David Davenport

Time on Task, part 2.

Last week I posted a item reviewing the research on time on task in which “academic learning time” was typically found to occupy only 50 percent of any given class period. This week I have learned from the website of the National Center on Time and Learning (http://www.timeandlearning.org/resources/index.htm) that the state of Massachusetts has found the financial resources to implement an “Expanded Learning Time Initiative” for a handful of low-performing schools. Classes begin at 7:45 and end at 3:55. Each school receives an additional $1,300 per student to cover increased staffing.

It is much too early to determine how much impact this will have on student achievement but it should be significant. Since this represents an increase of approximately 2 hours in the school day students will receive at least 1 hour more of academic learning time (see time on task “1″). The Expanded Learning Time Initiative has also facilitated block scheduling. One science teacher explained that this now provides time for the activities associated with each lesson. Previously these were conducted on separate days and the continuity of the lesson was broken. Obviously this is much better for both students and teachers.

Likewise, the Miami-Dade County School system has created “school improvement zones” which echo the ELTI in Massachusetts. Class days are longer and so too is each class session. The results are thus far encouraging. Particularly noteworthy is the addition of an Academic Improvement Period to each class day, a period in which students develop creative interests.

I will track these activities and keep you informed about them.

dpd 9-29-2008

As students across the country continue to struggle with meeting new, Standards-based requirements many laymen, politicians, and even a few educators have suggested lengthening the school day and/or adding days to the instructional calendar. This movement has progressed to the extent that many districts and a handful of states have explored the financial ramifications associated with increased use of school facilities and staff.

Professor Bill Evans (EdD, Penn, 1973, Educational Psychology)   of Temple University’s Center for Research in Human Development and Education and his co-researcher David Bechtel have highlighted some of the financial issues involved (http:www.temple.edu/lss/htmlpublications/spotlights/200/spotrlight212.htm).  They report that “extension of the school day by 1.5 hours would cost about $9000 per teacher and somewhat less for other staff over the course of a school year.”  They further note that “one study indicates that districts could anticipate a 25% increase in routine operating costs to cover salaries, materials, and utilities.

In tough financial times this increase in funding may be unlikely, but even if states had huge surpluses such a move would likely be resisted by many students (and parents) as an unwarranted intrusion on their extra-curricular activities. However, not all students need the additional time to be ready for statewide testing. In fact research indicates that the greatest gains in test scores will be made by those who are the most behind. This suggests that any hours and days of added instruction should focus on those who need remediation. Summer school and after-school tutoring is designed for this and unless it is failing miserably the need for more hours of normal instruction cannot be justified.

Furthermore, research by a number of authorities including John Carroll, Lorin Anderson, David Berliner, Charles Fisher, Jane Stallings, and others indicates that most schools are not making effective use of the time they already have available to them. These researchers have found that “academic learning time”, the amount of classroom time in which the students are engaged in learning, could be increased if teachers made better use of the time allotted to them. For example, five-ten minutes is often wasted at the beginning of class while roll is taken. Students could use this time responding to a writing prompt on the board or to a worksheet distributed as they enter the room.

Thirty years ago a study by Stallings, et al (1978) found that “interactive on-task activities”, what would now be called “academic learning time” comprised only fifty percent of a typical instructional day. The other fifty percent involved management activities (15%) and “non-interactive on-task activities” such as independent written work and silent reading. She and her co-researchers also found that the lowest performing students gained the most by working in small-groups where oral reading was the norm. No amount of independent work and silent reading could improve reading comprehension if students could not pronounce words (connect what they see to what they hear) nor could it improve reading comprehension if they did not understand the words in the context of the text. She concluded that “Oral reading allows the teacher to hear the students’ reading problems, ask clarifying questions, provide explanations to help students comprehend new words, and link the meaning to students’ prior experience or knowledge” (p.288, Fisher and Berliner, Perspectives on Instructional Time).

Likewise, effective teachers were those “who were interactive in their teaching style.” They provided oral instructions for new work; they discussed and reviewed students’ work; they provided drill and practice; they asked questions by calling on specific students, not volunteers; they acknowledged correct responses; and they supportively corrected wrong responses. (Stallings, p. 289, in Fisher and Berliner, ibid.). Good (The Missouri Mathematics effectiveness Project, 1980) found the same to be true of effective math teachers. Teachers who regularly assigned written workbook assignments and seldom reviewed this with the students produced lower-performing students.

Time-on-task is usually thought to reflect the involvement of the student in completing an assignment. This “definition” misses the target. Time-on-task actually refers to the engagement of the teacher. A teacher who distributes worksheets which are collected at the end of the class period is not teaching, he or she is not “on-task”. Neither is the teacher who reads a “lesson” to a class without checking for understanding. As such the ALT or “academic learning time” in a typical classroom can probably be increased by 15-20 minutes in a typical 45 minute class session simply by interacting with the students in the lesson at hand by reading aloud, calling on specific students, and reviewing assignments. This is far less costly than adding 20 percent to the budget of every school in America.

dpd 9/25/08