Instant Access to Effectiveness of time investments in education insights from a review and meta ana

Page 1


Effectiveness of Time Investments in Education Insights from a review and meta analysis 1st Edition Jaap

Scheerens (Auth.)

Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://textbookfull.com/product/effectiveness-of-time-investments-in-education-insigh ts-from-a-review-and-meta-analysis-1st-edition-jaap-scheerens-auth/

More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant download maybe you interests ...

Communicating Social Justice in Teacher Education: Insights from a Critical Classroom Ethnography 1st Edition Huber

https://textbookfull.com/product/communicating-social-justice-inteacher-education-insights-from-a-critical-classroomethnography-1st-edition-huber/

Mastering Time Series Analysis and Forecasting with Python Bridging Theory and Practice Through Insights Techniques and Tools for Effective Time Series Analysis in Python 1st Edition Sulekha Aloorravi

https://textbookfull.com/product/mastering-time-series-analysisand-forecasting-with-python-bridging-theory-and-practice-throughinsights-techniques-and-tools-for-effective-time-series-analysisin-python-1st-edition-sulekha-aloorravi/

Diagnostic Meta Analysis Giuseppe Biondi-Zoccai

https://textbookfull.com/product/diagnostic-meta-analysisgiuseppe-biondi-zoccai/

Cost Effectiveness Analysis in Health A Practical Approach 3rd Edition Peter Muennig

https://textbookfull.com/product/cost-effectiveness-analysis-inhealth-a-practical-approach-3rd-edition-peter-muennig/

Economic Insights on Higher Education Policy in Ireland: Evidence from a Public System 1st Edition John Cullinan

https://textbookfull.com/product/economic-insights-on-highereducation-policy-in-ireland-evidence-from-a-public-system-1stedition-john-cullinan/

Wellbeing in Doctoral Education Insights and Guidance from the Student Experience Lynette Pretorius

https://textbookfull.com/product/wellbeing-in-doctoral-educationinsights-and-guidance-from-the-student-experience-lynettepretorius/

Applied Methods of Cost-effectiveness Analysis in Healthcare 3rd Edition Alistair M. Gray

https://textbookfull.com/product/applied-methods-of-costeffectiveness-analysis-in-healthcare-3rd-edition-alistair-m-gray/

NL ARMS Netherlands Annual Review of Military Studies 2020: Deterrence in the 21st Century—Insights from Theory and Practice Frans Osinga

https://textbookfull.com/product/nl-arms-netherlands-annualreview-of-military-studies-2020-deterrence-in-the-21st-centuryinsights-from-theory-and-practice-frans-osinga/

Understanding Global Higher Education: Insights from Key Global Publications 1st Edition Georgiana Mihut

https://textbookfull.com/product/understanding-global-highereducation-insights-from-key-global-publications-1st-editiongeorgiana-mihut/

Ef fectiveness of Time Investments in Education

Insights from a Review and Meta-Analysis

SpringerBriefsinEducation

Forfurthervolumes: http://www.springer.com/series/8914

EffectivenessofTime InvestmentsinEducation

InsightsfromaReviewandMeta-Analysis

WithcontributionsfromJaapScheerens, MariaHendriks,HansLuyten,PeterSleegers andCeesGlas

TheNetherlands

ISSN2211-1921ISSN2211-193X(electronic) ISBN978-3-319-00923-0ISBN978-3-319-00924-7(eBook) DOI10.1007/978-3-319-00924-7

SpringerChamHeidelbergNewYorkDordrechtLondon

LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2013941510

TheAuthor(s)2014

Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsarereservedbythePublisher,whetherthewholeorpartof thematerialisconcerned,specificallytherightsoftranslation,reprinting,reuseofillustrations, recitation,broadcasting,reproductiononmicrofilmsorinanyotherphysicalway,andtransmissionor informationstorageandretrieval,electronicadaptation,computersoftware,orbysimilarordissimilar methodologynowknownorhereafterdeveloped.Exemptedfromthislegalreservationarebrief excerptsinconnectionwithreviewsorscholarlyanalysisormaterialsuppliedspecificallyforthe purposeofbeingenteredandexecutedonacomputersystem,forexclusiveusebythepurchaserofthe work.Duplicationofthispublicationorpartsthereofispermittedonlyundertheprovisionsof theCopyrightLawofthePublisher’slocation,initscurrentversion,andpermissionforusemust alwaysbeobtainedfromSpringer.PermissionsforusemaybeobtainedthroughRightsLinkatthe CopyrightClearanceCenter.ViolationsareliabletoprosecutionundertherespectiveCopyrightLaw. Theuseofgeneraldescriptivenames,registerednames,trademarks,servicemarks,etc.inthis publicationdoesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexempt fromtherelevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse. Whiletheadviceandinformationinthisbookarebelievedtobetrueandaccurateatthedateof publication,neithertheauthorsnortheeditorsnorthepublishercanacceptanylegalresponsibilityfor anyerrorsoromissionsthatmaybemade.Thepublishermakesnowarranty,expressorimplied,with respecttothematerialcontainedherein.

Printedonacid-freepaper

SpringerispartofSpringerScience+BusinessMedia(www.springer.com)

Acknowledgments

ThisreportbenefittedfromtheinputofPeterSleegers,who,apartfromhiscontributionto Chap.4,criticallyreviewedtheotherchapters,andgavemanyhelpful suggestions.CarolaGroenewegtookcareofthetechnicaleditingofthereport.

1Introduction .........................................1 JaapScheerens

2StateoftheArtofTimeEffectiveness ......................7 JaapScheerensandMariaHendriks

3TimeinInternationallyComparativeStudies ................31 JaapScheerens,HansLuytenandCeesGlas

4Meta-Analyses .......................................55 MariaHendriks,HansLuyten,JaapScheerensandPeterSleegers

5RelevanceoftheFindingsforEducationalPolicy andFutureResearch ..................................143 JaapScheerens

Chapter1 Introduction

Abstract Inthisintroductorychaptertheconceptofproductivetimeineducation isclarified.Majordistinctionsareallocatedandexposedtime,andwithinschool time,ascomparedtoteachingandlearningoutsideregularschooltime.The Carrollmodelisreferredtoasabasictheoreticalmodelonhowtimeisexpectedto interactwithstudentcapacityandmotivationtolearninproducinglearningoutcomes.Thefocusofthisstudyisdescribedintermsoffurtherconceptualclarificationandasynthesisofresearchevidenceontheeffectsoftimeineducation,by meansofliteraturereview,secondaryanalyses,andanewmeta-analysis.

TheMeaningofTimeasaFactorinEducational Productivity

Timeforschoolingandteachingisoneofthemoststraightforwardpolicyamenablevariablestotryandimproveeducationaloutcomes.Theunderlyingnotion, namelythatgoodschoolingandteachingdependsonthe‘‘exposure’’ofstudentsis similarlyclearandplausible.Yet,whenitcomestoassessingtheactualeffectsof timeoneducationaloutcomes,someintricaciesshouldbedealtwith.

Firstofalltimecanbedefinedina‘‘gross’’and‘‘net’’way.Theofficially mandatoryschooltimeandlessontimepersubject,usuallyindicatedas‘‘allocated time’’istobeseenasagrossmeasure.Whatrelativelyautonomousschools actuallyrealize,intermsofsubtractedtimeloss,aswellasaddedextratimeisa stepinthedirectionofdefining‘‘net’’time,inthiscasesometimesindicatedas ‘‘exposedtime’’.Evencloserto‘‘net’’timeistheproportionoftimethatremains

J.Scheerens(&) DepartmentofEducationalSciences,UniversityofTwente, Drienerlolaan57522NBEnschede,TheNetherlands e-mail:j.scheerens@utwente.nl

J.Scheerens(ed.), EffectivenessofTimeInvestmentsinEducation, SpringerBriefsinEducation,DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-00924-7_1, TheAuthor(s)2014

ofalessonaftersubtractionofthetimetheteacherrequirestoorganizethe classroomandtokeeporder.StallingsandMohlman(1981)estimatethislatter percentage(timefororganizationandkeepingorder)at15%andLam,basedon ananalysisofDutchprimaryschools,at7%(Lam 1996).Thismeasurecanbe indicatedas‘‘netteachingtime’’.Ultimatelytheeffectivelearningtimeofstudents couldbedefinedasthepercentageofontaskbehaviorofstudentsduringlessons; ‘‘timeontask’’.

Second,theissueofeducationaltimedoesnotremainlimitedtooptimizing regular‘‘withinschooltime’’.Sincedecades,policiestoexpandtheschoolyear, schoolweek,orschooldayareappliedincountriesliketheUSAandAsian countrieslikeJapanandKorea,andmorerecentlysuchpoliciesalsohappeninthe Netherlands(Oberon 2009).Homeworkandhomeworksupportcanbeplacedas aninbetweencategory,ontheonehandascloselylinkedtoregularwithinschool teaching,ontheotherhandasadded,out-of-schooltime.

Athirdissueisthattheestimatedpositiveimpactoftimeonstudentoutcomes, themoretimethebetterperformance,isnotlinear,andshowsdiminishingreturns, whichmeansthatafteracertainleveltheincrementalbenefitsofevenmoretime becomesmaller.

Fourthandfinally,whenweexpectthatmoretime,ormoreeffectivelyused time,enhancesstudentperformance,itisimpliedthattheadditionaltimeiswell used,inotherwordsthatmorecontentisbeingcoveredandthatinstructional provisionsareinplace.Inempiricalstudiesthatinvestigatetheimpactoftimeon studentachievement,sufficientcontentcoverage,andqualityoftransmission, shouldideallybecontrolledfor,whentreatmentsofvariedtimeandexposureare compared.Onemightevensaythatqualityandtime,or‘‘quantityandquality’’of education,touseWalberg’swords(Walberg 1986)provideatrade-off,inthesense thathigh-qualityeducationcan,tosomedegree,compensateforlonglessonhours. Finland’simpressiveachievementoninternationalassessments,suchasTIMSS andPISA,isacaseinpoint.Finland’shighscoresinsubjectslikereadingliteracy, science,andmathematicsarerealizedonthebasisofarelativelylimitedobligatorylessonhoursinlowersecondaryeducation(about680,ascomparedtoabout 1,000intheNetherlands).OnemightsaythatthequalityofeducationinFinland standsatsuchahighlevelthatonecandowithfewerlessonhours.Evenmore contingenciesandtrade-offsappearwhentimeisrelatedtothecapacityand motivationofstudents.Aswillbedocumentedfurtherinlaterchapters,students withdifferentaptitudesandsocioeconomicbackgroundreactdifferentlytoprogramsofexpandedorenhancedtime.Thefirstintegratedmodelofeffective teaching,theCarrollmodel,shedsmorelightonthiskindoftimerelatedcontingencies.Toillustratethisandbecausethismodelliesatthebasisoffurther developmentinthefieldofinstructionaleffectivenessitisbeingdescribedinsome moredetail,below.

TheCarrollModel

TheCarrollmodelconsistsoffiveclassesofvariablesthatareexpectedtoexplain variationsineducationalachievement.Allclassesofvariablesarerelatedtothe timerequiredtoachieveaparticularlearningtask.Thefirstthreefactorsare directlyexpressedintermsofamountsoftimethetworemainingfactorsare expectedtohavedirectconsequencesfortheamountoftimethatastudentactually needstoachieveacertainlearningtask.Thefiveclassesofvariablesare:

• Aptitude.Variablesthatdeterminetheamountoftimeastudentneedstolearna giventaskunderoptimalconditionsofinstructionandstudentmotivation;

• Opportunitytolearn.Theamountoftimeallowedforlearning;

• Perseverance.Theamountoftimeastudentiswillingtospendonlearningthe taskorunitofinstruction(theactuallearningtimeisthesmallestofthesethree timevariables).

• Qualityofinstruction.Whenthequalityofinstructionissub-optimal,thetime neededforlearningisincreased;

• Abilitytounderstandinstruction.Example,languagecomprehension,the learners’abilitytofigureoutindependentlywhatthelearningtaskisandhowto goaboutlearningit(Carroll 1963, 1989).

Themodelcanbeseenasageneral,encompassingcausalmodelofeducational achievement.Inalaterattempttoformulateacomprehensivemodelofeducational productivity(Walberg 1984)thebasicfactorsoftheCarrollmodelremained intact,whileanadditionalcategoryofenvironmentalvariableswasincluded. Numerousresearchstudiesandmeta-analysesconfirmedthevalidityoftheCarroll model(see Chap.5).TheCarrollmodelhasalsobeenthebasisforBloom’s conceptofmasterylearning(Bloom 1968)andisalsorelatedto‘‘directinstruction’’,asdescribedbyRosenshine 1983.

Characteristicsofmasterylearningare:

(1)Clearlydefinededucationalobjectives.

(2)Smalldiscreteunitsofstudy.

(3)Demonstratedcompetencebeforeprogresstolaterhierarchicallyrelatedunits.

(4)Remedialactivitieskeyedtostudentdeficiencies.

(5)Criterion-referencedratherthannorm-referencedtests(BlockandBurns 1970).

Directinstructionalsoemphasizesstructuringthelearningtask,frequent monitoringandfeedback,andhighlevelsofmastery(successratesof90–100% forinitialtasks)inordertoboosttheself-confidenceofthestudents.

TheonefactorintheoriginalCarrollmodelthatneededfurtherelaborationwas ‘‘qualityofinstruction’’.AsCarrollpointedouthimselfina25yearretrospective ofhismodel,theoriginalformulationwasnotveryspecificaboutthecharacteristic ofhigh-qualityinstruction‘‘butitmentionsthatlearnersmustbeclearlytoldwhat theyaretolearn,thattheymustbeputintoadequatecontactwithlearning

materials,andthatstepsinlearningmustbecarefullyplannedandordered’’ (Carroll 1989,p.26).

Thecitedcharacteristicsaretobeseenasafurtheroperationalizationofthis particularfactor,whichisofcourseoneofthekeyfactors(nexttoproviding optimallearningtime)foraprescriptiveuseofthemodel.Incidentally,itshouldbe notedthatCarroll’sreferencetostudentswhomustbeputintoadequatecontact withlearningmaterials,developedintoaconceptof‘‘opportunitytolearn’’differentfromhisown.InCarroll’soriginalformulation,opportunitytolearnis identicaltoallocatedlearningtime,whilenowopportunitytolearnismostly definedintermsofthecorrespondencebetweenlearningtasksandthedesired outcomes.Synonymsforthismorecommoninterpretationofopportunitytolearn are:‘‘contentcovered’’or‘‘curriculumalignment’’(Berliner 1985,p.128).Inmore formalmathematicalelaborationsthevariable‘‘priorlearning’’hasanimportant place(Aldridge 1983;JohnstonandAldridge 1985).

Thefactorallocatedlearningtimehasbeenfurtherspecifiedinlaterconceptual andempiricalwork.KarweitandSlavin(1982),forinstance,divide allocated learningtime (theclocktimescheduledforaparticularclass)into proceduraltime (timespentonkeepingorder,forinstance)and instructionaltime (subjectmatter relatedinstruction)and timeontask (theproportionofinstructionaltimeduring whichbehaviorappropriatetothetaskathandtookplace).

Abilitytounderstandinstructioncanbeseenasthebasisforfurtherelaboration inthedirectionoflearningtolearn,meta-cognition,etc.Thecomprehensiveness oftheCarrollmodelisshownbythispotentialtounitetwoschoolsofinstructional psychology,thebehaviorist-inspiredstructuredteachingapproachesandthecognitiveschool(cf.Bruner 1966;CorteandLowyck 1983).

TheFocusofThisStudy

Thisstudyseekstoclarifytheconceptofeducationaltime,includingextratime outsideofficiallessonhours,provideinformationoneffectsofexpandedand enhancedlearningtime,anddescribetheinternationalpositionofTheNetherlands oneducationtime.Themethodsusedare,literaturereview,meta-analysisand secondaryanalyses(basedonPISA2009data).

References

Aldridge,B.G.(1983).Amathematicalmodelformasterylearning. JournalofResearchin ScienceTeaching,20,1–17. Berliner,D.C.(1985).Effectiveclassroomteaching:thenecessarybutnotsufficientconditionfor developingexemplaryschools.InG.R.Austin&H.Garber(Eds.), Researchonexemplary school. pp.127–154Orlando:AcademicPress. Block,J.H.,&Burns,R.B.(1970).Masterylearning. ReviewofResearchinEducation,4,3–49.

Bloom,B.S.(1968). Learningformastery.Washington:ERIC. Bruner,J.S.(1966). Towardatheoryofinstruction.Cambridge:BelknapPressofHarvard University.

Carroll,J.B.(1963).Amodelofschoollearning. TeachersCollegeRecord,64,722–733. Carroll,J.B.(1989).Thecarrollmodel,a25yearretrospectiveandprospectiveview. EducationalResearcher,18,26–31.

Corte,E.,&Lowyck,J.(1983).Heroriëntatieinhetonderzoekvanhetonderwijzen.[Researchon teachingreconsidered]. TijdschriftvoorOnderwijsresearch,8(6),242–261.

Johnston,K.L.,&Aldridge,B.G.(1985).Examiningamathematicalmodelofmasterylearning inaclassroomsetting. JournalofResearchinScienceTeaching,22(6),543–554.

Karweit,N.,&Slavin,R.E.(1982).Timeontask:issuesoftiming,samplinganddefinition. JournalofEducationalPsychology,74,844–851.

Lam,J.F.(1996). Tijdenkwaliteitinhetbasisonderwijs(Timeandqualityinprimaryeducation). Enschede:UniversityofTwente(dissertation). Oberon(2009). Eenoriëntatienaarverlengdeonderwijstijd.Inrichtingeneffecten.Utrecht: Oberon.

Rosenshine,B.V.(1983).Teachingfunctionsininstructionalprograms. ElementarySchool Journal,3,335–351.

Stallings,J.,&Mohlman,G.(1981).Schoolpolicy,leadershipstyle,teacherchangeandstudent behaviorineightschools.Finalreporttothenationalinstituteofeducation,Washington,DC. Walberg,H.J.(1984).ImprovingtheproductivityofAmericanschools. EducationalLeadership, 41,19–27.

Walberg,H.J.(1986).Synthesisofresearchonteaching.InM.C.Wittrock(Ed.), Handbookof researchonteaching (Vol.3,pp.214–229).NewYork:Macmillan.

Chapter2

StateoftheArtofTimeEffectiveness

Abstract Inthischaptercomprehensivereviewsandearliermeta-analysesare summarizedtoarriveatanimpressionoftheeffectivenessofthevariouswaysin whicheducationaltimecanbeintensified,enhanced,andexpanded.Thechapter hasthreemainsections,oneon‘‘withinschooltime,’’oneonhomework,andone onexpandedschooltime,beyondregularlessonhours.Inthesethreesectionskey publicationswillbeusedtoprovideaconcisedescriptionofthewaythetime variableisdefinedandappliedinregularschoolactivitiesorspecialprograms. Next,reviewsandmeta-analysesareusedtoestablishthedegreeofimpactoftime relatedinterventionsonstudentachievementandotheroutcomeindicators, includingoccasionallysocialandbehavioraloutcomes.Theresultsshowthat regularschooltime,homework,andextraout-of-schooltimeappeartohavesmall tomoderatepositiveeffectsoneducationalachievementinbasicsubjects,mathematicsandreading.Theaverageeffectsizes(intermsofthed-coefficient)forthese three‘‘arena’s’’foroptimizinglearningtimeare.37,.29,and.18,respectively.

TimeforTeachingandLearningatSchool

Conceptualization

Asstatedintheintroduction,theconceptualizationofeffectivetimeatschoolwas developedonthebasisofJohnCarroll’smodel(Carroll 1963, 1989).Asamatter offactthebasictypeofvariableusedinsubsequenteffectstudiesontimewasthe

J.Scheerens(&) M.Hendriks

DepartmentofEducationalSciences,UniversityofTwente, Drienerlolaan57522NBEnschede,TheNetherlands e-mail:j.scheerens@utwente.nl

M.Hendriks

e-mail:m.a.hendriks@utwente.nl

J.Scheerens(ed.), EffectivenessofTimeInvestmentsinEducation, SpringerBriefsinEducation,DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-00924-7_2, TheAuthor(s)2014

variablethatCarrollcalled‘‘opportunitytolearn’’,theallowed,oravailabletime forlearning.Inmorecomprehensivemodelsofteachingeffectivenesslikemastery learninganddirectteaching,additionalvariablesthatrelatedtocontentcovered andqualityofinstructionwereadded.Subsequentstudiesbetween1980and2000, weregenerallybasedonthreedistinctcategoriesoftime:

• allocatedtime

• timeontask

• academiclearningtime(Anderson 1980;Haerteletal. 1983;Poway 2002).

Allocatedtime istheamountoftimethatisformallyspecified,furthersubdivisionsareschooltimeandclassroomtime.

Instructionaltime isequaltowhatwasindicatedunder‘‘exposure’’inthe introduction,akindof‘‘net’’measureof‘‘engaged’’teachingtime,leavingaside timefororganizationalarrangements,andkeepingorderduringlessonhours.

Timeontask istheamountoftimethatstudentsareactivelyengagedinlearning tasksduringlessonhours.AccordingtoPoway(2002),timeontaskrefersto portionsoftimewhenstudentsarepayingattentiontolearningtasksandattempting tolearn.‘‘Engagedtimeexcludesthetimestudentsspendsocializing,wandering aboutwithnoapparentpurpose,daydreaming,oroutoftheclassroom’’.Thefollowinginstructionalconditionsareassociatedwithtimeontask:interactive activitieswithateacher,carefullypreparedactivitiesandcloselymonitoredseat work,focusingstudents’thoughtsoncognitivestrategiesandonmotivationaltasks, immediatefeedback,focusedquestions,praiseandreinforcement,listeningand thinking,discussion,review,thinkingoutloudanddrillandpractice(Poway 2002).

Academiclearningtime referstothatportionofengagedtimethatstudentsspend workingatanappropriatelevelofdifficultyforthemandexperiencinghighlevelsof success.Itexcludesengagedtimethatisspentontasksthataretooeasyortoodifficult (Anderson 1983;Bloom 1976;Fisheretal. 1980;Berliner 1990;Poway 2002).

Itisourimpressionthatthisliteraturehasdifficultyinpresentinganunequivocalconceptualizationoftimeontask.Additionalelementsarealreadycreeping inasfarastimeontaskisconcerned,seeforexamplePoways’listoftimeontask instructionalconditionsthatrequirecertainqualitiesofteacherpreparationand monitoring.Theconceptofacademiclearningtimeistotallyconfoundedwith specificdidacticrequirements(facetsofteachingqualityonemightsay;likethe requirementthatthetaskshouldbeofanappropriatelevelofdifficulty)andeven circularinacontextofeducationalproductivity,asitbuildsinacademicsuccess.

Giventhetruismthattimeisanemptyvessel,the‘‘pureeffects’’ofengaged timeatschoolcouldonlybedisentangledfromothereffectivenessenhancing conditions,bykeepingthesecontextsconstantorotherwisecontrolled,when assessingtheimpactofvariousquantitiesoftime.Thisiswhathappens,for example,inwhatWangindicatesas‘‘contentexposure’’,wheretimeengagedwith respecttoaspecifiedchunkofsubjectmatterisinvestigated(Wang 1998).Infact someauthorsdescribeexposuretimeasanintrinsiccharacteristicofopportunityto learn(e.g.BrophyandGood 1984).

Theconceptofacademiclearningtimegoesmuchfurtherinmessingtogether timeandotheraspectsofteachingqualityandtendstowardarudimentarymultidimensionalmodelofteachingeffectiveness.

Aspecificfacetofengagedtimeisthepacingofinstruction,distinguishingfor example,spacedandmassed1 practice.(seealsoBrophyandGood 1984,onthe tempoofspacingandwaitingtime).Thisvariableisagainmoreofaninteractive conceptthatmixestimeandcontent,andisthereforenotsuitedtoassesstheeffect oftimeperse.

Meta-analyses

Fraseretal.(1987)presentresultsfrommeta-analysesbasedon‘‘severalthousandsofstudies’’.‘‘Time’’isdefinedas‘‘instructionaltime’’,notspecifying whetherthisisallocatedtime,engagedtime,ortimeontask.Theimpressionone getsisthatalloftheseoperationalizationshavebeencombined.Itshouldbenoted thatthesemeta-analysescontainmanyotherschoolandclassroomlevelcorrelates ofeducationalachievement,timeisjustoneofthem.

Theyreportanaverageeffectsizeof d = 0.36.Ofthisresulttheysaythatitis neitherthechiefdeterminant,noraweakcorrelateoflearning.‘‘Liketheother essentialfactors,timeappearstobeanecessaryingredient,butinsufficientbyitself toproducelearning’’(p.160).Theyemphasizethatthefactorspresentedin Walberg’smodelofeducationalproductivity(Walberg1986)shouldbeseenas operatingjointly.Theauthorsalsostatethatincreasingtimeislikelytoshow diminishingreturns.

Inasecondstudybythesameauthors(Fraseretal.,ibid)resultsofasynthesis of(134)meta-analysesarepresented(involving7,827studiesand22,155correlations).Theeffectsizesarenowrenderedascorrelations;forengagedtimeand timeontasktheyare0.38and0.40,respectively.Theseeffectsizesareabouttwice aslargeasthosereportedintheabove.Thismightbeexplainedbythepossibility thatthefirstmeta-analysesusedamoregeneraldefinitionoftime,including allocatedtime,whereasthesecondmeta-analysisofmeta-analysesusedthemore restricteddefinitionsofengagedtimeandtimeontask.

Re-addressingtheissueofdiminishingreturnsoftime,particularlywhenthisis notaccompaniedbyadequatecontentcoverageandinstruction,theauthorssay thatthetaskisratherto‘‘arrangematterssothatstudentlearnmoreinthesame time’’.

Sincethesemeta-analysisresultsarecarriedoutforalotofothermalleable variablesthatareexpectedtocorrelatewithstudentachievement,itispossibleto assesstherelativeimportanceoftime,ascomparedtootherfactors,likefeedback

1 Massedpracticereferstoworkingforextendedtimeonspecificsubjectmatter,whereasspaced practicemeansmorefrequentengagementonsmallerchunksofsubjectmatter.

andreinforcement,one-to-onetutoring,homework,etc.Thepositionoftimeinthe firstmeta-analysesisaboutaverage,whereastheeffectsreportedforengagedtime andtimeontaskinthesynthesisofmeta-analyses,isfairlyhigh,qualityof instruction,forexamplehasaneffectsizeof r = 0.47.

Itshouldbenotedthatthesestudiesusebroadgeneralizations,bothwithrespect tothedependentvariables(likemathematics,scienceandreadingallthrown together)andwithrespecttotheindependentvariables,itseemsthatallocated time,engagedtime,andtimeontaskareallanalyzedtogether.Next,thereisno mentionofstudiesbeingexperimentalorobservational,and,inthelattercase, whetheroutcomeswereadjustedforpriorachievementorotherstudentbackgroundcharacteristics.

Scheerensetal.(2007)combinedtheresultsofameta-analysisonstudies before1995withstudiesthatwerecarriedoutbetween1995and2005.Several operationaldefinitionsoftimeatschoolwerecombined.

Learningtime

• Importanceofeffectivelearning

• Time

• Monitoringofabsenteeism

• Timeatschool

• Timeatclassroomlevel

• Classroommanagement

IntheAnnextothischapteramoredetailedoverviewofoperationalvariables, citedfromthisstudy,ispresented.

Thenumberofstudiesusedfortheanalyseswas30,including111effectsizes (associationsbetweentimeandeducationalachievement).Intheiranalyses moderatorvariablesreferringtostudycharacteristicswereincluded.Theresults wereasfollows:

Theestimatedmeaneffectsizeof learningtime wasacorrelationcoefficientof 0.147(significantatthe1%level).Indicatingthatthe95%predictioninterval rangesbetween Zr =-0.0197and Zr = 0.491Theanalysisrelatingmoderatorsto theeffectsizeindicatethatstudiescarriedoutinsecondaryschoolsshowsignificantlylowereffectsizesthanstudiesinprimaryschools(adifferenceof -0.185), whilestudiesemployingotherthanmulti-leveltechniquesyieldsignificantly highereffectsizesthanstudiesthathadappliedmulti-leveltechniques(adifferenceof0.21).Finally,therewasalsoadifferencebetweencountries.Studies carriedoutintheNetherlandscameupwithsignificantlylowereffectsizesthanall othercountries,excludingtheUSA(adifferenceof -0.145).Onaverage,the effectsizeofDutchstudieswasabout0.05.

Ascomparedtoothereffectsizesforschooleffectivenessenhancingvariables inthisstudy,timehadaboutthehighesteffect.

Kyriakidesetal.(2010)conductedameta-analysesthatinvolvedschooland classroomlevelvariablesincorporatedinthedynamicmodelofeducational

effectiveness(CreemersandKyriakides 2008).‘‘Managementoftime’’,isoneof theschoollevelfactorsthatwasincorporated.Itisdescribedas:‘‘schoolpolicyon themanagementofteachingtime’’,andconsidersissueslikewhetherlessonsstart ontimeandfinishontime,andthe(non-)occurrenceofinterruptionsofnormal lessontime,duetostaffmeeting,festivals,andotherschoolevents.Intheirsummarytabletheyusetheterm‘‘quantityofteaching’’andreportaneffectsize,in termsofacorrelation,of0.16basedon18studies.Thiseffectsizewascomparable towhattheyfoundforotherschoollevelvariablesfromtheirmodel,e.g.0.15for opportunitytolearn,0.17forqualityofteachingand0.18forstudentassessment.

Hattie(2009,p.184)summarizedtheeffectsizesreportedinfourmeta-analyses about‘‘timeontask’’.Theoveralleffectsize,basedonthesefourmeta-analyses amountsto d = 0.38.Thisaverageeffectisbasedonatotalof100studiesand136 replications.Detailsonthewaytimeontaskwasdefinedandmeasuredinthese meta-analysesandthestudiesonwhichtheywerebasedarenotprovided.Inthe discussionoftheseresults,Hattie,likeotherauthors,emphasizesthatwhatmatters istheproductiveuseoftime,implyingthatwhatmattersmostistocreateconditionsthatkeepstudentsengaged,ratherthanjustextendingtime.

Avariablethatcomesperhapscloserinmeasuringengagedtimeis‘‘classroom management’’asdefinedbyMarzano(2000),andcitedbyHattie(2009,p.102). Marzanoobtainedanaverageeffectsizeacross100studiesof0.52.Similarly relatedisthevariable‘‘decreasingdisruptivebehavior’’,asthisvariablecanalso bereadasastraightforwardmeasuretoincreaseengagedtimeeveniftheallocated timewouldremainthesame.Theoveralleffectsizeforthisvariableis d = 0.34, basedonthreemeta-analyses,comprising165studiesand416replications.

InTable 2.1 anoverviewoftheresultsofthecitedmeta-analysesispresented.

Table2.1 Overviewofeffectsizesof‘‘time’’inearliermeta-analyses Meta-analysisbyTimedescribedasMeaneffect size (Cohen’s d)

Meaneffect size (Correlation coefficient r)

Fraseretal.(1987)(1)Instructionaltime d = 0.36 r = 0.18

Number of studies

Numberof replications

Fraseretal.(1987)(2)Engagedtime d = 0.83 r = 0.387,82722,155

Fraseretal.(1987)(2)Timeontask d = 0.88 r = 0.40

Scheerensetal.(2007)Learningtime d = 0.31 r = 0.1530111

Creemersand Kyriakides(2008) Quantityof teaching d = 0.33 r = 0.1618

Hattie(2009)Timeontask d = 0.38 r = 0.19100136

Hattie(2009)Decreasing disruptive behavior d = 0.34 r = 0.17165416

Marzano(2000)Classroom management d = 0.52 r = 0.25100

Inordertopresentcomparableestimates,conversionfromdtorandviceversa wascarriedout(Borensteinetal.2009,p.48).Theaverageeffectsizefoundin thesemeta-analysesamountsto d = 0.49and r = 0.23.Whenleavingoutthe outlyingvaluefromFraseretal.(1987),thesevalueswouldbereducedto d = 0.37and r = 0.18.

Conclusions

Comparedtotheeffectsofothereducationaleffectivenessenhancingconditionsthe meaneffectsizecomputedonthebasisoftheresultsshowninTable 2.1,istobe seenasasizeableeffect,althoughcomparedtogeneraleffectsizestandards(Cohen 1969)stillasmalleffect.AccordingtoCohen(1988),effectsizesrenderedas correlationsof0.10,0.30,and0.50aretobeinterpretedassmall,medium,andlarge, respectively.Whendisusedtoexpresseffectsizesthesevaluesare0.2,0.5,and0.8. Wheninterpretingtheseresults,twolimitationsshouldbetakenintoconsideration.First,itappearsthatinmostoftheanalysesabroadrangeofdifferent operationaldefinitionsoftimewasusedinthestudiesonwhichthemeta-analyses werebased,seeforexampletherangeofoptionsshownintheannex,basedon Scheerensetal.(2007).Inmostpublicationsthevariabilityinoperationaldefinitionsisnotmadeexplicit.Second,thesemeta-analysesarebasedonbi-modal associations,inthiscasebetweentimeandeducationalachievement,mostly readingandmathematicsachievement.Incaseofcorrelationoftimewithother effectivenessenhancingfactors,forinstance,opportunitytolearn,itislikelythat thetimeeffectwillalsoincludesomeinfluencefromtheseothervariables.The relativelyhigheffectsizeswouldsuggestsupportforthecommonsenseconsiderationthatwhenschoolspayattentiontoeffectiveuseoftime,andtoforegoing timelossanddisruptions,theywouldalsobelikelytomakegooduseoftime,in otherwordsfilltheavailabletimewithgoodqualityteachingandinstruction.To thedegreethatstudieshavesucceededinmeasuringengagedorproductive learningtimethislatterconditionismoreorlesspartoftheconstructasdefined.

Afinallimitationofthemeta-analyticalresultsisthatnuanceswithrespectto subjectmatterareaanddifferenteffectsfordifferentkindsofstudentsareusually notincluded.OnthebasisofareviewoftheliteraturePoway(2002)statesthatthe effectoftimeisstrongerforhighlystructuredsubjects,likemathematics,science, andreading,thanforthemoreopensubjectslikeartandsocialstudies.Thereis alsoastrongsuggestionintheliteraturethatsufficienttimeisespeciallyimportant fortheweakerstudents.ThisnotionisoneofthecoreideasofMasteryLearning.

Homework

Conceptualization

Homeworkisdefinedasperformingschoolcurriculumtasksoutsideregularschool classes(Cooper 1994 citedinDeJongetal. 2000,p.132;WalbergandPaschal 1995).

Theassumedbenefitsexpectedofhomeworkare:moretime,inasituationof curriculumoverload,morecontent,opportunitytolearn,moretimetounderstand thesubjectmatter,stimulationofmeta-cognition,andimprovedstudyskills, fosteringindependentlearningandendurance.Homeworkisnotjusttobeseenas anindividualeffortfromstudents.Supportandfacilitationareexpectedfrom schoolmanagement,teachers,andparents.Atschoollevelitisrelevantwhetheror nottheschoolhasanexplicitpolicyonhomework.Atthelevelofteachers, gradingofhomeworkandprovidingfeedbackareimportantconditions.And, finally,asupportiveandactivatingroleofparentsisrelevantaswell.

DeJongetal.(2000)distinguishthreefacetsofhomework:amountofhomework,homeworkfrequency,andtimespentonhomework.Ofthesethreevariables amountofhomeworkwastheonlyonethathadapositivesignificanteffecton studentachievement.Intheirstudy,amountofhomeworkwasdefinedashow manytasksfromthemathcurriculumwerefinishedduringhomework.So,one couldsaythattheeffectofextratime,bymeansofhomework,dependedsolelyon theextracontentthatwascovered.Otherauthorsusetermsdescribingfacetsof homeworkdifferently.Timespentonhomeworkisoftendefinedasthetimespent onhomework perweek. TrautweinandKöller(2003)define‘‘amountofhomework’’asthecombinationofhomeworkfrequency(i.e.,frequencyofhomework assignedbytheteacher,aclass-levelvariable)andhomeworklength,i.e.thetime typicallyspentonhomework perday,atypicalstudent-levelvariable,whichcan neverthelessbeaggregatedattheclasslevel).SchmitzandSkinner(1993)define homeworkeffort asthewaystudentsratetheirsubjecteffortneededtodo homework.

FromthestudybyDeJongetal.(2000),itappearedthatinDutchsecondary educationschoolhomeworkpolicieshardlyexisted.Theauthorsalsonotedthat checkinghomeworkisnotaroutinepracticeinDutchsecondaryschools.The averageamountoftimethatstudentsspentonhomework,eachtimehomeworkwas assigned,was30min.Thecorrelationbetweentimespentonhomeworkand achievementwasnegativeinthisstudy(r =-0.15),whilecarryingouthomework assignmentsduringlessonhourscorrelatedpositively(r = 0.15).Thenegative correlationforhomeworktimecouldbeinterpretedinthesensethathighperformingstudentsspentlesstimeonhomework.TrautweinandKöller(2003,p.133) sayaboutthenegativecorrelationbetweenhomeworktimeandachievementthat ‘‘Overallweassumethattimeactivelyspentonlearningactivities(including homework)fostersachievement,butthereisnorelationship,orperhapsevena negativerelationshipbetweentime needed forhomeworkandachievement’’

14J.ScheerensandM.Hendriks

Aswasthecaseininterpretingtheeffectofextraormoreefficientuseof teachingtime,effectsofhomeworkarenoteasilydefinableasapurematterof time,butstronglyconditionedbyvariableslikecontentcoveredandqualityof teachersupport.TrautweinandKöller(ibid,p.121),discussastudybyCooland Keith(1991).Theseauthorsfoundapositivecorrelationoftimespentonhomeworkandachievementof0.30,butthiseffecttotallydisappeared:‘‘Aftercontrollingformotivation,ability,qualityofinstruction,courseworkquantity,and somebackgroundvariables,however,nomeaningfuleffectremained(p.121)’’.

Multilevelmodelingallowsfordistinguishinghomeworktimeeffectsat aggregated(school,classroom)levelandindividualstudentlevel.Afrequently occurringresultisthatataggregatelevelapositiveassociationisfound,anda negativeassociationattheindividualstudentlevel(Trautweinetal. 2002; Gustavsson 2010).Thiscouldbeinterpretedasthepotentiallypositiveeffectsof homeworkpoliciesbeingoff-setatindividuallevelbyreversedcausation(low achievingstudentsneedmoretimeforhomework).

Severalauthorsemphasizetherelevanceandopportunityhomeworkassignmentsofferforstimulatingself-regulatedlearning,includingmeta-cognitive strategiesandinfluencesofmotivationandself-efficacy(Trautweinetal. 2002; WinneandNesbit 2010;ZimmermanandKitsansas 2005).Theselatterauthors testedapathmodelinwhichpriorachievementimpactedonqualityofhomework andself-efficacyofstudents,whilethesevariablesinturnwerepositivelyassociatedwithGradePointAverage.

Aswithtimeontask,spacedversusmassespracticehasalsobeenstudiedwith respecttohomework.Bembenutty(2011)foundthatfrequentshortepisodesare betterthanfewerlongerassignments.

Meta-analyses

Paschaletal.(1984)reportonameta-analysisbasedon(quasi-)experimental studies.Treatmentswerehomeworkversusnohomework,andgradedversusnongradedhomework.Theyreportthatin8outof9comparisonsthetreatmentgroup didsignificantlybetter.Basedon81comparisons,theyfoundaweightedaverage effectsizeof d = 0.36.

Cooper(1989)reportsanoveralleffectsizeof0.21,basedon20studies.Effect sizesforelementaryschools(grade4–6, d = 0.15)werelowerthanformiddle schools(grades7–9, d = 0.31),whilethestrongesteffectswerefoundatthelevel ofhighschools(grades10–12, d = 0.64).Effectsizeswereweakerinmathematics ascomparedtolanguage(d = 0.16).Cooper’sresultswerecriticizedformethodologicalshortcomings(cf.Trautweinetal. 2002).Onlyinfourcaseswerethe effectmeasurescounterbalanced(adjustedforstudentbackgroundcharacteristics) orweregainsreported.Inthesecasesanegativedof -0.08wasfound,suggesting thatthepositiveoveralleffectmightbeconfoundedbytheeffectofstudent backgroundcharacteristics.

Amorerecentstudyledbythesameauthor(Cooperetal. 2006)waslargely basedontheNationalEducationalLongitudinalStudy(NELS).Indifferentsub setsofexperimentalandcross-sectionalstudies,theeffectofhomeworkversusno homeworkwasanalyzed.Theoverallresultwasaneffectsizeof d = 0.61.In addition32correlationalstudieswereanalyzedandtheyindicatedanaverage effectof r = 0.24whenapplyingafixedeffectsmodelandof r = 0.16when applyingarandomeffectsmodel.Inthe2006reportslightlystrongerhomework effectswerefoundformathematicsascomparedtoreading.

Scheerensetal.(2007)carriedoutameta-analysesinwhich21studiesand52 replicationswereanalyzed,yieldingameaneffectsizeof r = 0.07.Bywayof illustrationthekindofoperationalmeasures(questionnaireitems)thatwereused intheunderlyingstudiesaresummarizedinthetablebelow.

Homework

• Attentionforassigninghomeworkatschool/agreementsinschoolworkplan

• Homeworkafterlast(arithmetic)lesson:yes/no

• Numberofhomeworkassignmentsperweek

• Typeofhomework(arithmetic/language)(reading/compositionwriting)

• Amountofhomework

• Amountoftimeneededforhomework(perday)

• Extrahomeworkforlowachievingpupils

• Successesandproblemsnowand5yearsagowithrespectto: -Prioritizinghomework -Aconsistenthomeworkpolicy

• Whetherhomeworkassignmentsaregradedornot

Whentakingaccountofmoderatorvariables(studycharacteristics)theeffect sizesweresubstantiallyhigherintheUSAandtheNetherlands,thaninallother countries.Nosubjecteffectwasfound.

Hattie(2009,234)reportsanaverageeffectsizeforhomeworkof d = 0.29, basedon5meta-analyses,161studiesand295effects(replications).Hedraws attentiontothefindingsofCooperthateffectsarehigherforhighschoolstudents thanformiddleschoolandelementaryschoolstudents.Inhiscommenthe expressesacertaindegreeofskepticismwithrespecttotheexpectationsthat homeworkwillstimulatehigherordercognitiveprocessesandmeta-cognition. Thisisnotlikelytohappen,particularlyforlowachievingstudents.Accordingto Hattie,(ibid,p.235)theeffectsofhomeworkarehighest,whateverthesubject, whenhomeworkinvolvesrotelearning,practice,orrehearsalofthesubjectmatter.

InTable 2.2 anoverviewoftheresultsofthecitedmeta-analysesispresented togetherwithtwoadditionalreferencestometa-analyses,citedfromMarzanoand Pickering(2007),Bloom(1984),Graueetal.(1983). 2StateoftheArtofTimeEffectiveness15

Table2.2 Anoverviewofresultsfrommeta-analysesontheeffectsofhomework

Meta-analysisbyHomework describedas Meaneffect size (Cohen’s d)

Graueetal.(1983)Homework

Bloom(1984)Homework

Meaneffect size (Correlation coefficient r)

Number of studies

Numberof replications

Paschaletal.(1984)Homework d = 0.36 r = 0.1881

Cooper(1989)Homeworkversus NoHomework d = 0.21 r = 0.102020

Cooperetal.(2006)Homeworkversus NoHomework d = 0.61 r = 0.291818

Scheerensetal. (2007) Homework d = 0.14 r = 0.072151

Hattie(2009)Homework d = 0.29 r = 0.14161295

TransformingtheeffectsizefoundinScheerensetal.(2007)toadof0.14,the averageeffectsizeacrossthesemeta-analysesamountsto d = 0.34.Leavingout theoutlyingvalueof d = 0.61fromtheCooperetal.study(2006),thisaverage reducesto d = 0.30, r = 0.15,equaltotheaverageeffectsizereportedbyJohn Hattiebasedon5meta-analyses.

Aninterestingresearchsynthesisthatdidnotpresentoveralleffectsizes,but justcategorizedeffectsizesofhomeworkasnegativeorpositive,andsmall, medium,andlarge,wascarriedoutbytheCanadianCouncilonLearning(2009). Theyexaminedtheresultsofthreekindsofstudiesontheachievementeffectsof homework:netimpactstudies,pedagogicallyenhancedhomeworkstudies,and parentalinvolvementstudies.Inthedomainofthenetimpactstudies24outcomes werepositive,ofwhich18showedoutcomesthataredescribedaslargeenoughto havepracticalsignificance.Stilleightoutcomesshowednegativeresults.On furtherinspectiontheseeightnegativeoutcomesallresidedfromstudiesby Trautweinetal.(2006),andTrautwein(2007),andresultedfrommultilevel analysesshowingmoderatepositiveeffectsoftimespentonhomeworkatschool orclassroomlevel,andnegativeeffectsattheindividualstudentlevel.Pedagogicallyenhancedhomeworkexperimentsandexperimentsthatstimulatedparental involvementwithhomeworkshowedmedium-sizedpositiveeffects.

Conclusion

Theresultsofmeta-analysesontheeffectsofhomeworkonachievementshow smalltomediumpositiveeffects.Alimitationoftheseresultsisthattheyare usuallyamixtureofdifferentspecificationsofhomework,andaremoretoberead asageneraloveralleffect.Individualstudies,liketheonesbyDeJongetal.(2000),

Trautwein(2007)andTrautweinetal.(2006),indicatethatitmattersalot,whichin specificoperationaldefinitionofhomeworkisused.

Timespentonhomework hasmixedeffects.Whenmultilevelmodelingis appliedeffectsshowsuponlyattheaggregate(schoolorclassroom)levelwhile effectsarenegligibleornegativeatindividualstudentlevel.

Amountofhomework definedasthequantityofcontentcoveredduring homeworkassignmenthadacleareffectinthestudybyDeJongetal.(2000).This operationalconceptisclosetowhatMooring(2004)callshomeworkcompletion, andforwhichshefoundastrongeffect.

Homeworkeffort isbasedonstudents’ratingsoftheeffortinvestedinhomework.Forthisvariable,Trautwein(2007)reportsmediumtostrongeffectsizes.

Homeworkeffortandamountofcontentcoveredinhomeworkassignments appeartobemorepowerfulassociatesofachievementthantimespentonhomeworkandfrequencyofhomeworkassignments.

After-SchoolProgramsandExtendedLearningTime

Conceptualization

Whilehomeworkwasdefinedasstudentsperforminglearningtasksoutsideregular schoolhours,programsthatprovideactivitiesoutsideregularschoolhoursinclude theinvolvementofadults,eithervolunteers,youthorsocialworkers,andeducationalprofessionals.AfterschoolprogramshavealonghistoryintheUnitedStates and,whereitisstillgrowinginimportance.Ziefetal.(2006)statethattheamount ofafterschoolprogrammingintheUSAhasbeengrowingtremendouslyduring thelasttwodecades.Intheyear2000two-thirdsofschoolprincipalsreportedthat theirschoolsofferedtheseprograms.Theestimatedbudgetfortheseprograms, includingfundingfromthefederalgovernment,states,localities,andprivate foundationswereestimatedtonearly$1billionin2004.AccordingtoZiefetal.,a ‘‘care-taking’’motiveispredominantlybehindthis,namelydoingsomethingabout thefactthatgrowingnumbersofchildrenbetweentheagesof6and12are frequentlyunsupervisedafterschool,figuresthathaveincreasedasmorewomen enteredtheworkingforce.Afterschoolprogramsmaybededicatedtofun, communityactivities,sports,andarts,andonlyasubsethasenhancededucational performanceasakeyobjective.

Afterschoolprogramsmaybecarriedoutintheformofanextendedschool day,anextendedschoolweek,temporaryprogramsoutsideschoolhours,or programsduringthesummerholiday,(summerlearning).

Miller(2003)mentionsfourprototypesofAfterSchoolPrograms:school-age childcare,youthdevelopment,extendedlearning,andenrichmentactivities.The majorgoalsofschool-agechildcarearetoprovidesupervisionforchildrenof workingclassfamiliesandtosupportchilddevelopment.Youthdevelopment programsareaimedatpromotingyouthdevelopmentandpreventriskybehaviors.

Extendedlearningisaimedatimprovingacademicachievementanddecreasegaps inacademicachievement.Enrichmentactivitiesaretoincreaseskillsinparticular areas(arts,sports)andstimulateinterestinvarioustopicsandactivities.Thethird prototypeprogram,‘‘extendedlearning’’,ismostinlinewiththeoverallfocusin thisreport,namelytheeffectofmoreefficientuseandexpansionofstructured teachingandlearningactivitiesonstudentoutcomes.AmongMiller’sfourprototypes,extendedlearningistheonlyonethathasteachersandparaprofessionals asstaff,whereastheotherprototypeprogramsdependonchildcarestaff,youth workersand‘‘expertsinaparticulararea’’.Threemajorcategoriesofintended outcomesofafterschoolprogramsarereducingnegativebehavior,increased attitudesandbehaviorslinkedtoschoolsuccess,andimprovedacademicperformance.Thefirsttwointendedoutcomesaremostlyassociatedwithchildcare, youthdevelopment,andenrichmentactivities,thelastoutcome,improvedacademicperformance,ismorespecificallyassociatedwithextendedlearning.

Afterschoolprogramsmayhaveacompensatorypurpose,andbespecifically designedtosupportdisadvantagedlearners,and/oranenrichmentpurpose,where extracontent,likelanguagearts,areoffered.Afinalpurposeofafterschool learningisfosteringsocialandindependentlearningskills.‘‘Afterschoolprogramsareuniquelypoisedtohelpyoungpeopletoseethemselvesaslearnersinan informalhands-onlearningenvironment.Theycanbringpeers,parents,andthe communitytogether.Theycancreatethefoundationforapositivepeerculturethat valueslearningskillsandcontributestosociety’’(ibid,p.29).

CurrentpolicyintheUnitedStatesemphasizestheeducationalanddidactic qualityofafterschoolextendedlearningprograms(NationalAcademyofEducation,WhitePaper 2009).TheWhitePapersuggeststhatif‘‘extra’’justmeans extendingtime,theexpectationsofachievementgainsarepoor.Theyciteastudy byLevinandTsang(1987),whofoundthat10%extratimeresultedin2%more learning.AtthesametimetheyrefertoastudybyBerliner(1990),whichsupportedtheclaimthatiftimeispurposefullyusedtoenhanceachievementoutcomes,moregainisactuallyachieved.AlthoughtheWhitePapersupportsthe positionthatprogramsshouldbemoreintensiveandstructured,theyalsonotethat examplesofveryintensiveprogramsexperiencedproblemsofattrition,ofstaff andstudents.WithrespecttotheWhitePaper’shopethatprivatefundingcouldbe aturnaroundoption,theexperienceswithCharterSchoolsdonotseemtounilaterallymakethispromisetrue.SteinandBess(2011),reportthatCharterSchools didnotoffermoreextralearningtimethanregularschools.

FischerandKlieme(2013)reportonexperienceswithanextendedschoolday inGermany.Thispolicycomesdowntoextendingthetraditionallessonhoursthat arelimitedtothemorning,toafternoonschool.Thestudysuggeststhatthe extendedschooldayinGermanyhasbroaderpedagogicalandsocialaimsthan enhancedstudentachievementinschoolsubjects.Counteringmisbehaviorisone ofthem.Adultsupervisionisprovidedbyyouthworkersandeducationalprofessionals.Thevalueoftheextendedschooldayforeducationalachievement dependsonthelinkagebetweentheschoolcurriculumandthewaytheextratime isbeingspent.Effectsonschoolgradeswereonlynotedforthosestudentswho

tookactivepartincurriculum-relatedactivities.Positiveeffectswerenotedwith respecttocounteringmisbehavior.

TheBritishprogram‘‘PlayingforSuccess’’,istargetedunderachievingstudents(Appelhof 2009).Theyareinvitedtotakepartina2-monthsintensive program,enforcedbysoccerplayersandothersportidols.Theaimistofosterselfconfidenceandtoallowforsuccessfulexperiences.Preliminaryevaluations(Sharp etal. 2001)haveshownpositiveeffectsonself-confidence.Morerecentresults showdivergingsuccess,dependingontheintensityoftheapproach(Sharpetal. 2007,citedbyAppelhof 2009).

Theobjectiveofthislimitedinternationaloverviewwasjusttoshowthebroad rangeofprogramvariationintheAfterSchoolprograms.(Inthefinalchapterof thisreport,theDutchpolicyinitiativesandexperienceswillbereferredto).The resultsobtainedobviouslydependontheintendedoutcomes,thatmayrangefrom extendedcognitiveschoollearning,specialattentionforindependentlearning,to fosteringself-esteemandself-confidence,andcounteringmisbehavior.Programs mayalsohaveamoreorlessspecificallytargetedemphasisonimprovingthe positionofdisadvantagedlearners.Moreover,programsmayhaveamoregeneral caretakingandsocialandpedagogicalmonitoringfunction,ascomparedtoan educationalachievementorientation.

Meta-analyses

Cooperetal.(2000)carriedoutameta-analysisofremedialandaccelerated learningorientedsummerschoolprograms.Thesummerlearningprogramswere classifiedasaccelerated,remedial,orother.Theaverageeffectssizeacrossall54 programs,and477effectsizesbasedonmathandreadingachievement,was d = 0.26.Cooperetal.(2000)saythatthiseffectsizeshouldbeconsidered ‘‘small’’accordingtotheestablishednorms(Cohen 1969),butnevertheless comparabletotheeffectofallkindsofotherschoolyearlonginterventionprograms.Bormanandd’Agostino(1996),forexample,foundanoveralleffectsizeof 0.11forsuchageneralsetofinterventionprograms(ibid,p.99).AnotherreferencepointtocompareeffectsizeswasLipseyandWilson’s(1993)compendium ofmeta-analysesbasedonstudiesineducation,mental-health,andorganization psychology,arrivingatanaverageeffectsizeacrossthesedomainsof d = 0.50. Theauthorsconcludethataboutthree-fourthofthe180meta-analysescarriedout ineducationhadlargereffectsizesthantheirsonsummerlearning.

Intheirstudystudentsfrommiddleclassbackgroundsbenefittedsomewhat morethanstudentsfromdisadvantagedhomes,andeffectsformathematicswere somewhatlargerthanforreading.

Conditionsforsuccessfulsummerlearningprogramsare:earlyplanningof activities,continuityofprogramsandstaffacrossyears,usingsummerschoolsin conjunctionwithprofessionaldevelopmentactivitiesofstaff,andintegrationof summerlearningexperienceswiththoseduringregularschoolhours.

Scott-Little,Hamann,andJurs(200,p.388)lookedatabroaderrangeofafter schoolprograms,thanthesummerlearningprogramsthatwerefocusedinthe analysisbyCooperetal.(1996):‘‘Afterschoolservicesweredefinedasaprogram offeredattheendoftheschooldaywherechildrenareinvolvedinplanned activitiessupervisedbyadults(paidorvolunteer)’’.

Theseauthorsstudied34extendeddayandafterschoolprogramscomprising:

• languageartsafterschoolprograms

• studyskillprograms

• academicprogramsinothercurriculumareas

• tutoringprogramsforreading

• communitybasedprograms.

Theysucceededinusingeffectsizesfromonlysixstudies,whichhadused comparisongroups.Themeaneffectsizesfoundwere0.16formathematicsand 0.21forreading.

Thesuccessofprogramswasseentodependon:

• structureandapredictableschedule

• stronglinkstotheschooldaycurriculum

• well-qualifiedandtrainedstaff

• opportunitiesforone-to-onetutoring.

Laueretal.(2004)publishedasynthesisofeffectstudiesonextendedschool timeandsummerlearning.Theaverage(random)effectsizeformathematicswas 0.17andforreading0.13,basedon22mathstudiesand27readingstudies. Moderatorvariablesintheanalyseswere,amongothers,gradelevel.Theprogramsformathematicshadthehighesteffectinhighschool,whereasthereading programshadthehighesteffectsizeinelementaryschool.Effectsizeswerelarger forprogramsthatlastedmorethan45hours,however,anon-significanteffectwas foundforaprogramthatlastedover210hours.Thelargestresultswerefoundfor programsthatusedone-to-onetutoring.Theyalsofoundthateffectsizeswere higherforpublishedascomparedtonon-publishedsources.

Ziefetal.(2006)concentratedonafterschoolprogramsthatoperatedona regularbasisduringtheschoolyear(thusexcludingsummerprograms)and includesomekindofeducationalsupportservice.Theyusedrigorousselection criteria(onlyexperimentalinterventionstudies),whichleftonlyfivestudiesthat wereamenabletometa-analysis.However,97impacts(replications)wereincludedinthesefivestudies.Theyfoundsmalleffectsizesof0.028onareadingtest and0.08for,whenoutcomesweremeasuredasschoolgrades.Nolessthan84of the97impactsthatwerestudiedwerenotsignificant.Theauthorsalsonotethat impactsforparentswerenotfoundinanyofthestudies.The‘‘nullfindings’’,of thisstudymightbeattributableto:therigorousselectionofstudies,therelatively limitedtimedurationoftheprograms,5–9months,orthefactthattheseprograms weremixturesofarangeofacademic,recreational,andenrichmentactivities.

Durlaketal.(2010)conductedameta-analysesonafterschoolprograms,meant topromotepersonalandsocialskills(e.g.self-management,self-efficacy,selfcontrol,andself-awareness).Theafterschoolprogramswhichwerestudied, occurredduringtheschoolyear,outsidenormalschoolhours,andweresupervised byadults.Theiroverallconclusionwasthattheresultsdemonstratedsignificant increasesinthestudents’self-perceptionsandbondingtoschool,positivesocial behavior,schoolgrades,andlevelsofeducationalachievement,aswellassignificantreductionsinproblembehaviors(ibid,p.294).

Theirmeta-analysiswasbasedon75studiesandyieldedaverageeffectsizes whenoutcomesweremeasuredasschoolgradesof0.22and0.20(achievement measuredbytests).Forsocialandbehavioraloutcomesaverageeffectsizesinthe orderof0.30werecompiled.Theyfoundamoderatoreffectforthepresenceof fourrecommendedpractices,associatedwithearliersuccessfulskilltraining (sequenced,active,focused,andexplicit).

Asummaryoftheresultsofthesequantitativemeta-analysesisprovidedin Table 2.3.

Table2.3 Overviewofresultsfrommeta-analysesontheeffectofafterschoolprogramsand extendedlearningtime

Meta-analysis by Afterschoolprogram describedas MeaneffectsizeNumberof studies Numberof replications

Cooperetal. (2000) Summerschool programs d = 0.2647477

Scott-Littleetal. (2002) Afterschoolservices d = 0.16for mathematics d = 0.21forreading

Laueretal. (2004) Extendedschooltime andsummerlearning d = 0.17mathematics d = 0.13reading 22

Ziefetal.(2006)Educationallysupported afterschool programs d = 0.028reading d = 0.07grades

Durlaketal. (2010) Afterschoolprograms meanttopromote personalandsocial skills d = 0.22grades d = 0.20achievement

TheresultsshowninTable 2.3 indicateanaverageeffectsize,acrossmetaanalysesof d = 0.16;whenremovingtheoutlyingvalueof0.028fromZiefetal. (2006)meta-analysesthiswouldbecome d = 0.18.

Accordingtoconventionalnormsthiswouldqualifyasasmalleffect,but variouskindsofreasoningpresentedintheabovewouldsuggestthatitisnotso small,whencomparedtotheeffectsofothereducationalinterventions.

Discussion

Valentineetal.(2010)presentacriticalanalysisof12researchsynthesesofAfter SchoolPrograms,includingmostoftheonesshowninTable 2.3.Theyobserve greatheterogeneityinthecodingofwhatcountedasaneligibleprogramtobe includedinthemeta-analyses.Thismeansthatthekindofafterschoolprograms andextendedlearningtimeismuchdiversifiedandcombiningsynthesesisonly possibleatahighlevelofabstraction.

Valentineetal.alsoobserveasimilarkindofheterogeneityintheapplicationof methodologicalcriteriaforincludingstudies,andthemethodsthatwereappliedto synthesizeinformationfromtheunderlyingstudies.Lastbutnotleasttheysaythat methodologicallimitationscallfortheutmostprudenceindrawingcausalconclusions.Theyconcludethatinfact‘‘weknowverylittle’’aboutthecausalimpact ofafterschoolprograms.Oneofthemajorshortcomingsislackofinsightinthe mechanismsthroughwhichafterschoolprogramsbringaboutthedesiredoutcomes.Morerecentmeta-analysesthatincludestudycharacteristicsasmoderators areastepforwardinthisdirection.Anexampleistheapproachfollowedby Durlaketal.(2010)whoincludedthepresenceorabsenceofapreferredmethodologyforskilldevelopmentasamoderatorvariableandconcludedthatthe businessofextendedlearningtimecouldbenefitfromanevidence-basedapproach. Featuresofeffectiveafterschoolprogramsthathavebeenmentionedinthis sectionare:

• alignmentofthecontentsoftheprogramwiththeregularschoolcurriculum;

• professionaleducatorsandcounselorsdeliveringtheprogram;

• astructuredapproach;

• sufficientdurationoftheprogram(over45hours,wasmentionedinoneofthe studies).

Theliteraturethatwasreviewedindicatesthatafterschoolprogramshave differentmissions.Themostimportantonesare:

• acaretakingfunctionthataddressestheproblemthatyoungchildrenareleft unmonitoredforasizeableamountoftime;

• aneducationalachievementorientedemphasis,whichmayhaveeithera remedialoranenrichmentemphasis,withtheformerparticularlyaimedat studentsfromdisadvantagedbackgrounds;

• abroadapproachwheresocialemotionaldevelopment,involvementwiththe localcommunityand‘‘lifeskills’’areaddedtocaretakingandeducational achievement.

Asanillustrationofabroadorientationinafterschoolprogramsthe‘‘principles ofeffectiveout-of-schooltimeprogramsandsummerschools’’mentionedby Terzianetal.(2009,p.27),arecitedbelow.

• Formcollaborativepartnershipswithkeystakeholders

• Involvefamiliesandcommunities

• Utilizewell-trained,experiencedstaff

• Offerongoingstaffdevelopment

• Planprogramsdeliberately

• Makeprogramsaffordableandaccessible

• Promotepositiverelationshipswithcaringadults

• Providepositiverolemodels

• Rewardgoodbehavior

• Teachschoolcognitiveskills,lifeskills,andcharacterdevelopment

• Makelearningfunandhandson

• Intervenemoreintensivelywithat-riskstudents

• Evaluateprogramscontinuallytoinformdesignandimplementation.

Conclusions

Effectiveuseofregularschooltime,homework,andextraout-of-schooltime appearstohavesmalltomoderatepositiveeffectsoneducationalachievementin basicsubjects,mathematicsandreading.Theaverageeffectsizesforthesethree ‘‘arena’s’’foroptimizinglearningtimeare0.37,0.29,and0.18,respectively.

Thesecoefficientsshouldbeinterpretedwithsomecaution,however.Metaanalysesthathaveinvestigatedtheeffectsofregularschooltimeusuallythrow togetherarangeofdifferent‘‘treatments’’,varyingfromincrementsin‘‘statutory’’, officialschoolorteachinghours,tomoreefficientuseofteachingtime,timeon task,and‘‘qualitytime’’.Moreover,inordertobeeffectiveitisobviousthattime shouldbe‘‘filled’’withrelevanteducationalexposure,particularlyintermsof contentcoveredandalsointermofeffectiveteachingprocesses.Inempirical studiesthesevariablesarenotalwayscontrolledfor,sothatitshouldbeassumed that‘‘time’’effectspickuptheeffectsofcontentcoveredandteachingquality. Studiesontheeffectsofhomeworkseemtounderlinethispoint.Onthefew occasionsthatpuretimeeffects,intermsoffrequencyanddurationofhomework assignmentscouldbeseparatedfromcontentcovered,itwasthelatterfacet, indicatedas‘‘amount’’ofhomework,whichappearedtobethemostimportant (DeJongetal. 2000).Ofthethreemajorstrategiestomanipulatetimeineducation thethirdone,out-of-schoollearningisthemostheterogeneousone.Thisis

particularlythecasebecauseafterschoolprogramsoftenhavebroaderpedagogical andcaretakingobjectivesthanjustenhancingstudentachievement.Thecited meta-analysesreflectthisheterogeneity,anditisthereforeunderstandablethatthe averageeffectsizeismoremodest,ascomparedtotheeffectsoftimeatschooland homework,becausenotalloftheavailabletimeisdedicatedtoacademic objectives.

Asecondreasontointerpretthecoefficientscarefullyhastodowithmethodologicalflawsintheoriginalstudiesaswellasthemeta-analyses(Kane 2004; Kohn 2006;Trautweinetal. 2006;CanadianCouncil 2009;Valentineetal. 2010; Reddetal. 2012).Kane(2004)arguesthatareasonableexpectationfortheeffect sizeofAfterSchoolPrograms,islowasbetween d = 0.05and0.07.Kohnprovidesa‘‘taxonomyofabuses’’instudiesthathaveattemptedtoassesstheeffectof homeworkandconcludes,afterathoroughreviewoftheliterature,thatthereis virtuallynoevidencethatunequivocallysupportstheexpectationthathomework hasbeneficialeffectsonacademicachievementoronattitudesthatwouldbe supportiveofindependentlearning.Valentineetal.(2010)criticallyanalyzed12 meta-analysesontheeffectsofAfterSchoolPrograms,andlaybaregreatdiversity inthemethodsappliedinthesemeta-analyses,whileconcludingthattheoutcomes reportedaredivergenttoanextentthattheydonotprovideclearmessagesto policymakersonthepotentialeffectsoftheseprograms.Similarcautionsare expressedbyReddetal.(2012)whentheyconcludethatAfterSchoolprograms can beeffective.

Still,alsowhencomparedtoothereducationaleffectivenessenhancingconditions,extratimeshouldbeseenasanimportantconditionto‘‘increasewelltargetedexposuretocontent’’asastrongmediatorofstudentachievement.

Ofthethreevariationsoftimeusediscussedinthischapteroptimizingtimeat schoolextended,out-of-schoollearning,areassociatedwithequityorientedpoliciestoenhancethepositionofdisadvantagedlearners.Thisappliestoalesser extenttohomework,forwhichdisadvantagedlearnersmightstronglydependon guided,structured,andcloselymonitoredhomework.

Nostudiesonthecosteffectivenessofthesethreetime-orientedstrategieswere found.Itwouldseem,however,thattheleasteffectivestrategyofthethree, extendedlearningtimeandafterschoolprograms,isbyfarthemostexpensive one,andthereforealsotheleastcost-effectivestrategy.

Another random document with no related content on Scribd:

"You may guess what it is, if you like," said Forbes, "but it would spoil all the fun to show it to you beforehand. Ask me questions, and I'll answer yes or no."

"Well then, is it heavy?"

"Light?"

"Rather, yes."

"Can I hold it in my hand?"

"Yes."

"Is it long and straight?"

"It's quite straight—particularly so—and rather long."

"I say Forbes—it isn't—no it can't be a walking stick, of course," said Jack growing excited, and fervently hoping it was.

"No, but that's not a fair question, you must find out more about it."

"Is it a useful thing?"

"Decidedly."

"Not too useful I hope," said Jack, somewhat dejectedly.

"I don't know what you mean by too useful—nothing can be too useful."

"I mean it has nothing to do with lessons—a blotting book, or slate, or anything of that sort."

"Well yes, it is something of that sort, but I know you haven't got one, and really want one, I heard you ask Geoffrey for his only the other day."

"It's a ruler!" said Jack blankly.

"Yes—but not only a ruler. Here, I'll let you feel it, old boy."

Jack felt it.

"It's one of those rulers with a pencil in it," he murmured, then he added effusively lest Forbes should think him ungrateful, "thanks awfully, it's jolly, it's awfully kind of you."

Forbes felt and saw his little brother was disappointed.

"I quite forgot you didn't care for useful things, I like them myself. But," he added, anxious to raise Jack's spirits, and to make the best of his present which he felt was a failure, and unappreciated, "this is a particularly nice ruler—it has a first-rate pencil in it, and a view of the Grammar School and Arboretum outside. That's why I got it, I thought you'd be sure to like it."

"Forbes," said Mr. Hodson, laying a kind hand on the boy's shoulder, "you remind me of a verse in Proverbs, 'He that ruleth his spirit is greater than he that taketh a city.'"

"Thanks awfully," was all that Jack could think of to say, then after a moment's pause he asked, "What are you going to give Geoff?"

"I'm giving him a walking stick, a regular wopper. I got it while you and he were looking after the doll. It has a knob at the end the size of my fist. I've asked them to send it out to Hazelbury for me, as I was afraid Geoff would see me carrying it."

"I say Forbes," said Jack colouring, and in a low voice, "you wouldn't, I suppose, give Geoff the ruler and let me have the stick?"

"No, certainly not," said Forbes angrily. "You are an ungrateful sneaking little scamp, get away with you."

Jack burst into tears at this, and ran past Mr. Hodson and Geoff, who had overheard Forbes' words, as he had raised his voice in his anger.

Mr. Hodson turned round and looked at Forbes. The light of a lamp close by shewed him the indignant light in the boy's eyes.

"He's gone to complain to nurse now I suppose," he said, angrily looking after Jack's little figure, as he ran crying up the drive and into the house.

"Forbes," said Mr. Hodson, laying a kind hand on the boy's shoulder, "you remind me of a verse in Proverbs, 'He that ruleth his spirit is greater than he that taketh a city.' You have the chance of being a greater man then even Alexander—for though he conquered the world, he could not conquer his own temper, and killed his best friend in a fit of anger."

"Thank you Sir," said Forbes, "I'll remember."

CHAPTER IV.

TAKING A CITY.

Geoffrey remembered Mr. Hodson's words later in the evening.

He did not turn in at the garden gate with Forbes, but telling him he had some business to do before going in to tea, he gave his presents into his brother's keeping, and ran down the hill on the summit of which their house stood.

At the bottom of the hill, he came upon a tumbled-down cottage, standing quite by itself. Old Rachel, of whom Mrs. Green had told them, lived here.

The thought of Rachel had lain very heavily on Geoffrey's heart the last two or three days. He could not forget that she was a mother, and a mother neglected by her only child, who, when she gave her anything at all, only passed on to her what she couldn't eat herself. He was thinking of Rachel when the apple puffs were passed round at dinner.

Now apple puffs was a favourite dish of Geoffrey's, as I fancy it is of most boys. They looked particularly tempting to-day, and he ate the first with a relish. It was just as he was taking his second, that Mrs. Green's words came across his mind, "and if ever she gives her anything, you may be quite sure it ain't fit to eat, something they can't eat themselves because it's turned."

Geoffrey looked at the puff as it lay so invitingly on his plate. It was three cornered, and a little burnt at the edges, which made it all the nicer in Geoffrey's opinion, and a nice layer of white sugar lay on the top.

How good it looked! For a moment the boy gazed at it undecidedly, then, when no one was looking, he put it into his jacket pocket, and resolved to take it round to old Rachel when they came back from Ipswich.

"For once," thought Geoff, "she shall have something that somebody else wants."

He had had some difficulty in knowing how to stow away his many presents so as not to crush his apple puff, but he had managed somehow, and now as he stood outside the door of Rachel's cottage, he took the puff out and was glad to find it still whole. It certainly looked very tempting, and Geoffrey was hungry after his walk. No one would see if after all he ate it, instead of giving it to old Rachel, and no one would consciously miss it.

For a moment the boy's resolution wavered, then he knocked at the door.

Now an apple puff was not a very great thing to give up for the sake of another, and perhaps some of my little readers may think that it would not have signified very much if Geoffrey had eaten it after all. But we must remember, that

life is made up of little things, and the great battle of life, on which so much depends, consists often of little victories and little losses, and this small victory that Geoffrey gained that afternoon helped him in after years to gain a far greater one.

When he grew up to be a man, there was something he wanted very much, which was far more worth having than this apple puff. He wanted it so much that he sometimes felt he would almost give his life to possess it for ever such a short time; but somebody else wanted it too, someone who was weaker than he was, and who perhaps needed it more than he did, and Geoffrey gave it right up for the sake of that other.

I do not think he would have acted so nobly when he was a man, if he had not begun quite early in life to deny himself. If he had lost this little battle and had eaten the apple puff outside old Rachel's door, in all probability he would have lost that greater battle in after life.

"You are old Rachel, aren't you?" asked Geoffrey. "Well, what if I be?" she answered.

"Come in," said a quavering voice as Geoffrey knocked, and on entering, he saw a haggard looking old woman, with a forbidding expression of face, and grey straggling hair, crouching over a small fire.

"You are old Rachel, aren't you?" asked Geoffrey, who had never seen her before.

"Well, what if I be?" she answered in a low gruff voice, "I don't want no one to come interfering with me, leastways a child. What do you want—eh?"

"I've brought you an apple puff," said Geoffrey, standing still by the door.

"Shut the door, can't ye," said Rachel shivering, "the draught's enough to cut one in two. An apple puff is it? That ain't the kind of food I want, I ought to be fed on arrowroot I tell ye, and sweet puddings and the like. But Jane never sends me what I need, it's either somethin' that's turned bad, or else what I can't eat."

"This is quite new and fresh," said Geoffrey, shutting the door and coming a little nearer, while he laid the puff on the table, "perhaps you've never tasted a puff—it's awfully good I wish you'd try it."

"That's a likely story, if Jane sent it," said Rachel glancing at it, and then looking up suspiciously at Geoffrey.

"No one sent it," interposed Geoffrey. "We had them for dinner to-day, and I thought you'd like one as they were so good. I'm Geoffrey Fortescue, and I heard of you from Mrs. Green."

Rachel looked back again at the fire, muttering to herself, and Geoffrey looked round the room, and thought how bare

it was, and how lonely Rachel looked.

"Haven't you any money to get things with?" he asked.

"Money ain't for such as me: the big folk that don't need it, they have the money. This world's comforts ain't for me."

"There's Heaven for you," said Geoffrey.

Rachel darted a quick look at the boy, and as she saw the earnest young face looking at her so pitifully, the expression on her own face softened, and she shook her head.

"I take it Heaven is a long way off," she said sadly.

"It doesn't seem so very far," answered Geoff, "Mother is there, and I sometimes feel she's quite close."

"Heaven ain't meant for such as me," muttered Rachel, cowering closer to the fire.

"I thought God loved everybody, and meant Heaven for the whole world," said Geoff, "and," he added earnestly, "I'm quite sure God must want you there, because you are so lonely."

Rachel wiped away a tear or two with her apron. She had not cried for many a long day. She had harboured too bitter thoughts to allow of tears, but to-day, something in the boy's simple words touched her hard old heart.

"I mustn't stop," said Geoffrey, looking out of the window at the darkness, "or Nurse won't like it. But I'll ask Mr. Hodson to come and see you, and I'll leave the apple puff, for it's ever so good, if you'll only try it."

Rachel nodded her assent to the last sentence, but added:

"But don't you bring no parsons to see me. I don't want no parsons here, unless," she added with a sob, and beginning to rock herself backwards and forwards, "unless he can tell me the way straight and plain to Heaven. I'd like to know that."

Closing the door softly after him, Geoffrey ran as fast as he could to Mr. Hodson. Although he ran the risk of a scolding from Nurse for being late, he felt that Rachel must not be left in her misery.

He arrived at the house nearly breathless, and told his friend what had happened.

Mr. Hodson, who had together with the Vicar for many a year tried in vain to overcome Rachel's objection to see a clergyman, was glad enough of the news Geoffrey brought him, and prepared at once to go and see her.

"Mr. Hodson," said Geoffrey anxiously, "God loves her, doesn't He? And He won't turn her away from Heaven, if she asks to be let in."

"If Rachel really wants to find God, He certainly will not turn her away," answered Mr. Hodson. "The Lord Jesus Christ has made a way there for us all, and old Rachel's way is the same as yours and mine. Do you remember the story Geoff," he added, as he put On his coat to start off at once, "of the man who saved his children by making a bridge of his own body from the window of his burning house to that of the opposite one? The houses were very near together, and he could reach from one window to another."

"His children one by one crossed over his body into safety, and just as the last child was saved, the house fell in, and the man was killed. When the Blessed Lord Jesus died on the Cross, He made a bridge for Rachel, and for you and for

me to Heaven. You see, I have good news for your old friend, Geoff my boy, so you run home as fast as you can or you'll get a scolding."

And Geoff did get a scolding. Nurse met him at the door.

"Master Geoff," she cried, "I'm downright ashamed of you for setting the children such an example. There I've been worrying after you for the last twenty minutes, and thought you'd come to some accident or other. I'm downright ashamed of you."

"I had some business to do," said Geoffrey, trying to pass her. But Nurse placed her portly figure in his way.

"Business! A chit like you talking of business! What'll you come to next, I wonder. You're a naughty boy and ought to be ashamed of yourself. What business have you had to do, I should like to know, except to be a good obedient boy. That's the business you ought to be doing I take it."

Geoffrey flushed angrily. His mother never scolded him in this way, and he had often run messages for her as late as this by himself.

"Let me pass, Nurse," he said angrily, trying to push past her, "I've not been doing anything wrong."

"Nothing wrong!" exclaimed Nurse, catching hold of his arm. "Nothing wrong to make me that anxious about you that I didn't know what to do—nothing wrong that you've kept us all waiting for tea, and have set a bad example to all the children. I'm ashamed of you Master Geoff. Now I should like to know what you've been about, and I mean to know too."

But at the sight of the bread and water, he lost his temper completely, and taking up the glass, he threw it on to the ground.

Now Geoff did not wish to tell Nurse about the apple puff, and felt exceedingly angry at being treated like a little boy, and held by the arm in this way. So raising his hand he struck nurse's arm as hard as he could, and then pale with anger, he rushed into his bedroom and locked the door.

"Well I never!" ejaculated nurse. "If that isn't a wicked temper, I don't know what is."

When she went back into the nursery a few minutes afterwards, she informed the children that Geoff had been a naughty boy, and was to have no tea that evening, but that Forbes might put a glass of water and some bread outside his door, but was not to speak a word to him.

Forbes, in utter astonishment at his elder brother being punished in this way, obeyed wonderingly.

Now it was a great pity that Geoffrey had not at once explained to nurse the cause of his absence. She might have given him a slight scolding, for not asking her leave before going, but her kind heart would have sympathized with him, in his wish to do a kindness.

But Geoffrey's pride had stood in the way. He could not endure being treated like a little boy, and scolded like a naughty child, and as he paced up and down his room, his indignation rose, and reached its climax when he heard Forbes' footstep outside, and the sound of him quietly laying down his tea, as he supposed, by his door without a word. Was he to be treated then like a mere baby? And to be held in disgrace like Jack or Dodie would have been, if they had been naughty?

He opened his door impatiently to call after Forbes to take away his tea, but at the sight of the bread and water, he lost his temper completely, and taking up the glass, he

threw it on to the ground, smashing it to pieces. Then locked his door again, and would not open it, though nurse shook it violently.

Then it was that Mr. Hodson's words about Alexander came into his mind, and Geoffrey stood quite still in his walk.

"'He that ruleth his spirit is greater than he that taketh a city,'" thought Geoff.

Half an hour afterwards, to Forbes' intense astonishment, Geoffrey appeared in the nursery and apologized to nurse.

Nurse said nothing, but going to the cupboard, she mixed some gregory powder in a wineglass, saying, "anyone who shows temper like that, I take it, must be ill. There my dear," she added kindly, "you drink that, there's a good boy and you'll feel better to-morrow."

And Geoff drank it to the dregs, and in so doing was greater than Alexander the Great.

CHAPTER V.

"POOR LITTLE LAD."

Geoffrey could not fail to acknowledge to himself that after all, Nurse had been wise in putting Dodie into a frock with high neck and long sleeves, for the winter was unusually severe.

Snow lay for several days some inches thick in the garden, and though the boys enjoyed the snowballing well enough, and were able to keep themselves thoroughly warm, little Dodie seemed to feel the cold very acutely, and often came in from her daily walk crying from the pain of freezing fingers.

In fact, the child did not seem herself, and Nurse began to grow uneasy about her, particularly as in seven days' time, Major Fortescue was expected and she was naturally anxious that all the children should be looking their best on his arrival.

In Geoffrey's eyes, Dodie seemed to be growing thinner and smaller altogether, and a terrible fear seized him lest she was going to be ill, and would be so when his Father arrived.

As the days past, he gave up snowballing, and spent his time in the nursery with Dodie, who was not allowed out.

"I think the cold has struck her," said Nurse, as one day she altogether refused to eat her dinner. "I've a mind to send for Dr. Booth, the powders I've been giving her don't seem to be what she wants."

Geoffrey laid down his knife and fork, feeling a sudden disinclination for the mutton and dumplings before him.

"Do you think Dodie is going to be ill?" he asked anxiously.

"I hope not, my dear, but it ain't like her to turn away from her food, and she has a nasty little cough that don't get better. Anyways I'll ask Dr. Booth to look in, there can't be no harm in that. There, there my darling," she added, taking Dodie on to her knee, "don't cry, there's a pet."

Nurse looked down at Dodie's little face which was lying on her arm.

"I don't like the look of her," she murmured more to herself than to anyone else, "her eyes are too bright to be natural, and she's restless, poor little dear." Then louder she added, "Geoff, you might run down when you've finished your dinner and ask the doctor to be so good as to look in. You'd catch him before he starts out on his rounds if you're quick."

"Dr. Booth," he said,—looking up into the Doctor's face— "will Dodie be well by the time Father comes home?"

Geoffrey, who had listened with a beating heart to all Nurse had said, sprang up at once, and not heeding Nurse's

injunction to finish his dinner first, ran off at once for the Doctor, and returned again in an incredibly short time.

To his excited imagination, the few minutes that elapsed between leaving the message at the doctor's door and his arrival seemed hours, and then at last his ring was heard, and a minute after, he stood looking at Dodie, who still lay in nurse's arms.

Geoff did not move his eyes from his face, till Nurse suddenly looking up and becoming conscious of the three little listeners who stood around, ordered them all peremptorily out of the room. Geoffrey, however, waylaid the Doctor as he left.

"Dr. Booth," he said, standing with his hands thrust deeply in his pockets, and looking earnestly up into the Doctor's face as he put on his coat in the hall, "will Dodie be well by the time Father comes home?"

The Doctor shook his head somewhat ominously.

"That I can't tell you, my boy," he answered, as he buttoned up his coat and smoothed his collar, "with care I hope your little sister will get well before very long—but it will require care—and I can't say exactly when she will be herself again."

"Is she going to be very ill?" asked Geoff.

The doctor turned away somewhat hurriedly from the anxious face looking up into his, and fidgeted a little nervously with his hat before putting it on. Then clearing his throat, he looked round again and patted the boy on the head saying, kindly:

"Care and physic do wonderful things, my boy—for all I know, your little sister will be having a game of snowballing with you this day week."

"I do hope she'll be well by the time Father comes," said Geoff with a sigh.

"Oh well—who knows!" said Dr. Booth jovially—and ramming his hat on his head, he nodded to Geoff, and in a minute more was driving away from the house, but not away from the remembrance of those anxious eyes that had been raised so beseechingly to him,—which remembrance made him shake his head, murmuring "poor little lad."

When Geoff went up to the nursery, he saw Nurse had been crying, but when he asked what the Doctor really thought of Dodie, she told him she had no time to talk and that he had better go down to the other boys in the schoolroom as Dodie had to go straight to bed, and mustn't be disturbed by any noise.

Geoffrey did as he was bid, but with a heavy heart, feeling quite sure that Nurse's tears meant that Dodie was very ill. He could not play with Forbes and Jack, or even read, but sat by the fire, looking silently at the red coals, for an hour or more.

It was the greatest relief when Nurse at last came down and told him he might go upstairs and watch by Dodie's crib while she had her tea, and that was the beginning of a continual watching on the boy's part. Nurse finding how gentle and tender he was, and how noiselessly he could move about when he liked, did not object to his spending many hours by Dodie's crib, and indeed, in her great anxiety, she began to be thankful for the boy's presence. For the Doctor's report of Dodie had been serious. The child

Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.