Academic Learning Time: Reflections and Prospects.

Academic Learning Time: Reflections and Prospects. Daryl Siedentop The Ohio State University In,many respects, the notion of Academic Learning Time is a new kid on the block in teaching research in physical education. And, in just a few short years, the notion has proven to be- of sufficient strength and value that it has been adopted rather widely as a research variable, evidence of which is attested to by the very existence of this monograph. Yet, it also should be abundantly clear that ALT is nothing more than a current refinement of a variable that has a rather substantial and impressive history. Nobody who has read Chapter 3 of Phillip Jackson's classic, Life in Classrooms, would think of reacting to ALT as more than a contemporary version of a time tested and powerful education variable, time-on-task. Those who have made the effort to review the research history of time-on-task variables have tended to reach similar conclusions. Smythe (1981) reviewed the results of the constellation of variables subsumed under the rubric of time-on-task (active learning time, pupil attention, pupil engaged learning time, etc.) and concluded the following. I believe that part of the resilience of this variable and its persistent pursuit over time is related to its potential utility both as an index of classroom effectiveness, as well as the key it provides for unlocking some of the complexities of life in classrooms (p. i). Borg's (1979) review of such variables pointed to the strong convergent validity suggested when studies using different designs and methods yield substantially similar and consistently positive results. The basic concept underlying ALT also has received substantial support from studies within physical education, particularly the findings reported by McLeish (1981), an educational psychologist at The University of Victoria, who administered a project involving 100 video taped physical education lessons. After analyzing the tapes via several observational systems derived from distinctly different educational traditions, McLeish was able to conclude in favor of the ALT system. It is one of the major impressions received in the use of the ALT-PE system that this supplies the missing element, or indeed the major component, for evaluating effective teaching in physical education. Time-on-task, academic learning time, opportunities to learn -- call it what you will, and measure it if you can -- this is the vital component of effective teaching in general (p. 31). 3 JTPE

Siedentop A Refinement but not the Last Word ALT is most properly understood as a refinement of traditional time-on-task variables. The most important aspect of the refinement is to require a match between the student's abilities and the level of difficulty of the assigned learning task in order to "count" student behavior as ALT. But, it needs to be pointed out that ALT certainly is not the most refined notion possible. Indeed, ALT-PE as currently used, is less refined than the instruments from which it derives. If one examines the original ALT instruments designed for the Beginning Teacher Evaluation Study (Berliner, 1979), one immediately is struck by the specificity of content-specific categories. Both ALT and ALT-PE utilize content-general and contentspecific categories to begin the assessment of the nature of a student's engagement at any point in time. But, when we developed the first ALT-PE instrument (Siedentop, Birdwell & Metzler, Note 2), it seemed most useful to devise content-specific categories that were generic; that is, categories that could be used across a wide range of physical education activities. Thus, the notions of skill practice, scrimmage, game, fitness, knowledge and social behavior became labels for generic physical education content categories. If one examines the original BTES content-specific categories, one finds an entirely different set for math than for reading. And one cannot help but be impressed by the degree of specificity achieved within the content-specific area. In reading, for example, there are 19 content-specific categories ranging from syllables to creative writing. In math, there are 14 content-speci'fic categories, ranging from fractions to addition and subtraction (no regrouping). It seems quite clear to me that a major step forward will occur when researchers develop content-specific categories for each of the major physical education activities; that is, a specific set of categories for basketball, volleyball, soccer, etc. Of course, the generic set of categories need not be lost when such specificity is achieved. Indeed, one can envision a content-specific category system that reveals not only generic information but also highly detailed s kill-specif ic information. A second refinement of current ALT-PE practices will occur when we are able to relate ALT more carefully to the goals of a given learning environment. ALT-PE is, of cours6, a reasonably value-free notion. What counts as an instance of ALT-PE can be judged only in terms of the goals of a lesson. If creative, improvisational skill in movement is the goal of a lesson, then only those instances when students are engaged in behavibr which leads to such goals, at a reasonable success level, is counted as ALT-PE. Some of Pieron's (Note 1) imaginative research leads one to believe that ALT-PE will be more predictive to the degree that it can be related to criterion variables. Criterion time-on-task or criterion ALT-PE looms potentially as a more predictive variable than current ALT-PE efforts. Clearly, however, teachers would have to be able to specify with a great deal more clarity than is typical what the criterion goals of units and lessons might be. ALT-PE as a Criterion Variable Many reviewers and critics of ALT research often have pointed to the need to establish more carefully the relationship between ALT variables and achievement. This issue deserves to be addressed directly. The assumption of all such criticism is that achievement scores are better measures of learning than are ALT scores. At the very least, that assumption is arguable and, in certain cases, there is good reason to doubt its validity. Berliner (1979) argued that ALT might be a better measure of student learning than typical achievement measures, and that ALT allows one to assess learning as it occurs rather than having to wait until the end of a unit or a school year. SUMMER 1983 4

Unfortunately, those who make the criticism often assume that achievement is the same as learning. But achievement is only a score on a test, typically a final test. Even when one is sure of the content validity of achievement tests, there is still good reason to question their strength as proxy variables for student learnins- We know that final achievement is strongly correlated with entry skill. Gain s~~res, where final achievement is somehow related to entry levels, are a source of great controversy among the educational measurement specialists (Kennedy & Bush, 1976). Berliner (1976) thought gain scores to be so,questionable that he suggested the use of final scores alone if entry differences between groups could be shown to be nonsignificant. When one realizes that achievement scores are proxy variables for student learning, and that we are susceptible to a number of influences other than "how much was learned from the beginning of the study to the end of the study," then one can at least consider the argument that ALT, another proxy variable, might be an equally legitimate measure of student learning. As ALT-PE instruments undergo further refinement, in the directions mentioned in this paper, I cannot help but believe that ALT will gain even more credibility as a proxy variable for student learning. Thus, ALT will continue to serve as a thoroughly legitimate criterion variable for assessing teacher effectiveness; that is, the teachers who produce higher levels of ALT-PE will be the more effective teachers. ALT Utilized for Answerability and Accountability To this point, ALT has been used almost exclusively in physical education as a process variable in descriptive research studies and in a few small process-product studies. I feel sure that it will continue to be used productively in these ways in the future. But, I am also convinced that ALT has the potential to be used in a programmatic way both in teacher education and in teaching. I am not about to argue for ALT as an accountability variable for teachers, simply because there is no evidence, given current contingencies in education and the teaching profession, that teachers can be held accountable for what they do in their classes. But, David Halpin (1979) has argued, convincingly I think, that while teachers probably cannot, and maybe should not, be held accountable for what they do, that they both can and should account for what they do; that is, they should be answerable for what they do with their students. Being answerable does not entail any liability to sanction, according to Halpin, but rather means providing accurate descriptions of what a teacher does with students and the degree to which certain obligations, typically imposed either explicitly or implicitly by the school, have been met. Halpin argues further that teachers cannot be held answerable without an appraisal of what they do in their classes and that variables such as ALT are the fairest, most accurate means to secure such information. He suggests that such data be collected, not only on a teacher-by-teacher basis, but also on a school-by-schbol basis. While it may be difficult to hold teachers accountable, it is more reasonable to expect that teacher educators can hold preservice teacher trainees accountable for their performances, particularly during student teaching or any of the several extended teacher education internships currently being suggested. ALT is one legitimate criterion available by which the relative performances of teaching interns might be evaluated. While it also is clear that factors such as the on-going practices within the school, the overall difficulty of the intern assignment, and intra-class considerations need to be considered when interpreting ALT data, the case for using it as a criterion variable is a strong one. The case becomes even stronger to the extent that notions of ALT become further refined within physical education and are more closely related to criterion variables. 5 JTPE

Siedentop Limitations There are several limitations to current ALT efforts that deserve to be mentioned. ALT is a time-based concept and the instrument developed in physical education to measure it utilizes interval recording strategies. Thus, ALT is limited by the nature of interval recording techniques. There has been a rather extensive and ongoing debate within the field of applied behavior analysis concerning the strengths, limitations, and validity of data collected via interval recording. The most complete criticism of the technique can be found in Johnston and Pennypacker (1980). It deserves to be noted at the same time that all measurement strategies have limitations, and the degree to which those limitations are recognized and acted upon is probably the best evidence that they are minimized within a research field. I recently have been particularly concerned that the ALT-PE instrument we developed is not sufficiently sen,sitive to what students are doing who are judged not to be in ALT. Students often have the opportunity to respond but do not, for a number of reasons, do so. Tousignant (1982) described in strikingly familiar detail students who are very ciever at avoiding motor responding in physical education classes while still staying within bounds of the managerial demands of the class -- she labeled this kind of student the "competent bystander." One suspects that there are far too many such students in physical education and current ALT-PE instruments do not distinguish them from students who are legitimately engaged in waiting or other kinds of interim activity. Finally, it is obvious that there are other important ways to view time besides the very useful strategy of partitioning time into minutes and seconds. One is reminded of the symbolic importance of the scene early in the film Easy Rider when Peter Fonda mounts his motorcycle to set off on his modern odyssey to sort out the nature of those times. He takes off his wrist watch and flings it into the brush on the side of the highway. Clearly, his inquiry into the nature of time cannot be neatly assessed in terms of minutes and seconds. I respect that view and understand its importance. Still, it does not diminish the importance of time as a quantifiable variable in units that are absolute and standard. It is upon these kinds of units that natural sciences are built and it is toward a natural science of teaching that we ought to devote ourselves (Siedentop, 1982). Reference Notes 1. Pieron, M. From interaction analysis to research on teaching effectiveness: An overview of studies from the University of Liege. Paper presented at The Ohio State University, November, 1980, mimeo. 2. Siedentop, D., Birdwell, D., E Metzler, M. A process approach to measuring teaching effectiveness in physical education. Paper presented at the National Convention of AAHPERD, New Orleans, March, 1979. References Borg, W. Time and school learning. BTES Newsletter, March, 1979. Berliner, D. Impediments to the study of teacher effectiveness. Journal of Teacher Education, 1976, 27(1), 5-13. Berliner, D. Tempus Educare. In P. L. Peterson & H. Walberg (Eds.), Research on teaching : Concepts, findings and implications. Berkeley, CA : McCutchan Publishing, 1979. Halpin, D. Accountability, answerability and the reporting of active learning time. British Journal of Teacher Education, 1979, 5(.3), 199-217. Jackson, P. Life in classrooms. New York: H~lt, Rinehart E Winston, 1968. SUMMER 1983 6

Johnston, J., E Pennypacker, H. Strategies and tactics of human behavioral research. Hillsdale, IL: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1980. Kennedy, J., E Bush, A. Overcoming some of the impediments to the study of teacher effectiveness. Journal of Teacher Education, 1976, 27 (1), 14-17. McLeish, J. Effective teaching in physical education. Victoria, British Columbia: Educational Research l nstitute of British Columbia, 1981. Siedentop, D. Developing teaching skills in physical education. (2nd Ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield, 1982. Smythe, W. Research on classroom management: Studies of pupil engaged learning time as a special but instructive case. Journal of Education for Teaching, 1981, 7(2), 127-147. 7 JTPE