18_

Allocated Academic Learning Time Revisited, or beyond Time on Task Author(s): Jane Stallings Source: Educational Researcher, Vol. 9, No. 11 (Dec., 1980), pp. 11-16 Published by: American Educational Research Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1175185 Accessed: 15-06-2016 23:01 UTC Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Sage Publications, Inc., American Educational Research Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Educational Researcher

This content downloaded from 128.59.222.12 on Wed, 15 Jun 2016 23:01:50 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Allocated Academic Learning Time

Revisited, or Beyond Time on Task JANE STALLINGS SRI International

One of the most useful variables to emerge from the research on teaching during the 1970's was student time on task. Many educators are now convinced that if student time on task is in-

creased, an increase in student

achievement will follow. While

keeping students on task may

seem like a simplistic notion, it is

a rather complex undertaking to

make this construct useful in the classroom. Teachers need to be

told more than just to allocate additional time to academic ac-

tivities and to keep students on task. They need to know how to use time effectively in a variety of activities, how to vary time with different achievement

groups, and how to support students to keep them on task. Previous research focused on the

length of school days, actual

scheduled class time, time allo-

cated to academic subjects, and student engaged time. This paper looks more closely at the effects

of the distribution of time across

activities, the effective use of

time with different achievement

of school day in the same district varied by 45 minutes for two sec-

ond-grade classrooms. However,

the variance of the actual time

one-to-one instruction) was also associated with student academic

spent in class was slight. Firstgrade classrooms in the National Follow Through Observation Study (Stallings, 1975) varied as

gain. Conversely, time spent in more exploratory activities was positively related to scores on a nonverbal, problem-solving test

in length of school day; secondary

rate. Similar relationships were also found in a study of California, third-grade Early Childhood Education classes (Stallings, Cory, Fairweather, & Needels,

much as 1 hour and 30 minutes

class periods for remedial reading varied from 40-55 minutes (Stallings, Needels, & Stayrook, 1979). Findings from these studies indicate that mere length

of the school day or the length of

a class period in secondary

schools was not related to student academic achievement.

Clearly, student learning depends on how the available time is used, not just the amount of

time available.

Researchers at the Far West

Laboratory initiated the idea of' Allocated Academic Learning Time in the Beginning Teacher Evaluation Study (BTES) (Fisher, Filby, Marliave, Cahen, Dishaw, Moore, & Berliner,

1978). Powell and Dishaw (in

groups, and methods to guide

press), reporting data from the

research on time management.

cated Academic Learning Time for second graders ranged from 62-123 minutes per day, and for fifth graders from 49-105 minutes per day. The correlation of allocated learning time with

teachers to use the findings from Previous Research

The length of a school day in elementary school or the length of a class period in secondary

school defines the maximum amount of time available for in-

struction. Harnischfeger and Wiley (1978) found that the length

Jane Stallings, SRI International.

Also, The Teaching and Learning Institute, 409 Poppy, Mt. View, CA 94043.

Specializations: Research on Teaching and Staff Development.

in reading and math. Time spent in small groups (as opposed to

BTES, indicate that the Allo-

achievement varied from one test

to another in this study. However, in the Follow Through observation study (Stallings, 1975), time spent in mathematics, reading, and academic verbal interac-

and to a lower student absence

1977).

It is of interest to know what

percentage of time allocated to academic subjects is used by students to engage in academic

work. Powell and Dishaw, in the

study cited above, reported that

the engaged time of second-grade

students varied from 39-98 min-

utes, and that of fifth-grade stu-

dents varied from 49-105 min-

utes. Student-engaged time was positively associated with stu-

dent achievement in all tests and

at both grade levels.

The variation in the amount of

student engaged time by achievement groups was reported by Evertson (1980). On the average, low-achieving junior high students were engaged 40 percent of the time in academic activities

compared with 85 percent engaged time for high-achieving students. Low-achieving students experienced less variation in the activities that occurred during the class period and had more dead time (nothing happening)

than did the more able students.

Even though high-achieving

tions was related to achieve-

students are more inclined to be

ment. Time spent working with textbooks (as opposed to time spent with puzzles, games, and toys) was related to achievement

engaged in academic tasks, it is of considerable importance to al-

December,

locate sufficient time and effort

to working with low-achieving

198011

This content downloaded from 128.59.222.12 on Wed, 15 Jun 2016 23:01:50 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

students who may not be so in-

clined. Stallings (1975) reported that low-achieving third graders in Follow Through prospered more from an increase in time

spent in reading and math than did the higher achieving students. Caution: For all students,

there is a point at which more time does not produce more learning. Such curvilinear effects have been reported by Soar (1978).

The body of knowledge emanating from the research on teaching in the 1970's suggests that teachers should allocate

more time to academic subjects, keeping in mind ability levels, and students should be kept engaged in the tasks. Such a recommendation will confirm what most teachers and administrators

already know; however, the recommendation is not very helpful unless more specific statements are made about how to engage students and how to use aca-

demic time. We need to go beyond a simplistic notion of aca-

demic learning time to study the

activities that occur within a

class period and see how the time

for those activities is distributed.

If a class period has 45 minutes, how long does it take to get the

volved 43 teachers representing

six school districts in Northern

California. The second phase (a

quasi-experiment) was conducted

in the same districts and involved 44 teachers. Each teacher

selected one class period for study. The class period was then

observed for three consecutive

days. Students in the selected classes were given the Classroom Environment Scale (Moos &

Trickett, 1974) and teachers were

given a flexibility/structured

scale to rate their own behavior.

Pretest and posttest reading scores, rating scales, and absence

data were recorded for the stu-

dents in the selected class per-

to examine the relationships be-

tween observed instructional

processes and class means for achievement gains and class

means for absence rates.

The variables used to describe

the instruction process were more specific than variables used in previous research on teaching

reading. A matrix was devised to identify the reading activities ac-

tually taking place. The observer placed everyone-teachers, students, aides, and volunteers-

make a difference? If so, does this with different reading levels?

Research Study of the

(NIE) and carried out at SRI In-

ternational by Stallings, Needels, and Stayrook (1979). The first phase (a correlational study) in12

very similar. These figures

should not, however, be viewed

approach a norm for secondary classes where basic reading skills are being taught.

When these activity variables describing the distribution of

time across activities were correl-

ated with student gain on the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills (CTBS), several strong, positive correlations as well as strong, negative correlations were identified during both phases of the study (see Table II).

The variables positively related to reading gain can be characterized as Interactive On-Task In-

struction. Those variables negatively related to reading gain can be characterized as Noninterac-

Average Percentage of Observed Time Spent in Activities During Reading Class Spring Spring Grand

Distribution of Time Across Activities

tional Institute of Education

shown in Table I. The distribu-

tion of time for the 2 years is

TABLE I

difference vary among students

specific reading levels. This study, The Teaching of Basic Reading Skills in Secondary Schools, was funded by the Na-

activities during the class period.

The average percentage of time spent in each of these activities during Phase I and Phase II is

time, but rather as statistics that

as the bell rang. Five such matrices were spaced evenly over the rest of the period. Over the

this distribution of time affects

cific group arrangements. Varia-

bles constructed from the data allowed an assessment of the allocation of time to each of these

as a criterion for distribution of

balance of silent reading, written assignments, reading aloud, and

of time allocated to specific reading activities significantly affects student reading gain; further,

specific activities, using specific

materials, and working in spe-

iods. Partial correlations and

somewhere on the matrix as soon

A two-phase study conducted in 87 secondary remedial classrooms suggests that the amount

centage of observed time spent in

analyses of variance of achievement groups were then computed

show on the road? What is the

instruction? Does the distribution of class time across activities

three days of observation, 15 such matrices were completed.

From these data, questions could be answered regarding the per-

Phase I Phase II Mean

(N = 43) (N = 44) (N = 87) (percent) (percent) (percent) Reading silently 12 15 14 Reading aloud 8 6 6 Making assignments 4 5 4.5 Instruction 16 Discussion 5

13 15 4 4.2

Drill and practice 5 2 3.5 Written assignments 21 21 21 Tests or quizzes 1 1.5 1 Social interaction 7 5 Student uninvolved 5 7

6 6

Being disciplined 0.5 0.3 0.4 Classroom management 26 26 26 Note. These activities may occur simultaneously; therefore, the sum is greater than 100%.

Educational

Researcher

This content downloaded from 128.59.222.12 on Wed, 15 Jun 2016 23:01:50 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

tive On-Task Instruction. This

curring, it was positively associ-

separation of interactive and

ated with student gain.

important contribution of this study) goes beyond Time On-

Different Achievement Groups

remedial secondary reading

In the secondary basic reading skills study, we were interested

noninteractive instruction (an

Task to describe how the time in classrooms should be distributed over academic activities.

For example, we know that the

norm for discussion or review is

four percent of the time. We

would recommend that a second-

ary teacher of remedial reading students spend more time than

Effective Use of Time with

to see whether student achievement levels interacted with effec-

tive teacher processes and reading gain. To examine these relationships, we conducted an analysis of variance that con-

trasted'the instructional pro-

four percent of the class period on discussion/review because in classrooms where there was more

discussion or review (above the

mean), more student gain was made. Conversely, in classrooms where more than the average time was spent in class management, written assignments, and silent reading, less reading gain was made. These findings do not suggest that silent reading or written assignments should be eliminated; they do suggest that the activities occurring in classrooms should be reasonably balanced between reading aloud, silent reading, and written assignments. At the time of this study reading aloud was occurring in relatively few secondary classrooms, but where it was oc-

cesses used in low-pretest/highgain classrooms; moderatepretest/moderate-gain classrooms; high-pretest/high-gain classrooms; and no-gain classrooms (see Figure 1).

Interactive On-Task Instruction Time

their time was spent in management tasks where they were not directly involved with students.

These percentages of time allocation are quite different from those of the no-gain classrooms and also different from the grand

mean or norm of all classes (see Table I). While there was a trend

for groups II and III to spend

more time in these interactive

activities than the no-gain group,

it was much more important for the very low-achieving students in Group I to do more reading aloud, receive more instruction,

and take part in more review of seatwork or discussion of stories

which they had read.

Within the activities that oc-

curred during the class period,

the teachers' instructional inter-

action patterns were also related

When we examined instruc-

tional processes being used in

classrooms of initial low

achievers (Group I) where more than average gain in reading was made, we found these teachers

allocated more time to interactive activities. These teachers

provided instruction 16 percent

of the time, discussed or reviewed

written work 12 percent of the time, and had students reading aloud 21 percent of the time (see Table III). Only 12 percent of

to achievement. In classrooms

where teachers provided more

support and positive corrective feedback, the students gained more in reading achievement. A similar finding from the Beginning Teacher Evaluation Study was reported by Filby and Cahen

(1978). For secondary students who have a history of failure, this

supportive type of interaction was particularly important.

Again, the low-achieving secondary students (i.e., those achieving at the first-, second-, third- or

fourth-grade level) prospered

more and seemed to need this nur-

turing environment more than

TABLE II

did those secondary students who

Partial Correlations of Reading Activities and CTBS Scores Phase I Phase II

(N = 16) (N = 29) r

p

r

p

Interactive On-Task Instruction Discussion/Review

.40

.001

.63

.001

Reading aloud .59 .001 .28 .05 Drill and practice .00 N.S. .38 .01 Praise and support, reading task" .29 .05 .54 .001 Supportive corrective feedback" .50 .001 .28 .05 Noninteractive On-Task Instruction

Classroom management -.24 .05 -.30 .05 Silent reading -.23 .05 -.40 .01 Sustained silent reading -.20 .10 -.44 .001 Written assignments .00 N.S. -.41 .001 Off-Task Activities

Organizing - .34 .05 - .27 .05

Social

interactions

-.52

.001

-.30

.05

Negative interactions -.29 .05 .00 N.S. "These variables are interaction variables.

were achieving at a higher level (i.e., at the sixth-, seventh-, and eighth-grade level) (see Table III). This is similar to a finding

by Stallings (1975) in the Follow Through observation study, which indicated that the reading gain scores of third-grade stu-

dents who entered school with

less scholastic ability had a higher correlation with teacher support and praise than did the scores of students who entered

with higher scholastic ability.

Noninteractive On-Task Instruction

In classrooms where the aver-

age gain was slight or negative,

the teachers allocated more time to noninteractive instruction. For

example, they were grading paDecember,

1980

This content downloaded from 128.59.222.12 on Wed, 15 Jun 2016 23:01:50 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

13

13.6

I

12.5

classes similar to the ones in which the Phase II teachers were

I

working lent credibility to the research. The variables used in the

'7

study are very specific and trans-

lating them into recommenda-

11.8

tions for teachers was not a difficult task. Each teacher in the

11.1

10.6

study received his or her own set

/

of recommendations for behavior

change based upon 3 days of ob-

10.1-

servation in a class of his or her

9.5

S8.7 8.0

choice. For example, we observed Sam Jones' third-period class prior to a series of inservice workshops. He then received a behavior profile developed from the observations (see Figure 2).

4

-

,9 3401

-

7.4

-

6.6

/236

-

At that time, Sam Jones was

spending 46 percent of the class time in management tasks (see pretest score for the first varia-

28

5.9 - " *0 / 5

.4

-

-

3

ble). This indicates that Sam was

23

spending approximately one-half

of the class time on tasks that did

4.8 0 - NO GAIN VECTOR

// -----ONE STANDARD DEVIATION

4.3 - FROM NO GAIN

/ / -- 1/3 STANDARD DEVIATION

The mean for all teachers on this

3.8/ FROM NO GAIN I

I

variable was 26 percent. After in-

I

2.5 2.7 3.3 3.7 4.2 4.7 5.2 5.8 6.4 7.2 7.9 8.5 9.3 9.9 PRETEST

terpreting the study findings to Sam, we made the recommenda-

tions shown in the left column of

Group I - Low Protest/High Gain Group II - Moderate Protest/Moderate Gain Group III - High Protest/Moderate Gain

Figure 2. Our recommendation was to provide more instruction,

Group IV - No Gain

more discussion, more feedback,

Figure 1. Scattergram of phase 1 pretest and posttest-CTBS scores Note. Scores presented as grade equivalents.

pers, making lesson plans, or simply monitoring the classroom

while students worked on written

assignments or did silent reading. These variables have been

included in Noninteractive OnTask Instruction. The students

are on task, but the teacher is

not teaching. In those classrooms where no gain was being made, the students were doing written assignments 28 percent of the time and reading silently 22 percent of the time, and teachers

were doing classroom management tasks more than 27 percent of the time. If we compare these

figures with those in Table I, we

see they are all above the norm or the grand mean.

Off-Task Activities A set of Off-Task variables

were also found to be negatively 14

not involve students (e.g., grading papers or keeping records).

related to reading gain. These include social interactions, behavior problems, uninvolved stu-

dents, and the transition time it

takes to get papers passed or col-

lected. In classrooms where little

or no gain was made (Group IV),

these variables occurred more

frequently than they did in class-

rooms where gain was made.

and do less paper grading and record keeping during class time.

A series of five workshops, which are very supportive and interactive, focused on how to manage classroom time, how to offer activities for different ability levels, and how to interact with and be supportive of students.

Following these workshops, Sam Jones was observed to spend only seven percent of his time in management activities (see posttest score). His style of instruction became much more interactive. The

profile shows how time spent in Teachers Can Be Trained to

Use the Findings from

Research on Effective Use of Time

The variables used in the study of Teaching Basic Reading Skills in Secondary Schools have considerable face validity which makes the findings understandable to teachers. The fact that

the correlational findings in Phase I were generated from

Educational

activities changed from one point to another. Interestingly, Sam had been teaching for over 20 years. He was trained to teach

classical Greek and Latin and he

was now teaching four remedial reading classes and one remedial

math class. Sam had relegated

teaching to workbooks and was waiting for retirement. He found, in making the recommended

changes, that teaching became

more fun-the students became

Researcher

This content downloaded from 128.59.222.12 on Wed, 15 Jun 2016 23:01:50 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

more involved and were absent

TABLE III

less frequently.

The activities described above occurred in Phase II of the Sec-

Distribution of Time Across Activities in

Four Ability Groups in Secondary Reading Classrooms

ondary Basic Skills study (Stallings, Needels, & Stayrook, 1979).

It was a quasi-experimental study wherein a treatment group and a control group of teachers

Group I Group II Group III Group IV

(X Percent) (X Percent) (X Percent) (X Percent)

Interactive On-Task Activities

Reading aloud 21 9 1 1 Instruction 16 11 17 10 Discussion 12 5 3 1 Drill and practice 4 4 4 2 Praise/supporV 19 16 7 11 Corrective feedback" 20 16 4 12

were observed in the fall, winter,

and spring. The treatment teachers received six workshops which were based on findings from research on time allocation and interactions. For the most

Noninteractive On-Task

part, the treatment teachers

Activities

changed behavior and distributed

Classroom management 12 15 17 27 Reading silently 9 16 12 21 Written assignments 4 22 23 28

time across activities as recommended in midwinter and were observed to maintain the behav-

Off-Task Activities

Social interactions 5 6 3 8 Students uninvolved 6 4 4 9

ior through spring. Furthermore,

their students gained, on the average, 6 months more in reading than did the control teachers'

Notes: Group I-Low pretest/high gain Group II-Moderate pretest/moderate gain Group Ill-High pretest/moderate gain

students. A late spring observa-

tion indicated that treatment teachers maintained most of

Group IV-No gain X = Group mean

their behavior changes, whereas

control teachers' classes became more lax and less task oriented (see Table IV).

Note. These activities may occur simultaneously; therefore, the sum is greater than 100%

" This variable is reported as frequency of occurrence per 45-minute period.

Figure 2. Profile of Sam Jones' pre- and post-training observations TEACHER NAME: SAM JONES

LAKEWOOD HIGH SCHOOL STANDARD DEVIATIONS FROM THE MEAN

WASHINGTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Mean for All Classes Correct Less Frequent * - ( More Frequent All C s Ce n-

Recommend < 2 S.I). 1 S.D. 0 1 S.D. 2 S.D.P Snapshot Variables a Doin it:

Teacher class manage/no students Less 0------ X 28. 46. 07.

Total

sile

Total

reading

Total

It

reading

making

Total

aloud

assignments

Instruction

Total

discuussion

Total

practice

Total

written

Total Total Total

test social

OK

0

05.

06.

29.

X

06.

04.

00.

18.

13.

(O

02.

04.

18.

XO

01.

00.

00.

X-0

XO

Less

OK

09.

09.

-

OK

More

uninvolved

08.

0

10.

X

assignments

X

-

O-X

More

nteraction

-

X

More

drill

discipline

0

More

taking

student

Total

Less

Hore

0

27.

02.

X

0

X

XO

00.3

21.

00.

04.

Less

17.

00.

15.

05.

07.

15.

00.

01.

00.

Interactioli Variables

Teacher

to

Teacher

individual to

Teacher

student

groups

to

class

More

More

OK

X

0

X

_

0

0

X

89.

13.

44.

48.

113.

01.

137

38.

37.

Teacher direct question, reading More X -- 0 41. 23. 50.

Stodent

response,

reading

More

X

42.

19.

43.

Teacher praise, support,reading More X - 0 13. 08. 34.

Teacher All

corrective

feedback

Interactions/reading

Interactions/behavior

All

Interactions/positive

All

More

More

All

More

Interactions/negative

Student

comments,

X

OK

assignment

X -

X X

OK OK

r0 0

: -

13.

208.

0 0

XO

X-O

06.

19.

304.

11.

00.

04.

04.

00.

09.

53.

230.

01.

00.

01.

00.

03.1

/

/

Al I nteractions/class assignment Less 0 X 69. 144. 17. / Teacher manage class, no student Less 0 - G X 33. 73. 05.

X - Pre-Traiinng Observation

0 - Post-Training Observation

S - Direction of change /- Correctly Inmplemented

"a Reported in % of observed time.

b Frequency of occurrence per 45-minute period.

December,

1980

This content downloaded from 128.59.222.12 on Wed, 15 Jun 2016 23:01:50 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

15

TABLE IV

Change in Treatment and Control Groups from Fall to Winter to Spring

Treatment Group (N = 25) Control Group (N = 19)

Grand Mean

Fall Winter Spring Fall Winter Spring x x X ) l X

X

Interactive Instructiona

Praise/support,

readingb

13

14

15

13

12

11

13

Supportive corrective

feedback, readingb 10 11 13 17 12 12 13 Instruction (%) 13 15 15 11 9 8 12 Instructs Group (%) 5 7 7 1 5 3 4

Noninteractive Instruction'

Written Assignments

(%)

24

24

Teacher Management

No

Students

18

(%)

21

24 24

26

22

23

21

26

21

29

28

Off-Taskc

Social Bad

Commentsb

Behaviorb

2

10

2

6

3

6

2 7

3 8

8 8

5 8

Students

Uninvolved

(%)

5

5

9

5

5

14

11

% of observed time.

"a Recommended to be above Grand Mean.

bAverage frequency of occurrence during 45-minute period.

SRecommended to be below Grand Mean.

Conclusions

frontiers of the teaching and learning territory. Thus, a body

Given the findings from research on teaching in the '70's,

of knowledge regarding the man-

complete without considering allocated learning time, student engaged time, distribution of

inservice and preservice teachers.

educational models would not be

time across activities, interactive

instruction and student achievement level. The research on

teaching has been driven not so

much by theory as by a curiosity

about the nature of effective and

ineffective teaching processes. In

all cases, the researchers went to

classrooms and observed what teachers and students were do-

ing. They studied what was occurring in classrooms where students were making gains, as well

as where students were not mak-

ing gains. Some of the studies used qualitative data, others used quantitative data; some were conducted concurrently, others sequentially. The communication among those who conduct research on teaching tends to be frequent and constructive. As new studies are

mapped, methodologies and findings are compared to explore new 16

agement of time, tasks, and students is accumulating and can be useful in guiding the training of

References

Evertson, C. Differences in instruc-

tional activities in high and low achieving junior high classes. Pa-

per presented at the Annual Meet-

ing of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, April 1980.

Filby, N., & Cahen, L. Teacher behavior and academic learning time in the B.C. period. Beginning Teacher Evaluation Study. Far West Laboratories, San Francisco,

California, 1978.

Fisher, C.W., Filby, N.N., Marliave, R.S., Cahen, L.S., Dishaw, M.M., Moore, J.E., & Berliner, D. Teach-

ing behaviors, academic learning

time and student achievement: Fi-

nal report of Phase III-B, Beginning Teacher Evaluation Study.

Far West Regional Laboratory, San Francisco, California, 1978.

Harnischfeger, A., & Wiley, D. Conceptual and policy issues in elementary school teacher-learning.

Educational

Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educa-

tional Research Association, Toronto, Canada, March 1978.

Moos, R., & Trickett, E. The classroom environment scale. Palo Alto,

Calif.: Consulting Psychologist

Press, 1974.

Powell, M., & Dishaw, M. A realistic

picture of reading instructional time. Reading Research Quarterly,

in press.

Soar, R. Setting variables, classroom

interaction, multiple pupil outcomes. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Ed-

ucational Research Association, Toronto, Canada, April 1978.

Stallings, J. Implementation and

child effects of teaching practices in Follow Through classrooms.

Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 1975, 40 (Serial No. 163).

Stallings, J., Cory, R., Fairweather, J., & Needels, M. Early Childhood Education classroom evaluation.

SRI International, Menlo Park, California, November 1977.

Stallings, J., Needels, M., & Stayrook, N. The teaching of basic reading skills in secondary schools, Phase II and Phase III. SRI Inter-

national, Menlo Park, California, 1979.

Researcher

This content downloaded from 128.59.222.12 on Wed, 15 Jun 2016 23:01:50 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms