The Relationship of Middle School Program Features,Instructional Strategy,Instructional Performance,and Student Engagement

Abstract

This study investigated whether school program features consistent with the middle school concept were associated with differences in teachers' instructional strategy, teachers' instructional performance, or student engagement.

The programs of six schools were classified as consistent or inconsistent with the middle school movement on each of four features: (a) the assignment of students to non-mathematics classes, (b) the establishment of homeroom or core classes, (c) the modification of the standard class schedule, and (d) the use of supplemental counseling approaches. Few relationships were observed between school program features and class-level variables, and these were attributed to chance occurrences. A second analysis conducted at the class level revealed strong relationships between teachers' instructional performance and student engagement, although no relationships were observed between the instructional strategy variables and student engagement. Implications of these findings for the middle school movement and school reorganization and improvement are discussed.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Borg, W. , & Ascione, F. R. (1979). Changing on-task, off-task and disruptive behavior in elementary mainstreaming classrooms. Journal of Educational Research, 72, 243-252.

Bossert, S. T. (1979). Tasks and social relationships in classrooms: A study of instructional organization and its consequences. American Sociological Association, Arnold and Caroline Rose Monograph Series. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Brophy, J. , & Evertson, C. (1974). Process-product correlations in the Texas teacher effectiveness study: Final Report (RES. REP. 74-4). Austin, TX: R&D Center for Teacher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 091 394).

Coopock, N. , & Hale, N. (1977). Middle schools. Burlingame, CA: Association of California School Administrators.

Dunkin, M. J. , & Biddle, B. J. (1974). The study of teaching. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Evertson, C. M. , Anderson, C. W. , Anderson, L. W. , & Brophy, J. E. (1980). Relationships between classroom behaviors and student outcomes in junior high mathematics and English classes. American Educational Research Journal, 17, 43-60.

Fisher, C. W. , Berliner, D. C. , Filby, N. N. , Marliave, R. S. , Cahen, L. S. , & Dishaw, M. M. (1980). Teaching behaviors, academic learning time, and student achievement: An over-view. In C. Denham & A. Lieberman (Eds.), Time to learn. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.

Good, T. L. (1979). Teacher effectiveness in the elementary school. Journal of Teacher Education, 30, 52-64.

Hansen, J. H. , & Hearn, A. C. (1971). The middle school program. Chicago: Rand McNally.

10.

Klingele, W. E. (1979). Teaching in middle schools. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

11.

Little, J. W. (1981). School success and staff development in urban desegregated schools: A summary of recently completed research. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles.

12.

Little, J. W. (1982). Norms of collegiality and experimentation: Workplace conditions of school success. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 325-340.

13.

Lounsbury, J. H. , Mariani, J. V. , & Compton, M. F. (1980). The middle school in profile: A day in the seventh grade. Fairborn, OH: National Middle School Association.

14.

McGlasson, M. (1973). The middle school: Where, what, whither? Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation. (Phi Delta Kappa Fastback No. 22).

15.

Mergendeller, J. R. , Mitman, A. L. , & Ward, B. A. (1982). Junior high/middle school program variation study. San Francisco: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development.

16.

Mitman, A. L. (1981). Effects of teachers' naturally occurring expectations and a feedback treatment on teachers and students (Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.) Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, 618-A. (University Microfilms No. 8115812)

17.

Mitman, A. L. , Lash, A. A. , & Mergendoller, J. R. (1985). The relationship of school program features to the attitudes and performance of early adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 5.

18.

Moss, T. C. (1971). Characteristics of a good middle school. NASSP Bulletin, 55, 71-74.

19.

Rosenshine, B. (1979). Content, time and direct instruction. In P. Peterson & H. Walberg (Eds.), Research on teaching: Concepts, findings and implications. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

20.

Rounds, T. S. , Ward, B. A. , Mergendoller, J. R. , & Tikunoff, W. J. (1982). Junior high transition study: Volume 11. Organization of instruction, elementary-junior high school comparison. San Francisco: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development.

21.

Stallings, J. , & Kaskowitz, D. (1974). Follow through classroom observation evaluation 1972-1973. Menlo Park, CA: Stanford Research Institute.