In the past decade, a number of methodologies have been proposed for observation in the classroom. Generally, this research has focused on the use of one instrument and has rarely reported results from validation investigations. The current study, however, employed two direct observation instruments concurrently within two reading programs—Breaking the Code and an Eclectic Program—in middle school resource rooms. A momentary time sample of task engagement and an event record of discrete student responses were employed in six classrooms representing the two programs. A multimethod validation process was implemented, focusing on treatment and criterion-related validities. Many findings were program-specific, with differences lost or diluted when data were combined across programs. An argument is presented for structuring observation in a manner sensitive to classroom activity structures.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson, L. W. (1980). New directions for research on instruction and time-on-task. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.
2.
Berliner, D. (1983). Developing conceptions of classroom environments: Some light on the T in classroom studies of ATI. Educational Psychologist, 18(1), 1–13.
3.
Bloom, B. S. (1980). The new direction in educational research: Alterable variables. Phi Delta Kappan, 61, 382–385.
4.
Carroll, J. B. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64, 723–733.
5.
CTB/McGraw Hill. (1985). California achievement tests, Form E.Monterey, CA: Author.
6.
Doyle, W. (1977). Paradigms for research on teacher effectiveness. In L. S. Shulman (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 5, pp. 163–199). Itasca, IL: Pearock.
7.
Early, M., Cooper, E. K., & Santeusanio, N. (1979). Bookmark reading program.New York: Harcourt-Brace-Jovanovich.
8.
Fisher, C., Berliner, D., Filby, N., Marliave, R., Cahen, L., & Dishaw, M. (1980). Teaching behaviors, learning time and student achievement: An overview. In C. Denham & A. Lieberman (Eds.), Time to learn (pp. 7–22). Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.
9.
Frederick, W. C., & Walberg, H. J. (1980). Learning as a function of time. Journal of Educational Research, 73(4), 183–194.
10.
Green, S. B., & Alverson, L. G. (1978). A comparison of indirect measures for long duration behaviors. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 530.
11.
Greenwood, C., Delquadri, J., & Hall, V. (1984). Opportunity to respond and student academic performance. In W. Heward, T. Heron, D. Hill, & J. Trap-Porter (Eds.), Focus on behavior analysis in education (pp. 58–88). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
12.
Haertel, G. D., Walberg, H. J., & Weinstein, T. (1983). Psychological models of educational performance: A theoretical synthesis of constructs. Review of Educational Research, 53(1), 75–91.
13.
Harnishfeger, A., & Wiley, D. E. (1985). Origins of active learning time. In C. W. Fisher & D. C. Berliner (Eds.), Perspectives on instructional time (pp. 133–156). New York: Longman.
14.
Harris, A. P., & Jacobson, M. D. (1972). Basic elementary reading vocabularies.New York: Macmillan.
15.
Hoge, R. D. (1985). The validity of direct observation measures of pupil classroom behavior. Review of Educational Research, 55(4), 469–483.
16.
Jenkins, J., & Stein, M. (undated). Washington classroom observation schedule—experimental version. Seattle: University of Washington.
17.
Karweit, N. (1983). Time-on-task: A research review (Report No. 332). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University, Center for Social Organization of Schools.
18.
Karweit, N., & Slavin, R. E. (1981). Measurement and modeling choices in studies of time and learning. American Educational Research Journal, 18, 157–171.
19.
Lebo, J. D., Hughs, A., Thomas, N., & Gurren, L. (1975). Breaking the code.La-Salle, IL: Open Court.
20.
Leinhardt, G. (1980). Modeling and measuring educational treatment in evaluation. Review of Educational Research, 50, 393–420.
21.
Powell, J., Martindale, B., & Kulp, S. (1975). An evaluation of time-sample measures of behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8, 463–469.
22.
Powell, J., & Rockinson, R. (1978). On the inability of interval time sampling to reflect frequency of occurrence data. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 531–532.
23.
Repp, A. C., Roberts, D. M., Slack, D. J., Repp, C. F., & Berkler, M. S. (1976). A comparison of frequency, interval, and time-sampling methods of data collection. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 9, 501–508.
24.
Rosenshine, B. V., & Berliner, D. (1978). Academic engaged time. British Journal of Teacher Education, 4, 3–15.
25.
Stanley, S. O., & Greenwood, C. R. (1981). CISSAR: Code for instructional structure and student academic response: Observer's manual. Kansas City, University of Kansas, Bureau of Child Research, Juniper Gardens Children's Project.
26.
Stuck, G. B. (1980) Time-on-task and school achievement: Classroom intervention research. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.
27.
Test, D., & Heward, W. L. (1984). Accuracy of momentary time sampling: A comparison of fixed- and variable-interval observation schedules. In W. Heward, T. Heron, D. Hill, & J. Trap-Porter (Eds.), Focus on behavior analysis in education (pp. 177–196). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
28.
Thurlow, M., & Ysseldyke, J. (1983). Instructional intervention research: An integrative summary of findings (Research Report #143). University of Minnesota Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
