The Interaction of School Organization and Classroom Dynamics: Factors Impacting Student Achievement.

Research was conducted to determine what impact school organization and classroom dynamics had on student achievement. Results from standardized benchmark tests found no significant differences in scores across all schools and content areas; yet, end of course standardized measures indicated that students in sites employing block scheduling performed significantly lower in all content areas than did their counterparts in traditional settings. Findings suggested that the significant differences in student scores might be due to a dramatic loss of instructional time that was consistently observed in block classes during the last 18 minutes of the instructional period. This loss of instructional time was characterized by a dramatic increase in student behavior problems and student time-off-task. Recently, administrators in one Southeastern school district sought the authors’ help in isolating the variables that might explain why their four high schools exhibited varying levels of academic achievement. Two of the high schools employed traditional scheduling, one employed block scheduling, and one used traditional scheduling for English I and Algebra I but used block scheduling for all other courses. A review of the scores from the state required End of Course (EOC) examinations in English I, Algebra I, U.S. History, and Biology I, indicated that the students in classrooms organized in the traditional manner consistently scored higher on the EOC examinations when compared to their counterparts in classrooms using block scheduling. The district leaders requested that research be completed to determine if these differences in achievement were the result of organizational structure or other factors in the learning environments. The research design was based on the theory that an examination of classroom dynamics is the preferred method to fully understand how teachers best function in their role and how students best learn (Bracey 2009a; Pianta 2006; Schlechty 1976; Lortie 1975; Jackson 1968; Waller 1961). As Bracey (2009b) noted, educational research should focus on teacher and student interactions and how teachers structure the learning environment to encourage these interactions. Research which focuses on how an average student or average teacher functions on an isolated task fails to take into account the importance of understanding how teachers and students Journal of Research in Education Volume 24, Number 2 Fall and Winter 2014 4 interact in the learning environment and the impact that this interaction has on both the quality of instruction and the amount of learning that takes place. Impact of School Organization Findings related to the impact of school organization and academic performance have been inconsistent. Zepeda and Mayers (2006) noted that findings in the area of block scheduling have been inconsistent and sometimes flawed to the degree that little information has been provided that would allow practitioners to make data based decisions. This inconsistency could be due, in part, to the fact that some teachers are not effectively using instructional time. For example, Queen, Algozzine, and Eaddy (1997) reported that 30% of observed teachers were still relying on lecture while 20 to 30 minutes of instructional time was either wasted or used to complete homework. Several researchers have investigated the relationship between organizational structure and student academic performance. When standardized test scores were used for comparison, researchers again reported mixed results. Knight, De Leon, and Smith (1999) and Gruber and Onwuegbuzie (2001) reported that students in traditional classrooms scored significantly higher than block students on standardized tests in both mathematics and language arts. Cobb, Abate, and Baker (1999) found that students in traditional classrooms scored significantly higher on standardized tests in mathematics while no differences were found in reading and writing. Conversely, Evans, Tokarczyk, Rice, and McCray (2002) reported higher AP scores for block schedule students; likewise, Fletcher (1997) and Khazzaka (1997) found that block scheduling positively affected achievement. However, Duel (1999) and Lare, Jablonski, and Salvaterra (2002) reported no significant difference when comparing standardized scores. In a study similar to the one being reported here, Lawrence and McPherson (2000), using average EOC examination scores in Algebra I, Biology I, English I, and U.S. History, found that students in traditional classrooms scored significantly higher than students in block classrooms. Impact of Classroom Dynamics To create supportive learning environments, one must first understand how teachers and students interact during both instructional and behavior management episodes (Pianta 2006). A major instructional strategy used by teachers to engage students in the learning environment is the use of questioning. The literature has long supported the fact that teachers spend much class time asking questions (Brualdi 1998; Stevens 1912). Classic research by Gallagher and Aschner (1963) developed a hierarchy of academic questions that included the following: low level thinking (cognitive memory and convergent) and high level thinking (divergent and evaluative). However, there are inconsistent findings regarding the relationship between level of cognitive questions and student achievement. For example, Wilen (1991) and Arends (1994) reported no difference between high level and low level questioning as they impact student achievement. Conversely, Rosenshine (1971) found a positive relationship existing between the level of cognitive questions and student achievement. Additionally, Wilen (1991) also found that the asking of high level questions encouraged students to use critical thinking when explaining answers and supporting responses; however, the researcher also reported that teachers asked primarily low level cognitive questions. Journal of Research in Education Volume 24, Number 2 Fall and Winter 2014 5 Higher student achievement has been associated with active student learning when paired with indirect teaching methods (Barron and Darling-Hammond 2008, Richards 2005); however, it has been reported that many high school teachers may not have been provided the training needed to successfully implement indirect strategies (Jenkins, Queen, and Algozzine 2001). Significantly, in a study of 2,100 students, it was reported that the use of indirect teaching methods that encourage communication, critical thinking, and problem solving were discovered to have a positive relationship to student achievement regardless of the students’ previous achievement, race, or gender (Newman, Marks, & Gamoran 1995). Non-instructional interactions can also have a powerful impact on the dynamics of the learning environment. Rimm-Kaufman, La Paro, Downer, and Pianta (2005) found that a low number of behavior management interactions was most consistently related to high classroom quality. Teachers who created an optimal learning environment minimized the time that students were off-task while encouraging a climate in which teachers and students were working on specific learning tasks. As, Waxman and Huang (1997) reported, on-task interactions between teachers and their students characterized effective classroom climates. Wiseman and Hunt (2014) reported that an increase in teacher management behaviors were found to be inversely correlated to teacher task behavior and student time-on-task behavior. Furthermore, Clough, Smasal, and Clough (1994) concluded that student behavior issues attracted the attention of all members in the classroom away from instructional tasks and made it more difficult to refocus students’ attention back on task. Therefore, the opportunity to dedicate time to learning was created by reducing behavior management problems, thus increasing the amount of time students were on task.