How Much English Language Arts and Mathematics Instruction Do Students Receive? Investigating Variation in Instructional Time

Abstract

The amount of instruction students receive has long been viewed as a foundational educational resource. This article presents an analysis of the time students spend in elementary English language arts (ELA) and mathematics instruction. In mathematics, the average student received about 140 hr of instruction, but students in the top sixth of classrooms in this distribution can expect to receive between 80 and 160 hr more instruction over the school year than students assigned to the bottom sixth of classrooms. We found similar magnitudes of variation in ELA. Although most of the variation was due to differences among classrooms, there was also substantial variation among schools. Some variation in instructional time is expected and probably favorable. However, we argue that the large variation demonstrated by these results represent substantial inequity in students' opportunity to learn ELA and mathematics. Articles

The Effect of Success Maker Software on State Scores in Elementary School Math

“…Math recovery (MR) tutoring sessions helped students improve their math proficiency (Sheldon, Epstein, & Galindo, 2010;Smith, Cobb, Farran, Cordray, & Munter, 2012). Math scores improved after the implementation of softwarerelated interventions (Elliott, Kratochwill, McKevitt, & Malecki, 2009;Leh & Jitendra, 2012;Phelps, Corey, DeMonte, Harrison, & Ball, 2012). A significant difference among math scores of students in two groups with interventions and without interventions had been documented (Meloy, Deville, & Frisbie, 2002).…”

Preliminary Evidence on Measurement Characteristics for the Foundational Assessment of Competencies for Teaching Performance Tasks

“…Researchers have also used CKT assessments to explore whether there is empirical evidence that CKT is composed of different knowledge types (Copur‐Gencturk et al, 2018; Hill et al, 2004; Mikeska et al, 2018; Phelps, 2009; Phelps & Schilling, 2004). A large number of studies have investigated whether teachers' CKT contributes to either teaching quality or student learning outcomes (Baumert et al, 2010; Carlisle et al, 2009; Correnti & Phelps, 2010; Hill et al, 2005; Hill et al, 2008; Kersting et al, 2012; Phelps et al, 2012). Although the results are somewhat mixed across studies, when taken together this body of research provides strong evidence that different components of CKT can be assessed and that CKT assessments can measure a type of professional content knowledge that is associated with teaching quality.…”

PRAXIS® Content Knowledge for Teaching: Initial Reliability and Validity Results for Elementary Reading Language Arts and Mathematics

“…Many of these CKT assessments have been used in studies to evaluate validity arguments that focus on the nature, development, and role of teacher content knowledge. This new generation of CKT assessments has successfully been used for multiple research purposes, including comparing the knowledge of contrasting groups (including prospective teachers, practicing teachers, and nonteachers) with the goal of supporting the claim that CKT is a form of professional knowledge (Hill et al, 2007; Iaconangelo et al, 2017; Kleickmann et al, 2013; Krauss et al, 2008; Phelps, 2005, 2009; Phelps et al, 2019); studying and evaluating professional development and teacher learning to show that CKT assessments are sensitive to professional learning opportunities (Goldschmidt & Phelps, 2010; Hill & Ball, 2004; Phelps et al, 2016; Tröbst et al, 2018; van Driel et al, 1998); examining differences among types of content knowledge to show that CKT includes a complex of knowledge types (Copur‐Gencturk et al, 2018; Hill et al, 2004; Mikeska et al, 2018; Phelps, 2009; Phelps & Schilling, 2004); and investigating how content knowledge contributes to both teaching quality and student learning outcomes to support the argument that CKT provides evidence directly associated with teacher quality (Baumert et al, 2010; Carlisle et al, 2009; Correnti & Phelps, 2010; Hill et al, 2005; Hill et al, 2008; Kersting et al, 2012; Phelps et al, 2012).…”