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.