Students may have learning difficulties for a variety of reasons, some intrinsic to the child (e.g., below-average mental ability; attention deficits;
hearing or vision problems; learning disability), but others are due to outside influences including inappropriate school curriculum or methods of teaching (Westwood, 2008a). While teachers have very limited control over most of the intrinsic influences on learning, they do have control over what is taught and the manner in which it is taught. In the same way that it is necessary to adapt the curriculum, methods and classroom organisation to meet the needs of gifted and talented students, it is also necessary to make some modifications for students with difficulties. It is generally not necessary to seek totally different or ‘special’ methods for these students because the answer mainly lies in using existing instructional approaches with greater intensity and precision. Ellis (2005, p. 3) remarks that ‘… teaching practices for those with learning difficulties need to be considered in the context of the ‘generally effective pedagogy’.
Several writers have surveyed the research evidence to discover which methods work most effectively for students with learning problems (e.g., Carnine, Dixon & Silbert, 1998; Forness, Kavale, Blum & Lloyd, 1997; Swanson, 2000). The consensus of opinion indicates that these students learn best, particularly in academic subjects, when the teaching approach, in the beginning stages, is carefully structured and provides abundant opportunities for successful practice and application. Direct instructional methods, together with training in cognitive strategy use, have consistently proved to be the most effect approach. Swanson (2000, p. 23) concludes:
A combined direct instruction and strategy instruction model is an effective procedure for remediating learning disabilities when compared to other instructional models. The important instructional components that primarily make up this model are: attention to sequence, drill- repetition-practice, segmenting information into parts, controlling of task difficulty through prompts and cues, making use of technology, the teacher systematically modeling problem-solving steps, and making use of small interactive groups.
Some years earlier Lloyd (1988) had reached very similar conclusions. Lloyd tells us research indicates that the most effective approaches for reducing student failure rates have tended to be:
◗ structured: characterised by a great deal of teacher direction in the initial stages of learning
46 t E A C h i n g m E t h o d s
◗ goal oriented: the students are clear about what is to be achieved
◗ with an emphasis on practice: new information and skills are repeated and
applied many times to ensure acquisition and maintenance
◗ with an emphasis on strategy training: students are taught how to attempt the tasks set for them
◗ independence oriented: although highly teacher-directed in the early stages,
learners are expected to acquire knowledge and skills that will enable them later to work independently.
When looking at specific areas of the curriculum, several writers have advanced the proposition that current methods of teaching are not meeting the needs of some students, and that students with learning difficulties are put at risk. For example, in many countries, the teaching of reading over the past two decades has mainly been via the constructivist whole language approach. This method does not favour the direct teaching of phonics and word building, two essential component skills in both reading and spelling. As a consequence, many students with learning difficulties do not pick up the skills by incidental learning and remain struggling readers with difficulties across the curriculum (e.g., Coltheart & Prior, 2006; Swan & Lyon, 2005). They make much better progress when taught by direct methods that explicitly teach decoding and comprehension strategies. Similarly, in the domain of arithmetic, some experts are questioning whether problem-based approaches have gone too far, to the extent that through lack of practice, children with learning difficulties are unable to carry out routine calculations with speed and accuracy (e.g., Farkota, 2005; Kroesbergen et al., 2004). Even in areas like science, where investigative approaches are most strongly advocated, there are opinions emerging that some students need more explicit teaching, rather than ‘discovery’, if they are to develop the necessary concepts (e.g., Klahr & Li, 2005; McCleery & Tindal, 1999; Whitman & Evans, 2006).
The current position is that in most of the basic academic subjects the preferred model is a balanced program comprising direct teaching of essential skills combined with the more functional, motivating and creative elements of whole language and whole maths. Ellis (2005, p. 46) concludes: ‘Best practice is now recognised by classroom practitioners as the applying of a combination of instructional approaches which best fit the students being taught’. Best practice also suggests that accommodations and modi-
fications to curriculum content (differentiation) are needed to address the range of ability found in today’s classrooms (e.g., Fahsl, 2007; Tomlinson, 1996, 2003). Strategies for differentiation are discussed in chapter 5.
students with disabilities
Does teaching in a special school call for totally different teaching methods? What is ‘special’ about special education? The answers to these two questions depend on several variables; for example, the type of disability a student has, the severity of that disability, and its impact on learning capacity. In some cases the teaching methods may be identical to those used in mainstream schools, but in other cases modifications and additions are required.