Edugenic Academic Failure #dsfconf

To Perth for the Language, Literacy and Learning conference organised by the Dyslexia-SPELD Foundation. I am suspicious of many education conferences because there is a tendency for the sessions to be dominated by sociological theories rather than scientific evidence. But this is not a standard education conference. It is an event where speech pathologists, researchers, policy wonks and teachers all mingle and where the common touchstone is evidence.

The morning keynote was delivered by Professor Kate Nation from Oxford in the U.K. The topic was poor comprehenders. These are the students who show a strong ability to decode – turning written words on a page into the correct sounds – but who struggle to comprehend what they have read. Nation does not set decoding in opposition to comprehension as some whole-language advocates might. She stresses the need for explicit and systematic phonics instruction. Yet she also made the point that nobody thinks this is all there is to reading. She referred to the ‘simple view of reading’ that sees reading as the sum of decoding skills and oral comprehension. With a few caveats – reading is not simple – this model provides a good guide.

So what should we do with the poor comprehenders? Nation discussed an RCT from the U.K. that I had not heard about before. It had a cunning design: Students with poor comprehension were assigned to one of three groups. The first group was a waiting-list control. The other three groups had withdrawal lessons in text comprehension, oral language or a combination of the two. All groups benefited but the greatest, sustained benefits came from oral language training, with this improvement seemingly related to an improvement in oral vocabulary.

This is a variant of an ABC design that pits one intervention against another and I believe that this is the best way forward for large-scale RCTs such as those conducted by the Education Endowment Foundation in the U.K. and Evidence for Learning in Australia.

It is no surprise to me that improved comprehension comes with improved vocabulary growth. It is a relative lack of knowledge that differentiates low achieving students from their peers and our current instructional methods only serve to enhance this gap.

This was a point that came up in the symposium that I contributed to as part of the second session of the day. First, Dr. Jen Buckingham of the Five From Five literacy project showed us domestic and international data to demonstrate the stagnation of Australia’s literacy performance over time, particularly in terms of the long tail of low performance.  Then Professor Pamela Snow took to the stage to look at the issue from the perspective of the school-to-prison pipeline. There were a number of issues to reflect on from Snow’s talk but chief amongst these was her coining of the term ‘edugenic academic failure’. This is academic failure caused by education.

This happens, for instance, when schools defy the evidence and use ‘balanced’ approaches to teaching decoding skills rather than explicit synthetic phonics teaching. Almost all of the students in the school-to-prison pipeline have academically underperformed and one of the greatest protective factors against entering the criminal justice system in strong academic performance. Reading is a basis for all academic performance and so literacy is a key ‘bridge’ for students to cross.

Mandy Nayton then placed the discussion in the perspective of school practice and how we might be able to diagnose a learning disability, again making it clear that schools have an impact in the teaching methods they choose.

I spoke about the reasons why explicit instruction leads to more equitable outcomes. Explicit instruction does not require students to bring prior knowledge from home. It doesn’t assume what students know. Instead, it teaches all of the components. I suggested that this is the key difference between explicit teaching and implicit methods. Explicit teaching takes a standard level of explanation – the sort of explanation we might give in everyday life for how to operate a dishwasher or how to make a casserole – and adds to it. For instance, explicit programmes might use non-examples. There is a good discussion of this in a book that I bought at the conference: When teaching the concept of an equilateral triangle, we might show equilateral triangles of different sizes and rotated in different ways but we might also show an isosceles triangle and explain why that is not equilateral.

Implicit approaches generally give less guidance than an everyday explanation because they prioritise students figuring things out for themselves. This then becomes dependent upon the child’s prior knowledge and home experiences and this leads to the growing gap between the haves and the have-nots.

And so we have a potential mechanism for edugenic academic failure which made me think about a few other implications.

Firstly, Kate Nation’s possible solutions to oral language comprehension issues involved explicit teaching. The oral language component of the RCT that she mentioned combined a number of processes but they were all explicitly taught and, as Nation pointed out, they were proximal to the issue: You don’t fix an oral language problem by running a philosophy for children programme, you fix it by explicitly teaching oral language content.

Secondly, as Barak Rosenshine describes in this piece, explicit teaching has been shown to be the most effective way of teaching pretty much anythingSometimes, there is quite a heated debate about the behaviour problem in Australian schools. There are a number of ways to tackle this, including tackling root causes such as poor literacy. Yet one other obvious way to tackle it – explicitly teaching the behaviours that are socially normative – is attacked on the basis that this is authoritarian or coercive. Instead, we do little other than contain behaviour problems until they escalate to a stage where students are excluded.

Thirdly, it may seem obvious that children need individual, differentiated, small-group intervention. I certainly think we should follow this logic wherever we can, provided that our interventions are based on sound, scientific principles. However, the bulk of the school day will continue to involve teachers interacting with relatively large groups of students. Whole-class, explicit instruction offers a way of organising this teaching that does not disadvantage the struggling students in the class.


10 Comments on “Edugenic Academic Failure #dsfconf”

  1. I think what we really need to do is lobby for more funding and teacher training time in the areas of differentiation. I work in an area where I help to provide teacher training in differentiation for the classroom so that gifted students are catered for appropriately.
    The current university degrees for teachers really are a joke. The teaching degree needs to be more rigourous and once graduated teachers need to take part in quality training that is research based, constant reflection and peer interaction.
    Without this funding to support teachers little changes will take place. We can keep commenting on current studies but teachers won’t change unless they know how to and are given the time to!!

    • Greg Ashman says:

      I think there is currently a large focus on differentiation. It’s even in the AITSL standards. Unfortunately, I think that much of the differentiation that teachers are taught to use is flawed. For instance, research suggests that students often make poor choices of tasks to advance their learning. Yet much differentiation focuses on student choice. There are also models of differentiation that involve multiple groups completing different tasks and yet you still only have one teacher who then has to manage all of these tasks whilst also providing instruction. This is why I have been quite critical of differentiation. However, the term is used so broadly in education that it all depends on exactly what you mean.

      • And this is precisely my point.
        What you describe is not differentiation of the curriculum so therefore these teachers who are using these strategies need assistance in understanding what it is and how to implement it.
        Money into teacher education is what we need.

    • Tara Houle says:

      One would argue that it’s the money which is causing these problems. Pouring money into teacher training ensures the “experts” i.e. ed consultants get rich. They are usually the ones employed for “delivering” these new and innovative techniques meant to teach teachers new tricks…yet have no validity or evidence behind them.

      Poor teachers always seem to get the short end of the stick. They are simply doing their job. The problem stems from the culture from where they learned, typically ed schools then similar myths dwell amongst countless Pro D workshops they attend. It’s a culture and establishment that will take generations to correct, and even then, the task would be uphill the entire time.

      One aspect which seems to be overlooked a great deal, is the leadership of the schools. The NY Times recently did a piece on how school principals play a role in student success, which is worthwhile reading.

      Another area which warrants further attention is the curriculum. It is much more effective implementing strong curricula with meaningful standards for teachers to follow, rather than trying to change teachers. Spend a day in the curriculum library and review the texts and curricula that have been created over the past 100 years…it will quickly become evident where we’ve gone wrong with our students, and our teachers.

      • Agree about school leadership being the key.
        I’ve had great principals in poor schools who have managed to give us the time out of class to have in school PD. experts don’t always have to come from outside agency but teachers need to be given time to educate themselves therefore funding is needed so they can have time off class to reflect and discuss with colleagues or lead teachers. As a teacher myself I really appreciate being given time off class to reflect on my teaching ability. It’s not rushed, I’m not exhausted and I’m in a space with others to reflect appropriately.

  2. Michael Pye says:

    flicking.on.the,book when you say differentiation of the curriculm do you mean teaching different content to students within the same class. (Obviously related content but nevertheless different).

  3. Teaching different content to the whole class would be very difficult so no. It means changing the process and the final product. If there is different content then the students are Given the tools to research this . One teacher cannot properly teach three different types of content to a class of thirty children!!

  4. […] via Edugenic Academic Failure #dsfconf — Filling the pail […]

  5. […] Early identification and targeted intervention were hot topics for discussion at the DSF conference and there was clear consensus on the continuities between low language and risk for reading failure. More generally, the drums were banging for evidence-based education, nowhere louder than in a symposium discussing this in the context of how to improve Australia’s tail of underachievement where Pam Snow reminded us of the term eudugenic failure, as discussed by Greg Ashman. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s