The
number one concern that I hear from educators is lack of time,
particularly lack of instructional time with students. It's not
surprising that we feel a press for time. Our expectations for students
have increased dramatically, but our actual class time with students has
not. Although we can't entirely solve the time problem, we can mitigate
it by carefully analyzing our use of class time, looking for what Beth
Brinkerhoff and Alysia Roehrig (2014) call "time wasters."
Consider the example of calendar time. In many U.S. early elementary
classrooms, this practice eats up 15-20 minutes daily, often in a
coveted early-morning slot when students are fresh and attentive. Some
calendar time activities may be worthwhile. For example, teachers might
use this time for important teaching around grouping and place value.
But other activities are questionable at best. For example, is the
following routine still effective if it's already February and your
students still don't know:
Yesterday was _______.
Today is _______.
Tomorrow will be _______,
Does dressing a teddy bear for the weather each day make optimal use
of instructional time? Some teachers respond, "But we love our teddy
bear, and it only takes a few minutes!" But three minutes a day for 180
days adds up to nine hours. Children would also love engineering design
projects, deep discussions of texts they've read, or math games.
5 Less-Than-Optimal Practices
To help us analyze and maximize use of instructional time, here are
five common literacy practices in U.S. schools that research suggests
are not optimal use of instructional time:
1. "Look Up the List" Vocabulary Instruction
Students are given a list of words to look up in the dictionary. They
write the definition and perhaps a sentence that uses the word. What's
the problem?
We have long known that this practice doesn't build vocabulary as
well as techniques that actively engage students in discussing and
relating new words to known words, for example through semantic mapping
(Bos & Anders, 1990). As Charlene Cobb and Camille Blachowicz (2014)
document, research has revealed so many effective techniques for
teaching vocabulary that a big challenge now is deciding among them.
2. Giving Students Prizes for Reading
From March is Reading Month to year-long reading incentive programs,
it's common practice in the U.S. to give students prizes (such as
stickers, bracelets, and fast food coupons) for reading. What's the
problem?
Unless these prizes are directly related to reading (e.g., books), this practice actually makes students
less likely to choose reading as an activity in the future (Marinak & Gambrell, 2008). It actually
undermines
reading motivation. Opportunities to interact with peers around books,
teacher "book blessings," special places to read, and many other
strategies are much more likely to foster long-term reading motivation
(Marinak & Gambrell, 2016).
3. Weekly Spelling Tests
Generally, all students in a class receive a single list of words on
Monday and are expected to study the words for a test on Friday.
Distribution of the words, in-class study time, and the test itself use
class time. What’s the problem?
You've all seen it -- students who got the words right on Friday
misspell those same words in their writing the following Monday!
Research suggests that the whole-class weekly spelling test is much less
effective than an approach in which different students have different
sets of words depending on their stage of spelling development, and
emphasis is placed on analyzing and using the words rather than taking a
test on them (see Palmer & Invernizzi, 2015 for a review).
4. Unsupported Independent Reading
DEAR (Drop Everything and Read), SSR (Sustained Silent Reading), and
similar approaches provide a block of time in which the teacher and
students read books of their choice independently. Sounds like a great
idea, right?
Studies have found that this doesn't actually foster reading
achievement. To make independent reading worthy of class time, it must
include instruction and coaching from the teacher on text selection and
reading strategies, feedback to students on their reading, and text
discussion or other post-reading response activities (for example,
Kamil, 2008; Reutzel, Fawson, & Smith, 2008; see Miller & Moss,
2013 for extensive guidance on supporting independent reading).
5. Taking Away Recess as Punishment
What is this doing on a list of
literacy practices unworthy
of instructional time? Well, taking away recess as a punishment likely
reduces students' ability to benefit from literacy instruction. How?
There is a considerable body of research linking physical activity to
academic learning. For example, one action research study found that
recess breaks before or after academic lessons led to students being
more on task (Fagerstrom & Mahoney, 2006). Students with ADHD
experience reduced symptoms when they engage in physical exercise
(Pontifex et al., 2012) -- ironic given that students with ADHD are
probably among the most likely to have their recess taken away. There
are alternatives to taking away recess that are much more effective and
don't run the risk of reducing students' attention to important literacy
instruction (Cassetta & Sawyer, 2013).
Measure of Success
Whether or not you engage in these specific activities, they provide a
sense that there are opportunities to make better use of instructional
time in U.S. schools. I encourage you to scrutinize your use of
instructional time minute by minute. If a practice is used because we've
always done it that way or because parents expect it, it's especially
worthy of a hard look. At the same time, if a practice consistently gets
results in an efficient and engaging way, protect it at all costs.
Together we can rid U.S. classrooms of what does
not work.
Notes
- Bos, C.S. & Anders, P.L. (1990). "Effects
of interactive vocabulary instruction on the vocabulary learning and
reading comprehension of junior-high learning-disabled students." Learning Disability Quarterly, 13, pp.31-42.
- Brinkerhoff, E.H. & Roehrig, A.D. (2014). No more sharpening pencils during work time and other time wasters. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
- Cassetta, G. & Sawyer, B. (2013). No more taking away recess and other problematic discipline practices. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
- Cobb, C. & Blachowicz, C. (2014). No more "look up the list" vocabulary instruction. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
- Fagerstrom, T. & Mahoney, K. (2006). "Give me a break! Can
strategic recess scheduling increase on-task behaviour for first
graders?" Ontario Action Researcher, 9(2).
- Kamil, M.L. (2008). "How to get recreational reading to increase reading achievement." In 57th Yearbook of the National Reading Conference, pp.31-40. Oak Creek, WI: National Reading Conference.
- Marinak, B.A. & Gambrell, L. (2016). No more reading for junk: Best practices for motivating readers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
- Miller, D. & Moss, B. (2013). No more independent reading without support. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
- Palmer, J.L. & Invernizzi, M. (2015). No more spelling and phonics worksheets. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
- Pontifex, M.B., Saliba, B.J., Raine, L.B., Picchietti, D.L., &
Hillman, C.H. (2012). "Exercise improves behavioral, neurocognitive, and
scholastic performance in children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity
Disorder." The Journal of Pediatrics, 162(3), pp.543-551.
- Reutzel, D.R., Fawson, P., & Smith, J. (2008). "Reconsidering
silent sustained reading: An exploratory study of scaffolded silent
reading." Journal of Educational Research, 102, pp.37–50.
