.: .:5.‘....‘.‘¢,:,¢_

'o"
..
. _‘
u
. J
u
A.
I.
v
v.

‘ 'f-‘f‘;‘; ' '

.‘3 5‘

  

  
 

  

 

u n,-

  
 
 
  
 
  

  
 
 

 

3—; ,. «é

 

 

 

      

 
 
  
 

VA
'32”!

‘
- .

.,...

 

{kH‘ ,A‘rfi

v 4':

     
 

x172"
o::\:(.:"
" "l

 

 
 
 

I:
I;-\'.‘.\
'1’ “1‘3“

 

 

u I
(he; "i" I»?

”4.1" 6??“ ' I

$1115....“

an?
.

 

25¢ri

x“; ‘
.0

,. 3.x:
7M?

 
  
   
 
   

    
  
  
   
   

4

3:35!”
9;? ‘52,}
it"? 9"”

 

 

 
 

M;S'I'~I3

   

 

  
  
  
 

‘ ‘Il'viff‘lx':

“:3

3
.,‘v n n
w
U‘IJ” ‘
A 3.. A“.
u

SN“.
“ A41“, 3‘ 5,1..th

x (3
.. 3. 3a.. “-
1" «Kg :6... ‘4‘}.

_”~ .' ...

[my 15.x, . .
. m J. :- -.
V9.03!“ (‘- .ur ‘L
9547 If"? ’31

lg‘ 1

>33: fin-‘69,! i};-
2343” I)!
:1“ £123-

£331de
' :E'ANCV

 

-v.tl lair
» ’f‘l:

”u.

  

  

 

    

 

12‘

mgr.
Fl 1

lg.
n..
u

”‘2“ rA.'\ I?
‘0‘”
(V.

 
 

  
 
  
 
 
  
  
 
  
    

 
   
   

 
  
  

  
   
 
 
 
 
 

    
 
  
    
  
   

  

l
I

 

 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
  
  

xi

: ”3"?
‘Jf‘u-{f tm‘ ‘
v‘

    
    

   
   

 
  
  
  
  

  
  
   

   
 
   
 

 

.3!

  
  

u'fv'uu
9.. .h

 

 

   
  

  
 
 

 

  
     
  
 

Ll"

 
 
  
 
   
 

   

 
 
  

 

 

 

    
  

 

12W! 438?”

UN! WERSITY LIBRARIESl1

HHHHHHIHHHH HIH HHH

THm 3 1293 005612

1 LIBRARY83
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

STUDENTS' RESPONSES TO SEATWORK ASSIGNMENTS
DURING FIRST GRADE READING INSTRUCTION:
AN OBSERVATIONAL CASE STUDY

presented by

Mary Patricia Winchester

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. Teacher Education

degree in

 

 

   
  

Major professor

Dmg October 1988

 

M5 U i: an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

 

MSU

LIBRARIES
.—_—-

 

 

RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to
remove this checkout from
your record. FINES wiIl
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

STUDENTS' RESPONSES TO SEATWORK ASSIGNMENTS
DURING FIRST GRADE READING INSTRUCTION:

AN OBSERVATIONAL CASE STUDY

BY

Mary Patricia Winchester

A Dissertation

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Teacher Education

1988

a»

flu

shy

‘Q

«\~

ABSTRACT

STUDENTS' RESPONSES TO SEATWORK ASSIGNMENTS
DURING FIRST GRADE READING INSTRUCTION:
AN OBSERVATIONAL CASE STUDY

BY
Mary Patricia Winchester

This was an observational study of one first
grade classroom. The purpose of the study was to examine
how first grade students respond to independent seatwork
during reading instruction. An array of factors were
addressed which have effects on the responses that
students make toward seatwork. These factors are the
teacher's purpose and expectations, time, student's
ability, environment, type of assignment, and rules and
responsibilities in the classroom. It was found that not
one factor alone, but a complexity of interactions
between students and their environment determined the

students' responses to seatwork.

\
‘v
v.

“F‘
5..

F4

{D

(/1

"h

‘a

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I really must, acknowledge my mother before all
others for her continual support and assistance through
the many years in pursuit of my educational goals. My
children also have helped carry the burden of time away
from home and obligations that seemed to take priority
over their momentary needs.

I am also very grateful to many people for their
help with this dissertation. I wish to thank Dr. James
Snoddy for his guidance as chairperson of my committee.
I would like to express appreciation to Dr. Doug Campbell
who went beyond his duties as a member of my committee to
give extra time and assistance. I would also like to
acknowledge the other members of may committee, Dr. Don
Nickerson and Dr. Ben Bohnhorst who gave of their time to
assist in the preparation of this study.

Thank you to Nancy Heath for her expert typing of

this dissertation.

ii

 

‘

‘\

‘4.

Table of Contents

LIST OF TABLES ....................................... v
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................... vi
LIST OF GRAPHS ..................................... vii
LIST OF APPENDICES ................................ viii
I. INTRODUCTION .................................... 1
Statement of Problem ......................... 1
Statement of Purpose ......................... 4
Background of the Problem .....................
Related Research ........................... 5
Background of the Study ..................... 11
Research Questions .......................... 13
Limitations ................................. 16
Overview of the Study ....................... 20
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE .......................... 22
Introduction: Research on Methodology ...... 22
Purpose for Assigned Seatwork ............. .. 25
Time as One Demand in Reading Instruction4.. 28
Ability Grouping ............................ 31
Type of Assignment .......................... 33
Environment ................................. 34

The Rules and Responsibilities
in the Classroom .......................... 37
Summary ..................................... 39
III. METHODOLOGY ................................... 40
Classroom Observation as a Choice ........... 40
Research Design ...... . ...................... 41
Gaining Access to the Site .................. 47
Data Gathering ............. . ................ 52
Data Analysis ............................. ..64
Summary ..... . ............................... 67

iii

IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE RESEARCH

SITE AND POPULATION ........................... 69

The Research Site ..... ... ................. ..69

The Research Population ..................... 73

The Established Routine ..................... 75

V. FINDINGS ............... . ...................... 85
What is the Purpose of Seatwork2 ........ .....85
Introduction. ...... ............. .. 85

Teacher' 5 Purpose and Expectations. ..... 86

Time .................................... .100
summarYOOOOOOOO ..... 00.0000... ....... .102

Is Seatwork Serving Its Purpose? ........... 103
Introduction ............................. 103

Student's Ability ........................ 104
Environment .............................. 120
Summary... ............................... 130

What is Assigned as Seatwork? ............. . 131
Introduction ....... . ........ . ............ 131

Type of Assignment ....................... 133

Rules and Responsibilities ............... 147

Summary.. ................................ 150

VI. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION ....................... 152
Interpretations ............................ 152
Implications ............................... 157
APPENDICES ......................................... 161
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................ . .......... 172

iv

 

T.

Table

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Rewards for Completion of Work.... ........... 94

Punishments for Interruptions and the

Number of Incidents Recorded in My

Field Notes .................................. 98

Number of Incidents in Which A Student

Was Recognized as Having Completed or

Not Completed His/Her Seatwork .............. 107

Completion of Seatwork According to

Reading Group ............................... 109

Observations of Students Off Task ........... 112

Actions of Students While Off Task .......... 122

Interruptions by the Teacher ................ 127

Skills Taught as Assigned Seatwork .......... 135

Number of Seatwork Assignments During

Twenty Days of Observations ....... . ......... 137
Tentative Cross—Check of Data ................ 171

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page
1. Floor Plan of the Classroom .................. 71
2. Seating Arrangements Pertaining to Reading

Groups in March ....... .. ......... . ........... 76
3. Seating Arrangement Pertaining to Reading

Groups in April ..... . ........................ 77
4. The Activity of Seatwork ..................... 84

vi

(A)

LIST OF GRAPHS

Graph Page
1. Instructional Time During Reading ............ 78
2. Time in Reading Group Instruction ............ 81

3. Relationship Between Being Observed Off
Task and Recognized as Not Completing
Seatwork .................................... 117

vii

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Page
A Interviews with Teacher..... ................ 161
B. Interviews with students .................... 165
C. Teacher's Report Form ....................... 169
D. Student's Report Form ..................... ..170
E. Tentative Cross—Check of Data ............... 171

viii

St-
U.

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Statement of Problem

 

A basal reading program is one of several methods
of reading instruction, and it is by far the most common.
Usually in a basal program, children are grouped
according to reading achievement. In order to meet with
each of the reading groups daily, teachers assign what is
commonly referred to as "independent seatwork." One
characteristic of independent seatwork is that students
are to remain in their seats and work independently. In
most classrooms, this means they are not to disturb other
students or the teacher while the teacher is instructing
a reading group.

A major concern of the present study is students'
responses to independent seatwork during reading
instruction. Their responses can be influenced by
several factors: the student's ability, teacher's
purpose and expectations, the assignments and manner of
instruction, and the structure of the environment, most
of which are under the control of the teacher.
Educational research has examined each of these factors

as they relate to the student. What is sometimes not

v

5“!

CC

as:

K"A€

considered is how more than one factor together affect a
student's response. A classroom is a very complex
environment with several independent minds responding in
several varied ways. The focus of this study was to
observe the responses that students make in relation to
all the factors listed above.

To a teacher, the independent seatwork may be as
important as the instruction. that takes place in ‘the
small group; for if the students are not working
independently, it becomes difficult for the teacher to
instruct the small reading group.

Often the writer has observed classrooms in which
the students are walking around disturbing others, or
constantly interrupting the teacher to ask for
assistance; or, the noise level increases to a point
where the students in the small group find it difficult
to listen. It can become a teacher's nightmare.

Teachers express many concerns in regard to
seatwork assignments. One is the teacher's time devoted
to planning the assignment. Teachers need to design or
find the right assignment to trace a particular skill.
They need time to write the assignment on the board or
prepare a ditto or copy of the assignment. They also
need time to correct the assignments once they are

completed.

nu

Ag

A:

n\\

Teachers also express concern that the
assignments are not functional in keeping the students on
task for a given amount of time. Some students have
completed the work quickIy. Others do not complete the
assignment. The most common concern of teachers is that
they are still confronted with disruptions during the
group instruction time.

A final concern that is often expressed is that
the assignments are not right for each chiLd. They are
too easy for some and too hard for others. There is too
much for some students to complete, while not enough for
others.

Given these dilemmas, most teachers will
reexamine the assignments that they give for independent
work. Sometimes they will attribute the problem to an
individual student's ability and will assign individual
work for a particular student. Hopefully, teachers make
constant changes and evaluations from assignment to
‘assignment. Teachers' concerns are justified when the
students' responses do not reflect the educational goals.

A student is confronted with several choices.
The student may choose to daydream, to play with certain
items in his/her desk (pencils, eraser, small toys,
etc.), to talk with a friend, to watch the other children

at work, to go to sleep, to walk around the room, or

 

re

hopefully to complete the assigned work. A child is very
imaginative, and can choose many alternatives to
finishing the assigned work. This writer believes
students exhibit certain behaviors in response to
corresponding sets of circumstances. By focusing on
their responses, we can learn how to change the

circumstances if we want to change the responses.

Statement of Purpose

 

The purpose of this study is to examine how first
grade students respond to independent seatwork during
reading instruction.

It is probable that the reasons for the
completion or noncompletion of this work can be
attributed to several factors, some of which are under
the direct control of the teacher. The research which
has been undertaken here is an observational study of one
classroom. Nevertheless, an array of factors will be
addressed which may have effects on the responses that
students make toward seatwork. IIt is expected that the
outcomes will show that it is not one factor alone, but a
complexity of interactions between students and their
environment. There is no simple answer, but by looking
judiciously at many factors simultaneously, a teacher may
have a more significant impact on structuring the

environment of the classroom. Traditionally studies have

hEE

,
v-1

3.

+L¢

O

F‘
AA

beie

v
‘ h

been written in the third person, however, this study
will be written in the first person consistent with the
informal and observational nature characteristic of this
type of research (Hammersley and Atkinson, 1983).

Background of the Problem and
Related Research

 

A student's response in an instructional
situation can be influenced by several factors. First is
the student. The maturity, develOpment, and ability of
the student. would surely affect the *work that. he/she
completes during this independent work time. The extent
to which the student's ability affects the independent
work is unclear. Some researchers believe that students
who have high ability, such as those who are placed in
the high reading groups, respond better in attention to
task and exhibit higher performances on that task than
students who are low achievers or who are placed in low
reading groups (Anderson et al., 1984; Good and
Beckerman, 1978).

In an earlier research by this researcher
(Winchester, 1986), this relationship was not found to
exist. In each reading group observed, there were
students who responded positively to the independent
seatwork and students who did not. If in fact a task
were too difficult for may individual students, then
student ability would be likely to relate directly to the

completion or noncompletion of the task, but when given a
task at the student's reading level, it would appear that
other factors influence the student's completion or
attention given to the task.

That leads to another factor: the type of
assignment that is made for independent work. In some
districts, a teacher may give what is commonly referred
to as "whole class" assignments. This is when the
teacher makes one assignment for all the students to
complete. Generally, this is an open-ended assignment in
which each child can hopefully work according to his/her
own level of experience. Creative writing assignments
are a good example of a whole class assignment. Each
child will write and develop a composition according to
his/her individual abilities.

In contrast, individual reading group assignments
have been made where each group was given an assignment
to complete. An example would be workbook pages that
corresponding to the reading book from which the student
is reading. These assignments have the presumed benefit
of' being on ‘the student's reading .level, and 'usually
develop or address a skill directly related to improving
the student's reading.

There may be times when the student has little
knowledge of the purpose of" a jparticular assignment.

Every assignment should have a purpose clearly stated for

 

SE

58

re

72

195

ah“
HI.

.5

e
A ‘ h AN u
. t
.. a my Ow . n ..
Q~ My NV C \ha an a «
N\~ «mu :6 c +b .A
a

both the teacher and the student (Osborn, 1985; Kuply and
Blair, 1986).

The nature of what is assigned for independent
seatwork during reading can be extremely important. Most
of a student's reading class time is spent on the
seatwork. A student may spend 18-20 minutes in a small
reading group, depending on the number of groups, and 60-
72 minutes working on independent seatwork (Winchester,
1986; Rosenshine, 1981).

Sometimes students are assigned work which
appears to do little to advance: a student's reading
ability. Students may be assigned work that is too easy
or too hard. This occurs in many "whole class"
assignments where the assignment is geared toward the
average student and misses the two opposite ends in
ability, the very high and the very low. When this
occurs, there will be several students whose response to
the seatwork will be other than what the teacher had
intended (Anderson et al., 1984).

The teacher's purpose in assigning the
independent seatwork is very related to the student's
response. All teachers set goals. Some goals may be
managerial in nature, while others are instructional.
During reading instruction, seatwork plays an important

part in keeping the students quiet and busy' while a

 

 

0'.
.8:

A!
VA

teacher instructs a small reading group. This would be
considered a managerial goal (Anderson et al., 1984).

The particular assignment that a teacher selects
for the seatwork usually fulfills an instructional goal,
which is reinforcement of a skill that has already been
taught. Other instructional goals may be to develop
"independent work skills" like taking responsibility for
getting one's own work done and checking it (Anderson et
al., 1984).

A student's response to seatwork may not be in
accordance with the teacher's goals if those goals are
contradictory. A teacher's managerial goals are usually
very explicit with direct rules to ensure that the goals
are reached. For example, a common rule is that a

student is not to disturb the teacher while a reading

group is being instructed . Students are to remain in
their seats and work quietly . The conflict usually
occurs given certain instructional goals . If an

instructional goal involves a skill that the child does
not understand, the child will find it impossible to
complete the assignment without assistance from someone,
either by disturbing the teacher while instructing a
reading group or asking another student. Either way, it
conflicts with the managerial goals of working
independently and quietly at one's seat.

If an instructional goal involves a skill that a
child knows very well and can do without assistance from
anyone, then the question becomes: Is this effective use
of a student's time and what does the student do when
this "busy" work has been finished? Many teachers
struggle with this problem of setting good instructional
goals that will not impede the necessary managerial goals
that are needed during reading.

In addition to the ability and age of the child,
the teacher's purpose in assigning seatwork, and the
seatwork assignment itself, the structure of the
environment can have a lot to do with a student's
response to seatwork. The structure of an environment
has several aspects. 3 It can mean the physical
arrangement of the room, that is, if students sit in rows
facing front, or in clusters, or if they can move about
at will and sit where they choose. Some teachers
specifically arrange seating assignments so that when
' students complete their seatwork, they will not be
sitting by anyone else in their reading group in order
that their work will be the student's own. Other
teachers do the direct opposite so that students in the
same reading group can help each other. Hence, a
student's response to the seatwork is likely to be

influenced by the seating arrangement.

10

Time is also a factor in the structure of the
environment. For some students, they may work on a
seatwork assignment for one entire setting. This would
usually occur if they were called for their reading group
first or last. Even in both instances, one group may
react differently from the other. For example, for one
group of students, the directions are given and the
students are allowed to begin their seatwork and work
until they are finished. For another group, they must
meet with their teacher in a reading group; and then,
perhaps twenty minutes later when they return to their
seat to do seatwork, they must remember the directions.
Other students begin their seatwork assignments and then
at some time must stop for their reading instruction and
then return to their assignment later. Some students
find it very difficult to settle down and start working
independently again. The time pattern for seatwork may
be the same each day or it may change each day depending
on the teacher's plan for the rotation of reading groups.
Either way it may be a factor that should be addressed.

Rules and responsibilities are another factor in
the structure of the environment that can and does effect
a student's response to seatwork. Every classroom has
its own set of rules and responsibilities, and yet upon
visiting several public school classrooms one may find

many to appear to be the same with only slight

 

 

m
{J
()1
LA.

‘\
“art '
‘ ‘5‘ ‘ ‘,
IGNI‘é
y
Aecw
4

ll

variations. The reason is that most rules are only a
means to reach certain goals and many educators promote
the same goals. As observers, we learn the rules quickly
and from there we can begin to see the goals that are in
place in a particular classroom. Within these rules and
responsibilities, one finds activities that the students
encounter during seatwork. These activities sometimes
facilitate the completion of seatwork and other times
exert very little effect one way or another. An example
of this could be the use of learning centers in the
classroom, including a computer. The student's response
to the particular learning center may affect his/her
motivation to do the seatwork. This may involve actual
work in the center that must be done or it may involve
work in the center as a reward for completion of other

work.

Background of the Study

During Winter Term, 1986, I spent ten weeks doing
research on reading in a local school district. In this
particular district, the basal reading program was
required in all elementary schools. It was observed that
an enormous amount of time was spent on independent
seatwork during reading instruction. Typically, sixty
ininutes may have been devoted to independent seatwork, as

compared to twenty minutes with direct instruction in a

 

 

read
more

to

Seatu
Seat:
into:
Growtl

iRVesf

12

reading group. The focus of the research began changing
more and more from the teacher during reading instruction
to the students at their seats while engaged in
independent seatwork. It was hard for me, as an
observer, to make a connection between reading
instruction in the small group and reading instruction as
it was intended to be incorporated into the independent
seatwork. The significant amount of time engaged in
seatwork, as well as the enormous responsibility to
incorporate assignments that provide instruction and
growth in reading skills appeared definitely to warrant
investigation.

During this study, different responses from two
students in the same reading group were noticed. One
student was very conscientious about her independent
seatwork. She would always complete her work with very
little, if’ any, distractions. In. contrast, another
student was given the same assignment, but would rarely,
if ever, complete the work and would spend most of her
time watching or talking with classmates. This led to
the belief that more than a student's reading ability or
a particular assignment affects a student's response to
seatwork.

During observation of these two girls, I
questioned whether independent seatwork does always

provide instruction and growth in reading skills. Would

 

 

warra
that

chocs

‘ .
Giffe:

Curre:

13

this difference in their response to seatwork lead to a
difference in achievement? Teachers would hope that the
completion of seatwork assignments does lead to greater
achievement, but an effective seatwork program would
warrant an individual analysis of needs and an assignment
that addresses those needs. Even then, a student may
choose not to respond.

The idea that different students respond to
different factors during reading brought me to this

current study.

Researchguestions

 

First grade students respond to independent
seatwork in many varied ways. In order to understand
what precipitates certain responses from individual
students, I need to address certain questions. Each set
of questions flows out of the context that was addressed
by the set of questions that come before. The questions
begin with the presence or purpose of seatwork in reading
instruction. To what extent does seatwork play a part in
reading instruction? What is the teacher's perception of
the purpose for independent seatwork during reading, and
how much reading time is spent on seatwork? Before we
begin to look at the work assigned and how the students

do or do not perform the tasks, we need to find out the

l4

purpose for assigning these tasks and to what extent it
is being incorporated into the program.

After knowing the teacher's purpose in assigning
the seatwork, we can begin to observe the students at
work and pose several more questions to consider. Is
seatwork serving the purpose for which it was intended?
Are there interruptions during the instruction of reading
in small groups? Do the students complete their
seatwork? Do they express an understanding of what they
are doing or learning in their seatwork assignment?

Most teachers will view the purpose for seatwork
as a necessity to keep students quiet during this time or
specifically to learn and practice certain skills.
Whatever the reason, we must then go one step further and
see if indeed that purpose is being carried out in a
particular classroom.

After knowing the purpose and the extent to which
seatwork is incorporated into the reading program, more
specific questions need to be addressed. What
assignments are being made as independent seatwork? What
skills are these assignments presumed to teach? Do the
assignments reflect what the students are studying in
reading? Each question, will be answered differently
depending on the particular classroom teacher. I have
been in classrooms where the independent seatwork during

reading instruction was from another subject area

15

entirely, e.g., students were doing mathematical
computational drill sheets. I have also been in
classrooms where students are reading assignments and
developing specific skills like sequencing or other
comprehension skills.

As educators, we continue to question the manner
in which assignments are explained to the students. Do
students know the purpose for their reading assignments?
Has the purpose or specific skill that it is hoped they
will develop been explained to them? Many times this is
included in the directions. Are the directions given
orally or are they written out on the board or on a
worksheet? Some students respond better to oral
directions, especially if reading is difficult for them.
There are other students who respond better to written
directions since listening comprehension may be a
weakness. Teachers will sometimes give directions
orally, as well as in written form. It is important to
- observe the manner in which directions are given since it
may indeed affect a student's response.

Seatwork may serve the purpose of learning or
reinforcing skills? If the seatwork is used for an
understanding of skills, then assistance from the teacher
should be available and offered to the student. Many
times this does not occur. Even though the students are

expected to complete all assignments correctly, the

 

16

teacher gives the directions and expects the students to
remember them and work independently until finished. The
teacher will not repeat directions, and the students are
told not to interrupt the teacher with questions while
she is instructing a reading group.

Many teachers believe the purpose of seatwork to
be twofold. First is the reinforcement of skills, and
second, to keep them busy and quiet. Perhaps part of the
confusion lies in trying to do both.

The purpose of my study is to "look" at what
occurs in a classroom during reading, while the students
are engaged in independent seatwork. II was an observer
in a first grade classroom during the instruction of a
basal reading program. I hope to address many of the
questions that I put forth in this study, to the extent
that they are recognized in a particular classroom by the

teacher and the students.

Limitations

 

For an ethnographic researcher, time always
appears to be a limitation. The involvement that one
develops with the subject of the study becomes such that
one never wants to let go or bring it to an end. There
also is a natural inquiry that comes from the data. The

more one finds out about the subjects and their

+9

V"

‘1»

3'6

a a Q q Mk “3.. aw. .Q
a 0 v a .«L. NU. T A

6+

$1113

l7

interactions, the more questions one has, and the more
s/he wants to know.

The responses that the students gave in many
situations during the study came from more than one year
of schooling and many years of growth and development in
the home. To understand the true nature of their
responses, I believe my study would have to encompass
those years.

Having begun my study in the middle of the school
year, I had not shared in the initiation of the students
into the rules and responsibilities for which they were
accountable, or the circumstances that might have
occurred to warrant new ones to be established. The
responses of the students may indeed reflect reactions
that extend back to the outset, or may show growth and
change from the beginning of the school year to the end.

My study was also limited to one site. Initially
I had planned to observe in more than one classroom.
Given the nature of a basal reading program and the fact
that the school district I chose had mandated the use of
the basal in the early elementary years, I believed my
findings would be useful for examining the seatwork
activities in other elementary classrooms.

There ‘were four elementary buildings that had
similar socioeconomic backgrounds from which I could

choose. Only one of those buildings would grant me

 

s‘o
ady

of
cl a

Pro”
gfa”

 

18

permission to do a research study. Having gained access
to the building, I had the possibility of seven
classrooms. I met with the teachers and explained the
research study, and what it would entail. Only one
teacher gave her consent to participate, and that came
reluctantly, but with the support and strong
encouragement from the principal. Thus, my grateful
acceptance of one site.

Even though at this time there is no comparable
study, some generalizations may be made by observing the
similarities in the classroom structure and organization
of classrooms that employ the use of a basal reading
program.

Some readers may identify students whom they know
that exhibit similar responses to those observed in my
study.

Before any generalizations are to be made by the
reader, I would suggest that s/he remember that one
teacher's strength may be another's weakness. When
looking at students' responses, we must remember that the
issue is very complex and involves many factors. This is
just one account of many individuals and their responses
to several factors in a given classroom.

The reluctance on the part of the teacher to
participate in the study was probably the greatest

limitation. The teacher expressed a fear of any

19

unsatisfactory report being given to the principal or the
district office. I responded with several assurances
that I was not there to judge the teacher's performance,
but I would be observing the students. It is difficult
to separate teachers from their students. It is a
natural tendency on the part of the teacher to take
responsibility for the actions of the students.

The teacher, given her participation in the
study, had much influence in the methodology that was
used. There was to be no videotaping at any time. I was
allowed to use a tape recorder with the permission of the
parent, during student interviews, but I was not allowed
to use a tape recorder during the interviews with the
teacher. I also was not allowed to bring the tape
recorder into the classroom.

It soon became obvious that many of the responses
from the teacher were guarded and carefully monitored.
The many months I spent in the classroom, and my devotion
to making myself a natural fixture in the room, helped
the teacher gradually forgot about my presence. The
protective manner of responding would recur occasionally
given certain circumstances, such as formal interviews or
on days when the students were particularly noisy or
active, especially if she had a confrontation with an

individual student. These unusual occurrences were of

’I!

20

little importance to the study, and thus did not
invalidate the study.

The restrictions in methodology did create its
own limitation for the study. Most of my data relied
solely on observational notes. Observation in an early
elementary classroom can be a very difficult task. Young
children have a propensity to be continually in motion.
To record the many responses to a variety of stimulation
left this researcher exhausted and occasionally
questioning the data. A videotape would have revealed
more responses by the students, and possibly given light

to what precipitated certain responses.

Overview of the Study

 

In the introduction to my study, I have stated
that an individual student's response can be influenced
by several factors including a student's ability,
teacher's purpose and expectations, the assignments and
manner of instruction, and the structure of the
environment. Educational research has examined many of
these same factors and how they relate to students. In
the next chapter, Review of the Literature, I will
present the findings from these studies.

Chapter III will explain the methodology that was
‘used in this study. Classroom observation was chosen for

this particular study because of the many factors,

21

that influence the varied responses that are seen
exhibited by individual students. For one study to
encompass the relationship and complexity of the problem
required a method of research that observed the
individual within his/her environment.

Chapter IV and V are concerned with the field
research of this study. Chapter IV describes the site.
It contains pertinent information about the school, the
teacher, and the subjects of the study (the students).
It also describes the environment in which the study was
conducted. Chapter V presents the findings of the study.
The findings are presented as they related to the
aforementioned factors that influenced the responses that
students gave.

Finally, Chapter VI will interpret the findings.
Upon the conclusion of my study, I found that I had
questions that still need to be addressed by educators.
In light of my findings, this chapter offers a direction

for further research.

V‘h'
Ul."‘\‘b

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Introduction: Research on Methodology

I had a predisposition as to the type of research
study that I wanted to do, but after several written
proposals, I began to have doubts about my choice of
methodology. After listening to the criticisms made by
my colleagues, I questioned the scientific nature of my
proposed study. Scientific studies should produce
documented hypothesis that are applicable to other
settings and thereby can be replicated. These studies
contribute to an understanding of teaching that moves our
profession forward.

An observational study of one classroom,
conducted by one researcher, did not appear to meet the
requirements of a study that could be applicable to all
classrooms. There were no controls for all the variables
that could account for any findings. It would produce
more questions than it would answer.

It was not until I read Arthur S. Bolster's
article, "Toward a More Effective Model of Research on
Teaching," (1983) that I realized I was not alone in my

beliefs. Classrooms are very complex social

22

enviror:
centrol
several

there 1.

l
’ 2Fn~lnn
‘ VVAAAAo:

3-0-5ter'
bdue Sara

23

environments, and no matter how hard researchers try to
control all of the many variables, there will always be
several unanswered questions. The fact remains that
there is not a one—dimensional solution for classroom
teaching (Duffy, 1982).

For a research study to make a contribution to
the profession of teaching, it is important first to
understand what teaching entails. In addition to
Bolster's article, I read several articles that followed
the same questioning concerning one-dimensional findings.
Gerald Duffy (1982) in his article on "Looking in
Classroom Research" agrees that for too long educators
have traditionally ignored the complexities of classroom
life.

Bolster and Duffy both concluded that most
teachers' knowledge of teaching is formulated through
situational decision making or what Duffy refers to as
"fighting off the alligators."

Bolster said that knowledge of teaching includes
situational decision making, but also includes the
classroom culture, which is defined as the interaction
between teacher and student and between the students.

The most important elements of any social
situation are the shared meanings which

participants take from the process of
interaction and which ultimately shape their

be?

- I

24

behavior. Significant knowledge of any social
situation, therefore, consists of an awareness
of the emerging meanings that participants are
developing, and the specific ways that these
meanings are functioning to shape their
endeavors and thus the characteristics of the
situation itself (Bolster, 1982, p. 303).

Both Bolster and Duffy agree that if research is
going to make. a contribution to the ‘understanding of
teaching in all its complexities, then we must indeed look
in the classroom. Observational studies reveal teaching
practices as they occur naturally in specific situations.

The difference between the two authors' proposals
for effective research is what Bolster defines as the
culture of the classroom or the shared meanings that were
mentioned above. Each classroom is unique in this
culture. When research studies compare several classrooms,
as most do, they ignore the importance of culture, and how
it relates to the teaching and learning that occurs in
each particular classroom. As Bolster points out, social
science research on teaching assumes that causation in
classrooms operate unilaterally from teacher to students
and that magically learning occurs from those teaching
strategies, and yet at the same time, researchers
recognize the situational decision making that occurs when
teachers change their teaching strategies according to the

particular group of students that they are teaching. If

we also recognize the learning that takes place between

COSCBIHI

Part? "1

limitat:

other c;

‘ .
h'““"" A
:‘Vliaue‘

C25 r'v'es

‘ ‘ O
LCC‘HS l

1
interest
s‘h.‘

““5 Cla

4‘ .
b
ca. t.‘e

25

students, it becomes apparent that each classroom will
show particular characteristics and implications
concerning teaching and learning. The in-depth study of a
particular classroom, as I have proposed here, may have
limitations in that it may or may not be applicable to
other classrooms, but it will have considered the social
structure of the classroom and its complexities in
understanding the process of teaching.

The goal for my research is established and
grounded in the literature. It is a research study that
observes the complexities of a particular classroom. The
focus is on the shared meanings that come from the
interactions between the teacher and students unique to

this classroom.

Purpose for Assigned Seatwork

In the literature, there is considerable research
in the area of reading instruction, the bulk of which
focuses on the instruction that is from teacher to child,
usually in the small group setting. There are some that
debate one methodology over another. I have found few
that focus on the students during independent seatwork in
reading.

One study done which did examine seatwork in
reading was done under the auspices of the Institute for

Research on Teaching at Michigan State University

Q‘ on
35--»3“

ttent

they 1

work.
2: te

‘..
.AS‘W
“-"e

r01
(J
*1
( f
' r

26

(Anderson et al., 1984). It looked at the responses of
first-grade students to seatwork assignments. Their study
addressed many of the same questions that I have
researched. That is, what are the goals or purposes in
assigning independent seatwork, and are the students
attentive and successful in their work? In particular,
they looked at a student's strategy in completing his/her
work. It is interesting to find students using unique
strategies in order to complete a task that may hold
little comprehension for them.

A major concern of mine which has led me to do
this particular research was also expressed in the
Anderson et al. study. One of their conclusions was that,

the students who needed the most instruction in
reading were the ones whose seatwork often had
the exact opposite characteristics: the seatwork
was difficult because the gaps between the
students' knowledge and the knowledge required
for the task were too great for them to bridge
independently. Thus they spent a large amount of
their allocated instructional time in seatwork
that contributed proportionately little to their
reading growth (1984).
For this reason, I made the decision to look at the type
of assignments that were assigned by the teacher, and what
instructional assistance, if any, was offered to the
students during the completion of their seatwork.
Ruply and Blair (1986) did a study of the

assignment and supervision of seatwork. They observed

twelve first, second, and third grade teachers during

reading.
student

were git
teachers

assista:

,
Aacersc:

atten11c
3! the 1

3 Period

3

i» tea"
6“ '
1"” 16...:
S

27

reading. Specifically, they studied what was assigned to
students for seatwork and the manner in which instructions
were given. They also paid close attention to how the
teachers supervised the students and what, if any,
assistance was given.

The major differences between this study and the
Anderson et al. research was that there was little
attention paid to the strategies employed by the students
or the implications that it may hold for the students over
a period of time.

Both studies did agree that teachers need to
provide students with a purpose, and to illustrate the
task as well as circulate to insure success in order to be
effective.

Osborn (1985), in her paper on "Evaluating
Workbooks," gave several guidelines for evaluating a
workbook that accompanies a basal reader. Her last
directive in accordance with the other studies that I have
'mentioned is that "appropriate workbook tasks should be
accompanied by brief’ explanations of purpose for both
teacher and student."

There was agreement in all the studies I read that
the teacher's purpose in any seatwork assignment is
important for the students to be successful. When the
teacher's purpose is not apparent or articulated, there is

a tendency on the part of the students to view the

35519.2:

their b

eler. "r

dob

v-
"*1

In.
“‘

28

assignments as simple busy work, and thus not put forth

their best efforts.

Time as One Demand in Reading Instruction
There were several studies that look at the time
element of reading instruction. Time is important as a
variable; it is also important to distinguish between
allotted time and engaged time, both of which are proven
to have an effect on a student's progress in reading.
Martha Thurlow had one of the most extensive
studies on time allotment during reading. She studied
thirty-five second grade students from ten elementary
buildings. Her study found that
out of 120 minutes of scheduled time during one
school day, about 80 minutes actually were
allocated to reading instruction. Of the 80
minutes, only about 20 minutes actually involved
the student being engaged in active academic
responses, with only about 10 minutes in reading
responses (8 minutes in silent reading, 2 minutes
in oral reading). On the other hand, over 40
minutes of the reading period was spent engaged
in task management or waiting responses (1984).
Rosenshine (1981) also did a study on time spent
in elementary classrooms. This study also included second
grade students. The distinction between allocated time
and engaged time ‘was very' important to both studies.
Allocated time is the time that is provided for the
student to complete a task whether that task is an

assignment given as seatwork or whether it involves

teacher-led instruction as in a reading group. Engaged

time is
involved

,' .‘1
part8Cd‘
time did
was a ;

engagerfie

were all

fie ”
5%,}

29

time is the actual time that students are actively
involved or show signs of being on task. In this
particular study, the author showed that more allocated
time did not lead to less engagement. In reading, there
was a positive correlation between allocated time and
engagement rate.

Rosenshine reported that second grade students
were allocated 90 minutes for reading and language arts
activities. The average students were engaged for 64
minutes daily in reading activities. In Thurlow's study
she reports 80 minutes allocated for reading instruction
with only 20 minutes actually engaged in active academic
responses. There is a high discrepancy between the two
studies. Both authors were specific about their
distinction between allocated and engaged time. The
definition of reading instruction is less clear. Reading
instruction may refer to the time spent in group reading
instruction or it may include seatwork assignments that
have reading instruction as a goal. Even though the
Thurlow study gives a thorough explanation of what was
observed as far as the specific tasks involved (i.e.,
whether they were during group instruction, or seatwork
involving workbooks, readers, worksheets, or other media),
it was still unclear in the report of findings when the
term "active academic response" was used. In Rosenshine's

study, there was no explanation given for engaged time

except
which

access

.‘
t!

N
‘3:
C,‘fEr

30

except that academic subjects were designated as reading
which includes writing activities and math. This may
account for some discrepancy in that there may be several
writing exercises in second grade that Rosenshine may
include under the title of reading, whereas Thurlow may
not view them as part of reading instruction.

The discrepancy in findings may also be attributed
to the selection of subjects. Even though both studies
involved second grade students, Thurlow study reflects a
full range of second grade reading groups including at
least one student from each ability group. In contrast,
Rosenshine's study included students within the average
range of ability; the very bright and slower children were
not included. If, as many authors claim (Goldenberg,
1969; Rist, 1970; Weinstein, 1976), teachers allocate time
differently for the different ability groups or that
different ability groups have different engaged time (Good
and Beckerman, 1978; Anderson et al., 1984), this would
account for a discrepancy in any findings that report
allocated or engaged time for reading instruction.

Time, whether allocated or engaged, is an
important factor to be considered when observing students
during reading instruction. It appears that ability is
another factor that should be considered. The majority of

our public schools adhere to the practice of teaching

rhat sec

in teach-

percent,

H. 4 ‘ a.

~.‘ “ .‘O
.

”AV ‘nn

A ML“:

3‘»: M
“NEHL i
“N

“Katv‘dc‘ V I

\

A

E

31

reading in ability-oriented group. It is this practice

that necessitates seatwork during reading instruction.

Ability Grouping

The research study showed that when students were
in teacher-led groups, their engagement rate was about 84
percent, whereas during seatwork, it was about 70 percent
(Rosenshine, 1979). Other studies (Good and Beckermann,
1978) have also shown that students are more on task when
their instruction is led by a teacher than when they are
working alone. Even so, students still spend only 30
percent of their time in teacher—led seatings and 70
percent of their time doing seatwork (Rosenshine, 1981).
The ability levels in any one class are so diversified
that teachers believe there is a need to break the class
into smaller groups based on achievement. To instruct a
Class as a whole might find the lower ability students
behind and the high students may become bored. Dividing a
Class into groups, based on achievement, accounts for the
figUres that Rosenshine has given for the amount of time
that a student spends on seatwork to free the teacher to
Work with groups. This also accounts for the current
11terature that looks at ability as a factor in whether a
Student is on task. Since groups are established for
instruction, it becomes a natural occurrence or factor to

conSider the students' work habits in reference to their

k

r
‘

reibe
that

re

.:
5

IS

‘
N
AU

-...

are

seatwo

‘ t
a¢ua
5
z:-
d..:er(

«- ‘ .
165328.

'V
V

:
61f.

3"
u.

“A.
Q‘~

exte

32

memberships in a particular ability group. Most agree
that high achievers are more involved in spending more
time on task than low achievers (Good and Beckerman, 1978;
Anderson et al., 1984).

When students are grouped by achievement as they
are in reading and specifically when they are assigned
seatwork as whole-class assignments, performance is
evaluated comparatively, both by the students and by the
teacher. This comparison of performance narrowly defines
reading ability where students perceive and agree upon
differences among themselves (Rosenholtz and Wilson,
1980).

The ranking of students among themselves can have
an effect (n1 a student's self-concept (Eder, 1983; Winn
and Wilson, 1983). If it is true that lower ability
groups tend to develop their own values and rewards and
become increasing antagonistic toward school (Hargraves,
1967; Esposito, 1973), this may explain the off-task
performance reported in the research.

Ability grouping and the type of assignments given
for seatwork in reading are important factors to address
in any study that hopes to look at the effectiveness of
seatwork assignments in reading. If the goal in seatwork
assignments is to facilitate the learning of basic skills
and to increase a student's ability in reading, to what

extent can we ignore a student's self-concept or the fact

33

that the low ability students, through less engaged time,

may be making little or no progress?

Type of Assignment

 

There are few studies that directly looked at the
type of assignments that were used for seatwork during
reading. Instead, several research studies made reference
to assignments for seatwork in their recommendations.
Through the many studies conducted that involved time on
task, there has been an acceptance of the principle that
learning occurs through engagement. deldren improve in
reading in direct proportion to the amount of time they
spend in engaged reading. Consequently, there have been
several recommendations that reading be incorporated in
seatwork assignments. The most engaging study on this
topic was conducted by Leinhardt, Zigmond, and Cooley
(1981).

They began their study with two premises. First
is that learning occurs through engagement, and second,
3 that learning to read requires high rates of engaged
reading behavior. Over a 20-week period, the research
team observed 105 students. Their findings showed that
the most fully focused student was reading silently or
orally 23 percent of the day. The least attentive pupil
was reading 0 minutes per day. During reading periods,

students were off task for 22.5 minutes per day and spent

34.1-r

.‘nr‘?’ ‘
‘Adb‘e‘

F. 1""
toe‘u-‘
.

w
...”.E

to

eache

‘
5

C
y

L
5A.

”’1'“
s»

O“;
Va

34

34.1 minutes in transition. In conclusion, they recommend
increasing the amount of time in silent reading, and
helping the class, as a whole, in reduction of transition
time and off-task behavior.

In addition to its reference to time and
environment, Leinhardt et al.'s study supports the concern
of other authors that students need more time in silent
reading. The proposal for such reading assignments as
seatwork is not beyond our reach. It may also lend itself
to the fulfillment of other recommendations for seatwork,
that is, interest value and appropriate level of
difficulty and variety.

Environment

 

Process-product studies in which measures of
teacher and student behavior are correlated with measures
of student achievement have revealed the necessity to look
at the environment, as well as the direct instruction that
takes place in our classrooms. Looking at classroom
environment and the role it plays in learning can be as
simple as looking at the physical arrangement of the room
or as complicated as teaching students motivation and
completion of school tasks for intrinsic rewards of
satisfaction and the acquisition of valued skills.

The physical placement of reading groups is
important to limit distractions for both the group and the

student

would be
reading 9
away fro:
group's w.
important
in turn,

"(With-:3;

awareness

Storage ca
DIOcedure

att‘vity tc
.. forms a
specific t
trans'it:

35

students working on seatwork. Ideally the two groups
would be sitting back—to-back as would occur if the
reading group were placed in the back of the room facing
away from the seatwork group. This eliminates either
group's watching the performance of the other. It also is
important for the teacher to be facing both groups. This,
in turn, helps a teacher exhibit what Kounin refers to as
"With—it-ness" (Kounin, 1970). ‘With-it-ness is an
awareness of what is happening at all times in order to
detect inappropriate behavior early and take measures
before it escalates into disruption.

The seating arrangement also helps students' focus
of attention. Their desks should face the point in the
room where they most often need to focus attention
(Brophy, 1983). During seatwork assignments, many
elementary teachers assign what is commonly referred to as
boardwork. Work is placed on the board to be copied by
the student. In order to focus attention on the
assignment, students' desks should face the board.

Consideration of traffic patterns and equipment
storage can provide smoother transitions. Routines and
procedure also help in the transition time from one
activity to another, as well as the ability of the teacher
to focus attention on clear beginnings and endings for
specific tasks. This attention to the time spent in

transition has come about through the current research

f: A:

studen‘

36

findings on time (Rosenshine and Berliner, 1978). When
students are academically engaged, they focus attention
and participate in instructional tasks, thus increasing
student achievement compared to when they participate in
nonacademic engagement, such as transition time, talking,
and disruptive behavior.

In addition to focusing students' attention,
effective teachers conveyed a sense of purpose for the
students' work. Students were held accountable for
completing their work on time. Teachers also monitored
the students' work, checking for understanding, offering
assistance, and monitoring their progress toward
completion. This monitoring of students' work was also
cited in research as important for student achievement
(Anderson et al., 1980).

Rules and responsibilities are considered by many
authors to be part of the overall environment of the
classroom. I chose to separate the topic due to a
distinction that can be made in some classrooms as to
ownership. The physical arrangement for supplies and
seating arrangements in most classrooms are clearly
decided upon by the teacher. Most students do not believe
they have any control or input for the decisions. There
is usually no ownership or involvement by the student in
relation to the physical environment as important as it

has proven to be on their performance. The other

effectj
here--i
it-ness
sectior
enviro:
rules

However
be inte
least

reason,

E
‘ ‘
a U
S‘wq

“n

\“F ‘
Ba 5

Ac

Vt

37

effective' management skills that have been mentioned
here--focus of attention, monitoring students' work, with-
it-ness--have all been related to the teacher. The next
section, rules and responsibilities, is a part of the
environment of the classroom. In most classrooms the
rules are determined and enforced by the teacher.
However, in order to be successful or effective, they must
be internalized by the student, and the ownership must at
least in part be experienced by the student. For this
reason, I have separated it from the topic of environment.

The Rules and Responsibilities
in the Classroom

 

Rules and responsibilities should be a part of the
instructional program. Effective teachers place the
stress on teaching, not on manipulating students through
rewards and punishments (Brophy, 1983). Teachers can
assist students in their behavior by making expectations
clear and modeling correct procedures for them. They can
identify and capitalize on student interests, help a
student to identify the problem, and understand the
logical consequences, and to develop coping strategies
that assist the students in monitoring their own behavior.
The emphasis is on encouragement and help, rather than
threat of punishment.

Perkins (1965) conducted a study fOr the purpose

of identifying student behavior and its relationship to

38

academic achievement. IIt involved fifth grade students,
36 of which were considered to be achievers and 36 which
were selected as underachievers. The selections were
based on I.Q.'s, grade point averages, and reading scores.
Weekly observations were conducted by pairs of observers.
One could observe pupil behavior, while the second
observer would observe teacher behavior at the same time
in given situations. The study supported the proposal
that learning activities, students' attention to task, and
teacher's roles and behavior that facilitate learning are
associated with increased academic achievement” Quiet
study, teacher-led recitation, and student individual work
were associated with achievement. Teacher lectures or
criticisms were associated with decrease in achievement.
The teacher, as lecturer or criticizer, was associated
with a decrease in achievement by both achievers and
underachievers. Underachievers were more frequently
observed engaged in nonacademic work and withdrawing.
This may be attributed to the belief that students who are
unable to be successful and gain approval in academic
activities withdraw from the learning situation. An
important point was made for the selection of assignments
that insure success. Withdrawal may also be a safe

response to criticism.

A

r-‘r

tea

on

their

I
"bhfi
‘bAAU

,
w '

‘cstr
respo

“C

39

This study lends support to Brophy's proposal to
teach and model good behavior instead of threatening
punishment and criticism. If it can be shown through
future research of this kind that criticism has its affect
on all students, achievers as well as underachievers, in
their academic achievement and that it is related to
withdrawal on the part of all students, then the
instruction of rules and responsibilities and teacher
responses to infraction of those rules is indeed an

important factor for consideration in teaching.

Summary

The literature reflects a consensus that the
classroom is a very complex social structure involving
several independent factors that may have an effect on
academic achievement. Future studies need to "look in the
classrooms" to observe the natural happenings and
interactions that occur. Through observation we may find
: insight into the shared meanings that exist between
participants in the classroom culture and come to
understand what precipitates certain behavior and how the

behavior affects academic achievement.

CHAPTER I I I
METHODOLOGY

Classroom Observation as a Choice

During my teaching career, I read very few
research reports. As a graduate student I have read
several. The more that I became familiar with current
research, the more I pondered the question of why I had
not read more while I was a teacher. There were several
answers. One was accessibility. The journals to which I
subscribed were read in several teachers' lounges, and
were not empirical in nature. They contained several
articles about current problems and related several ideas
to practical solutions. When I did read a documented
research report, I .found the language to be very
different from my professional language. I became lost
in the verbiage. Later, when I reflected on what I had
read, I judged the research to be contrived and not at
all like the natural occurrences that I found in my
Classroom. This research, according to my thinking, was
Conducted by and for the university community. I
believed it was of little importance for me as a

Cl ass room teacher .

4O

To 8 ‘

‘ '5
c' C ‘

t wOUl:

fcre E

41

Now as a graduate student in the university
community, I was conducting my own research It was
important for me to maintain my perspective as a teacher
and in so doing to conduct and write my research for the
benefit of the classroom teacher.

Hammersley and Atkinson in Ethnography Principles

 

in Practice (1983) say that methods must be selected
according to purposes. It is their belief that the most
important feature of social research is its reflexivity,
the fact that it is part of the social world it studies.
There is In: escape from reliance on common-sense
knowledge and on common-sense methods of investigation.
My common sense method took me back to the
classroom. I chose to do an observational research
study. I observed students during reading instruction in
a first grade classroom. I began my observations in
March and continued through the end of May. In this

chapter, I will describe my methods of investigation.

Research Design

 

Observational research is not just a happening.
To enter a site and just observe would provide a lot of
information, but without a focus or purpose for the study
it would have little direction or relevancy. Therefore,

before entering a site, a research study has a design.

seieCt

oble

pr

7
s

got f

$4

q:es.-

‘5

.. u
.5.

fi
\

V
'1‘.
“A

esti.

qu

skills

{0‘-
&\ate,j

42

The basis of this design is a specific problem
selected for research. In my particular study, the
problem developed within the structure of a basal reading
program. Within my own teaching experience, I had
several experiences in which I questioned the responses I
got from students while completing seatwork assignments.
There were individual students who never completed their
work. There were some who completed it so quickly that I
questioned whether it was an appropriately challenging
assignment. There were those students who did the work,
but still created a noisy environment that made it
difficult for others to work or for me to instruct my
reading groups. In the end, there was the most nagging
question of all: Did the seatwork advance the reading
skills of the students?

In the review of the literature, I found that
there was an extensive volume of research in the field
that related to students' completing work in a basal
I reading program. The problem was no longer a solitary
Pursuit on my part, but a problem that would warrant
further investigation as an addition to the literature
already in place.

Given the problem, my next step was to select a
Sett.‘Lng and the classes that I believed would provide me
with an accurate insight into the occurrences that

related to my problem. A basal reading program was a

E
6.
h

IOC
tha
univ

‘nu

r
a».

*£

a
«4 v.
H I
uV‘

Q ‘
Ted

6

43

prerequisite. I also preferred a district that was
located in the city. This was a personal choice, but one
that was justified in light of my personal experience and
university studies. I had been trained to be an inner-
city teacher, and had taught for five years in large
urban districts. My graduate work included a cognate in
urban studies that continued to focus my studies on the
problems of our city school districts, not the least of
which include teaching reading effectively.

I was fortunate to find a school district that
had implemented a new basal reading program four years
before my study as a response to declining reading scores
on the state mandated tests of competency.

The focus on reading and the new basal program
led me to believe that I would find the structure and
environment that I was looking for in my study.

The fact that the program had been in place for
four years gave the assurances that the teachers and
students had some familiarity with it and would have a
routine established. This was also heightened by the
fact that I would begin my observations in the middle of
the year, and not at the beginning when the teacher and
students were new to each other and did not know what to
eatpect.

I chose the early elementary years for my study,

particularly first grade, because it is here that the

44

basal program appears to be most firmly in place. As
students progress in their reading skills in the upper
grades, teachers become more flexible and provide
enriching diversions from the reading program. They are
confident that the students have the skills to warrant
variations from the general routine. In early elementary
grades, class time is a precious commodity. There are so
many skills to be mastered, and the complexity of making
sense of the process involved in reading leaves little
time for anything else. This will become apparent in the
next chapter where reading during this study is said to
be 180 minutes out of an instructional day totaling 285
minutes.

Finally, when the topic of the study is defined,
and the selection of the setting and cases are chosen,
the next step in the design is to decide what sampling
within the case will be done; in other words, when to
observe, and who and what to ask. Hammersley and
Atkinson (1983) stated it quite simply when they wrote
that there are three major dimensions along which
sampling within cases occurs: time, people, and context.

As common as the basal reader is in our
classrooms so is the time during which reading
instruction takes place. Reading dominates our early
elementary curriculum to the extent that it is usually

taught both in the morning and afternoon. It also takes

woul
the

at s

45

priority in being the first lesson of the day. Most
schools also place it the first lesson following lunch,
but there are some who teach math at that time followed
by reading. In any case, I was relatively certain that I
would be in the classroom every day at the beginning of
the school day, and would probably spend an hour or more
at some time in the afternoon.

Sampling of the subjects could also be determined
in the design of the study. Given a classroom of 20 to
30 students, I realized that it would not be feasible to
observe them all. However, there were simple principles
that I knew I wanted to adhere to. First, I wanted a
subject from each reading group. My study did not have a
focus of high achievers or low, but I wanted to look at
the differences in the responses from all levels of
readers. Therefore, I would need to observe at least one
student who was comparatively low in the skill of
reading, one who was average, and one who was high in
ability.

I also did not want to show any discrepancy among
the genders by only observing a boy on a given level or a
girl. Therefore, I wanted to design my sampling so that
it would include not only a sampling from each reading
level, but a sampling of each gender on that particular

level.

46

For many of the same reasons, I chose to pay
particular attention to the race of my subjects. Since
most city schools have a minority representation in their
populations, I chose to have at least one minority
represented on each level of the reading spectrum.

Since the focus of my study was the responses of
students to their seatwork assignments during reading
instruction, I believed that it was important to observe
those students who remained on task and usually completed
their assignments as well as those students who went off
task frequently and did not complete their work.
Therefore, a sampling for my study would include students
who exhibit one or the other above—mentioned
characteristics.

The sampling of the subjects is for the specific
purpose of setting limits for the number of interviews
and the collection of specific data, such as field notes
and samples of classroom work assignments. There will be
some data reported that is gathered from the site which
includes all of the students in the class.

Since students may respond differently given a
different context, I needed to consider this issue in my
research design. I wanted to observe the same sampling
of students, within the same time of observation, but
with a change of context. Substitute teachers were the

answer .

plan

Usua‘

47

A substitute teacher is presented with lesson
plans that are written by the regular classroom teacher.
Usually, the schedule, routine, and assignments remain
the same as if the regular teacher were present. Would
there be a change in the students' responses to seatwork
on a day when there was a substitute teacher in the room?
I was fortunate that I observed on two days when a
substitute teacher was there instead of the regular
classroom teacher.

Research designs are only a beginning. Field
researchers must report what they observe. If those
observations do not follow the design that they have
developed, they are left with two choices. They may
leave the site and look for another which may prove more
suitable for their design or make the necessary changes
to report the findings in the given site. Change is a
common phenomena and one in which field research
embraces. Researchers continually report and change not
only their premises, but also their methods of analysis.

The research design is only the beginning.

Gaining Access to the Site
To gain access to a public school district, I
first had to present a written proposal for my study.
The district presented me with a guide as to what the

proposal should contain. I was to state what my topic of

resee
resez
they
I wa-
inte

read

48

research was, but more importantly, I was to show how my
research could benefit the district given the areas that
they were interested in further research being conducted.
I was fortunate in that this particular district was very
interested in any research that pertained to a basal
reading program.

The district that I had chosen was denying access
to several researchers because they were unhappy with the
conduct of some researchers who had been in the district
the year before. Fortunately, I had completed a project
study in the district the previous year, and had received
favorable response to my study from the subjects
involved. For this reason, the district, again, approved
my proposal for this study.

Once the topic of the proposal had been approved,
the proposal was sent to all of the principals to
determine who was interested in having the study
conducted in their building.

There were several buildings in which I was
particularly interested in conducting my research. I
approached the principals of these buildings personally
in the hope of gaining their acceptance of my proposed
study for their building. Several times I was denied
access, and given various reasons for that denial. The
most common was that there were already too many

university personnel already present in their buildings,

49

i.e., student teachers, professors conducting research
projects, students participating in field work, etc.

The district, finally, notified me that there was
one principal who had responded to my proposal and
expressed an interest on the part of one of his teachers.
I contacted the principal and arranged for a meeting.

During the meeting with the principal, he
expressed his own interest in my proposed study. He went
on to say that the teacher who had expressed an interest
had since found that she was already committed to several
projects, and felt that she could not commit to another
at this time.

The principal was willing to schedule a meeting
after school for several of his primary teachers in order
to give me the opportunity to present my proposal, but it
was to be clear that the teachers' participation in the
study would be voluntary.

Four teachers attended the meeting. I presented
the proposal for my study, and then related my past
experience from the year before as to the responses from
the teachers involved in that study. To dispel any fear
of being watched or ewaluated, I stressed the fact that
the focus of my observation was to be the students, not
the teacher. Since I had one teacher already who had

expressed the fact that. she ‘was already committed to

50

several projects that demanded her time and energy, I
also stressed the fact that I was only requesting to be
an observer in the classroom, and possibly two interviews
with the teacher if it were convenient. I then waited
for their responses or questions.

I was told that they were very aware of the
interest on the part of the principal in this study, but
that they had several commitments in addition to their
teaching assignments, and since this was strictly
voluntary, they would have to decline. One teacher was
hesitant, and asked to speak with me further about the
project.

This particular teacher was interested in the
study, and would consider participating. She also was
aware that the principal was interested in having it done
in his building. Her main concern was in the final
report that would be made to her principal, as well as to
the district office. We both knew that this was a
requirement for any study that was done in the district.
I assured her that I would let her read any report that I
made prior to submitting it to the district or the
principal. I also explained again that the focus of the
report would be the students' responses to their work,
not any evaluation on the teacher's actions. In fact,
the report would not be an evaluation of any action, but

simply an observational report of what I observed the

51

students doing in the classroom during reading
instruction.

I gave the teacher a couple of days to think
about her participation in the study, and then met with
her to talk further about confidentiality, and to ask her
to sign a consent form. She signed the consent form, but
added in writing her stipulation that there was to be no
use of a tape recorder in the classroom or at any time
that she consented to an interview.

My last step in gaining access to the site was to
have consent forms signed by the parents of the students
in the classroom. The teacher explained to the class
that I was a student from the university, and that I
would be observing in their classroom for several months.
She further explained that I was there simply to observe,
and that it was not to interfere with their work nor were
they to come up to me to ask any questions. They were to
continue their work as if I were not there. They were
also to take home a note explaining why I was in their
classroom, and have their parents sign it, and bring it
back to school the next day.

When only a few consent forms had been returned,
I sent home a second copy. After several weeks, I still
had not received even half of the forms I sent. I then
sent a third copy of the form to individual parents from

who I had yet to receive a response. One student's

52

parent was asked to come to the school so that an
interpreter would explain the form in their language in
order to obtain a consent. I was very grateful for the
assistance provided by the school personnel in obtaining

consent for the study to be initiated.

Data Gathering

 

My research study was an observational case study
in which the ‘major data—gathering technique was
nonparticipant observation. The focus of the study was
students while they were doing independent seatwork
during reading instruction.

I was an observer in a first grade classroom from
March through May. Since reading was taught twice a day,
first thing in the morning and immediately following
lunch, I was in the classroom every weekday during the
hours of reading instruction. Most of my observations
took place during the morning sessions. During the
afternoon sessions, there were several interruptions to
the schedule, i.e., assemblies, announcements,
discussions about lunchroom or recess behavior, etc.
There were also more "time-outs" when the teacher asked
the students to put their heads down on the desks or to
stand up and stretch. Since my focus was the students
working independently on seatwork, I found these

interruptions to interfere with their responses to the

53

seatwork, and made the decision to spend more hours
during the morning sessions where there were fewer
interruptions.

Each day I went into the classroom and observed
the students while they were at their seats working on
seatwork. I sat in various spots on different occasions
in order to obtain different vantage points around the
room. One day I sat in the back on the left side of the
room. The next day I sat in the back on the opposite
side of the room. Some days I moved my seat half way up-
the outside aisle to locate nearer the middle of the
room. I always kept my seat at least two to three feet
away from the nearest student in order not to give any
one student the idea that he/she was being watched and
must be on good behavior. I also took time to copy the
boardwork in my notes which gave several students the
idea that I was interested in doing the work and, not
interested in what they were doing.

The main source of data was my field notes. In
the field notes, I recorded any action or movement by the
students and my insights or reactions to the various
notes that were taken. I also recorded all verbal
communication that related to the students who were
working on seatwork. If it was possible to hear
conversations that took place between the students at

their seats, I recorded it in my field notes. If the

54

teacher directed comments to those students who were
working on seatwork, I recorded it. If students at their
seats asked a question of the teacher, I recorded it. I
also recorded all the verbal communication that took
place prior to the beginning of the reading groups, in
order to record all directions that were given concerning
the seatwork or expectations on the part of the teacher.

The focus of my observation in the classroom, as
reflected in my field notes, was directed toward the
following factors:

1. Ability: How are the students grouped for

 

reading? Are there groups for seatwork? Which students
are in which group? How many students complete their
assignments in each group? Which students ask for
assistance from the teacher or from other students?

2. Type of Assignment: How are the directions
given: orally, written, both? What are the daily
assignments? Is there one assignment for all or are
‘ there different assignments?

3. Teacher's Purpose: What is the teacher's
response to the student's questions during seatwork?
What is the teacher's response to individual student's
actions during seatwork? What directions in regard to
behavior does a teacher give either before or during

seatwork?

55

4. Environment: What is the seating arrangement

 

during seatwork? What movements and conversations take
place during seatwork? Are seating patterns ever changed
during reading?

5. Time: When do different groups begin or stop
seatwork in order to receive group reading instruction?
Is it the same every day, or does its change? Is so, is
there a pattern or regularity of schedule?

6. Rules and Responsibilities. What does the
teacher say are the rules during seatwork time? What
happens when a student breaks the rules? What do
students do when they complete their seatwork?

In addition to my daily observations, I conducted
two scheduled interviews with the teacher. The first
formal interview was near the beginning of the study
(March). The second formal interview was scheduled near
the end of the study (May) Both interviews contained
specific questions related to the study (see Appendix A).

During the first formal interview, the teacher

took several minutes before she responded to a given

question. She was very specific and direct in her
response . She did not elaborate or provide any
additional information. For example, when I asked her

what were some of the rules during reading instruction,
she was quiet for a few minutes, and then responded "to

complete work to the best of their ability and to work

56

quietly." When I asked if reading was ever assigned as
seatwork, there was a pause, and then she responded,
"They are encouraged to read ahead in their basal."

I felt that her answers were very guarded. She
had specifically reminded me that the interview was not
to be taped, and I felt she was very nervous whenever I
made notes of her responses.

For this reason, I decided to conduct several
informal interviews. Immediately following the reading
instructions, the students went outside for recess. The
teacher usually went outside with the students. I found
that if I accompanied her to the playground and asked
several questions informally without paper and pencil,
she was very responsive. Throughout the rest of the
study, I conducted several of these informal interviews.

I met with the teacher for my closing interview
in the morning before school was to begin. We had set
the time two days prior to the interview. The teacher's
first words to me were that she did not have much time to
do several things that she had to take care of before the
children arrived for school. As in the previous
interview, the teacher sat at her desk and I sat in a
student's chair a short distance away. I had my tape
recorder with me because I would be conducting my student
interviews later in the day. Upon asking my first

question, the teacher inquired if my tape recorder were

on
th
fo,
ex;
Hex
sex.

nee

57

on. I assured her that I remembered our agreement, and
that I was carrying it for the purpose of using it later
for the interviews with the students. She accepted my

explanation and went on to answer the first question.

Her responses were quick and to the point. There were
several interruptions . Someone came to the door and
needed to talk with the teacher for a few minutes. A

short time later, the intercom interrupted our interview
saying that the teacher had a phone call in the office.
The clock alerted both of us of the fact that soon the
students would be arriving for school. I found myself
asking questions very quickly in order that I might at
least get some response or reaction before our time was
over. I knew from past experience if I tried to
reschedule the interview, I probably would never get the
answers to my questions. In scheduling this interview,
this was her only free time, and even then, she had come
to work early in order to accommodate my needs.

The interviews with the students were much easier
to schedule. The teacher was very happy to allow the
students to leave the room during reading instruction to
have interviews with me. Because I did not want to
interfere with their work more than necessary, I
interviewed the students all on the same day, and
informed the teacher the day before. I felt that by
giving the teacher the information beforehand, she would

58

know that the students work would be interrupted and
would plan accordingly either by giving them more time to
complete their work or giving an assignment that was not
important whether they finished or not. As it turned
out, all of the students interviewed completed their work
on that day.

The student interviews were conducted in the
hallway outside the classroom. They were taped and
completed on an individual basis. One session of
interviews was scheduled for March, and one session at
the end of the year.

Writing questions that would be informative for
my study as well as be appropriate for students' ages (6
and 7 years old) was a challenge for me. During the
interviews, I was amazed by how much information they
would give me when asked the right question, and how
quickly I got the response: I don't know or no response
when I asked a question that was a little too
complicated. A good example of the latter was question
eight during my first interview with the students (see
Appendix B). When asked what advice they would give to a
new student in regard to reading, four out of nine said,
"I don't know," or gave no response. Even though this
might cause a researcher to question whether the question
Should be discarded, there were a couple of responses

that allowed me to catch a glimpse of some of the rules

re
th
Th:
res

lik

59

that might be adhered to in the classroom. For instance,
Gina responded that she would tell a new student that you
shouldn't get games out. You must get a book out and
read. Jeffrey, when asked the same question, responded
that you should bring your pencil to reading group.
Theresa, who has had some problems with her oral reading,
responded that she would tell a new student that you read
like you talk.

Interviews can be a time to find out how good the
research design was at the beginning of the study. The
advantage in having done a field study was that upon
reflection on the responses from my first interviews and
given what I observed day to day in the classroom, I had
the opportunity to revise and add questions for my final
interviews.

The final interviews with the students were
conducted in the same way, only during the final week of
my observations in the classroom. One student, whom I
had interviewed during March, moved before the end of the
year. She was not interviewed a second time. Another
student whom I had been observing daily, cooperated in a
long interview, including some of the questions asked
during the first interviews, as well as all of the
questions for the second interview. Aside from these two
changes, I used the same subjects for the second

interviews as I had in the first.

60

In my original proposal for this study, I had
planned to use daily report forms with both the students
and the teacher. The teacher's report was to include the
seatwork assignments, the source of where she obtained
the assignment, its purpose, and a short evaluation of
its strengths, weaknesses, and whether she will use it
again (see Appendix C).

At the first meeting when I presented the study
to solicit participation, this particular teacher said
that she would participate, but she did not have the time
to fill out the report forms. I remembered from the days
when I was a teacher how much paperwork there was and how
there .never seemed to be enough. time. to do all the
planning and preparation that you desired before the next
day. I also believed that even though the information I
would have gathered by this method would have contributed
to my research study, I felt I could collect the same
information by other methods. I knew the assignments by
my presence in the classroom when directions were given
to the students. I observed the strengths and weaknesses
in certain assignments by recording the number of
students who had completed the assignments, if they had
to make corrections in their work, and how they used
their time while working. I asked the teacher informally

whenever I wanted to know the source of a particular

as:

she

61

assignment or her purpose in assigning it, and whether
she would use it again.

The students' report forms were designed to be
easily read and to minimize the time a student would need
to complete the report. The questions were kept very
simple. They were to circle "yes" or "no" to three
statements.

1. I liked it.

2. It was easy.

3. I finished.

If they had the time and the ability, I left a
blank section for them to express what they thought they
learned from the assignment (see Appendix D).

The students were responsible for filling the
report out whenever they finished their seatwork or at
the end of the reading period.

I used the reports for two days. The first day,
I found that the only students who attempted to fill out
the reports were those students who finished their work
early. The rest of the students worked on their seatwork
assignments until it was time for recess. They were
anxious to go outside to play and no one stayed behind to
fill out a report.

I also found the report to be too confusing
because I had five days listed on the report form. The

students circled "yes" or "no" at times instead of

re:

62

responding in the section for a specific day of the week.
No one responded in the section designated.

The next day I cut the form so that each day was
separate, and I only set out one day of the week. Again,
I received few responses. Those students who finished
early had taken the time to answer the three questions,
but did not respond to what they had learned.

I continued to set out the forms for the rest of
the week, but after the second day, no one remembered
that they were there. The choice was mine. I could take
time to explain the procedure again to the class, but I
would also risk the teacher's displeasure in taking time
from 'the reading' program. I: could remind individual
students while they were at recess, but it involved most
of the class, and even then they could forget when they
returned to the classroom. Finally, I could revise my
methods and obtain the information in another way. I
chose the latter.

I already had recorded in my field notes the
names of those students who had finished their seatwork
with the specific time. This was more accurate than the
student record form. I also chose randomly to ask
students while they were at recess if they had liked the
assignment and if they thought it was easy. It was to my
advantage to conduct those informal interviews orally to

find out what they had learned from the assignment since

were
ind i\

his/h

63

the students had not attempted to answer that part of the
student report.

The last method that I used in gathering
information was to ask for selected copies of the
students' work. The teacher corrected the students'
seatwork assignments during the reading class time. The
students then placed their corrected papers in their own
mailbox to take home at the end of the day. I did not
want to keep any student's paper from going home to be
shown to his/her parents. Instead, while the students
were getting ready for recess, I would approach
individual students and ask if I could make a copy of
his/her paper. A student never denied my request. While
they were at recess, I would take their papers to the
office, make copies, and then return them to their
respective mailboxes.

The students' work not only provided. me with
information concerning their understanding of the work,
but also showed their attempt that was made to complete
the assignment. I observed many students who did not
complete their assignment, but in my observation, I could
not be sure how much of their assignments they had
completed. Some students had completed some of the work
correctly, while others may have only copied the work and
made no attempt to do what they were assigned to do or

some may have only written their names on the papers.

AA

‘B-x
‘Jnl
a

as

pos

obs

ROI

C m *5 ’7‘ “It
0 a a e at
*5 ”h ‘c *\

p A

110‘:

64

Given these differences in their written work, I then
went back to my field notes to see what the students were
doing during the class time. I also talked informally
with the students about their papers.

All the methods I used for this study were
discussed and approved by the subjects in the study.
When they set limits for my methods, such as not
videotaping or tape recordings, I made adjustments by
employing other methods that met with their approval. I
was not directed by choice of methods, but in the
information that I wanted to gather for my study. It was
important to me that my subjects responded as naturally
as possible, and that I remain as unobtrusive as
possible. In this setting it required that I be a silent
observer and so I arrived with the students at the
morning bell, took a seat in the classroom, listened to

the directions for written assignments and wrote my field

 

notes.
Data Analysis
In ethnographic research, analysis is an ongoing
process. .As I took. my field notes, I made several

marginal notes that made reference to other pertinent
data, or comments concerning current data. As I read and
reread my field notes, I constantly looked for patterns

and contradictions, comparing, contrasting, ordering,

res;

65

etc. As patterns emerged, analytic notes were made as
part of the ongoing process of analysis.

After a short time, I was designating categories
and developing linkages. From my field notes, I knew the
sequences of behavior or routines, the time and place of
certain situations, and how certain subjects related to
others. I was now able to "make sense" or assign meaning
to my data through an understanding of the rules and
responsibilities of the subjects.

I found myself making several charts. Charts
that noted the order in which individual students
completed their seatwork assignments. Charts for the
purpose of noting which students were off task during
reading instruction and for what purpose: daydreaming,
talking, distractions, etc. I asked myself if there is a
relationship between being off task and completing their
work on a given day. There were charts of time spent in
reading groups and when they went into groups for reading
instruction and if there is a linkage between the amount
of time spent in group or when they went to group and
whether or not they finished the seatwork assignment.
There were notations about individual students having
their seats moved to another row or away from the other
students. Is there a change in their response or

completion of seatwork assignments when they sat in a

res.
0V8]

sig:

66

different seat? I constantly went through my field notes
looking for relationships. Schatzman and Strauss in

their book, Field Research (1973) said that when a

 

researcher discovers a key linkage-—that is, an
overriding pattern, he then has the means to find
significance within his classes of data.

It was at this point that I began to establish
methods for checking my inferences. One way to cross
check for validity was triangulation. Triangulation is a
means of checking inferences drawn from one data source
by collecting data from other sources. When diverse
kinds of data lead to the same conclusion, there is a
more confidence given to the inference (Hammersley and
Atkinson, 1983).

Respondent validation is one form of
triangulation. This form of data check involves showing
a participant one account of a certain occurrence or
phenomenon and recording his/her comments. For example,
‘ during the second interviews with the teacher and
students, I read them my field notes referring to a
specific happening on a certain day, and then recorded
their responses in regard to how they viewed the incident
or my recording of the incident. The additional data of
their insight into the event gave added depth to the
description of the incident, as well as giving a validity

check of the event (Hammersley and Atkinson, 1983).

67

Cross-checking, using several data sources, is a
good method to think about, but was very difficult to
plan with any degree of certainty before actually
interpreting the data. I used a tentative plan for
cross—checking my main categories of student responses in
relation to the different sources of data (see Appendix
E). This method of triangulation, or 'using several
sources for data, does not guarantee the accuracy in our
findings, but only an attempt to counteract the threat to
the validity of our analysis (Hammersley and Atkinson,
1983).

My final step in data analysis was the recording
of my findings. This was accomplished by formulating
statements and using various sources of data to
illustrate the statement. These statements are called
assertions. These assertions (found in Chapter V)
interpret my findings as they relate to the factors that
influence students' responses to seatwork, that is,
ability of the student, the type of assignment, teacher's
purpose, the environment, time, and the rules and

responsibilities in the classroom.

Summary

Classroom observation was a challenging method
for conducting research. It was also a rewarding one. I

was in the classroom for a limited time, and there never

hi

me

68

was a feeling of finality or end to my research. The
desire to return to the field and continue this type of
research is still present today.

In gathering my data, I learned to revise my
methods and to look for new ways to obtain information.
This type of questioning and searching also continued
after the study was completed.

The analysis revealed data that were rich in
human experience. The continual search. to interpret
meaning to natural occurrences was not only a challenge,
but a learning experience. I learned not only about the
experiences of students in the classroom, but about
myself as a researcher and the .methods I used in my
study. Through this analysis, a story was told and the

facts that were revealed gave meaning to the experience.

Ente

leak:
SChOt

and

Pain+

l‘L

CHAPTER IV

DESCRIPTION OF THE RESEARCH

SITE AND POPULATION

The Research Site

 

The city in which my research took place was an
urban area of approximately 130,000 people. The school
was located in the center of the city where per capita
income was low and the crime rate was high. The
population was very transient in character. The families
moved often, but usually within the city boundaries.
Many families were single-parent families on welfare.

The school was built in 1961, but looked
relatively new compared to the other buildings in the
neighborhood where it was located. However, it did show
its age in many subtle ways. One particular rainy day I
entered the school and found buckets strategically placed
up and down the halls to collect the water from the
leaks in the ceilings. The floor tiles throughout the
school looked new; however, the furniture appeared old
and used. The walls in the hallways had been newly
painted with character drawings that were bright in

color, as well as appealing to its young audience.

69

fro
and

stu

thi:

COD!

loca
schc

des:

one
one

bull

70

Of the students in the school, 40 percent were
from minority backgrounds, predominantly Afro-American
and Mexican American. Approximately half of the minority
students were bilingual. One member of the staff was
bilingual to help with communication problems. It was
this staff member who gave me assistance in obtaining
consent forms from the parents who did not speak English.

The classroom in which I conducted my study was
located about halfway down the main corridor of the
school. It was a large, square room with a unique layout
designed by the teacher (see Figure 1).

The classroom received a lot of sunlight since
one whole wall contained windows. As one might expect,
one wall was covered with a chalkboard. There were
bulletin boards to the right and left of the chalkboard.

As in most classrooms, the bulletin boards
depicted the activities that students had completed. One
was a display of a recent art project. Another was a
writing exercise, a collection of original short stories
written by the students. The third board had a chart of
basic skills with a list of all the students in the room.
When students mastered a particular skill, they would
receive a check mark next to their name under the
appropriate skill. Only one bulletin board, the art
display, was changed during the three months that I was

in the classroom. As a general rule, most of the work

DOWS
N
WI.

Fig...

71

 

 

Bulletin Board Bulletin Board
M Display Chalkboard — (not in use)

  

      
 
  

 

 

mg. TableJ

 

Teacher's .
Aldo I I
Desk

 

H

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ascoz—E

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2
I I I I Fountain
Study 7
n <3E>Cflml C) C) C) C) C) C) I D“*
g Desk | i
a ‘ , » w \
,_ '— UK \fi
r“ 3 C) Ol<> Cl § Mammws (xmr
Tabl Teacher's .8 O - 0 g
9 O Desk g Chairs 3
Reading Cha'ls 0
SEE] ffifggfiffiflfififififif;——mmmmEbmd
Chalkboard creative Writing

Figure 1.--Floor Plan of the Classroom.

)

Tablon-looks tor Coats (shell overhead for lunches

Main Corridor of the School

 

Was

Car:

the

for

he

72

completed by the students went home at the end of the
day.

Out in the corridor leading to their classroom,
the children were provided with hooks and shelves to
store their coats and lunches, thus allowing more space
in their classroom. There also was a small table with
chairs in the corridor for students to work or study with
an aide. This corridor setting was where I conducted my
individual student interviews.

In the actual classroom, it was obvious that the
front of the classroom was the main focus for activity.
There were rows of tables all facing the front. It was
on the front chalkboard that the boardwork for the day
was written.

Just as obvious were the isolated desks and study
carrel placed around the room a small distance away from
the group of tables. These desks were used periodically

for students who needed to be separated from the rest of
- the students for various reasons.

The teacher's desk was located on one side in the
back of the room opposite the door. Also in the back of
the room was an oval rug. There were chairs forming a
half circle on the outer perimeter of the rug with one
chair for the teacher in the middle facing the rest of
the chairs. In front of the group of chairs was another

chalkboard. It was here, on the rug, that the teacher

cl

the
occ

des

tWe:
tWe:
Cauc
thre

fOUr

73

instructed her small reading groups. A bookcase was
placed on either side of the rug in order to seclude the
group from distractions, such as individuals entering or
leaving the classroom.

The bathroom was located toward the front of the
classroom as was a sink with a drinking fountain
attached. The students were allowed to get up and use
the bathroom when they needed as long as it was not
occupied. They were restricted on drinks, however, to

designated times, such as immediately following recess.

The Research Population

The room in which I did my research study was a
first grade, self—contained classroom. There were
twenty—five students in the room. Thirteen were boys and
twelve were girls. The majority of the students were
Caucasian, seventeen in all. There were four Blacks,
three boys and one girl. Coincidentally, there were also
four of Hispanic descent, three girls and one boy.

The teacher was a young, Caucasian woman in her
late twenties. She had taught elementary school for four
years. This was her second year teaching in this
district, and she was looking forward to receiving tenure
following this school year. Most of her teaching

experience had been in the early elementary years, grades

1-3 0

Th:
The
fo;

in

max
fol.
sir:

were

Cons:
One
C°mpl
into

instr.

l

74

For reading instruction, the teacher had divided
her class into three groups. She referred to each group
by the name of the particular reader that they used in
the basal reading series (Houghton Mifflin, 1983).

The Balloon group ‘was the low reading group.
They were the students with the lowest reading ability.
There were ten students in this group. Six were boys and
four were girls. One Black and one Hispanic student were
in this group.

The next reading group contained nine students.

They were called the Sunshine group. Sunshine was the

 

next reader to be completed in the reading series
following the reader titled Balloons. There were five
girls and four boys in this group. Three of the students
were Black and two were Hispanic.

The high reading group that was made up of the
stronger readers were called the Moonbeams group. The
group contained four students, three girls and one boy.
One of the girls was Hispanic.

There were two students, both Caucasian, who were
considered to be above grade level in reading, in fact,
one was labeled gifted. They were both boys. They
completed all of the assigned seatwork, but they went
into a second grade classroom for their reading
instruction. A second grade student came to the

classroom door and asked for the two boys by name when it

75

was time fbr reading. They would leave their classroom
for approximately twenty to thirty minutes each morning
for their reading instruction.

The students' assigned seats in the classroom
were not decided upon for any reason pertaining to their
reading groups (see Figure 2). Instead, they were seated
in relation to whether they completed their seatwork or
not, and if they stayed on task or were a constant
disturbance to others. (This will be explained further
in Chapter V with supporting data from an interview with
the teacher and field notes that contain comments made by
the teacher to individual students concerning where they
were seated in the classroom.)

The seating arrangement did change once during
the time that I observed in the classroom (see Figure 3).
Again, there was no relation to the reading groups for
their designated seats. Those students who did not
complete their work or who disturbed others were seated

in the back row nearest to the teacher.

The Established Routine
Every morning’ 105 minutes were set aside for
reading instruction. Another seventy-five minutes were
set aside in the afternoon immediately following lunch.
My observations were primarily during the morning session

(see Graph 1).

76

S M M O B S
O S B B B B
S B S S B S
M S B B M S
B

B = Balloon Group

S = Sunshine Group
M - Moonbeam Group
0

- Two students who
are not in group

Figure 2.-’Seating Arrangements Pertaining to
Reading Groups in March.

77

B S B M O M
S M O S -- S
S B S B B B
M B S S S B

B

B = Balloon Group
S = Sunshine Group
M a Moonbeam Group
0

a Two Students who
are not in groups

—- = Empty seat for
student who moved
during the study

Figure 3.--Seating Arrangement Pertaining to Reading
Groups in April.

78

 
   
 
   
 
   
   
   
   
 
  
   

Directions
(10 - 15
minutes)

//

Reading in a
small group

 
 

Independent Seatwork;
(40 - 45 minutes)

ww.

  

Corrections
(25- 30 minutes)

Graph 1.--Instructiona1 Time During Reading for each child.

ch
A

79

During' the morning reading time, students
listened to directions, completed their seatwork, and met
in their reading group. Seatwork assignments consisted
of boardwork and a packet of papers. Both the boardwork
and the packet were to be completed during the morning
reading session.

The boardwork for the day was written on the
chalkboard late in the afternoon on the previous day.
Before the students left school, the teacher explained
the directions. The next. morning the students were
expected to enter the classroom and begin copying the
boardwork. This was just part of their seatwork
assignment during reading.

The teacher also stapled several sheets of paper
together. This was called a packet and was placed on
their tables first thing in the: morning before they
entered the classroom. This was to be the second part of
their seatwork.

When the students entered the classroom in the
morning, they went to their assigned seats and started
the boardwork. The bell rang at 8:50 a.m. After the
bell, the teacher called each student's name and he/she
answered "here." She ‘then. asked those students, who
would be getting a school lunch, to raise their hands.
Next the teacher asked the students to stand and recite

the Pledge of Allegiance.

If)

H

OI‘.
MO

SCI

fir
cal

tea

ag;

80

When the students were seated following the
Pledge, they reviewed the directions for the boardwork.
The directions for the packet were explained next, page
by page in great detail. The students were then
instructed to get busy and complete their work quietly.

The teacher went to the reading instruction area
on the rug and called the first reading group. The
Moonbeams group was usually called first. There were
some days when the teacher chose not to meet with
Moonbeams. On those days, the Sunshine group was called
first. The Balloon group was always the last group to be
called for reading. During the first interview with the
teacher, she stated that she called the reading groups in
a given order from the highest to the lowest.

During my study, Moonbeams had a range of
fourteen to twenty-seven minutes in daily time spent in
the reading group for the morning session. Their average
time was twenty minutes. Sunshine group averaged twenty—
five minutes in reading instruction time. Their ranges
were from eleven minutes to thirty-nine minutes for group
instruction. Balloons had an average of twenty-one
minutes; their reading instruction times ranged from ten
minutes to thirty minutes (see Graph 2).

The teacher did not always call one group
immediately fOllowing another group. There were several

days when she would circulate among the students at their

Graph

(

(

(

Minutes
in Group
Instruction

Minutes
in Group
lnstmction

Minutes
in Group
lnstrudion

)

i

)

 

 

 

 

 

 

81

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3°" 27
'—' 25
250 22 1_,
21 21
r l 20
201""- 1a —' 1o 1__,
‘—‘ ‘—‘ 1s
‘5‘, 14
1o"
50
0 1 w . . f .
1 2 a 4 s e 7 a 9 10
(Days of Observation)
Moonbeam
4o. 39
i r—
35 " 31 31
so ..27 28 'fi 28 -— 28
25 26 — --
r— _ 7- 24
25 .. r—
r
.. 18
20 17 16 —
F _
15 .. 11
10 ..
5 ..
° : : ‘ : . : : : : . : : :
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1O 11 12 13 14
(Days of Observation)
Sunshine
30 30
30 1' fit l—l
25 25
25 'r __.1
22
.__. 20
20 -- 1_‘
15 1s
15 Ch —( i—‘
10
1O -- 1_1
5 1r-
0 : 4 : 4. : : .
1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9
(Days of Observation)
Bauoons

Graph 2.--Time in Reading Group Instruction.

W’

indir
‘

COme

82

seats to check the progress of their seatwork before she
would call her next reading group.

When the students were not meeting with their
reading group, they were expected to do the seatwork
assignments independently and quietly. It was expected
to be completed during the morning reading session. The
seatwork assignments entailed some reading on the part of
the student, but the areas of study for the most part
were phonic drills, word recognition, English skills,
math, and coloring pages.

When their seatwork was completed, the students
were expected to go back through their packets and color
all pictures and illustrations. When that was done,
they were to turn their work upside down and place it on
the corners of their table or desk. If they had work
that was incomplete from the previous day, they had to
finish it. If not, they were to take out their basal
reader and read quietly until they were instructed to
bring their papers to the back of the room for
correction.

When the teacher had completed the work with the
individual reading groups, she would then ask that all
students who had completed their seatwork assignment to
come back to the reading area to correct their work.
Individually, she asked the students for their work and

corrected each page. When she had finished, the students

83

took their papers to their mailbox to take home at the
end of the day. The students would then return to the
reading area where they waited quietly until the teacher
checked all of the students' papers. It was then time
for recess and the end of reading for the morning.

During reading instruction, students moved from
one task to another (see Figure 4). The routine was the
same each day. Whether or not the students went out for
recess on any given day was determined by the use of
their time and only if they had completed their seatwork.
It was my task to observe the students at work and report
my findings with the hope of’ having a better
understanding of how the students used their time during

reading instruction.

84

.xuozumow

mo hufi>fluu< onarr.v ousmwm

 

I

v-
A.
a

“‘V
Eur.

CHAPTER V

FINDINGS

What is the Purpose of Seatwork?

Introduction

 

My first set of research questions was addressed
to the issue of the extent to which seatwork plays a part
in reading instruction. What is the teacher's perception
of the purpose for independent seatwork during reading
and how much time is spent on seatwork?

In answering these questions, I will relate my
findings as they pertain to the issues of the teacher's
purpose and expectations for seatwork, and the issue of
time in regard to when a group is called for reading
instruction and how much time is allowed for the
completion of seatwork.

During a basal reading program, a teacher's
purpose in assigning seatwork is twofold. First is the
acquisition of basic reading skills, and second is to
keep the students busy and quiet during the instruction
of small reading groups. In this section, I will show
the importance that the teacher placed on the completion
of seatwork and that seatwork was to be completed

correctly in order to learn the necessary skills. I will

85

a!

mi

36

.
W"
.1

86

also show that the teacher disliked disruptions while she
was instructing a reading group.

The time that students had to work on seatwork
was important for the completion of their seatwork. The
specific data in regard to the number of minutes spent in
reading groups and the number of minutes spent on
seatwork was recorded in the previous chapter. In this
chapter, I intend to relate the significance of time, as
it pertains to the grggr of groups called for reading, to
the teacher's purpose in assigning seatwork. The teacher
called her reading groups in the same order every day.
She would delay calling her last group (lowest in
ability) if they had not completed their seatwork.

Teacher's Purpose and Expectations

First grade students respond to independent
seatwork in many varied ways. In order to understand
what precipitates certain responses from individual
students, we first need to address the part that seatwork
plays in reading instruction, and the teacher's
perception of the purpose for independent seatwork during
reading.

During my first interview with the teacher, I
asked her what the purpose was for assigning seatwork.
She responded, "for review and transfer of learned~

skills." She said that seatwork should not contain

m

'71

bc

an

87

anything new. It should be a review of skills that have
previously been learned.

The teacher expected the seatwork assignments to
be completed satisfactorily. Since she believed the
assignments were a review of skills previously learned,
she did not accept papers with any errors. If a student
brought a paper back to the group to be corrected, and it
contained an error, she sent the student back to his/her
seat to correct it“ It recorded seven such incidents in
my field notes. The following is one example (Field
Notes, April 20, 1987).

The seatwork assignment for the day was
boardwork: copy three sentences, put in capital letters
and punctuation, and match the fraction with the correct
illustration. The packet for the day contained three
worksheets: one on telling time, one on counting, and
one on alphabet order.

Dennis had completed all of his work, and had
given it to the teacher to be corrected.

Teacher: No, Dennis, you need to do the work over. No,
Dennis, what letters come first, F, L, or D?
You need to look at your alphabet.

Teacher: Two, three, four of you have ABC order to
correct. Fernando, David, Dennis, Sam!

9:43 Dennis returned to his seat. He looked at his
boardwork that needed correction“ Then he

looked at his seatwork (ABC order) that needed
correcting. He picked up the book, The Three
Bears and began to read.

 

10:04 1 Dennis is still reading The Three Bears.

 

88

 

10:09 The Sunshine group is playing the game Simon
Says. Dennis is still reading The Three
Bears. He is on the last page. When he

finishes, he sits in his chair, and watches
the students play Simon Says.

10:11 Teacher: Balloon group come to the back and
bring your work if I have not corrected it.

Dennis immediately gets up with his seatwork in
his hand, and goes to ask the teacher about
corrections.

Teacher: You put it in ABC order. What letter comes
first: A, L, or E? Write the whole word."

Dennis went back to his seat, and began to put

the words in ABC order. One student was calling

Dennis's name to come to the reading group.
Teacher: Stop! Dennis has corrections to make.

Dennis finished his seatwork and took it to the

teacher. He left his boardwork at his desk.

That work also had to be corrected. In the

reading group, the teacher corrected his ABC

order, and he put it in his mailbox to take home
at the end of the day. His name was not called
to stay in for recess.

Dennis's behavior shows that he knows the rules
in the classroom. One rule is that students do not
interrupt the teacher when she is instructing a reading
group. Dennis did not make corrections the first time
when he returned to his seat. Later, when his reading
group *was called, and he .had the. opportunity to ask
questions, he immediately sought help in understanding
his work in order to make the necessary corrections.

There is also a rule that when you are not

working on your seatwork assignments, you should be

reading. Dennis, when he did not understand how to make

89

his corrections, took out the book, The Three Bears, and

 

read until he could seek the necessary help with his
work.

For twenty-eight minutes, Dennis was not able to
work on his seatwork because he did not understand how to
do it, but he did obey the classroom rules. He did not
disturb the instruction of the other reading groups by
asking the teacher questions about his work. He also
practiced his reading skills by reading during the time
when he couldn't complete his work.

This is also a good example of the necessity for
good rules during reading instructional time. The
teacher has already set in place a restriction on
interruptions to the time needed for group instruction.
She has also provided an alternative for the students to
use their time productively on strengthening reading
skills when they are not doing seatwork.

During an informal interview with the teacher, I
asked her how she encouraged reading silently when they
were not working on their seatwork. I had observed many
students taking out their basals and reading when their
work was completed. She explained that at the very
beginning of the school year, she told the students that
this is reading time, and we all read! Whenever they had
the time, they should take out their basal readers or

another book and practice their reading.

90

The rules in this classroom reflected the
teacher's purpose. When your work was completed, you
were to read. Reading involves many skills. When
reading, the students strengthened those skills.
students knew that seatwork time was a time to work. It
was not a time to talk, fool. around, or do whatever you
wanted to do. The rules were a guide for using your time
wisely.

On the same day that Dennis was having difficulty
with his seatwork, Harry was having problems with the
rules during reading time.

Harry was thought to be gifted according to the
teacher. He was one of the two students who went into
the second grade for his reading group instruction. As
on many days, Harry had finished his seatwork early.
When the teacher called back the students who had
completed their work and needed it to be checked, Harry

had walked to the back with Dennis. Unlike Dennis, Harry

did not have any corrections to make. His work was
completed correctly. He put it in his mailbox, and
returned to his seat. As he was sitting down at his

desk, the teacher made the announcement that everyone had
something to do, and if you were done, then you wrote,

What I Did for Easter.

Harry started to read a book. He soon put his
book away, and started to read the lunch menu.

91

After a minute, he put the menu away, and took
out some paper to draw.

Teacher: Harry, where is your paper? What did you do?
Harry: We don't celebrate Easter!
Teacher: But what did you do? You should write .

Teacher: These students will stay in (from recess) and
write! Harry, , , , , and

 

 

 

During recess, I asked the teacher about Harry's
having to stay inside today to complete his work. She
said it was not because he had disturbed anyone. It was
because he had not used his time wisely. She felt he
used the excuse of not celebrating Easter to sit and do
nothing.

Whether the teacher was right or wrong in her
understanding of Harry's actions is not important. What
is important is that the teacher makes a clear
distinction that what is important is to use your time to
strengthen your skills, not the issue of keeping busy
solely to have a quiet room.

Alejandro did not complete his seatwork for
several months in the beginning of the year. He found it
very hard to stay on task. For the past few weeks, he
has completed more and more of his daily work. This day
was one when he made a conscious effort to complete all
of the work.

Alejandro was in his reading group waiting for

the teacher to correct his work.

92

Teacher: You're going to have to correct all of these!
Pay attention to signs! A sentence begins
with a capital letter.

Today is not Wednesday.
This month—Is not Thursday and tomorrow is not

April.
You have to write, My favorite weekday is
I like it because . You have to correct

this, and this, and coIor this. (The teacher
was flipping through the pages of his packet
while she was speaking.) Take your papers to
your seat. You'll have to work on them during
lunch recess and come back here to sit."

Alejandro took his papers to his seat, and then
returned to the reading group for instruction.

This was one way that the teacher expressed to
Alejandro her desire for seatwork to be completed
correctly. It is not enough to fill in all of the
blanks. You must fill in the blanks with the correct
words.

When Alejandro did his work again during lunch
recess, he read each sentence, and carefully selected his
responses to fill in the blanks. This time his work was
correct.

In the teacher's demand for correct seatwork, she
clearly states her purpose in learning the skills.
Seatwork is not to be interpreted solely as busy work to
keep the students quiet so that she can instruct the
reading groups, but is a task to reinforce skills that
are necessary for reading. This was also exemplified in
the rules that were to be followed during this time.

Seatwork was to be: completed in. order to review ‘the

93

necessary skills for reading. It was to be completed

correctly to gain mastery of those skills.

The teacher placed a high priority on the
completion of all seatwork. If a student did not
complete the work, it was difficult for the teacher to
evaluate the progress that was made in learning the basic
skills. This particular teacher used various rewards
during the year as an encouragement to complete the
seatwork (see Table 1).

The teacher used praise often in regard to the
students' seatwork. She praised not only the quality of
their work, but also when they completed their work and
were working quietly. The following are some examples of
praise by the teacher.

Teacher: Gary got a check plus, plus! See how neat it
is. (The teacher held up Gary's paper for all
of the class to see.) Gary looks at his paper
and then smiles as several classmates look at
him (Fieldnotes 3-24-87)

Teacher: Raise your hand if you got a perfect today.
(Six students raised their hands.) You people
tip toe to your seats. We will be going out
(outside for recess) (Fieldnotes 3—24-87).

Teacher: How many in Balloon group have finished their
work? (Several hands go up.) Bring it back.
Now class, they have worked hard. Better than
the other groups! (Fieldnotes 4-12-87)

Praise was given individually to a particular

reading group or to the class as a whole. It was given

privately or publicly to the entire class. Most of the

94

Table 1.-—Rewards for Completion of Work.

 

 

Incidents Cited
in Field Notes

 

Individual Praise: 12
Recess: 7
Stars (by rows or individually): 4
Stickers: 3
Treats (cereal, bread, candy): 3
Notes sent home: 3

Special assemblies (storyteller, R.I.F.): 2

 

95

time, it was followed by smiles of satisfaction by the
students involved.

In addition to praise and going outside for
recess, there were several days when the teacher handed
out stars, stickers, or treats as a reward. One
particular day, the treat was jelly beans. Jelly beans
were given to individual students if they came to the
reading group with their work completed. Jelly beans were
also given during reading instruction if they read with
expression. Jelly beans were given again if they
completed their workbook pages correctly.

On the day before Easter break, the teacher had
bread that was baked in the shape of a bunny. When the
students came to reading group, she broke off small pieces
of bread and gave a piece to each student who had finished
his/her seatwork.

Notes that were sent home could contain several
messages concerning a student's work. It might be a note
of praise about good work or it could as easily be a note
of reprimand for work that was not done or was completed
carelessly.

Dennis was a student who found it hard to stay on
task. Consequently, he rarely finished his seatwork. On
one particular day, he worked very hard. He got several
of his pages completed. One of his math pages had four
wrong, but he had worked every problem. On the page that

96

had money problems he had struggled long and hard, and had
not gotten any of the ones that he attempted correct. The
teacher tore the page out of the packet of seatwork, and
set it aside. She then wrote a note on his packet of
papers about how well he had worked that day. The teacher
read the note to Dennis, and asked him to take it home to
his mother.

In contrast, on another day, Maria had been
talking during a lot of the reading time when she should
have been doing seatwork. The teacher asked if her work
were done. Maria shook her head no. The teacher asked
her to come to the back of the room and sit until her work
was completed. If it was not done by the end of reading .
time, the teacher told Maria that she would send her
papers home so that her mother could see what she had n9:
completed. Zrt was already late, and Maria did not have
sufficient time to complete her work. The teacher wrote a
note on the top of her packet, and Maria was to take it
home at the end of the day.

The structure of the basal reading program and the
purpose and goals of the teacher during reading combined
to divide the class into distinct groups: those students
working independently and those participating in reading
instruction. One was not-to infringe on the other.

Even though this was not explicitly stated as a

purpose for seatwork assignments, it was understood by the

97

students. While they were working on their seatwork, they
were not to interrupt the reading instruction. They could
not ask questions during this time, and there was not to
be any talking or noise. There were several different
punishments that were made at the direction of the teacher
for interruptions during the reading instruction (see
Table 2).

Generally when students were talking at their
seats when they should be working independently on
seatwork, the teacher quietly wrote their name on the
chalkboard and continued her reading group instruction.
If the students continued to talk, it would involve a
verbal reprimand, and possibly a checkmark after their
name.

If students were found to be talking again after
their names had already been placed on the board, the
teacher would continue a line of checkmarks following the
name, one checkmark for each incident when he/she was
caught interrupting the reading group by the noise of
talking. There was always the risk that those students
would not be allowed to go out for recess nor to an
assembly, or they might have to stay after school. You
were never really sure what the punishment would be, or
even for sure if there would be one, but several students

had been punished before in that manner.

98

Table 2.—-Punishments for Interruptions and the Number of
Incidents Recorded in My Field Notes.

 

 

Incidents Cited
in Fieldnotes

 

Names written on board with checkmarks: 11
Verbal reprimands: 11
Stand by desk: 5
Stay in for recess: 4
Stay after school: 2

Stay in at lunch: 2

 

99

Students could also have a checkmark or their
names removed from ‘the 'board, by being .noticed by ‘the

teacher while they were working independently and quietly.

Teacher: Dennis, I *will erase the "s" on. your name
because you have some work done (Fieldnotes 5-
21-87).

Fernando, I'm really happy to see you working
quietly (Fieldnotes 4-13-87). (Teacher erased
Fernando's name from the board.)

Another common punishment was a verbal reprimand
by the teacher. Verbal reprimands were short comments by
the teacher directly to individual students or to the
group as a whole. They were usually stated as a reminder,
such as, there should be no talking, or as a command like,
Stop the talking and do your work.

There were several times when the teacher stopped
her work in the reading group and asked individual
students to stand and face the clock. She would tell them
they could sit down and continue their work after so many
minutes of watching the clock.

For example, one day four students were at their
seats talking. The teacher called all of them by name and
asked them to stand and face the clock. The red hand on
the clock had to go completely around the clock five times
before they could sit down again and do their work.

There were some times when the teacher just asked

students to stand by their desks. They were to remain

standing until she told them they could sit down again.

100

Sometimes a student would continue to do his/her seatwork
from a standing position.

It becomes very obvious in this classroom that
seatwork is important. Punishment may take the form of
more time given for seatwork as in doing your work during
recess or after school, or it may be in time being taken
away by standing at your seat, but either way, your

seatwork must be completed, and completed satisfactorily.

Time

 

The teacher called the reading groups in the same
order every day. She started with the highest ability
group. The last group to be called was the lowest in
ability.

During our first interview, I asked her about her
seatwork assignments and whether she made the same
assignment for all or a different one for each group. She
said that even though the boardwork and the packets were
the same for all, she called her groups in a given order
so that she Inight give additional assignments to the
higher ability groups, therefore, they are called first.

She also said during this interview that she
believes the lower group needs more time to complete their
work and tends to forget the directions if she does not

allow them to begin right away.

101

During my observations, I noticed several times
the teacher's waiting until the low ability group had
finished their seatwork before she called them back for

reading instruction. This is one example from my

fieldnotes:

9:45 Teacher: How many in the Balloon group have
everything finished? (no hands). Well, I'm
giving you a little more time before I call you
back.

9:55 Teacher: Balloon group bring back your work. I

want to see what you finished. I want everything
back here.

I asked the students during their first interviews
whether they liked to be called for reading in the first
group, or the middle, or the last. It was interesting to
note that in the middle group, all said that they would
prefer to be called up first so that their work would not
be interrupted. In the low group, one student said he
would like to be called in the middle because the Sunshine
group is better. Two of the other members in the low
group said they would like to be called up first.
Clarissa said it best when she answered: "I would like to
be called first, but we are not called first. It is so we
can have our work done. So we can finish it."

Even the students are aware of the teacher's
purpose in calling the groups in a certain order. It is
not alphabetical. It is not rotational. It is not from
the best readers to the bottom readers, although that can

102

be implied. It is for the purpose of allowing the last
group to be called to have the time to get their work
done. This implication was so clear during the student
interviews, especially when one student who was in the
high ability group said that he wished he could be called
last so that he could do most of his work.

The teacher believed it was important to allow the
low reading group to work on their seatwork without the
interruptions of meeting in a reading group. She would
often delay calling the last group until the majority had

completed their seatwork.

Summary

As I have found through interviews with the
teacher and from observations in the classroom, seatwork
is an important part of the reading instructional program.
The purpose, as defined by the teacher, was for the review
and transfer of learned skills.

From student interviews and observations, I have
also learned that they knew that it was important to
complete your seatwork, do your best work, and remain
quiet during reading instruction time.

In this particular classroom, seatwork was an
important part of the curriculum. It had a twofold
purpose which was to review the skills previously learned

by the students and provide a quiet environment for the

103

instruction of reading. In the next section, I will
provide the data that I collected to see if in fact the

purpose is indeed being carried out in the classroom.

Is Seatwork Serving Its Purpose?

Introduction

 

Since one purpose of seatwork, according to the
teacher, was for the purpose of review and transfer of
learned skills, it was important to the teacher that the
students complete their seatwork in order to evaluate
their progress. In this section, I shall show whether
the students are completing their seatwork during this
time, and particularly, which students are completing
their work. Is it true that the students who are lower
in ability do not complete their work, while the highest
student not only complete their work, but complete it
correctly? Since the students are already grouped
according to reading ability in a basal reading program,
I will show the relationship between the completion of
independent seatwork and the reading group to which each
student belongs.

I will also show in this section the students who
are off task. Off task describes students who are
distracted from their assigned work, and are spending
time doing something other than what they are assigned to

do. I will provide the necessary data to answer the

104

following questions. Which students from which
particular reading group are off task? What are some of
the reasons for being off task? Does a relationship
exist between being off task and the completion of the
seatwork?

The teacher also made it quite clear that there
were to be no interruptions during the reading
instruction. In this section I will look at the number
of interruptions that occurred during reading
instruction. What are the types of interruptions, and
what is the source of interruptions? Are the students
causing interruptions by their noise or talking? Are the
students interrupting the teacher by asking questions
about their seatwork? Does the teacher interrupt her own
instruction of reading groups by directing comments to
the students working at their seats on seatwork?

The environment of the classroom, particularly
the seating arrangement, may contribute to the number or
type of interruptions that occur in the classroom. It
may also have significance in whether or not a student
completes his/her seatwork. In this section I shall also

look at this factor.

Student's Ability

A student's response to seatwork can be

influenced by several factors. First and foremost would

105

be the students, themselves. Their maturity, development
and ability surely affect the manner in which they
complete their seatwork, but can we say that academic
ability goes hand in hand with maturity and' other
developmental skills? Do students who have high ability,
such as those in the high reading groups, respond better
in attention to task and exhibit higher performance of
that task than students who are low achievers or placed
in low reading groups?

In order to find answers to these questions, I
recorded in my field notes what individual students were
doing at various times during the reading period. I
recorded at what time they completed their seatwork, and
what they chose to do when their work was done. I also
recorded what they were doing when they were not working
on their seatwork as they should be.

For each student in the class, I kept a record in
my field notes on days when he/she handed in all of the
‘ seatwork to be corrected by the teacher. I also had a
record in my notes of students who were verbally
reprimanded by the teacher for not completing their
seatwork or who remained inside for recess in order to
work on their seatwork.

The teacher planned for time to correct the
seatwork assignment before the period was over in order

to evaluate the student's work and to know who did not

106

complete their work and make arrangements for them to
complete it at another time, usually during recess. As
happens in most classrooms, there were several days when
her plans were not carried out. If the reading groups
took longer than expected, she would correct some of the
students' completed work, but she would not have the time
to allow students to correct their errors or to make note
of which students did not hand in completed work. There
was always tomorrow and another seatwork assignment.

In my observations I, too, did not have a
consistent record of every student for every day. Until
a student handed in his work completed to the teacher, it
was impossible for me to note if he/she had, indeed,
completed every page in the packet of work. Boardwork
was always to be completed first, and could be an
indication that a student had not completed the work if
he/she was still doing boardwork at the end of the
period, as was the case with several students.

When looking at the overall incidents noted in my
field notes as to when a student was acknowledged for
completing the seatwork or for specially not completing
the work, there was a significant difference between the
students (see Table 3). To simplify the overall picture
of students' work habits, I used qualifying terms, such
as usually, sometimes, and rarely. The terms should not

be considered absolute, for as I said, neither the

107

Table 3.--Number of Incidents in which a Student was
Recognized as Having Completed or not Completed
His/Her Seatwork.

 

 

Student Number of Incidents Number of Incidents
Recognized for Recognized for Not
Completion of Work Completing Work

 

Usually Completed Work

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 15 0
2 12 l
3 12 1
4 12 4
5 11 l
6 ll 2
7 10 2
8 9 0
Sometimes Completed Work
9 8 7
10 8 7
ll 6 2
12 6 2
13 6 4
l4 6 7
Rarely Completed Work
15 5 10
16 4 8
17 4 8
18 4 6
19 3 9
20 3 6
21 2 12
22 0 10
Discrepant Cases
23 3 1
24 1 3

25 0 2

 

108

teacher nor I kept a consistent daily record, but there
is a significant difference in the number of incidents
noted during class. Students who usually or rarely were
recognized for completion or noncompletion of work showed
high incidents in one area and low incidents for the
other, while students who sometimes completed work were
more evenly balanced in recognition of both.

When considering ability as a factor in the
completion of seatwork, it is interesting to find out who
those students were. I have arranged the students in
their respective reading groups and checked whether they
were students who usually completed their seatwork,
sometimes completed their work, or rarely completed the
work.

As you can see in Table 4, the students are mixed
throughout the reading groups, except for the two
students who go into the second grade for reading. They
usually completed their seatwork every day.

I did have three discrepant cases when looking
over my data on the completion of seatwork. The first
was student number 23 under discrepant cases on Table 1.
This student was a special education student who has been
mainstreamed into the regular classroom. She is a member
of the low reading group. During reading period, she is
pulled out of the classroom to report to her special

education instructor. There were some days when she

109

Table 4.--Completion of Seatwork According to Reading

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Group
Student Usually Sometimes Rarely
Completed Completed Completed
Seatwork Seatwork Seatwork
Low Reading Group
1 x
8 x
11 x
13 x
16 x
18 x
19 x
20 x
Average Reading Group
2 x
6 x
7 x
9 x
10 x
14 x
15 x
21 x
High Reading Group
4 x
12 x
17 x
22 x
Very High Reading Group
3 x

 

 

110

completed her seatwork before going to special education
class. (There were three such incidents recorded in my
field notes.) Usually, she was asked by the classroom
teacher to take her seatwork assignment with her to her
special education class. Her seatwork was checked at a
later time by the classroom teacher. There was only one
incident when she had to remain in for recess to complete
her work. Therefore, I did not have enough information
to place her in a specific group.

Student Number 24, under discrepant cases on
Table 1, was the individual student who moved during the
time that I was in the classroom doing research. She
also was a member of the low reading group. During my
first few weeks of observation, she spent several days
with her head down on her desk or looking out the window,
instead of doing her seatwork. One particular day she
was sent to the hall for most of the reading period
because she was crying. I asked the teacher during
recess about the student, and was told that she cried
often because she missed her mother. She completed her
seatwork on only one occasion, but she was only a part of
the study for a few short weeks.

The third discrepant case, student number 25 on
Table 1, was also a girl. She was a member of the
average reading group. She was a very quiet girl who

rarely participated unless she was called upon. She

111

usually worked very slowly and quietly on her seatwork.
I never saw her take her work up to the group at the end
of the period for corrections. She usually remained in
her seat quietly working, and yet there were only two
occasions when she actually stayed in for recess to
complete her work. I assume she either finished her work
at the last minute on most days or she was overlooked by
the teacher because of her good work habits. She never
had an incident of being off task during the reading
period.

It appears, at least in this particular first
grade classroom, that there are students in every reading
group that complete their seatwork daily and individual
students from every reading group that rarely complete
their seatwork.

During my observations, I also made notations of
the number of days and incidents that students were off
task or not working on their seatwork assignments during
the reading period (see Table 5).

I noted what they were doing, and for how long.
If they were on task, I noted which page they were on and
which order of pages they did first.

It should be noted that since I did not have
permission to use a video camera or any other machine, I
had to rely solely on my own capabilities as an observer.

It would be impossible for me to have recorded every

112

Table 5.--Observations of Students Off Task

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Student Number of Days Number of Incidents
Off Task Recognized as Off Task
Low Reading Group
8 3 3
ll 4 6
l3 6 7
16 12 28
18 7 23
19 9 21
Average Reading Group
2 3 4
6 3 3
7 5 9
9 5 8
10 12 41
14 10 27
15 11 23
21 8 14
High Reading Group
4 4 8
12 2 4
l7 8 13
22 10 28
Very High Reading Group
5 3 6
Discrepant Cases
1 11 20
3 10 18
20 4 8

 

113

instance that a student was off task. I was one observer
with twenty—five students. Because of these limitations,
an incident of being off task for a student would be,
according to my notes of observation, a minimum of two to
three minutes. In: other words, a student would have to
be off task for at least two minutes for me to have
counted it as an incident. A student who stops working
to whisper a few words to a neighbor or gaze out a window
and then return to the work one or two minutes later
would probably have not been noticed. It also probably
would not have been a contributing factor as to whether
they completed their work or not.

It also appears that there are high incidents of
students being off task in every reading group. In fact,
the students who usually complete their seatwork have the
lowest incidents of being off task with two exceptions:
student number 1 and student number 3. (Student number
20 is also a discrepant case, but for different reasons
that will be explained later.)

Sometimes a student can be off task a significant
amount of time and still complete his/her work. One
could assume the student has high ability, and the work
is too easy. (Student 3 may be one such case.) Maybe
the student has good organizational skills, or good

writing skills, and can complete the work faster. Maybe

114

a student is thinking when he/she appears to be
daydreaming, or is writing while talking with a friend.
Some students have several incidents of being off task,
but are capable of returning to task quickly. (Student 1
may be one such case.)

When I first began my observations in the
classroom, student 1 was seated at the same table as
student 16. He was constantly being taken off task by
the conversations and activities of student 16. The
difference between the two boys was that immediately
following an incident of being off task, student 1 would
go back to his seatwork assignments, whereas student 16
would just sit and observe the rest of the students at
work. A few weeks later, student 1 had his seat moved up
a row where he now sat in front of student 16, and was
less distracted by the activities of that particular
student. He still was able to be drawn off task easily,
only this time it was student 10 who also had high
incidents of being off task. Since they did not sit at
the same table, student 1 was not a participant as he was
with student 16, but simply an observer. He would watch
student 10 while he played with his crayons or throw
things at various students. When he appeared to tire of
his observations, he would return to his work. Because
he was continually thrown back to his work, unlike some

of the other students with high incidents of being off

115

task, I believe this may have accounted for his success
in completing his seatwork, especially because he was a
member of the low reading group and found the work to be
sometimes difficult (see Alejandro on p. 91 ).

Student 3, Harry, was the student who I jhad
mentioned earlier in Chapter IV. The teacher had
considered him to be gifted. He usually completed his
work early in the reading period. He rarely engaged in
reading following his seatwork as was the rule in the
classroom. I never observed his reading a basal reader.
Since he left the classroom for reading instruction, I
was not even aware of what basal reader he used. During
the student interviews, Harry mentioned that he felt the
seatwork assignments were too easy. He liked to do his
workbook best as a seatwork assignment. Since the
workbook pages are part of the basal reading program,
they would be close to a student's reading level, and in
Harry's case, they probably presented more of a challenge
for him than the group assignments given as boardwork and
in the seatwork packets. When Harry completed his work
in a relatively short time, he usually just drew pictures
or doodles at his seat. He was easily distracted by any
other disturbances in the room since he was rarely
engaged in a work assignment.

There does appear to be a relationship between

being observed off task and being recognized as not

116

completing one's seatwork (see Graph 3). The only cases
where students did not complete their work more times
than they were observed being off task were the three
students, numbers 9, 20, and 21. They were all girls.
They were, for the most part, quiet workers. They
usually worked slowly and took great care and concern to
make their work neat and colorful. They all sat together
in the last row, nearest to the reading group. (The row,
incidentally, was designated by the teacher in the
seating arrangement for students who don't complete their
seatwork. This will be explained in the next section on
environment.)

It is important to remember that some students do
get finish their work, and yet, are 223 off task. For
these students, there are several reasons why they may
not finish their work. The first reason to come to mind
would be academic ability. The work may be too difficult
for the student. This is usually the reason some
researchers give, particularly if those students happen
to be in the lower reading groups. One explanation that
I found through. my observations and through informal
interviews with the students was that their writing
skills slowed them down. i

In first grade, the fOrmation of each letter in
words is difficult for even some of the average or high—

ability students. Copying boardwork may be a slow and

117

Legend

No. of Days
Observed Off-Task
No. of Days

Recognized as
not Completing Work

 

Student No. 8 11 13 16 18 19 20
Low Reading Group

 

Student No. 2

 

Student No. 4 12 17 22
High Reading Group

Student No. 5
Very High Reading Group

Graph 3.--Relationship Between Being Observed Off Task
and Recognized as Not Completing Seatwork.

118

tedious task for many students of varying academic
abilities.

Another consideration is coloring. In the
packets that this particular teacher assigned, there were
several pages that required coloring or illustrations
that the teacher encouraged the. students to» color in
order to make their work attractive. For some students,
this is an enjoyable task, one in which these particular
students take great care and time in. completing; I
watched one girl spend several minutes selecting a
variety of colors and then took great care in coloring
each small section of the illustration. The coloring
took a lot longer than what she had spent in writing the
correct answers on the page.

Student 20, Theresa, was a discrepant case. She
did not show a high incidence of being off task, and yet,
she rarely completed her seatwork. Theresa explained it

best during her student interview.

Interviewer: Are you a good reader?

Theresa: No.

Interviewer: Do you usually complete your seatwork
assignments?

Theresa: No, I usually stay after school.

Interviewer: Why not?

Theresa: I write slow to get it neat.

Interviewer: Are the assignments too easy or too hard?

119

Theresa: Some of it is hard.

Interviewer: What seatwork assignments do you like the
best?

Theresa: I like all of them the best.

Interviewer: What do you do if you do not understand
your seatwork assignment?

Theresa: I copy off someone else.

Interviewer: Why do you think the teacher assigns

seatwork during reading?
Theresa: To learn.

Theresa was in the low reading group. She did
not consider herself to be a good reader. She rarely
completed her seatwork, and found it to be difficult at
times. She did her work slowly in order to get it neat.
Theresa was very positive about her seatwork assignments.
She believed they were necessary in order to learn, and
stayed after school to complete them.

On one particular day when Theresa had completed
her seatwork, I asked if she would fill out one of the
student's report forms concerning whether she liked the
seatwork, and what she learned. She said that even
though she had today's work done, she couldn't do that
for me because she had some old work to complete.
Theresa usually stayed on task, but did not complete her
work because she was slow in writing and the tasks were

difficult for her.

120

There may be several reasons why some students
are off task or why some students do not complete their
work, but what is significant is the number of students
who are continually off task and rarely complete their
work. That is where we need to search for some answers.
Maybe it is possible to structure the environment to help

students stay on task and complete their work.

Environment

 

There are several reasons for a student to be off
task. In some cases, a student may be drawn off task by
another student who will ask them something or by some
action in the room, such as the teacher's teaching the
reading group or a group of students fooling around.
Sometimes a student is bored, or tired. There are times
when they do not have the needed supplies to do the work,
or do not understand what it is that they are supposed to
do.

Teachers often structure the environment to
reduce the number of incidents that may draw a student
off task. For instance, the seating arrangement in many
classrooms is thought out and planned very carefully by a
teacher. Students who are iclose friends and have a
tendency to talk frequently are sometimes separated from
each other. Students who find it hard to stay on task

are seated by a student who has good work habits or

121

sometimes are seated away from the general class so that
they will not be distracted by other students.

Many teachers also take great care to explain
directions so that questions will not arise later during
the reading instruction period. They also go over all
supplies that are needed to complete the assignments and
hand out any paper or other supplies needed before the
students are to begin the work.

During my observations, I recorded the incidents
of students being off task when they were working on
seatwork assignments. I also recorded what they were
doing when they were off task (see Table 6).

In certain situations, the teacher was very
specific in what she did to control the environment to
prevent any more disturbances that may take a student off
task.

Talking was the most cited reason for being off
task. In most cases, the teacher gave a verbal reprimand
to the student or students involved. In some cases, she
would make them stand and face the clock for a given
amount of time. Sometimes she would make a list of names
on the board with checkmarks for each time they talked.
However, there were several occasions when she moved
their seats.

Teacher: Fernando, your name is down (for talking).

Move back to the desk where you are supposed
to be (Field Notes 1-16-87).

122

Table 6.--Actions of Students While Off Task.

 

 

Incidents Cited
in Field Notes

 

Talking with another student 91
Playing with supplies, novelties,

or toys 47
Disturbances such as throwing things

or shoving desks 38
Borrowing or looking for supplies 28
Asking other students for answers 22
Watching the teacher in reading

group instruction 21
Head down on desk 20
Watching other students 19
Sitting with seatwork completed 18
Staring out the window or in space 13

Asking teacher for assistance 3

 

123

Teacher: Harry! (Harry is sitting and talking to a
student next to him.) Take a book and go
read in a cubicle (Field Notes 5-11-87).

Teacher: Fernando, turn your desk all the way around
and face the bookcase (Field notes, 5—12-
87).

Teacher: Christine, I want you to take your work out

in the hall. Joan, I want you to do your
work up at this desk (Field notes 5-20-87).

Teacher: Gary, you have a checkmark for talking. I
want you to work in a cubicle. Take all
your things and your crayons. I don't want

to see you back until all your work is done
(Field Notes, 5—20-87).

Teacher: Alejandro and Fernando, I am not moving you
again. You are after school five minutes.
Every time I have to talk to you from now
in, it will be more time after school (Field
Notes 3-19-87).

Alejandro and Fernando both had high incidents of
being off task (Alejandro had 20; Fernando had 28).
Fernando was assigned to sit in an individual desk that
was located in the back of the classroom in close
proximity to the reading instruction area. Alejandro sat
in the back row of tables also near the instructional
reading area.

Gary (27 incidents off task) and Jamie (28
incidents off task) also sat in the back row of tables
with John (21 incidents of being off task) sitting at an
individual desk in the back next to the teacher's desk.

David, who had the highest incidents of being off
task (41 incidents), also sat in an individual school

desk located off to the side in the middle of the room.

124

It was very apparent in this particular classroom
that the students who were not completing seatwork and
were consistently off task usually were assigned an
individual desk apart from the rest of the class or sat
in the back row of tables nearest to the teacher when she
was instructing reading groups.

The structure of the environment relates to more
than the physical layout of the classroom and where
individual students sit. It also pertains to the
routines and rules and responsibilities that all the
students know and follow.

In this classroom, it was very apparent that the
students were not to interrupt the teacher while she was
instructing a reading group. In my field notes, I have
only noted three incidents when a student, who was at
his/her seat doing seatwork, approached the teacher or
asked any questions during the time when the teacher was
instructing a reading group. Even on those occasions,
the teacher responded to the inquiry by directing him/her
to another student at his/her seat for the needed
assistance.

Karl leaves his seat and walks up to the teacher

while she is instructing a reading group. He has

his packet in his hand. He says something to
her, but I am not able to hear what he has said.

He shows her a page in his packet.

Teacher: Who can tell Karl how to do this page? The
teacher holds up the packet.

125

Several students raise their hands.
Teacher: Go ask Eddie.

Karl went over to Eddie, and Eddie explained the
directions once again to Karl.

On another day, several weeks later, Gary got out
of his seat, and approached the teacher with his packet.
He asked how to do a particular page.

Teacher: That is ridiculous! I am not going over it
again. If you do not do it correctly, you
can stay in for lunch!

Gary: Gary returned to his seat.

The third occasion of an incident where a student
approached the teacher while she was instructing a
reading group occurred on a day when a substitute was in
the classroom. Roberta was having trouble staying on
task. The substitute had already reprimanded her for
talking and had moved her seat in the hope of isolating
her from any further distractions. Roberta still was not
working. She was sitting at her seat with her hand up.
The teacher did not respond. Finally, Roberta got up out
of her seat and approached the teacher in the reading
group. She whispered something to the teacher. The
teacher nodded her head, giving assent. Roberta walked
away, and went into the bathroom.

This was an unusual occurrence. During my

observations, the students went to the bathroom,

sharpened their pencils, threw things away, and obtained

126

supplies whenever they needed without asking permission.
In fact, that was one of the noticeable traits in the
structure of this classroom's environment that reduced
the number of interruptions for the teacher while she was
instructing a reading group.

Three interruptions over a period of several
months were significant in alerting me to the rules and
responsibilities that were clearly understood by the
students concerning the time when the teacher was
instructing a reading group.

This was not to say that this was the perfect
classroom with all students working quietly at their
seats and the teacher instructing a small reading group
with no interruptions. There were interruptions on a
daily basis. The significance comes in the distinction
of the types of interruptions that occur. As I have
said, in this particular classroom, the students did not
interrupt the teacher's instruction time with questions;
however, the teacher did interrupt her instruction time
in order to reprimand the students at their seats. These
interruptions were usually for talking when it should be
quiet, for not completing their work, or general noise
like moving desks, kicking one's feet, reading out loud,
and so forth.

These interruptions by the teacher were directed

to the entire group at their seats or to an individual

127

student (see Table 7). They not only caused the

students' work in the reading group to stop, but they

Table 7.-—Interruptions by the Teacher

 

 

Incidents Cited
in Field Notes

 

Types of Interruptions

 

Talking 29
Not working 55
Classroom noise 13

Responses by the Teacher
Directed to an individual student 51

Directed to the group 46

 

usually caused the students at their seats to stop work
momentarily to listen to the teacher.

There were a variety of punishments that could be
invoked at the discretion of the teacher, few of which
were explained before the class began. Most were
determined on the spot at the time of the interruption.
Depending on the number of students involved, some
punishments even directed to the whole class while others

were for individual students. For example:

128

_ Substitute First graders, that's five minutes off

Teacher: outside playtime. We will spend the time
with our heads down instead of outside
playing. (Pause. ) Six minutes! (Pause. )
Seven minutes! (Field Notes 5-12-87).

Teacher: Alejandro and Fernando, I am not moving you
again. You are after school five minutes.
Every time I have to talk with you from now
on, it will be more time after school (Field
Notes 3-19-87).

 

Teacher: (12:35 p.m.) Now I am keeping names. When
I go outside, you will stay in (Field Notes
3-24-87).
Teacher: (Again on the same day) (12:56 p. m. ) These
people are on warning for going outside ;
; ; (Field Notes 3- 24- -87).
Teacher: It had better quiet down or there will be a

lot of students missing gym. class (Field
Notes, 4-7-87).

The types of interruptions and the: manner in
which the teacher responds to the interruptions were very
significant. First, it was very apparent that the
students were not intentionally interrupting the teacher
(only three incidents cited in field notes), but were
indirectly interrupting through. their actions (97
incidents cited in field notes for talking, noise, or not
completing work). It was the teacher's response to these
interruptions that took time away from reading
instruction.

When different punishments are explained daily,
particularly when the punishments are explained at the
time of the interruption, it takes additional minutes
away from the time that is allotted for reading

129

instruction. It also became apparent that most of the
punishments were directed in the manner of a threat and
in a negative fashion. If you don't stop talking, you
will stay in for recess with your heads down.

The students know the rules and responsibilities.
I have already shown through my observations and student
interviews that the students know the rules concerning
any interruptions of the reading groups, and they are
very aware of' their responsibility to complete their
work. It is also apparent that there is a direct
relationship between being off task and not completing
one's work. Given the structure of the environment, the
students incur a punishment as a natural occurrence of
their actions. If they are talking or off task and
interrupting the instruction of the reading group, it is
very likely they will not complete their seatwork and
have to stay in for recess or at another time to finish
their work.

A teacher also has the choice of reminding the
student of the punishment that they will receive if they
continue with the interruptions (negative response) or to
remind them of the rules not to talk or interrupt the
reading groups and their responsibility to finish their

work (positive response).

130

Summar

In this first grade classroom, the students were
aware of the importance in completing their daily
seatwork. There were as many students who usually
completed their work as there *were those ‘who rarely
completed their work. However, it was significant to
note that the students' abilities or their particular
placement in ability-oriented reading groups was not
related to whether or not they completed their seatwork.

There also was a significant number of students
off task during the reading period. Again, this was not
directly related to any particular ability or reading
group. There were students who showed high incidents of
being off task in every reading group. There was,
however, a direct relationship between a student's being
off task and whether or not he/she completed the
seatwork. A student who had high incidents of being off
task also had a significant high number of incidents
recognized for not completing their work.

There were several interruptions during the
instructions of reading groups by the students working on
seatwork. Most interruptions occurred at the students'
seat. They were talking, making noise, or not doing
their work. On several of these occasions, the teacher

would change the environment by moving a particular

131

student's seat. There were only three occasions when
students interrupted directly by asking a question. In
most cases, it was the teacher who interrupted the work

by reprimanding a student or the class.

What is Assigned as Seatwork?

Introduction

 

In years past to give the teacher more
preparation time for reading instruction in the small
groups, most seatwork took the form of "ditto" sheets.
Dittos were prepared by publishing companies in all
curriculum areas--English, math, creative writing—-to
name a few. Many criticisms concerning this practice
surfaced. Many writers were of the opinion that students
did not learn writing or composition skills by simply
filling in answers on a ditto sheet. Extra teacher time
in preparation of boardwork was worth having students
learn how to write better by copying assignments from the
blackboard or in some form of writing exercise. "Dittos"
are still being used, but in my view hopefully with less
frequency and with a specific purpose in mind other than
just to keep the students busy.

Seatwork, whether it is written on the board to
be copied by the student, or is handed out in the form of
dittos, can be designated as a whole class assignments or

a reading group assignment. Whole class assignments are

132

those in which one assignment is made for all the
students to complete. In contrast, specific reading
group assignments are those in which a particular
assignment is made for each specific reading group.

In this section I will specifically look at the
type of assignments that were made (as independent
seatwork) in this classroom. I will also look at what
skills these assignments were directed to teach.

I considered the manner in which the directions
were given. I recorded in my fieldnotes whether the
directions were given orally or written for the student
to read as well as whether or not the purpose or goal of
the assignment was explained. All of this information
was important for a student successfully to complete
seatwork.

The rules and responsibilities that were
established during seatwork related to many aspects of
the seatwork assignment. As was stated in previous
sections, some rules were related to the teacher's
purpose or the structure of the environment. There were
others that related to the manner in which a student
should progress through the seatwork from the time that
directions are first given, until the reading period is
over, which was designated on most days by the

announcement to line up for recess. These rules served

133

to assist students in using their time wisely while at
their seats during reading.

With seatwork accounting for the majority of a
student's time during reading instruction, it is
important to examine the types of assignments that are

used as seatwork.

Type of Assignment

This particular classroom teacher gave a combined
assignment of both boardwork and dittos. The ditto
sheets were stapled together and called a "packet."
Boardwork was written on the chalkboard dailyu The
students were instructed to copy the boardwork figgt and
then complete their packets each day as their seatwork
assignment during reading. These assignments were
considered whole class assignments because every student
was expected to finish all of the same work regardless of
their reading ability or group. In addition the teacher
would give reading group assignments that were workbook
pages from their basal reading workbook. These
assignments were individual reading group assignments
that were to be completed when all their other work was
finished.

During the afternoon reading sessions, there was
no boardwork, but a packet of assignments was given as in

the morning session. In addition to the packet, they

134

were to finish all workbook pages that may have been
assigned during the morning session and additional pages
in the workbook and practice book associated with their
basal reader were assigned.

Since most of my observations were during the
morning reading session, I was concerned with the type of
assignment that was given during the forty to forty-five
minutes used for seatwork daily during these morning
sessions.

There were several skills being taught in the
assigned seatwork (see Table 8). Some skills overlapped,
and could be listed under more than one heading, for
instance, word attack and word recognition skills. Many
times when the teacher gave an assignment to teach these
basic reading skills, she would incorporate spelling
words in the lesson. The same was true for some English
skills, such as plurals and proper nouns where the
lessons also made use of the ‘weekly spelling’ words.
Because of this overlapping of skills in different
subject areas, some administrators believe they should be
taught together simultaneously as one subject--language
arts. 'The language arts incorporate all reading,
listening, speaking, and writing skills. This particular
administration instructed their teachers to use the

language arts skills as a basis for their seatwork

assignments.

135

Table 8.--Skills Taught as Assigned Seatwork

 

 

Reading:

Spelling:

English:

Word Attack (Phonics, Rhyming)

Word Recognition (Fill in the blanks,
Matching)

Comprehension (Riddles, Coded Messages,
Scrambled Sentences)

Alphabetical Order
Days and Months of the Year

Recognition of Nouns and Adjectives
Plurals

Proper Nouns

Use of Capitalization and Punctuation

Creating Writing

Math:

Art:

Health:

Addition

Subtraction

Sequence Order (dot to dot, first through
sixth)

Fractions (1/2, 1/3, 1/4)

Graphs (bar)

Telling Time

Counting Money

Recognition of Colors
Coloring Skills

Nutrition

 

136

Handwriting was not listed as a skill because it
was not taught at this time. There was no instruction
during my observations of the formation of letters for
good handwriting skills. However, it was practiced daily
when the students were instructed to copy the boardwork
in their own handwriting. Neatness was stressed, when I
observed on several occasions that students were asked to
do their work over again if the teacher believed they
could write it better than they had the first time.

Teacher: David, you were one of my best writers. That
is not neat! If it is not neat, I will not
look at it.

David crumbled his paper, and threw it away. He
went and got another sheet of paper and began the
assignment a second time.

Even though. handwriting ‘was not taught during
this time, it was practiced and encouraged in all of the
student's work.

In looking at the number of seatwork assignments
in the various skill areas during my twenty days of
morning observations, it was apparent that even though
there were several assignments in the language arts area,
there was an equal number of assignments in Math (see
Table 9). When I asked the teacher her purpose in
assigning seatwork, she responded that it was to review
previously learned skills. She specifically did 223 say
to review language arts skills. Even though this was the

reading instruction time, the teacher assigned seatwork

137

Table 9.——Number of Seatwork Assignments during Twenty
Days of Observations

 

 

Language Arts 45 Assignments
Reading (13)
Spelling (10)
English (17)
Creative Writing ( 5)
Math 45 Assignments
Art 4 Assignments
Health 2 Assignments

 

for the purpose of reviewing all previously learned
skills including math. In fact, it became very apparent
in the repetition of certain skills, particularly the
counting of coins or money that the teacher believed in
her purpose of review for the transference of certain
skills. The students were given ten assignments on
money, five of which were given four days in a row. Many
of the students always appeared to be struggling on the
assignments that had money problems. They took longer to
complete those pages, and I would observe their asking
others for assistance on more occasions.

Even though the teacher assigned work that
encompassed more than the basic reading and language arts
skills, she stressed the importance of reading during the
instructional time with her firm rule of taking out your

138

basal reader to practice reading when all of your work is
completed. On my last day of observation, I could hear
her voice as I left the room, "Remember if you finish
what you are to do, get out a reading book not from the
library, the reading books we use, and read!"

It is important to remember that in this
particular classroom, there were few interruptions during
my months of observation where a student specifically
asked for the directions to be repeated or clarified.
Directions for boardwork were given twice on two separate
occasions. They' were. explained the .night before the
assignment was to be completed in order that they might
begin work the first thing after their arrival to school
the next morning. They were repeated again after
attendance was taken each morning. At this time, the
packets were also explained. The directions were always
given orally. There were no directions written on the
board. The packets, however, contained written
directions on each page.

Each morning, following attendance, the teacher
would take the students through all of their assigned
work, page by page, and go over the directions
thoroughly. She would also ask the students if they
understood the directions or if they had any questions

about the work. The teacher would also call on

139

individual students to repeat the directions in their own
words to be sure they understood.

The manner in which directions were given and the
specific directions followed certain. patterns and
routines daily. Most directions involved ordering or
underlining the right answer, matching, and fill in the
blanks. When the directions were given, the students in
this classroom knew that it was just not a listening
exercise where the teacher would give the directions for
each page, but that they would be involved and asked to
participate in giving the directions.

The following is an example of the type of dialog
that went on during the explanation of directions for
assigned work. The seatwork assignment on this
particular day involved the skill of recognizing complete
and incomplete sentences and using the correct

punctuation. Written on the board was:

Name May 1987
Telling Parts 0 O O O O O
The dog runs fast. Put an A on the first 0.
The sky is gray. Put an F on the second 0.
The chair is broken. Color the third 0 orange.

Color the fourth 0 yellow.

Teacher:

Class:

Teacher:

Karl:

Teacher:

Class:

Teacher:

Fernando:

Teacher:

Dorothy:

Teacher:

Balloon
Group:

Teacher:

Balloon
Group:

Teacher:

140

I like the way row one is sitting quietly. I
need row four to be quiet. Do not begin
writing until we go over some things. What
is today's date? Let us make a sentence.
Today is Tuesday, May 19.

Today is Tuesday, May 19.
together.)

(Everyone repeats

Let's read this part. (The teacher points to
the first sentence on the board.) Raise your
hand. What is the telling' part of this
sentence? (Pause while hands are raised.)
Karl.

Dog.

Dog. Right. Do we circle or underline dog?
Underline . (Class repeats together . The
class knows the answer because the directions

for the boardwork had been given yesterday
before they left for home.)

Underline! Right. Who can repeat the
directions? (Pause while hands are raised.)
Fernando.

Underline the telling parts.

Right. On this part (teacher points to
second part of the boardwork which teaches
the recognition of certain words which show
order) who can tell me what you are supposed
to do? Dorothy.

Everyone but the Balloon group is to color.
Balloon group you are to outline, not color!

Balloon group, are you to color?

NO!

You are to do, what?

Outline!
Outline only!

141

There were three pages in the packet on this
particular day. The first page had a list of several
complete and incomplete sentences. There were stop signs
at the bottom to be cut out and placed at the end of
certain sentences. The next two pages contained math
skills. The first was a coloring picture that was broken
into sections with simple addition problems. The
sections that had an answer of two were to be colored
red. The sections that had an answer of four were to be
colored yellow, and so on. The last page involved

circling the forms that showed the fraction, one-third.

Teacher: Now, in your packets. On this page.
(Teacher holds up first page in the stapled
packet.) If it is a complete sentence, I do
not want you to put a st0p sign. I want you
to put a period in. (Pause.) Rhonda is. Is
that a complete sentence?

Class: No!

Teacher: Rhonda is a girl. Is that a complete
sentence?

Class: Yes.

I Teacher: Rhonda is good. Rhonda is happy. A complete

sentence should paint a picture for you.
What do you put if it is a complete sentence?

Class: Period!

Teacher: What do you put if it is £93: a complete
sentence? Question mark?

Class: No!

Teacher: What do you put if it is not a complete

sentence? Dennis? Dennis stand up.

142

Dennis did not have his hand raised. He was
sitting quietly in his desk, but he had not been
giving any of the oral responses with the rest of
the class.

Teacher: What do you put if it is not a complete
sentence?

Dennis: You put an X.

Teacher: You put an X. Dennis, what?

Dennis: X

Christine walked into the classroom late.

Teacher: Christine, why are you tardy? You were tardy
yesterday.

Christine: I slept in.

The teacher repeated the directions for the

boardwork and then asked Dennis to repeat the

directions for the first page in the packet.

The directions were not simply read or explained,
but there was a dialog between the teacher and the class
that necessitated active involvement on the part of every
student. This involvement helped create, if not an
understanding, then a knowledge of the directions for the
assigned seatwork each day. Dennis may not understand
which answer--a period or x--belonged at the end of each
group of words, but he did know to place one or the other
as he was directed.

The purpose or goal of each assignment was not
explained, but many times the lesson to be learned was

explained indirectly. In the above example, the teacher

began her explanation of directions by asking what the

143

date was, but before anyone could answer, she instructed

them to answer in a complete sentence. Daily the

 

students responded to the same question with the date,
but today was different. Today, the teacher wanted the
answer stated in a complete sentence. Later the students
were asked to recognize complete sentences from
incomplete sentences. Thus the goal or purpose of
today's seatwork may become clear to some students.

On another day, the following work was on the

board to be completed during reading.

Name March 17, 1987

I have one car. I sleep in a bed.

Jan has two ____. In my room, there are two

Give me that map. I live on a road.

We need both ____. The city has many

I like this book. Bob has one red boat.

Tim likes these ____. He has two blue

Maps books cars beds boats roads

Teacher: What are you working with in this week's
spelling?

Class: S

Teacher: What does the "S" mean? Does it mean one or

more than one?
Class: More than one.

Teacher: Fill in the blanks with the correct words.

144

Again, the purpose or goal was not explicitly
stated as such, but some students knew that they were
learning about words that mean more than one and that
these words contain an ”S" on the end, as shown by their
responses given in class.

During the student interviews, I asked the
students to explain the day's seatwork assignment. They
were not in the classroom at the time, nor did they have
their packets with them. It was all related by memory.
I was surprised by the accuracy in their explanations.
Some students related the assignments by the skills

involved.

Clarissa: My boardwork was counting by tens and ones,
writing spelling words that are written on
board. In my packet was counting by tens and
ones, adding and subtracting, coloring, and a
page to color than cut and paste.

Some students would include the directions in their

explanations.

Jeffery: The boardwork was tens and ones. You have
numbers like thirty-four. You write three
tens, four ones. On the back, write your

spelling words if you missed them. How many
you missed two times. If you don't miss any,
write all of them once. In the packet, math

same as boardwork. I don't know all the
rest.

Theresa: For boardwork, write missed words two times.
Write answer to the tens and ones. In the
packet, count the dynamite and circle right

answer. Coloring page and I don't remember
the other.

145

I was very surprised as first graders how

accurate they were in. skills and

remembering the
directions for their assigned work. Out of eight
interviews, only one student could not explain all of the
boardwork, and at least three of the pages in the packet.
That student was Margaret. Margaret was in the average
reading group. She usually finished her seatwork and was

rarely off task.

Interviewer: Are you a good reader?

Margaret: Yes.

Interviewer: In school, what do you like best about
reading time?

Margaret: I like going to the reading groups when
we first come to school because we have
to do a lot of work.

Interviewer: Explain today's seatwork assignment.

Margaret: Coloring and stuff like that.

Interviewer: Do you usually complete your seatwork
assignments?

Margaret: Yes.

Interviewer: Are the assignments too easy or too hard?

Margaret: Too hard.

Interviewer: What seatwork assignment do you like the
best?

Margaret: Packet.

Interviewer: What seatwork assignments do you like the
least?

Margaret: Spelling.

146

Interviewer: Why do you think the teacher assigns
seatwork during reading?

Margaret: To keep us busy so we wouldn't talk.

Margaret does not see a purpose in her seatwork
other than to keep her busy so she won't talk. She
believes there is a lot of work, and that it is hard.
Her least favorite assignment is spelling which was part
of the boardwork on this particular day. Her favorite
work is in the packet. On many days, as was on this day,
there is a coloring page included in the packet.
Coloring seems to be an easy assignment at this age, and
one in which most of the students enjoy. Coloring was
the only assignment that Margaret remembered or cared to
relate when asked about the day's assignment. In
contrast, the other students when interviewed related in
detail the boardwork and at least part of the packet when
first asked. One can only speculate that if Margaret
perceived the seatwork assignments as having a different
purpose than "keeping her busy so she won't talk," then
maybe this purpose would, indeed, be carried through in
her explanation of the seatwork.

During my research, I found evidence that the
directions were explained thoroughly with an indication
of the skill or goal to be learned. There were no
interruptions during the reading period for directions to

be repeated or explained. When students were asked, they

147

gave every indication of understanding what they were to

do and for what purpose.

Rules and Responsibilities

 

In classrooms the rules can be 'understood by
listening to the teacher. Teachers give constant
reminders as to what the students should and should not
be doing. The following is a list of rules as direct
quotes from the teacher during my observations in the
classroom:

Teacher: I cannot start until I see everyone working.
Everyone has something to do.
I shouldn't hear any talking.
____, stay in that seat.

I want everyone to make sure their name is on
every page of their work.

You cannot go on to any other work until your
boardwork is complete.

Sloppy! Sloppy! I will not accept this.
You straighten each one up. Also, I told you
to color everything.

Put your papers together in a stack at the
corner of your desk. .

How many have gotten a book to read? You are
not to get a game. You are to get out a
reading book, not a library book.

If you have finished your work, your name on
every page, and you have colored everything,
you may bring up your paper.

If there's a black mark on them (your

papers), then you know you need to correct
them.

148

As I said earlier, most rules are only a means to
reach certain goals. In this particular classroom, it
would appear that the most important goal for this
teacher is that the students complete their work, quietly
and correctly. Their work should be neat and attractive
(everything should be colored). When their work is
completed, they should be reading.

Since in this study I strived not only to look at
the teacher's purpose and expectations, but also to see
if the students understood the purpose and expectations
for their seatwork, it would be interesting to see what
the students said were the rules and responsibilities in

the classroom during seatwork.

Interviewer: What are the rules during reading when you
are working at your seats?

Gina: No talking. (Pause.) Shouldn't get
games. Must get a book out and read.

Don't read out loud.

Alejandro: Do your work. Don't make noise. Don't
talk to another person.

John: Do work. Don't talk to anyone.

Throughout my interviews, the students all said
variations of the same two rules. Don't talk and do your
work. The students were very aware of the fact that the
teacher wanted the room to be quiet, presumably so that
she could instruct the reading groups and so that they
could complete their work. Several of the girls also

mentioned during the interviews that they did their work

149

slowly in order to make it neat. None of the boys
mentioned neatness, although they did mention the fact
that they were happy to get stars when they completed
their work correctly. II found this interesting because
in my field notes whenever the teacher mentioned the fact
that neatness was important, she was always speaking to
one of the boys. Even though the boys were constantly
being reminded that neatness was important to the
teacher, they did not think to mention it at any time
during my interviews concerning their seatwork. Maybe
neatness was a goal for the teacher and the girls in the
room, but not recognized by the boys as a goal for their
work.

It was also interesting to note when looking at
the differences in responses between the girls and boys,
that the boys mentioned rules pertaining' to physical

behavior, whereas the girls made no response in that

nature.

Interviewer: Do you ever break the rules?
Alejandro: I sometimes follow them.
Interviewer: Which ones do you break?
Alejandro: Don't push. Don't hit.

Alejandro was a quiet student who usually got his
work done, but was frequently taken off task, usually by

the more physically active boys in the classroom.

150

Interviewer: Do you ever break the rules?

John: I break the rules.

Interviewer: Which ones?

John: Don't throw crayons. Don't make noise.

John rarely completed seatwork, and I observed
his being off task on several days.

The few girls who did say they sometimes broke
the rules always said the rule that they broke was no
talking. Most of the students interviewed, girls and
boys, said that they usually didn't break the rules.

Rules in this classroom were not solely to keep

order nor were they all negative in nature. Don't do
this, and don't do that. There were several that were
positive and had specific goals in mind. For example,

the rule that I remember best from my observations and
was probably most frequently mentioned by the teacher and
students was to complete all of your work and then take
out your reading book and read. After all, this was

- reading time.

Summary

The teacher was very consistent in the type of
assignments she made as seatwork. They were whole class
assignments that consisted of a writing exercise,
(boardwork) and a packet of dittos. They addressed

skills from all the subjects in the curriculum, but

151

mainly math and language arts. There were several skills
that were presented almost daily for reinforcement of
learning. Handwriting and neatness were stressed in all
skill areas.

Directions for the seatwork assignments were
given orally. They involved a dialog between the teacher
and the class that strengthened listening skills as well
as retention, for there were few interruptions during the
reading period concerning the directions to be followed.
The purpose or goal of each assignment was not directly
stated by the teacher, but most students knew what they
were learning through the manner in which the directions
were explained.

The rules and responsibilities during the reading
period were clear. Seatwork assignments were. to be
completed correctly and neatly. There was to be no noise
nor talking during this time. ‘When their work was

complete, the students were to take out their reading

books and read.

CHAPTER VI

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

Interpretations

 

In a basal reading program, teachers use seatwork
to reinforce skills and to keep students busy and quiet
while they provide direct instruction to reading groups.
The purpose of this study was to observe student
responses to their seatwork assignments during reading in
a first grade classroom. In order to look at students'
responses, I found the observational case study to be an
informative method of research for this study.

Student responses were influenced by several
factors, including the teacher's purpose for the
assignment, the time that a student spent working on his
assignment, the student's ability, the environment in
relation to where a student was seated in the classroom,
the type of assignment that was given, and the rules and
responsibilities that were established in this classroom.

Through interviews with the teacher and student
and from observations in the classroom, I found seatwork
to be a significant part of the reading instructional

program. The purpose, as defined by the teacher, was for

152

153

the review and transfer of learned skills and to provide
a quiet environment for the instruction of reading.

The students were aware of the importance in
completing their seatwork and being quiet while they
worked. They were constantly reminded of the
punishments: stay in for recess, lunch or after school,
or the denial of rewards, treats, stars, or stickers, if
they did not complete their work. Their purpose, during
this time, was to complete the work. There was little,
if any, discussion on what they had learned from the
assignment.

In this particular first grade classroom, there
were as many students who usually completed their work as
there were those who rarely completed their seatwork.
However, it was significant to note that the student's
abilities or their particular placement in ability—
oriented reading groups were not related to whether or
not they completed their seatwork.

There also was a significant number of students
off task during the reading period. Again, this did not
appear to be directly related to any particular ability
or reading group. There were students who showed high
incidence of being off task' in‘ every reading group.
There was, however, a direCt relationship between a
student's being off task and whether or not he/she
completed the seatwork. A student who had high incidence

154

of being off task also had a significantly high number of
incidents in which he/she was recognized for not
completing seatwork.

This does not support other research. (Good &
Beckerman, 1978; Anderson et al., 1984) that show
students who have high ability, such as those who are
placed in the .high reading' groups, respond better in
attention to task and exhibit higher performances of that
task than students who are low achievers or placed in low
reading groups.

There are several explanations for this
discrepancy in findings. First, there is the possibility
that organizational skills and good work habits are
skills that are learned apart from reading skills, and
that mastery of one does not insure the others. Some
students in first grade may have had an early
introduction into reading, and yet, still be struggling
with the expectations and responsibilities of good work
habits in a ciassroom structure. They may not know how
to structure their time or resist the temptation of
talking or playing with their classmates.

There is also the possibility that the types of
assignments may be a factor in the discrepancy in
findings. The assignments in this particular classroom
consisted of a writing exercise and a packet of dittos.

They contained skills from all the subjects of the

155

curriculum, but mainly math and language arts. A student
who has high ability in reading may not have a high
ability in math. This could account for average or high
reading students who do not complete their seatwork or
stay on task. Also, the fact that part of the assignment
involved writing and coloring skills was explained
earlier in my paper as a factor that affect some students
in completion of their work.

The assignments were whole-class assignments
which suggests that the assignments were not on the
ability level of all students. This affects the high-
ability student as much as it does the low-ability
student. A high student may not have the motivation to
complete his/her work, and may choose to be off task
rather than complete work that he/she feels is too easy,
and has as its only purpose to keep him/her busy.

In this analysis of the possible reasons for the
discrepancy in findings, it also becomes apparent that
there is a need to consider several factors when seatwork
assignments are being investigated. Student responses
are very complex. I believe in the search for answers to
our educational problems, but one must continue to
question our methods of research. To isolate or only
look at one factor, such as ability, may indeed lead to a
conclusion that does not take into account the other

factors, such as environment, rules and responsibilities,

156

etc. that also have an affect on the students' responses
and can be controlled or directed by the teacher.

From student interviews and observations during
my study, I learned that the students knew the importance
that the teacher placed on completion of seatwork and
remaining quiet during the reading instruction period;
however, there were several interruptions during the
instruction of reading groups by the students working on
seatwork. They were talking, making noise, or not doing
their work. The teacher would remind the students of the
rules or reprimand them for their behavior. She also
changed their environment by moving their seats either by
isolating them in a study carrel or out in the hall or
move them away from certain distractions to a seat in
another part of the room. The manner in which a teacher
handles these disturbances has been debated in research.
Again, it is important to remember that this is only one
factor that influences the responses that students make
'to seatwork.

I have tried to represent a comprehensive study
of the responses that students make to seatwork in a
first grade basal reading program. I have addressed the
issue of the importance of looking at all the factors
that influence their responses, that is teacher's
purpose, time allotment, students' ability, environment,

type of assignment, and the rules and responsibilities.

157

All play an important part in the success of our students

in completion of the task of seatwork.

Implications

 

Upon completion of this research study, I realize
the importance of looking at the teacher's purpose for
assigning seatwork assignments. Teachers appear to
evaluate students' performances and create the
environment and rules according to their purpose. At the
beginning of any program, teacher evaluation or study
there should be an inquiry concerning the teacher's
purpose in light of educational goals. When the purposes
have been determined the purpose, then we have a basis of
evaluation on whether those purposes are being carried
out in the classroom. Administrators and researchers
enter a classroom and make judgments or evaluations based
on their own goals, expectations, or purpose for
instruction.

There is a need for more research that addresses
the question of the purpose for seatwork. If the
ultimate goal in seatwork assignments is to be
completion, to what extent should students' questions be
ignored? How many times do teachers evaluate seatwork on
the basis of how quietly the students worked, whether
they stayed on task, and whether they finished the

assignments? The students are reprimanded or punished if

158

they interrupt the teacher's work or that of another
student by asking questions. They are expected to know
the skills, and complete all the work.

In my research studies, I have found that
teachers gave a twofold purpose for seatwork; that is, to
reinforce skills and to keep the students busy and quiet
in order that they may instruct individual reading
groups. If the seatwork is used for an understanding of
skills, then assistance from the teacher should be
available and offered to the student. In most classrooms
that I have observed, the students were offered little or
no assistance in the completion of their seatwork. They
were expected to finish all assignments and make
corrections so that they have no errors. The teachers
expected the students to listen to the directions,
remember them, and work independently ‘until finished.
The teachers would .not repeat. the: directions and the
students were told not to interrupt the teacher with
questions while she was instructing a reading group. A
confusion may exist in having a twofold purpose with
contradictory implementation. 1

Teachers plan the type of assignments they will
use to review specific skills. The seatwork in many
classrooms incorporates skills beyond reading alone. We
need to consider seriously our curriculum goals and make

decisions to guide the teachers to make the best use of

159

our limited time, especially in the area of seatwork
which comprises the majority of our instructional time.

With the wide range of reading abilities, do we
assign work on all reading levels or somehow try to hit a
middle ground? Obviously, when we do the latter, we have
some students who find the assignments very easy and have
little challenge. We also have some students for which
the assignment is too difficult. On the other hand, when
we select the former method and put all the time and
effort into putting up three to four separate assignments
on the board we publicly display the complexity of each
assignment which: may cause some students to ridicule
others concerning the simplicity of their task in
comparison to their own.

One last question, but an important one,
concerning the type of assignment for seatwork. Is there
the possibility of engaging students in reading, or is
there a reason for making seatwork a writing task? We
always say that students need to be reading more and yet
little is done at home or at school. What good are the
skills if the students never apply them? What better
time to read than during the period of reading when
students are given the instruction of reading?

Teachers, administrators, and researchers need to
address the many questions that still persist after many

years in the practice of assigning seatwork as part of a

160

basal reading program. The significant amount of student
time designated in the curriculum for this practice
warrants further research. in its effectiveness. The
purpose of seatwork and the type of assignments should be
the basis for further studies.

I would like to see further research take the
direction of having teachers and researchers look
together at the practice of assigning seatwork. Dialog
either through journals or conferences between researcher
and teacher is highly important in understanding what we
are about and where we want to go.

A record of time spent in planning for seatwork,
the source for the assignment, and a reflection of how it
might have been improved upon or in effect what happened
and why, could be the source for the dialog as well as
what effect the seatwork had on the number of
interruptions to the reading group.

A dialog’ among researchers, teachers, and
students in regard to their personal understanding of the
seatwork may also prove insightful. The students'
perceptions of the purpose of seatwork as well as how
well they understand it, whether it was interesting, or
challenging, all would be a valuable contribution to any

future study on seatwork.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

INTERVIEWS WITH TEACHER

10.

11.

APPENDIX A

QUESTIONS FOR FIRST INTERVIEW WITH TEACHER

Thinking about your reading instruction, what do you
consider to be your successes? Your failures?

What is the purpose in assigning seatwork?

What do you assign as seatwork and why?

Do you get seatwork ideas from the basal? If not,
where g9 your ideas come from?

How much planning time do you spend on the seatwork
assignments?

Do you ever use one assignment for all students?
Why or why not?

Can you give me an example of a seatwork assignment
which. you considered particularly successful? .A
complete failure?

Do you have a particular order for calling reading
groups?

In addition to the basal, is there any other reading
instruction?

How is reading encouraged in your classroom?

Is reading ever assigned as seatwork?

161

12.

13.

14.

15.

162

Do the students do: any other reading beside the
basal?

Are the students ever read to?

What are some of’ the rules during reading
instruction?

Do you believe seatwork assignments are a necessary

component of reading instruction?

Related Topics Followed by the Number of the Question

that pertains to each Topic:

ability

type of assignment 3, 4, 6, 9, 11
teacher's purpose 2, 15
environment

time 8

rules and responsibility 14

163

QUESTIONS FOR SECOND INTERVIEW WITH TEACHER

Do ‘you believe the seatwork assignments are
appropriate for all students? Are there particular
students who you feel the seatwork assignments are
too easy or too difficult?

I would like to get your response to a quote that I

had recorded one day. Harry was sitting at his
seat. His work was done. You said, "Harry, take
something out to read NOW!" Why do you believe you

responded in that way? Was there a particular rule
that was broken?

Given your purpose of assigning seatwork, "to review
a learned skill," do you believe seatwork in your
classroom is fulfilling that purpose?

If you were free to make any changes you wanted to
make, what would you change about reading time?

Do you think the children exceed your expectations,

usually meet your expectations, or don't quite make

it?

10.

164

Yesterday, John and Gary were placing crayon on top
of crayon to see how high they could make it. Your
response was, "All right Gary and John! Gary, who
controls the situation?" What did you mean? Was
Gary responsible?

Why do the children prefer seatwork to boardwork?
How do you encourage reading when work is done?
Directions are given the day before for the
boardwork. Do you give the directions again in the
morning?

Arthur and Frank used to sit together in the back
row. Arthur now sits up a row and is away from

Frank. Why did you move Arthur's seat?

Related Topics Followed by the Number of the Question

that Pertains to Each Topic

ability 1, 5
type of assignment 7, 9
teacher's purpose 3, 5, 8
environment 4, 10
time

rules and responsibility 2, 6

APPENDIX B

INTERVIEWS WITH STUDENTS

10.
11.
12.

l3.

14.

APPENDIX B

QUESTIONS FOR FIRST INTERVIEWS WITH STUDENTS

Do you like to read?

Are you a good reader?

Do you read at home? What? How much?

What is your favorite book?

In school, what do you like best/least about reading
time?

How can you improve your reading?

Explain today's seatwork assignment.

What advice would you give a new student to your
classroom in regard to reading time?

Do you usually complete your seatwork assignment?
Why or why not?

Are the assignments too easy or too hard?

What seatwork assignments do you like the best?
Which seatwork assignments do you like the least?
What do you do if you do not understand your
seatwork assignment? Does this happen often?

Will the teacher answer your questions during

seatwork time?

165

166

15. Why do you think the teacher assigns seatwork during
reading?
16. Do you like to be called up for reading instruction

first or last or doesn't it matter?

Related Topics Followed by the Number of the Question

That Pertains to Each Topic:

ability 1, 2, 3. 10
type of assignment 7, 10, 11, 12
teacher's purpose 15
environment 5

time 9, 16

rules and responsibilities 8, 13, 14

167

QUESTIONS FOR SECOND INTERVIEWS WITH STUDENTS

What are the rules during reading when you are
working at your seats?

Do you ever break the rules? If so, which ones?
Why do you think you break those particular rules.
Sometimes I notice that you are not working. What
are some of the things that cause you to stop
working?

Explain today's seatwork assignment.

During our first interview in regard to when your
group is called up for reading, you said: (Read
quote from first interview). How is your seatwork
affected if you are apt called up at that time? Why
do you like that time best?

When do you do your best work during reading and

why?

168

7. What would you like to do during seatwork time?

Related Topics Followed by the Number of the Questions
that Pertain to Each Topic:

ability 3

type of assignment 3, 4, 6, 7

teacher' purpose

environment 3, 6

time 5

rules and responsibility 1, 2

APPENDIX C

TEACHER'S REPORT FORM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MdDHmh

169

waommome
.w. . waommzoms
. waommoe
saozoz
Gamma mmD HHHS mmmcxmoz Lumcmuum omomusm mousom ucwficmflmmé
mmeaa mmommm
xmozeamm e x862

APPENDIX D

STUDENT'S REPORT FORM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oz no»

oz no»

oz mo»

.02 we»

oz mo»

amenama H earmacam H
mEmz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oz we»
oz mo»
oz mow
oz mm»
02 wow
zmmo mmB DH

xuoBummm

 

 

oz mow
OZ mm?
02 me
oz mow
OZ WON
on ewxaa H

>¢QHmm

Mdommbme

wdcmmZDMB

><Qmm38

NfiDZOE

# Kmma

170

APPENDIX E

TENTATIVE CROSS-CHECK OF DATA

 

xnoz
m.ucoczum
mo mOHQEom

mouoz ozone

Duomom zawmo
m.ucopsum

uuomom SHHMQ
m.wo£omoa

namesum can:
36fi>umucH ocoomm

ocmesum nuns
3ofi>uoucH umuaz

Hmzomoe cues
sofl>uoucH pcooom

Hmcomoa saws
36H>HoucH umuam

 

moauflaflnflmcommmm
ocm moasm

omomusm

oEa coEcoua>c
.9 u . m m.uo£omofi

ucmEcmflmmm

 

puma mo x06501mmouo w>flumucoeil..fihm oHQoB

171

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allington, R. L. (1983). "The Reading Instruction
Provided Readers of Different Reading Abilities."
Elementary School Journal, 83, 548—559.

Alpert, J. L. (1975). ”Do Teachers Adapt Methods and
Materials to Ability Groups in Reading?" California
Journal of Educational Research, 26, 120—123.

 

Anderson, Linda. (1981). Student Responses to Classroom
Instruction. Institute for Researdh on Teaching,
M.S.U., September.

Anderson, Linda; Brubaker, Nancy; Alleman-Brooks, Janet;
and Duffy, Gerald G. (1984). Makipg Seatwork Work
(with case studies), Institute for Research on
Teaching, M.S.U., March.

Anderson, Linda; Evertson, Carolyn; and Brophy, Jere.
(1979). "An Experimental Study of Effective
Teaching in Frist Grade Reading Groups." Elementary
School Journal, 79(4), 193-223.

 

Baumann, James F. (1984). "How to Expand a Basal Reader
Program." Reading Teacher, 37(7), 604-607.

Baumann, James F. (1984). "Implications for Reading
Instruction for the Research on Teacher and School
Effectiveness." Journal of Reading 28(2), 109-115.

Bogdan, Robert C., & Biklen, Sari Knopp. (1982).
Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction
to Theory and Methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon,

 

Inc.
Bolster, Arthur 8., Jr. (1983). "Toward a More
Effective Model of Research on Teaching." Harvard

Educational Review 53(3), 294-308.

172

173

Book, Cassandra, L.; Duffy, Gerald G.; Roehler, Laura,
R.; Meloth, Michael S.; and Vavrus, Linda G.
(1985). "A Study of the Relationship Between
Teacher Explanation and Student Metacognitive
Awareness During Reading Instruction."
Communication Education 34 (January).

Borg, W. R., and Gall, M. D. (1983). Educational
Research: An Introduction. New York: Longman.

 

Brophy, Jere E. (1979). "Using Observation to Improve
Your Teaching. Childhood Education 55(5), 313-317.

Brophy, Jere E. (1982). "Classroom Management and
Learning." American Education 18(2), 20-23.

 

Brophy, Jere E. (1983). "Classroom Organization and
Management." Elementary School Journal, 83(4), 265—
283.

Brophy, J., and Good, T. (1974). Teacher-Student
Relationships: Causes and Consequences. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

 

Brophy, Jere; Rashid, Hakim; Rohrkemper, Mary; and
Goldberger, Michael. (1983). "Relationships
Between Teachers' Presentations of Classroom Tasks
and students' Engagement in Those Tasks." Journal
of Educational Psychology. 75(4), 544-552.

Cobb, J. A. (1972). "Relationship of Discrete Classroom
Behaviors to Fourth-Grade Academic Achievement."
Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 74-80.

Dobbert, M. L. (1982). Ethnographic Research: Theory
and Application for Modern Schools and Societies.
New York: Praeger.

Doyle, Walter. (1977). ‘"Learning the Classroom
Environment: An Ecological Analysis." Journal of
Teacher Education, 28(6), 51-55.

 

Doyle, Walter. (1981). "Research on Classroom
Contexts." Journal of Teacher Education 32, 3-5.

Duffy, G. G. (1982). "Fighting off the Alligators.
What Research in Real Classrooms Has to Say About
Reading Instruction.” Journal of Reading Behavior
14(4), 357-373.

174

Duffy, 6.; Roehler, L.; and Mason, J. (1984).
Comprehension Instruction: Perspectives and
Suggestions. New York: Longman.

 

Eder, Donna. (1981). "Ability Grouping as a Self-
Fulfilling Prophecy: A Micro-Analysis of Teacher
Student Interaction." Sociology of Education,
54(3), 151-162.

 

Eder, Donna. (1983). "Ability Grouping and students'
Academic Self—Concepts: A Case Study." Elementary
School Journal 84(2), 149-161.

 

 

Elashoff, Janet D., and Snow, Richard E. (1971).
Pygmalion Reconsidered. Worthington, Ohio: Jones
Publishing Co.

Erickson, Frederick. (1979). Mere Ethnography: Some
Problems in Its Use in Educational Practice.
Institute for ResearCh on Teaching, M.S.U., March.

 

Esposito, Domenech. (1973). "Homogeneous and
Heterogeneous Ability Grouping: Principle Findings
and Implications for Evaluating and Designing More
Effective Educational Environments." Review of
Educational Research, 43, 163-179.

 

Fisher, C.; and Berliner, D. (1985). Perspective on
Instructional Time. New York: Longman.

 

Fisher, C.; Berliner, D.; Filby, N.; Marliave, R.; Cohen,
L.; Dishaw, M.; and Moore, J. (1978). Teaching and
Learning in Elementary Schools: A Summary of the
Beginning Teacher Evaluation Study. San Francisco:
Far Lakes Laboratory for Educational Research and
Development.

 

Fisher, C.; Marliave, R.; and Filby, N. N. (1979).
"Improving Teaching by Increasing Academic Learning
Time." Educational Leadership 37, 52-54.

Florio, Susan. (1981). Very Special Native: The
Evolving Role of Teachers as Informantsin
Educational Ethnography. Institute for Research on
Teaching, M.S.U., February.

Florio, Susan, and Walsh, Martha. (1978). The Teacher
as Colleague_in Classroom Research. Institute for
Research on Teaching, M.S.U., February.

 

175

Glaser, Barney G., and Strauss, Anselm L. (1976). The
Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for
Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine.

Goetz, J., and Lecompte, M. (1984). Ethnography and
Qualitative Design in Educational Research. San
Diego: Academic.

 

Goldberg, M.; Passow, A. H., and Justman, J. (1966).
The Effects of Ability Grouping. New York:
Teacher's College Press.

Goldenberg, I. I. (1969). ”Reading Groups and Some
Aspects of Teacher Behavior." In The Psycho-
Educational Clinic: Paper§_and Research Studies.
Edited by F. Kaplan and S. B. Sarason. Boston:
Department of Mental Health, Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.

 

Good, Thomas L. (1979). "Teacher Effectiveness in the
Elementary School: What We Know About It Now."
Journal of Teacher Education 30, 52—64.

Good, T., and Beckerman, T. (1978). ”Time on Task: A
Naturalistic Study in Sixth-Grade Classrooms." The
Elementary School Journal, 78, 193-201.

Good, T., and Brophy, J. (1984). Looking in Classrooms.
New York: Harper and Row.

Guthrie, John T. (1982). "Effective Teaching
Practices." The Reading Teacher 35(6), 767-768.

Hammersley, Martyn, and Atkinson, Paul. (1983).
Ethnography Principles in Practice. Tavistock
Publications.

Hargreaves, David H. (1967). Social Relations in a
Secondary School. New York: Humanities Press, Inc.

Hoge, Robert D., and Luce, Sally. (1979). "Predicting
Academic Achievement from Classroom Behavior."
Review of Educational Research, 49(3), 479-496.

Hops, Hyman, and Cobb, Joseph A. (1974). "Initial
Investigations into Academic Survival-Skill
Training, Direct Instruction, and First Grade
Achievement.” Journal of Educational Psychology,
66(4). 548-553.

176

Ives, Edward D. (1980). The Tape-Recorded Interview.
Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.

 

Jackson, Philip. (1968). Life in Classrooms. New York:
Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

 

Kiesling, Herbert J. (1984). "Assignment Practices and
the Relationship of Instructional Time to the
Reading Performance of Elementary School Children."
Economics of Education Review, 3(4), 341-350.

Kounin, J. (1970). Discipline and Group Management in
Classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

 

 

Leinhardt, G., and Palley, A. (1982). "Restrictive
Educational Settings: Exile or Haven?" Review of
Educational Research 52(4), 557-578.

 

 

Leinhardt, Gaea; Zigmond, Naomi; and Cooley, William W.

(1981). "Reading Instruction and Its Effects."
American Educational Research Journal 18(3), 343-
361.

 

Light, Richard, and Pillemur, David. (1982). "Numbers
and Narrative: Combining Their Strengths in
Research Reviews." Harvard Educational Review 52,
1-26.

Little, J. W. (1982). "Norms of Collegiality and
Experimentation: Workplace Conditions of School
Success." American Educational Research Journal
19(3). 325-340.

McDermott, R. P. (1977). "Social Relations as Contexts
for Learning in School.:" Harvard Educational
Review 47(2), 198-213.

McKinney, J. D., Mason, J.; Perkerson, K.; and Clifford,
M. (1975). ”Relationship Between Classroom
Behavior and Academic Achievement." Journal of
Educational Psychology, 67(2), 198-203.

 

Osborn, Jean. (1985). Evaluating Workbgoks. Reading
Education Report, No. 52, National Institute of
Education, Washington, D.C., January.

Perkins, H. V. (1965). "Classroom Behavior and
Underachievement." American Educational Research
Journal, 2, 1-12.

177

Pink, William T., and Leibert, Robert E. (1986).
"Reading Instruction in the Elementary School: A
Proposal for Reform." Elementary School Journal,
87. Pp. 51-67.

 

Rist, R. (1970). "Social Class and Teacher
Expectations: The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy in
Ghetto Education." Harvard Educational Review, 49
411-451.

 

Rist, Ray C. (1975). "Ethnographic Techniques and the
Study of an Urban School." Urban Education 10, 86-
108.

Rosenholtz, S. J., and Wilson, B. (1980). "The Effect
of Classroom Structure on Shared Perceptions of
Ability." American Educational Research Journal,
17, 75-82.

Rosenshire, Barak V. (1981). "How Time is Spent in
Elementary Classrooms." Journal of Classroom
Interaction, 17, 16-25.

 

 

Rosenshire, B. V., and Berliner, D. C. (1978).

"Academic Engaged Time." British Journal of Teacher
Education 4(4), 3-16.

 

Rosenthal, R., and Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in
the Classroom: Teacher Expectation and Pupils'
Intellectual Development. New York: Holt,
Rinehart, and Winston.

 

Rupley, William H. (1984). "Reading Teacher
Effectiveness: Implications for Teaching the
Gifted." Roeper Review, 7(2).

 

Rupley, William H. and Blair, Timothy R. (1986).
Assignment and Supervision of Students' Reading
Seatwork: Looking in on Twelve Primary- -Teachers'
Classrooms. May.

Sanacore, Joseph. (1984). "Metacognition and the
Improvement of Reading: Some Important Links."
Journal of Reading, 27(8), 706-712.

Schatzman, Leonard, and Strauss, Anselm. (1973). Field
Research Strategies for a Natural Sociology.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice- Hall, Inc.

178

Shavelson, R., and Stern, P. (1981). "Research on
Teachers' Pedagogical Thoughts, Judgments,
Decisions, and Behavior." Review of Educational
Research, 51(4), 455-498.

 

 

Skreslet, Paula. (1987). "The Prizes of First Grade."
Newsweek, 110(22), 8

Thurlow, Martha; Graden, Janet.; Ypseldyke, James E.; and
Algozzine, Robert. (1984). Student Reading During
Reading Class:_The Lost Activity in Reading
InstruCtion. Institute for Research on Learning
Disabilities. University of Minnesota, May.

Weinstein, R. S. (1976). "Reading Group Membership in
First Grade: Teacher Behavior and Pupil Experience
Over Time." Journal of Educational PsycholOQY. 68,
103-116.

Winchester, M. (1986). "Seatwork: An Important Part of
Reading Instruction." Final Report of TE 923,
M.S.U., June.

Winn, W., and Wilson, A. (1983). "The Affect and Effect
of Ability Grouping." Contemporary Education,
54(2), 119-125.

Youngblood, Ed. (1985). "Reading, Thinking, and Writing
Using the Reading Journal." English Journal 74(5),
46-48.