In an insightful article, “Ten Faulty Notions About Teaching and Learning That Hinder the Effectiveness of Special Education,” William L. Heward critiques ten commonly held beliefs about teaching and learning that hinder effective instruction in special education. Grounded in the belief that students with disabilities deserve individualized, goal-directed, and evidence-based teaching, Heward highlights how these faulty notions often prevent teachers from using practices proven to work.
Foundational assumptions
Heward builds his arguments on four assumptions:
- Students with disabilities are entitled to an effective education.
- Effective special education must be individualized, intensive, and goal-oriented.
- Research has yielded reliable knowledge on effective instructional methods.
- These methods are underutilized in special education classrooms.
Overview of the ten faulty notions
1. Structured curricula impede true learning
Critics of structured curricula argue it restricts students’ natural learning processes and teachers’ creativity. Heward counters this by emphasizing that structure ensures coverage of essential skills and facilitates effective teaching, especially for students who need clearly defined learning outcomes.
2. Teaching discrete skills trivializes education
The belief here is that focusing on isolated skills detracts from holistic learning. However, Heward defends discrete skill instruction, noting that many complex behaviors (like reading or social interaction) rely on mastering component skills. Properly targeted skill development supports broader learning and generalization.
3. ‘Drill and practice’ limits deep understanding and dulls creativity
Repetition is often viewed as outdated and mindless. Heward refutes this, explaining that when done correctly, drill and practice build fluency and automaticity—critical foundations for higher-order thinking and problem-solving. Just as athletes or musicians practice fundamentals, students need repetition to master academic tools.
4. Teachers don’t need to measure student performance
Many educators avoid frequent, objective assessments, believing it distorts authentic learning. Heward strongly opposes this, arguing that teachers cannot make informed decisions without measurement. Tools like curriculum-based assessment allow educators to monitor progress and adjust instruction meaningfully.
5. Students must be internally motivated to learn
There’s a popular notion that motivation must come from within, and using praise or rewards is harmful. Drawing on meta-analyses, Heward debunks this idea, showing that contingent reinforcement—like praise or tangible rewards—can significantly boost learning without harming intrinsic motivation.
6. Building self-esteem is a teacher’s primary goal
Many educators prioritize making students feel good, often at the expense of academic rigor. Heward clarifies that self-esteem results from real accomplishment, not unearned praise. He criticizes practices like giving easy tasks or avoiding error correction, arguing that genuine success, built on skills and competence, naturally enhances self-esteem.
7. Teaching students with disabilities requires unending patience
While patience is admirable, overemphasizing it can lead to slower instruction and lowered expectations. Heward cites research showing that faster-paced, engaging instruction results in better behavior and learning outcomes. Students with learning challenges often need more practice in less time to catch up, not leniency.
8. Every child learns differently
Although true in a broad sense, this statement can be misleading. Heward warns that overemphasizing individual differences can discourage teachers from using universally effective methods. He argues that while instruction should be responsive to student needs, most learners benefit from core strategies like explicit teaching and active engagement.
9. Eclecticism is good
The idea of mixing various instructional approaches appeals to many educators. But Heward cautions that uncritical eclecticism can dilute effective strategies, blend incompatible methods, and prevent deep mastery of any one approach. He advocates for fidelity to evidence-based practices over scattershot experimentation.
10. A good teacher is a creative teacher
Creativity is often idealized in teaching. While adaptability is valuable, Heward warns against the belief that creativity trumps structured, research-backed instruction. Teachers who constantly change methods for novelty’s sake may hinder student learning. Creativity should enhance—not replace—effective teaching grounded in student outcomes.
Consequences of adopting these notions
Heward argues that these beliefs, when put into practice, lead to what he calls “worst practices,” such as avoiding defined learning objectives, relying solely on student-led learning, eliminating drill and assessment, and focusing on emotional well-being over academic rigor. These result in instruction that is unfocused, unaccountable, and ineffective, especially for students with disabilities who depend most on precise and intensive teaching.
Recommendations and final thoughts
To counteract these faulty notions, Heward recommends:
- Widespread use of direct and frequent measurement of student progress.
- Commitment to explicit, research-based instruction, not ideology or fashion.
- Professional development that teaches educators how to select and use effective methods with fidelity.
He closes by urging special educators—and the broader field of education—to move beyond feel-good philosophies and adopt practices supported by robust evidence. Effective teaching is not about choosing between structure and creativity but integrating both within a framework that prioritizes measurable student achievement.
Heward’s article is a passionate, research-backed call to action. It challenges educators to rethink assumptions and prioritize instructional strategies that truly benefit students with disabilities—not just in theory but in practice.
