John Elkins

Introducing John Elkins

I have known John Elkins for thirty-five years as a student, colleague, friend. John was appointed to the staff of the Remedial Reading Centre (now the Schonell Educational Research Centre) the year I undertook the Certificate course in Diagnostic Assessment and Remedial Teaching. He later supervised my Masters thesis. The focus then was on that small subgroup of students who have a learning disability. John has maintained his interest in that group of students and has supported the parent advocacy group, SPELD, as Chair of the Professional Advisory Committee over many years.

Schonell had been responsible for promoting the formation of the Queensland Reading Council. Prior to 1970, a number of such unconnected Reading Councils, linked directly to the International Reading Association (IRA), had been formed throughout Australia. To foster professional links within this country, it was proposed that an Australian Reading Association (ARA) be formed and that this body be the link with the IRA. John was a foundation member and subsequent president of the ARA and is a current member of the Board of the IRA. His contribution to the area of literacy is highly regarded internationally.

And John Elkins the teacher? As others of John's students, especially at the post-graduate level, I was encouraged to explore new approaches, to think laterally. John was generous with his time, with information and with sharing professional references and readings. His professional leadership was recognised when he was appointed to the Chair of the Schonell Educational Research Centre. Should he indulge in one of those rare moments when one waxes philosophical and asks what difference one's being here has made, John Elkins need only consider the influence he has had in shaping the professional lives of his students several of whom progressed to provide educational leadership in this State - a worthy legacy.
Glenda Page

Can you tell us about your early teaching career?
I taught for 5 years in High schools, mainly physics and mathematics.

How did you find your way to the Schonell Centre?
During the period I was teaching, I was completing a PG BEd in which I studied a subject called Remedial Education led by Dr John McLeod who was then in charge of the Remedial Education Centre. During the subject I completed three case studies of Year 8 students who had severe literacy problems. As I had mostly taught quite able students, it was quite a revelation for me to get to know these students who were in considerable difficulty trying to cope with an academic curriculum.

Who/what promoted your interest in the field of learning disabilities?
When I had the chance to apply for a position at the Remedial Education Centre, it seemed a great opportunity to pursue my interest in children’s learning problems. Although I didn’t have much experience, I was able to teach diagnostic and attainment testing, and to visit schools where the students on the one term Certificate Course conducted a classroom study as well as assessing several students in need of assistance. In time, working alongside colleagues like Joan Atkinson and Kathy Cochrane I came to learn a lot more about the intervention side of things, while Bob Andrews and Rupert Cochrane also helped me broaden my understanding of special education. Unfortunately, John McLeod left for the icy plains of Saskatchewan in 1968,so I lost the supervisor of my PhD research. I struggled on with the thesis and completed it in 1972.

Where did this lead?
One thing I learned was that students in Years one and two who had reading difficulties mostly had problems with sound blending. This result wasn’t new and it seems to have been discovered several times over the last three decades, most recently in the more sophisticated guise of phonemic awareness. We know also that many students respond to teaching that begins with phonemic awareness and moves on to establish understanding of the alphabetic principle, which requires a knowledge of common letter/sound patterns. However some students don’t learn to read, write and spell adequately with what in the USA are referred to as ‘scientifically based methods’, and these are those for whom I’m happy to use the label ‘reading disabled’.
However, my interests widened over the years and I have studied a range of topics in special education, usually with a policy focus. Nevertheless children’s learning difficulties has always been on my research agenda.

Could you reflect on the main influences on the field of learning disabilities in Australia and in particular Qld?
It is clear that the establishment of the Remedial Education Centre by Fred Schonell in 1951 gave this state a substantial advantage that was only partially taken up by the Department of Education. While NSW used the Certificate in Diagnostic Testing and Remedial Teaching to train numbers of remedial teachers, Queensland used it to prepare teachers in charge of Opportunity Classes, a purpose for which the course was not designed. Thus, Schonell’s ideas were the first significant influence in Queensland of which I am aware, though I expect there were teachers who were already doing their best to help students using methods based on their own experience. (I can recall being given handwriting practice to do at home in Prep 1 by Irene Murray, then in charge of the Maryborough Central Infants School.) Then, when John McLeod adopted the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities (ITPA) as a potentially useful diagnostic instrument, we saw attempts at developing an aptitude/treatment interaction (ATI) approach. That is, teaching choices were made in the light of the areas of strength or weakness revealed by teats, particularly the ITPA.

Another influence was the development of the parent advocacy movement, which I later observed in the USA on my first study leave. This led to much greater awareness of low achievement, particularly by government. SPELD has been a very important source of advocacy and helped secure the training and appointment of support teachers in schools. The House of Representatives Select Committee on Learning Difficulties in Children and Adults (The Cadman Report) was very influential in setting Australia on a different course to the USA in that Learning Disability (LD) was reserved for a small subgroup of students who experienced learning difficulties. It is a little gratifying to see that recent US research has come to similar conclusion, with LD being reserved for those students who respond little to intervention assistance.

Could you talk about the field of LD – its focus on the diagnosis of problems (e.g., use of ITPA) and follow-up remediation? (diagnostic-remedial model).
Overall, the idea of diagnostic/prescriptive teaching led to promising findings in clinical research. It is difficult to conduct typical control group research on ATI, since you don’t have a common treatment. The biggest problem with diagnostic/prescriptive teaching was that it was inspired by the ITPA and this test was the target of much criticism. Some was justified because it didn’t offer useful information other than that children scored low on Sound Blending. Kirk himself felt that the LD label was being used indiscriminately, whereas he saw the ITPA as a tool for understanding ‘true’ LD.

What was successful?
The use of a comprehensive assessment of students’ achievement profiles was probably the most important source of information for support teachers to plan methods and materials. In time we came to recognise that IQ tests usually added little of value for planning instruction, and we now know that the developmental trajectory of students with limited literacy and those who fit a discrepancy definition are similar. What was helpful was criterion-referenced instruments like the Domain Phonics Test, the diagnostic tasks in the Neale or Gates-McKillop tests. Clearly, it was balanced and eclectic approaches that teachers found most helpful. Much of the recent emphasis on phonemic awareness was evident in earlier research and practice (but we weren’t very good at ‘selling’ our ideas.)

What met with failure?
I don’t think we made much progress in the mathematics area. One of the reasons was that we forgot the importance of automatic response to basic computation tasks. While conceptual aspects are important, and invented strategies (like counting on from larger) are a useful step, getting students to relinquish laborious counting in favour of memory of number facts is proving a difficult challenge. The recent emphasis on numeracy, which includes mental computation may help focus attention on number facts. While calculators are an appropriate replacement for pencil and paper algorithms, they do not replace mental arithmetic.

Could you reflect on the establishment of the short training courses at the Schonell Centre to prepare remedial teachers?
The short (or term 2) courses began around 1952 and students were rewarded with a Certificate in Diagnostic and Remedial Teaching. They continued until the CAEs were set up, and it was regarded as inappropriate for universities to be offering sub degree courses. How times have changed! Today we offer Certificate courses to teachers irrespective of whether they hold a degree.
A similar course was offered to Speech Therapy final year students for many years.

Do you have comments on the best ways to apply inclusive practice?
Inclusive practice has to begin at the whole school level. The biggest obstacle to inclusion is the egg crate organisation of the school, which puts too much responsibility on teachers in isolation. In a recent study I observed a middle school that used teams of four teachers to handle 5 core subjects for 4 classes of year 8 students. The classrooms, staff room and computing facilities were in a single block in which fixed glass above waist height added to the sense of mutual responsibility and support. Students could be grouped flexibly. Teachers had developed collaborative planning and were beginning to teach together, though this was more difficult than planning together. Specialist teachers were also able to join in the planning sessions though as yet they still tend to teach in their specialist spaces in traditional ways.

Similarly, having support teachers in classrooms is likely to be more successful if there are opportunities for teachers to observe one another, confer about areas of concern and plan how to work together to achieve best outcomes for students. This could be done in the context of ‘school literacy plans’ that are now being developed in schools.

What trends hold the best hope for providing for the ‘hard to teach’ students ( Third Wave) in the near future?
If there were a simple answer they wouldn’t be hard to teach. I think the ‘hard to teach’ students need two main supports. One is that ways around their problems need to be found so that they can enjoy access to the full curriculum even though literacy and/or numeracy achievements may not enable them to read/compute at levels needed for the class books etc. The other is that intensive and persistent support in learning to read, write/spell, do mental arithmetic etc needs to be continued as long as needed. At some point it may be necessary to increase instructional time, for example by out of regular hours support. In South Australia there are vacation literacy programs which students may choose to attend. By making these exciting activities, students may be given a motivational boost as well as targeted instruction.

What advice would you give young teachers wishing to cater successfully for diversity in their classrooms?

a. Find out as much as you can about your students (academically, their interests and how they see themselves).
b. Use group work, cooperative learning and projects so you can observe them and get to understand them as individuals and as part of subgroups.
c. Value the diversity among students and try to find ways for every student to achieve and contribute.
d. Incorporate some student self assessment into your program. See if there are mismatches between your views of students and their own perspectives.

Look at the Inclusion Index as a way of getting a wider understanding of diversity and whether your classroom/school is actually trying to meet the wide range of student needs.