The Stunning Power of Good, Traditional Lessons

Abstract

ACT reading scores have dropped again--to 1970s' levels. No doubt, a variety of factors account for this. But one of them is how we teach. How much impact would reasonably good, well-structured classroom lessons have on ACT scores or on virtually any test, in any subject? The answer: a helluva lot. No educational innovation, no new teaching tool, method, product, or proven program holds a candle to the effect of traditional, reasonably well-executed lessons. Other than a coherent, literacy-rich curriculum (Schmoker, 2011b), no in-school factor would have more effect on the achievement gap or on preparation for the demands of college, careers, or citizenship. Even so, very few schools consistently implement the most fundamental elements of a good lesson, which were formalized by Hunter and others almost a half century ago (Marzano, 2007). What consequences ensue when we ignore those elements? I was recently invited to study a group of K-12 schools in one of the nation's largest school districts. They had made significant gains on their state exam. And yet, in every classroom at every site, daily lessons violated the most basic principles of good teaching. * There was no attempt to prominently post and then clarify exactly what students would need to know or do by the end of that day's lesson. * Not one lesson was taught in short, carefully calibrated progressions, each one followed immediately by practice--the opportunity for students to process new knowledge or practice with it--alone or in pairs. * There were no all-important checks for understanding during and after each guided practice to see how many students had mastered each small slice of the lesson. Teachers made no ongoing attempts to reach or clarify student misconceptions for each step before moving on to the next step. When lessons lack these indispensable, well-known elements, only a fraction of students learn each day's lesson. After my classroom observations, I asked a representative group of these teachers to estimate how many students succeeded on daily assignments. Their collective response was about 20%. As a result of such teaching, 80% of students were failing on daily lessons! So, you might wonder how these schools made comparatively good test score gains: by all but eliminating social studies, science, and authentic reading and writing. Such high daily failure rates left no time for these fundamental elements of good curriculum. Most students spent hours each day being drilled by tutors on test-preparation exercises. The architects of this program, awash in favorable publicity, couldn't see the lifelong harm they were doing to these children. Our failure to implement the most obvious, effective teaching practices corrupts the entire education enterprise. This is only an extreme variation on what I see in schools in every region of the country. Despite lip service to the importance of these elements of good instruction, they're implemented in most classrooms only intermittently. Sound lessons: The research What would happen if such lessons became the rule rather than the exception? I'm looking at several recent studies on my desk. Each set out to identify the factors common to the highest-achieving teachers in their respective districts or regions. In every case, the predominant factor was their consistent use of these same essential components of good teaching. A report of one of them in a Kappan article describes how the highestperforming teachers in low-performing urban schools made explicit use of Madeline Hunter's sequences. That calls for modeling, guided practice, and multiple checks for understanding punctuated by frequent opportunities for additional instruction, clarification, and then more practice between each step until students master the material. …