-I~|II|-II""I'II§ J t 1 WW I 3 1293 00099 058 UBRARY Michigan State University lllfilflflfllufllllllfll L This is to certify that the dissertation entitled THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEACHERS' PLANNED AND ACTUAL TIME ALLOCATIONS: A DESCRIPTION AND MODEL presented by Robert Hill has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for film— degree in m Major professor Date September 20, 1985 "(VIE-n- Afl' .: A 0 .- '1‘ y, I 1 - 04 1 MSU LIBRARIES . RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. flfl§§_will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. 'THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEACHERS' PLANNED A3“) AKIPUAL TIME ALLOCATIONS: A DESCRIPTION AND MODEL By Robert Hill A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Education 1984 calms-2:. am , 4, ‘L :Lfiat 1| the. '.':t'b«.- . .1 .1. 7» «mums; I?“ ‘ . " #1.;ng gar-int In '. ._,_ . 1am? “ M hacttu' dunner ‘2' .‘i «ELAI ' fir '5 us; 3‘ Ln'. Np}! 5M modal dream-r. ("1 Me .-' -5.:x;n3r..g gtt‘wme; ima- -pttem, txwpn c. tnfiiln“ '3 puree! and actual Auto-time? _ ”an invest“ in thy «1W0! 641W - WWW a! m cm an by. i ;_ m mam' m claw. ‘Wsmenmwmpmfl. I...» ABSTRACT THE RELATIONSHIP BEIWEEN TEACHERS' PLANNED AND ACTUAL TIME ALLOCATIONS: A DESCRIPTICN AND MODEL By Ibbert Hill The purpose of this study was to investigate teachers' planned and actual time allocations and describe the relationship between then. 'lhe study addressed four major questions: (1) Phat is the general pattern of teachers' planned time allocations? (2) What is the general pattern of teachers' actual time allocations? (3) How do teachers' planned and actual time allocations caupare? (4) that linear model describes the relationship (teacher time decision pattern) between a teacher's planned and actual time allocations? 'lhese questions were investigated in the classrooms of 6 different elementary teachers. hch participating teacher ms observed at least eight full days over a period of twelve consecutive weeks. 'IEachers' daily written Issac; plans which corresponded to the observed days were also Pbbert Hill collected. 'mree statistical techniques were employed in the analyses of planned and actual time allocations: (1) measures of central tendency; (2) measures of variability; and (3) Pearson correlation. Planned time allocation was the independent variable and actual time allocation was the dependent variable. By using the simple linear regression model, we specified fifteen theoretical models that could possibly represent relationships between the two variables under study. It was determined that nine models could not represent time decision patterns of practicing teachers. Six of the theoretical models, however, were shown to represent time decision patterns of practicing teachers. of the six, we concluded that model 6 could account for all the available school time while at the same time sunmarizing not only the type of decision pattern teachers are thought to follow (linear) but also the different ways teachers are likely to modify their planned time allocations each day. Ibsults of statistical analyses showed that teachers make planned time allocation of about eighty-three percent of the available school time (AST); marly one-half (47.9%) of AST was allocated to activities in the acadanic content areas and more than one-third (35.3%) was allocated to activities in the nonacademic content areas. In general, teachers' actual time allocations were found to be very similar to their planned time allocations. But, four ways in which teachers departed fran their plans were identified. Ramon correlation on the combined sample data revealed a mderately high positive correlation of .67 between planned and actual Robert Hill time allocations. Egression analyses showed that the relationship between teachers' plmned and actual time allocations was positive and could best be described by theoretical model 6. 'lhe principal finding from this study was that planned time allocations were causally related to actual time allocations (oppor- tmity). 'Ihus, it was concluded that planned time allocations were also related to achievenent since time provided or opportunity and achievanent are causally related. This linkage between planned time allocations and achievement provides strong support for the notion that teacher planning in an essential teacher practice. «~. . . '\3 w One "(z-flew '. ‘ M Wcfiifileted My doctoral’ptogran. ' .mtlsfitfifidtim that I now dedicate this dissertation ‘ ‘flw” ! WIS? :h’fi‘iwi‘fi' wife, ‘by L ”V ”'0'“ ”The towereewanmui .ia-W 'U 701'?" childre‘n". l “3“ "W“ with garage; ,. “Isa ' . er. w - '_ t 3. Y'. . ' ”:33.“ lurk m cm lure-m I “fines $W~W ma. 11., 3-. _ , 3 ‘3. quef €56 teat upon that. ' at love in? ilfimz ' ;‘DlCR and T‘ "15‘ ' v . g9 ‘ a... u! :.3\‘..-'="--‘ >a filial m m: 3.1-; . ac *ix‘es'. 1.x ‘z‘: J”’!'l!11172'..‘ ’ 3 " I". ' - . C ' v; . “3 tMOtIgMK Tc; 1"“. I‘ve“ 31th:". in; an.xxzaq-w-.~.z m: _ In curing Nata p23; “ct. ~. ) my iismtanm d): ectnt. tcmwfiy c‘ml‘aw ma m.b9uto¢~1m, m: a.» shaman space honor): _ties. that gutame and theta minted in a; gram ' _' w emu... chairman. w. «any mxpm - ACWLElI-MEN'I‘S Wienever one undertakes a doctoral program, the emotional, financial and time conmitments are enormous for many persons other than the doctoral candidate. It) all who made those calmitments on my behalf, I wish to express my heartfelt gratitude. 'me most marvelous woman I know is my wife, Joy. In addition to her willingness to forego many material things, she has faithfully supported me with prayer, love, and expressions of her confidence in me. My three children, Lisa, Mark and Linda are the greatest treasure and has given me. 'Ihey have been uncomplaining during the hours my studying has taken me away from them. I value greatly their expressions of love and support. My parents, Dick and Doris Hill, provided an envirorment of encouraganent and belief in me that has given me the confidence to reach new goals throughout my life. Their unfailing encouragement has also been with me during this project. Bill Schnidt, my dissertation director, constantly challenged me to do better work. He guided me, but he also gave me space to work through difficulties. 'mat guidance and freedcm assisted in my growth as a scholar. Barry Ianier, my committee chairman, persistently helped me iii develq) clarity in my thinking. And, he consistently expressed his belief in my potential. 'Ihe other conmittee mnbers, Laura Roehler, William Lezotte, William Cole, and Larry Redd were always supportive, cooperative and instructive. Prank Jenkins spent many hours on analysis and review of my research. He willingly shared his ideas with me; they were insightful and constructive. Jane Eckhardt, a true perfectionist, went beyond simply typing; she assisted me with the format and editing of my work. Also, she often rearranged her own schedule to help me meet deadlines. Proverbs 2:6 says, "For the Lord gives wisdom, and from his mouth come knowledge and understanding." hiring the course of my work, there have been a nunber of difficult situations, but through each of them God has been a source of strength and wisdcn. "Great is our Lord and mighty in power; His understanding has no limit" (Psalm 174:5). 'Ihough my understanding is finite, my comfort has come through trusting in His infinite understanding. He prompted me to set and achieve the goal of attaining a doctoral degree. I cannot know in total what the end result of that accomplishment shall be, but He does know and understand. 'Ihat gives purpose and direction to my life, for which I thank Him. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LISTOF'INBLES LISTOFFIGJRES.................. Chapter I. INTROHJCTIOQ............. kwla“ IOOOIIIICICOIDII ImportanceoftheStudy......... ProcedurefortheStudy........ OverviewoftheStudy......... II. LITERA’IUREREVIW Introduction .............. Teacher Planning Practices . . . . . Teacher Reports of Planning Practices . Proactive Planning Decisions . . . . Interactive Decisions and Their Relation to 'Ibacher Planning . . . . . . . Influence of Planning on Instruction . . Planning Models . . . . . . Time Allocations and Achievement Models . III. RESEARCHME‘IHOIE.............. Introduction.............. 'IheStudy................ Overview . . . . . . lbsearch Questions . W18 0 O I O C I 0 Instruments . . . . U‘l-b-bw H \l Procedure.... 45 Pilot of Cbservation Techniques and 'Itainingobeservers............. 45 mtaOollection............... . 49 mta Muctim I I I I I I I I I I I I 50 Training and mliability of Coders . . . . . . 52 Malms I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 57 UnitofAnalysis................. 57 Method of Comparing Planned and wservedIntervals.............. 59 Statistical 'IeChniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 mry I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 64 IV. 'IHEDREI‘ICAL MODELS OF TEACHER TIME DECISIQQ PATI‘ERNS. . 65 Intrwuct ion I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 65 TheoreticalModels................. 67 Theoretical Nbdels Not Representative of Reality 67 Theoretical Models Mich Represent Reality . . . . 75 SUITHBI'Y o o o o o o o o o o o o o a o o o o o o o a 106 V. DESCRIPI'IWS OF 'I'EPCHERS' PLANNED AND ACTUAL TIMEALIDCATIONS.................. 110 Introduction.................... 110 General Pattern of Planned Time Allocations . . . . 110 Proportion of Tine Allocated . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Mean Time Allocated Her Interval . . . . . . . . . 117 Sunmary of Findings on Flamed Allocations . . . . 126 General Pattern of Actual Time Allocations . . . . . 127 Proportion of Time Provided . . . . . . . . . . . 127 Mean Time Provided Fer Cpportunity . . . . . . . . 130 Sumnary of Findings on Actual Time Allocations . . 141 (hnparison of 'IVeachers' Flamed and Actual Time Allmations I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 142 SumnaryofComparison............... 152 vi VI. WPARISG‘J OF REGRESSIO‘J MODELS WITH THEDRETICAL mmls I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 154 Intrwuctim I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 154 PearsonGorrelation.............. 154 Regression Models of Teacher Time Decision Patterns 156 mcmr 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 162 macker- 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 166 macker- 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 169 Ibacmr 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 172 macmr 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 176 hack-Br 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 180 General Regression Model . . . . 184 Teacher Peqression Nbdels Compared to the Generallbdel............ 189 WW I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 194 Regression Podels For Content Areas Compared to'IheoreticallVbdels............. 199 IanguageArts................. 200 wading I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 213 mth I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 225 VII. SLMMARY, CCNCLUSIQJS AND IMPLICATIONS . . . . . . . . 243 Introduction................... 243 SmearyandOonclusions............. 246 Theoretical Podels . . . . . . . . 246 General Pattern of Teachers' Planned TimeAllocations.... 247 General Pattern of 'Ibachers' Actual TimeAllocations.... 250 Planned Time Allocations Compared to Actual Time Allocations . . . . . . . . . . 252 Teacher Regression Models . . . . . . . . . . . 255 Regression Model for Language Arts . . . . . 257 Regression Model for Reading . . . . . . . 258 Regression Model for Math . . . . . . . . . . . 258 Eflucational Implications . . . . . . . . . . . 259 Ibsearch Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260 vii APPENDICES Appendix 3.1 Actual mole-Day Observation . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Copy of Several Days of One Teacher's Written lessonPlans 3.3 Procedures for (bservations . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 CodingProcedures............... 3.5 Coded Activities of Che Student Prom Observation ShowninAppendix3.l............ 3.6 Class Activity (bntent Combinations . . . . . . 3.7 Coded Planned Time Allocations from the Written Plans of (he Teacher for (he Day B IBLIW . a o o o o o I O C o o o 0 I o o a o o c u I viii 262 275 277 280 293 295 296 297 Table 3.1 3.2 3.3 4.1 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 LIST OF TABLES Detmgraphic mta on Participating 'Ibachers . . . Description of Participating School Districts . Content Categories Used for Analysis . . . . . . Pbssible 'meoretical Linear h‘odels of Teacher TineIDecisionPattems .. . . . . . . . . . 'Ibtal Available School Time (AST) by 'Ibacher . . Proportion of AST Allocated by Teacher . . . . . Proportion of AST ’neachers Allocated to Content Area Proportion of AST Grade Level Allocated to Content Area. Proportion of AST Individual 'neachers Allocated to Ca‘tent Areas I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Means and Standard Deviations of Intervals Planned by 'IEachersforContentAreas .. Mean Interval Planned by Grade Level for Content Areas . Means of Intervals Planned by Individual Teachers for ContentAreas.................... Standard Deviations of Intervals Planned by Individual 'Iteachers for Content Areas . . . . . . . . Patterns of variation in Interval Length by Individual 'IEachers in Content Areas . . . . . . . . Proportion of AST 'Deachers Provided for Content Areas. . Proportion of ASP (kade Levels Provided for Wtent Areas 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 43 51 68 111 112 113 114 116 118 121 121 123 128 128 V——_—— 5.13 Proportion of AST Individual 'IEachers Provided forContentArea...................132 5.14 Means and Standard Deviations of Opportunities Teachers Provided for Content Areas . . . . . . . . . 132 5.15 man mportunity Grade Levels Provided for Wtent Meas I I O O O O O I O I O I I C 0 O I I O I 136 5.16 Mean Opportunity Provided by Individual Teachers forContentAreas..................138 5.17 Variance of Opportunities Provided by Individual 'Ibachers for Content Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 5.18 Patterns of Variation in Opportunities Provided by Teachers for Content Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 5.19 Proportion of AST Teachers Allocated and Provided forContentAreas..................144 5.20 Proportion of AST Teachers Provided for Activities NotStated in'IheirPlans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 5.21 Proportion of Planned Time 'Ibachers Did Not Provide for the Content Area Stated in Their Plans. . . . . . 149 5.22 Standard Deviations of rIleachers Planned Intervals and Opportunities for Content Areas . . . . . . . . . 151 5.23 Standard Deviations of Planned Intervals and mportunities Teachers Provided for Content Areas . . 153 6.1 Ilearson Correlations Between Planned and Actual TimeAllocationsby'Ibacher............. 155 6.2 Regression Coefficients and Ninety-five Percent Confidence Intervals by 'IEacher . . . . . . . . . . . 160 6.3 Raarson Correlations Between Planned and Actual Time Allocations of Teachers for language Arts . . . . . . 201 6.4 Regression Coefficients and Ninety-five Percent Confidence Intervals for language Arts by Teacher . . 202 6-5 Rearson Correlations Between Planned and Actual Time Allocations of Teachers for Reading . . . . . . . . . 215 '1?‘ 6.6 6.7 6.8 Page Regression Coefficients and Ninety-five Percent Confidence Intervals for Reading by Teacher . . . . . 216 Pearson Correlations Between Planned and Actual Time Allocations of Teachers for Math . . . . . . . . . . 226 Regression Coefficients and Ninety-five Percent (bnfidence Intervals for Math by Teacher. . . . . . . 227 xi Figure 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 4.1 4.2 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 , 4.8 4.10 4.11 LIST OF FIGURES Hypotheticaldaservation............... Class Activities for Hypothetical Gaservation . . . . HypotheticalPlan Class Activities from Hypothetical Plan . . . . . . . Hypothetical (bserved and Flamed Intervals Matched. . kgression Lines Summarizing Theoretical Models I-VII. Regression Lines Summarizing Theoretical Asymptotic Mels E, 4A am 6A I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Regression Lines Summarizing Theoretical Models WII am IX I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I lbgression Line Smmarizing Theoretical Nbdel 3 — [mical Mel I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Egression Line Sunmarizing Theoretical Model 1 — ProportionalIncreaserdel ............ lbgression Line Sumarizing Theoretical Dbdel 5 - ProportionalDecreasebbdel . . . . .. . .. Regression Line Sumnarizing Theoretical Model 4 - ConstantIncreaseModel lbgression Line Sunmarizing Theoretical Model 4A — Asymptotic Constant Decrease Model . . . . . . . . . Ihgression Line Sumnarizing Theoretical Model 2 — Constant/Proportional Increase Nbdel . . . . . . . . Regression Line Sumnarizing Theoretical Model 6A - Mymptotic Constant/Proportional Decrease Model . . mgression Line Sumarizing Theoretical Model 6 - DecreaseInteractionModel. . ........ 55 56 58 58 62 71 72 74 79 83 85 88 92 94 97 99 4.12 4.13 5.1 5.2 5.3 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 Egression Line Sumnarizing Theoretical Model 2A Asymptotic Constant Decrease/Proportional Increase!’odel....... Regression Line Summarizing Theoretical Model 2A - Asynptotic Constant Decrease/Proportional Ima$ Mel I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i (he Standard Deviation from Mean of Teachers' Planned Intervals by Content Area Proportion of AST Individual rReachers Provided forContentArea................. 1' (he Standard Deviation fran Mean Opportunity Teachers Provided for Content Area . . . . . . . . Regression Line Summarizing Theoretical Model 6 . . Regression Models of the Time Decision Patterns of Participating Tbachers lbgression Regression Regression Regression lbgression Regression Regression Tbachers Regression the Participating TEachers and the General Nbdel . . . kgression Decision Regression Decision Egression mcision Nbdel for Model for Model for lVbdel for Model for Nbdel for Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Thacher Thacher Model of the Time Combined 1's Time Decision 2's Time Decision 3's Time Decision 4's Time Decision 5's Time Decision 6's Time Decision Decision Pattern of All Models of the Time Decision Patterns of Pbdel for Tbacher 1's Language Arts Time mttem I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Model for Teacher 3's Language Arts Time Patten] I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Dbdel for Teacher 6's Language Arts Time at tem I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I xiii Pattern . Pat tern . Pattern . Pattern . Pattern . Pattern . *r_——‘ 104 107 119 131 135 159 161 163 167 170 177 181 185 191 204 206 208 A 6.17 6.18 6.19 6.20 6.21 6.22 6.23 6.24 6.25 6.26. Regression Decision kgmssim Decision kgression Decision Regression Decision Egress ion Decision Egress ion Decision Egress ion Decision Regression Decision lbgression the ision kgmssion Decision mgression Decision Regression Decision Regression Decision Regression Dec ision Nbdel for Pattern . Ibdel for Pattern . Fodel for Pattern . Model for Pattern . Model for Pattern . Model for Pattern . tbdel for Pattern . Model for Pattern . Model for Pattern . Nbdel for Pattern . Nbdel for Pattern . mdel for Pat tern . Model for Pattern . Model for Thacher Thacher Teacher Thacher Thacher Thacher Thacher Thacher Thacher Thacher Thacher Thacher I I I I Thacher Thacher 2's Language Arts 4'5 5'5 3'5 5'5 1'5 2'5 4'5 6'5 2'5 3'5 4'5 5'5 6'5 Language Arts Language Arts Reading Time Reading Time Read ing Time Reading Time Reading Time Read ing Time I I I I I I I Path Time Math Time Math Time Path Time Math Time mttem I I I I I I I I I I I I Time Time Time 210 211 212 217 219 221 222 223 224 229 230 233 234 238 r—___—___ CHAPTER I INTROHJCTION Planning for instruction is an important professional activity of elementary teachers. It is the beginning step in instruction (Smith, . 1977) and a major part of an elementary teacher's job. In discussing the economic environment of the classroom, Duffy asserts that, "What the teacher decides to do in allocating (which includes planning) among the various students, those resources made available by the institution is the heart of the teaching act" (mffy, 1978). Planning provides a sense of direction and order in the classroom. According to Yinger, "It may be a rare teacher and classroom that would be able to function effectively without some kind of planning by the teacher" (Yinger, 1977). The value teachers have for planning may be indicated by the effort they put into it. Clark and Yinger report that elementary teachers they studied spent, on the average, twelve hours per week in planning. Much of the planning was on their own time (Clark and Yinger, 1980). Among other things, planning involves the allocation of time to various activities. The activities are associated with specific content areas, e.g., mading. Allocated time then is simply the amount of time a teacher intends to provide for learning content. Allocation of time as reflected in teachers' written plans is normally made for a day or week, but can be made for longer time frames (Clark and Yinger, 1980). It appears that teachers establish a general time allocation pattern early in the school year; with only minor variations, the - h“ '7 "5 ‘4'“ A pattern is likely to remain intact for the whole year (Smith, 1977; Clark and Elmore, 1979). Time appears to be causally related to achievement. (he major finding of the Beginning hacher Evaluation Study (BTE‘S) was that 'Ihe amount of time that teachers allocated to instruction in a particular curriculum content area is positively associated with student learning in that content area. ‘ (Fisher, Berliner, et al p. 7, 1980) A review of the literature by Rosenshine on content covered or opportunity to learn revealed a similar relationship. In all but one of the studies he reviewed, a significant relationship between content covered and student achievement gain was reported (Rosenshine). 'Ihe work of Wiley and Ehrnischfeger also mderscores the important role time plays in student achievement. Based on their analyses of the Equality of Educational Cpportunity Survey (EEOS) data from the Detroit Public Schools, they concluded that "...the amount (or opportunity) of schooling a child receives is a highly relevant factor for his achieve- ment." (Wiley and Harnischfeger, p. 9, 1974). Further study and analysis of the time and achievement relationship led them to conclude that ”...the total amount of active learning time (spent) on a particu- lar instructional topic is the most important determinant of the pupil's achievement on that topic." (Harnishfeger and Wiley, 1976). It is generally understood that a student's total active learning time is a function of both teacher and student behaviors. Carroll argued that teacher behavior most responsible for determining a stu- dent's total active learning time is that of providing opportunity or time for learning while the most important behavior on the part of the student is to persevere or spend time on learning (Carroll, 1963). A 'leachers exercise almost complete control over allocation of time in the classroom (Smith 1977; Oorno 1979); thus, opportunity is affected by classroom decisions teachers make regarding use of time. 01 the other hand, perseverance is affected by such factors as the student's readiness to learn, his/her motivation and attention span. Perseverance cannot operate, however, unless opportunity for learning has first been provided. 'Ihus, perseverance is a function of opportunity; and, since opportunity is a function of teacher classroom decisions, perseverance is also a function of teacher classroom time decisions. Teacher class- room decisions then are most important in the determination of a stu- dent's total active learning time. Ebr this reason, we view "teacher classroom time decision behavior" as an important area of teacher practice to study. What factor(s) influence teacher classroom decisions regarding use of time? 'Ihe findings from several teacher planning studies suggest that instructional plans are an important influence on teachers' class— room decisions. (Smith and Sendelbach, 1979; Peterson and Clark, 1978); Morine and Valance, 1975; brine-Dershimer, 1979; Zatorik, 1970; and Clark and Yinger, 1979). In a discussion of this relationship, Harnischfeger and Wiley have suggested that a high correlation likely exists between a teacher's plan and what actually occurs in the class- room. (Harnischfeger and Wiley, 1976). Problem Often, time allocations are a part of teacher plans. It is reasonable to assume then that teachers' planned time allocations exert a major influence on their actual time allocations. 'lhe assumed relationship between planned and actual time allocations “ cannot be supported by empirical evidence, however. None of the studies cited above specifically addresses the issue of the relation- ship between planned and actual time allocations. It is an area of the teaching/learning process which has received little attention from researchers. 'Iherefore, very little is lmown about the way in which a teacher's planned and actual time allocations are related and whether or not a teacher's planned time allocations affect opportunity for learning. It is the purpose of this study, therefore, to investigate teachers' planned and actual time allocations and describe the relation— ship between them. ILmErtance of Study Because teachers invest a considerable amount of time and effort in planning, the value of planning is an important issue to consider. If planned time allocations are found to be causally related to actual time allocations (opportunity), then we may conclude that planned time allocations are also related to achievement since opporthity and achievement are causally related. Such a finding would provide a firm basis for arguing that teacher planning is an important teacher prac- tice. It would also serve to encourage educators to make time and resources available to teachers for planning; and, it would give edu- cators a sound rationale for developing programs to strengthen teacher planning skills. Clark and Yinger have expressed a need for such a study because it “is perhaps the most promising point of contact between research on teacher thinking and teaching effectiveness" (Clark and Yinger, 1977). Also, Harnischfeger and Wiley believe that a study "of the conformity of actual teaching to its plan would greatly augment our understanding of the kinds of discrepancies that occur and help us portray teachers in ways that relate to these discrepancies" (Harnischfeger and Wiley, 1976). Finally, results of this study may cause teachers to evalute their own planning and implementation practices. Such an evaluation may facilitate growth in their planning and implementation skills. Procedure for the Study (laservational data collected by the language Arts Project of the IRT were used in this study. 'Ihe data were collected during a twelve week period between March 1, 1978 and the first veek of June, 1978. mta were collected from seven teachers in elementary schools from suburban areas and small towns around Lansing, Michigan. Four types of classrooms were included in the study: (1) three self-contained second grade classrooms, (2) one second-third grade combination class- room, which is part of a four classroom, multi-age grouping situation team taught within an open classroom, (3) one fifth grade classroom partially self-contained with departmentalization in Mathematics and lbading instruction and (4) two fourth-fifth grade combination class- rooms team taught within an open classroom; data were collected from both teachers. Each teacher's weekly planning schedules for the entire twelve week period were collected. Seven observers recorded the activities of the teachers and their pupils, making full-day observations once a week for nine weeks. Additional background information about the teachers, their classrooms and their pupils was collected through interviews and questionnaires. mservational data and teacher weekly plan data were coded for each teacher. 'Ihe coding included the beginning and ending times of each activity and its content. All content was coded according to global designations such as Reading, Science, Mathematics, etc. Four instruments were used: an observation instrument, a questionnaire, an interview and a weekly time and content allocation schedule which was in the form of the teacher's plan book. Overview of the Study Chapter II consists of a review of the pertinent literature on content covered and academic engaged time, planning and teacher instruc- tional decision making. In Chapter III, the design of the study is discussed. 'lhe teacher sample, data collection instruments and methods are specified in this chapter. 'lhe chapter ends with a discussion of the procedure for analysis. In Chapter IV, theoretical models describing possible linear relationships between a teacher's planned and actual time allocations are explored. chapter V consists of a description of teachers' planned and actual time allocations. In Chapter VI, regression models are compared with theoretical models. And in Chapter VII, the findings and conclusions are summarized, edu— cational implications discussed and possible directions for future research are presented . CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction lbsearch on instructional planning is a fairly recent development. Thus far, the number of completed studies is small. Prior to 1970, when the first empirical study of instructional planning was undertaken by Zahorik, the literature dealt primarily with untested ideas on instruc- tional planning. A basic assumption underlying much of the early literature was that Tyler's (1950) model of curriculum planning best described teacher planning practices; it was natural then that early research on planning investigated the role this model played in planning. As evidence began to accumulate, the weakness of the Tyler model became apparent. Interest then shifted to investigation of the decision-making processes involved in planning. Recently, interest has focused on questions dealing with the rela— tionship between plan and classroom practices (Harnischfeger and Wiley, 1976; Clark and Yinger, 1979). The focus of this research is also on this relationship. In this chapter, studies on instructional planning will be reviewed. The review is limited to trose stuiies which specifically deal with at least one of the following topics: teacher planning practices; interactive teacher decisions and their relation to instructional planning; influence of planning on instruction; and planning models. Some of the recent literature on the effect of time on achievement will also be reviewed as it has implications for planning and classroom practice. Teacher Flaming Practices Teacher lbports of Planning Practices The first general survey of teacher planning practices was conducted by Smith (1977). He distributed a questionnaire to 330 elementary teachers of two different school districts. One was a small sdaurban district and the other a large urban district. Eighty-seven teachers responded. Smith sought to answer three questions: that is the content of teacher planning? tbw do teacher plans evolve? and, mat contributes to plan evolution and content? He anticipated using the answer to these questions to help him refine his previously developed model of how teachers plan. Results of his survey are summarized as follows: a. Tsachers organized their planning on a weekly basis. In the urban district, 92% of the teachers who responded said they organized on a daily or weekly basis (with only a few indicating daily schedules); in the smburban district, 86% of the respondents indicated they organized on a daily or weekly basis. b. Over 80% of the teachers indicated they planned one or two weeks in advance. The mean response for urban teachers was 1.53 weeks and for the suburban teachers, it was 1.27 weeks. c. The primary influence on teachers in making time allocations was the teachers' estimation of the importance of the suaject, either in general or to the class being taught in particular. 6. Over 93% of the sdaurban and 91% of the urban teachers used small groups for Reading instruction. In Mathe— matics instruction, 84% of the suburban and 86% of the urban teachers used small groups. Teachers in both dis- tricts changed both the number and the composition of the groups from time to time. Formation of the groups in both districts was based on teacher impressions of pupil ability and results of teacher made tests as well as the prior achievement of pupils. me quarter of the teachers used self—constructed materials more than half of the time in Reading. Over 42% used self-constructed materials over ralf of the time in Mathematics. Published instructional series influenced planning decisions. The largest amount of time per week was spent in mading (averaging 5 hours, 47 minutes) followed by Math (3 hours, 33 minutes), English (2 hours, 14 minutes), Social Studies (2 hours, 10 minutes) and Science (1 hour, 49 minutes). FUrther insight into teacher planning practices has been provided by Clark and Yinger (1979). They distributed a planning survey to approximately 300 teachers, 78 of which were returned. Teachers were asked to describe the various kinds of planning they engage in, detail the considerations and constraints which influenced their planning, give reasons why they made plans which varied in length from a day to a year; and explain tow their plans differed for different subject matters. machers were also asked to provide examples representing the three most important types of planning they did during the year. Clark and Yinger summarized the results of their survey as follows: a. Learning objectives were seldom the starting point for planning. Instead teachers planned around their students and around activities. Teachers tended to limit their search for ideas to resources that were immediately available such as teacher editions of textbooks, magazine articles, films and suggestions from other teachers. machers indicated trat most of their planning was done for Reading and language Arts (averaging 5 hours per week) followed by bath (2.25 hours per week), Social Studies (1.7 hours per week) and Science (1.4 hours per week). Teacher planning was more explicit and involved a longer lead time in team teaching situations than in self- contained classrooms. The most common form of written plans was an outline or list of topics to be covered altl'ough many teachers reported that the majority of planning was done mentally and never committed to paper (Clark and Yinger, 1979, p. 15). Several studies which stowed that classroom organization, rules, procedures and routines are established during the first weeks of September (Tikunoff and Ward, 1978; Buckley and Cooper, 1978; Anderson and Evertson, 1978; and Shultz and Florio, 1979) led Clark and Elmore (1979) to hypothesize that planning during September might differ from planning during the remainder of the school year. They investigated this question by separately interviewing five elementary school teachers in early October. Hiring the interview, each teacher was asked to recall and describe his/her planning for each week of the school year beginning with the week before students arrived. The interviews revealed that planning during the first weeks of school was indeed different, and could be divided into three distinct phases. In each phase, a specific problem of planning was addressed. Daring phase one ("Get Ready" phase), teachers were occupied with the problem of organizing the classroom setting. Their planning goal was to have the first days of school be "smooth and enjoyable for both student and teacher". Planning decisions were in response to the teacher's need to arrange the physical environment, gather informa- tion on students and organize academic materials. The next phase ("Get Set" phase) lasted for tm or three weeks in September. In this phase, teacher planning concerns shifted from problems associated with space and materials to problems associated with the student. Flaming decisions during this phase dealt primarily with problems of testing student capabilities in order to determine student placement in subgroups, especially for Reading and Mathematics. 10 The focus of other planning decisions during this phase concerned the establishment of a workable social system in the classroom. The teacher's primary concerns during the third phase ("60" phase) was the establishment of a routine daily and weekly time schedule. @nerally, this goal was accomplished by the beginning of October. T\aachers reported that planning for the rerainder of the school year could then proceed within the structure provided by these daily and weekly time routines. The process of schedule routinization was also reported by Smith (1977). He noted that "...once the teacher ias determined a weekly subject schedule, s(he) can simplyrepeat this scheduling in a cyclical fashion. 'Ihe schedule is likely to retain intact for the school year ..." (Smith, 1977, p. 21). The fact that the teachers in the Clark and Elmore study "...were already planning their school year at least a week before their students arrived...illustrate(s) the extent to which teachers are concerned with planning." (Clark and Elmore, 1979, p. 14). Findings on the amount of time teachers spend planning (Clark and Yinger, 1979) support this conclusion. The characteristic of teachers to establish subject schedules early in the school year indicates that they intend to regularly provide time for activities in the different content areas. The existence of these schedules raises several questions. First, are planning time allocations (schedules) similar or do they differ significantly? Smith (1977) suggested that there are important differ— ences. We will attempt to replicate his findings. Second, to what extent are teachers' planning time allocations associated with their actual time allocations? Harnischfeger and Wiley contend there is a ll very close correspondence between a teacher's planned time allocations and what actually occurs in the classroom (Harnischfeger and Wiley, 1976, p. 19). Findings from a study by Schmidt, et a1 raises a question about the validity of this assumption. lbehler and Schmidt foumd that actual time allocation for various subject matters differed considerably from teacher to teacher (Roehler and Schmidt, 1979) . The question is, to what extent were these differences due to differences in their planned time allocations and to what extent were differences due to differences in how closely teachers followed similar planned time allocations. (he goal of the present study was to investigate this question in order to increase our understanding of teacher planned time allocations and low they relate to actual time allocations. Preactive Planning Decisions 'me early literature on teacher planning assumed teacher planning decisions closely followed the Tyler (1950) planning model. Basically, the model recommends four steps thought essential for effective planning: (1) specify objectives, (2) select learning activities, (3) organize learning activities, (4) specify evaluation procedures. Zahorik des- cribes the model in this way: "It is a rational, logical model in which ends or objectives take precedence over and are separated from means or activities. Given the long time availability of this model the number of curriculum experts who support it, and its powerful appeal to rationality, it is reasonable to believe that the model is in widespread use at all levels of teaching." (Zarorik, 1975, p. 134). Several 'studies have been undertaken to determine the extent to which teachers preactive planning decisions follow the Tyler model. The first, conducted by Taylor (1970), investigated decisions teachers 12 ‘ made when planning syllabi for courses. re administered a question- naire to 261 teachers of English, Science and Geography, conducted group discussions with them and analyzed course syllabi. Taylor found that curricular planning decisions first of all focused o1 factors associated with the teaching context and then in order of importance to the teacher on pupil interests, aims and purposes of teaching, and finally on evaluation considerations. Contrary to the Tyler model, aims and purposes or objectives were considered only after factors associated with the teaching context, i.e., resources, content, time and the pupil were dealt with. Of only minor importance to the teacher was consideration of evaluation needs. Taylor's study suggests that when planning course syllabi, teachers do not follow Tyler's rational model of planning. Because Taylor's study was more a study of curriculum planning, his findings are only suggestive of how individual teachers might plan for instruc- tion. Zarorik (1975) was interested in learning what individual teachers actually did as they prepared to teach. fibre specifically, he was interested in their planning decisions, use of objectives and attention to activities. A volunteer sample of 194 teachers was asked to list in writing the decisions they made prior to teaching and the order in which they usually made them; then, teachers who indicated they made decisions about objectives and activities were asked to give me example of each. Zahorik classified their decisions according to the types of decisions made. His classification scheme contained the following categories: objectives, content, activities, materials, diagnosis, 13 ,‘J evaluation, instruction and organization. Analysis of the data showed that 81% of the teachers made decisions about activities. Fifty-one percent of the teachers made their first decision about content while only 28% of the teachers made their first decision about behavioral objectives. Zal'orik concluded that: "Content is one of the most important planning decisions in terms of quantity of use. Almost three-fourths of the teachers make this decision, and it is made first more often than any other decision." (Zahorik, 1975, p. 137.) and, "...the breadth and depth of the content for the teaching— learning session is of primary concern to teachers." (Zarorik, 1975, p. 138.) Overall, decisions about objectives were not particularly impor- tant in terms of quantity of use. Similar findings rave been reported by other investigators (Goodlad, et a1, 1974; Joyce and Phrootumian, 1964; Popham and Baker, 1970; Peterson, Narx and Clark, 1978). In the Eterson, Narx and Clark study, planning decisions of twelve different teachers in a laboratory setting were examined. machers were asked to think aloud while planning to teach three Social Studies lessons; the lessons were to be based on a list of objectives and Social Studies text material provided by the researchers. Each lesson was to be taught for fifty minutes to three different groups of eight stu- dents on three different days. At the beginning of the day in which the lesson was to be taught, teachers were given ninety minutes to plan. The number of planning statements (decisions) made by each teacher was obtained from audio recordings of the planning sessions and coded into seventy different categories. msults showed that teachers paid the most attention to subject matter and instructional process aspects of the lesson. Included in 14 instructional process were student and teacher activities. Tlaachers were least of all concerned with objectives. ibrine—Dershimer (1977) also investigated teacher planning decisions but in a more natural setting: she provided forty volunteer elementary teachers with special curricular materials and asked them to plan and teach two 20—minute lessons, one in Reading and one in Mathematics. The lessons were to be taught in the teachers' own classrooms to twelve of their own students. Written lesson plans were collected after each lesson and analyzed to determine their specificity, general format, statement of goals, source of goal statement, attention to pupil back— ground and premration, evaluation procedures and alternative proce dures. Daring analysis, special attention was paid to teacher use of behavioral objectives in their plans. Pbrine found that written plans were generally in the form of a fairly specific outline in which little attention was given to behav- ioral goals, diagnosisof student needs, evaluation of learning, or possible alternative courses of action. The outlines did contain fairly specific information about cognitive aspects of the lesson and sequence (time element) of activities to occur in tie classroom. Observation and interview data revealed that the teachers had made some planning decisions about the lesson which were not stated in their written plans. In an effort to better understand teachers' unstated plans, Nbrine— Dershimer (1979) interviewed teachers before the school day started. hiring the interview, teachers were asked to state their plans for the Ibading lesson which would be observed later in the day. Their responses to this general question consistently focused on content to be covered 15 ‘ and activities to be engaged in. Frequently, they identified materials they would use during the planned lesson. Rarely did teachers mention pupil ability, specific objectives, teaching strategies, or seating arrangements. Mare specific questions about pupils, materials, objec- tives strategies, etc. elicited responses which indicated they had mental plans or images of their lesson which included these aspects of instruction. Smith and Sendelbach (1979) took a slightly different approach when they studied Science planning of elementary teachers: they com- pared the literal program approach of the Science curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS) curriculum with the teachers' intended approach developed through planning. The results they obtained were similar to ttose reported by Marine- Dershimer: teachers made only sketchy written notes organized by time sequence but had developed detailed mental plans of what they intended to do in teaching the lesson. Overall, decisions involving objectives occurred infrequently; instead, planning decisions were found to relate most often to activities the teachers felt were attractive or apquari- ate .for their students and which incorporated concepts or skills teachers felt were important for their students to learn. This is con- sistent with Smith's (1977) finding that "...the teacher considers herself as the person ultimately responsible for making time allocation decisions and her personal estimation of subject importance as the primary determinant of what that allocation will be." (Smith, 1977, p. 40.) A finding comon to these studies was that teachers' planning decisions rarely involve objectives; instead teachers' planning deci- sions most often involved content, activities and time schedules. 16 These studies suggest that planning decisions are retained by the teacher in two different forms: in written plans, and in the teacher's memory (mental plans). Written plans seem to be concerned more with the allocation of time to specific content/activities while plans re- tained in a teacher's memory seem to be concerned more with instruct— ional strategies, goals, materials, and pupil needs. Both written and mental plans have been shown to have an effect on classroom practice (Zahorik 1970; Clark and Yinger 1979; Smith and Sendelbach 1979). Because written plans are more concerned with allocation of time to different activities, we chose to use this plan form in our study as a means of documenting teachers' planned time allocation decisions. In_teractive Decisions and Their Relation to macher Planning Peterson and Clark (1978) studied teacher interactive decision mak- ing as part of the larger study on effective teaching mentioned earlier (Peterson, Marx and Clark, 1978) . They explored interactive decision making by replaying for each teacher in the study four brief video— taped segments of his/her teaching of a special Social Studies lesson. During the replay sessions, teachers were asked to recall what they were thinking about while teaching; questions dealt with what they were doing in the segment, what they noticed about the students, whether they were considering alternative actions or strategies at the time and whether anything in the situation caused them to act differ- ently than planned. Teacher responses showed they rarely considered alternative strat- egies and if they did, it was only when the lesson was going poorly. But even when instruction was going poorly, teachers rarely considered alternative activities or strategies. As a result, teachers made few 17 decisions tiat resulted in major changes in their plans. Their inter- active decision making was more a process of fine tuning and adapting to unpredictable aspects of the situation such as specific student responses. Marine and Vallance (1975) used a similar technique to study inter- active decisions made by 40 second ard fifth grade teachers. lather than using segments from a taped lesson as in Peterson and Clark, the researchers replayed the entire twenty minute video-taped lesson for each teacher. During the playback session, each teacher was encouraged to stop the tape at any point where (s)he was aware of having made a decision; the interviewer could also stop the tape at any point where a pupil gave an incorrect answer or where there was a transition from one activity to another. whenever the tape was stopped, the inter- viewer asked the teacher about what they were thinking, what they were noticing, what decision was made, and what, if any, alternatives they were considering but rejected. In general, the researchers found that almost all teacher decisions related either to interchanges (instantaneous verbal interaction) or planned activities (preactive planning decisions). As in the Peterson and Clark study, only a very few decisions involved charging to mplanned strategies. In a related study, lVbrine-Dershimer (1979) was interested in find— ing out how interactive decision making by eleuentary teachers was related to discrepancies between plan and classroom reality. Sue de- fined discrepancy in terms of the teacher's perception of how closely the actual classroom instruction approximated his/her expectations about how the lesson would probably proceed. MarineDershimer measured 18 ‘ the amount of discrepancy by "(1) The proportion of decision points at which the teacher expressed surprise at the event under discussion or other- wise indicated that the event did not fit well within the teacher's set of expectations for the lesson; (2) the pro— portion of decision points at which the teacher reported being disturbed or bothered by the event under discussion." (Morine—Dershimer, 1979, p. 5.) Data were collected through planning interviews before the school day began and stimulated recall interviews conducted while viewing video— tape of the teacher's instruction. Based on the interview data, Morine-Dershimer classified each lesson according to one of the following three types: (1) one showing little or no perceived discrepancy; (2) one showing minor perceived discrepancy; (3) one showing critical perceived discrepancy. It was found that teachers processed different information about pupils and exhibited different decision-making behavior. When little or no discrepancy occurred, the teacher processed information more in terms of the plan than of reality. (S)he responded to decision points in two ways: (1) by referring to images of the lesson and pupils (s)he had developed through preactive decision making during planning; and (2) by use of established routines. Virtually no decisions or even considera- tions of alternatives were noted at this level of discrepancy. ' In lessons where minor discrepancy occurred, the teacher processed information derived mainly from pupil behavior exhibited during the lesson; but instead of responding to student behaviors in terms of pre— formed images or routines, the teacher made "in-flight“ decisions. These decisions, though, did not substantially alter the basic plan. Perhaps this was so because teacher observations of pupil behaviors 19 were focused by the plan. when the teacher perceived a more serious discrepancy, (s)he began to process a wide range of information which related to learning prob— lems of individual pupils. Ebr this situation, the plan did not serve to focus the teacher's observation very sharply; furthermore, the in- formation about student differences did not provide a basis for any decision making, so the teacher postponed decisions until a later date. These mexpected problems {raved very disturbing and bothersome to the teacher; as a result, the Lroblems interfered with the efficient progress of the lesson. Studies on interactive decision making indicate a fairly strong relationship exists between teachers' preactive decisions ard subse- quent interactive decisions. Preactive decisions appear to circumscribe the area in which later interactive decisions are made. A weakness of these studies is that teacher decisions were investi- gated in the context of only a few lessons. Furthermore, the lessons were essentially immune from teacher decisions to cancel them or alter their length since the lessons were either experimenter described or the teacher ard researcher agreed the lessons would ocoir. This design prevented the researchers from learning anything about decisions teachers comonly make about what to teach, whether to delete the lesson from the plan, substitute another lesson or alter the length of the planned lesson. Such decisions can have a profound effect on a students' opportunity to learn. The present study was designed so that decisions like these which affect use of time in the classroom could be investigated in a natural setting over a fairly long period of time, thus minimizing any influence the study might have on teacher 20 decisions about time. Influence of Planning 01 Instruction In the first empirical study of instructional planning, Zahorik (1970) sought to examine the effect of a simple plan, as opposed to no plan, On teacher instructional behavior. He selected twelve fourth grade teachers ard divided them into two groups. All six teachers in one group were given the same skeletal plan and encouraged to add to it. The plan contained behavioral objectives and a detailed outline of content each teacher was to teach to his/her own class two weeks in the future. 'Ihe second group of six teachers was not provided with any lesson plan but was told to reserve an tour of instructional time in order to carry out a task for the researcher. All twelve lessons were audio recorded. Recorded protocols of the twelve lessons were analyzed to identify "...teacher behavior that is sensitive to students." (Zarorik, 1970, p. 144.) Analysis of the protocols revealed a difference on this dimen- sion of teacher behavior between planners and non-planners. Zahorik characterized teachers who planned as slowing less tonest or authentic use of the puupils' ideas during the lesson than tl'ose who did not plan. He concluded that use of the typical planning mode1--goals, activities and their organization ard evaluation-dad the teacher to be insensitive to pupils. He speculated that a possible reason for this was "... planning makes the teachers' thinking rigid and puts him on a track that is nearly derail-proof." (Zatorik, 1970, p. 149.) Findings from the Peterson ard Clark study mentioned earlier support for this speculation. Peterson and Clark correlated interactive decision making scores with planning scores and obtained a positive relationship 21 .... between planning that emphasized instructional objectives and the ten- dency to stay with the original plan even when it was not succeeding. On the other hand, teachers who were more concerned with instructional processes in their planning rather than in instructional objectives showed a tendency to change to alternatives if instruction was not proceeding according to plan. In other words, teachers who euphasized instructional objectives in their planning appeared to be more rigid than teachers who emphasized instructional processes. Clark and Yinger (1979) did a longitudinal study of teacher plan— ning for a unit on writing. In all, five different plans were studied. During the three weeks of plan development, each teacher recorded his/ her thinking and planning in a journal. Also, during plan development, teachers were interviewed twice a week and several observations were conducted in their classrooms. Upon coupletim of the plans, teachers were asked to impleuent them in their classrooms over a two-week period. Although each of the plans was unique, each could be categorized as either an "incremental plan" or a "couprehensive plan". An incremental plan was defined as a set of activities to get the unit started followed by a series of changes as a result of classroom experience and teacher reflection on what the next logical step should be. A comprehensive plan was defined as a well-defined framework for future action: a very detailed long-range plan. The comprehensiveness of the plan gave the teacher a fairly complete picture of what to anticipate in the classroom during instruction. The instructional behavior of teachers who used an increuental plan was judged to be one of spontaneity. Clark and Yinger theorized this 22 ‘ behavior alloed the incremental planner to stay "...in close contact with the needs and status of their students." (Clark and Yinger, 1979, p. 20). But according to the researchers, this type of planning had several disadvantages: first, the teachers had a limited sense of where their instruction was going; and second, when difficulties were encountered, they had few, if any, alternatives to fall back on. ‘ The teaching behavior of trose using the comprehensive plan was found to be more metrodical and plan oriented than student oriented; the comprehensive plan appeared to lead to a more rigid instructional environment. This finding is similar to the rigid behavior of teachers who planned that was reported by Zahorik (1970). An advantage of comprehensive planning became evident when prob- lems were encountered by the couprehensive planners during instruction: their plan served as a ready source of information to consult for help in solving the problems. Havung a comprehensive plan, however, did not guarantee successful solutions to problems. If the predictions ard expectations of the comprehensive plan were accurate, there was a strap likelihood the plans would be successfully implemented in the classroom; on the other hard, inaccurate predictions of student reac- tions tended to create frustrations for the teacher which made plan implementation more difficult. In a second study by Smith and Sendalbach, one teacher's plans were compared with her Science instruction. when developing her plan for in- struction, the teacher depended exclusively on the SCIS teacher's guide. The resultant plan contained many but not all of the activities and instructional activities recommended by SCIS. Some of the SCIS recom- mendations were not included in tte teacher's plan because she chose 23 not to follow them. Others were not folloed because she either lacked knowledge in the subject matter, had difficulty grasping complex con- cepts or had problems using the teachers' guide. Instruction resulting from planning of this sort was often poor; furthermore, the plan did not provide the teacher with enough information to help her change direct ion or generate alternatives when the lesson was going poorly. As a result, the teacher either stuck with her plan or dropped the lesson altogether. The studies reviewed in this section reveal that in general, once a teacher begins to teach a planned lesson, (s)he is reluctant to alter planned activities or strategies in response to instructional difficul- ties; instead, his/her pattern is to continue with what has been planned no matter tow well the lesson is going. This finding implies that time provided to planned activities is similar to planned time allocations. If true, this would lend support to Harnischfeger and Wiley's notion that a strong relationship exists between plan and classroom practice. Buut, none of the studies cited specifically addressed this issue. In tl'e present study, we sought to obtain more specific data on the exis— tence and nature of the relationship between planned time allocations and time actually provided for activities. Plannigg' Nbdels A number of models have been proposed for describing the instruc- tional planning process. The first, a model of curriculum planning proposed by Tyler (1950), contained for essential steps: (1) specify objectives; (2) select learning activities; (3) organize learning activities; and (4) specify evaluation procedures. His model was later elaborated by T'aba (1950) and Rapham and Baker (1970). Because of its rational and logical approach to the problem of planning, Tyler's model 24 gained widespread support from educators. Another model, the "integrated ends means model" (Zarorik, 1975) was proposed by McDonald (1965) ard Eisner (1967). They argued that teachers first make decisions about the type of learning activity they want their students to engage in; then in the context of the activity, objectives become articulated as students choose their own learning experiences and pursue their om objectives. Thus, the ends for learn- ing become integrated with the means for learning. lbsearch has shown that neither the rational/logical model nor the integrated ends means model accurately portray the process of instruc— tional planning. (Zahorik, 1970, 1975; Smith, 1977; Clark and Yinger, 1979; Taylor, 1970; Peterson, Marx and Clark, 1978; Morine, 1977, 1979; Smith and Serdelbach, 1975; Yinger, 1977). _ Smith (1977) developed a model of how teachers plan for instruction from responses of elementary teachers to a series of questionnaires and interviews. His model was designed to reflect the influence of three factors: (1) curriculum; (2) pupil cognitive characteristics; and (3) instructional settings. He argued that these factors-Smith called than constraints—guide ard shape teachers' decisions as they plan for instruction. Given these constraints, a teacher's first task according to the Smith model is to develop a weekly subject schedule which conforms to the weekly school schedule: the weekly scrool schedule is part of the temporal environment and lays out starting times of school in the morn- ing; how much time will be taken for announcements; when groups of students go to special classes such as recess, physical education, art, etc.; when lunch occurs; and when the school day ends. Smith observed 25 that a weekly school schedule generally occurred in a weekly pattern such that all Mordays are identical, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, etc. The process of formulating the weekly subject schedulelis described by Smith as follows: "(1) the basic goal is to establish a weekly pattern of subject time allocations; (2) the teacher makes rough determinations of how much time to devote to each subject; (3) the teacher fits these approximations into her weekly school schedule such that she does not have to cross over scheduled breaks and such that each subject appears almost every day." (Smith, 1977, p. 22.) For the most part, this first step of the model is not repeated again for the remainder of the school year. The schedule may, however, be subject to slight modification between semesters or major vacation breaks. [evelopment of the weekly subject schedule is seen by Smith as a major component of teacher planning ard is likely to remain intact for the school year; in fact, Smith believes it almost completely determines the amount of instructional time that is allocated to various subjects for the year. Clark and Elmore (1979) reported similar findings on the establishment and use of a weekly schedule. Smith argues that once the weekly subject schedule is determined, the next step in the model is for the teacher to make decisions relat- ing to activities and instructional processes. He sees teacher decisions in this part of the model focusing on activities to pursue within various content areas and the amount of time to allocate to the activities. Smith found that teachers very often consult curricular series for help in making these decisions. He believes, however, that teachers do not rely exclusively on recommendations made by the curricular series; rather they augment the recommendations to varying degrees with infor- mation gathered from other sources. Other researchers have reported 26 similar planning behavior. (Smith ard Sendelbach, 1979; Clark and Yinger, 1979.) The final step in Smith's model pertains to decisions teachers make regarding the organization of pupils into various groups for instruc- tion. The models of instructional planning discussed thus far have dealt primarily with decisions teachers make about content, activities, time, rather than with the actual process by which the decisions are made. The model of instructional planning developed by Yinger (1979) is unique because it emphasized the "...processes of discovery and design rather than the processes of choice." (Yinger, 1980, p. 114.) The Yinger model was developed as a result of his intensive study of the planning and classroom practice of one elementary scrool teacher. As Yinger's study progressed, it became clear to him that activi- ties and routines played an important role in the teacher's planning decisions and classroom practice. Fbr Yinger, activities were viewed as 1 ”...the basic structural units of planning ard action in the classroom. Nearly all classroom action and interac- tion occurred during activities; the remaining time was used for preparing for activities or making transitions between activities." (Yinger, 1980, p. 111.) Yinger used seven characteristics to define an activity: (1) loca- tion, (2) structure and sequence, (3) duration, (4) participants, (5) acceptable student behavior, (6) instructional moves, and (7) con- tent and materials. Thus, an activity in the Yinger study is specifi- cally defined whereas Smith's notion of activity is more generally defined in terms of the subject matter. lbutines established by the teacher were viewed by Yinger as 27 "...muechaniems that she used to establish and regulate activities and to simplify planning. Ibutines played a major role in the teacher's planning. She used them so often that her planning could be described as decision making about the selection, the organization ard the sequencing of routines." (Yinger, 1980, p. 111). These two features of the teacher's planning and classroom practice, i.e., activities and routines, figured heavily in the formation of Yinger's model. 'Ihree stages of decision making are represented in his model: (1) problem finding, (2) problem formulation-solution, and (3) imple— mentation, evaluation and routinization. During the first stage, the teacher deals with the problem of what to teach or as Yinger calls it, “the general teaching dilemma." The problem is probably different for each teacher because of what Yinger calls the unique influences of school and classroom environment and organization, curriculum, resour- ces and pupil characteristics. These influences are nearly identical to what Smith (1977) has called "teacher planning constraints" which he claimed were "...aspects of planning over which the teacher l'as little control.” (Smith, 1977, p. 21.) Yinger postulates that in the problem- finding stages, teachers use a process of discovery to become aware of instructional ideas they think will solve problems posed by the general teaching dilema. Yinger sees these initial ideas as planning problems which require further elaboration and exploration. The instructional ideas usually developed by the teacher in Yinger's study concerned activities. His study replicated previous research which found that teacher planning decisions most often focus on activi- ties (Taylor, 1970; Zatorik, 1975; Morine-Dershimer, 1979; Smith and Serdelbach, 1979). The primary process in the problem formulation and solution stage 28 is the design cycle. Through a process of design the initial idea is repeatedly elaborated and tested until a solution is found. 'Ihe solu- tion to the planning problem emerges as the problem passes through successive phases of elaboration, investigation and adaptation. Impleuentation and evaluation of the activity takes place during the third stage. In this stage, the teacher gathers information which helps him/her decide whether or not to return the activity to the design cycle for further elaboration and adaptation, reject the activity entire- ly as unworkable, or accept the activity as useful. If only slilght problems develop with an activity, the teacher makes modifications by going back to the design cycle until a feasible solution is reached; then, the revised activity is implemented once again in the classroom. If serious problems develop with an activity so it either cannot be re— designed, or redesign would seriously affect the nature of the activity, it is rejected altogether. Finally, activities which are successfully implemented undergo a process of routinization. Through this gocess, the activity becomes a part of the teacher's repetoire of knowledge ard experience, thus becoming available for use over and over in the classroom. Owe purpose of the Clark and Yinger (1979) planning study mentioned earlier was to replicate part of Yinger's case study; therefore, they analyzed data from that study in teams of Yinger's process model of planning. msults from this analysis showed that most of the teachers began their planning with a general idea ard then subjected the idea to successive phases of elaboration before implementing it in the class- room. Teacl'ers varied towever in the amount of planning,time spent in the different stages of the model. Some teachers, for instance, spent 29 a sl'ort time in the problem finding ard design stages and considerable more time in the impletentation/evaluation/routinization stage. Others spent considerable time in the problem finding stage ard less time in classroom tryout. Given these differences, the model proved to be a fairly accurate portrayal of their instructional planning process. The Yinger and Smith models appear to deal with different aspects of teacher planning ard thus slould be seen as complements to each other rather than alternative models for describing the same phenomena. Basically, the Smith model explores what teachers plan about (time, activities in content areas and instructional processes) and the sequence of planning decisions, while the Yinger model explains how activities (which for Yinger includes time, content ard instructional process) are selected ard made ready for use in the classroom. Activities, however, are the central focus of both models; this is appropriate in light of findings from other studies which have shown that teachers' planning decisions revolve mainly around activities in various content areas. kcause several studies have found that activities occupy a central position in teachers' thinking ard actions, we believe that it is agropriate to focus our attention on teachers' planned and actual time allocations to activities. Time Allocations ard Achievement Models Beginning with Coleuan, et al (1966) ard later with Mosteller ard Moynihan (1972) ard Jencks, et a1 (1972), a notion developed that scrooling had little effect on educational achievement. This belief has been quite popular among some researchers; but, in 1976 Wiley challenged this view. He based his challenge on the fact that the 30 assumption was derived from research which asked the wrong question, namely Does schooling have an effect? Wiley argued that educational research ought to begin with the assumption that schooling does have an effect on achievement: "It is clear that if a child does not go to school at all, he will not directly benefit from schooling. If a child goes to school every day for a full school year, he will achieve his maximum benefit from that schooling, other circumstances being equal. If he attends school less tran the full year but more than not at all, the benefits he derives from schooling should be intermediate.” (Wiley in Sewell, et a1 1976, p. 227.) Furthermore, Wiley argued, the length of the school day and year affect exposure to schooling and thus, the benefits a child could expect to derive from it. He concluded, ”...quantity of schooling...should be a major determinant of school outcoues." (Wiley, 1976, p. 227.) In an effort to build support for his assumptions, Wiley (Wiley in Sewell, et a1, 1976) analyzed data from the sixth grade sample of the BEDS. Analysis was focused by his model of schooling exposure and achieveuent. Outcoue measures were verbal ability, reading comprehen- sion and mathematics achieveuent. Results of a school-level regression analysis lead him to the following conclusion: "...in schools where students receive 24% more schooling, they will increase their average gain in reading comprehension by two thirds and their gains in matheuatics ard verbal skills by more than one third.” (Wiley and Harnischfeger, 1974, p. 9.) Wiley concluded that these results confirmed his assumption that the quantity of (schooling a child receives has an important effect on his achieveuent. Wiley felt, however, that his concept needed to be further developed so as to better detail the effect of time on learning. Carrol's (1963) model of school learning in which time played a primary 31 role served as the basis for this developuent. In the Carrol model, degree of learning is a fmction of time actually spent and time needed to learn. The equation is as follows: degree of learning = f time actually spent time needed Wiley and Hamischfeger (1974) analyzed this equation and determined that time actually spent is the product of three factors: total alloca- ted exposure time (w); percent active learning time (x); and percent usable exposure time (y) (Wiley and Earnischfeger, 1974, p. 11.) A pupil's achieveuent can then be specified by the following equation: achieveuent = f w . x . y total needed learning time Teacher planning ard classroom practice play a crucial role in determining what values the factors w, and y will take for students in a classroom. Tbtal allocated exposure time (w) is thought to be influenced by teachers preactive planning decisions (Smith, 1977), while percent of usable exposure time (y) is a function of teacher interactive decisions which in turn, appear to be influenced by teacher planning decisions. (Clark and Yinger, 1979; Morine-Dershimer, 1979; Morine Vallance, 1975; Peterson and Clark, 1978, Zahorik, 1970). A teacher's skill in managing the classroom coupled with student aptitude, his ability to understand instruction, his perseverence are all important determinants of the percent of active learning time (x) (Harnischfeger and Wiley, 1976). Following developrent of the achieverent model, Harnischfeger and Wiley designed a model of the teaching-learning process. A basic con- struct of this model is time. Their goal in designing the model was to 32 "...represent the teacher's activities as consequences of educational policies ard of the teacher's own reflection, and at the same time, represent the pupil's achievement as the consequences of his activity and experience." (Harnischfeger and Wiley, 1976, p. 6.) Harnischfeger and Wiley contend that their model focuses attention "...on what pupils learn in school (their achievement) and on how they learn what they learn..." i.e. conditions of sctool learning (Harnisch- feger ard Wiley, 1976, p. 11). Such a focus is critical they argue because "...the influences on pupil acquisition operate solely through the pursuits of pupils." By pursuits they mean "...what teachers and students do in the process of teaching and learning." (Harnischfeger ard Wiley, 1976, p. 11.) The teacher is seen as the "key person" in all pupil activities because (s)he "controls the design and execution of pupil pursuits.” (Harnischfeger and Wiley, 1976, p. 36.) The model specifies four categories of teacher activities basic to tie teaching-learning process: planning, implerentation, inducing and communication. Ebr Harnischfeger and Wiley, planning involves [react ive decision making about materials, content and time allocations, schedul- ing of activities, instructional strategies, grouping, ard supervision. Implementation implies conformity between plan ard actuality. They argue that teacher decisions made during the instructional day have an effect on the degree to which the plan comes to fruition in the class- room. Other factors believed by Harnischfeger ard Wiley to affect implementation are teachers' managerial skills and tow realistic the plan is in terms of pupil characteristics ard abilities and how accur- ately the teacher can predict time required for learning. Inducing has to do with the teacher's ability to motivate his/her students to learn; it influences the degree of student task involvement. macher ability 33 to communicate ideas and directions facilitates learning for those students who are attentive and involved in instructional activities. Pupil ability to understand and use his active learning time most efficiently is dependent on careful communication. The role of these four teacher activities in pupil learning is sumarized by Harnischfeger and Wiley in this way: “Carefully crafted teaching plans facilitate the intended learnings through a broad range of impleuentation; they allow the selected curricula, and no others, to be taught. Sound impleuentation further facilitates pupil achieveuent. Motivating and monitoring skills lead to greater learning, because pupils work harder and spend more time trying to learn. Well structured and clear communications raise learning grades when pupils are watching and listening. (Harnischfeger and Wiley, 1976, p. 23.) Together, these four teacher activities affect the mount of time pupils spend in active learning, which in turn affects their achieveuent. It is reasorable to assure that teachers' skills in these four areas are not the same. Assuming they are not, how then do teachers differ in these areas and what effect does a teacher's behavior in each of these four areas have on opportunity to learn? In the present study, the first two teacher behaviors specified by the Harnischfeger- Wiley teaching/learning model—planning and plan implerentaticn—were investigated to determine what effect they had on opportunity to learn. Smmuagy T\aachers devote a considerable amount of their time to planning. A principal outcome of a teacher's planning activity is a subject and time allocation schedule (planned time allocation schedule). It is often recorded in written form. The intended purpose of the planned time allocation schedule is to insure that when school is in session, the proper amount of time (for the most part determined by the 34 teacher) is allocated to all the various sctool activities; but, to what extent do teachers adhere to their planned time allocations? Harnisch- feger and Wiley have suggested there is a close relationship between low a teacher plans to use time and tow time is actually used. The findings from some research on planning and teacher decisions hint that they might be correct in their assumption (Smith, 1979; Smith ard Sendelbach, 1979; Peterson ard Clark, 1978; Morine-Vallance, 1975; Morine-Dershimer, 1979; Zahorik, 1970; Clark ard Yinger, 1979). These studies, however, investigated only a small segment of the teaching-learning situation (findings were based on fewer than ten lessons which were either pre— scribed or suggested by the researcher) ard none of them specifically addressed questions pertaining to the relationship between planned time allocations and actual time allocations. Lack of research on this aspect of teacher practice led us to design a study that sought to pro- vide answers to questions concerned with the relationship between planned time allocations and actual time allocations. These questions are as follows: (1) to what extent are teachers' planned time alloca- tions associated with their actual time allocations? (2) what is the nature of the relationship between planned time allocations and actual time allocations? (3) are planned time allocations of particular planned activities altered more often and/or to a greater extent than tie planned time allocations of other planned activities? (4) are all planned activities allocated time in the classroom? 'lhese ard similar questions were investigated in a natural setting over a fairly long period of time, thus minimizing any influence the study might have had on teacher decisions about time. The work of Carrol, Wiley, and Harnischfeger ard Wiley strongly 35 suggests the notion that quantity of schooling has an effect on a student's achievements. The effect can be summarized in this way: the greater the opportunity a student has to learn, the greater his/her achievement will be (Carroll, 1963; Wiley, 1976; Wiley and Harnisch- feger, 1974; Harnischfeger and Wiley, 1976). The research cited suggests that time decisions made by teachers play a significant role in determining opportunity; thus, teacher time decisions are an important area of teacher practice to study. 36 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHEES Introduction The purpose of this study was to investigate ard describe the relationship between teachers' planned and actual time allocations. Descriptive research does not have as its goal or aim a testing of hypotheses; instead, it is directed toward determining the nature of a situation as it exists at the time of the study. Knowledge of the teaching-learning situation generated from such a study can be of value to teachers and teacher educators. According to (bod and Power (1976) generalizations ". . .derived from classroom research ard theory have a different role from dose of the natural sciences. They fmction not as predictors of future. events but as guidelines for understarding particular situations and context. Thus, at best, generalizations about teaching derived from research act as guides to assessing tie likely consequences of alternative strategies in complex educational situations. Such generalizations must necessarily be indeterminant since they cannot predict precisely what will happen in a particular case. But this does not decrease their value for the teacher; ...” (Good and Power, 1976, p. 47.) Clark and Yinger (1980) argue that "it is important to examine and describe the behavior of experienced ard successful practitioners who have developed metrods ard strategies for functioning effectively in the teacher environment." (Clark ard Yinger, 1980, p. 4.) They believe that models based on understanding derived from such research will be more effective than trying to use models borrowed from other disciplines.- 37 The Study Overview This study was part of a larger study conducted by the Language Arts Project (LATIN) of the IRI' at Michigan State University. In general, the LATIM study had as its aim the investigation of the relationship between time and learning. Iata for the study being reported here were gathered in two ways: (1) through observations in eleuentary classrooms; and (2) through teachers' self-report of their teaching plans as recorded in their written plan book. Data collection occurred over a period of three months from the beginning of March through the first week of June. Gosewers in each classroom adopted the role of participant-as- observer, a role described by Wolcott as one "in which the observer is known to all and is present in the system as a scientific observer, participating by his presence but at the sme time usually allowed to do what observers do rather than expected to perform as others perform." (Wolcott, 1973). In this role observers attempted to be unobtrusive ard objective as they recorded instructional ard non-instructional activities of teacher and pupils. Gaservation and plan data were first of all coupared by use of descriptive statistics. This approach permitted us to sumuarize and describe (1) the allocation of time as reported in teachers' plans; (2) use of time in the classroom as reported by observers notes; ( 3) similarities and differences between plan and observation data; and (4) the extent of the association between the two sets of smple data. Secondly, regression analyses were used. 'Ihis technique permitted us to describe the nature of the relationship between teachers' planned 38 ard actual time allocations through the use of a regression model. Research Quest ions The basic research question for this study was: what is the rela- tionship between a teacher's planned time allocations ard his/her actual time allocations?l More specific questions relating to this basic question fall into two main categories. The first category includes questions about the general pattern of teachers' planned ard actual use of time. Specific questions in this category are summarized under two major questions: 1) what is the general pattern of teachers' planned time allocations? ard 2) What is the general pattern of teachers' actual time allocations? Questions which fall under the first major quest ion are: a. lbw much time do teachers allocate in their plans to activities in each of the content areas? b. Vuhat is the planned frequency of activities in each content area? c. How do teachers' planned time allocations vary within each content area? d. lbw much time do teachers leave unallocated in their plan? Questions which fall under the second major question are: a. How much time do teachers provide to activities in each of the content areas? b. what is the actual frequency of activities in each content area? 1 For the remairder of this paper, this relationship will be referred to as a "time decision pattern.” 39 c. I-bw do teachers' actual time allocations vary within each content area? (3. I-bw much time do teachers provide for mplanned activities? The second category includes questions about how teachers' planned ard actual time allocations compare with each other: a. What is the correlation between teachers' planned and actual time allocations? b. Are teachers' planned and actual time allocations linearly related? c. What model best describes teachers' time decision patterns? d. wa do models of teachers' time decision patterns deviate from the logical model? e. I-bw do models of teachers' time decision patterns deviate from the theoretical models of teachers' time decision patterns? f. How do teachers' actual time allocations deviate from the model which best describes their time decision pattern? Answers to these questions will increase our understanding of teachers' planning decisions regarding time and how their decisions relate to classroom use of time. are An overall goal of the selection process was to select a group«of eleuentary sctool teachers from different sctool settings which typified diversity with respect to such things asugender, experience, education and classroom organization. Additional critieria for selection included: (1) must currently teach in at least one of the grades between second and fifth; and (2) must practice effective classroom manageuent as judged by their peers and principal. Tb be selected, a teacher had 40 to satisfy both of these conditions. Through peer and administrator recomrendations, a group of teachers was identified which exeuplified the diversity which we desired and which met the grade level and classroom manageuent criteria. Out of this group of teacters, seven volunteered for payment to participate. Table 3.1 provides more specific information about each teacher who participated in the study. The seven teachers were from schools located in three different school districts around Iansing, Michigan. The number of students in each school district ranged from about 3,300 to about 4,700. The num- ber of full-time teachers in each district was such that the pupil/ teacher ratio was about the same for classrooms in all three districts. Additional information about each school district is contained in Table 3.2. Four types of classrooms were represented in the study: (1) three self-contained second grade classrooms; (2) one second-third grade combination classroom which was part of a four classroom multi-aged grouping situation team taught within an open classroom (only one of the teachers in this team participated in the study); (3) one fifth grade classroom partially self-contained with departmentalization in Matheratics, lbading ard Social Studies; and (4) two fourth-fifth grade combination classrooms team taught within an open classroom (both of the teachers in this team participated) .2 2Observational ard plan data collected from one of the teachers of the self-contained secod grade classroom was not included in aralyses. This decision was made because the observation and planned data could rot be coded according to the scheue developed for coding in this study. 41 32 42 sums $983 3.2 «@893 as am QN a a mN a N Ecuaucoouflwm gamma 85:8 5a: a: a N m a R a N aflcwanumamo vacancoouflwm axz 5435 «a m a z 3. m m ampere 85380.28 9.68m Habaumasooo as am N S a S a N 8538933 <2 856m fin: am N a 2 NM m N 58.. gamma 8:38 fax as am we a a S N H 3.2 Emma. mmmsmcfl are: 338 a: an m} o a mN a a ocwuuow Momma momma $.58 Agog moccauoaxm noocmo woe bozo—woe uofiuuma Econommau ouooooflu oumcomuouoog womud . memo» Hoooom muwsomme oceanofiowuumo co 38 cwnmoumoEmo H.m Enoch. Table 3.2 Description of Participating School Districts ' General Description Scrool Type of Number of Full Number of of Community Adult District District Time Teachers Students Population 1 Suburban 187 3270 Upper Middle Class 2 Suburban 274 4659 Upper Middle Class 3 Small town/ 220 4500 Middle Class Rural instruments Iata for analyses were collected by use of an observation instrument ard teacher daily written plans. Background information on each teacl'er—it did rot figure in analyses—was provided by a question- naire and an interview. 'Ihe observation instrument allowed the observers to compile struc- tured field rotes of classroom activities. Observers kept a running accomt of the day. Beginning and ending times of activities one- half minute or longer were recorded for each student and his/her teacher. Type and location of activity, groping for the activity, teacher strategies erployed, content and materials used were also recorded. when possible, copies of the actual assignments were included. A copy of an observation is shown in Appendix 3.1. Before the study actually began, observers tried out the observa— tion instrument in two different classrooms. This pilot process will be discussed in more detail later in the chapter. The second instrument used was teachers' self-report of their 43 instructional intentions as contained in their daily written lesson plans. Directions on what to include in the lesson plan were quite simple: teachers were instructed by the researchers to write dovn in their lesson plan book (or in a similar docurent) what they planned to do each day in the classroom as well as the time when each activity was supposed to occur. We euphasized that they should follow their normal practice when writing out their lesson plans no matter how detailed or sketchy the plans might be. These original written lesson plans were collected at the end of each week. In several cases teachers requested that we return the originals after making a photocopy of them. This was done. For the most part, written lesson plans contained information about starting and ending times for activities and/or content areas; soue in- formation pertaining to instructional grouping strategies, supervisory strategies and materials to be used was also included. host of the information on groups related to either whole groups or subgroups of students, e.g.,] mading groups. Very little information pertained to goals or objectives, instructional strategies or to individual students. Several days of one teacher's lesson plans are included in Appendix 3.2. written plans from teachers in this study appear to be similar to written plans produced by teachers in other studies (brine, 1977; Yinger, 1977; Clark and Yinger, 1979). The plans also are similar to the written plans of the many teachers we have observed during the sixteen years we have worked in the field of education. The questionnaire used to obtain suppleuentary data on each teacher requested the following information: 1. Educational background of the teacher; 44 2. Classroom information not easily discernible through observa- tions, i.e., goals, purposes, attitudes; 3. Factors that influence the teacher's choice of curriculum materials; 4. 1 Teacher interests ard degree of enjoyment in teaching certain content areas; 5. Teacher perceptions of student ability levels in Reading ard Language Arts; 6. Teacher perceptions of the importance of various content areas; 7. The degree to which various external factors affect curriculum ctoices. Procedure This study was desigred to occur in two phases, a pilot training phase and a data collection phase. In the pilot training ptase, obser- vation techniques were tried out with two teachers who volunteered to act as pilot teachers. Neither of these teachers participated in the subsequent study. Both pilot teachers taught in a middle elementary grade in one of the school districts eventually represented in the study. Pilot of Observation Temniques and Tiraining of Observers There were three purposes for the observation pilot: (1) determine the extent to which classroom observers recorded information consistent with the observation guidelines; (2) refine observation guidelines ard observer techniques; and (3) determine the level of inter-observer reliability. ' Dring March 1978, seven observers spent a total of two days observing in a pilot teacrer' s classroom. Pilot observations occurred 45 in one to three four segments. Two or three observers recorded notes on the same classroom activities during this time. Following each observation session, observers met with the project director and discussed the pilot observation. Based on the first pilot observation, observers expressed doubt that they recorded the kind of detailed information which the study required. After considerable dis- cussion on this matter, we concluded that their problems were the conse- quence of two temporary conditions. First, observers were unfamiliar with the sctool, teacher, students ard classroom procedures. 1e a result, their notes were sketchy ard lacked much pertinent information. Second, students were rot accustomed to having an observer in the class- room ard the observer's presence aroused considerable curiosity in the students. Student curiosity caused them to react in several different ways: some huddled in small groups and chatted about the observer and what he was doing; several periodically sauutered by the observer being careful to inspect his notes as they went by; bolder students openly questioned the observer about why (s)he was in the classroom; others just sat ard stared at the observer. No doubt soue students would have behaved in a siumilar fashion if the observer had not been present. But based on the pilot teacher's reflections, it was concluded that student behavior was so different that rormal flow of classroom activities was materially disrupted. These out-of-the-ordinary student behaviors coupled with the observers' problem of unfamiliarity adversely affected the kind and quality of tie information recorded by the observer. It was believed that over time, problems associated with student and observer unfamiliarity would gradu- ally disappear. After a day or two in the classroom, we reasoned, the 46 observer would become much more familiar with the classroom milieu and students would grow accustomed to the presence of the observer and begin to betave in a more characteristic way. Subsequent reports from the pilot teachers and observers indicated that our reasoning proved correct. Usually by the end of the second day, the problems created by mfamili- arity began to disappear. As a result of this experience, a set of procedures was developed for the observer (Appendix 3.3). Further, it was decided that a get- acquuainted period stould occur before any of the study's observations began. Each of the seven observers were required to visit his/her assigned classroom for a minimum of one sctool day prior to doing any formal observation. During this get acquainted period, observers were to move about the classroom ard briefly chat with students ard learn their names, becoue familiar with the materials used in the classroom, and try to get a hardle oi the various patterns ard procedures of class- room practice. (bservers were also instructed to take notes so students would begin to grow accustomed to the observer writing things down in a notebook. We strongly urged participating teachers to allow sore sort of question ard answer period with the observer ard students during these get acquainted periods. By the end of the two day pilot, observers were quite proficient at recording significant features of classroom activities required by the observer guidelines. The quality of their written observations as well as verbal reports from observers made it clear that no duanges were necessary in' the guidelines. Some observers felt that they needed to becoue better acquainted with the guidelines. Tb help them achieve this goal, a comprehensive 47 review session of all guidelines was corducted before the first observa- tion. At this session, all observers met together and discussed the guidelines in depth. 'Ihis experience served to solidify each observer's conceptions of tie guidelines. Inter-observer reliability regarding content ard time intervals recorded in tie observations proved to be fairly high. when reporting on‘ identical classroom activities, observers were in very close agreement on the main features of it, i.e., students involved, type of grouping, kind of content, substance of teachers' comments. With regard to beginning ard erding times of activities, some dis- crepancies were noted. It was expected that this would occur due to differences in the timekeeping devices, patterns of scanning the room, writing speed, etc. As a result of these differences, elapsed times reported by different observers of the same activity varied somewhat. For lengthy activities, the differences in elapsed time was less than two minutes. For activities of fairly slort duration, the differences were considerably less than me minute. This degree of error was deemed acceptable. We anticipated that as the observers gained more experi- ence, they would becoue even more accurate in their recording of begin- ’ ning ard erding times. The form that observers' written notes took becme fairly stard— ardized during the piloting process. Beginning ard ending times were noted along tre left side margin of the paper. Phrases were used to identify activities which took place in the classroom. Students first names along with student numbers were used interchangeably to identify students. Often, observers were able to capture teacher talk in fairly great detail . 48 Before data collection began, each observer met separately with tie teacher whom (s)he would observe. During this meeting, the observer was expected to gather information which might help him/her do a more accurate job of recording classroom activities. Of particular interest were: (1) list of student names; (2) daily time schedule ard schedule of‘events which occurred with regularity; (3) names of students in sub- groups of content areas such as Math and Reading; (4) description of activities which occur with great regularity within the classroom; and (5) materials used by the teacher. Also during this meeting, observers stressed to the teachers to plan and corduct their classroom activities as rearly normal as possi- ble. Guservers reminded the teachers to make their daily written lesson plans available to the researcher to keep or to copy. 'Ihis meeting was also intended to be of benefit to the teacher. It was a time when the teacher ard observer could becoue better acquainted, thus, helping to reduce any anxiety either might have in anticipation of classroom observations. At no time before or during observations were any of the teachers told that the study was seeking to learn about teacher planning, about how teacl'ers use plans in classrooms, or about how time was used in scrool. The study was billed as an effort to gather information which might help us better describe classroom teaching ard teaching practices. Data Collect ion Iata were collected over a period of three months from the begin- nin of March “through the first week in June. (hoe a week for twelve consecutive weeks, obmrvers collected teachers' daily written lesson plans from the previous week. 'Ihe seven observers made full-day 49 observations once a week for nine of the twelve weeks.3 Each day of the week was observed at least once. Handwritten observation notes were typed as soon as possible and then reviewed by the observer to make sure no errors in typing were made. At the beginning of the twelve week study, teachers were given the questionnaire. They were asked to complete it as soon as possible and to return it to the observer. In most cases, the questionnaire was completed well befbre the end of the study. The interview*with each teacher was conducted toward the end of May or the first week in JUne. During the interview, the interviewer took notes and also audio-recorded the complete interview. The audio- tapes were reviewed by the interviewer and any corrections made. Notes taken by the interviewer were written directly on the interview schedule. Data Reduction A.coding scheme and conventions were developed for coding obserb vations and plans. (Appendix 3.4) Toufacilitate analyses, seven categories of activities were de- veloped. Any activity specified in either the observed or planned day could then be coded in one of seven different ways. Each activity cate- gory was broadly named so that it could contain a number of activities which had a similar content focus. The seven categories and the activi- ties which fall into»each one are shown in Table 3.3. 31h soue cases, only eight observations were coupleted. 50 .3888 .E boomed ocfiob who woman acoucoo accompany acme :33 mean: hooum human» 33338 oomsocma 8« 35950 wmwabsommm 950w boom»: m3fi>flcm 83332.. 8339305 hoods gamma 2393.3 8383.50 83885 m8“ “.8358 £888er . uum ecu gone» 830385 muon=BC\mc..5§Ou macho 953.5 mars 33m muogmnoo headboard: gone... 8330980 A V.u.:03mc3=.oo ucmflm mucoucmm H accuse: 83338 moosfiuum moocoucom 1:08 “:08 895: goons moaning—58 ucwucoo \wcofiumcow Hobo Cu .830 cc Sermon: 8338ch rue; mayo:— mofluuco magma, macho menaamcm 05.3QO 8“ 539.00 uxou cow unocow mongoose meduo 8:33 madman—Ema $03an monsooo 33mm Howoom @5838 may no gamma woo mm: mecca on? 8nd canoe mmoomu 83385 8:38 58288 303303 on» 823 5 manhood 838.2..8 our cocoa ucgogme a Hocfiwado hugged mom on? Hobo acme-roamed roman m8“ pancake 00:38 838an gonna 3.2 becomes Ls o m v m N H mongoose 8m poms moeuomouou ucmuca m . m canon. 51 Training and Reliability of Coders Individuals who coded observations4 participated in an extensive training program in which actual observations were used. The first step in the training process involved an extensive review and discussion of the coding scheme and all coding conventions. After discussion of each major component of the conventions, coders received a partial observation on which to practice. After this partial observation was coded, all coders met together again and reviewed what they had done. Problems encomtered in coding ard discrepancies which occurred between coders were discussed in detail. This process was repeated several times mtil all coding conventions had been discussed ard practiced. Coders then received an observation of a full day and practiced coding it in its entirety. Once again, after coupleting it, coders met together ard discussed coding problems and discrepancies. Practice coding of entire observations continued several more tiumes. Eventually, all coders were coding an observation in substantially the same way. After actual coding of observations began, a program was instituted to determine intercoder reliability. Coders were divided into pairs and each pair was given the same observation to code. In all, four different observations were coded in this way. Analyses were done to determine the extent to which two different coders agreed when coding the same activity. We found that two different coders coding tie same observations agreed eighty to ninety percent of the time. Discrepancies which did occur were rot major. In gereral, coders agreed on the type of activity which occurred but occasionally {After all observations were coded, just me of the coders coded teachers' plans for each observed day. 52 disagreed on the exact starting or erding tiume of it. A system of checking was used to identify mechanical errors which cropped up in the coding process. A series of random checks was also made on each coded day to identify such things as numbers out of order on the code form, numbers of the wrong magnitude, times that might be out of sequence, or time segments in which activities were not listed. If too many errors were noted, then the entire day was checked for cod- ing accuracy. Cbservation data. Initially, all observational data were coded for each teacher and each of his/her students. Information that was coded consisted of the beginning and ending times of every activity which was thirty seconds or longer for each individual student and the content of the activity. As a result of this coding scheue, the activ- ity of each student and teachers was accounted for during every one-half minute of the entire sclool day. (See Appendix 3.5 for coding of one student's activities from observation shown in Apperdix 3.1) From this coded information, the data were aggregated so that a class activity could be coded for every minute of tie scrool day in each classroom. The same coding schere and conventions that were used to code individual student activities were used in this step of the data reduction process. This step became necessary because the size of the groups associa- ted with time and content allocations of the observation data differed from trose of the plan data. Typically, observation data identified the time individual students or suall groups of students spent on various activities. Buut, plan data identified the time the whole class would spend on various activities throughout the school day. 53 Occasionally, teachers allocated time in their plans to subgroups of students; but most often, all subgroups were expected to work on activi- ties in the same content areas. Even in this case then, a teacher's planned time allocations were associated with the whole class. Occasionally, a teacher's planned time allocations were to sub- groups of students, each of which were to work on activities in differ- ent content areas. In this case, the class was coded as working on a combination activity. (Combination activities will be explained below.) Therefore, in order to compare a teacher's actual observed time allocations with his/her planned time allocations, the actual activi- ties of his/her whole class needed to be identified. This was done by aggregating the observed activities of individual. students in each class to a class activity. We defined a class activity as one in which at least eighty percent of the students in a classroom were working on the same activity. For example, if twenty-five out of thirty students in a class were working on a Reading assigment during soue time segment, e.g., 9:30-10:15, tlen that time segment would be coded as a class activity in Reading. If less than eighty percent of the students in a class were working on the same activity during sore time segment, then that time segment would be coded as a combination class activity in a content area suuch as Reading-Math or language Arts-Reading—Math. Combination class activi- ties did rot occur too often, however. A list of ttose which did occur is given in Appendix 3.6.. 'lhe aggregation of observed activities of individual students in a class to class activities is illustrated by the following exmple in Figure 3.1. It depicts a hypothetical morning observation. The 54 observation contains individual, subgroupuand whole-group activities. This example is typical of the observation data collected in this study. Beginning Time Activity 9:15 Transition :20 Opening exercises 9:30 All students begin Reading exercises 9:32 Students 1-10 in Reading group, other students (ll-28) working exercises in their Reading workbook 9:55 Student 12 goes to the office 9:58 Student 12 returns and resumes work in Reading workbook 9:59 Students 11-28 now in Reading group and students 1-10 working in their Reading workbook 10:15 Student 15 doing a Math ditto 10:20 Student 18 writing a letter to Pen Pal 10:22 All but students 15 and 18 reading in Reading text 10:25 Class prepares to go out to play 10:30 Recess 10:55 Class gets materials out for Math class 10:59 All math groups doing Math dittos 11:25 Students 1-10 in library tO‘work on readers guide Students 11-28 are watching a Science film 12:00 Class goes to lunch Figure 3.1 Hypothetical Observation Clearly, the activities which occurred at 9:15, 9:20, 9:30, 10:25, 10:30, 10:55, and 10:59 were whole group activities. Thus, each of these time segments would be coded as a class activity. During the time period from 9:30-10:25, all but three of the stu- dents (12, 15, and 18) were working on Reading activities. Therefore, this time segment would also be coded as a class activity (twentybfive out of twentyheight students were working on Reading activities). From 11': 25-12: 00 noon, one group of ten students was in the library, while another group containing eighteen students was.doing a Science activity. Since less than eighty percent of the students were working 55 on the same activity, this time segment would be coded as a canbination class activity in Language Arts/Science. The result of aggregating individual and subgroup student activity of the hypothetical observation to class activities is shown in Figure 3.2. Beginning Tine Class Activity Elapsed Tine (Minutes) 1 9:15 Transition 5 2 9:20 Break 10 3 9:30 Reading 55 4 10:25 Transition 5 5 10:30 Break 25 6 10:55 Transition 4 7 10:59 Math 26 8 11:25 Language Arts/Science 35 (examination) 9 12:00 Break - Figure 3.2 Class Activities Fran Hypothetical Observation. Not every observation was aggregated as simply as was this example: but, each observation could be coded for class activities with only a minimal loss of information and with very little reliance on combination activities. Plan data. Daily lesson plans were coded in a similar fashion. (See Appendix 3.7 for coding of one teacher's planned time alloca- tions for one day.) Ibwever, the plans normally did not contain information about individual pupil activities as did the obser- vations. Most often plan data provided only subgroup and whole group designations. So, instead of coding the plans at the individual student level first, they were first coded at the subgroup level. Finally, coded subgroup information was aggregated so that a class 56 activity could be identified for every minute of the school day. Like the observation data, beginning and elapsed times were coded for each class activity. Almost without exception, coding and aggregation of data were can- pleted at the same time. This was possible because class activities were quite easy to identify in the plans. Figure 3.3 provides an illus- tration; it is typical of the plans submitted by teachers in this study. The hypothetical plan covers the same day as the hypothetical observa- tion shown in Figure 3.1. Many of the planning statements shown in Figure 3.3 are, for all practical purposes, stated as class activities. Other planning state- ments concerned activities of subgroups which can easily be aggregated into class activities since each time subgroups are indicated, it is intended that each group work in the same content area. The way in which the hypothetical plan would be coded for class activities appears in Figure 3.4. Analyses Unit of Analysis Each observed and planned day was divided into parts we called intervals. Intervals in plans were called planned intervals, while those in observations were called observed intervals. An interval contains two pieces of information, a name and a nunerical value. The class activity serves to name each planned and observed interval. The value of an interval is the elapsed time of the class activity. For a planned interval, elapsed time is the length of time in minutes allocated to a class activity. The value of an observed interval is the length of time in minutes a class activity actually lasts. 57 Beginning Time Activities 9:15 waning exercises 9:20 Reading-- Group 1 discuss pp. 201-210 Group 1, 2, 3 do workbook pp. 15-18 when not in reading circle 9:45 Group 2 discuss workbook pp. 10-15 10:10 Group 3 discuss vocabulary words for new story 10:20 Recess 10:40 Read to class from C_i_r_£u§ book 11:00 Math-- Group A dc p. 184 set 1 and 2 Group B do p. 38, problems 2, 8, 10, 12, 18 11:30 Science film and library 12:00 Lunch Figure 3.3 Hypothetical Plan Beginning Time Class Activity Elapsed Time 9:15 Break 5 9: 20 kading 60 10:20 Break 20 10:40 Ihading 20 11:00 Math 30 11:30 Science/Language Arts 30 (canbinaticn) 12:00 Break — Figure 3.4 Class Activities Fran Hypothetical Plan 58 Elapsed time, whether for planned or observed intervals, was found by subtracting the starting time of each class activity fran the start- ing time of the class activity immediately following it. For example, in Figure 3.4, E15 started at 9:15. The class activity immediately following Break was Reading; its starting time was 9:20. Thus, the elapsed time for _B_r_e_a_k was 5 minutes (9:20 - 9:15 = 5). Elapsed time for planned intervals was called a teacher's planned time allocation and for observed intervals, elapsed time was called a teacher's actual time allocation. The relationship between a teacher's planned use of available school time and how (s)he actually used it was investigated by comparing his/her planned intervals with his/her observed intervals. Method of Comparing Planned and Cbserved Intervals Comparisons were made through the use of matched intervals. A matched interval was defined as an interval which contained the name and value of just one observed and one planned interval. Planned and observed interval names were the primary ccnsiderat ion in the develop- ment of matched intervals. The first step in the formation of matched intervals was to sequen- tially nunber each observed interval. The first observed interval to occur in the school day was assigned the number 1, the second to occur the nunber 2, the third, nunber 3, etc. This nunbering system was not a factor considered in analyses: it was used only to make the process of forming matched intervals less confusing. An example of the way observed intervals were nunbered is shown in Figure 3.2. The observed interval which begins at 9:15 was assigned the nunber l. The next observed interval to occur was Real: at 9:20; 59 it was assigned the nunber 2. In all, there are nine observed intervals shown in Figure 3.2. mxt, we matched the first observed interval of an observed day with a planned interval of the sane observed day which had the sane nane and a similar value.5 Thus, we assuned that an observed interval was planned if a planned interval of the sane name and similar value existed in the teacher's plan. The time in the school day when a planned interval was intended to occur was not considered in the forma- tion of matched intervals, even if the beginning time of the observed interval differed considerably fron that of the planned interval. Nor- mally, however, the beginning time of each observed interval was similar to the beginning time of its matching planned interval. If there was no planned interval of the sane name to match with an observed interval, then the observed interval was matched with a planned interval we called ”unplanned.” The mplanned interval did not have a beginning or ending time, thus its elapsed time was set at zero. This matching process continued until all observed intervals in each observed day were matched with a planned or mplanned interval fran the teacher's plan for the observed day. Often after each observed interval of the school day was matched with a planned or mplanned interval, there were sane planned intervals which did not have matching observed intervals. 'mis situation existed because teachers did not always provide time during the school day for Simen two (or sanetimes three) observed intervals of the sane nane were separated by a short break that was initiated by factor(s) outside the classroom, then the two (or more) observed intervals were treated as one interval. Its value was the sun of the observed inter- vals separated by such breaks. The elapsed time of the intervening break(s) were then added on to the elapsed time of the next observed break which occurred. 60 every class activity which they had planned. In these cases, the planned intervals were matched with an observed interval we called ”unobserved." Since the planned class activity of these planned inter- vals did not occur, there was no observed beginning or ending time for it. The elapsed time of the unobserved interval then was set at zero. ‘ There were three types of matched intervals then which were used for analyses: the observed-planned interval; the observed-unplanned inter- val: and the unobserved-planned interval. Each matched pair represented a single case for the purposes of analyses. In all, there were 1,101 matched intervals (cases). An example of how observed and planned intervals were used to form matched intervals is depicted in Figure 3.5. In this example, the hypo— thetical observed (Figure 3.2) and planned intervals (Figure 3.4) were used. As can be seen from Figure 3.5, there were no planned intervals of the sane name for observed intervals one, four and six. These observ- ed intervals then were matched with the unplanned interval. All of the other observed intervals, however, could be matched with a planned interval of the same name. After all observed intervals were matched with.a planned interval, there was one planned interval (Reading at 10:40) which remained un- matched with an observed interval: thus, it was matched with the unobserved interval. The matching process involving the hypothetical observed and planned interVals yielded nine matched intervals. Each of these nine intervals would be considered a single case for analyses. During analyses, the value (actual time allocation) of the 61 86:: mascara smegma can 8388 303858»: m . m 8%: oH xmmum ooxms In xmmum ooums nu oo o mocmoom\momoocmo omuas om mocmoom\uomoocmo omuas mm oo o com: oouso on gum: oousa om oo o cascades: nun o coouamcmhe mmuos m oo o ocoommm oouos om owoummaogo nun o m xmmum omuos om xmwum omuoo mm mo o venomous: nu. o coousmcmna manofl m so m ocoommm omxo oo massage omuo mm mo m amass mono ms xmmum omuo oH mo H owccmddco nun o economcmha msuo m Ho Hm>uwocH cocoon: soooooua mmmHo mesa mcooumom moam> soo>ooua mmMHu more mcouumum wo~m> umnsoz aasmmezH .«r swam wademm oesmmszH .m. SEEmmd 296m 62 observed (or unobserved) interval in each matched interval was com- pared with the value (planned time allocation) of the planned (or unplanned) interval of the same matched interval. For exanple, in the second matched interval in Figure 3.5, the actual time allocation for §r_ea_k would be compared with the planned time allocation of Break which was planned to begin at 9:15. For this one case, descriptive statistics would reveal a difference of five minutes between them. Statistical Tachniques Matched intervals were subjected to two levels of analyses. In the first level, descriptive statistics were used to describe and sumarize the values (scores) of planned, observed, unplanned, unobserved intervals and compute differences between them for different class activities. Three statistical techniques were employed: (1) measures of central tendency: (2) measures of variability: and (3) correlation. The measure of typical value was the mean. In the second level, regression analyses were performed on the matched intervals. The value of the planned interval was the indepen- dent variable and the value of the observed interval was the dependent variable. kgression analysis allowed us to model the relationship between a teacher‘s planned time allocations (the independent variable) and his/her actual time allocations (the dependent variable). For this analysis, the linear regression equation (Y a: ho + blx) was used. Tb determine the nature of the relationship, we focused our attention on b the slope of the regression line. If regression 1! analysis showed that bl # 0, then the relationship between a teacher's planned and observed time allocations was modeled as a linear rela- tionship, at least as an approximation. 63 In general, the regression coefficient bl provided insight into a teacher's planned use of time in the classroom while the regression coefficient bO provided insight into a teacher's unplanned use of time in the classroom. bbdels developed as a result of regression analysis were then visually compared first of all to the logical model and then to the theoretical models.6 Summary The purpose of this study was to describe the relationship between teachers' planned time allocations and their actual time allocations. mta for the study were gathered from seven elementary classroom teachers through observation in their classrooms and review of their written plans. At least eight full-day observations were conducted in each of the seven classrooms. The data were coded according to a coding scheme developed for this study. Coded data were analyzed through the use of descriptive statistical techniques as well as regression analysis. The linear regression equation (Y = bo + blx) was used. The relationship between each teacher's planned and actual time allocations was thus modeled using the results of regression analyses. Regression models were then visually compared with the lOgical and theoretical models. In the next chapter, theoretical models of teacher time decision patterns are discussed. 6Logical and theoretical models will be discussed in Chapter 4. ‘ 64 CHAPTER 4 'IHEDREI‘ICAL PDDEIS OF TEACHER TIME DECISIm PATTERNS Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to examine the relationship between the independent variable planned time allocations (x) and the dependent variable actual time allocations (y). For this study, we assure a linear relationship between the two variables x and y. In other words, we believe a teacher's time decision pattern is linear. This assumption seems reasonable for several reasons. First, prior research suggests that teachers most often employ the instructional, grouping strategies and materials they have stated in their plans (Peterson and Clark, 1978; Morine and Vallance, 1975; Zahorik, 1970). This finding leads us to assure that teachers will also closely adhere to planned time allocations as stated in their written plans. Second, most relationships in the social sciences can be approximated reasonably well with straight lines (Blalock, 1960) and we presume the association between planned time allocations and actual time allocations is no exception. Finally, there is no theoretical model describing the relationship between planned and actual time allocatims; in the absence of such a model, we used a linear model as a first approximation. Assuming that a linear relationship does exist, the next question of interest becomes, what is the nature of the relationship? The first step in the investigation of this question was to determine possible theOretical models between variables x and y. The statistical model we used is the simple linear regression model of y on x, and is given as follows: 65 Y1 = 30 + 81X + 5i [i = l, 2, ..., n) where 1 Y is the predicted (actual) time allocation in the ith observation X. is the planned time allocation in the ith observation 80 is a population parameter, the intercept of the regression line 81 is a population parameter, the slope of the regression line a. are uncorrelated error random variables with mean 0 and unknown variance In many theoretical models, we would not make an allowance for error; but because we believe the planning process to be stochastic and not constant over time for a teacher, we include the error term. we believe theoretical linear relationships specified by this mathematical model will provide the basis for understanding actual relationships described in Chapter 6. The nature of each theoretical linear relationship can be under- stood by examining the regression coefficients, Bo and 81, and the regression line which graphically depicts it. For this study, 81, the slope of the regression line, is defined as the average change in actual time allocation Y for a one-unit change in planned time alloca- tion X; it provides a measure of how closely actual time allocations parallel planned time allocations. If no parallel exists, then 81 = 0. On the other hand, if 81 t 0, then we presume a linear relationship exists. The intercept, 30 is the point where the regression line inter- cepts the Y'axis: it provides information about a teacher's unplanned use of time._ Table 4.1 displays all possible combinations of regression coef- ficients for the linear model. We believe each combination reflects 66 a unique theoretical model that may be able to represent a teacher's time decision pattern. In the next section, we will discuss the general time decision pattern suggested by the slope and intercept of each model. Theoretical Models TWO different kinds of theoretical models are shown in the Table. One kind suggests teacher time decision patterns which are not likely to be followed by teachers; we believe then that these models are not representative of reality. Models of this kind are identified in Table 4.1 by Baron numerals. The other kind of model may reflect time decision patterns of practicing teachers. Nbdels of this kind are identified in Table 4.1 by Arabic numerals. Theoretical Models Not Representative of Reality A theoretical model was judged to be not representative of reality if it suggested one or more of the following situations: (1) its regression line predicts most dependent variables to be 0; (2) its regression line predicts at least me dependent variable to be less than zero; or (3) its regression line suggests a totally irrational decision making pattern for allocation and use of time. Models which predict most values of y to be 0 or any value of y to be negative. The dependent variable y used in this study was a continu- ous time variable; it was the time in minutes during which an activity (whether planned or unplanned) was observed. In this study, the value of the dependent variable y was determined by counting the number of minutes which elapsed between the starting time of an observed activity 67 Table 4.1 Possible Theoretical Linear Models of Teacher Time Decision Patterns 0 (0 =0 >0 )1 I l 2 =1 II 3 4 Bl >0<1 III S 6 =0 IV VI VIII (0 J VII IX 68 and its ending time. Thus, if an activity occurred, i.e., had a starting and ending time, its time y was positive since time progresses in only one direction, forward or a positive direction. The greater the differ- ence between the starting and ending time of an activity then, the greater the positive value of y was. Because either planned or unplanned activities will occur when school is in session, the value of most or all y's would be positive. It is possible, however, that in some cases the value of y would be 0. This situation would happen mly if a planned activity x did not occur, i.e., it did not have a starting time. We don't believe, however, that it is possible for most or all y's to be zero since this would indicate that few or no planned activities occurred. Such a practice seems highly unlikely because it suggests that a teacher either did not plan or that (s)he did not provide time for any of his/her planned activities. There are no natural classroom situations for which a negative value can be computed for y, i.e., a negative y intercept: such a value implies negative time which is logically non-existent. Thus, for a theoretical model to be representative of a teacher's typical time decision pattern over a fully day or multiple days, it must predict all values of y to be positive; it may predict sore values of y to be zero, but none to be less than zero. Theoretical Pbdels I-VII do rot conform to these standards. In Figure 4.1, regression lines suggested by these models are shown. These regression lines make it clear that all the models except bbdel VI predict negative values of y. The regression line for Model VI indicates that all values of y are zero. As previously stated, a negative value of y is logically now-existent and further, it is highly 69 unlikely that all values of y would be zero. We conclude, therefore, that Models I-VII cannot represent the typical time decision patterns of a practicing teacher. If we assure, however, that the relationship between x and y is not linear in the extremes, but exhibits an asymptote, then altering the curves of Models I, II, and III asymptotically creates theoreti- cal models which may reasonably represent an actual relationship between x and y since they do not suggest zero or negative values for y. Theoretical regression lines for asymptotic models of Dbdels I, II, and III are shown in Figure 4.2. We labeled these asymptotic models 2A, 4A and 6A because they are, in many ways, similar to Models 2, 4 and 6. Asymptotic relationships are represented by a straight line which bends in toward the origin as it approaches the x-axis. The line will never intersect the x-axis nor will it pass through the origin; instead, the regression line of an asymptotic relationship will inter- sect y-axis at a point greater than zero. The nature of the relation- ships suggested by Models 2A, 4A and 6A will be discussed later in this chapter. Nbdels which imply irrational time decision behavior. (he would expect a teacher's actual time allocatims to be at the very least minimally guided by his/her planned time allocation. It is not logical that (s)he would invest time and effort in a plan and then consistently allocate time in the classroom in a way that did not resemble in any way what (s)he had planned. Of course, events in the classroom prob- ably necessitate sone alterations in a teacher's planned time alloca- tions from time to time, so (s)he may not always follow his/her plan 70 HH> I H maoooz emceuouoose moauaumeeom moceq scammwnomm H.¢ apnoea 5382:. me: 3300 u > more 3032 ac dc: Summon—ooh A lllllll 8383: go rcccoao u x Exotx :0 on: c2383.» :> Moon; S aotflz. > Avenue 71 am pan 5. :fi memos: 033953 Hogan—cope misuse-Em mocfl cofimmoumflm NJ. apnoea c0382? 25 $38 a s 3er H882 no we: Ssmmoumou A. c ......cu... c0383? 9:3 8:53 u x am Hood: 5. Hope: «a Hoooz 72 exactly. But in general, a teacher's use of time in the classroom ought to be similar to his/her planned use of time. Any theoretical model then which suggests a time decision pattern which does not con- form to this rational approach is not considered to be representative of time decision patterns of practicing teachers. Theoretical Models VIII and IX suggest irrational time decision patterns. Regression lines suggested by these theoretical models are graphically displayed in Figure 4.3. The regression line of Dbdel VIII suggests that actual time allocations differ widely and unsystematically from planned time allocations: the planned length of sore activities is short but their actual length is very long and vice versa while the planned and actual length of other activities are quite similar. In other words, bodel VIII indicates a time decision pattern in which the time provided for classroom activities apparently has nothing to do with how much time was allocated to them in the plan. Differences between a teacher's planned and actual time allocations are to be expected; it is highly unlikely though that a teacher's planned and actual time allocations would differ in such an unsystematic manner. For this reason, we do not believe Model VIII is representative of time decision patterns of practicing teachers ; in fact, if a teacher is not systematic in the allocation of time in the classroom, (s)he probably would rot plan rather than plan and then act randomly in the allocation of time in the classroom. The time decision pattern which we infer from the regression line suggested by bodel IX is equally unreasonable. Model H suggests that a teacher consistently provides the most time for activities with the sl'ortest planned time allocations and the least time to activities with 73 5 one :5 maooo: Hmofluouoofi. gauaugm mocfl scammmuomm coaumoozo we: Hmouom u a c0383? o5» owccmao ll >< XH Hmong m .o 95o: 3er HmofimoH mo meg cofimmouowu Allwllllul. HHH> Hmong 74 the longest planned time allocations; this would be a complete reversal of his/her planned time priorities. Such a time decision pattern seems totally unreasonable ; therefore, we believe Model IX does not represent the time decision pattern of practicing teachers. Theoretical Nbdels mich Represent Reality We believe that a teacher's typical time decision pattern may be represented by one of the models which are numbered 1-6 in Table 4.1. Model 3 represents a time decision pattern of the teacher who does not systematically modify his/her planned time allocations; instead, the amount of time (s)he provides for planned activities is on the average exactly as (s)he had planned. Deviations from the plan may occur, but the deviations would vary randomly. Such a time decision pattern is defined as the logical Model. when a teacher does not follow his/her time allocations perfectly on the average, then his/her time decision pattern will be different from the logical time decision pattern. We believe that Nbdels l, 2, 2A, 4, 4A, 5, 6, and 6A are tie only models which may represent time decision patterns which occur as a consequence of a teacher departing in a ron-random or systematic fashion from what (s)he had planned. Of these nine models, six of them appear to be appropriate for representing a teacher's typical time decision pattern over a full day or multiple days: the other models may only represent a teacher's typical time decision pattern over a part of a day or days. In order for a model to represent a teacher's time decision pattern were full day or multiple days, it must show that either -ey = ex or that ey > ex. The term ex is defined as the total amount of time a teacher allocates (planned time allocations) to planned 75 activities for the day; it can never be greater, but it could be less than the available school time. The term ey is defined as the total amount of time a teacher actually provides (actual time allocations) for activities. Since the total available school time was considered for each day observed in the present study, ey must always equal all the available school time if a model is to be representative of actual practice. Therefore, any model which shows that sy = ex is assumed to represent the time decision pattern of a teacher who allocates all of the available school time. If a teacher allocates less than the available school time, then the model which represents his/her time decision pattern shows that ey > ex; ey equals all the available school time while ex is less than the available scrool time. A model that shows that ey < ex indicates that a teacher pro- vides less time than what (s)he had allocated in his/her plans. It is reasonable to assure that the most time a teacher would allocate in his/her plans would be the available school time. Given this assump- tion then, a model that shows the time actually provided to be less than the planned time does not account for all of tie available school time. Therefore, such a model cannot represent a teacher's time decision pattern over a full day or days. 0 A teacher may, however, provide less time than (s)he had planned to sore planned activity (assuming of course that the activity was not planned to last the full day). In this case then, a model which showed ey < ex could represent his/her time decision pattern over the part of the day during which the activity occurred. bbne of the time decisim patterns indicated by theoretical '76 mdels 1-6, 2A, 4A and 6A is thought to reflect random or unsystematic time decisions by a teacher to depart from his/her plans. Instead, each model is thought to represent a systatatic time decision pattern by which a teacher typically modifies his/her planned time allocations. We call this practice plan modification. Plan modification occurs after a teacher's written plans have been corpleted. Plan modification is defined as a teacher practice in which (s)he alters the length of planned time allocations. As a result of this practice, planned activities which do occur will last either a longer or shorter length of time than planned. Sometimes though, plan modification results in unplanned activities occurring (planned time allocations increased from zero) or planned activities being elimina- ted (planned time allocations decreased to zero). We believe there are three basic plan modification patterns. These patterns are: (l) proportional modification; (2) constant modi- fication: and (3) constant/proportional modification. Each theoreti- cal model (Models 1, 2, 2A, 3, 4, 4A, 5, 6 and 6A) represents a time decision pattern which occurs when a teacher modifies his/her planted time allocations in a variation of one of these three ways. bch time decision pattern characterizes typical behavior for the teacher who practices it. In the following sections of this chapter, we will discuss these theoretical models. First we will discuss the time decision pattern represented by Dbdel 3, the Logical Model. Then we will discuss each of the other theoretical models. 'Ihe discussion will be organized as follows: first Proportio'al Models will be discussed, then Constant Models, then finally, Oonstant/Prcportioal Models. As part of our 77 discussion, we will illustrate the models with a regression line which best typifies each one. when discussing each, we assure that a teacher allocates most but not all of the available school time to planned activities. This assurption is supported by the data we will present in the next chap- ter which shows that teachers in this study left a part of the available school time urallocated in their plans. Logical Model. 'Ihe Logical Model represents a time decision pattern in which the available school time is used on the average exactly as planned. The regression line for this model is shown in Figure 4.4. Flamed time allocations in the Logical Model are not systematically modified: they may, however, be modifed randomly. Since modifications are thought to be random, we assure trey would cancel each other out, thus resulting in the regression values of Dbdel 3. This phenoreron can be demonstrated by an exarple. we will use Figure 4.4 to illustrate it. For this exarple, line (A) represents the regression line of the Logical Model. Broken lines (B) and (C) indi- cate average lengths of activities after their planned time allocations were randomly modified. As can be seen, activities indicated by line (B) ended up being longer on the average than planned, while activities indicated by line (C) ended up being shorter on the average than plan- ned. But, taken together or averaged out, these modifications can- celled each other out resulting in the Model 3 relationship represented by regression line (A). If the modifications are not random, then they will not cancel each other out. Thus planned time allocations will on the average be larger or shorter than planned. when non-random modifications occur, 78 HWCHOD’ (Dar-hr? ‘ > logical model v 136- a q 1 1 0102‘ C a t I i O n68-1 3h ‘ fi 4 A'J:::4s:> 3h 68 102 136 x planned time allocation Figure 4 . 4 Regression Line Sumarizing Theoretical Model 3 - Logical Model 79 a relationship other than the logical one will result. A teacher whose planned time allocations are on the average the same as his/her actual time allocations is an accurate planner; (s)he accurately predicts how time will be used in the classroom. while it may be possible for a teacher to be an accurate planner, in practice it; seems highly unlikely. Classroom events are too unpredictable. Further, it would seem that teacher characteristics, the corplexity of school, the classroom milieu and the diversity of students would create many occasions for systematic plan modifications. For these reasons, we believe Model 3 is not likely to reflect a practicing teacher's typical time decision pattern, although it could, especially given random modifications. We believe that it is more likely, however, that Theoretical Models 1, 2, 2A, 4, 4A, 5, 6 and 6A represent practicing teachers' typical time decision patterns since these models reflect systematic teacher behavior. The systematic nature of these models does not preclude random deviations from a teacher's typical time decision pattern. In fact, random deviations are anticipated because the planning model is sto— chistic: but, over a day and over multiple days, we expect a teacher's time decision pattern to be similar to one of the patterns repre- sented by these eight models. Time decision patterns represented by these models and the plan modification patterns thought responsible for each of them will be discussed below. Proportional models. The primary teacher behavior suggested by proportional models is the systematic modification of planned time allocations by sore percentage or proportion. A characteristic feature 80 of proportional modification then, is that planned activities with shorter time allocations are modified to a lesser extent than planned activities with longer time allocations. The fbllowing example illus- trates this characteristic of proportional models. Suppose a teacher systematically increases his/her planned time allocation by ten percent. Activities planned to last twenty'minutes then may actually last on the average twentybtwo minutes while activities planned to last fifty minutes may actually last on the average fifty-five minutes. In this example of plan modification, the lengths of the shorter activities are typically increased two minutes while the lengths of the longer activities are increased five minutes. A similar phenorenon would occur if a teacher systematically decreased his/her planned time allocations proportionally. In the proportional time decision pattern, time is rot provided for unplanned activities. It is possible, however, in the proportional time decision pattern for planned activities to be eliminated. SUpport for these assumptions will be presented in discussions of the specific models. In prOportional plan modification, it seems that planned time allocations only need to be fine-tuned rather than modified extene sively, a teacher behavior similar to that of the ”comprehensive planner" reported by Clark and Yinger (1979). There are two models which represent proportional modification. One is the Proportional Increase Model and the other is the Proportion- al Decrease Model. The time decision patterns represented by these models are discussed below. (he model resulting from the proportioral plan modification is Model 1: we call it the Proportional Increase Model. The regression 81 line for it is shown in Figure 4.5. The Proportional Increase Model represents the time decision pattern of the teacher who proportionally increases planned time alloca- tions. we would not expect teachers who modify their planned time allocations in this way to provide time for unplanned activities: to do so would limit the amount of time available to increase the lengths of planned time allocations. Further, the use of unplanned activities would increase the value of Boabove zero. Since so is zero in this model, unplanned activities could not occur. The practice of providing more time for activities than was planned indicates that the teacher who uses the proportional increase time decision pattern mderestimates in the planning stage how much time activities really need. A teacher who plans in this way is an "under- estimator planner" or simply an underplanner. Lhderplanning creates a time problem for the teacher: (s)he must sorehcw obtain time to increase the lengths of actvities beyond what had been planned and yet stay within the time constraints of the school day. The only way a teacher can resolve this dilemma is to anticipate the need for additional time and plan accordingly. With this method, the underplanner will leave sore of the available school time unallo- cated in his/her plan. (S)he then parcels the mallocated time out in varying arounts to planned activities which (s)he decides need more time. Clark and Yinger's (1979) "incremental planner” may be an exam- ple of a teacher who practices this time decision behavior. It would seerm that the underplanner could obtain extra time by decreasing the planned time allocations of sore planned activities. This strategy, hoever, would result in a decrease in the value of B 1 82 ------- > logical model 136-: a ca t1 " ul ao a t ti " 10 mn e 68‘ i 31“ mi 0 (4 a : sass 4 Jr 0 3’4 68 102 136 planned time allocation V Figure 4 . 5 Regressior Line Summarizing Theoretical Model 1 - Proportional Increase Model 83 a X below one. Since the value of 81 in the Proportional Increase Model is greater than one, plan changes of this sort will typically not be made by the underplanner. A logical source of extra time is the extention of the school day beyond its normal ending time. we assure, however, that a teacher is only able to use the available school time which is established by the school district ; so, lengthening the school day is not an option for obtaining extra time to increase planned time allocations. The extent to which the Proportional Increase Model varies from the Logical Model, i.e., how much greater 8 is than one, depends on 1 how much time the urderplanner leaves unallocated in his/her plans. If (s)he leaves substantial amounts of time unallocated, then those activities which are planned could be lengthened by quite a large amount. A teacher time decision pattern of this sort would result in a Model 1 whose 81 is considerably larger than one. Or the other hand, if the underplanner leaves a small amount of time unallocated, then planned activities can be lengthened by only a stall arount. This time decision pattern results in a Model 1 which has a 8 just slightly larger than one. 1 The second model resulting from proportional plan modification is Model 5. The regression line for Model S is shown in Figure 4.6. Model 5 is called the Proportional Decrease Model because it represents the time decision pattern of the teacher who systematically decreases planned time allocations by sore percentage. bbdifying planned time allocatiors in this way indicates that the teacher overestimates in his/her plans how much time classroom activi- ties will actually need. A teacher who demonstrates this planning 84 YA _______ >1ogical model 'r- 1361’ l a c a t l .. u l a o 1 C102 «P a t t 1 db i o m n e 68 " 3h 0 J 1 : v a; % % _1L 11 1 4 w) 0 3" 68 102 136 X planned time allocation V Figure 4 . 6 Regression Line Summarizing Theoretical Model 5 - Proportional Decrease Model 85 behavior is an "overestimator planner" or simply an overplanner. As a result of overplanning, it becores necessary for the teacher to shorten classroom activities, i.e. provide less time to activities than (s)he had planned. Since the Proportional Decrease Model suggests that planned time allocations are shortened by a small percentage, it seems likely that a teacher who practices this plan modification pattern would provide sore time in the classroom for all planned activities. In other words, in a proportional time decision pattern, all planned activities would be expected to receive a proportion of the time allocated to then. This implies, however, that teachers would modify all planned time allocations in the same manner. Such a practice is not characteristic of teacher behavior. Therefore, deviations from the proportional time decision pattern are to be expected. Deviations in the way planned time allocations are modified then could result in planned activities being eliminated. we believe, however, that Model 5 does not represent a teacher's time decision pattern over a full day or multiple days. We are led to this conclusion because the regression line of Pbdel 5 indicates that ey < ex, a situation which exists only when less than the available school time is accounted for. what Model 5 is thought to represent then is a teacher's time decision pattern over a part of a day or parts of days. With this in mind, the model is interpreted to show that on the average a teacher typically provided less time for a subset of the planned activities than was allocated to than in the plan. For exarple, the model may describe a teacher time decision pattern for a single content area, 86 e.g. Reading. (bnstant models. The distinguishing characteristic of constant models is that planned time allocations are shown to be modified by the same (constant) arount of time. Because every planned activity is modified on the average the same amount of time witrout regard to its planned length, the percent of change in time for storter activities is much greater than for longer activities. For example, systematically adding two minutes to planned activities with ten minute planned time allocations is a twenty percent increase in time, while systematically adding two minutes to planned activities with forty minute planned time allocations is only a five percent increase in time. There are two models which represent constant modification. (he is the Constant Increase Model and the other is the Constant Decrease Model. The time decision patterns represented by these models are discussed below. . One model resulting from constant plan modification is Pbdel 4, the Constant Increase Model. A regression line for this model is shown in Figure 4.7. Model 4 results when a teacher systematically provides on the average exactly the same amount of time for activities as (s)he allocated in his/her plan, plus a constant amount of extra time. In one sense then, a teacher who behaves in this way is an accur- ate planner : (s)he accurately anticipates how much time activities will need in the classroom. In another sense though, (s)he is not an accur- ate planner because (s)he fails to take into account in his/her plans that a constant arount of extra time will later be added to each activity. For this reason, we call a teacher who underestimates in 87 _______ ;._loglcalrmxkfl 1361 a c a t l s u l a o l c 102- a t t i d i o m. n e 68‘ 3h‘ q 0 ( 4 J a 4) x 0 31* 68 102 136 planned time allocation V Figure 4.7 Regression.Line Summarizing Theoretical Model 4 - (lmmnant immeaselkxea 88 this way a constant underplanner. Since Nbdel 4 indicates that on the average, planned time alloca- tions are lengthened, the model cannot be used to represent the time decision pattern over a full day or multiple days of any teacher who allocates all of the available school time. The model in this case would indicate that the teacher used more than the available school time. This condition cannot exist in our study because only the avail- able scrocl time was accounted for, not the time before or after school. But, if a teacher allocates less than the available school time, then Model 4 may describe his/her time decision pattern over a full or multiple days. It would not be necessary in this case for the teacher to shorten any planned time allocatims; (s)he could obtain time to constantly increase planned time allocations from unallocated time. Model 4 may also represent a teacher's time decision pattern over only a part of a school day. 'Ihe model in this case suggests that a teacher constantly increases the planned time allocations of a subset of planned activities. lbw a teacher obtains the time to do this is not explained by the model: in fact, when only a part of the school day is considered, it is not necessary for the model to account for all of the available school time. why does the constant underplanner increase planned activities by a constant arount of time? It doesn't seem reasonable that (s)he would need the sare amount of extra time for every activity: rather (s)he would more likely need differing arounts of extra time for each activity because the degree of difficulty as well as stulent aptituies and responses for different activities vary considerably. Therefore, 89 we believe the constant underplanner does rot use the extra time for the planned activities as such, but for activities which occur in con- junction with a planned activity, i.e. accessory activities. we define accessory activities as introductory or closing activities such as announcerents relating to the planned activity, collecting papers, and making assignments. Such tasks are a necessary part of every planned activity; a teacher would find it very difficult to conduct classroom activities without them because they facilitate instruction and manage- ment. Accessory activities probably require about the same amount of time, say two-five minutes, no matter how long the planned time alloca- tion is. Adding accessory activities to planned activities then would explain why all planned time allocations are increased by roughly the same amount of time. we would expect a teacher's planned time allocations to take into account both the time reeds of planned activities and accessory activi- ties. The constant underplanner may, however, fail to allocate suffi— cient time so that accessory activities may occur. If this is the case, then (s)he would need to extend planned allocations by a constant amount of time in order to have time to corplete both planned and accessory activities. A model which represents a time decision pattern of the teacher who decreases on the average each planned time allocation by the sare amourt of time is the Constant Decrease Model. A regression line for this model would be similar to that of bodel II (see Figure 4.1). Model II is not logically possible though because the intercept of its regression line is negative, a situation which indicates the existence 90 of negative time. How then can the constant decrease time decision pattern be repre- sented? If we assume that the constant decrease time decision pattern is non-linear, then bodel 4A may represent it. Nbdel 4A is shown in Figure 4.8. The regression line for Pbdel 4A becomes asymptotic to the x—axis and intersects the y—axis at a point greater than zero. This Asymptotic Model suggests that in a constant decrease time decision pattern, all but the very stortest planned time allocations are shortened by some constant. As a consequence, excess time becomes available which can be used in ways not anticipated by the plan. The regression line of Dbdel 4A indicates that some excess time is used to increase, by a small amount of time, a few of the shorter planned time allocations. It also indicates that sore unplanned activities are pro- vided time. 'Ihese practices appear to be an essential part of a Model 4A time decision pattern. The regression line seems to indicate that ey < ex: so evi- dently, a constant decrease time decision pattern does rot make use of all the excess time generated by constantly decreasing planned time allocations. But, it is not clear from the model tow a teacher who demonstrates a bodel 4A time decision pattern makes use of excess time. Since Model 4A does not account for all of the available scrool time, we believe it represents a teacher's time decision pattern over only a part of a day or days. Obnstant Proportional Fodels. Tsachers may systeratically modify their planned time allocations in a constant and proportional way. There are four different models which depict the time decision pattern of the teacher who modifies his/her plans in this way. They are the 91 HUGHOW UOH-rtflJOOl-Jw-Jm map-n YA ...... . > logical model 136 II 102 ' 68'l J I n L l J J J I V I I I V 0 3t 68 102 136 x planned time allocation V . Flgure 4.8 Regression Line Summarizing Theoretical Model 4A - Asymptotic Constant Decrease Model 92 Constant/Proportional Increase bodel, the Constant/Proportional Decrease Model, the Constant Increase/Proportional Decrease Model, and the Constant Decrease/Proportional Increase Model. One model which summarizes a constant proportioral time decision pattern is Madel 2. This model represents the time decision pattern of‘a teacher who systeratically modifies his/her planned time alloca- tions by increasing them by a constant and a proportional arount of time. Or the average then, this time decision pattern results in planned activities lasting longer than planned. The regression line for the constant/proportional increase time decision pattern is dis- played in Figure 4.9. Since the slope of the regression line is greater than me, this suggests that in a constant/proportional increase time decision pat- tern a teacher does not on the average decrease or eliminate any planned time allocations. But, since the intercept is greater than zero, it is believed (s)he provides time for unplanned activities. The teacher who modifies his/her planned time allocations in this way evidently did not estimate correctly the time needs of accessory and planned activities nor did (s)he accurately plan what activities would occur. Such a teacher can be described as a constant/propor- . tional underplanner. The logical source from which the constant/proportional under- planner can obtain time for unplanned activities and to extend the lengths of planned activities is from unallocated time. we assure this because the Slope of the model is greater than one indicating that planned time allocations in general are not shortened. Model 2, like wbdel 4A, cannot represent the time decision pattern 93 HWCH‘OD’ mat-hr? SOP-"DJOOI-‘l-‘W ..... _-> logical model 136 II 102 '4 L l J j 1 w I j I 3“ 68 102 136 planned time allocation \v Figure 4.9 Regression Line Summarizing Theoretical Model 2 - Constant/Proportional Increase Model 94 a) X of a teacher who allocates all of the available school time because ey for such a teacher would be greater than the available school time. Model 2 may, however, represent the time decision pattern over a full day or multiple days of a teacher who leaves sore of the available school time unallocated in his/her plans. It may also represent a teacher's time decision pattern over a part of a day or days. A Constant/Proportional Decrease Model summarizes the time deci- sion pattern of a teacher who consistently decreases planned time allo— cations by a constant and proportional arount of time. As a result of this modification practice, the lengths of all planned activities are shortened; but, planned time allocations of different lengths are stortened by different percentages. The pattern of decrease is as follows: the longer the planned time allocations, the sraller the per- centage by which it is decreased; and, the shorter the planned time allocation, the greater the percentage by which it is decreased. Even though the percentage of decrease gets smaller as planned time allocations become longer, longer planned time allocations are sl'ortened by a greater amount of time than the storter planned time allocations. This time decision pattern may be the cutcore of overplanning, i.e., allocating more time to planned activities than the activities actually need. As a consequence, the teacher modifies the lengths of the planned time allocations to conform to the actual time needs of the activity. In many respects, this time decision pattern can be summarized by Model III shown in Figure 4.1. The regression line for Dbdel III indi- cates, hoover, the existence of negative time, sorething that is not 95 logically possible. Therefore, as before, we reject mdel III as not representative of reality. Parraps a Model III regression line, rather than intersecting the y-axis at a point less than zero, asymptotes and intersects the y-axis at a point greater than zero. Such an alter- ation of Model III results in a non-linear model. A regression line for this asymptotic model, Nbdel 6A, is shown in Figure 4.10. This model appears to accurately represent the constant/proportional decrease time decision pattern. The positive intersection of the regression line with the y-axis indicates that in a Model 6A time decision pattern, a very small amount of time is added to the lengths of the very shortest planned activities and a srall amount of time is provided for unplanned activi- ties. Since the model srows that ey < ex, we conclude that these practices do not make use of all the extra time made available by the stortening of other planned time allocations. We believe then that Model 6A represents a teacher's time decision pattern over only a part of a scl'ool day or parts of several sctool days. tbdel 6 represents the constant increase/proport ional decrease time decision pattern. This is a pattern in which sore planned time allocations are increased by a constant amount of time and at the sare time the lengths of most planned time allocations are shortened by a proportional arount of time. The regressior line which sumrrarizes this pattern is shown in Figure 4.11. Abdel 6 represents what we call a decrease interaction time deci- sion pattern. 'Ihe name was chosen for two reasons. First, the slope of the regression line is less than one, indicating a decrease in the length of planned time allocations: and second, there is an interaction 96 ....... > logical model 136-!- a c a t 1 up u l a o l c 102 u a t t i d- i o m n e 68'" 1! 3b" 1b 0 j e g- 4. s : s 4. : —: : 1) 0 3h 68 102 136 x planned time allocation V Figure 4. 10 Regression Line Summarizing Theoretical Model 6A - Asymptotic Constant/Proportional Decrease Model 97 involving length of planned time allocation and type of plan modifica— tion: short planned time allocations are increased by a constant amourt of time and at the same time, decreased proportionately while longer planned time allocations are either not modified at all or are sl'ortened proportionally. The practice of increasing sore planned time allocations by a constant amount of time suggests that the teacher underestimated the time needed for these planned activities; perhaps (s)he failed to allow for accessory activities. Ch the other hand, the practice of decreasing the length of other planned time allocations suggests that the teacher overestimated the amount of time needed for them. A teacher who plans in this way is a constant underplanner and a propor- tional overplanner. We call this kind of planner a decrease interac- tion planner. which planned time allocations does tie decrease interaction planner generally increase and which ones does (s)he generally decrease? This can best be answered by referring to the regression line for a decrease interaction relationship shom in Figure 4.11. Line "A" in Figure 4.11 represents the regression line of the Logical Model, while Line "8" represents the regression line of the decrease interaction relationship. From point "P", where line ”A” and "B" intersect, a line perpendicular to the x-axis is drawn which intersects the x-axis at "T". Point "T" is the reference point used to determine which planned time allocations a decrease interaction planner tends to increase and which ones (s)he tends to decrease. Those planned tine allocations which are greater than the time at point "T" are generally decreased; we have defined these as long planned time allocations. Flamed time 98 l—‘D’Crffim (Dar—un- DOH-anOl-H—‘m _______ )plogkedrmoel 136 1P / 102 .. / (B) J J n J J J A J J 1 > I j j j 1 l 1 1 ‘ 1 x o (T) 314 68 102 136 planned time allocation V Figure 4. ll Regression Line Summarizing Theoretical Model 6 - Decrease Interaction Model ‘ 99 allocations which are less than the time at point "T" are generally increased: we have defined these as short planned time allocatiors. 'Ihis concept is illustrated in Figure 4.11. In this example, the perpendicular line from the intersection of regression line "A” and ”B" intersects the x-axis at "T', a planned time allocation of about seven- ten minutes. Using the concept outlined above then, planned activi- ties with planned time allocations longer than seventeen minutes will tend to be shortened and tlose with planned time allocations less than seventeen minutes will tend to be lengthened. Since this is an interaction time decision pattern, the extent of the modification depends on the planned time allocations. 'Ihe short- test planned time allocations, i.e., those with zero minutes, are lengthened an average of ten minutes, the largest increase for any planned time allocation. The amount of increase declines as the length of the planned time allocation increases. Using the example again to illustrate this characteristic, we see that planned time allocatious of ten and five minutes are lengthened by about five and three minutes respectively. At point “T", planned time allocations are on the aver- age not modified at all. Plamed time allocations at this point, ("T"), are called ”middle length" planned time allocations. Planned time allocations greater than those at point "T" are decreased by greater and greater amounts of time. It is assured that sore planned time allocations are occasioually stortened to the extent that the planned activity does not occur. The modifications demonstrated by the foregoing exarple suggest that the decrease interaction plamer underplans activities which require the shortest time allocations and overplans activities which 100 require the longest time allocations. Evidently, (s)he accurately predicts how much time middle length planned time allocations will need because their planned length is not modified at all. In summary then, Model 6 indicates that there are four general plan modifications that characterize the decrease interaction time decision pattern: (1) considerable time is provided for unplamed activities: (2) activities with short planned time allocations are provided more time than was intended: (3) activities with middle length planned time allocations are provided on the average the sare arount of time that was intended: and (4) activities with long planned timue allocations are provided less time than was intended. What does the decrease interaction planner do with the time made available by decreasing the length of sore planned time allocations? One way (s)he may use it is to engage his/her students in unplamed extemporaneous or routinized activities. Extemporaneous activities are activities a teacher decides to use on the spur of the moment: they have not been subject to any kind of previous preparation on his/her part. lbutinized activities, on the other hand, are activities a teacher predesigns and l'olds in reserve (Yinger, 1977): (s)he can easily recall then to be used to deal with the problem of excess time. Both extemporaneous and routinized activities are considered un- planned, however, because the teacher did not allocate time to them in his/her plans. Another way (s)he may use excess time is to provide more time than what (s)he had intended to planned activities which have stort planned time allocatims. The decrease interaction planner may tend to rely on one metlod 101 more than the other to make use of excess time. It is assured, however, that (s)he consistently uses most of the excess time for unplanned activities: it does not seem likely that (s)he would be able to use very much of the excess time by increasing sl'ort planned time allocations. why does the decrease interaction plamer only increase the lengths of the srort planned activities? It may be that (s)he does not anticipate a need to use accessory activities with short activi- ties, but (s)he recognizes their need with longer ones. 'Ihus, (s)he allocates sufficient time to longer activities but not to the shorter ones. Since Model 6 indicates that all the time made available by de- creasing plamed time allocations can be used to increase the lengths of the shortest plamed time allocations and/or to provide time for unplamed activities, we believe it represents a teacher's time deci- sion pattern over a full day or multiple days whether (she allocates all of the available scrool time or not. bbdel 6 may also represent a teacher's time decision pattern for one kind of activity. In this case, the model indicates that the storter plamed time allocations for an activity, e.g., Ibading are lengthened while the longer planned time allocations for it are sl'ort- ened. And, middle length plamed time allocations for the activity would, on the average, not be modified at all. we believe that wbdel 6 is the most likely candidate to represent the time decision pattern of practicing teachers. 'Ihis conclusion was drawn because Model 6 is the only model which accounts for all the available sctool time while at the sare time, summarizing not only the 102 type of time decision pattern teachers are expected to follow (linear) but also the different ways teachers probably modify their plamed time allocations each day. A different kind of interaction model results if a teacher modi- fies his/her plamed time allocations by consistently decreasing sore of‘ then by a constant arount of time and proportionally increasing others. Model I represents the time decision pattern which results when planned time allocations are modified in this way. we call Model I the Increase Interaction bodel because the slope of its regres- sion line is greater than one and because there is an interaction involving length of planned time allocation and type of modification: short plamed time allocations are decreased by a constant amount of time and at the same time they are increased by a proportional arount of time while lorger plamed time allocations are either not modified or are lengthened proportionally. This is just the reverse of what occurs within the decrease interaction time decision pattern. Model I does not represent reality though because it suggests a negative y intercept. what model is appropriate than for representing the increase interaction time decision pattern? If the regression line of bodel I is altered asymptotically, then Model 2A is the result. It appears that lbdel 2A will adequately represent the increase interaction time decision pattern. It is shown in Figure 4.12. In a wbdel 2A time decision pattern, which plamed time alloca- tions are increased and which ones are decreased can be determined by using the sare method that was used with the Model 6 time decision pattern. 103 ..... ...J).qukedrmoel 136-: a C8 tl u l. 1 ac 1° 102- a t ti ‘ i 0 mn e 68- 3h‘ 1 <40 a 1 4 a a r r a 0 (T) 31* 68 102 136 planned time allocation Figure 4.12 Regression Line Summarizing Theoretical Model 2A - Asymptotic Constant Decrease/Proportional Increase Model 104 X How plamed time allocations are modified in a Nbdel 2A time decision pattern is exerplified by using the regression line in Figure 4.12. Using ”T" as a reference, we find that planned tire allocations longer than about nineteen minutes are lengthened; the amount of in- crease becores larger as the length of the plamed time allocations in- creases. Planned time allocations of less than nineteen minutes are stortened. But, because the regression line asymptotes, the amount of decrease does not steadily get larger as plamed time allocations becore shorter; instead, the amount of decrease becores larger as the planned time allocations becore storter until at sore point (in Figure 4.12, it is around twelve minutes), the amount of decrease then becores smaller. Plamed time allocations closest to zero and nineteen minutes then are decreased much less than those between these two points. And plamed time allocations of around nineteen minutes are neither increased or decreased . tbdel 2A with a regression line similar to one shown in Figure 4.12 may represent a teacher's time decision pattern over a full day or multiple days whether the teacher leaves time urallocated or not. This assumption is based on time usage suggested by the position of the regression line; its position suggests that all the time needed to lengthen long plamed time allocations can be made available by shortening sl'ort plamed time allocations. In other words, wbdel 2A with a regression line similar to the one in Figure 4.12 shows that ey 8 ex for a teacher who. allocates all the available school time. And it shows. that ey > ex for the teacher who allocates less than the available sclool time. In either case, Model 2A will account for all of the available school time. 105 If, however, the regression line of an increase interaction time decision pattern is more like the regression line stown in Figure 4.13, then it cannot describe a teacher's time decision pattern over a full day or multiple days unless (s)he leaves a large block of available school time unallocated. This assurption seems reasonable because the regression line suggests that most plamed time allocations are length- ened, many of them by a large arount of time. Slch a practice would require a large arount of excess time. Decreasing the storter plamed time allocations camot provide nearly enough time to increase the longer plamed time allocations as suggested by the regression line. am , In this chapter, we proposed that fifteen different theoretical models could possibly represent time decision patterns of practicing teachers, i.e., the relationship between their planned time allocations and their actual time allocations. Each of these models is displayed in Table 4.1. We divided the fifteen models into two categories. 'Ihe first category cmtains those models which suggest teacher time decision patterns which are not likely to be followed by teachers. A model was judged as not representative of reality if it suggests one or more of the following characteristics: (1) its regression line predicts most dependent variables to be zero; (2) its regression line predicts at least one dependent variable to be less than zero; (3) its regression line suggests a totally irrational decision making pattern for use of time corpared to plamed use of time. 106 _____ .. > logical model / a c a t l u 1 a o l c a t t i i o m n e < a 136 planned time allocation V Figure 4 .13 Regression Line Summarizing Theoretical Model 2A— Asyrptotic Constant Increase/Proportional Increase Model 107 > It was determined that Theoretical Models I-IX are not represen- tative of reality because each of these models indicates that at least one of the above characteristics are present in the time decision pattern they represent. The second category contained Theoretical Models 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. These models were shown to be capable of representing time decision patterns of practicing teaChers. Each model in the secoud category represents a time decision pattern by which a teacher could typically modify his/her plamed time allocations, a practice we called plan modification. Three general patterns of plan modification were outlined and discussed: (1) proportional modification; (2) constant modification and (3) corstant/proportiomal modification. The following models were stown to be the result of one of these kinds of plan modification. Each model represents a unique time decision pattern. _M_gd;el_ Time Decision Pattern l proportional increase 2 constant/proportional increase 3 logical 4 constant increase 5 proportional decrease 6 decrease interact ion In addition to these six models, three nor-lirear models were identi- fied for representing teacher time decision patterns. 'Ihese models were: 108 Nbdel Time Decision Pattern increase interaction constant decrease 3395‘; constant/proportional decrease In order for a model to represent a teacher's time decision pattern over a full day or multiple days, it had to show that either ey = ex or that ey > ex. We concluded that Models 1, 2, 2A, 3, 4 and 6 meet these qualifications and so were judged to be representative of a teacher's time decision pattern over a full day or multiple days. A model which shows that ey < ex does not represent a teacher's time decision pattern over a full day or multiple days, but it could represent a teacher's time decision pattern over a part of a day or parts of days. deels which do not represent a teacher's time decision pattern over a full day or multiple days are Models 4A, 5 and 6A. we concluded that mdel 6 is the most likely candidate to repre- sent the time decision pattern of practicing teachers. It appears to be the only model which accounts for all tie available school tine while at the same time, summarizing not only the type of time decision pattern teachers are expected to follow (linear) but also the different ways teachers probably modify their plamed tine allocations each day. In the next chapter, the general pattern of teachers' planned and actual time allocations are presented and compared. 109 CHAPTERS DESCRIPTICNS OF 'IEACHERS' PLANNED AND ACI‘UAL TIME ALUX‘ATICNS Introduction The major purpose of this study was to describe the relationship between teachers' plamed time allocations and their actual time allo- cations (the time actually provided for an activity). The findings on teachers' planned and actual time allocations are presented in this chapter. They are organized into three cate gories: first, the general pattern of planned time allocations of the teachers in this study are described; second, the general pattern of actual time allocations by teachers in this study are described; and third, plamed and actual time allocations are corpared. Finally, a surmary concludes this chapter. General Pattern of Plamed Time Allocations There was a specified arount of time each day—determined by the local sclool board—that teachers were responsible to plan for and use in their classroom; we called this time ”available school time” (AST). AST was defined as the total time available beginming with the official start of scrool in the morning and continuing to the official and of school in the afterncor. In our analyses, we did not investigate teachers' daily plamed and actual use of AST: rather, we looked at each teacher's plamed and actual use of his/her total AST over the eight or nine combined days his/her classroom practice was observed. The total AST that each teacher was required to plan for and use during tie course of our observations is shown in Table 5.1. The total sctool time available to each teacher served as the baseline for describing and surmarizing his/her planned and actual use of time. 110 Table 5.1 Total Available School Time by Escher macher AST* Number of Days (minutes) 1 3311 g 9 2 3312 9 3 2880 8 4 2960 8 5 3240 9 6 3243 9 Total 18947 *Available school time Proportion of Time Allocated we found that teachers allocated on the average just over eighty- three percent of AST. The allocations of individual teachers did not differ greatly from this. The proportion of AST each teacher alloca- ted to activities in the content areas is shown in Table 5.2. Orly the allocations of machers l and 4 differed substantially from the overall mean. Teacher 1 allocated less than eighty percent of AST and Teacher 4 allocated nearly 100 percent of AST. All the other teachers allocated betwween eighty-one and a half and eighty-eight percent of AST. 01 the average then, teachers left about seventeen percent of AST unallocated in their plans. Since the time teachers had available each scrool day was about 360 minutes, this finding indicates that teachers developed plans for a little less than five of the six tours of time available each day. The proportion of AST allocated by lower grade teachers was quite in similar to the overall average. Lower grade teachers were also quite similar to each other in the proportion of AST they allocated. But, upper grade teachers differed considerably from each other in the pro— portion of AST they allocated. On the average, however, the alloca— tions of upper grade teachers were very similar to the overall mean. Table 5.2 Proportion of AST.Allocated by Teacher Teacher Minutes of Percent of AéflfAllocated Total AST 1 2112 63.6 upper 2 2916 87.9 52 = 83.3% level 4 2955 99.9 3 2423 84.1 lower 5 2715 83.6 32:83.15; level 6 2640 81.5 Total 15761 83.2 Table 5.3 shows how teachers allocated AST'by content areas. we found that teachers generally allocated about the same proportion of AEH?to»Language Arts (12.7%), Reading (13.3%), Math (12.5%) and a slightly smaller proportion of AST'to Science (9.4%). Of least concern to teachers in the allocation of time was Transitions: they allocated an average of only one percent of AST to Transition activities. The content area to which teachers allocated the largest proportion of.AST was Breaks; they allocated nearly eighteen percent of AST (or over one hour per day) to activities in this area. Enrichment was a close second to Breaks with an allocation of over sixteen percent of AST. ;II2 TABLE 5.3 Proportion of AST Teachers Allocated to Content Area (N = 18,947 Minutes) Content Area AST Allocated Percent (Minutes) Language Arts 2399 12.7 Reading 2525 13.3 Math 2365 12.5 Science 1790 9.4 Transitions 104 1.0 Breaks 3374 17.8 Enrichment 3103 16.4 Total 15760 83.1 Overall, we fbund that teachers allocated nearly one half-47.9%-— of AST to activities in content areas which are cormonly considered academic (Language Arts, Reading, Math and Science) and more than one- third of ASTh-35.3%-to activities in content areas that are for the most part non-academic (Transitions, Breaks and Enrichment). These findings imply that teachers intended to use only about one-half of the school day for academic pursuits. There were grade level differences in the proportion of ASTuallo- cated to several of the content areas. Table 5.4 shows the proportion of AST upper and lower grade level teachers allocated. In two areas- Transition and Breaks—-upper and lower grade teachers allocated an almost identical proportion oquST. But in the other content areas, grade level differences were noted. Upper grade teachers allocated a larger proportion of AST to Language Arts, Math and Science than did 113 lower grade teachers, while lower grade teachers allocated a larger proportion of AST to wading and Enrichment activities. Except for Reading and Science, the differences in allocations between upper and lower grade teachers were between 1.1 percent and 3.4 percent. The greatest differences between the two groups of teachers were in their allocations to Reading and Science. Lower grade teachers allocated over six percent more of AST to Reading than did the upper grade teachers. And, upper grade teachers allocated almost seven percent more of AST to Science than did lower grade teachers. TABLE 5.4 Proportion of AST Grade Level Allocated to Content Areas Grade Level Content Area Upper Lower N = 9583 mrinutes N = 9363 Minutes krcent Percent Language Arts 13.6 11.8 Reading 10.2 16.5 Math 13.0 11.9 Science 12.8 5.9 Transitions 1 . 0 l .l Breaks 17.9 17.7 Enrichment 14.6 18.2 Total 83.1 83.1 These findings may reflect cormon sense notions about instruc- tional expectations for different grade levels. Lower grade teachers may be expected to provide more time to redding and Enrichment (Art, 114 Music, Field Trips, etc.) than upper grade teachers. And, lower grade teachers may view Science as a content area more suitable for older students. Apparently grade level influences teachers' allocations to Reading and Science. If this is true, then educators need to investi— gate whether grade level is a legitimate consideration when allocating substantially different amounts of. time to the content areas of Reafiing and Science. Teachers differed from one another within all content areas in the proportion of AST they allocated. Proportion of AST teachers allocated to the content areas is shown in Table 5.5. Differences within Math and Science were not large. Four of the five teachers who taught Math allocated between 10.5 percent and 13.7 percent of AST to it. This is a fairly srall range of difference. macher 2 was an exception. 'Be 26.7 percent of AST (s)he allocated was much larger than the proportion allocated by any of the other teachers. A similar pattern occurred in Science. In this content area, five of the six teachers allocated between 4.6 percent and 7.7 percent of AST while Teacher 4 allocated a much larger proportion of AST (25.7 percent). The proportion of AST individual teachers allocated to Language Arts, Reading, Breaks and Enrichrent were more diverse, i.e., the differences between teachers in allocations for each of these content areas were sorewhat larger than the differences between individual teacher's allocations in Math, Science and nansitions. Tedchers' allocations to mading typify this diversity. Of the six teachers, two allocated about eight percent of AST, one allocated about nine percent, arother about fifteen percent, another about nineteen percent, and arother about twenty-two percent. The content area for which teachers' allocations were the most similar was Transitions. 115 some 88» so: Bo. on o.oo Too o.oo Too o.oo £88. so has o.o «.2 TS on: sens—Loose 12 T: v.2 o.m~ o.os ode mesons o.o TN o.o o.m o.o o.o hectares S. o.o on fimm o.o o.o opossum o.os s.ms m.HH o.os o.om . son: o.o o.os s.s~ o.oo o.o o.o scanner ....o mas mos o.o o.o MAN 82 sensors ucooumo ucoonco ucooumm ucmoumo ucooumm ucooumm pond acoucoo o m m e N a uncommon. n82 oeooeoo B Birdcage nonsense assent/oofi one no 83.688 m.m mg 116 These findings have implications for research and policy. lbw much time should teachers plan to provide for various content areas? What factors influence teachers' plamed time allocations? Should other sources of influence be considered? Is it defensible from a teaching/learning standpoint that teachers should make planned time allocations that are so different? Answers to these questions will contribute to our understanding of the teaching/learning process and make teaching a process that operates more in response to educationally sound decisions rather than from habit or personal choice. Mean Time Allocated Per Interval Teachers allocated AST to each content area in units of time we called plamed intervals. The average time teachers allocated per plamed interval for each content area is shown in Table 5.6. we found that teachers allocated just over one-half hour on the average to intervals of Language Arts (39.3 mrinutes), Reading (34.6 minutes) and Science (38.9 minutes), and just under one-half hour or the average to intervals of Break (28.1 minutes). 'nne content areas which were allocated the greatest amount of time per interval were Math and Enrichment: Math was allocated almost one hour on the average per interval and Enricl'ment was allocated nearly three-fourths of an hour per interval on the average. Teachers allocated just under eight minutes per interval for Ransitions, the least arount of time alloca- ted per interval for any content area. 'Ihe mean time per interval does not adequately represent teachers' allocation patterns, however. We discovered that there was large vari- ation in the time teachers allocated to intervals within content areas. The standard deviations shown in Table 5.6 are a measure of this 117 variation. We can easily see the extent of variation in each content area by referring to the illustration in Figure 5.1. It is apparent from Figure 5.1 that the greatest amount of variation occurred in the content areas of Language Arts, kading, Math and Ehrictment. In these content areas, the variance ranged from a low of about nineteen mihutes in Enrichment to a high of nearly thirty minutes in Language Arts. Variance was less in Science and Breaks, but was still fairly large. 'Ihe least variance occurred in kansitions. Table 5.6 Means and Standard Deviations of Intervals Plamed by Teachers for Content Areas Number of _ Standard Content Area Intervals X Deviation Language Arts 61 39.3 27.9 Reading 73 34.6 22.3 Math 43 55.0 23.2 Science 46 38.9 14.8 Transitions 26 7.9 5.4 Breaks 120 28.1 14.0 Enrichment 70 44 . 3 l8 . 9 Generally, upper grade teachers differed from lower grade teachers in the average time allocated to intervals within content areas. These findings are shown in Table 5.7. Only in Science and kansitions did upper and lower grade teachers allocate similar time per interval: their average allocations differed by less than three mrinutes in Science and by only one-half minute in kansitions. Upper grade 118 N N 2H9 hi ZOHHIDOOfiIT'b 80 75 70 65 6O 50 L5 b0 35 30 25 2O 15 10 XI XI XI I XI XI 1 XI j 1 J1 j 41- 1b LA R M s TR BR E Content Figure 5. 1 :One Standard Deviation from Mean of Teachers' Planned Intervals by Content Area 119 teachers allocated more time per interval to all other content areas (Language Arts, Reading, Math, Breaks and Enrichment). The differences between upper and lower grade teachers in these content areas ranged from.4.8 minutes more per interval on the average in Reading to 13.2 minutes more per interval in Enrichment. In other words, upper grade teachers intended to conduct longer class periods than did lower grade teachers. Upper and loer grade teachers were similar in that both groups allocated the greatest time per interval to Math. And of the four academic areas, both groups allocated the least time per interval to Reading. The number of intervals upper and lower grade teachers intended for Language Arts, Math and Transitions were similar; but, lower grade teachers planned many more intervals in Reading, Breaks and Enrichment than did upper grade teachers while upper grade teachers planned many more intervals in Science. The time lower grade teachers intended to provide fbr Reading was greater than upper grade teachers intended and greater than the time planned for any of the other three academic areas. Upper grade teachers, on the other hand, planned many fewer intervals for Reading than did lower grade teachers. As a result, the time upper grade teachers intended to provide for Reading was less than lower grade teachers intended; and it was less than the time they planned for any of the other three academic areas. Wfithin each content area, differences were found between individual teachers in the average time allocated per interval. These findings are displayed in Table 5.8. Individual teacher allocations were most alike in Breaks. In this area, four of the six teachers allocated 120 TABLE 5.7 Mean Interval Planned by Grade Level for Content Areas Grade Level Upper Lower __ No. of __ No. of Content Area x Intervals X Intervals Language Arts 41.9 31 36.7 30 Reading 37.7 26 32.9 47 Math 62.5 20 50.7 22 Science 39.8 31 37.0 15 Transitions 7.6 13 8.1 13 Breaks 32.4 53 24.7 67 Enrichment 51.9 27 39.6 43 TABLE 5.8 Means of Intervals Planned by Individual Teachers for Content Areas Teacher Content Area 1 2 4 _3_ 5 6 X X X X X X Language Arts 58.8 36.7 26.5 26.4 60.0 41.0 Reading 42.8 46.0 29.3 31.3 44.3 23.1 Math 20.0* 73.8 43.8 47.1 63.6 42.5 Science 45.0 62.5 34.5 38.8 30.0 41.7 Transitions - 4.7 8.5 10.0 7.8 8.3 Breaks 44.2 38.8 25.0 25.5 25.0 23.8 Enrichment 55.6 60.0 40.0 29.8 38.2 45.0 Grand Mean 51.5 49.4 29.0 30.0 36.2 32.6 *Teacher planned only one interval. 121 about twenty—five minutes per interval. The allocations of the other two teachers though were quite a bit larger than this. Within each of the other content areas, at least two teachers allocated similar time per interval; but, often a teacher's average time allocations within a content area were quite different from the allocations of the other teachers. In Reading for example, kaohers l, 2 and 5 allocated on the average between forty-two and forty-six minutes per interval, quite similar time per interval. The average allocation to Reading by each of the other three teachers was much lower than forty-two minutes, and their average allocations differed from each other to a greater extent than did the allocations of Teachers 1, 2 and 5. The wide differences between teachers in the mean interval length within content areas may reflect differing strategies, differing teacher perceptions of student aptitudes and needs and different cur- ricula content objectives. It may also reflect differing placerent of activities in relation to Breaks such as recess and lunch. Smith found that the activity which occurred just before schoolwide schedulled events such as recess and Breaks normally lasted a different length of time than if the same activity did rot occur just prior to one of these Breaks, i.e., first in the school day (Smith, 1977). 'Ihe variance of teacher's tine allocations per interval within content areas differed between teachers. These variations as measured by standard deviations are shown in Table 5.9. In Language Arts there were large differences in interval variance between teachers. The greatest difference was between Teachers 1 and 4: hacher 1's intervals varied by almost three-fourths of an hour while the intervals of Teacher 4 varied by only 7.1 minutes. 122 TABLE 5.9 Standard Deviations of Intervals Planned By Individual Teachers for Content Areas macher content 1 2 4 3 5 6 Area SD SD SD SD SD SD Language 43.8 27.2 7.1 10.4 26.0 16.7 Arts wading 7.1 22.7 17.6 19.0 30.6 16.9 mm — 3209 307 1305 2.4 906 Science 16.6 32.0 6.1 6.3 10.6 14.7 Breaks 14.0 18.8 13.2 7.4 11.1 11.5 Enrichment 16.1 15.8 20.9 12.0 18.6 16.9 A similar pattern of large differences in interval variance between teachers occurred in Reading, Math and Science, but the range of differences was not as great for these content areas as it was for Language Arts. Differences in interval variance between teachers in the content areas of kansitions, Breaks and Enrichment were much smaller than in the other content areas suggesting that teachers per- ceptions and planned use of these content areas are quite similar. Variance in interval length tended to follow one of three differ- ent patterns. Some teachers consistently allocated about the sare arount of tire per interval to a particular content area: thus, the variance of their allocations was low. 'Ihis allocation pattern is identified by a low standard deviation, i.e., less than ten. The allocations of Teachers 4 for Language Arts, 1 for mading and 3 and 4 123 for Science exerplify this pattern. A second allocation pattern is characterized as having moderate variance. Standard deviations in this pattern fall between ten and twenty. Tedchers 3 and 6 folloed this pattern for Language Arts and hachers 3, 4, and 6 followed it for Reading. ‘ The third allocation pattern is characterized by large variance. Standard deviations greater than twenty identify this pattern. 'Ihe allocations of macher l for Language Arts, macher 2 for Math and Science and hacher 5 for kading fit this third pattern. Table 5.10 shows which of these three patterns of variance char- acterizes teachers' allocations in each content area. The allocations of each teacher except Teacher 6 varied at least once by each of the three different ways; but, it appears that a teacher's time allocations varied most often in only one of the three ways. The allocations of Racher 6 for instance varied moderately in five of the seven content areas. And, the allocations of Teachers 2, 3 and 4 varied the sare way in four of the seven content areas. The least conformity to a single pattern of variance was by machers l and 5: the allocations of these teachers varied the same way in only three of the seven content areas. This finding that a teacher's interval variance is similar across content areas suggests that teachers have a characteristic pattern of planned time allocations. If so, then teachers may not be making plamed time allocations that are responsive to student and content needs. The firdings on variance may also suggest that in the four aca- demic areas, teachers differed substantially in the ways they intended 124 to conduct their classroom activities. This conclusion is based on the assumption that instructional strategies employed during intervals of one length may be different from instructional strategies employed during intervals of other lengths. For example, lecture type Math activities may often be the same length while individual study Math activities may often differ substantially in length. TABLE 5.10 Patterns of Variation in Interval Length By Individual kachers in Content Areas Teacher Content Area 1 2 4 3 5 6 Language Arts H H L M H M Reading L ' H M M H M Math - H L M L L Science M H L L M M Transitions - L L - L L Breaks M M M L M M Enrichment M M H M M M H= high variation from the mean, standard deviation > 20 M = moderate variation from the mean, standard deviation > 10 < 20 L = low variation from the mean, standard deviation < 10 hachers then, whose intervals were all of a similar length, i.e., a low standard deviation, no dolbt plamed to rely on one kind of instructional strategy, while teachers whose intervals were more varied, i.e., moderate to high standard deviations, probably planned to rely on instructional strategies different from trose of the teacher with intervals of low standard deviation. 125 In general, findings on number of opportunities planned, mean interval length and interval variance have implications for material selection and instructional strategies. It seems reasonable that intervals should be planned that allow the selected materials and strategies to operate most effectively. Summary of Findings on Planned Allocations Our major findings on teachers' plamed time allocations are sum- marized below: 1. Teachers allocated an average of 83.2 percent of AST; five of the six teachers allocated over 81 percent of AST. 2. machers allocated about thirteen percent of AST to each content area of Language Arts, Reading and Math. 3. Tsachers allocated almost one-fourth of AST to Titansitions and Breaks. 4. There were substantial grade level differences in the proportion of AST allocated to Reading, Science ard Enrichrent. Less substantial differences were noted in other content areas. 5. There were wide differences between sore teachers within content areas in the proportion of AM they allocated. 6. Teachers allocated about one-half of AST to the four academic content areas. 7. 'Ihere were differences between grade levels in the pro- portion of AST allocated .to the four academic content areas. 8. 'Ihe average planned interval length for most content areas was between twenty-eight and forty-four minutes. 9. 'Ihere were substantial differences between grade levels in average planned interval length for all content areas. 126 10. There were substantial differences between teachers in average planned interval length for all content areas. 11. There was large variance in planned intervals within content areas. 12. There were substantial differences between teachers in planned interval variance within content areas. 13. Teachers' planned interval variance is similar across content areas. General Pattern of Actual Time Allocations Proportion of Time Provided The proportion of AST teachers provided for the different content areas is shown in Table 5.11. Overall, teachers provide slightly more than forty-six percent of AST for activities in the four academic con- tent areas. Each of these four content areas received a different pro- portion of AST, but the differences between them were not large. Lan- guage Arts was given the largest proportion of AST (14.0 percent) while Science was given the smallest proportion (10.2 percent). Ead- ing and Math were given an almost identical proportion of AST: 11.3 percent for Reading arnd 11.4 percent for Math. Enrichment activities were given a larger proportion of AST (18.8 percent) than was given to any of the four academic content areas. By far, the largest proportion of AST was provided for Breaks: it received 25.5 percent of AST. Together, the purely non-academic areas of Transition and Breaks were given 34.3 percent, or a little more than one-third of AST. The proportion of AST upper and lower grade level teachers pro- vided for the different content areas is shown in Table 5.12. From the table we determine that the sum of the proportions of AST each 127 TABLE 5.11 Proportion of AST Teachers Provided for Content Areas Content Area AST Provided Percent (Minutes) Language Arts 2649 14.0 Reading 2143 11.3 Math 2158 11.4 Science 1929 10.2 Transitions 1661 8.8 Breaks 4823 25.5 Enrichment 3583 18.8 Total 18946 100.0 TABLE 5.12 Proportion of AST Grade levels Provided fer Content Areas Grade Level Content Area Upper Lower Percent Percent Language Arts 15.4 12.5 Reading 8.2 14.5 Math 10.7 12.1 Science 13.0 7.3 Transitions 9.8 7.9 Breaks 25.3 25.4 Enrichment 17.6 19.8 Tbtal 100.0 100.0 128 group of teachers provided for the academic content areas of Language Arts, lbading, Math and Science was just about the same: upper grade teachers provided a total of 47.3 percent of AST to them while lower grade teachers provided a total of 46.4 percent of AST. Grade level difference then was less than one percentage point. The two groups of teachers differed, however, in the proportion of AST they provided for each content area. Lower grade teachers pro- vided a greater proportion of AST for both Reading and Math than did upper grade teachers: but upper grade teachers provided a greater pro- portion of AST to Language Arts and Science than did lower grade teachers. The biggest difference between upper and loer grade teachers in the proportion of AST provided occurred in the mading and Science content areas: lower grade teachers provided 14.5 percent of AST for Reading while upper grade teachers provided only 8.2 percent of AST for Reading: in other words, lower grade teachers provided nearly two times more AST for kading than upper grade teachers did. The differ- ence between upper and lower grade teachers in the proportion of AST they provided for Science was just as large, except the grade level which provided the largest proportion of AST‘ was reversed: upper grade teachers provided a greater proportion of AST to Science than did the lower grade teachers. Both upper and loer grade teachers provided a similar proportion of AST to Transition, Breaks, and Enrichment activities. Breaks was the content area which was provided the largest proportion of AST by both upper and lower grade teachers: it received just over twenty» five percent of AST or more than one-fourth of the AST. 129 Except for Transitions and Breaks, we found that there were sub- stantial differences between teachers within content areas in the proportion of AST they provided. These findings are displayed in Table 5.13. The differences in Transitions were quite small. Several teachers differed from one another by less than one percentage point. The biggest difference was only 5.5 percentage points between machers 3 and 6. Similarly, the differences in Breaks were small. accept for Teachers 3 and 5, the differences were less than one percentage point. Differences between teachers in the proportion of AST they alloca- ted within the other content areas were more extensive. A few teachers within each content area provided similar proportions of AST, but the proportions of AST provided by other teachers within each content area differed substantially. The disparity between teachers in the propor- tion of AST they provided is graphically illustrated in Figure 5. 2. Reading and Science were the content areas in which the differences were the greatest: the time some teachers provided differed by nearly ten times from that provided by other teachers. There were also large differences between teachers in the proportion of AST allocated to Language Arts, bath and Enrichment. Mean Time Provided mr Cpportunity Teachers provided time to the different content areas in segments we call observed intervals. Tb facilitate our discussion, we will refer to an observed interval as an opportunity. The average time teachers provided per opportunity in the differ- ent content areas is displayed in Table 5.14. Generally, we found differences between content areas both in the number of opportunities teachers provided and in the mean time an 130 N 32 .. 3 3o .. T 28 qr 61F 26 1. {E V 2% .. 2n? 22 .. 5W 11p 4" 11)- 20 '0' 5d. jun 15 .. 5., 21b 60 16 "' 51» 11* I I) ‘P 4., 5" 4 'L 12 .. 3" 4“ 3 4p 11’ 3 lO 4» g 24) 8 d. 5 4 E 1:: 61 2.. 4 6 .. 2 5 6 h in 5" 2 n- 6‘L 34L 4 : 4 4 —: ¢ 4 LA R M S ' TR E? E Content Figure 5.2 Proportion of AST Individual Teachers Provided for Content Area 131 TABLE 5.13 Proportion of AST Individual Teachers Provided For Content Area Teacher Content Area 1 2 4 3 5 6 ' % % % % % % Language Arts 21.3 8.9 12.9 12.4 8.7 16.4 Reading 7.2 6.6 11.1 18.5 23.3 2.2 Math - 24.2 7.6 10.5 18.3 7.3 Science 10.8 7.0 22.2 2.5 4.7 14.1 Transitions 10.6 11.1 7.4 11.6 6.3 6.1 Breaks 25.4 25.1 25.5 30.5 20.4 25.7 Enrichment 21.2 16.9 13.3 14.8 16.4 27.6 Totals 96.5 99.8 100.0 100.8 98.1 99.4 TABLE 5.14 Means and Standard Deviations of Opportunities Teachers Provided for Content Areas Cbntent Area N ‘X’ SD Language Arts 103 25.7 ' 22.2 Reading 86 24.9 19.3 Math 48 45.0 24.7 Science 50 38.6 14.7 Transitions 407 4.1 2.8 Breaks 230 21.0 16.8 Enrichment 100 35.4 20.4 *Minutes 132 opportunity lasted. hachers provided a great many opportunities for activities in sore content areas and much fewer opportunities for activities in other content areas. By far the greatest number of opportunities were provided for Transitions and Breaks; but the mean time these opportunities lasted was also the shortest of all content areas. men though opportunities for Transition and Breaks were shorter than opportunities in any of the other content areas, they accounted for nearly one-third of AST. Teachers provided about the same time on the average for opportun- ities in Language Arts (25.7 minutes) and Reading (24.9 minutes), but they provided nearly twenty more opportunities for Language Arts than they did for Reading. Of the four content areas of Language Arts, Reading, Math and Science, opportunities for Language Arts and Reading were provided the least time, just under one-half hoir on the average. Qaportunities for Math and Science averaged nearly three-fourths of an hour. This was quite a bit more time than teachers provided for Language Arts or Reading opportunities: but Path and Science were given only about one-half of the opportunities given to Language Arts or Reading. Opportunities for Enrichment also lasted longer on the average than either Language Arts or Reading and it was provided quite a few more Opportunities than Reading but a few less than Language Arts. (bnsidering both the number of opportunities arnd mean opportunity length, lbading, Math and Science were all provided about the same amount of time. The mnixture of opportunities and mean opportunity length was just different for each of them. Language Arts trough was provided substantially more time than the other three academic content 133 areas. The reason, Language Arts was provided many more opportunities. Once again then we find that the number of opportunities was a signifi- cant factor in the total amount of time provided. Fewer opportunities were provided for Math and Science than for any other content area. Standard deviations shown in Table 5.14 irndicate that there was large variance in the time teachers provided for opportunities within most content areas. Figure 5.3 illustrates this variance by showing one standard deviation greater and lesser than the mean opportunity time for each content area. Among the four academic content areas, the least variation occurred in Science while the greatest variation occurred in Math. The amount of time provided to opportunities in all other content areas (except Transition) was also found to vary by quite large margins. The variance was similar for opportunities in Language Arts, mading and Ehrichrent activities. For kansitions, the varia- tion was quite small. The findings on variance may indicate teachers' flexibility in response to differing time needs of student and content. It may also indicate that teachers used content areas for purposes which differed from typical content goals. For instance, Reading may have been used just after recess and just before the final bell of the day. In this case, Reading would only last five to ten minutes. Reading then func- tioned as a kansition activity or time filling activity. A Math activity that lasted sixty to seventy minutes may have provided time for the teacher to check papers, arrange materials for another activity or counsel with students. In this case, the Math activity functioned as a managenent activity. It may be that teachers rely on one content 134 M N *3 70 " fi’ 65 un- 60 u 55 u 50 h ho .. XI 35 n 30 0 XI 20 :1:- db 1C) .. a)- db h qb ‘ ' LA R M S Content \fl 2 l I L T x: g fir—+—4 l r IBB Figure 5.3 :Cne Standard Deviation from Mean Opportunity Teachers Provided fOr Content Area 135 1b area such as Reading more often than others for a particular purpose such as "time fill". This could explain why Languace Arts or Reading have very short intervals while Math and Science do not. Overall, upper and lower grade level teachers provided nearly an identical number of opportunities, 512 by the upper grade teachers and 511 by teachers in the lower grades. Differences were found, however, between upper and lower grade teachers in the number of opportunities each provided within content areas as well as in the mean time provided per opportunity. These findings are shown in Table 5.15. TABLE 5.15 Mean Opportunity (kade Levels Provided for Content Areas Grade Level Content Area Upper Lower N = 512 N = 511 N Y N 32' Language Arts 53 27.9 50 23.4 lbading 35 22.4 51 26.6 Math 22 46.7 26 43.5 Science 32 39.0 18 37.9 kansitions 220 4.3 187 3.9 Breaks 112 21.7 118 20.7 Enrichment 38 44.1 62 29.9 One major difference between upper and lower grade teachers was in the number of opportunities and mean time per opportunity in Enrich- ment. Upper grade teachers provided far fewer opportunties than did 136 the lower grade teachers but provided much more time on the average to each opportunity. Another big difference between the two groups of teachers occurred in Science. Both groups provided about the same time per opportunity on the average, but upper grade teachers provided nearly twice as many opportunities as did the lower grade teachers. For the most part, the differences on these dimensions between the two groups of teachers across other content areas were not very large. Differing teacher response to curriculum, student needs and aptitudes may help explain grade level differences in Reading, Science and Enrichment opportunities. Table 5.16 shows the mean time per opportunity individual teachers provided in each content area. We found that in each content area, four or five teachers often provided about the same amount of time per opportunity while the other one or two teachers in each content area provided much more or less time per opportunity. Language Arts illustrates this pattern. The time Teachers 2 (seventeen minutes) and 3 (16.2 minutes) provided per opportunity was much less than the time (around thirty minutes) provided by Rachers l, 4, 5 arnd 6. This pattern occurred in each of the other content areas as well. Similar mean times per opportunity pro- vided within content areas suggest that teachers may have a common notion about how long an activity in a particular content area stould last. Lost teachers differed quite a bit from one another in the number of opportunities they provided for each content area. Ann 137 TABLE 5.16 Mean (kaportunity Provided by Individual Teachers for Content Areas Teacher Content Area 1 3 £- 3 2 -6- x x x x x x Language Arts 32.0 17.0 34.7 16.2 31.1 28.0 n 28 17 22 11 9 19 Reading 23.7 21.8 22.0 21.3 37.8 11.8 n 10 10 25 15 20 6 n l 14 8 8 10 7 Science 44.6 38.8 36.5 35.5 30.6 41.6 n 8 6 2 18 5 11 Transitions 4.3 4.7 3.6 3.7 4.9 3.6 n 82 78 90 60 42 55 Breaks 20.0 20.8 25.1 19.5 26.4 17.4 n 42 45 45 30 25 48 Enrichment 45.1 43.1 43.7 18.5 40.9 34.4 n l6 13 23 9 13 26 example is Reading. Racher 4 provided twenty-five opportunities while Teacher 6 provided only six. Since the mean time per oppor- tunity was often similar across teachers, the number of opportunities was an important factor in the total time provided. 138 Individual teachers also differed from one another within content areas in the variance of opportunities they provided. Opportunity variance as measured by standard deviation is shom in Table 5.17. Differences in variance between teachers were greatest in the content areas of Language Arts, Reading, Math and Science. The most dramatic differences between teachers occurred in Math; the length of opportunities for Math provided by Teacher 3 varied no more than 3.2 mninutes while opportunities provided by macher 2 varied by up to 33.2 minutes. Variation of opportunities for Ran- sitions, Breaks and Enrichment were quite similar across all teachers. The variance of opportunities provided by Teachers 2, 3 and 4 ternded to fall into the moderate variance range more often than into the other two ranges. q>portunity variance for the other three teachers was nearly evenly divided among the three variance patterns discussed earlier. Patterns of variation for each teacher are displayed in Table 5.18. Fromthis table we can see that opportunities (excluding opportunities for Transition which we would expect to have low variance) across teachers typically varied moderately (between ten to twenty minutes). Regardless of the content area then, opportuni- ties of non-typical length most often differed from opportunities of typical length by only ten to twenty minutes. This finding suggests that teachers are willing to alter their normal classroom time allocation patterns, but only within certain time constraints, i.e., ten to twenty minutes. 139 TABLE 5.17 variance of Opportunities Provided by Individual Teachers for Content Areas Teacher 1 2 4 3 5 6 Content Area SD SD SD SD SD SD Language Arts 31.7 14.1 14.9 10.8 28.2 18.6 needing 9.7 10.8 18.0 6.9 29.0 8.4 Math * 33.2 19.8 3.2 15.2 10.3 Science 17.7 15.9 0.7 10.8 7.5 20.3 Transitions 2.7 2.8 2.3 2.7 4.2 2.0 Breaks 18.6 18.3 19.9 14.7 10.4 14.3 Enrichment 17.4 18.0 14.9 19.4 17.3 21.2 *Did not teach math. TABLE 5.18 Patterns of variation in Opportunities Provided by Teachers for Content Areas Teacher Content Area . 1 2 4 3 5 6 Language Arts H M M M H M Reading L M M L H L Math * H M L M M Science M M L M L H Transitions L L L L L L Breaks M M M M M M Enrichment M, M M M M H *Did nOt teach math. High variation (H) S.D. > 20 Moderate variation (M) S.D. Z_10 < 20 Low variation (L) S.D. < 10 Summary of Onr Findings on Actual Time Allocations Our major findings on opportunities teachers provided for activi- ties in the content areas are summarized below: 1. ~ Teachers provided 46.9 percent or nearly one—half of AST to activities in Language Arts, leading, Path and Science. 2. machers provided between ten percent and fourteen percent of AST to activities in each of the four academic content areas. 3. Upper grade teachers provided nearly the same proportion of AST to the four academic content areas combined as did lower grade teachers. 4. Upper grade teachers provided a different proportion of AST to each of the four academic content areas than did the lower grade teachers. 5. machers provided nearly one-third of AST for Ransition and Breaks. 6. There were wide differences between most teacters within content areas in the proportion of AST they provided. The largest range of difference between teachers occurred in Reading. 7. The number of opportunities teachers provided differed across content areas. Of the four academic content areas, teachers provided the greatest number of opportunities for Language Arts and the fewest to Math and Science. 8. The average length of an opportunity differed across content areas. (pportunities in Math lasted longer on tie average than opportunities in any other content area. Cpportunities in Language Arts and mading lasted on the average about tie same 141 length of time. 9. Upper and lower grade teachers provided a similar number of opportunities in only three content areas: Language Arts, Math and Breaks. 10. In all content areas except Reading, the opportunities upper grade teachers provided lasted longer on the average than the opportun- ities provided by lower grade teachers. 11. In each content area at least four of the six teachers provi— ded a similar amount of time on the average per opportunity. 12. Number of opportunities appears to be a critical factor in total time provided. 13. The variance of opportunities within content areas differed greatly across most teachers. 14. The variance of opportunities was similar across content areas for three teachers and different across content areas for three teachers. Comparison of Teachers' Planned and Actual Time Allocation The findings on the prOportion of AST teachers allocated supports the findings of other researchers that teachers commonly predetermine how they intend to use time in the classroom (Smith 1977, Clark and Yinger 1979; Clark and Elmore 1979; Morine-Dershimer 1977; Smith and Sandelbach 1979; Yinger 1979). machers in this stuly, however, failed to make plans for a substantial part of AST: they left nearly seventeen percent of AST on the average unallocated in their plans. This unallo- cated time represents almost one hour per day per teacher. An incomplete written plan does not necessarily indicate the absence of a plamed use for AST however, as fibrine-Dershimer found 142 (Morine-Dershimer 1977). It is possible teachers in this study behaved similarly to the teachers in her study and had a mental image of how they intended to use the time. For instance, teachers may have intend- ed to use established routines for sore or all of the unallocated time; if this were the case, familiarity with the routine(s) would have made a written plan unnecessary. From our viewpoint though, we treated un- alloca‘ed time ns though it were unplanned. We did not seek to identify whether or not teachers possessed a mental image of how they intended to use the unallocated time, only whether there was unallocated time and if so, how the unallocated time was actually used. A comparison of the findings presented in Table 5.3 with those present in Table 5.11 helps identify how teachers used unallocated time. These findings are set side by side in Table 5.19. From this table we see that the content areas of Reading and bath were provided a slightly smaller proportion of AST than was allocated to them while all other content areas were provided a larger ooportion of A31' than was allocated to them. Generally, the increase in the pro- portion of ASP provided was very stall, however. The increase for Transit ions and Breaks was an exception ; together the proportional share of AST for these two content areas increased from 18.8 percent to 34.3 percent. The proportional share of all other content areas com- bined increased only from 64.3 percent to 65.7 percent of AST. The time which teachers used to increase the proportion of AST for content areas came from two sources: a decrease in the allocated pro- portion of AST to Reading and Math and from unallocated time. which source(s) provided the time to increase the proportion of AST of a 143 TABLE 5.19 Proportion of AST Teachers Allocated and Provided for Content Areas Content Area Percent Allocated Percent Provided Language Arts 12.7 14.0 Reading 13.3 11.3 Math 12.5 11.4 Science 9.4 10.2 Transitions 1.0 8.8 Breaks 17.8 25.5 Enrichment 16.4 18.8 Unallocated 16.9 -— Totals 100.0 100.0 particular content area cannot be determined however from the data. What is clear is that only a very small part of the overall increase in time for Transitions and Breaks can be attributed to the decrease in the proportion of AST to other content areas. The greatest amount of the increase must be attributed to unallocated time. A comparison of the data from Table 5.5 with dose of Table 5.13 shows that individual teachers generally followed this same pattern. Teacher 5 though did not follow this pattern. (S)he increased about equally the proportion oanST for Reading, Math, Breaks and Transitions. Several reasons may account for the way in which teachers used unallocated time. Witl'out exception, they failed to anticipate a need for Transitions (they allocated only one percent oanST for Transi- tions). Since Transitions are an essential activity which facilitate changes from.one activity to another, teachers found it necessary to 144 provide time for them. But, why did teachers provide a greater propor- tion of AST for Breaks than what they had allocated? One reason may be that it was a way for teachers to avoid a possible stressful situa- tion brought about by use of an unplanned activity. If a teacher were to use the unallocated time for an activity in a content area other than Break or Transition, (s)he would have to extend a planned activity beyond the limits of the plan, initiate an unplanned activity or initi- ate a routine. Any one of these strategies would probably require him/ her to hastily arrange for materials, develop or recall instructional methods, ideas and goals, etc. mrhaps teachers believed this approach might disrupt the class and precipitate management problems, thus mak- ing their job more difficult. So teachers may have been reluctant to use unallocated time in this way, opting instead to use it most often for a Break. For the most part, Breaks require little or no planning on a teacher's part and practically no use of materials by students. This characteristic of Breaks makes it an ideal activity to use when extra time is available. It may also be that m'eaks are a good opportunity for students and teachers to obtain relief from the pressures of the classroom. Thus, teachers may consistently allow Break time to run beyond its intended length. Since each teacher provided about twenty-five percent of AST for Breaks, it may be that this is the arount of time teachers and students require during the school day. In this case, teacher failure to allo- cate about twenty-five percent of AST for Breaks could indicate a lack of understanding of their own as well as students' needs. Except for Transitions and Breaks then, the proportion of AST 145 teachers provided for each content area was quite similar to the pro- portion of ASI‘ they allocated to them. A comparison of the findings from Tables 5.4 arnd 5.12 reveals the same pattern when grade level is considered. The proportion of AST allocated was only slightly different than planned in each grade level. The greatest difference occurred in Transitions and Breaks. The pro- portional share of AST for each of these content areas was increased by about seven percentage points. In general then, the proportion of AST grade levels provided was quite similar to the proportion planned. Once a teacher has decided (allocated) then that a certain content area should be provided x percentage of AST, just about x percentage of ASI' was provided. This suggests a strong relationship exists be- tween a teacher's planned time allocations arnd the use of time in the classroom. In the aggregate, how this works out interval by interval is dis- cussed in the next chapter under regressions. The teacher's planned time allocations functioned then as more than just a loose or sketchy outline of his/her intentions as suggested by Smith and Sendelbach (1979): instead they served as quite specific guidelines for the quantity of time that was to be provided for each content area. The findings of Nbrine—Dershimer (1977) support this notion. Thus, the dranatic differences between individual teachers within content areas in the prognortion of AST each provided (Table 5.13) may not be explained by differing teacher reactions to differing student behaviors and events in the classroom: rather, teachers' planned time allocations alone may account for the differences (Table 5.5). 146 Even though the proportion of AST teachers provided to content areas was similar to what they had planned, they often used time differ- ently from the way they had indicated in their plans. A major way teachers departed from.their plans was through the use of activities that had not been stated in their written plans. We have called these activities unplanned because they had not been scheduled to occur. (Perhaps some unscheduled activities which occurred were routinized activities, activities which had been previously postponed or activi- ties the teacher was intending to use at a future date; as such then, they were not completely unplanned.) Table 5.20 shows the proportion of time provided in each content area (see Table 5.11 for total time provided) which was used for unscheduled activities. Overall, 36.1 percent of the time teachers provided for activities in the content areas was used in a way not anticipated by the plan. TBBLE 5.20 Proportion of AST Teachers Provided for Activities Not Stated In Their Plans Actual Activities NOt . Content Area Stated in Plan Percent Language Arts 50 35.6 Reading 27 27.8 Math 8 12.8 Science 18 37.6 Transitions 391 93.4 Breaks 120 29.2 Enrichment 48 37.6 147 machers provided the least amount of time for unscheduled Math activities; only about thirteen percent of Math time was used for tmscheduled activities. But, in most content areas, over one-third of the classroom time was used for unscheduled activities. For example, of the 2649 minutes teachers provided for Language Arts, 943 minutes was used for unscheduled activities. Teachers used unscheduled activities meet often in Transitions; over ninety-three percent of the time tea- chers provided for this content area was used for unscheduled activities. A second way in which teachers departed from their plans was by not providing time for some scheduled activities. This practice occurred mnuch less frequently than the one just mentioned : but in terms of time, it accounted for a sizeable departure from allocated time for Science, Ransitions arnd Enrichment. The proportion of allocated time which was not used for activities which had been planned is shown in Table 5.21 (see Table 5.3 for total allocated time). Again, Path was the content area which was affected the least by this teacher practice. only 4.2 percent of allocated Math time was not used as stated in the plan. The proportion of allocated time for other content areas not used as stated in the plan ranged from 5.5 percent for Breaks to 30.8 percent for Transitions. Overall, about fourteen percent of allocated time was not used as stated in the plan. So, even though teachers provided about the same proportion of AST to the content areas as they had planned, they sometimes failed to use scheduled activities and often used unscheduled ones. machers' extensive use of unscheduled activities and their fre— quent failure to use planned activities suggest that a teacher's plan about what specific activities to use does not have a strong effect on what activities occur in the classroom. 148 TABLE 5.21 Proportion of Planned Time Teachers Did Not Provide For the Content Area Stated in Their Plans Activities Stated In Content Area Plan But Not USed Percent Language Arts 8 12.5 Reading 14 14.4 Math 3 4.2 Science 14 29.3 Transitions 10 30.8 Breaks 10 5.5 Enrichment 19 20.0 A third way in which classroom use of time differed from the plan was in the number arnd mean length of the opportunities provided. An examination of Tables 5.6 and 5.14 shows that teachers provided more opportunities than were planned, but opportunities were, on the average, shorter in length than planned . Pem'aps one reason teachers altered their plans in these ways was because a few long opportunities proved too cumbersome in the ebb and flow of classroom life. But, for whatever reason, teachers decided to use shorter and more frequent opportunities. Teacher 5 was the only teacher who more often than not did not follow this pattern (Tables 5.8 compared with 5.16). Like the other teachers, (s)he provided more opportunities in all content areas (except Science), but in contrast to the other teachers, (s)he provided more time on the average tram (s)he had planned to opportunities in Language Arts, Science, Breaks and Ehrichnent. Perhaps (s)he was more 149 like an increrental planner arnd made provision for spontaneity in the classroom. Spontaneity might allow for increased teacher/student inter- actions, resulting in the use of more time for an activity than had been planned. Science was the only content area for which the planned number of intervals and their average length retained essentially unchanged; teachers provided almost the sane number of intervals for Science as they had intended and the average length of the intervals differed by less than one-half minute from what had been allocated. In other words, teachers followed their plans in Science nearly exactly. Smith arnd Serndelbach reported a similar behavior in the teaching of Science. They theorized that teacher unfamiliarity with the content contributed to a slavish adherence to the plan (Smith and Sendelbach 1979). They also noted that exclusive reliance on prepared curricula materials when planning and while teaching resulted in the teacher being unwill— ing or unable to alter his/her Science plans in response to student and/or classroom needs. Perhaps this was true of teachers in this study. Onr findings regarding teacher time decisions in content areas other than Science suggest that Smith and Sendelbach's findings regard- ing rigid adherence to plans should not be generalized beyond the area of Science; perhaps Science is tie only content area for which teachers so rigidly follow their plans. The fourth way in which teachers' classroom use of time differed from the plan was in the variance of planned and observed intervals. T‘he standard deviations of planned and observed (opportunities) inter- vals are compared in Table 5.22. In some content areas, opportunity 150 variance was greater than the planned variance. This was true for Math, Breaks and Enrichment. In other content areas, variance was less. Over all teachers though, the differences between planned and opportunity variance within content areas were not too large; all differences fall within the range of .1 - 5.7 minutes. TABLE 5.22 Standard Deviations of Teachers' Planned Intervals and (pportunities for Content Areas Content Area Planned SD Qaportunity SD Language Arts 27.9 22.2 Read ing 22 . 3 l9 . 3 Math 23.2 24.7 Science 14.8 ' 14.7 Transitions 5.4 2.8 Breaks 14.0 16.8 Enrichment l8 . 9 20. 4 what this finding suggests is that opportunity variance is a planned event and not a consequence of classroom content or student needs; it is another measure that indicates that teachers quite rigidly follow their planned time allocations. But, when planned and opportunity variance of individual teachers are corpared within content areas (Table 5.23), we see that the vari- ance within sore content areas hardly differed at all, while the vari- ances in other content areas differed snbstantially. These findings suggest two conclusions: (1) when planned vari- ance differs substantially from opportunity variations, then teachers 151 BEBE Ammfiafitoaaov mfitflfi no 96338“. E83? mHm>uouce ooccmam mo maceumfi>oo oumocmumo N.HN o.ma m.hH m.mH «.ma o.~a m.ea o.om o.oa m.ma v.5H H.mH penanceucm m.vH m.HH v.oa H.HH h.vH v.5 o.oH ~.ma m.mH w.mH m.ma o.oa mxcoum o.m w.m N.¢ m.m >.~ II m.~ o.o o.o m.~ n.m In mCOwuwmcmns m.o~ h.wa m.> w.cH m.o~ m.m o.o H.o o.mH o.om 5.5H o.oa oocofiom m.o~ o.o N.mH v.m ~.m m.mH o.oa >.m ~.mm o.om II II sum: o.o o.oa o.om o.om o.o o.oa o.oa w.>~ o.oa h.- >.o H.h mcfioomm w.wa o.oa ~.a~ o.om o.oa v.oa o.oa H.h H.va ~.h~ h.Hm a.mv muse oomomomq am Om am am Om am am Gm am am «Gm 3m . m v N mono acoucoo sonomma . .uonomwu_an popeeoum Amowuflcsuuoooov mao>uoucu auwz_mam>uoucH ooccmam mo mcofiumwSmo oucocoum mo comwumoeoo mm.m mamgfi 152 use of time in the classroom may have been quite strongly influenced by events in the classroom rather than by the plan; and ( 2) when planned variance does not differ or differs only minimally from oppor— tunity variance, then teachers use of time in the classroom may have been quite strongly influenced by the plan. Summary of Comparisons A comparison of planned time allocations with actual time allo- cations revealed that: (l) The proportional share of AST for all content areas other than Transitions and Breaks increased less than two percent, i.e, in the aggregate, the amount of time teachers provided for content areas was similar to time they had plamed; ( 2) The proport ioal share of AST for kansitions and Breaks increased from 18.8 percent to 34.3 percent; (3) hachers use of time in the classroom differed in four ways from their planned use: (a) 36.1 percent of AST was used for unplanned activities: (b) about 14 percent of allocated time was not used as stated in the plan; (c) teachers provided more and shorter classes than they had planned; (d) the lengths of classes within sone content areas differed from the plan: in sore content areas, the lengths of classes were more alike than planned while in other content areas, the lengths were more diverse than plamed; differences between planned and opportunity variance were quite small, however. 153 CHAPTER 6 CCMPARISCN OF REX-IRESSIG‘J MODELS WITH 'IHHDRETICAL MODELS Introduction In this chapter, teacher time decision patterns as described by regression models will be presented and compared to the theoretical models described in Chapter 4. Teacher time decision patterns as described by regression models will also be presented for each of three content areas (Language Arts, wading, Math). Pearson Correlation In Chapter 4, theoretical relationships between hypothetical planned and actual time allocations were proposed. An assumption underlying these theoretical models is that a high positive associ- ation exists between teachers‘ planned arnd actual time allocations. To confirm whether such an association did exist between planned arnd actual time allocations of teachers in our study, Pearson correlation analyses were performed on the sample data. Results of these analyses are shown in Table 6.1. Mm Table 6.1 we can see that the correlations differed substan- tially across teachers. Differences imply that any effect planned time allocations might had on allocations of time in the classroom was much stronger for sore teachers than for others. (Correlations between planned and actual time allocations will be written as P/A correlations.) We grouped the correlations into three categories: high, moderate and low. High correlations are defined as those between .70 - 1; moderate correlations are defined as those between .59 - .69: and low correlations are defined as those less than .59. 154 Table 6. 1 Pearson Correlations Between All Planned Time Allocations and Actual Time Allocations by Teacher Teacher r n l .75 186 2 .79 185 3 .76 223 4 .55 170 5 .65 141 6 .40 ' 196 High P/A correlations suggest that a relatively strong relation- ship existed bétween a teacher's planned and actual time allocations. With a high P/A correlation, variations in actual time allocations followed rather closely variations in planned time allocations. A high P/A correlation indicates then that the time a teacher provided for planned activities was quite similar to the time (s)he had planned for them. The P/A correlations of Teachers 1, 2 and 3 were high. Moderate P/A correlations suggest that the amount of time a teacher provided for planned activities often differed from the time (s)he had planned for them: but, actual time allocations tended to vary in a similar fashion as planned time allocations. The P/A correlation of Teacher 5 was moderate. A low P/A correlation suggests that a very weak relationship existed between a teacher's planned and actual time allocations: varia- tions in actual time allocations most often did not follow variations in planned time allocations. In other words, time provided for 155 activities differed almost randomly from time allocated to them. Teachers 4 and 6 were the only teachers who had low P/A correlations. The correlations of planned and actual time allocations of only three teachers then were found to be in the high range. Based on ear- lier studies which found that teachers most often adhered to their plans (Peterson and Clark 1978; Morine and Vallance 1975; Morine- Dershimer 1979; Zahorik 1970; Smith and Sendelbach 1979), we are sore- what surprised that only one-half of the sample in our study had corre- lations which indicate a fairly strict conformity to plans. The fact that three teachers had correlations in the low to moderate range indicates that a strong association between a teacher's plans and his/ her classroom practice may not describe typical teacher practice; in fact, our correlational findings indicate that sore teachers regularly departed substantially from their plans. Pemaps these were teachers who, like some teachers in the Peterson arnd Clark (1978) study, were concerned more with instructional processes in their planning arnd as a result, were more inclined to change to alternative activities if instruction was not proceeding according to plan. @ression Models of Teacher Time Decision Patterns We hypothesized that a positive relationship between a teacher's planned and actual time allocations (we refer to this relationship as a teacher's ”time decision pattern") could be sumarized by one of six different theoretical models. Five of the models are linear and one is a linear model whose regression line becores asymptotic to the x-axis. To determine whether or not these theoretical models are appropriate for describing a teacher's time decision pattern, we sub- mitted the data to regression analyses using a linear regression model. 156 The regression models which resulted were then compared with the theoretical models at two different levels. First, the regression ‘models which described a teacher's typical time decision pattern were compared with the theoretical models. Second, the regression models which described a teacher's time decision pattern for each of three content areas were compared with the theoretical models; the three con- tent areas were Language Arts, kadinq and Math. Erom regression analyses, two types of deviations can be identi- fied: one is the deviation of the best fitting model from Theoretical Model 3 (80 = 0: 81 = 1). Our discussion of this kind of deviation will focus on the deviation of b from 81 of Model 3.1 Such devia- 1: tions explain how a teacher's actual time allocations differed in general from what (s)he had planned, e.g., whether (s)he typically lengthened short planned time allocations and shortened long ones. The difference between the slope of the regression line which sumarizes a teacher's time decision pattern and the slope of the logical model determines which theoretical model is appropriate for describing his/ her time decision pattern. The other kind of deviation was of a teacher's actual time allo- cation from the time allocation predicted by the best fitting model, i.e., (y - y). Deviations of this kind explain an individual teacher's idiosyncratic behavior when contrasted to the best fitting theoretical model. when discussing deviations of this nature, we will focus on deviations of selected planned time allocations from time predicted by the best fitting model. The typical way in which a teacrer modified 1The value of b would be 1 if a teacher's time decision pattern conformed perfectly 5n the average to Model 3, the logical model. 157 his/her planned time allocations we will refer to as his/her ”plan modification pattern." Through regression analyses, we found that the association between the planned and actual time allocations for each of the six teachers in our study was a positive linear one. And, the regression model for each teacher was very similar to Theoretical Model 6. Model 6 describes the decrease interaction relationship. Regression coefficients for this theoretical relationship are so > 0 and 81 > 0 < 1. An example of a regression line for this model is shown in Figure 6.1. Adl teachers in this study then, deviated from the loqical:model (Theoretical Model 3) in the same way. Thus, we conclude that their time decision patterns were similar. Regression coefficients for the regression model which describes the association between each teacher's planned and actual time alloca- tions appear in Table 6.2. As can be seen, all of these regression values conform to the regression values of Theoretical Model 6. Since none of the confidence intervals fOr the regression coefficients 80 shown in Table 5.24 include zero and none of the confidence intervals for 81 include one, we are ninetyhfive percent confident that b and b 0 l are not equal to zero and one respectively. Thus, we are quite certain that the regression model for each teacher accurately describes his/her time decision pattern. Regression lines for these empirical models are shown in Figure 6.2. Because the regression model of each teacher's time decision pat- tern closely resembles Model 6, it follows that each teacher's plan modification pattern was very similar to the theoretical pattern. But, as will be seen later, some observed intervals (opportunities) 158 HWCH’OD’ man-a." DOP-flWOOI—H—‘m 6% ..... ... .. > logical model 136 II- I 102 ‘r / (B) . / 68q ‘E--- db 4 l _1 J l h :8 v 1 I 1 j>X o (T) 3 102 136 planned time allocation V Figure 6.1 Regression Line Summarizing Theoretical Model 6 159 o. v a on Damnaoacmam Hana am. am. a~.aa n m¢.m mm. Am.HH a «A. om. om.¢a n ~m.n we. mc.HH m am. He. am.HH n m~.m mm. mm.m a om. we. an.m n mm.m we. ma.m m so. am. oe.oa n sa.e om. mm.m m me. am. me.ma n mH.m me. eq.oa H an cm was «or umaomma 3335 oocooflcoo wmm Locommfi. an macaoucH oocoofl A m . m magma coo wmm oco mucowoflmooo coewmouomo 160 man-tort Dam Dana- .70; the correlation for Tedcher 5 was moderate, i.e., >_ .59 < .70; and the correlations for hachers 4 arnd 6 were low, i.e., < .59. Even trough the correlations differed between teachers, all correlations were positive. The fact that the correlations were positive indicates that a positive relationship existed between each teacher's plamed and actual time allocations; in other words, changes in their planned tine allocations were associated with like changes in their actual time allocations. Visual analyses of the scatter plots appear to support this conclusion. Correlational analyses of the data along with visual analyses of the scatter plots led us to another conclusion, namely, that teacher's planned time allocations had an effect on their actual time allocations ; the strength of the effect appears to have been greater for teachers whose P/A correlations are high and least for teachers whose P/A correlations are low. Paarson correlation analysis on the combined data of all six teachers yielded a moderate correlation of .67. This correlation, while falling within the range of a moderate correlation, is quite high. Such a correlation suggests that teachers' planned and actual time allocations were quite strongly related. Visual analysis of the scatter plot of this data leads to the same conclusion. On the basis of these findings then, we conclude that these teachers' planned tine allocations had an effect on their actual time allocations. lbgression analyses using a linear regression model confirmed that 194 each teacher's time decision pattern was linear. The regression model of the time decision pattern for each teacher conforms to Theoretical Model 6. All teachers' actual time allocations then, deviated from the logical model in the same way suggesting that teachers were quite simi- lar in the way they modified ther plans. Since tone of the confidence intervals for the regression coefficients 8 include zero, and none of 0 the confidence intervals for 81 include one, we are ninety-five percent confident that b0 and b1 are not equal to zero and one respectively. Thus, we are certain that the regression model for each teacher accur- ately describes the relationship between his/her planned and actual time allocations. Lagression analysis on the combined sample data produced similar results: the general regression model which best describes the associ- ation between teachers' planned and actual time allocations conformns to Theoretical Model 6. A wbdel 6 linear relationship indicates that actual time alloca- tions deviated from planned time allocation in three general ways: (1) stort planted time allocations were lengthened: (2) middle length planned tine allocations remained on the average unchanged: and (3) long planned time allocations were shortened. . The scatter plots show (Figures 6.3 - 6.8) the extent to which teachers' modification of their planned time allocations folloed this pattern. These scatter plots reveal that teachers typically did not follow the theoretical pattern of plan modification in the way they modified short planned time allocations. It was expected that teachers would typically increase the length of most short plamed time alloca- tions. This type of plan modification did occur, but not nearly to 195 the extent anticipated; instead, teachers decreased the length of many stort planned time allocations. All teachers did, however, provide time to many unplanned activities. In other words, teachers lengthen- ed only one short planned time allocation, the shortest one of all rather than lengthen activities in the whole range of short planned time allocations. For the most part, Rachers 2-6 modified middle length planned time allocations according to the theoretical pattern for wbdel 6. The effect of this practice was ttat on the average, middle length planned time allocations remained unchanged. Teacher 1, on the other hand, modified middle length planned time allocations differently from the tbdel 6 pattern. His/her practice was to shorten all of them. Teacher plan modification practices were a bit more unsystematic when it came to long planned time allocations. hachers 1-3 typically shortened long planned time allocations while Teachers 4-6 appear to have lengthened about as many as they shortened. It appears that Teachers 4-6 shortened long planned time allocations to a much greater degree than they lengthened others. The scatter plot of 'the combined data (Figure 5.13) clearly shows that teachers modified their planned time allocations quite similarly to the plan modification pattern for Theoretical Abdel 6. The “best fitting” regression lines in Figures 6.3-6.8 sumarize the tire decision pattern for each teacher. The slope of each regres- sion line is positive indiciating each teacher's time decision pattern was linear. The size of tie slopes varied from .38 for Tacher 6 to .72 for Teacher 3, while the slope of the general model was found to be .59. 196 The larger the slope, the more closely variations in actual time allo- cations folloed variations in planned time allocations. The deviation of the slope from the loqical model indicates the extent to which a teacher typically modified his/her planned time allocations. The findings from these analyses show that Teacher 3 shortened his/her planned tine allocations the least (just over one- third) while macher 6 shortened his/her planned time allocations the most (nearly two-thirds). The deviation of the slope of the general model from the slope of the logical model shows that on the average, teachers shortened their planned time allocations by about forty per- cent. On the average then, teachers' planned and actual time alloca- tions were somewhat similar. Thus, it appears that teachers' planned tine allocations had an effect on their actual time allocations. From the scatter plots (Figures 6.3-6.8), we can see that in sone cases, a teacher's actual time allocations deviated considerably from the tines predicted by his/her model. Large deviations from the pre- dicted model typically occurred at different planned time allocation ranges for different teacters. There was sore similarity across teachers in the planned time allocation ranges at which large devia- tions occurred: but, there was only one planned time allocation range for which all teachers' actual tire allocations comnonly deviated by a large margin from the regression model. This plamed time allocation was zero. The models predicted that unplanned activities (activities with planned time allocations of zero) were provided on the average from about five to just over eleven minutes: it was not uncomon, how- ever for teaclers to provide twenty to forty minutes more than this to unplanned activities. In sone cases, the tile they provided for 197 unplanned activities differed from the average time for them by more than forty minutes. Other planned time allocations for which teacher's actual tine allocations deviated substantially from the regression models were two to fifteen minutes, fifteen to thirty-five minutes, thirty-five to forty-five minutes and forty-five to sixty minutes. Actual time allocations for activities with planned tire allocations of fifteen to thirty-five and thirty-five to forty appear to have been especially susceptible to large deviations from the model: in these time ranges, five of the six teachers provided time to activities which greatly deviated from the times irndicated by their models. The pattern of deviation was not the same for all five teachers, however. In the fifteen to thirty-five minute range, the actual tine allocations of Teachers 1, 3 and S were much less than their model indicates: the allocations of Teacher 4 were either much greater or lesser than his/her model:'and the allocations of Teacher 6 were generally much greater than his/her model indicates. In the thirty-five to fortybfive minute planned time allocation range, there was a bit more similarity across the five teachers in the way each one's actual tine allocations deviated from his/her regression model. Teacher 2, 3 and 5 provided much less time while Teachers 4 and 6 provided either much more or much less tine for plamed activi- ties than indicated by their models. Sole of the actual time allocations by four of the six teachers for activities in the forty-five to sixty minute planned time alloca- tion range also deviated snbstantially from their regression model. Teachers 1 and 2 provided much less tine, while Tudors 4 and 6 198 provided either more or less time than predicted by their models. The actual time allocations of just three of the six teachers for activities in the two to twenty-five minute range deviated substantial- 1y from their models. Of the four ranges previously identified as having the greatest frequency of large deviations, this one appears to have the smallest number of large deviations. From the scatter plot in Figure 6.9, it appears that most of the teachers' actual time allocations to activities deviated from the general model by not more than seventeen minutes. Thus, it seems that the general model quite accurately portrays the relationship between teachers' planned arnd actual time allocations. Overall , the general model appears to be an accurate measure of the tire teaclners provided to activities whose planned time allocations were between zero and sixty-eight minutes. macher models are sonewhat different from the general model, however, for planned time allocations larger than sixty-eight minutes. 'lhus, the general model does not appear to give a true picture of actual time allocations for activities whose planned time allocations are greater than sixty-eight minutes . Regression tbdels for Content Areas Compared To Theoretical Models . Paarson correlation analyses were performed on the sample data to deternmine the direction and extent of the relationship between planned and actual time allocations by teachers in this study for Language Arts, leading and Math. Sample data were then submitted to linear regression analyses in order to obtain a descriptive model of each teacher's time decision pattern for each of the three content areas. 'Ihese regression models 199 were then analyzed to see how they corpared to the theoretical models that we hypothesized could describe a teacher's time decision pattern, whether for a part of a day, e.g., one content area, or a full day. Language Arts Ibsults of the Parson correlation analyses for Language Arts are shown in Table 6.3. A positve correlation was found between planned and actual time allocations of Teachers 1-3, 5 and 6. These findings indicate that the time teachers provided to Language Arts activities was related in a positive fashion with their planned tine allocations. A negative correlation was found between Language Arts planned and actual time allocations of Teacher 4. This finding indicates that his/ her actual time allocations to Language Arts activities had a negative relationship with his/her planned tile allocations: in other words, long planned time allocations tended to be much srorter than planned and short planned tine allocations tended to be much longer than planned. Teachers differed in the extent to which their Language Arts plamed and actual tine allocations correlated. Tedcher l was the only teacher whose P/A correlation was high (.89) and only one teacher, Teacher 3, had a moderate P/A correlation (.61). The P/A co'relations for the other four teachers were low: for Teacher 2 it was .43; for Teacher 4, ”.26: for Teacher 5, .27: and for Teacher 6, .46. So even though five of the six correlations were positive, four of them were low. These findings indicate then, that the relationship between the planned and actual time allocations for most teachers was not very strong. 8 lbgression anaIyses of the Language Arts data provided models 200 Table 6.3 Pearson Correlations Between Planned time Allocations and Actual Time Allocations for Language Arts by Teacher Teacher r n 1 .89 25 2 . 43 19 3 . 61 25 4 ’. 26 11 5 . 27 12 6 . 46 19 which described each teacrer's tine decision pattern for Language Arts. We found that the time decision pattern for hachers 1-3, 5 and 6 could best be described by a lirear model resembling Theoretical tbdel 6. The time decision pattern for macher 4 could best be described by a linear model which resembles Theoretical Model Ix. kgression coef- ficients for this model are 8 > 0 and 8 < 0. 0 1 Regression coefficients for the regression models are shown in Table 6.4. As can be seen from the Table, regression values for Teachers 1-3, 5 and 6 conform to the regression values of tbdel 6, while regression values for macher 4 conform to the regression values of bbdel Ix. We cannot be certain, however, that the b regression 0 values for Teachers 3 and 5 are different from zero since the ninety— five percent confidence interval for 8 includes zero. Thus, we 0 camot be certain that the regression model for each teacher accur- ately describes their true time decision pattern in Language Arts. ‘ For Teachers 1, 2, 4 and 6, the 80 confidence interval does 201 Eouu ucmuouufio on go: one o .808 o 3308wa Summon—own on 83 mommouo 3335 0050380.. mm. lace. a.~m u o.a~ ma. an.m~ ma a me. . Hm.u o.~v n o.o: Hm. .m~.ma NH m as. u H¢.Hu >.o~ u m.m~ pm.u ~m.me as v m». 1 Ha. o.H uha.n he. .mm.m m~ m as. . Ho.- m.a~ a e.m am. ~q.- ma m me. u mm. ¢.o~ n m.m he. NH.mH mN H _a an an on c uwaomma 333cm oocmofiucou wmm nozommfi .3 3.2 woo—6:3 98 3335 853:8 am... can mucwwofiumoou commmopmmz v .0 manna. 202 does not include zero and the 61 confidence interval does not include one. Therefore, we are ninety-five percent confident that b0 arnd bl for these teachers are not equal to zero and one respec- tively. We are quite confident then that the regression models for hachers 1, 2, 4 and 6 accurately describe their Language Arts time decision patterns. We theorized that in a mdel 6 relationship, a teacher would modify his/her planned time allocations so that short ones would be longer than planned ; middle length ones would on the average be the same length; and long ones would be shorter than planned. The scatter plot in Figure 6.11 shows that macher 1 lengthened most short planned time allocations, provided about as much time as planned to the middle length planned timeallocations and shortened all long ones. So in general, hacher 1 modified his/her planned time allocations according to the theoretical pattern. In some instances, however, the amount of time macher 1 provided for planned activities was considerably less than what (s)he had planned. mrthermore, (s)he provided time for nearly as many unplanned activities as (s)he did for planned activities. Thus, it appears that Teacher l's actual time allocations to Language Arts often were not greatly influenced by his/her Language Arts planned time allocations. In a few instances, the amomnt of time hacher 1 provided for planned activities quite closely approximated his/her planned time allocations to them. For these activities then, hacher 1's actual timne alloca- tions apparently were quite strongly related to his/her planned time allocations to Language Arts. Overall, Teacher l's actual time allo- cations to Language Arts appear to have been moderately related to 203 mayon- QannH~umucH wocwowwcoo mmo e288. 3 8868 new 3535 «oregano «me are 3563ch Seemflmma o.o magma 216 m B H-fl' Q¢QMuoucu oocoowwcoo mmo screams an ear: hoe Hmeuouee mocmoHoeoo mmm ecu mermaoaoomoo eoemmmummm o.o mama. .227 The scatter plot for hacher 2 is shown in Figure 6.23. It shows that on several occasions, hacher 2 provided almost exactly the amount of tine to Math as (s)ke had planned. But on all other occasions, (s)ke provided less time; in most cases, hoever, the dif— ference between his/her planned annd actual time allocations was not large. And on only a few occasions did hacher 2 provide time for unplanned Math activities. In general tken, the actual time hacher 2 provided for Math activities was often very similar to tke time (s)he had planned for them. The "best fitting“ regression line which sumarizes this tine decision pattern for hacher 2 is shown in Figure 6.23. It indicates that the tire decision pattern was liear annd conforms to Theoretical Model 6. But, since the 8 annd 81 confidence intervals include zero 0 annd one respectively, we are not certain wketker this regression model accurately describes his/her Math tine decision pattern. With this in minnd, we will discuss hacher 2's regression model. The slope of tke regression line is .75. A slope of this size indicates that on the average, the tine hacher 2 provided for Math activities was very similar to the time (s)he had planned for them. The size of the Pearson correlation (.91) annd tke mall size of the slope difference (.25) support this conclusion. The results of the Pearson correlation annd regression analyses of tke sample Math data for hacker 2 lead to tie connclusion that his/her planned tine allocations for Math had a strong effect on his/ker actual time allocations for Math. The scatter plot for hacher 3 is shown in Figure 6.24. It shows that on at least" oe occasion (s)ke provided a little more time to a 228 m 5 Hon' oanH-4 .L J)- A V 4L Jr db 0 . 34 88 1'02 736 no Planned Time Figure 6 . 24 hgression Model for hacher 3's Math Time Decision Pattern 230 Math activity than (s)he had planned. For most of the other Math activities, however, hacher 3 provided just slightly less time than (s)he had planned. Furthermore, Teacher 3 provided only a small amount of time to a few unplamed activities. It appears from the scatter plot then that hacher 3's planned and actual time allocations were linearly related. The .94 Pearson correlation for this relationship is very high indicating that the relationship was extremely strong. The ”best fitting" regression line shown in Figure 6.24 summari- zes the time decision pattern for hacher 3 in Math. But since the 80 annd 81 confidence interval includes zero annd one respectively, we cannot be certain that this regression model accurately describes the Math time decision pattern for hacher 3. With this in minnd, we will discuss hacher 3's regression model. The slope of the regression line is very large (.78) and indicates a strong linear time decision pattern which conforms to Theoretical Model 6. The slope difference indicates that on the average, the time hacher 3 provided for Math activities was only about twenty-two percent less than (s)he knad planned. It appears from the reSults of the Pearson correlation annd regres- sion analyses of hacher 3's sample Math data that his/her planned tine allocations for Math had a strong effect on his/her actual time allocations for Math. A scatter plot of the sample Math data for Teacher 4 is skown in Figure 6.25. It shows that (s)he provided less tire for all Math activities than (s)he had planned; typically, (s)he provided the most time to activities with shorter planned time allocations annd the least time to activities with the longest planned time allocations. There 231 appears then to be an inverse relationship between hacher 4's planned and actual time allocations; but, Teacher 4 consistently provided about thirty minutes to Math activities whose planned time allocations were around forty minutes. This practice seems to suggest that his/her actual time allocations were at least moderately affected by his/her planned time allocations. A "best fitting" regression line sumarizing this time decision pattern is shown in Figure 6.25. The slope of the regression line is -.43. The small size of the slope suggests that time (s)he provided to planned Math activities varied unsystematically with variations in planned time allocations. The slope difference indicates that hacher 4's actual time allocations were on the average about fifty- seven percent shorter than his/her planned time allocations. The fact that the slope is negative indicates that overall, hacher 4 provided the most time for Math activities with a short planned time allocation and the least tine for bath activities with long planned time allocations. This pattern is apparent from the scatter plot. The low Pearson correlation ('.49) suggests, hoever, that the negative relationship was not very strong. The scatter plot appears to tell a different story. In fact, it appears from the scatter plot that hacher 4 consistently provided just slightly less time for Math than (s)he had planned. Based on the ' scatter plot then, we conclude that hacher 4's planned time alloca- tions for Math had a fairly strong effect on his/her actual time allocations for Math. A scatter plot for hacker 5 is sholn in Figure 6.26. It shoe that the time hacher 5 provided for planned Math activities differed 232 m B H-H‘ o.o QnH-< O H'U 17 0 11:8 ‘39.. If time provided per opportunity 102' 88'L L L x Figure 6. 25 hgression Model for hacher 4's Math Time Decision Pattern 233 (Dan-un- QanH- ex. The term on: is defined as tke total amounnt of time allocated to planned activities for tke day: it ‘can never be greater, but it could be less, than the available school time. Tie term ey is defined as the total auount of time a teacher actually provides for activities. It must always equal the available school time. Only kbdels l, 2, 2A, 3, 4, and 6 were foud to meet these qualifications (cy a ex or cy > ex). hus, these models can describe a full day(s) tine decision pattern for any teacher. kbdels 4A, 5 and 6A shod that cy < ex. Since this term indicates that less than tke AST was used, we concluded tken tkese models can only represent teachers' time decision patterns over a part of a day or parts of days. After analyzing tke time decision patterns described by kbdels 1. 2, 2A, 3, 4, and 6 we concluded that node1 6 is the most likely candidate to represent tke time decision pattern of practicinng teackers: it appears to be tke only model which accounts for all tke available sckool time while at the see time sumnarizing not only the type of time decision pattern teachers are thought to follow (linear) but also tke different ways teackers probably modify—proportional, constant, constant/proportional—their planned time allocations each day. General lattern of Teachers' Plamed Tine Allocations h foud that teackers allocated on tke average just over eighty- three percent of the available sckool time (AST). Since eackn teacker 247 had about 360 minutes available each school day, this finding indicates that they developed plans for a little less than five of the six hours available each day. Generally, teachers allocated nearly one-half (47.9 percent) of AST to activities in the academic content areas and more than one-third (35.3 percent) to activities in the non-academic content areas. hey allocated about the sane proportion of AST (9.4 - 13.3) to each of the academic content areas. Teachers intended to use, then, only about one-half of the school day for academic pursuits. here were only stall differences between upper and lower grade level teachers in the proportion of AST each allocated. Apparently then, grade level, curricula and student differences had little effect on hot much AST teachers in different grade levels allocated to academic and non-academic content areas. here were large differences between teachers in most content areas in the average time each allocated to activities. These large differences may reflect differinng strategies, differing teacher per- ceptions of student. aptitudes and needs and different curricula objec- tives. It may also' reflect differing placement of activities in rela- tion to Breaks such as recess and lunch. Smith foud that the activity which occurred just before schoolwide scheduled events such as recess and Breaks normally lasted a different lenngth of time than if the same activity did not occur just prior to one of these Breaks (Smith, 1977). hachers in this study may have differed from each other in the place- ment of activities in relation to sckoolwide scheduled events. he findings on the proportion of AST allocated supports [the find-— ings of otker researchers that teachers comonly predetermine know they 248 intend to use time in the classroom (Smith, 1977; Clark and Yinger, 1979; Clark and Elmore, 1979; Nbrine-Dershimer, 1977; Smith and Sendelbach, 1979; Yinger, 1979). hachers in this study, however, left nearly seventeen percent of AST on the average unallocated in tkeir plans. This represents alnmost one kour per day per teacher. Ann incomplete written plan does not necessarily indicate the absence of a planned use for AST however, as Morine—Dershiuer found (kbrine- Dershimer, 1977). It is possible that teachers in this study behaved similarly to teachers in her study and had a mental image of kow they intended to use AST. here were large variations in tine teachers allocated to activi- ties within content areas. Also tke variance within content areas differed greatly between teachers. he findinngs on variance suggest that in tke content areas where tke greatest differences in variance occurred, teachers may have differed in the ways they intended to coduct tkeir classroom activi- ties. This conclusion is based on tke assumption that instructional strategies employed durinng intervals of oe lenngth may be different ‘ from instructional strategies eunployed during intervals of other lengths. For example, small group activities may require more tine— muaybe thirtybfive to forty-five minutes—whereas an individual hadinng activity may require a fairly skort auount of time, say twenty to thirty minutes. attending this idea a step further, teachers whose intervals were all of a similar length, i.e., a low standard deviation, may have relied on oe or only a few instructional strategies while teachers “ wkose intervals were more varied may have relied on a number of 249' different instructional strategies. 50, interval variance may indicate variety of instructional approach. General Pattern of hachers' Actual Tine Allocations As a group, teachers provided slightly more than forty-six percent of AST for activities in the four academic content areas; in other words, less than one-half of AST was used for academic pursuits. hachers provided about 34.3 percent of AST to the areas of Trans- ition and Breaks. Thus, about one-third of each sckool day was used for non—academic pursuits. here were sizeable differences between upper and loer grade teachers in the proportion of AST provided for the different content areas. he differences may reflect differing goals and needs comuon to different grade levels. For example, loer' grade teachers provided nearly two times more AST to hadinng than did upper grade teachers. And, upper grade teachers provided nearly two times more AST to Science than did loer grade teachers. In general there were substantial differences between teackers within content areas in the proportion of AST they provided. In several content areas, proportion of AST provided differed between teachers by a factor of ten. his occurred in hading and Science. Gnerally, we foud differences between content areas both in the hunter of opportunnnities teachers provided and in the mean opportunity tine; the differences fell within a narrow rarnge kowever. Except for Transitions, opportunities in all content areas lasted from one-third to three-fourths of an kour. Differences were foud between upper and loer grade teachers in tke nuunber of opportunities each group provided within content areas 250 ' as well as in the mean opportunity time. Differing teacher responses to different curricula, student needs and aptitudes may explain grade level differences on this dinension. Differences between teachers in mean opportunity time were not extensive. We found that in each content area four or five teachers often provided about the sane time per cpportunity while the other one or two teachers provided much more or less tine per opportunity. But, most teachers differed substantially from one another in the number of opportunities they provided for each content area. Since the mean tine per opportunity did not differ very extensively between teackers, the number of opportunities was an important factor in the total time provided for the particular content. Large variance was found across teachers in the time tkey provided for opportunities within most content areas. mportunities typically varied in the range of ten to twenty minutes. Onportunity varience within content areas also differed in a similar way between teackers. These findings suggest that teachers find it necessary to alter their planned time allocations, but only within a particular time range. he findings on variance may be explained in several ways. Teachers may have adjusted their plannned time allocations in response to differing tine needs of student and content and/or they may have used content areas for different purposes. For instance, skort activi- ties of five to ten minutes may have been used to fill time which inter- vened between the end of oe activity and theistart of another activity. Or, long activities in excess of sixty minutes may knave been used so that teacker activities such as checking papers, planning for a future activity or havinng discussions with individual students could occur. 251 hachers may use one content area more often than otkers for a particu- lar purpose. his may explain why Language Arts and hading generally had skorter intervals than Math or Science. Planned Time Allocations Compared to Actual Time Allocations he content areas of hading and Math were provided a slightly smaller proportion of AST than was allocated to them while all other content areas were provided a larger proportion of AST. Generally, the increase was very small however. An exception was Transitions and Breaks; taken together, the proportional sknare of AST for these areas increased from 18.8 percent to 34.3 percent. he proportional share of AST for all other content areas combined increased only from 64.3 percent to 65.7 percent. Comparison of the data for individual teachers shows that their decisions about time generally folloed this same pattern. Only a very small part of the overall increase in time for Transi- tion and Breaks can be attributed to the decrease in the proportion of AST to other content areas. he greatest part of tke increase must be attributed to unallocated time. Several reasons may account for the way in which teachers used unallocated time. Without exception, teachers allocated very little tine for Transitions; since Transitions are an essential activity, teachers found it necessary to provide for them. For the most part, Breaks require little or no planning. his characteristic makes it an ideal activity to use when extra time becores available. It also is an activity which allows teachers and students to obtain relief from the pressures of the classroom. Comparisons of planned and actual time allocations suggest 252 that a strong relationship existed between teachers' planned and actual use of time in the classroom. Planned time allocations functioned then as more than just a loose or sketchy outline of a teacher's intentions as suggested by Smith and Sendelbach (1979). Instead, they served as quite specific guidelines for the quantity of time teachers provided for each content area. he findings of Marine-Dershimer (1977) support this notion. he similarities between planned and actual time allocations sug- gest that if educators and policy makers wish to influence how time is used in the classroom, their efforts should be focused, at least initially, on teachers' planninng decisions. he strong relationship between planned and actual time suggests that the dramatic differences between individual teachers within con- tent areas in the proportion of AST each provided may not be explained by differing teacher reactions to differing student behaviors and events in the classroom; rather, teachers' planned time allocations alone may account for the differences. In otker words, whatever time the teacker planned, that is the time that was provided no matter wknat transpired in the classroom. If teachers are foud to behave in this way—Zoharik suggests that teachers who plan are insensitive to student needs—then training programs must be developed or refined to help teachers learn to plan in a way that increases, not decreases, their sensitivity to student needs. Peterson and Clark (1978) found that teackers whose planning decisions dealt with instructional processes appeared to be more responsive to student needs. Perhaps teackers ought to be trained to plan in this way. Wnile tine was generally provided to content areas in the amounts 253 planned, teackers often used AST differently from tke way they had indicated in tkeir plans. Following are four major ways teachers departed from their plans: (1) use of unplanned activities; (2) failure to use planned activities; (3) provide more but shorter activities; (4) activities longer or skorter than planned. hackers extensive use of unplanned activities and tkeir frequent failure to use planned ones suggest that teackers' plans about what specific activities to use do not have a strong effect on what activi- ties occur in the classroom. hrhaps teachers provided more and skorter opportunities in res- ponse to manageuent considerations, i.e., the classroom may function more effectively with skorter activities than loger ones. Eyen tkough actual time variance differed from planned time variance, the differences were not too large: differences fell within tke range of .l - 5.7 minutes. klnat this suggests is that opportunity variance is a planned event and not a consequence of classroom, content or student needs. In otker words, the findings on tine variance support tke notion that teachers rigidly follow their plans (Zakorik, 1970; Smith and Sendelbach, 1979). men planned and opportunity variance of individual teachers are compared, we find that variance within some content areas hardly differed at all while the variance in other content areas differed sub- stantially.' hese findings suggest two conclusions: (1) when planned variations do not differ or differ only minimally from opportunity variations, then teacher use of time in the classroom may have been 254 quite strongly influenced by the plan; and, (2) when planned varia- tions differ substantially from opportunity variations, then teachers' use of time in the classroom may have been quite strongly influenced by events in the classroom rather than by the plan. In other words, variation may souetimes be explained by teacher perception of needs developed while planning and sometimes by teacher reaction to needs observed during instruction. Teacher hgression Models To confim whether an association existed between planned and actual time allocations of teachers in our study, Pearson correlation analyses were performed on the sample data. From tkese analyses we found that teacher's planned and actual time allocations were posi- tively correlated. his finding suggests that cknarges in a teacher's planned time allocations were associated with changes in his/her actual tine allocations. Visual analyses of the scatterplots support this conclusion. Differences in correlations were foud between teachers. hese differences imply that any effect planned time allocations might have had on allocations of time in the classroom was much stronger for some teachers than for others. Pearson correlation analysis on the combined sample data revealed a moderately high positive correlation. his finding indicates that in general a positive relationship existed between teackers' planned and actual time allocations. Visual analysis of the scatter plot leads to the same conclusion. hus, teacker planned time allocations appeared to have knad an effect on their actual time allocations. We hypothesized that a positive relationship (we refer to the 255 relationship as a teacher's tine decision pattern) could be summarized by one of six different tkeoretical models. To determine whether or not these theoretical models are appropriate for describing a teacher's time decision pattern, we submitted the data to regression analysis using a linear regression model. hsults of these analyses revealed that the time decision pattern for each of the six teachers in our study was a positive linear one; further, the theoretical model which best describes the time decision pattern for each teacher is rodel 6. his finding suggests that teachers modified their planned time allocations in a very similar way, i.e., according to the pattern suggested for theoretical bbdel 6. Apparently then, teachers responded in the same way to factors in the classroom that tended to precipitate plan modification. he slope of the regression model (general model) for the combined sample data was moderately high; such a slope suggests that variations in teackers' actual time allocations tended to follow variations in tkeir planned time allocations. he intercept of tke slope was low indicating that while teackers used unplanned activities, the length of the typical unplanned activity was very short. Since unplanned activities were so skort, tkey were probably manageuent rather than content type activities. hgression analyses then, supports or con- clusion drawn from statistical annalyses that teackers' planned time allocations had a positive effect on tkeir actual time allocations. he scatter plots show that teachers occasionally modified their plannned tine'allocations differently from the tkeoretical pattern. hese modifications show uup as deviations from tke regression model. Occasionally these deviations were much larger than anticipated. Such 256 large deviations occurred most frequently with unplanned activities. Most deviations from the regression model fell within a narrow range hoever. Our findings on deviation from the regression model suggest that the time indicated by the regression model is a good indicator of the average time teachers provided for various activities whether planned or unplanned. Since only six teachers participated in the study, we cannot generalize this conclusion to a larger sauuple of teackers. Regression Model for Language Arts Pearson correlations for four of the six teachers were low. hese findings suggest then that the relationship between planned and actual tine allocations for Language Arts by most teackers was not very strong. he results of regression analyses show that tke Language Arts time decision pattern for flour teachers can best be described by Theoretical nodal 6. For tkese two teackers it appears that their Language Arts planned tine allocation had an effect on Language Arts actual time allocations. he Language Arts time decision pattern of one teacher can also be described by heoretical kbdel 6 while the tine decision pattern of one teacher can best be described by Theoreti- cal deel IX, but the 80 ninety-five percent confidence interval for their models includes zero. Thus, we cannot be certain that these models describe the Language Arts time decision patterns of these two teachers. h cannot tell then what effect the Language Arts planned tine allocations of these teachers had on their Language Arts actual time allocations. Buut, since the number of cases for these teachers was small, tke results most be viewed as inconclusive. 257 hgression bodel for had ing Pearson correlations were positive for three teachers and nega- tive for three teachers. TVo of the positive correlations were high; the other four were low. hese findings suggest then that the relation- ship between planned and actual hading tine allocations of most teachers was not very strong. The results of regression analyses show that tke hading time decision pattern of three teachers can best be described by Theoretical Model 6. he time decision pattern for two other teackers can also be described by heoretical kbdel 6 while the time decision pattern of three teackers can best be described by heoretical kbdel 1):; but, the A B ninety-five percent confidence interval for tke regression coeffi- 0 cients of two of these teachers includes zero and tke 81 ninety-five percent confidence interval for tke other teacher includes one. hus, we cannot be certain that these models describe the hading time decision pattern of these teachers. he large size of the slope for hachers 3 and 5 suggests that their actual tine allocations for hading were quite strongly influ- enced by their planned time allocations to hading. he small size of tke slope for hachers l, 2, 4 and 6 suggests that their actual tine allocations for hading were only weakly affected by their planned time allocations to hading. Since for most teackers the number of cases was small, the results must be viewed as inconclusive. Regression Model for Math Pearson correlations for three of the five teachers who taught Math were positive and two of tke correlations were negative. Only two of tke positive correlations were high, the remainder were low. 258 In general then, correlational findings suggest that tke relationship between planned and actual time allocations for bath by most teachers was not very strong. he results of regression analyses shoed that the time decision pattern for three teachers can best be described by heoretical Model 6 and by heoretical Model Ix for two teachers. he slope for hachers 4 and 5 accurately described their time decision pattern for Math since the ninety-five percent confidence interval for 8 and 81 does not include zero and one respectively. 0 The slopes for these teachers suggest that their planned time alloca- tions to Math had little effect on their actual time allocations to Math. he scatter plots however indicate a strong relationship between their planned and actual time allocations to Math. he 80 ninety-five confidence interval for hachers 2, 3 and 6 includes zero; and the B ninety-five percent confidence interval for 1 Teachers 2 and 3 includes one. herefore, we are not certain whether the regression models for these teachers accurately describe tkeir tine decision patterns for Math. Tie number of cases for each teacker was stall, however, so the results must be viewed as inconclusive. Educational Implications Practice The principal finding from this study was that planned time allocations were causally related to actual time allocations (oppor- tuunnity). hus, it was concluded that planned time allocations were also related ‘to achievenent since tine provided or opportunity and achievenent are causally related. his linkage between planned time allocations and achieveuent provides strong support for the notion 259 that teacher planning is an essential teacher practice. he relationship between planned time allocations and achievement has significant implications for teachers, teacher educators, policy- makers and administrators. It would be helpful to consider ways in which this relationship should affect their educational practice. hachers. hachers need to recognize the effect planned time allocations have on achievement. he realization of this relationship should then lead them to make planned time allocations a regular and integral part of their practice. Once teachers make this determina- tion, they ought to commit time and effort to developing and/or refining their planning skills. Teacher Educators. hacher educators should assuue an active role in helping teachers and policymakers acquire information about the plan/achieveuent relationship. Specifically, they should explain the causal relationship between planned time allocations and achieve- ment and convince both pre-service and practicing teachers as well as policymakers that planning is essential to effective teaching. Con- comitant to the dissemination of information about this relationship skould be programus for pre-service as well as practicing teachers that provide instruction and practice in making planned time allocation decisions. Finally, teacher educators skould encourage teachers and policymakers to periodically review their planning practices and policies. Pblicymakers. Policymakers skould review existing policies that deal with teacher planning to determine whether or not tke policies recognize the part teacher planning plays in achievement and support teacher planning as an essential teacher practice. Primary goals of 260 this review process should the revision of existing policies and enactment of new policies. The policies should be designed so that they encourage and support teacher planning; describe teacher planning as an essential part of teacher responsibilities; pramote opportmities for teachers to plan; mandate the allocation of funds to be used to structure teacher working conditions so that teachers will have plan- ning time; and mandate programs to develop, improve and evaluate teacher planning practices. Administrators. Administrators must communicate to teachers that planning is an important teacher practice. 'Ibward this end, adminis- trators ought to establish school-wide rules and procedures that encourage teachers to plan regularly. Further, administrators must ' insure that decisions they make regarding funding, scheduling and staff assignments do not diminish teachers' inclination to plan or interfere with their ability to plan. Administrative conduct of this sort will signal toteachers that administrators place a high priority on teacher planning. Finally, administrators should periodically evaluate teacher planning practices. Ibsults of these evaluations should then be used to develop training programs to upgrade and refine teacher planning skills. Research Eyen though a fairly strong relationship was found between planned and actual time allocations, teachers often departed from their planned time allocations. Since planned time allocations and achievement have been shown to be related, teacher failure to use time as planned is an issue that needs to be investigated. wecific questions relating to this issue which ought to be addressed are: (1) To what extent 261 does the amount of planning time affect planned use of time? (2) To what extent does teacher ability to assess student and curricular needs affect the planned use of time? (3) What effect does unexpected class- room events and/or institutional demands have on planned use of time? Answers to these questions will give direction to teacher educators, policymakers and administrators as they seek to develop and refine teacher planning skills . 262 APPENDICES APPENDIX 3 . 1 IRT APPENDIX 3.1 May 8, 1978 LA Project ‘ Ibbert Hill 9:00 9:05 9:10 9:12 9:13 9:14 9:17 OBSERVATION Written on the CB: mrple Spelling Blue Pink p. 134 p. 147 dictation p. 119 p. 146 on your own p. 120 “Reading to Learn” selection: Katherine Dmham pp. 284-289 # 111 49—50 Goals: Be ready to discuss pp. 281-288 lst bell rings. S's begin coming into roam. 'Ihey get out reading and spelling books. T collects $ and notes from home. S's chat with each other socially (S and notes concern a field trip to Greenfield Village) 'r takes hot lunch and milk count and roll. 2, 10 and 11 absent. 17 leaves room to take roll and counts to office; 5 tells T his mom can't go on Fr. 17 goes directly to reading/spelling class after taking information to the office. T—-"O<, on your way." All HR S's except 12, 19, 23 and 26 leave room and go to reading in other roams. S's from other rooms come in. T passes back spelling workbooks. Not all S's are in the room yet. ‘1' moves TD#1 closer to front of room. At M1 '1‘ looks over TB of '18 and ditto materials (He is waiting for all S's to get into the room. Reading/spelling does not officially start until 9:15). S's are wandering around roam chatting with each other. Some get books out for class. T—"All right, your assignment's on the board, get ready to go." mole class; 8'3 12, 19, 23 26; 8'3 get out their spelling books, all S's seated now, and find appropriate pages for dictation. 263 IRT LA Project 9:18 9:26 9:28 9:30 May 8, 1978 Robert Hill T—"lst word for Pink." on p. 119. T at his TD#1 Pink-spelling words Sentence dictated T. I. both and 2. soap "...both bars of soap to shower... 3. roll and 4. gold "...bought a roll and paid a...gold..." 5. road and 6. only "...on the road permit only 2 donkies...” 7. sold and 8. ago "...sold horses 2 years ago..." 9. also and 10. hold "...also hold books..." 11. pest and 12. toast “...post notice to toast bread..." 13. almost and 14. almost dropped roast.. 15. clothing "...please wear warm clothing..." T said words in pairs and then said a sentence that contained both spell words. (11 8'3 in Pink. No HR S's in Pink) Blue-spelling words sentences 1. parties and 2. happier ? 3. happiest and 4. copied "...happiest person because copied. . ." 5. stories and 6. carving ? 7. companies and 8, prettily ”...several companies that do cement work. I have never heard prettily..." 9. empties and 10. marries "...empties bucket of rice when he marries." 11. merriment and 12. strawberries “...merriment he found strawberries 3 for $1." 13. inventor and 14. position "...Thomas Edison..." 15. fancier ”...her clothes are fancier..." (T dictated spelling words for Blue in same manner as for Pink; 16 8'5 in Blue. S's 12, 29, 23, and 26 in Blue) Rirple; 8'3 19, 23 in Purple; 6 S's in Purple. So they had all 15 Blue words plus 21 Purple words as well as the 2 sentences. Spelling Words Sentences l. nation and 2. student "...From nation of Uganda..foreign S...’I 3. guess and 4. movie ”...can't guess the name of the movie on tonight...” 5. poem and 6. grocer ”...write a poem to the grocer..." 7. proper and 8. o'clock "...proper to read time as 24 past 9 o'clock..." 9. island and 10. hundred "...on island are 100 birds...” 11. together and 12. vacation ”...together we go on vacation..." 13. jolliest and 14. hurrying "...jolliest man htnrrying on Christmas Eve..." 15. president and 16. electricity "...the President said to conserve electricity..." 1?. intellingent and 18. attractive "...that woman is intelligent and attractive..." 264 LA Project 9:32 9:33 9:34 9:39 9:45 9:50 9:52 9:55 10:02 10:06 10:08 10:10 10:11 May 8, 1978 Robert Hill 19. remember and 20. advertisement "...remember to put the advertisement . . . " T points out on CB what S's in Pink should be doing. Sentence dictation for S's in Purple — #19, 23; and S's in Blue - #12, 26 T—"Whose signature is on the envelope?" The helicopter will deliver food to the starving animals in a relief operation." T says each sentence only once. After S's have had time to write the sentence, he calls on a S to read the sentence s/he has written. Time is provided for any errors to be corrected. T ends sentence dictation. S's in Blue and Purple begin working individually on dittos and/or spelling workbook. T begins discussion with S in Pink group. They discuss the story from Goals reading book. p. 281-288. As S in Blue and Purple groups complete spelling and dittos, they begin to read story on pp. 284-289 of “Reading to learn" book. S's in Blue and Purple do not go to T'during this time (9:39—10:10) for help. They mrk independently, some seek help from each other. T continues discussion with Pink group. 5'3 12, 19, 23, and 26 continue working independently on spelling and reading assignment. T continues discussion with Pink and 8'5 12, 29, 23 and 26 continue working on spelling/reading assignment. The dittos had been distributed earlier in the week by the T. 23 is working on a different page in spelling book than the others because she is trying to catch up on incomplete assignments. 19 leaves room to go to BR 19 returns T continues discussion with Pink and 8'3 l2, 19, 23 and 26 continue working on spelling and reading assignment. 23 begins looking at p. 284 in "Reading to Learn.” T stops discussion with Pink group. They begin working independently. T—"Did you complete ditto #50?" He asks Blue and Purple. Tt—"Let's take a look at ditto #50." 8'5 get ditto #50 out. T stands at TD#1 and finds pp in TB of TB for Katherine nmham story 265 IRT LA Project 10: 12 10:14 10:16 10:17 10:19 10:20 10:23 10:25 10: 29 10:30 10: 31 10:34 11:00 11:01 May 8, 1978 Rabert Hill Tb Blue and Purple groups, T reads outloud from TB of TB. He tells S's to recall that they are studying the: "remembering of events." T walks around to check how many S's had completed dittos. T then reads question 1 outloud and asks class what the answer is. T asks S's to use TB, ”Reading to learn,“ to verify their answers. S's have to look in their TB to find the page and paragraph which supports their answer. They then read it outloud to S in Blue and Purple. (T uses same procedure for questions 2-6 as in question 1 at 10:14) T reads outloud question 2. T reads outloud questions 3. T—"You have to have some reason for making your "yes" "no" selection.“ Find support for it in the story. Several S's volunteer answers and verification. T reads outloud question 4. Tk-"Confirm and/or verify your answer. Several S's do. T-"How many answer "yes" to question 5? How many "no”? T reads outloud question 5; give evidence for your answer. This is not a yes/no question. S's start looking in book. T—“Dig out some evidence that the answer is either Chicago or New York.“ T calls on 23, she reads paragraph from p. 285. Class continues to try to find support for answers to question 5 (There appears to be no clear-cut answer to this one). Q'oup settles on Chicago, although the TB of the TB says N.Y. T reads outloud question 6. 5'3 in Pink group begin to leave room and T calls them back because he had not dismissed the whole class (T was concerned that members of the Pink group were wasting time). He said they had lots of work to do and wasting a little time each day added up to a lot of wasted time over the year. T dismisses reading/spelling class. (Transition) T putters aromd the room. S's leave and HR S's come into room. They sit or stand aromd waiting for recess to begin. T dismisses S's for recess. S's begin coming in from recess. T—"Metrics, p. 38." Only about 1/2 of 8's are in the room yet. T leaves room to round up the rest of the HR 8'3. 8'3 266 LA Project 11:02 11:04 11:05 11:07 11:10 11:13 11:20 11:21 11:22 11:25 May 8, 1978 Robert Hill in the room begin getting out their books (metric) and so1e begin working. S's continue to come into room; 9, 12 com in T returns, 16 and 24 come in T—"deay, in fact this week we went to wrap up our metric unit." He goes to the CB and begins drawing a chart, whole class. T writes on the CB; as he writes he asks the class to tell him what to add to the chart. For instance, T—‘Mbat are the prefixes for greater than the unit?" S'S—deca, hecta, etc. 1000 100 10 .1 1/10 .01 1/100 .001 1/1000 Kilo Hecta Deca Unit Deci Centi Milli Meter Liter Gram T—"Hope you will have a good grasp of the prefixes used in linear, volme, mass." T—"Write all the terminology to complete this chart. S's write this chart on a blank sheet of paper. S's begin drawing their graph. T walks around and monitors S's work. T—"Remember what the symbol’z is for: ”is about" T writes on CB "1 meterzl yard. 1 literz 1 quart 1000 grams (1 Kg)c.v2 lbs" T sets out balance m a desk. He says he won't use it today, but will by Thursday. T tells whole class to continue in the workbook after completing the chart. T points out the on the CB and tells the class to note that the metic system is close to the system we are accustmed to. Discussion on how the price of food is going up. (be S talked about buying firecrackers (FC). 12 told of putting PC on an old lady's porch. T then lec- tured tl'e class on respecting the rights of others; asking permission to go on others property; harassing neighbors. 267 LA Project 11:29 11:30 11:32 11:34 11:35 12:10 12:15 12:17 12:18 12:19 12:20 12:22 12:25 12:30 12:31 12:32 12:34 May 8, 1978 Ebert Hill 5 leaves for safeties. T tells class to turn to p. 39. T reads outloud to the class from this page. T asks what 500 grams would be called. Several S's respond erroneously. Finally T helps them arrive at 1/2 kg. T—"Will continue on p. 40 tomorrow." T tells class to line up to go to lunch. T dismisses class to go to lunch. lst bell rings. S's begin to come into room. They take out books and magazines and get ready for USSR. 19 helping Kindergarten T. 8 helping Kindergarten T. They are not in the room yet. All S's in room except 12, 16, 5, 7, 8, 9, 19, 20, 26. All in the room are reading for IBSR. 2, 10, 11 are absent. T sits at TD#2 and fills out safety patrol permission forms. 5 comes in and starts reading. 26 comes in and starts reading. T leaves room. T returns. 9, 10 core in pushing the mta Bank book cart. T talks with 18 at S desk (20 sec.) T leaves room. T returns and continues work on SP forms. IBSR continues, whole class. T—"All right, it's time to get ready for science.” S's get out science materials and leave room to go to science class in another room. Transition, T walks around and puts mta Bank books on S's desks. 7, 8, 12, 16, 19 had rot cote in yet from lunch. They were either safeties or were helping in K or kitchen. These S's went directly to science whenever they finished their chores. T passes back dittos to 8'5 from other room as they core into his room. . Not all S's yet in the room. Those in the room begin working on‘ ditto. T—"You might want to refresh your memory by looking at p. 216 and the following pp. which talks about the Ehancipation Proclamation (EP)" 268 IRI‘ bay 8, 1978 LA Project Ebert Hill 12:36 S's begin working independently on the set of dittos. The dittos are p. 22-24 of Unit 8-Inquiring About American History c. 1978 Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. (Data Bank Series) 12:40 T walks around room monitoring S's work. 12:42 T—"Some of you are having trouble on the second page (23)." T asks for the reasons they have given for question 1. 12:44 T asks for reasons for question 2. 12:46 T asks for reasons for question 3. 12:50 T gives reasons why Lincoln had crosen this time to issue the EP. S's had trouble coming up with reasonable answer for this question. T points them to p. 216, 217 of the mta Bank TB. 12:53 T asks for reasons for question 4. 12:54 T asks for reasons for question 5. 12:56 Another T comes into room and talks with T in room for about 1 minute. 12:59 T—"Thrn to p. 3 (of ditto, p. 24); T reads outloud the statement at top of page. He asks for S's responses. 1:00 T point S's to p. 218 in TB. 1:02 T reads outloud part B. on p. 24 of dittos. 1:03 S's begin working on dittos. T tells class the dittos are due tomorrow (5/9/78). 1:05 T asks for additional reasons for Part D on p. 24 of ditto. 1:06 Class is dismissed and 8's leave. Almost immediately, HR S's begin coming into room. Transition. 1:08 All S's in room except 2, 10, ll—absent. T tells S's to work on dittos and they can find help in TB on pp. 216-220. 15 leaves room to go to principal's office. mole class. 1:09 S's begin to work independently on dittos. T walks around and monitors S's work. 1:10 24 leaves room for BR. 1:11 12 leaves room for BR. 1:13 24 returns 269 LA Project 1:14 1:15 1:23 1:24 1:25 1:26 1:27 1:28 1:29 1:30 1:31 1:33 May 8, 1978 Robert Hill 15 returns. T begins discussing questions on p. 23 of ditto. He asks for S's responses. 15, 14, 7, 12, 20 respond to question 1— because peOple sl'ould be free; then T reads outloud question 2. 26-no, it will destroy my business; 6-yes; l9-yes/no, no reason 12-yes; 21-yes/no, South couldn't agree; 20-? war go on longer He tells S's they also have to state a reason for giving the answer. 12 returns T reads to class outloud question 3. He then asks for S's responses; T calls on the following S's: 3—did not respond 6—waiting for good wind—afraid of Congress veto 16—No, most people wouldn't hear (lack of communication) 26—Yes, more slaves would be made l9—Yes, the sooner the better 6-Japanese were in Washington D.C. on Karl Phrbor my 4—goes to BR T asks 22 to read outlotr] question 4. He calls on for answer: 22—free slaves, 7—war will end. 12—no slaves and war will end, 5 leaves to go to BR, returns at 1:27; 4 returns T asks 22 to read outloud question 5. He calls on following 8 to answer: 9—? 23—South will be mad and rot like Lincoln; 3—no response 26—war will still go on T'I—"There were 4 million slaves. What will happen when all these people walk away from plantation and owners?" lZ—many would be shot. 21—no place to go. No one would want them. T—-"All of a sudden 4 million are free to go where they want to and do what they want to, what will happen? 5—North not strong erough to enforce l6-owners would not let blacks work. T—"You mean racial prejudice when blacks went to find a job? 16—Yes, wouldn't sell land to blacks Th—"Think back to story of Amos Fortme." 20—race riots, 24d—riots in 1967, my dad was in it. He's a state policeman. T'-—"I was in Virginia in 1967 and saw the fires in Washington, D.C. These are sole of the far reaching effects of the EP.‘ 270 IRT LA Project 1:35 1:36 1:37 1:40 1:41 1:43 1:44 1:45 1:46 1:47 1:48 1:50 1:53 May 8, 1978 Robert Hill T—"Take a look at p. 24 of ditto." T reads outloud the first section. mat are we supposed to do here, 4 is called on. No response. , T—"I'll give you until tomorrow to do this. I want to finish section B. 13 reads it outloud. T—Put dcwm at least 3 state- ments about what the President does. 19—eat, sleep and drink. T—NO! (I crack up, almost all of class miss it.) T—You must have heard on the radio or T.V. about what your Resident does. Put them down on your paper. S's write down their ideas. T monitors their work. Whole class, S's work independently. T—What do you have down? 23—making laws, save energy, stop pollution; 21—cmtrol laws...? 16—keep states in order, keep peace...? lZ—we already have peace. T—wait a minute, why do we have the U.N.? Response...? 16-Israel, Arabs...? 17 leaves room for BR; 19 leaves room for BR; 6-make laws. T—He signs laws; S—keeping taxes for government. T—He makes suggestions to the legislature. A dictator would do it alone. 24 leaves room for ER. 9 returns TL-How about holding press conferences? How about planning budget with advisors? T—How about comander-in-chief? 17 returns. ” lG—cracking peanuts. Om this note, class ends. T asks S's to pass book to the front of room. 10 leaves room for BR. T—"All right, let's turn our efforts to English.” 17 leaves room for ? whole class. 24 returns; T asks S's to tell riddles they either lmcw or made up—6, 12, 3 respond. T—"The riddles you skould have made skould have been descrip- tive. " He gave several examples. Who has black hair, green pants etc. S's guess the person thus described. 18, 23, 19, 14 give examples of riddles. T—Last week we talked about adjectives. If I put nos on CB, it would be pretty general; if I put BIG IDG that would elimin- ate all the small dogs. 10 returns. This is in preparation for writing a descriptive advertisement. 271 IRT LA Project 1:55 1:56 1:59 2:03 2:04 2:06 2:07 2:08 2:09 2:10 2:11 2:12 2:13 2:15 2:16 May 8, 1978 Robert Hill Th-p. 192 in English book. T reads introduction outloud. T allows a moment for S's to read advertisement silently. T asks 15 to answer question that begins, "Where does...” No response. 16-—at the beginning. TFreads question outloud that begins, ”In describing the phonograph... 12-I don't know; 20-performance features. Thdwhat other details? 23-perfectly balanced arm; 9—-brand new. T—age is important. What else? 21--how much it cost; 23-phone #; 9—-for sale; 7e-no scratch. T reads sentence that begins, "Is the description complete?" He reads outloud. 14 leaves for BR; T reads sentence that begins, “What impres- sion..." outloud. l4-It's good and worth it; 7—-the same; 15 reads A. for discussion outloud. 14 returns; 13 reads B. outloud. T‘asks S's to respond: 24-—a11 the details; Th4wny did he include the details he did? S-cnes a buyer would want to know; 18-? T reads A.under activities outloud. 24 leaves room; T passes out paper. T asks S's to write an advertisement to sell a bicycle. Limit of 30-35 words. Everyone will write a bike adv. Then I'll have you write one on anything you want to. This way if everyone writes on the same thing, we'll get ideas from one another on what are important details. 24 returns. S's begin writing; T wrote C(NDITICN on the CB. Soreone wanted to know how to spell it. Th—24 reminded me that an ad in the S. Journal costs $ for every word. Therefore you want to say it in as few words as possible and still interest someone in the advertised item. Tfleaves room. T returns and walks around monitoring S's work; whole class. T wrote SCRAMBLER on tte CB; T read over 19's ad, then 4, 21 (T was walking around the room and would stop and read S's advertisement.) Then 20, 18. Tfasks 19 to read her ad outloud to the class. He asks class to notice what would cause you to be interested in the article. 272 IRT LA Project 2:16 2:18 2:19 2:21 2:22 2:23 2:25 2:26 2:28 2:30 N o .31 2:32 2:33 2:34 2:35 May 8, 1978 Ebert Hill She had the color of the article given in her advertisement. TL—Is it important to put the color? S's-yes. 6 reads his ad outloud to class. 20 reads his ad outloud to class. TPAWhat could have been eliminated? How about the word nice? 18 reads ad outloud to class. T—Could you have put it in 1 sentence instead of 3? 16 reads ad outloud to class. 24 reads ad outloud to class; 9 reads ad outloud to class. 12 reads ad outloud to class; 3 reads ad outloud to class. 7 reads ad outloud to class. TL-I have a feeling we could take out words. There's a show on T.V; called "To Say the least." This is a game we could play. Tonight, cut out 2 ads from papers and bring them in tomorrow. 17 returns. Maybe we could play the game tomorrow. T—Eliminate more words from your ads. Transition. TL-WE're going to continue on our safety unit. (whole class) Stand up and shake out some stiffness; 3, 18, 23 leave room for BR. Th-turn to p. 216 in your Health TB. S's begin getting out their books. Some still shaking out stiffness. 23 returns; 3 returns; 25 leaves room. 26 reads outloud lst paragraph o1 p. 216. 18 returns Th-last year we had operation Irene, to simulate how you would vacate your house. T asks S's to tell about how to get out of their house in the event of a fire; whole class. 5 responds how to get out of their house in event of fire. 24 responds how to get out of their house in event of fire. 25 returns. 12 responds how to get out of their house in event of fire. 7 responds how to get out of their house in event of a fire. T—If you have to break a window use a pillow, shoe or blanket so you won't cut yourself. 6 tells out to get out Of... 7 tells how to get out of...; 15 tells how to get out of... 18 tells how to get out of... Th-safety'windows on trailers, different from.years ago. 273 LA Project 2:38 2:40 2:43 2:44 2:45 2:47 2:48 2:49 2:53 2:54 2:55 2:58 2:59 00 w 0. 3:02 May 8, 1978 Ebert Hill 16 tells how to get out... 20 tells how to get out... lB—ewater heater blow up, I would be a goner 24 tells row to get out... 20-don't sleep well, a light sleeper, I'd wake up 16 tells how to get out... Th—"What is just as dangerous to your life...? T—"How might you help to avoid home fires?" question from p. 216 of Health and Growth. 26, 12, 20, 6 respond to T question. 10 begins watering plants. She has a watering can and walks around the room.to the plants. T asks 21 to read "Learn How to Escape Fires..." on p. 216 outloud. T asks class low to keep stoke from going up the stairs in his house after he described the layout of his house. 23-smoke detector 6—patch the cracks in the wall, S#2—board up the stairs 17 leaves room 22 stoke detectors go off when we open the broiler. Th-Is it heat or smoke sensitive? l8-—we have one heat and smoke sensitive-—both. ZO-emy grandpa hit his because it kept going off. Man he put his fist right through it. l4-? T asks 22 to read ”A Fire in a High Rise Apartment" (:1 p. 217 outloud. 17 returns. TL—What does it mean "test the door"? l9-—see if it's hot; 6-—no electricity in our trailer in Florida. When we went there in BBC. we had to live practically in the dark. 6 reads outloud last paragraph on p. 217 to whole class. 23, 25, 22 leave room for safety patrol. 6 stops reading. Discussion follows. 20 cattle starving in Texas eat cactus, they burn off sharp spines. I saw it on T.V. 6 resumes reading outloud. 10 stops watering plants. 274 IRT LA Project 3:04 3:06 3:08 3:09 3:10 3:11 3:12 3:15 3:20 May 8, 1978 Ebert Hill 6 stops reading . T—paramedics go out with every fire call in Dimondale; S—my window in my BR is stall; 20—put in fire sprinklers in Meijers new add on Renn. A worker hit a fire alarm and about 6 fire trucks came. T—You can rotice the sprinklers in Meijers. They will come on in the event of heat. 20—they got about 20 steering wheel like things so the fire trucks can get water at Meijers. T—There are probably different kinds of sprinklers in big department stores. 20—they should put foam in the ceilings so when the fire got so high the foam would drop and put out the fire. T'asks 9 to read outloud p. 219 at the top of the page. 7 leaves for safeties. T'leaves room. T returns. T—reads outloud the comon causes of ho1e fires. T—We'll continue tomorrow on bicycle safety. S's begin getting ready to go home. T stops reading, tells class to get ready to go hove. S's leave to go home. 275 APPENDIX 3 . 2 ORIGINAL TEACHER PIANS APPENDIX 3.2 1m m u: as m m lire: 20 9:15 - 10:10 J10:10- 11:10 11:10 - 12:00 Greer haunt: 10 1st MP!!! on what they' Ihth 5/1..A. 4 nth 4/I..A. 4 wing to do in m. mntsrpiscssu.) Clssn :p (In) Est/Eaten (modes) (II!) 9:10 - 10:10 10:15 - 11:00 11:00 - 12:00 Gym & Mic Oops/water all over: ' 21 Eda L.A. cur-actors deck w/hxins to have kidssing nuns-:11 “‘1‘” "9 a Iorld 9:15 - 10:10 10:10 - 11:00 11:00 - 12:00 career Wt: nth 5/L.A. 4 Math 4/1..A. S 22 Make placents I In finish w/collm. do international people .5 'See about getting video tape 9:10 - 10:10 10:15 - 11:10 11:10 - 12:00 Gym 5 Mic Ihth 4/L.A. S nth S/ I..A. 4 (visitor owing in) 23 3% 9:00 - 10:30 anecial Chests: won-vets (7’) W: work: 24 ”$31!: Greer Mast: 'Sing It's A Bull world lam-fruit Pruss- ‘Vidsdupe (7) Inter-lethal an ms River-l Police: Sec. Servicss/ Fisheries Biologist mputy Seriff/Soc. on: ”Most Glenn (3:: nth: week's“ Gantry Ego-ts: Ferric Elders: critical Ending 'mscisl hstsr antsiners 276 1:00 - ~1s40 reports about career - w/ v. aids 1:40 - 2:20 (881: v/ Science: Ecial Studies: “‘1 “in” Cmtm ham up Mystery lesson 46 be); t lbduie "7 Tips a Espcnse Ed: 5 'U 1:00 - 1:30 1:40 - 2:20 (88R a] Science mis Career aeskfast “‘1 M1"; —Experimnting . ' B S a ... ‘ 8 1:10 - 1:40 1:40 - 2:20 ' ass: ,, Eseerch an. give cal reading ‘3 E a 2 ' .. 3‘ seem Studies / :1 3 I ~1:10 - 1:45 1:45 - 2:20 Mt [tactical Gantry hports Set Lp tmles for Introductory speedos total ten health»: tables 8mg BU L Kids in library . omen hading? ?‘ and” i E Comtry folders 1:00 - 1:40 1:40 - 2:20 as: w/ on: 5mm. 4 on: um. s “‘5‘” 277 APPENDIX 3 . 3 2. 3. 6. APPENDIX 3. 3 PRCXIEIIJRES FOR mSERVATIONS In recording your observations, use quotation marks for direct quotes by the teacher. You should at all times try to record what the teacher says as closely as is possible. However, when this is not possible, just record what the teacher says as closely as possible. When you merely summarize the teacher's cements, you ‘ do not need to place quotes around the words. However, in many instances, the comments of the teacher are worthwhile to record directly and if this is the case, use quotation marks so we know this is exactly or precisely what the teacher said during the lesson. Use the word "teacher" to capital ”T" to refer to the teacher during your recording of the observation of the teacher. Do not use the teacher's name as this can be confusing. When tie teacher is doing sotething with a subgrouping of the total students or with individual students, at the point at which this activity begins record what tie children who are not directly involved with the teacher are doing. Any tire the teacher changes activity from one group of children to another, be sure again to record what all groups or sets of individuals are doing. When you record that a given teacher tas the children or a child read, indicate whether the reading is out loud or silently. In order to establish a continuity of activities in the class- room, when you are recording the activities of the teacher or an individual student or a group, make sure to indicate at what point they are finished with a certain activity and at what point trey begin the next activity. Perhaps a simple expression for this is, student (group or teacher), C finishes X and starts Y. In this sentence x is the content or activity just completed and Y is the activity or content just beginning. Individual level students - record this when their allocated time to an activity is different from that of the rest of the class or from the subgroup to which they belong. Don't worry about emaged time . a) AlwaE record when they are individually interacting with a teacher or an aide unless interaction is motentary b) Record when child leaves room for library, toilet, etc. c) If trey are all working on seat work, simply record class working on seat work 278 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. d) If child is punished by being made to stand in corner or leave room - record times e) If all children or a subgroup are doing worksheets but one child is doing sorething entirely different - record it f) If individuals are working m worksheets or center work and the activity changes or they go to a different center or change what they are working am (from math to pl'onics) try to record this for individuals if possible. If you can't do 1t, don't worry about it. 9) Record kids who very noticeably and obviously deviate in their behavior from what they should be doing h) If oral reading - note pupil doing it Always record what the teacher and the aides are doing and with whom they are doing it. Don't worry about what is or isn't integration. Simply record the series of questions or coments the teacher makes during tte lesson along with the times at which they occur. Don't worry if you miss sore of tie contents or questions. Simply try to record as many as you can. 'Ihis need only be done when the teacher is giving instruction for the whole group or various subgroups. You do not need to record comments or questions used to give directions or in instructional interactions with individual students. While doing observations, keep a separate sheet to record ques- tions that occur to you during the day to ask the teacl'er at the end of the day. Remember to always record what the teacher is doing. This means that if tkere is any question about which kids to observe, that is, you can't watch all of them, note what the kids that are interacting with the teacher are doing, rather than the kids that are rot interacting with the teacher. It seems useful to obtain copies of the books that the kids are using during the lesson so you can follow it while they are working on He lesson. You might simply ask tre teacher if there is a spare copy of the reading book or the math or whatever and that way you can follow along. For movies, records, slides, and film strips, be sure to sumrarize the inferred purpose in the content when they are used in the classroom that you are observing. For those people who have half-day observations, be sure that both of you are using the same numbering system for children from one half-day to tie other. It probably would be simplest for the morning observer to pass along tl'e numbering system he/ ste uses to the person that is involved in the afternoon session. 279 14. 15. Make sure you get the names of the children and the corresponding number you used for them during the observation every time you observe, so that the numbering system from.week—t0dweek is com- parable. It would be nice, but not necessary, to have the same numberings from week-toeweek for those obervations.you do in the same classroom. If you are not able to do this, then you must attach the numbers with their names to the list so that compar- ability can be achieved from.each week's observation to the next. This is absolutely critical and must be done. After you have completed your observation, check your record- ‘ing of that observation over very carefully. Re-read the entire description asking yourself the question, "hull the reader of this know what every student was doing during the entire course of the observation?" This of course means what the student was supposed to be doing since we are not concerned with what he is actually doing in terms of fooling around or things of that sort. But one should be able to determine from the observations what each student was doing or supposed to be doing during the course of the observation. Also what the teacher was doing should be dis- cernible from the observations. If you find your description to be incomplete on some of these counts, fill in supplementary or clarifying material and then turn in the observation to be typed. 280 APPENDIX 3. 4 APPENDIX 3.4 Coding Procedures General Procedures 1. 2. 3. 4. Is. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Each student in each class is assigned a number (01, 10, 20) which remains constant for all conding procedures. ' Class refers to a number assigned to each teacher in the study. 91y refers to the date of the data source which is coded. Source indicates whether observations or teachers' plans were used as the data source. Beginningand ending tires refer to the time activities started and stopped. Content Areas include types of activities found in school days with provisions for major and minor areas. Group refers to whole group, subgroup or individual. Group Size refers to the number of students in the group con- sfdered; check attendance to determine group size. Sipervisory Code refers to teacher supervised, other supervised or nonsupervised. Location refers to in own room, out of own room, or out of school. Process variable refers to the arount of actual reading or writing done by students during a time interval. Writing refers to text or sentence compositions, not to penmanship. Student Procedures 12. 13. 14. Use the sale subject numbers throughout all of the coding for a given classroom. That is to say, subject 25 must refer to tie same person in all of the coding. If a child is absent record on tie code sheets his number, class, day, and source. For the beginning time, give the beginning time for all other students for that day and for the ending time, use tl'e ending time for that day. Be sure to check attendance and note those children that are absent on the code sheets. If sore pupils are not identified, ignore their actions in the coding or if they are identified but only as involved in momentary actions, ignore them in coding (anything 30 seconds or less or ”brief" is defined as momentary). 281 15. If a beginning and an ending time cannot be found for children leaving tie room, ignore their having left, i.e., treat them as if tl'ey never left the room. Time Interval Procedures 16. Times for intervals must be continuous, e.g., 9:12 - 9: 20; next interval 9:20 - 9:40; next 9:40 - . Content Areas Procedures — General 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. Always consider the large unit when classifying content areas. If a larger segment of time which is homogenous with respect to content has embedded in it only a stort comment by the teacher which would change the content specification, ignore this comment and code for the larger unit. when the teacher gives directions or elaborates on an assignment, this should be coded in whatever content area it occurs; it is part of the time interval for the content area coded. Annomcetent of due dates should never be coded separately. a. If due dates are anrounced during a regular lesson, then treat the announcement as part of the content area in which it occurs. b. If due dates are announced during a transition, consider the announcewent as part of the transition. For tke codes 0100, 0200 and 1500, no minor is usually coded. then children leave for the library, code the content of what they will be doing in the library if you know it. If children leave during a period in which they were instructed to use the library as a resource, then code tkeir content area as the same as what the rest of the class is studying during that tire interval: only code them being out of their room by location code. If children leave during some other tile when the content is not clear, or during the reading or language arts period, or during their free tire, assute they have gore to pick out a library book for their free reading time; code these students as 0212 and 12 m the process variable. There is no separate code for tests. All testing skould simply be coded as to the content area which it covers. For the super- visory code, code it as l - teacher supervised. For the group designation code, code it as individual. For the process variable code - code it as 30. che movies or tests or field trips or educational assemblies in terms of the content involved. 282 Content Areas Procedures — Language Arts 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. (bde all sharing activities as 0110: language Arts - oral communication. If children spend time with speech and/or hearing therapy, code them as 0110. Writing instruction under language arts includes instruction in the process and art of writing as well as structured practice in writing; it does not refer to penmanship. Sentence composition refers to composing sentences only - not to ‘ text composition. Sentence completion is sentence composition if it involves more than me word . If as a part of the language arts lesson, children are taught to read maps, tables, or graphs, or to develop map legends, tables or graphs, this should be classified as 0180 - information gathering skills. The category "literary forms" under language arts is for content dealing with various literary forms such as poetry, autobiograph- ies, biographies, fairy tales, folktales, and tall tales. If the reading lesson aims at reading literary forms then ”literary forms" should be used as the minor designation. Content Areas Procedures - Language Arts and Reading 29. 30. For reading and language arts, use the teacher's specification (from the schedule or tte blackboard or convention) as to whether the major code is reading or language arts. For all reading and language arts lessons where the major specifi- cation is Eading or language Arts, code the content of the reading, writing, spelling, etc. lesson as the m1n' or content specification. If the content does not fit ore of the codes, such as science, social studies, etc., then and only then leave the miror code blank. Do not stretch the point in coding the minor area. In a fairly straight forward way, it must be science, social studies, etc. before it is recorded as such. a) Reading lessons can have a minor in language arts, and vice versa. Content Area Procedure - Reading 31. “The reading categories are defined as follows: a) No explicit analysis - ro overt attempt is made at analyzing what is read. b) Vbrd analysis - includes ptonetic analysis, structural analysis and sight words. c) Word meaning - vocabulary developrent. 283 32. d) e) f) 9) h) 1) TIext analysis - comprehension, sequency, main events, main idea, setting, etc. Individual reading — child is reading by himself either silently or to the teacher. Qoup reading - the activity where a subgroup meets with the teacher and some or all of the children alternate in reading the text and soretimes answer questions about what they have read. Also, wrere questions are asked and the children then read silently to find the answers. To be coded here, children must be reading. If the children are reading paragraphs from their workbooks in class with the teacher and then discussing them, code this as group reading. Lecture or discussion - where the teacher lectures on or the teachers and students have a discussion about reading itself. Also, for situations where there is a discussion about the content of what has been read but there is no reading (either silently or out loud) - during that lesson. Also, when the teacher lectures (talks) about reading, word analysis, or literary forms without actual reading by the students. Individual reading and doing exercises - where the child reads by himself/herself and does exercises based m the reading. Doing exercises (dittos, tapes) - where children are doing only the exercises. If the teacher is discussing their answers with them, this is coded as discussion. If an iwdividual child reads with T and they discuss the text, this is coded as individual reading with T's supervision: don't code as discussion. If more than me of the reading levels (on the third digit, e.g. word analysis, etc.) occurs during a lesson, code as follows: a) b) C) If the different areas are covered separately and are sequenced me after another and are of at least 2 minutes in duration, code the different parts separately. Q'eate a new tire interval for each part of the lesson. If the different levels are distinct and sequenced but short in duration, (all but one less than 2 minutes), code the whole lesson as one time interval and code it hierarchi- cally, giving the level with the highest code the greatest priority (e.g., if both word analysis and text analysis occur and word analysis is less than 2 minutes in length, code the whole interval as text analysis). If the different levels are intermixed in the lesson, code the whole lesson as one interval and use the level with the highest code. 284 33. 34. 35. 36. ‘ If a child is reading with an aide, clansrl Sy the content area as 0200 and code the process variable a. 1.7.. If a child is doing a crossword puzzle ..nd it is not clear from the context that the purpose of it is for .ord analysis, then code 3 in the third digit for reading, or word meaning. In reading on the 4th digit (individual reading, group reading, etc.) make a new interval for activity change and code it separ— ately. Do not code the whole lesson or use the notion of an hierarchy. Wnen dealing with reading groups, code the children involved in that reading group 0900 from the moment the teacher calls them up for the reading group until the point at which the actual instruc- tion begins. When the children finish with the reading group and are dismissed, code them 0900 from that point until the point at which it is recognized that they have actually begun work on some other matter. If this is not indicated, then do not code them as having returned to seatwork or whatever else it is that they are doing. This latter case will most likely be prevalent. Content Area Procedures - Social Studies and Science 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. The distinction between social studies and science revolves around the focus of content. If the focus is technical, then it is science. If on the other hand, the focus is on the effect that some scientific or technological field has on society or ixdividuals, then \it is coded as social studies. If during a science or social studies lesson the teacher instructs the students in reading or some area of language arts, be sure to code reading or language arts as the appropriate minor. Tb be coded as a miror instead of as a process (see convention 60), there must be formal instruction or formal feedback in the area. Social studies includes history, geography. sociology, anthro- pology, government, political science and economics (all coded as 0800). Lessons dealing with social behavior and affective goals and values should be coded as social. studies (0810). In terms of the code 0810 (content area), only code lessons where there is formal instruction in the area of values or social atti- tudes. Do not code momentary interactions about values, behavior in the classroom or issues of discipline under the code 0810. "Child of the week" is coded 0810. Content Area Procedures — Breaks, Beginnings, and Endings 42. dees 09 - 13 for Content Areas indicate various breaks. a) 09 - for between instructional activities including the passing out or collecting of materials. If a child spends time with a social worker, code him as 0900. 285 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. b) 10 - only for recess or lunch. c) 11 - all activities at beginning or ending of day (or half of the day) including lunch money, roll, clean-up. d) 12 — if children disappear for short periods of time from their classroom and it is not clear where they went, code them as 1200. e) 13 - any other break such as fire or tornado drills; other people enter the room, etc. ‘ f) If children come in late at the beginning of the day, code them as 0900 until they arrive; if trey core in late after lmch, code them as 1000 until they arrive. Whatever happens at the beginning of the day or at the beginning of the second half of the day (before the teacher formally begins the activites) is coded 0900 or transition. When the teacher begins, this could be coded as 1100 if it is a beginning or ending exercise or as the regular subject matter if there are no begin- ning exercises. Er transitions or breaks, do not code process variable, group, supervisory code location, etc. Just code times and break code. Children leaving and returning during transitions or breaks or opening exercises need not be separately recorded, as long as they leave and return during the break. For transitions to and from reading subgroups, code them for the children involved when the information is available. For the beginning of tie group lesson, code the transitim from the time the teacher announces tke group to the class to the time at which the lesson begins with these children. If there is confusion as to tie beginning time vs the transition, code the lesson as having begun immediately. The—end of the sugroup cotes when the teacher announces they are finished. If there is no further reference to these children returning to their seats or beginning other activities, code witl'out transition. Make a judgment about when the transition is over using the criterion of when most children have begun to work. dee all passing out of materials as transitions. Content Area Procedures - Seatwork 49. If the child is doing seatwork during the reading lesson and is reading in his reader, and it is not clear to the rater whether the reading instruction is aimed at word meaning, text compre- hension, or whatever, classify subject as 0202. The third digit 0 means that it could not be ascertained what the nature of the reading task is, but it is known that the child is working in 286 reading and to is also doing reading by himself. Likewise, if the child is working ow some ditto or a workbook and if it cannot be ascertaired from the observation what the exact nature of the exercise is, classify as 0203. 'Ihis indicates he is reading and working on exercises, without knowledge of the exact nature of the material. If you know whether it is word meaning or text analysis or whatever, then, of course, code this in the third digit. If the child is intermixing the two, that is, reading and also doing exercises and it is not possible from the observations to know at what point the child stopped reading and began doing the exercises based on that reading, then use the code 6 in the ‘ fourth digit for reading. This indicates both reading and exer- cises are being done during that period. 50. If during an individual work period the teacher makes an announce- ment about the fact that the children ought to move on to task B when finished with task A, the fact that both A and B are now possible tasks must be accounted for. This will usually necessi- tate the use of mixed seatwork code 15 with the third digit indicating, if it is possible, which two subject maters are being included in the mixed seatwork. However, if the teacher does not change subject matters by her announcerent; that is, both assign- ments are in reading, or both assignments are in language arts, then there is no need to move to the 1500 code. Group Designation R‘ocedures 51. Group designation refers to the nature of the instructional setting. 52. a) For group designation, if more than me child is involved, but less than the whole class, code as subgroup. b) Movies and assemblies are whole group activities unless otherwise specified. 53. Ede the group size variable for all intervals but do not change it to reflect motentary changes in group size such as toilet, library, etc. breaks for individual children in the group. a) For group size involving standard groups, just take the given number in the group minus those children that are absent for that day. b) Er all nonstandard groups, count the number involved. iupervisory Ede Procedures 54. For the supervisory code, it should be coded teacher or other supervised only if the teacher or aide is actively involved in educational supervision or monitoring of student activities. a) If a teacker is walking around the room and supervising seat- work by interacting with the children and all the interactions 287 55. 56. 57. 58. S9. momentary, code all chidren during this period as having been supervised. b) If the teacher is at his/her desk or is walking around and has a 30 second or longer interaction with a child, code the child as having been supervised during this interval and all other children during this interval as not having been supervised. c) If the teacher is at his/her desk or a table working on some- thing by him/herself or watching the children, and children cote up to the teacher for momentary interactions, code all children during this interval as non-supervised. d) All whole groip or subgroup teacher instruction is coded teacher supervised for the children involved. e) Ede the showing of movies, instructional use of tapes, records, etc. typically as supervised. Ely use the category "other supervised" when it is sore individual otter than the teacher, such as an aide or another student we is used as an aide in the classroom. If the children leave the room and receive their instruction from the music teacher, the P.E. teacher, or the art teacher, code them as having been teacher supervised. Also code children during the time they are in the library as teacher supervised (unless there is no person formally assigned as a librarian). If a child is near the teacher, working by him/herself and the teacher is also working by him/herself, the supervisory code is 3 - nonsupervised: close physical proximity to the teacher does not count as supervision. If during an observation a child is recorded as having cote up to the teacher for instruction and the next instance recorded is of a rew child being called up to the front, at that point (unless otherwise specified in the observation), code the other child as having returned to his seat. Est observations should indicate both the time they care up and the time they returned to their seat, but if not, use the above convention. E not forget that when the supervisory code changes, i.e., the teacher starts or stops to actively monitor, a separate time interval has to be coded. Ignore any individual discipline problems in the classroom, no matter the length of time involved, unless they interrupt the teacher while he/she is with some other children who are receiving instruction. The point is that the interaction must take teacher time or supervision away from other children. 288 Process Variable Procedures 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. Er the process variable, code whether during the time interval in question the student him/herself did any writing or reading. 'Ihe student must have actually done the reading or writing. If both occur, code it 4. The process variable records the _a_<_:£ of reading or creative writing, not formal instruction in reading or writing, which is recorded as a major or minor. The second digit records roughly what proportion of the interval was spent in reading or writing. ‘ Reading must involve more than reading directions or sentences on a ditto - it must involve the reading of text. Writing is also classified mly when the child writes text - not merely filling in words on dittos or copying material from the board. In those instances where the child makes up a story but does not write it him/herself, this is mt classified as writing. To be classified as writing, more than a sentence must be involved. If instruction in writing is provided but the children do not actually write themselves, code the major as 0170 and the process variable as 30. For the process variable, if the children leave the room to go to a reading class with another teacker, code them 12. For the process variable, code children working in their work- books as 30. If there is no information about the process variable (reading and/or writing) which can be broken down to the individual level for time intervals, code the process variable 00. For USSR, code 12 for the process variable (after transition, if applicable); USSR represents a structured opportunity to read. 289 Numbers USed for Coding Observations and Plans Teachers were assigned a number. Teacher: 1 5 2 6 3 7 4 222 I 3 digit code; example 323 = Source - Times - 2. 3. Plans Observation 5 digits; example 12345 10370 01530 Content Areas 01. 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. 08. 09. 10. 11. Language Arts (01) Language Arts Reading Arts, crafts Physical education Mathematics Music Science Social Studies Transitions from one instructional activity to the next/managerial Ordinary breaks (lunch and recess) Beginning and ending exercises (weekly or daily) 0. unclassifiable 1. Oral communication 2. Penmanship 3. Spelling 4. PUnctuation 5. (kammar/usage 6. Sentence composition 3/23/78, 601 = 6/01/78 290 12:53 1/2 10:37 2:53 12. Toilet 13. Other brakes (fire, tornado drills, people enter room) 14. Social activities (e.g. parties) 15. Mixed Seatwork 0. Unclassifiable l. Eading and Language Arts 2. Reading and Math 3. Reading and one other 4. Language Arts and Math 5. Language Arts and one other 6. Math and one other 7. Three or more areas 7. Writing Instruction 8. 9. 0. Uhclassifiable 1. Expository (factual or nonfiction) 2. Letter 3. Fiction (poems, stories) 4. Journal - record keeping Inflammation gathering (out— lining, note taking, library usage, dictionaries, encyclopedias) Literary forms Eading (02) 0. Eclassifiable 1. No explicit analysis 2. Vbrd analysis 3. Ford meaning 4. Taxt analysis for comprehension 1. Listening while teacher or other reads aloud 2. Individual reading 3. Eing exercises (e.g., dittos, tapes) 4. Lecture or discussion with teacher or aide (no reading) ' 5. Group reading (which includes discussion, etc.) 6. Individual reading and doing exercises. Social Studies (08) 0. General 1. Values, social attitudes and behaviors (koup Designation l . mole group 2. S1bgroup 3 . Ind ividual (koup Size 2 digits Supervisory Ede 1. Tbacl'er supervised 0910 - No content or activities specified in the plan for the interval. 3000 - Entent area not able to be identified from statement written 2. Other supervised 3. Nonsupervised Location 1. In own room 2. Et of their room 3. Out of school Process variable 1. Read 2. Write 3. Neither 4. Both D. Noe l. < 1/2 the time 2. _>_ 1/2 the time General in plan‘. 291 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. ITEM absence aide announcement assembly autobiography -beqinning of day biography breaks cleanup collecting materials crossword puzzle directions discipline discussion ditto ending of day exercises fairy tales field trip fblktales graphs group designat io'x grouplreading group size questions individual reading language arts lecture library location lunch lunch‘money ‘major maps minor monitor ‘mcvie 292 CONVENTION 13 33, 35 19, 50 23, 52 28 42c, 43 28 42, 44, 45 42c 42a 34 18, so 59 31g, 311 25, 49, 60 42c, 43 31h, 3li, 49 28 23 28 27 22, 44, 51 31f 53 31f 31e 21, 24, 25, 27, 28-37, 50 319 21, 55 21, 44 42b 42c 27 20, 38, 60 58 23, 52 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47; 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. passing out materials poetry process variable reading reading groups recess roll science seatwork sentence comp sharing short comment social science subgroup supervisory code tall tales test text analysis time interval transitions USSR word analysis word:meaning workbook writing 293 42a, 48 28 11, 22, 33, 38, 44, 60 21, 28-37, 49, 60 36, 46 42b 42c 30, 37-41 36, 49, 50, 54a 26 24 17 30 , 37-41 31f, 54d 22, 44, 54-59 28 22, 23 31d, 32b, 49 15, 16, 32a, b, c, 35, 54b, c, 58, 60 43-47 64 31b, 9, 32b, 34 31c, 34, 49 49 25, 60 APPENDIX 3.5 APPENDIX 3.5 Stmut .u. .M . m... D. D. t .m m mw.m Mm.m cadence >ues m mwm mmm m c one s B T r ... xenon spasm Boon spoon. G 65 SC a flow w. 3.7—£qu Nmrrtono i so . .. effifiru tofu... ... s... I. I coitus \ofixoefiwco m mOPw SwtsraJNoowzum - :Iow s \\600 \ooo _ Ivflooa xxoeouooo . I I - - \\_c.\_s \\.ooonoao\h \ ibis l -\;\0e _xwochqco moi \\ I \I.\~0o \xhko o.ooo r \PP ll :Lbc \\shro shoe emu». \b.» r h M - Pprh? :"v £0- ccoo ox: dulhw 4 a d letfiioo \xukqouhoc \kpalxI :mau :wno oozio AI . k 2 wnwo obloo \cc-o a II. I , - L. LnnxoB \thoho.C\.: _ I. w o_\ w I. I .[I\.~uolo ex 661.6 oauoo r a. x .p m H - .I..._I\6v.o “minefiflwoo I. - I I oulseooxoosogoo .1 1 her oxlosokixowc 6.11.664 u 61 :I - e o\\ oomxmooowxooa \pwll _ Ihxmvokx eouoqwoo QIIo ..w 03. \le «Leonoo: QWOQMob 04 o x \\ oxtwwo oxtoo boob or too a\huoo\ coed \va \ hex .u.mw o N \ h1nu nae new .0 x an x I x \ Process Variable ' 7 TM r I w ml 11 1‘4 Ll EIWJI-oi'; [6810 0. 0 I~ L‘ -11.” Io f One Stuient from Eservat 3.1 101'! in Appendix ies 0 Shown t 1vi Coded Act 294 WM 0.7 00:.on 5a. “'1‘ ' b 4‘ s- 4‘. , 2.2.: 3 s5‘ ‘ U ' Group ' ' Sise Supesvi C fins 9 9 we. ' The ’J p Variabl. D14}: Process 00% ‘\\,J “www;\ Group ~ ~ ‘ ~\ monies}: ‘~‘”‘\ I.» “9:0 0 00‘ um coo Pxxooaou ~40 ..ZPO oxuu \. 09sec csuw \oocpvho oxqv Manolo Obbuo .Qweo - a? shred 6Com vflcovw \Noo wbccvhooovoo Won \DOo so lo 295 APPENDIX 3 . 6 APPENDIX 3 . 6 Class Activity Content Combinations Content Combinations Code Language Arts/Language Arts 0011 Reading/Reading 0022 Language Arts/Reading 0012 Language Arts/Art 0013 Language Arts/Math 0015 Language Arts/Social Studies 0018 Unclassified 0099 Gym/Music 0064 296 APPENDIX 3 . 7 APPENDIX 3 . 7 'E§E'.'.h-==I=- “"“"‘ ...-......ma-mm Class Source 00 Q,“'\‘\r\\ 00 ”that”. I Pp b\l"l~"°°~"“‘° fine I ~cxwow~quo¢\\ F" OVIDW °V\V\D°V\V\° ODrJU’J EbDSPJQD Oocoov\\\\\oo mm I; wWoN\\NP‘Pb u. N‘£\w°v“v“’luw'\ I OORDL‘“0U\ 00103 97‘3333 O'J'J'.‘ .' Q‘bgt300\ \°o\ mbvrmuvomoy\\ DODVOD‘BBO-vo OOOOOOr'ooo 00 O 9 §. Fl Mb .3. II M t. o 8 D N l1 s 0 r I ' 4 ~& NIL) Group Group Siss smalls”. ' location _h I” 1 Process. & Variabl- -:i~-';:' 4-1. 11'- 'r; 4:15.- :..uuz. l ‘ ‘ ' ' ' Eded Planned Time Allocations from tke Written Plans of One Teacher for (he Day 297 BIBLIOGRAPHY Afifi, A.A., Azen, S.P. Statistical Analysis, A Computer Oriented ‘ Approac , Academic Press, New York, 1972. Anderson, L., Evertson, C. Classroom organization at the beginning of school: To case studies. Report No. 6&3. Austin, Texas, Esearch and Development Center for Teacher Education, University of Texas, 1978. Blalock, Hubert M. Jr., Social Statistics. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1960. Bloom, B.S. Humn Characteristics and School Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1976. Brophy, Jere E. Teachers cognitive activities and overt behaviors. Occasional Paper No. 39. Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan State University, 1980. Buckley, P.K. and Cooper, J .M. An ethnographic study of an eletentary school teachers' establishment and maintenance of group norms. Paper presented to the American Educational Research Association, March 1978. Carroll, J .B. A model of school learning. Teachers Ellege Record, 1963, 723-732. Clark, Chris and Yinger, Ebert, "Research on Teacher Thinking”, Curriculum Inquiry, Vol. 7 No. 4, Winter 1978, 279-304. Clark, Christopher M. and Yinger, Ebert J. The Hidden World of 'Itaaching: Implications of Research on Teacher Planning. Paper presented to the American Educational Research Association, Boston, 1980. Clark, C.M. and Elmore, J.L. hacher Planning in Me First Weeks of School. Research Series No. 56. Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan State University, 1979. Clark, C.M. and Yinger, Ebert J. Research on Tbacher Thinking. Research Series No. 12. Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan State University, 1978. 298 Clark, C.M. and Yinger, R.J. Three Studies of Teacher Flaming. Esearch Series No. 55. Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan State thiversity, 1979. Eleman, J.S. et al. Equality of Educational Eportunity. Washington, D.C.: Evernment Printing Office, 1966. Conant, E.H. Amount of time spent teaching. Saturday Review/Vbrld mm in Eli mlta kg, wle leLVI 1b. 1' $pte' 1974s Corno, Lyn. Classroom instruction and the matter of time. In The Seventy-Eighth Yearbook of the National Society for th— Study of Education Ert II, 1979, Un1versity of Chicago Press, Eicago, p. 245-280. Eyle, Walter and Ender, Gerald A., "The Practiciality Ethic In Teacher Decision Making," a paper. Duffy, Gerald G. The implications of econotetrics for studies of classroom reading instruction. Paper presented at the pre-ccnventicn Institute of the 23rd Annual Envention of the International Eading Association, Texas, 1978. Dike, Eniel L., ed. ”Classroom Managetentfl' The Seventy-Eighth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Educatim Part __I__I, I979, Un1versity of Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill. Eisner, Elliot W. Educational objectives; help or hindrance. Scrocl Review, Autumn 1967, 7_5, 250-266. Good, Thoras L. Teacher effectiveness in the elementary school. Journal of Toacher Education, March-April 1979, 30, 2, 52-64. Eod, T., and Power, C. Esigning successful classroom environments for different types of students. Journal of Erriculum Studies, 1976, 8, 45-60. Eodlad, John I., Klein, M. Frances and Associates. Behind the Classroom Eor. Worthington, Ohio: Earles A. Jones Rib]. ishing Company, 1970. Harnischfeger, Annegret, Wiley, Evid E. The teaching-learning process in elementary schools: a synoptic view. Curriculum Inquiry, 1976, _6_, 1, 5-42. Jencks, Christopher et a1. Inequality a reassessment of the effect of family and schooling in America. Harper ETophon Books, Harper and Ew, Publishers, New York, 1972. 299 Joyce, B. R. and Harootunian, B. "Teaching As Problem Solving," Journal of Teacher Education, 1967, E, pp. 420-427. MacEnald, James B. "Myths About Instruction,“ Educational Leadership, May 1965, _2_2, 8, 571—576. MacEnald, James B., Wolfson, Bernice J. and Zaret, Esther. Eschooligg Society A Enceptual Edel. Washington, D.C.; Association for Supervision and Erriculum Development, 1973. MCQJtChan: Gail. "How E Elementary School Teachers Plan?" Ford " Heart. University of Virginia (1979), 1—31. Morine-Dershimer, Greta. "What's in a plan? Stated and unstated plans for lessons." Paper presented at the American Educational Esearch Association meeting, New York, 1977. Morine-Dershimer, G. "Teacher Plan and Classroom Eality: The South Bay Study, Part IV,” Esearch Series No. 60. Institute for Research on Tbaching, Michigan State Eiversity, 1979. Morine, G. and Vallance, E. “Special Study B: A Study of Teacher and Pupil Perceptions of Classroom Interaction," BTES Tach. Rep. 75-11-6. Far West Laboratory for Educational Esearch and Development, San Francisco, 1975. Morine-Dershimer, G., and Vallance, E. "Teacher Planning," innin Teacher Evaluation Study, Special Epcrt C. Far West Laboratory, California, 1976. Mosteller, Frederick, and Moynihan, Eniel P. eds. E Equality of Educational Eportunity, Random House, New York, 1972. Peterson, P. L., Marx, R. W. and Clark, C. M. "Teacher Flaming, Tbacher Behavior, and Student Achieverent," American Educational Research Journal, 1978, E, (3) pp. 417-432. Paterson, P. L. and Clark, C. M. 'Tbacher's Eports of Their Cognitive Processes During Teaching," American Educational Esearch Journal, 1978, E, pp. 555-565. Epham, James W. and Baker, Eva I. Estelatic Instruction, Ehglewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice Hall, Inc., 1970. Powdermaker, Hortense. Stranger and Friend, The Way of an Anthropologist. W. W. Norton and Company, Inc., New York, 1966. Powell, Marjorie. Educational Implicatan of Current Research on Tbach' . Office of Program Evluation and Research, Ca11' fornia Department of Education. 300 Eehler, Laura, Schmidt, William, Buchtan, Margaret. "How E Teacl'ers Spend Their Language Arts Time?” Esearch Series No. 66. Institute for Research on Ttaachin' 9, Michigan State Eiversity, 1979. Esenshine, Barak. "Academic Engaged Minutes, Entent Evered and Direct Instruction," University of Illinois. Shultz, J. and Florio, S. “Stop and heeze: The Negotiation of Social and Physical Space in a Kindgergarten/First Grade Classroom," Anthropology and Education Earterly, 1979, E, 166-181. Smith, E. L. and Sendelbach, N. B. 'TIeacher Intentions for Science Instruction and Their Antecedents in Program Naterials," Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, 1979. Smith, Jeffrey K. “Tbacher Flaming for Instruction," Mehr Light: Studies of Educative Processes, Report No. 12, Rthers thiversity, October T977. T’aba, Hilda. Curriculum Development; Theory and Practice. New York: thrcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1962. Taylor, Philip H. How Teachers Plan Their Eurses. Slough, Bucks: National Foundation for Educational Research, 1970. Tikunoff, W. J. and Ward, B. A. "A Naturalistic Study of the Initiation of Students into Three Classroom Social Estems.” San Rancisco: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development, Report A-78-ll, 1978. Tyler, Ialph W. Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1950. Wiley, [avid E. and Harnischfeger, Annegret. "Explosion of a Myth: Quantity of Schooling and Exposure to Instruction, Major Educational Vehicles," Educational Esearcher, April, 1974, 3' 7.12e Wiley, Evid E. "Another Hour, Another Ey: Quantity of Schooling, A Etent Path for Policy," In William H. Sewell et a1 (Ed.), Schooling and Achievement in American Society. New York: Academic Press, 1976. Wolcott, Harry. The Man in the Principal's Office. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1973. Yi_nger, Ebert. A Study of Tbacher Flaming: Description and Theory DevHopment Using Ethnographic and Information Processing Methods. Unpublished doctorfl dissertation, Michigan State Eiversity, 1977. 301 Yinger, R. J. "A Study of Thacher Planning," 'me Elementary School Journal (1980) Q, 3, 107-127. Yinger, R. J. "Ibutines in Thacher Planning,” Theory into Practice, 1979, 1.3, 163-169. Yinger, Ibbert J. "A Study of Tteacher Flaming: Description and a Model of Preactive Decision Making," Research Series No. 18. Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan State University, 1978. Zahorik, John A. "The Effect of Planning on Teaching,‘I Elementary School Journal (December, 1970) 11, 3 143-151. Zahorik, J. A. ”TVeachers Planning Models," Paper presented to the American Educational Research Association, Washington, D. C., 1975. . ”Instruction Time Allocation in Fifth Grade Reading," flinging Tbacher Evaluation Study Technical Report II—S. San Francisco: Far West Laboratory for EducatTonal Research and Development, 1976. 302 ll