooks I've examined from that era, was not like today's. They presented some problems that served as scaffolding--they attempted to work within the students "zone of proximal development". Admittedly, some of the exercises were scaffolded much too steeply, but in all of the cases I've seen, the bottom line they wanted the student to discover was stated as a rule, usually in bold at the bottom of the page. So if the student didn't discover it, the student could learn it via direct means, and it would be the student's dirty little secret. In any event, the topics were sequenced appropriately and there were many problems to ensure mastery as well as context; eg., what type of problems does fractional division represent?
The discovery inherent in programs like CMP is a hodge podge of ideas, not well sequenced. What is a side dish, becomes indistinguishable from the main course it is supposed to be complementing.
After checking out Catherine's timeline, I ran across Chapter 5 from Teaching Needy Kids in our Backward System.
It gives a whole lot of information on the Follow Through Project and the Direct Instruction model.
You can find it online at:
http://www.zigsite.com/
prologues/prologue_
to_chapter_5.html
Thanks for the post!
As I recall, Slavin made the comment about his own textbook. He said that in earlier editions he'd opened with a plea for more constructivism (or discovery - I don't know what term he used); then around the mid-80s he started asking for more direct instruction.
I'll see if I posted that passage on the blog. I may have.
I have a memory that someone else gave me a timeline -- but it may have been the same thing.
Paul B., the term 'specific' in specific learning disability refers to the domain of the disability. The domains are: Math calculations, Math reasoning (may or may not include spatial reasoning,) written expression, reading comprehension, basic reading skills (refers to decoding, phonemic awareness and fluency.)
You may have heard birds chirping because there are severe legal implications for interpreting the diagnostic data. I have kept my mouth shut to these questions in fear of legal ramifications before. IT all depends on the individuals present in the IEP.
Janet
SPED
Post a Comment