4 School Time and Other Inputs that Improve Student Performance 55
4.2 Analysis of School Time 56
This section, which examines school time as a major variable influencing academic achievement, begins by describing how a focus on the lengthening of school time has developed through various countries’ educational policies. How increments in time induce learning is examined, using a model by Levin and Tsang (1987), followed by the effects of lengthening the school day. This then leads to a detailed examination of the structure of the school day.
4.2.1 SchoolTimeasaMajorVariableAffectingAcademicPerformance
The relationship between time and academic learning gained a great deal of attention after the publication of ‘A Model of School Learning’ in 1963, by John B Carroll (Bloom, 1968; Carroll, 1989; Levin & Tsang, 1987). This model included five basic classes of variables, three time-related and two achievement-related, which influence student learning. The time related variables were aptitude26
, opportunity to learn27 and perseverance28 whilst the other two were ability to understand instruction and quality of instruction. These variables were translated to
learning for needed Time learning in spent actually Time learning f by Gettinger (1984).
However, Carroll (1989) pinpointed that it was the emphasis on time-related variables that attracted the most attention. He highlighted the case of Benjamin Bloom’s ‘Concept of Mastery Learning’ in 1968, in which Bloom believed that all students could achieve mastery in any subject either by increasing time spent in learning and/or by reducing time needed for learning. It is believed that the common acceptance of Bloom’s mastery learning model and its focus on time has been the impetus for many countries to consider lengthening school time, as a means of increasing academic performance
26 Defined as variable(s) that determine the amount of time a student needs to learn a given task, or a unit of instruction, under optimal conditions of student motivation and instruction.
27 Amount of school time allowed for learning.
(Levin & Tsang, 1987). To find out if the relationship holds true, it is important to identify how a typical student will react to an increase in school time (the economics of school time). This is examined in the following section.
4.2.2 EconomicsofSchoolTime:AModelbyLevin&Tsang,(1987)
In order to investigate whether an increase in school time will lead students to learn more, Levin & Tsang (1987) devised a model which is similar to the standard educational production function:
C e t S
A A , , ,
where, achievement in a particular domain, A, is considered to be a function of C - the student’s capacity to learn which includes factors such as intellectual ability and health;
e - effort to learn, where the greater the effort the more will be learned; t - time devoted to learning;
S - level of learning resources, which include factors such as quality of schooling and out-of-school influences.
The focus of the model is on time and effort variables to determine how they affect student learning. Assuming that the student is both an efficient producer and a utility maximiser, s/he allocates time and effort to different activities ― including learning. The aim is to determine the equilibrium of the model and indicate the point where the student maximises achievement (A), subjected to variations in effort to changes in time, with C and S assumed as given. The authors found that from the initial equilibrium status of learning, when there is a small increase in school time imposed on the student, s/he reacts by decreasing her/his effort, such that the level of learning does not change. For larger increases in time the student cannot adjust (decrease) her/his effort adequately to reach the initial equilibrium and therefore overall learning increases. However, since effort decreases, the magnitude of the increase in learning will be reduced. The main finding behind the model was with increments in time, effort per unit of time reduces, thus implying that although the overall educational effect may be positive, it will be small relative to the increase in time.
Although the model predicts decreasing returns, if the initial allocated time is considerably less, there could be increasing returns, in which case more time may result in more effort and achievement. This can be particularly true for working students and students from low SES who do not get additional help or time outside of school hours. As previously mentioned, many countries lengthened the school day as a means of improving educational quality. The available data on this effect is both limited and it concentrates on standard achievement based assessments based on core subjects. A review of literature, based on this topic by Patall et al (2010), is presented in the following section.
4.2.3 EffectsofLengtheningtheSchoolDay
Section 3.5 examined three countries’ cases, where the academic effects of extending the school day (by de-shifting) have been assessed. Whilst the findings were marginally positive, it was emphasised that the results cannot be generalised. Patall et al. (2010) performed a comprehensive review of the literature since 1985 and found 15 studies (of various designs29) on the effects of lengthening school time on achievement levels.
There are two studies, reporting significant positive impacts are of interest. One by is a study by Adelman et al. in 2005, where he examined a middle school that extended the school day to 7.5 hours. It was found that the number of students who passed a state level reading test increased from 77 per cent to 90 per cent over three years. The other study by Wheeler published in 1987, based on 1030 Californian schools, concluded that longer days led to higher academic scores. However, the majority of the other studies were inconclusive in regards to the effectiveness of extended school time in raising academic performance.
In an economic assessment, to find the relationship between school time and academic performance, the variable ‘school-time’ may be tested against output. However, school time is comprised of several factors and education literature highlights the importance of specific components which need to be considered when making decisions as to the effectiveness of policy relating to the lengthening of the school day (Karweit, 1985; Levin & Tsang, 1987; Patall etal., 2010). The following section presents a categorisation of school time with eight components.
4.2.4 StructureofSchoolTime
School-time is too broad a variable with which to analyse the effects of an increase in school time on performance. This highlights the importance of teasing apart the variables of the school-time identified in the literature, is illustrated in Figure 4.1.
Figure 4.1: Structure of school time
Source: Adapted from Patall et al. (2010), Karweit, (1985) and Aronson et al., (1998)(1998).
Figure 4.1 shows one possible categorisation of school time: the number of daily hours students are required to attend school. School time is divided into (1) academic time (also referred to as class time), the time within the school day that students are required to actually be in class or scheduled time per respective subjects and (2) non-academic time, which is usually the time not scheduled for subjects (examples being breaks and assembly). Academic time is further divided into instructional time (time devoted to teaching) and non-instructional time, (unintended loss of time, such as time spent in classroom management and discipline). Instructional time is then categorised into engaged time or time on task (where students are paying attention to a learning task and attempting to learn) and non-engaged time (time that individual students are not actively engaged in instructional or learning activities: for example day dreaming, talking, etc). Aronson et al. (1998) further narrows down engaged time to academic learning time (ALT) as a time when actual learning occurs.
School Time
Academic Time Non-academic Time
Instructional Time Non-instructional Time
Engaged Time Non-engaged Time
Academic Learning Time (ALT)
Since the entire school time will not be devoted to learning, narrowing it down to academic time (or class time) can be a more useful measure for assessing the relationship between time and achievement. However, this can also be subjected to various ‘time-losses’. With reference to several data sources from England and the USA, Ross (1984) stated that 20 per cent of ‘in-class’ time is spent on non-instructional activities (Ross, 1984). Karweit (1985) painted a gloomier picture and claimed that even under the best of circumstances half or less of class time is used for instruction. This was confirmed by Anderson and Walberg (1993) who found in their study that actual learning took place during just 42 per cent of the allocated time. This is a figure for high school students and it could be much lower for primary students. Hollowood et al. (1995, p. 249) identified six sources of interruptions that contribute to loss of instructional time:
(a) Student interruptions – such as disruptive behaviour, leaving the room and conflict with other classmates;
(b) Teacher interruptions – such as collection and distribution of materials, attending to misbehaviour, leaving the room for various purposes;
(c) Visitor to class – students coming to borrow or lend items and unexpected parent visits;
(d) Loud speaker announcements;
(e) Transitions – students and teachers moving from one class to another; (f) Other – late starts and unexpected occurrences, such as fire drills.
Selecting a Proxy for Learning Time
Selecting a suitable proxy variable for learning time can be problematic. Smyth (1984) acknowledged a series of studies from the 1950s to the mid-1970s that have found that time-on-task was predictive of learning across a range of students (in various subjects) and across different classroom settings. However, Aronson et al., (1998) stated that if the student has already mastered the task assigned, or if s/he is not yet prepared to learn, due to the material being too advanced, then learning is not occuring during the entire ‘engaged time’. In fact, they believe that the relationship between achievement and ALT is greater than that of engaged time.
The difficulty with all these components (engaged time and ALT,) is that they are difficult to meaure and vary substantially across schools, classes, subjects, grades, teachers and students. This has been highlighted by Karweit (1985) who pointed out that engaged time is not directly manipulated by legislative or other actions, whereas academic time (from which it is derived) is manipulated. Consideration of all the breakdowns of time and the ease of measuring it needs to be considered when identifying a proxy for school time with achievement.
Whether extending school day leads to imporvements in academic performance is not certain and literature stresses the importance of increasing the effectiveness of allocated time and engaged time, rather than merely increasing school time (Karweit, 1985; Patall, et al., 2010). Given the importance of quality instructional time, it is important to consider how to effectively reduce loss of it. According to Hossler (1988), this can be reduced through improvements in classroom control and management skills. He also points out the need for teachers to examine where they themselves disrupt the class, for example by leaving the room which then offers students the opportunity to waste time. In addition, the influence of other factors in student achievement has been stressed (Carroll, 1989; Levin & Tsang, 1987; Rivin, Hanushek, & Kain, 2005). The achievement levels of students is directly influenced by three main factors: (i) school inputs, (ii) family and (iii) peers (Hanushek, 1995; Llach, et al., 2009). In addition. Steinberg (1993) lists (iv) ‘time out of school’ as an important variable affecting student performance. For best results, schools can organise these elements to work collectively. However, constructing such a bond may require changes in the organisation and management of schools.
The following section examines the importance of the above-mentioned four variables and how schools can effectively utilise these influences. In addition, it examines (v) reforming the organisation and management of schools since it is an important factor that can influence these other variables to work collectively.