The Limits of Time on Task

Adapted from The Homework Myth (Da Capo Press, 2006)

Back when experimental psychologists mainly studied words and nonsense syllables, it was thought
that learning inevitably depended upon time, a group of educational psychologists explained. But
subsequent research suggests that this belief is false.[1]

Why? Lets begin by conceding that the statement People need time to learn things is true. The
problem is that its a trivial truth, one that doesnt tell us much of practical value. On the other hand,
the assertion More time usually leads to better learning is considerably more interesting. Its also
demonstrably false, however, because there are enough cases where more time doesnt lead to better
learning. In the real world, the loose connection between these two variables doesnt mean very much.

Its hard to deny, for example, that lots of kids spend time in school looking at books, or listening to
lectures, without getting much out of the experience. Would more of what the experts call time on
task (ToT) be likely to make a difference? The answer to that question is so obvious that ToT
proponents were forced some years ago to revise their original proposition. In the amended version,
learning was said to improve in proportion to the quantity of engaged time on task. But how do we help
kids become engaged with what theyre doing? Theres been quite a lot written on creating classrooms
that promote student engagement. These ideas pull us in a variety of directions, some more promising
than others. But time is, at best, only one consideration among many. More to the point, compelling
students to do more assignments at school or at home is not especially likely to maximize engaged
time. The upshot is that in order for the idea of ToT to be of any use at all, it has to be refined in such a
way that time, per se, is no longer the dominant concept.

Lets look at the research a little more closely. The amount of time a student spends on a task is not so
consistently related to achievement as it may seem, one scholar concluded from her review of several
studies on the subject. Time is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for learning. Learning takes
time, but providing time does not in itself ensure that learning will take place. More time may result in
more learning if [lack of] adequate time was the major cause of the problem in the first place. If other
factors were the real cause, then providing more time will not be an effective strategy.[2]

Lets come at the question from another direction. Instead of asking Does more time for academics
help? maybe we should ask Does more time for academics help more than other things we could do
instead? A Stanford University study compared four different reforms: peer tutoring, smaller classes,
more use of computers, and adding an hour of instruction each day. The result: On a cost-
effectiveness basis, the time intervention was found to rank at the bottom with respect to improving
student performance in mathematics and third out of the four [in reading].[3]

Carole Ames, dean of the college of education at Michigan State University, points out that it isnt
quantitative changes in behavior such as requiring students to spend more hours in front of books or
worksheets that help children to learn better. Rather, its qualitative changes in the ways students
view themselves in relation to the task, engage in the process of learning, and then respond to the
learning activities and situation.[4] In turn, these attitudes and responses on the part of students
emerge from the way teachers think about learning and, as a result, the ways theyve organized their
classrooms. If the goal is to figure out how best to cover a set curriculum to fill students with facts
then it might seem appropriate to try to maximize ToT, such as by assigning homework or lengthening
the school day or year. But thats highly unlikely to have a positive effect on the critical variables that
Ames identifies. Perhaps it makes sense to see education as being less about how much the teacher
covers and more about what the students can be helped to discover. More time wont do a thing to
bring about that shift.

On an even more basic level, to think about providing more time for students to learn something is to
sidestep the question of whether that something is worth learning. Suppose that extra hours after
school really did make it more likely that children would be able to commit a list of dates or definitions
to memory. If there isnt a good reason to make students memorize something theyre likely to forget
anyway (and which they can always look up if necessary), then the apparent advantage of more time
wouldnt mean very much. Of course, this invites us to ask what is worth learning, and how that should
be decided. But my point is that a conversation on so crucial a topic is less likely to take place when
were focused on trying to maximize the amount of time spent on the tasks that comprise the current
curriculum.

In fact, the nature of the task helps to determine the relationship between time and achievement. It
turns out that more hours are least likely to produce better outcomes when understanding or creativity is
involved. How much is learned by rote is a direct function of time and effort, acknowledges literacy
expert Frank Smith. But when the learning is meaningful we learn much faster. . . . Having to spend
long periods of time in repetitive efforts to learn specific things is a sign that learning is not taking place,
that we are not in a productive learning situation.[5]

Sure enough, researchers have found that when children are taught to read by focusing on
themeaning of the text (rather than primarily on phonetic skills), their learning does not depend on
amount of instructional time.[6] In math, too, even the new-and-improved concept of engaged ToT is
directly correlated to achievement only if both the activities and the measure of achievement are
focused on rote recall. By contrast, there is no linear positive relationship for higher level mathematics
activities, including mathematical applications and problem solving.[7]

Thus, claims that longer class days (or years) produce better outcomes or higher achievement
should be met with skepticism even if they occasionally turn out to be true. If those phrases mean only
that more time might improve standardized test results, thats very different from showing that it leads
to better learning which, as weve seen, is less likely to be true (by more ambitious criteria). No
wonder the folks who confuse higher test scores with better learning are also more likely to think kids
should be made to spend more time doing the same stuff.

___________________________________

[For complete citations, please see The Homework Myth]

1. Anderson et al., p. 34.
2. Karweit, p. 33.
3. Levin 1984, p. 3.
4. Ames, p. 268.
5. Smith, p. 46. This view directly contradicts the widespread notion that education is always hard
work an idea that proceeds from a specific and usually unstated set of assumptions about
whats being taught, and how. Some kinds of curriculum, and some instructional techniques,
canmake learning unpleasant, but the unpleasantness isnt inevitable.
6. Anderson et al., p. 34.
7. Putnam et al., p. 129. Note that this doesnt mean ToT loses its relevance for mathematics in
the later grades; it means its less important at all grades when the subject is taught in a way
that emphasizes understanding.