Professional Documents
Culture Documents
What Does TALIS 2013 Say About The Time Teachers Report Spending Keeping Order in The Classroom in Brazil, Chile and Mexico?
What Does TALIS 2013 Say About The Time Teachers Report Spending Keeping Order in The Classroom in Brazil, Chile and Mexico?
1. Introduction
time keeping order in the classroom among teachers from all countries participating in
TALIS (Teaching and Learning International Survey) in 2008: around 18% of class time,
compared to an average of 13% among the TALIS countries (OECD, 2009).
One should expect that student misbehavior would cause teachers to spend
more time maintaining discipline in the classroom, but it is not the only factor that
determines the use of class time. One goal of this paper is to investigate which other
factors are associated with time spent by teachers keeping order in the classroom. By
doing this, the paper aims to contribute by identifying policies to support teachers in
dealing with student behavior.
As important as improving teachers capacity to deal with student behavior is to
reduce disciplinary problems and enhance school climate. This paper therefore also
aims as a second goal to identify the factors associated with student behavior
problems.
The study is based on in-depth analyses of the TALIS 2013 data from the three
Latin American countries participating in the survey: Brazil, Chile and Mexico.
2. Literature Review
The use of time in schools and classrooms has been a topic of considerable
research interest for some decades. John Carroll was one of the first researchers to
model the relationship between learning and time for instruction. Carrolls (1963)
Model of School Learning emphasizes time as an important variable on learning, as
expressed in the contention that the degree of learning is a function of the ratio of the
time actually spent on learning to the time needed to learn.
Carrolls ideas stimulated a wave of research on instructional time and learning.
Many studies made efforts to establish statistical associations between time variables
and student achievement (Karweit, 1984; Baker et al., 2004); others assessed the loss
of learning time and its determinants at system, school and classroom levels (Smith,
1998; Abadzi, 2007); and still others were focused on issues of teaching practices and
classroom dynamics (Stallings, 1980; Carnoy et al., 2003; Martinic et al., 2013).
Most studies focus on one or more of the following time measures: (1)
allocated instructional time; (2) actual instructional time; and (3) engaged time.
2
disruptions and offering collegial support to teachers (Porter, 2006). Wide consultation
with staff, students and parents through the process should ensure that these
important actors are active participants in defining the disciplinary policy, both
because there is a moral obligation to consult them and also because doing so
improves policy effectiveness (Porter, 2006).
3. Data
This analysis is based on data from the OECD Teaching and Learning
International Survey (TALIS) from 2013. TALIS is an international, large-scale survey
that focuses on the working conditions of teachers and the learning environment in
schools.
The first cycle of TALIS was conducted in 2008 and surveyed teachers and
school leaders of lower secondary education in 24 countries. In the second cycle, TALIS
2013 has expanded to include additional countries, getting to a total of 33 participants.
TALIS data are based on self-reports from teachers and school leaders and
therefore represent their opinions, perceptions, beliefs and accounts of their activities.
This means all the variables analyzed by this paper are based on teacher or school
leaders reports, not on direct observation or on administrative records.
This study is focused on teachers working in the lower secondary education in
Brazil, Chile and Mexico.
4. Methods
The first purpose of this work is to identify the factors that are associated with
the percentage of time teachers report spending keeping order in the classroom. In
order to do this, the analysis takes in to account the hierarchical nature of TALIS data,
in which teachers (and their classes) are within schools, and schools are within
countries. Teachers within a school share the same school population, climate and
internal procedures. Because of this, it is expected that two teachers randomly chosen
within the same school will tend to spend more similar amounts of time keeping order
in the classroom than two teachers randomly chosen from different schools.
4
Hierarchical linear models (HLM) are commonly used in the educational field due to
their capacity to deal with the hierarchical nature of educational data (Raudenbush
and Bryk, 2002; Snijders and Bosker, 1999).
In this model, the dependent variable is the percentage of class time each
teacher reports spending keeping order in the classroom. The explanatory variables at
the teacher level are as follows:
The subject of the target class was included in the teachers initial formal
education;
The pedagogy of the subjects taught was included in the teachers formal
education;
Participation
in
professional
development
covering
knowledge
and
Variable pertaining to the target class are reported by the teacher regarding a randomly selected class
they currently teach.
Percentage
of
teachers
with
more
than
10%
of
students
from
with higher percentages of students with behavior problems in the class. In other
words, it aims to identify the profiles of teachers and their schools who report
having the highest proportions of students with behavior problems.
An ordered logistic regression was conducted to address this research goal. The
dependent variable was the categorical variable representing the percentage of
students with behavior problems in the target class. The explanatory variables at the
teacher/class level included:
School size;
with both time spent keeping order and the percentage of students with behavior
problems within each country. For each of these outcome variables, regression
analysis was conducted separately.
4. Main Findings
Some of the main findings show that initial teacher education, professional
development and teacher professional collaboration are important players in reducing
the amount of time spend by teacher keeping order in the classroom. Findings also
suggest that teachers in schools with higher levels of participation among stakeholders
are less likely to have high percentages of students with behavior problems.
Because TALIS 2013 results and database were not yet publicized (and still
under embargo until the official release on 25 June 2014), the following figure shows
only an overview of the results obtained in this analysis. It does not show detailed
results by country. Nonetheless, the final presentation will contain the detailed results,
since TALIS 2013 data will have been released by then.
Socioeconomic
background
Participation among
stakeholders
Student
behaviour
Teacher
experience
Class time
keeping order
Professional
collaboration
Formal education
Content on
subject taught
Professional
development
Pedagogy on
subject taught
5. References
Abadzi, H. (2007). Instructional time loss and local level governance. Prospects, vol.
XXXVII, no. 1, March 2007.
Baker, D.; Fabrega, R.; Galindo, C.; Mishook, J. (2004) Instructional time and national
achievement: cross-national evidence. Prospects, vol. XXXIV, no. 3, 311-334.
Carnoy, M.; Gove, A.; Marshall, J. (2003). As razes das diferenas de desempenho
acadmico na Amrica Latina: dados qualitativos do Brasil, Chile e Cuba. Revista
Brasileira de Estudos Pedaggicos, v. 84, n. 206/207/208, 7-33.
Carroll, J. B. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64, 723-733.
Cotton, K. (1989). Educational time factors. Close up #8. Portland, OR: Northwest
Regional Educational Laboratory.
Emmer, E.; Stough, L. (2001). Classroom management: A critical part of educational
psychology, with implications for teacher education. Educational Psychologist, 36, 103112.
Espin, C.; Yell, M. (1994). Critical indicators of effective teaching for preservice
teachers: relationships between teaching behaviors and ratings of effectiveness.
Teacher Education and Special Education, 17, 154-169.
Gettinger, M.; Seibert, J. (2002). Best practices in increasing academic learning time.
Best practices in school psychology, IV, v. 1, p. 773-787.
Hawley, D.; Rosenholtz, S.; Goodstein, H.; Hasselbring, T. (1984). Good Schools: What
Research Says about Improving Student Achievement. Peabody Journal of Education,
Vol. 61, No. 4, pp. iii-vi+1-178.
Husu, J. (2003). What a difference a discipline approach makes? Constructing
performing quality in teacher-student relations. Paper presented at the Biennial
Conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction in
Padua, Italy.
Jensen, B.; Sandoval-Hernndez, A.; Knoll, S.; Gonzalez, E. (2012). The Experience of
New Teachers: Results from TALIS 2008. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Karweit, N. (1984). Time-on-task reconsidered: synthesis of research on time and
learning. Educational Leadership, May 1984, 32-35.
Karweit, N.; Slavin, R. (1981). Measurement and modelling choices in studies of time
and learning. American Educational Research Journal, vol. 18, n. 2, 157-171.
Martinic, S.; Vergara, C.; Huepe, D. (2013). Uso del tiempo e interacciones en la sala de
clases. Un estudio de caso en Chile. Pro-Posies, v. 24, n. 1 (70), 123-135.
McCormack, A. (1997). Classroom management problems, strategies, and influences in
physical education. European Physical Review, 3(2), 102-115.
OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) (2005) Teachers
matter: attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers. Paris: OECD Publishing.
_____ (2009) Creating effective teaching and learning environments: first results from
TALIS. Paris: OECD Publishing.
_____ (2013) PISA 2012 Results: Excellence through Equity - Giving Every Student the
Chance to Succeed (Volume II). Paris: OECD Publishing.
Oliver, R.; Wehby, J.; Reschly, D. (2011). Teacher classroom management practices:
effects on disruptive or aggressive student behavior. Campbell Systematic Reviews
2011.4.
Piwowar, V.; Thiel, F.; Ophardt, D. (2013). Training inservice teachers' competencies in
classroom management: a quasi-experimental study with teachers of secondary
schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 30, 1-12.
Porter, L. (2006). Behavior in schools: theory and practice for teachers. Maidenhead:
Open University Press.
Raudenbush, S.; Bryk, A. (2002) Hierarchical linear models: applications and data
analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Smith, B. (1998). It's about time: opportunities to learn in Chicago's public schools.
Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
Snijders, T.; Bosker, R. (1999) Multilevel Analysis: An Introduction to Basic and
Advanced Multilevel Modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Stallings, J. (1980) Allocated academic learning time revisited, or beyond time on task.
Educational Researcher, v. 9, n. 11, p. 11-16.
Sutherland, K.; Wehby, J. (2001) The effect of self-evaluation on teaching behavior in
classrooms for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. The Journal of
Special Education, 35.3, 161-171.
10
Tartuce, G.; Nunes, M.; Almeida, P. (2010). Alunos do ensino mdio e a atratividade da
carreira docente no Brasil. Cadernos de Pesquisa, v. 40, n. 140, p. 445-477.
11