Since the pandemic, I've witnessed school district administration modify daily schedules, so students spend more time in math and reading class. Their intentions are simple; more time should equate to more learning. It isn't a secret that math and reading scores have decreased due to the pandemic (Kraft & Novicoff, 2022; Mervosh, 2022a; The Associated Press, 2022). More specifically, one study found that students lost half of a school year of learning in math and almost a quarter of a year of learning in reading (Lurye, 2022). Other losses include mental health and teacher turnover (Jones et al., 2022; Zamarro et al., 2021). We can also discuss teacher professional development or the lack of knowledge school administrators and teachers have for developing online learning. However, this article focuses on whether more time in math and reading class equates to greater learning. A school on the west coast, Franklin Elementary, added 30 minutes of math instruction in first grade, an hour to second grade, and 90 minutes to 4th and 5th grade. Students in this school district did not suffer the learning loss other students suffered across the nation during the pandemic (Mervosh, 2022b). However, teachers in this school district didn't spend the time writing problems on the whiteboard as seen in traditional classrooms. Students spent time collaborating to solve problems. Thus, administrators must encourage teachers to adopt modern instructional strategies and modify the daily schedule to accommodate the time change. We can argue more time should equal more engagement and more learning. We can make the same argument that less time would lead to less engagement which I do not think is entirely accurate and, therefore, debate the former. There is a positive correlation between allocated time and engagement in reading but no correlation for math (Kraft & Novicoff, S., 2022; Rosenshine, 2015). There is a relationship between positive student engagement and academic achievement when students participate in project-based learning (Zen et al., 2022). Traditional forms of teaching where students become passive receivers of information, however, have lesser engagement rates and lower academic achievement (Ayçiçek & Yanpar Yelken, 2018). Therefore, allocated time does not directly relate to engagement or academic achievement. Teaching is an art, no matter the time allocated, student engagement depends on the teacher. We could argue that students in a traditional-style classroom with an effective teacher can have similar engagements to that in a modern classroom with a novice teacher. An effective teacher can possess professional knowledge, plan accordingly, deliver appropriate instruction, design quality assessments, and create positive learning environments (OECD, 2020; Stronge, 2018). Obviously, there are many variables involved in evaluating an effective teacher making it difficult because there is not a one size fits all approach. Many community members, politicians, and school board members would like to evaluate the effectiveness of teachers based on standardized test scores; however, there are far too many variables encompassing an effective teacher (Shavelson et al., 2010). These are not the only variables that influence student engagement, though. Outside of teacher variables, student variables must be considered when exploring student engagement with student achievement. Some of these variables include students' aptitudes and motivation, and even the geographical area's economic level and student socioeconomic status (OECD, 2020). An important factor in the PISA study indicates that, on average, across all participating countries, student reading improved with each additional hour of instruction, up to three hours per week. After those three hours, they had diminished results, especially for those of low socioeconomic status. Indicating that more time might have adverse effects to learning outcomes no matter the instructional strategy. The data from the PISA includes 20 countries, including the United States, obviously, the bell curve is hard to argue. Therefore, increasing time spent on math and reading can improve learning and engagement (Andersen et al., 2016). This of course, depends on numerous other variables for both students and teachers, but in general, increasing instructional time can benefit students. The key is finding the right amount of time before reaching the law of diminishing returns. The school day is not getting longer, nor is the school year, so if we add instructional time to math and reading, time must be taken away from other courses. Increasing instructional time for math and reading reduces the instructional time for electives such as technology education, business education, art, and physical education, and other core classes such as science and history. These courses are necessary for student achievement both in the short and long term. Career and Technical Education (CTE) electives positively impact high school students' education and labor market outcomes (Dougherty et al., 2019). Not to mention CTE programs increase academic rigor by enticing students to enroll in additional science and math courses and increase high school GPAs and graduation rates (Stone III & Aliaga, 2005). These elective classes support math and reading by engaging students in other topic areas such as yearbook, robotics, video production, physical education, world languages, music, and technology education. These courses also prepare students for college and careers (Gawron-Wolpert, 2018). Maximizing student engagement begins with their ability to select their electives and increases student engagement due to higher intrinsic motivation (Wagner, 2020). We know that elective courses are great for students to graduate and increase student motivation because they have a choice in their learning. We also know that increasing math and reading time can benefit student achievement; however, there is a fine line on how much time is appropriate before reaching the law of diminishing returns. According to OECD, over three hours a week is that line, at least for 20 countries. I hope administrators across the country continue to read the research before forcing students into long hours of math and reading because in the end, it can have adverse effects on student achievement. References
Andersen, S. C., Humlum, M. K., & Nandrup, A. B. (2016). Increasing instruction time in school does increase learning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(27), 7481–7484. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1516686113 Ayçiçek, B., & Yanpar Yelken, T. (2018). The Effect of Flipped Classroom Model on Students' Classroom Engagement in Teaching English. International Journal of Instruction, 11(2), 385–398. Dougherty, S. M., Gottfried, M. A., & Sublett, C. (2019). Does Increasing Career and Technical Education Coursework in High School Boost Educational Attainment and Labor Market Outcomes? Journal of Education Finance, 44(4), 423–447. Gawron-Wolpert, H. (2018). The Case for Electives in Schools. Edutopia. https://www.edutopia.org/article/case-electives-schools/ Jones, S. E., Ethier, Hertz, DeGue, Le, Thornton, Lim, Dittus, & Geda. (2022). Mental Health, Suicidality, and Connectedness Among High School Students During the COVID-19 Pandemic—Adolescent Behaviors and Experiences Survey, United States, January–June 2021. MMWR Supplements, 71. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.su7103a3 Kraft, M., & Novicoff, S. (2022). Instructional Time in U.S. Public Schools: Wide Variation, Causal Effects, and Lost Hours. EdWorkingPaper No. 22-653. Lurye, B. V. T., Sharon. (2022, October 28). Massive learning setbacks show Covid's sweeping toll on kids. The Hechinger Report. http://hechingerreport.org/massive-learning-setbacks-show-covids-sweeping-toll-on-kids/ Mervosh, S. (2022a, September 1). The Pandemic Erased Two Decades of Progress in Math and Reading. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/01/us/national-test-scores-math-reading-pandemic.html Mervosh, S. (2022b, October 15). How One School Is Beating the Odds in Math, the Pandemic's Hardest-Hit Subject. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/15/us/math-student-achievement-pandemic.html OECD. (2020). PISA 2018 Results (Volume V): Effective Policies, Successful Schools. Rosenshine, B. V. (2015). How Time is Spent in Elementary Classrooms. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 17(1), 16–25. Shavelson, R., Linn, R., Baker, A., Ladd, H., Darling-Hammond, L., Shepard, L., Barton, P., Haertel, E., Ravitch, D., & Rothstein, R. (2010). Problems with the use of student test scores to evaluate teachers. Economic Policy Institute. https://www.epi.org/publication/bp278/ Stone III, J. R., & Aliaga, O. A. (2005). Career & Technical Education and School-To-Work at the End of the 20th Century: Participation and Outcomes. Career & Technical Education Research, 30(2), 125–144. https://doi.org/10.5328/CTER30.2.125 Stronge, J. H. (2018). Qualities of Effective Teachers. ASCD. The Associated Press. (2022, September 1). Reading and math scores fell sharply during pandemic, data show. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2022/09/01/1120510251/reading-math-test-scores-pandemic Wagner, M. (2020). Elective Course Choice as a Factor in K12 Graduation Rates. Zamarro, G., Camp, A., Fuchsman, D., & McGee, J. (2021, September 8). How the pandemic has changed teachers' commitment to remaining in the classroom. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2021/09/08/how-the-pandemic-has-changed-teachers-commitment-to-remaining-in-the-classroom/ Zen, Z., Feflianto, Syamsuar, & Ariani, F. (2022). Academic achievement: The effect of project-based online learning method and student engagement | Elsevier Enhanced Reader. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11509
2 Comments
|
Dr. Jeremy O'TooleInstructional Technologist Archives
December 2022
|