Allocation, Realization, and Use of Learning Time: An Internationally Comparative Reconstruction of Provision and Loss

• In Event: Explaining Teaching Effectiveness Beyond Value-Added Models

Abstract

Purpose and Framework. Learning time has attracted renewed interest in recent years after reviews (e.g. Patall, Cooper, & Allen, 2010) and quasi-experimental or international studies found positive effects for student outcome (Lavy, 2014; OECD, 2011). Starting point of this study is the vagueness of definitions of learning time in the literature. Across studies, learning time is sometimes assessed as the time that is allocated to student learning in policy documents; sometimes it’s defined as the time students spend in their school or in classroom activities and in other studies yet it’s the overall time that a student dedicates to learning in- and out-of-school. To organizing this multitude of definitions, this study refers to different roles and responsibilities of actors in the educational system, i.e., the provision of learning opportunities by the school system, schools and teachers and the utilization of these opportunities by students (Fend, 1981; Helmke, 2009). It is suggested to distinguish between the following definitions: Learning time is a) allocated on system level, b) provided on school level, c) realized in the classroom, d) attended to by an individual student and e) only partly dedicated to curriculum content. On each step of this hierarchy, there is loss of learning time due to system, school, classroom or individual reasons. International comparative studies have shown large differences in the source of loss, indicating that developing countries have greatest difficulties on system and school level, while one expects less loss on these levels in further developed countries (Abadzi, 2009).
Method. In the field trial for the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2015, school principals and students were asked to indicate quantities of learning time and loss of learning time for all levels of the theoretically assumed hierarchy. To validate principals’ and students’ answers, these time measures were compare with well-established ratings on the extend of problems that could be sources of time loss (for example teacher shortage or lacking discipline in the classrooms). The resulting data from about 42,000 students in 52 countries world-wide was analyzed across countries and for each country separately.
Results and Significance. In accordance with previous results, the data reveals a positive overall association of learning time and student achievement. The interesting finding is that taking into account the different sources of loss leads to an increase in the relation between learning time and student achievement. Equally interesting is the variation in reliability of “real time” measures. Compared with ratings on the extent of problems, numeric information seems to be far less reliable in a number of countries. This study thus delivers not only relevant research advise for the reliable assessment of learning time but also provides further insights about the importance to consider additional school, classroom and student information to increase predictive validity of learning time analyses.

Author

• Susanne Kuger, German Institute for International Educational Research