time allotment relationships to pupil achievement in arithmetic

Time allotment relationships to pupil achievement in arithmeticAuthor(s): OSCAR T. JARVISSource: The Arithmetic Teacher, Vol. 10, No. 5 (May 1963), pp. 248-250Published by: National Council of Teachers of MathematicsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41186761 .

Accessed: 10/06/2014 19:02

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to The Arithmetic Teacher.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.48 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 19:02:14 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=nctm

http://www.jstor.org/stable/41186761?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Time allotment relationships to pupil achievement in arithmetic

OSCAR T. JARVIS University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia Professor Jarvis is a member of the elementary department in the college of education at the University of Georgia.

J? or years schools have allocated 30, 45, or 60 minutes of daily instructional time to elementary school arithmetic, largely on the basis of educators' opinions or admin- istrative expediency rather than on the basis of educational research. This is so because research evidence as to how much time is necessary for adequately teaching arithmetic is very scant. Otto has observed that "experimental evidence as to how much time per day or week is needed to teach a given subject in accordance with accepted standards is so inadequate that it may be ignored."1 Smith, Stanley, and Shores have posed some thought-provok- ing questions concerning the allotment of classroom time by asking, "How often should a class meet - five times a week, three times, only once? And how long should the class period be? Should it be thirty minutes, forty minutes, ninety minutes?"2 In response to their own questions, they have stated that, "There is very little research evidence to help answer these questions."

This presents a peculiar dilemma. As professional educators we must face the fact that we have given little attention either to the amount of time necessary to effect the greatest arithmetic achievement among pupils or to the question of how much arithmetic achievement we may expect in return for a given investment of classroom time.

Is there a relationship between time allotments and pupil achievement in elementary school arithmetic? In an effort to answer this very important question, a recent study was completed of 329 sixth- grade pupils who had spent 55-60 minutes daily in studying arithmetic through Grades 4, 5, and 6 as compared to a similar group of 384 children who had studied 35-45 minutes daily over the same period of time. Both groups of pupils were tested in April, 1962, shortly before completing the sixth grade. Every child tested had been in the same school continuously for these three years studying under these stipulated time allotments. The standardized tests used to gather pupil data for comparative purposes were the California Short Form Test of Mental Maturity and the California Achievement Test Battery, Form W.

These pupils' achievement and intelligence test results were analyzed from the standpoint of the "average student" which consisted of all 329 who were studying in the longer periods and the 384 who were studying in the shorter periods. They were further studied from the viewpoint of the "dull students" or those who possessed intelligence quotients of 95 or less as well as from the standpoint of the "bright pupils" who had intelligence quotients of 115 or more.

In order to rule out intelligence as a factor which would affect the relationship between time allotments and pupil achievement, the mean intelligence quotients of the students studying in the 55-

1 Henry J. Otto, "Time Allotments for the Elementary Schools," Encyclopedia of Educational Research (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1950), p. 379.

2B. Othanel Smith, William O. Stanley, and Harlan Shores, Fundamentals of Curriculum Development (New York: World Book Company, 1957), p. 197.

248 The Arithmetic Teacher



Table 1

Significant intelligence relationships

Maximum-Urne- Minimum-time- allotment pupils allotment pupils

Type (55-60 minutes daily) (35-45 minutes daily) Mean I.Q. Statistical pupils ■ difference significance

Number Mean Number Mean of mean I.Q. pupils I.Q. pupils I.Q. difference

Average 329 103.65 384 103.25 .40 not signif . Dull 92 86.29 99 85.87 .42 not signif. Bright 76 122.75 78 123.65 -.90* not signif.

* Difference favors minimum-time pupils.

60 minute daily periods were compared with those of the pupils studying in the 35-45 minute periods. The small intelligence differences, which may be seen in Table 1, when tested for statistical significance by means of the ¿-test were found not to be statistically significant. There- fore, any differences in arithmetic achievement found between the maximum-time- allotment group and the minimum-time- allotment group could not be attributed to differences in their intelligence, but could be attributed to differences in classroom time alloted to arithmetic.

The mean grade-placement equivalents were computed for the maximum- and the minimum-time-allotment pupils from data which were obtained from the administra- tion and scoring of the standardized achievement tests. These mean grade- placement equivalents were derived for the average, dull, and bright pupils.

Without exception achievement of the pupils who had studied during Grades 4, 5, and 6 under the longer daily class periods of 55 to 60 minutes excelled that of the children studying in the shorter 35-45 minute periods. This may be seen in Table 2. In the area of arithmetic reasoning, the maximum-time-allotment l 'average students" achieved .16 of a grade more; the "dull students" achieved .21 of a grade more; and the "bright students" achieved .27 of a grade more. When these differences favoring the maximum-time-allotment pupils were tested for statistical significance by means of the ¿-test, the differences were found to be significant at the .05 level of confidence in each case.

In the area of arithmetic fundamentals, the "average students" studying in the longer periods achieved .37 of a grade more than did those studying in the shorter periods. Also, the "dull students" of the

Table 2 Significant achievement relationships

Maximum-time- Minimum-time- Levels of allotment pupils allotment pupils M confidence

Area of Type (55-60 min, daily) (35-45 min, daily) %™ M

^Jor subject puptls Mean Puce*""* significance

Numb,er pupils 7У grade Numb,er grade difference '/тшп pupils 7У . F VUVlls и i . j-Jr placement . F и placement i . differences j-Jr

Arithmetic reasoning Average 329 7.39 384 7.23 .16 .05

Dull 92 6.60 99 6.39 .21 .05 Bright 76 8.80 78 8.53 .27 .05

Arithmetic fundamentals Average 329 7.97 384 7.60 .37 .01

Dull 92 6.91 99 6.59 .32 .01 Bright 76 9.13 78 8.63 .50 .01

May 1963 249



longer periods exceeded the achievement of similar students in the shorter periods by .32 of a grade in this area. The "bright students" of the maximum time periods achieved .50 of a grade more in arithmetic fundamentals also over comparable pupils studying in minimum time periods. When these differences favoring the children studying in the longer periods were tested for their statistical significance by use of the ¿-test, it was found that all were significant at the .01 level of confidence.3

Upon the evidence of this investigation one may conclude that for the average, the dull, and the bright pupils, the longer class periods in arithmetic resulted in substan- tially more significant arithmetic achievement. The results of this investigation are further substantiated by previous limited research done in this area.4

Because of the large number of students involved in this study, these findings will support the contention that greater arithmetic achievement among pupils may be effected in class periods which are at least 55 minutes in length daily. This study also suggests that additional research needs to be done in this area to determine if daily arithmetic classes which are longer than 60

minutes give pupils enough additional arithmetic achievement to warrant such longer periods.

1 Oscar T. Jarvis, Time Allotments and Pupil Achievement in the Intermediate Elementary Grades. Published Doctoral Dissertation, Bureau of Education Research and Services, University of Houston, Research Study No. 8, Houston, 1962, pp. 66-60. < Studies by Daugherty (1955), Denny (1955), and Phillips (1962) have investigated the relationship between time allotments and pupils' achievement in arithmetic.

References

Daugherty, James L. "A Study of Achievement in Sixth Grade Arithmetic in Des Moines Public Schools/7 Re- search Study No. 1, Unpublished Doc- toral Dissertation, Colorado State Col- lege, Greeley, 1955, pp. i-vi, 13.

Denny, Robert Ray. A Two-Year Study of the Effects of An Increased Time Allot- ment Upon Achievement in Arithmetic in the Intermediate Grades. Field Study No. 1, Colorado State College, Greeley, 1955, pp. 80-81.

Jarvis, Oscar T. "Time Allotments and Pupil Achievement in the Intermediate Elementary Grades." Research Study No. 8, Published Doctoral Disserta- tion, Bureau of Education Research and Services, University of Houston, Hous- ton, 1962, pp. 56-60.

Otto, Henry J. "Time Allotments for the Elementary Schools/' Encyclopedia of Educational Research. Walter S. Mon- roe (ed.). New York: Macmillan Co., 1950.

Phillips, Herbert E. "We Lengthened the School Day/' Phi Delta Kappan, XLIII (January, 1962), 168-69.

Smith, B. Othanel, William O. Stan- ley, and Harlan Shores. Fundamentals of Curriculum Development. New York: World Book Company, 1957.

Books received, conťd Seeing Through Arithmetic, Grade 1, Maurice L.

Härtung, Henry Van Engen, E. Glenadine Gibb, et al. Chicago: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1963. Cloth, 160 pp., $2.00.

Seeing Through Mathematics, Books 1 and 2 (Grades 7 and 8), Maurice L. Härtung, Henry Van Engen, Harold C. Trimble, et al.

Chicago: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1962. Cloth, 508 pp. and 286 pp. Book 1, $3.88. Book 2, $3.88.

Sets and Numbers, Pupils' and Teachers' Texts, Grades 1-3, Patrick Suppes. New York: Blaisdell Publishing Co., 1962. Paper.

Working with Numbers, Books 1 and 2 (Grades 1 and 2), Joyce Benbrook, Cecile Foerster, James T. Shea. Austin, Texas: The Steck Co., 1962. Paper, 128 pp. and 144 pp., $0.72.

250 The Arithmetic Teacher



time allotment relationships to pupil achievement in arithmetic

Documents