Jeanne Chall Shows What Really Works in the Classroom
From Common Knowledge, Volume 13, Number 4, 2000
© 2000 Core Knowledge Foundation. Not to be copied or reproduced without permission from the Core Knowledge Foundation, 801 E. High Street, Charlottesville, VA 22902.
AFTER DECADES of dismal reading achievement by millions of elementary school children, change is coming in the way we teach reading. A renewed emphasis on the teaching of early decoding skills is slowly making its way into American classrooms. Much of this change has come in response to two publications that have provided a comprehensive review of existing reading research data, clearly documenting the need for explicit, systematic phonics instruction for beginning readers. These reports — Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children, edited by Catherine Snow, M. Susan Burns, and Peg Griffin and published by the National Academy of Science in 1998; and Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning About Print, written by Marilyn Jager-Adams in 1990 — have prompted schools to put into practice research-based approaches that consistently produce superior reading achievement.
All this would indeed be cause for real celebration were it not for the fact that, as early as 1967, Jeanne S. Chall, a scholar and researcher clearly ahead of her time, first presented the same cogent, research-based arguments in her book, Learning to Read: The Great Debate.
Parents, teachers and administrators should take notice of Chall’s last work, The Academic Achievement Challenge: What Really Works in the Classroom, published posthumously in April. E. D. Hirsch, chairman and founder of the Core Knowledge Foundation, noted, “For the sake of our children, we must not wait decades, as we did with reading, before heeding the truths uncovered by the matchless scholarship of Jeanne S. Chall.”
In The Academic Achievement Challenge, Chall systematically analyzes the two educational philosophies that have influenced instructional practice in the 20th century — philosophies she identifies as the traditional, teacher-centered approach and the progressivist, student-centered method. She characterizes the teacher-centered approach as focusing on academic achievement, with clearly established curriculum standards at each grade level. The teacher plans and leads instruction, frequently presenting lessons to the whole class, though small group instruction may be used occasionally, especially in teaching early reading skills. In contrast, the student-centered method emphasizes students’ personal and social development. Academic achievement depends on each student’s personal motivation. The teacher is viewed as facilitator, following student interests as much as possible. The process, not the content, of learning, is deemed most important, with preference for “discovery learning” initiated by the student.
THOUGH DIFFERENT LABELS have been associated with each philosophy at different times — “traditional,” “formal,” “intellectual,” and “knowing” on the one hand, contrasted with “progressive,” “informal,” “anti-intellectual,” and“thinking” on the other hand — the actual practices of each approach have remained relatively consistent. Chall notes that, with some slight variations among different subject areas, prior to the 1920s traditional, teacher-centered instruction dominated practice. She documents a persistent, steady increase in the use of progressivist methods since then.
The real heart of Chall’s book, however, focuses on the available research supporting either approach. She analyzes research conducted during the past century in specific content areas — reading, math, science, and social studies — as well as overall trends. Her findings can be summarized quite succinctly: traditional, teacher-centered practice is the most consistently effective approach in producing superior academic achievement for all children. Not a single study “found that progressive, informal education resulted in higher academic achievement than the formal, traditional education,” she writes. Chall adds nuance to these findings by suggesting that the degree to which either approach is academically effective appears to be subject to several important influences, among them the nature of the content to be learned, as well as the characteristics of the learner(s). Teacher-centered instruction appears to be most critical at the early developmental stages, when novice learners are just acquiring the requisite foundational skills, facts, and concepts associated with a particular content area, such as early reading or math. Chall cites extensive research that clearly documents the advantages of traditional approach for lower-achieving children, both those with socioeconomic disadvantages and those with learning disabilities.
At later stages of learning or with higher achieving students, such teacher-centered instruction may be slightly less critical, but it is nonetheless still consistently effective. During these later learning stages, advanced learners maybe able to derive benefit from the self-directed, student-centered approaches. Chall concludes with two recommendations: First, to raise academic achievement for all students, greater use must be made of the traditional approach in teaching. Second, teachers and administrators should make better use of educational research in general. She notes that, paradoxically, classroom practice has often proceeded in a fashion directly opposite to research findings.
 |
 |
 |
|
||
 |
|
 |
|
||
Last updated: Thu, May 22 2008
