When I was in high school, one of my teachers posted a sign on her classroom wall under the clock:
Time passes. Will you?
Students spend a lot of time watching clocks, yearning for the period to be over. Yet educators and researchers often seem to believe that more time is of course beneficial to kids' learning. Isn't that obvious?
In a major review of secondary reading programs I am completing with my colleagues Ariane Baye, Cynthia Lake, and Amanda Inns, it turns out that the kids were right. More time, at least in remedial reading, may not be beneficial at all.
Our review identified 60 studies of extraordinary quality- mostly large-scale randomized experiments- evaluating reading programs for students in grades 6 to 12. In most of the studies, students reading 2 to 5 grade levels below expectations were randomly assigned to receive an extra class period of reading instruction every day all year, in some cases for two or three years. Students randomly assigned to the control group continued in classes such as art, music, or study hall. The strategies used in the remedial classes varied widely, including technology approaches, teaching focused on metacognitive skills (e.g., summarization, clarification, graphic organizers), teaching focused on phonics skills that should have been learned in elementary school, and other remedial approaches, all of which provided substantial additional time for reading instruction. It is also important to note that the extra-time classes were generally smaller than ordinary classes, in the range of 12 to 20 students.
In contrast, other studies provided whole class or whole school methods, many of which also focused on metacognitive skills, but none of which provided additional time.
Analyzing across all studies, setting aside five British tutoring studies, there was no effect of additional time in remedial reading. The effect size for the 22 extra-time studies was +0.08, while for 34 whole class/whole school studies, it was slightly higher, ES =+0.10. That's an awful lot of additional teaching time for no additional learning benefit.
So what did work? Not surprisingly, one-to-one and small-group tutoring (up to one to four) were very effective. These are remedial and do usually provide additional teaching time, but in a much more intensive and personalized way.
Other approaches that showed particular promise simply made better use of existing class time. A program called The Reading Edge involves students in small mixed-ability teams where they are responsible for the reading success of all team members. A technology approach called Achieve3000 showed substantial gains for low-achieving students. A whole-school model called BARR focuses on social-emotional learning, building relationships between teachers and students, and carefully monitoring students' progress in reading and math. Another model called ERWC prepares 12th graders to succeed on the tests used to determine whether students have to take remedial English at California State Universities.
What characterized these successful approaches? None were presented as remedial. All were exciting and personalized, and not at all like traditional instruction. All gave students social supports from peers and teachers, and reasons to hope that this time, they were going to be successful.
There is no magic to these approaches, and not every study of them found positive outcomes. But there was clearly no advantage of remedial approaches providing extra time.
In fact, according to the data, students would have done just as well to stay in art or music. And if you'd asked the kids, they'd probably agree.
Time is important, but motivation, caring, and personalization are what counts most in secondary reading, and surely in other subjects as well.
Time passes. Kids will pass, too, if we make such good use of our time with them that they won't even notice the minutes going by.
This blog is sponsored by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation