A Glance at the “Failed Classrooms”

Author(s):

Reyes Hernández-Castilla (submitting) Haylen Perines (presenting) F. Javier Murillo Cynthia Martinez-Garrido NIna HIdalgo Inmaculada Tello

Conference:

ECER 2014

Network:

11. Educational Improvement and Quality Assurance

Format:

Paper

Session Information

11 SES 08 B, Teacher’s Approaches to Remedial and Adult Education of Quality

Paper Session

Time:

2014-09-04

09:00-10:30

Room:

B232A/B Sala de Aulas

Chair:

Irina Maslo

Contribution

Research on effective teaching has given a lot of information about what happens in classrooms where their students learn more than it could be expected by their context (eg Anderson, 2004; Borich, 2009; Brown, 2009; Creemers, 1994, Good, Wiley and Florez, 2009; Hunt, Wiseman, and Touzel, 2009, Kaplan and Owings, 2002; Killen, 2006; Murillo, 2005, 2007a, 2007b; Murillo, Martinez-Garrido & Hernandez-Castilla, 2011; Orlich, Harder, Callahan, Trevisan and Brown, 2010; Stronge, Tucker, and Hindman, 2004; Teddlie, Kirby, Stringfield, 1989; Walberg and Paik, 2000; Wenglinsky, 2002). Thus, we have a clear idea of what classroom factors are associated with student learning.

However, there is no much literature on what happens in classrooms where students get lower results than could be expected. What we have called "underperforming classrooms."

There is a strong tradition on studding schools that "failed" compared to other particularly effective (eg Bobbett, Ellett, Teddlie, Livier and Rugutt, 2002; Shefali 2011), or describing their characteristics (Stoll, 2005; van de Grift and Houtveen, 2006, 2007). However, studies focused on what happens in the classrooms where children learn less than it would be expected, there are much less frequent. In Latin America, the lack of such studies is even more evident (Murillo, 2007a).

The objective of this research is to understand which elements of the classroom determine that the Primary students do not learn as much as would be expected given their educational and sociocultural context.

Perhaps for studying this type of classroom – the key element is its sampling of such classrooms. How do we know they really are "failed"?

This paper comes from a previous study in which a study of 90 classrooms in eight countries in Latin America were characterized by their low outcomes in national assessments or in the supervisor opinion (Murillo, 2007b). Data from different performance variables, cognitive (Performance in mathematics and Language) and socio-affective (Self-concept, Coexistence, Social development and Satisfaction with the school) were obtained and worked from an Added Value approach (controlling previous performance, Socio-economic level and cultural family level, Mother tongue and Cultural group). With these variables data the eight classrooms, one for each country, with a worse than expected performance for its context were selected.

Method

A case study with eight classrooms of Primary schools, which were particularly ineffective, was performed, from seven Latin American countries (Colombia, Chile, Cuba, Ecuador, Panama, Peru and Venezuela) and Spain. In this work a classroom "failed" has been defined as one in which the students got an achievement below what is expected in Language and Mathematics, Self-concept, Satisfaction with school, Coexistence and social behaviour, taking into account other variables like their previous performance, socio-economic level and cultural family level, Habitat, native language and their origin (immigrant / not). As previously mentioned, the sample of schools was based on a Latin American study which 90 classrooms in 40 schools (5 in each country), were chosen due to their particularly low performance in national assessment tests or supervisors reports. From this data in each country the classroom with worst results presented from the perspective of value added were selected. These eight classrooms analysed the named "failed classrooms." In each of these in-depth classroom studies several data collection techniques were used was performed: Classroom observation, parents and student focus groups, and teachers semi structured interviews. After the creation of the hermeneutic unit and the subsequent allocation of primary documents adapted to be use with the ATLAS.ti software. A dual analysis method called "bottom-up" and "top down ", ie, has been used, inductive and deductive process. Inductive for working directly with the primary documents, and to be completed with the inductive, in order to contrast with the factors founded in international research of teaching efficacy.

Expected Outcomes

Information can be classified into six elements that characterize these classrooms: 1. Teaching strategies. Teachers’ use very limited teaching strategies. Restricted to simple reproduction of content. Classes are expository, it is unusual that the teacher poses open questions, or reflections; the task has only one way to succeed. 2. Time management. A general mismanagement of time it is observed, either by the lack of timeliness at the beginning of the sessions, or by excessive time consumed during the development of the class distribution activities or maintenance of discipline, but also it is observed of instructional time lost. 3. Special needs and classroom diversity. In these classrooms discrimination and exclusion practices were observed with those students with the greater learning difficulties. These children are seen working in isolation, doing more simple, boring and even more "reproductive" activities than their classmates. 4. Assessment Strategies. The evaluation of learning does not seem to be sufficiently drawn on to highlight the achievements and weaknesses in the student development. When children make mistakes the teachers are limited to point them. No benefit is derived from the assessment, nor viewed, as an opportunity to rectify and achieve desired learning. 5. Classroom environment. In some of these classroom chaos predominates: there is much noise and conversation among students, abundant chairs movement, students who move in and out of the classroom and insufficient attention in class. 6. Classroom resources and schoolroom. Some of the classrooms studied are carelessness: the rooms are small, unfriendly and with little ornamentation on their walls.

References

Anderson, L.M. (2004). Increasing teaching effectiveness. Paris: UNESCO-IIPE. Borich, G. (2009). Effective Teaching Methods. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Pub Co. Bobbett, J. L., Ellett, C. D., Teddlie, C., Olivier, D., & Ruggett, J. (2002). School culture and school effectiveness in demonstrably effective and ineffective schools. In annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Brown, A. (2009). Teaching Strategies: A Guide to Effective Instruction. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. Creemers, B.P.M. (1994). The effective classroom. Londres: Cassell. Good, TL., Wiley, C.R.H. y Florez, I.R. (2009). Effective Teaching: An Emerging Synthesis. En L.J. Saha y A.G. Dworkin (Eds.), International Handbook of Research on Teachers and Teaching (pp. 803-815). Nueva York: Springer. Hunt, G.H., Wiseman, D.G. y Touzel, T.J. (2009). Effective teaching: preparation and implementation. Springfield, Ill: Charles C Thomas. Kaplan, L.S. y Owings, W.A (2002). Teacher quality, teaching quality and school improvement. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation. Killen, R. (2006). Effective teaching strategies. Sidney: Thomsom. Murillo, F.J. (2005). La investigación sobre eficacia escolar. Barcelona: Octaedro. Murillo. F.J. (Coord.) (2007a). Investigación Iberoamericana sobre Eficacia Escolar. Bogotá: Convenio Andrés Bello. Murillo, F.J. (2007b). School Effectiveness Research in Latin America. En T. Townsend (Ed.), International Handbook of School Effectiveness and Improvement (pp. 75-92). Nueva York: Springer. Murillo, F.J. y Hernández-Castilla, R. (2011). Factores escolares asociados al desarrollo socio-afectivo en Iberoamérica. RELIEVE, 17(2). Murillo, F.J., Martínez-Garrido, C. y Hernández-Castilla, R. (2011). Decálogo para una enseñanza eficaz. REICE Revista Iberoamericana sobre Calidad Eficacia y Cambio en Educación, 9(1), 6-27. Orlich, D.C., Harder, R.J., Callahan, R.C., Trevisan, M.S. y Brown, A.H. (2010). Teaching Strategies: A Guide to Effective Instruction. Boston, MA: Wadsworth. Stronge, J.H., Tucker, P.D. y Hindman, J.L. (2004). Handbook for qualities of effective teachers. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Teddlie, C., Kirby, P.C. y Stringfield, S. (1989) Effective versus ineffective schools: Observable differences in the classroom. American Journal of Education, 97(3), 221-237. Walberg, J.H. y Paik, D.J. (2000). Effective educational practices. Ginebra: IBE/UNESCO. Weinstein, R. S. (2002). Reaching higher: the power of expectations in schooling. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wenglinksy, H. (2002). How schools matter. The link between teacher classroom practices and student academic performance. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(12), 1-24.