Teacher’s time-on task: Quantity and nature of tasks Deepa Sankar SASHD, The World Bank New Delhi
Mar 27, 2015
Teacher’s time-on task: Quantity and nature of tasks
Deepa SankarSASHD, The World BankNew Delhi
Organization Context Research Questions Methodology and sample Results
Time –on- Task and correlates Allocated time (School Calendar) to Teacher’s Physical
presence time in school Teacher’s Physical Presence time to Classroom time Instructional time and nature of tasks
Learning achievement correlates
Conclusions
AcknowledgementsClassroom snapshot tool and
training Jane Stallings
Tool Adaptation and concurrent technical support
Technical Advisory Committee DFID
State Field study Teams
•DIVYA DISHA (AP)
•SARED (UP)
•Yadharth (MP)
•New Concepts (Delhi)
Research Team:
Venita KaulDeepa Sankar
Context
SSA goals & MDG related to education : Universal primary stage completion by 2010/2015
Progress in elementary education; significant improvements in access and participation
Increasing attention now towards quality issues in SSA. Provision for More teachers (PTR) Teaching Learning Materials (TLM) Teacher Training Teacher attendance Classroom processes and assessment
SSA : Quality Monitoring initiatives
Quality Monitoring Tools (NCERT) Studies examining teacher and student
attendance and factors affecting learning achievement (MHRD)
“Time-on-Task” study in 5 states (MHRD) Present study “Time-on-Task” of teachers
in 3 states (World Bank with MHRD concurrence)
Research Questions International studies on teacher absenteeism have
highlighted significant concerns, leading to focus on ensuring teacher presence
The assumption informing this study Mere teacher presence will not improve outcomes unless quantity and quality of interaction time with students improves
This study, therefore ventures beyond teacher attendance to explore evidence for the following questions: What do we know about teacher presence time in school? What causes the gap between academic calendar and teacher presence
in school? How is teacher time distributed when she is in school? What is the distribution of classroom time among different tasks? What is the impact of that on students’ learning time? How does it correlate with student’s learning outcomes?
Sample
Sub-sample of government schools drawn randomly from the larger sample used for MHRD study on Teacher attendance & private schools (20% of the no of govt schools) AP Average state; but high on teacher absenteeism (World
Bank 2002)
MP Traditionally laggard; but low teacher absenteeism
UP Traditionally laggard; but high on teacher absenteeism
Selection of states and sample focused on understanding issues, and not to develop average statistics for the country/states
Design
Time – on - Task
Teacher’s interviews• Characteristics
• Feedback on training• Perceptions on how
children learn•Difficulties experienced
FGDs with students & Community
• Perception of TOT•involvement in monitoring
Student Profile• Household socio-economic
characteristics•Opportunity to learn at home
Classroom Observations on TOT &
nature of activities•Mono-grade / multi-grade
•Regular / para teacher•Public / private
School Schedule•School characteristics
Learning achievement test Grade IV
5040 classrooms; 73000 snapshots
4800 students in Grade IV
360 schools
920 teachers
Definitions of TOT
Allocated time: No. of days school should function as per school calendar.
Available time: Time/days schools actually run within academic year. Teacher’s Physical presence time: Balance time within school
available time, after deducting stipulated leaves, Days worked for other departments training days, Meetings within education department away from school
Teacher’s Academic time in School: Teacher’s physical presence time in school after deducting Administrative work Other non-academic work
Classroom Time- on-Task - Balance time
Classroom observations
Proportion of teacher’s and students’ time off-task and on-task
Proportion of time-on-task by:Nature of activityMaterials usedStudents’ involved (whole class, large/small
group & individual)Multi-grade / mono-grade SubjectsTeacher characteristics (para/ regular)
International evidences Percentage of students’ TOT range from 38% to 96%
(Smyth, 1985; Anderson, Ryan and Shapiro, 1989, Perie, Baker and Bobbitt 1997; Roth et al 2003).
Average instructional time in classrooms in Brazil - 72%, Ghana, 70%, Morocco 82% and Tunisia 86% (Abazi, 2006).
Academic learning time - two-thirds of total engaged time in US classrooms (Fisher et al., 1978)
Substantial time lost in writing lessons and problems on the board, because students lacked text books in Gambia and Burkina Faso. (Dia, 2003).
Evidences on TOT and learning outcome linkages
88 percent of studies showed positive influence of time on learning (Walberg and Fredrick 1991)
Teaching time by itself a poor predictor of student achievement; effective use of time a more accurate predictor (Reimers 1993).
Improved use of time devoted to learning, by facilitating more pupil-oriented teacher behavior significant impact on learning processes & in higher achievement levels ((Tan, Lane and Coustère 1997 in Philippines) (Verwimp 1999; Ethiopia)
School-based instructional time to be especially significant for poor children, whose out-of-school learning time was limited (Suryadi, Green and Windman (1981)
Fuller and Clarke (1994) instructional time is one of three major areas (in addition to teacher quality and textbook availability) in which consistent achievement effects obtain.
RESULTS
What do we know about teacher presence time in school?
Instructional days flow : Overall
170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240
Time on academic activities in school
Teacher Physical presence days in school
Teacher days in education sector
Teacher's duty days
Available school time/ days
School Calender days
Number of days
Findings • Prescribed days : 220
days On average schools
reported 229 Calendar Days
From 229, 37 days were lost
only 192 days or less were spent on academic activities in school
223 232 231
194 187 195
0
50
100
150
200
250
AP MP UP
Num
ber o
f day
s
School Calender Available school time
Teacher's duty days Teacher's t ime in education sector
Teacher's t ime in school T ime on academic activities in school
What do we know about teacher presence time in school?
What causes the gap between academic calendar and teacher presence in school?
Allocated Time (School calendar)
School Functioning days (Available Time)
Teacher on Any dutyTeacher on education- dept’s work
Teachers’ physical presence time in school
Teacher In classrooms
School specific holidays
Teacher’s personal leave
Teacher deputed to other dept’s work
Teacher in Education related work outside school(training, meeting etc)
Teacher in non-academic workAt school (administrative, other)
What causes the gap between academic calendar and teacher presence in school?
Overall teacher time distribution
82% 17% 3%
1%5%
1%
1% 1%1%1%
1%
1%
1%1%0%
Working days On Personal leave
Official duty :other Depts Training/meeting of Edu. dept
Non academic duties: Edu Dept Administrative duties
Admissions Distribution of textbooks/scholarships etc
Household survey Enrolment drive
Prep of sports & cultural events PTA meetings
Parent/ Community contact Other
Instructional days leakage: ExamplesTeacher time "leakage": By School Management
100% 100%97% 99%
93%96%
88%
95%
82%
91%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Govt Private
Allocated time Available time On duty time Phy. Presence time Academic time
Time loss between Allocated Time and Classroom Teaching Time: Trends by new and experienced teachers
180185190195200205210215220225230
Exp>=2 yrs Exp<2yrs Exp>=2 yrs Exp<2yrs Exp>=2 yrs Exp<2yrs
AP MP UP
S_AT TW Te Ts Tac
Time distribution when in school
78%
7% 8%7%
56%
22%
Non Academic Classroom teaching Remedial teaching
Correction & prep of tests Lesson planning / TLM
Within teacher presence time in school, how is time distributed?Findings Classroom teaching - 56% Time for quality inputs only 22% Remedial teaching only 7% Planning 7% Correction & prep of tests 8%
Findings from Classroom observation
Category Definition
CATEGORY 1“student-centric”; higher order learning tasks
CATEGORY 2“teacher – centric”/didactic; traditional methods
CATEGORY 3 rote learning methods
Organize classroom activities
Disciplining and classroom management
OFF TASK No teaching learning activity
Categorization of Activities in classrooms
(Average of 5040 Classroom observations in three states of AP, MP and UP)
Category II41%
Category III15%
O ther20%
Category I24%
O rganizing12%
O ff task8%
What is the distribution of teacher’s time among different tasks?
•Teacher teaching - 80% of the classroom time•Teacher on student centric / higher order tasks – 24% of the time•Traditional teaching 56%18% classrooms – all teaching time was teacher centric or rote
26.1% 42.5% 14.3% 9.9% 7.5%
21.1% 36.6% 18.1% 12.2% 12.3%
26.1% 43.5% 11.7% 13.0% 5.5%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
AP
MP
UP
Distribution of time within classrooms: Overall Scenario
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Organizing Off task
Teacher time in multi-grade situation
In mono-grade situation, teachers is able to focus mostly on the assigned grade.
In a multi-grade situation, 65% of teacher time focused on any one class. 0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
AP MP UP Overall
Teacher's time across grades in Multi-grade situation
One grade Other grades All grades together
Use of materials in classrooms
Textbook/notebook
35%
Blackboard32%
Off task/organizing
20%
Materials/methods
9%
No materials
4%
Students’ Time on task
Teacher’s TOT & Student attendance & involvement
6% 8% 40% 26%
4%4% 11% 6%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Any learning task
Category I tasks
Teacher's time on task in classrooms with extent of students' involvement
One student Small group of students
Large group of students All students
Student attendance and participation rate
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Student attendance rate Student involvement rateGovt Pvt
Teacher with students
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Tchr withstudents
Tchr withstudents on any
task
Tchr withstudents on
learning tasks
Tchr withstudents on
CAT1 learningtasks
One student Small gp of students Large gp All students
Students on their own: activities
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
One student Small gp ofstudents
Large gp ofstudents
All students
On learning task Off task
What happens in Multi-grade situation? Grades Other than observed in Multi-grade situation: Distribution of
classroom time
66.62%
16.00%
7.03%
10.35%
33.38%
Students on their own Teacher with students on Category I Tasks
Teacher with students on Category II Tasks Teacher with students on Category III Tasks
Percentage of classroom time where students are off task
(in small groups)
Small gp of
students
57%
Findings:•66% time students in classes other than in the focus class are left on their own.• Left on their own, 60% off task and 40% only are on task. This points to a serious concern
Percentage of classroom time where students are off
tasks (in large groups)
Large gp of
students22%
TOT by teacher characteristicsTime on Student Centric tasks by teacher type
05
1015
2025
3035
Overall AP MP UP
% o
f cla
ssro
om ti
me
Regular Para
Time on Student centric tasks by multi/ mono grade
05
1015
2025
3035
Overall AP MP UP
% ti
me
in c
lass
room
Multi-grade Mono-grade
Learning Outcomes
Approaches to study role of Time on task on learning outcomes
Studies of instructional time are mainly related to two conceptual frameworks: The “opportunity to learn” approach School-
based process variables like instructional time, which frame and delimit pupils’ learning opportunities, are key factors in determining pupil achievement
The “school effectiveness” approach examine how teachers actually manage instructional time in the classroom. They highlight how student achievements increase in learning-rich environments in which time-on-task activities predominate and decline in less motivating and ineffective learning-environments
TOT & nature of tasks: Association with learning?? Math & Language in Grade IV NCERT tools + items from TIMSS for Math Number of children tested 4800
Grade IV Students test scores by Subject: AP, MP and UP
56 51 55 5465
46 4752
0
20
40
60
80
100
AP MP UP Overall% o
f m
arks
(adj
uste
d us
ing
fact
or
anal
ysis
)
Language Math
Grade IV students' Mean Learning levels: By Type of Management
56
43 46 48
7567
73 72
0
20
40
60
80
100
AP MP UP Average
Govt Private
Grade IV students' Mean learning levels: By type of Class in school
5843 48 49
6456 57 59
0
20
40
60
80
100
AP MP UP Average
Multi-grade Mono-grade
Grade IV students' Mean learning levels: By type of teacher
5344 46 47
6350 53 55
0
20
40
60
80
100
AP MP UP Overall
Para Regular
Conceptual model
Learning Achievement
Student factors Gender Social group SES Repetition Parental Education Home help
Level 1: Student level
School factors Location Management Infrastructure PTR Trained teachers type of teacher
Classroom factors Multi/ mono-grade Student attendanceStudent participationTeacher’s time on Student centric tasks
Level 2: School level
Decomposition of school effects and student effects in learning outcome determiants
49%
58%
46% 58
%
52% 68
%
51% 42
%
54% 42
%
48% 32
%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
NullModel
Mixedeffectsmodel
NullModel
Mixedeffectsmodel
NullModel
Mixedeffectsmodel
AP <> MP <> UP
Within school (between students) effects Between school effects
Decomposing Between and within school effects
46% 59%74%
87%
47%39%
26% 13%8% 2%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Null model mixedeffectsmodel
Null model mixedeffectsmodel
Students nestedw ithin schools;
<> Students nestedw ithin schools
Betw een state
Betw een school
Within schoolHierarchical Linear Modeling
Snakes (-) and Ladders (+) in Learning process
Overall AP MP UP
Student level
Age ~
Age2 ~
Students belonging to SC/ST - - - - - - -
Students belonging to OBC - - - -
Boy student +++ + ++
Parental education -father ++
Parental education -mother +
Household Asset level (Index) +++ ++ +++ +++
Student has repeated grades - - -
Household conducive environment & support (space, attention, tuition, time)
+++ +++ +++
Student has all text books (either provided by school or by parents)
~
Number of sibling (number of children family need to take care off)
- - -
+++ indicates highly significant positive (ladder) variables (p<.01); ++ indicates significant positive variables (<.05); + indicate somewhat significant positive variables. Similarly, - - - indicates highly significant negative (snake) variables (p<.01); - indicates negative (snakes) significant variables (p<.10); ~ shows no effects in any regression
Snakes (-) and Ladders (+) in Learning process
Overall AP MP UP
School level
School management (private) +++ ++ + ++
Rural location - -
School Infrastructure +++ ++
Teaching Learning Materials (in school) ~ +
Pupil – Teacher Ratio - -
Primary only schools (not Upper pry) ~
Multi-grade classrooms -
Teachers with Bachelor’s degree + - - -
Professionally qualified teacher +++ ++
Male teacher - - - - -
Teacher type (regular; not para teacher) ~ -
Average student attendance rate +++ + +
Class facilities ~
Teacher’s Lenient, but Positive Behavior & conduct - +
Proportionately more students engaged in more learning time with teachers
++
More of teacher’s Teaching time on Category I (student centric) learning activities
++ ++ +
Findings – home factors Socio-economic background of the
student’s family and student characteristics significantly related with learning as children from diverse backgrounds attending school now.Household environment conducive to learning
positively related to learning outcomes Support at home provides more opportunities to
learn
Parental education significant ; First generation learner at disadvantage
Findings- School factors
School management and location matters Better school infrastructure is positively
related to learning Higher PTR has negative effects Professional training of teachers, not
academic qualifications positively correlated with better learning outcomes
Major findings.. – Classroom Student attendance & classroom participation
levels have significant effects Quality of instructional time, in terms of Category
I tasks (student centric learning activities) more significantly related to learning outcomes as compared to just quantum of time.
Multi-grade teaching (as practised) negatively related to learning outcomes.
Diversity and deprivation due to home factors need to be addressed in classrooms.