1

What does TALIS 2013 say about the time teachers report spending keeping order in

the classroom in Brazil, Chile and Mexico?

1. Introduction

In addition to being the focus of media reports, professional literature and

school staff room conversations, classroom management and student discipline are

some of the most commonly cited concerns by teachers (McCormack, 1997; Husu,

2003). Student discipline and behavior problems are also some of the areas for which

teachers report the highest levels of needs for professional development (OECD, 2009;

Jensen et al., 2012).

There are many different views about the causes of student discipline

problems, as well as about possible solutions to address these issues. Some regard

student indiscipline as a sign of a lack of interest in a perhaps outdated school format

and advocate a radical revision of school practices. Others see student misbehavior as

a result of poor parenting education and a lack of values. These proponents advocate

defining and reinforcing more assertive rules.

In any case, it is clear that classrooms with severe disciplinary problems are less

conducive to learning, since teachers have to spend time creating an orderly

environment before instruction can begin and dealing with interruptions during the

classroom. Keeping order in the classroom can really consume a large proportion of

instructional time, reducing students’ opportunities to learn (Cotton, 1989).

Student misbehavior also contributes to teacher dissatisfaction and stress,

affecting teachers’ attraction and retention. Along with low wages and low social

status, student behavior is one of the most cited reasons for Brazilian high school

students deciding not to enter teaching (Tartuce et al., 2010). It is also one of the main

reasons why secondary teachers leave teaching in England, along with heavy workload,

stress and government initiatives (OECD, 2005).

Argentina, Brazil and Chile are among the 10 countries in PISA 2012 with the

worse levels of disciplinary climate according to students (OECD, 2013). And student

misbehavior appears to produce negative effects on students’ opportunities to learn –

especially in Brazil. Brazilian teachers report spending the highest proportion of class

2

time keeping order in the classroom among teachers from all countries participating in

TALIS (Teaching and Learning International Survey) in 2008: around 18% of class time,

compared to an average of 13% among the TALIS countries (OECD, 2009).

One should expect that student misbehavior would cause teachers to spend

more time maintaining discipline in the classroom, but it is not the only factor that

determines the use of class time. One goal of this paper is to investigate which other

factors are associated with time spent by teachers keeping order in the classroom. By

doing this, the paper aims to contribute by identifying policies to support teachers in

dealing with student behavior.

As important as improving teachers’ capacity to deal with student behavior is to

reduce disciplinary problems and enhance school climate. This paper therefore also

aims as a second goal to identify the factors associated with student behavior

problems.

The study is based on in-depth analyses of the TALIS 2013 data from the three

Latin American countries participating in the survey: Brazil, Chile and Mexico.

2. Literature Review

The use of time in schools and classrooms has been a topic of considerable

research interest for some decades. John Carroll was one of the first researchers to

model the relationship between learning and time for instruction. Carroll’s (1963)

Model of School Learning emphasizes time as an important variable on learning, as

expressed in the contention that the degree of learning is a function of the ratio of the

time actually spent on learning to the time needed to learn.

Carroll’s ideas stimulated a wave of research on instructional time and learning.

Many studies made efforts to establish statistical associations between time variables

and student achievement (Karweit, 1984; Baker et al., 2004); others assessed the loss

of learning time and its determinants at system, school and classroom levels (Smith,

1998; Abadzi, 2007); and still others were focused on issues of teaching practices and

classroom dynamics (Stallings, 1980; Carnoy et al., 2003; Martinic et al., 2013).

Most studies focus on one or more of the following time measures: (1)

allocated instructional time; (2) actual instructional time; and (3) engaged time.

3

Allocated instructional time – or just instructional time – is the time students

are expected to be receiving instruction in formal classroom settings. Actual

instructional time is the portion of classroom time actually spent teaching students

particular knowledge, concepts and skills pertaining to school subjects. Engaged time,

or time on task, refers to portions of time during which students are paying attention

to a learning task and attempting to learn (Karweit & Slavin, 1981; Cotton, 1989).

Even if time is allocated for instructional activities, once the class starts, time is

not completely spent on teaching and learning. There are many sources of lost

instructional time, such as student interruptions (disruptive behavior); teacher

interruptions (e.g. disciplinary actions, calling the office); transitions; later starts; early

dismissals; recording attendance; and handing out school information (Karweit, 1984;

Smith, 1998).

Teachers with instructional practices that are considered effective by experts

have higher rates of student time on task (Espin & Yell, 1994). Students who are

actively engaged and provided with frequent opportunities to respond to academic

tasks are less disruptive and demonstrate improved academic skills (Sutherland &

Wehby, 2001). Oliver et al. (2011) conducted a review which indicates that many

studies have shown that successful classroom management enhances students’

academic learning time by influencing positively their attention, engagement, and

motivation.

As Piwowar et al. (2013) point out, classroom management competencies are

an integral part of the “landscape of professional knowledge” and encompass a wide

variety of skills. Effective classroom management involves the application of

preventive strategies such as proactive planning, establishing rules, monitoring student

behavior, or cultivating a functioning working alliance, but also with reactive strategies

such as effectively dealing with disruption or resolving conflicts (Hawley et al., 1984;

Gettinger & Seibert, 2002; Piwowar et al., 2013).

Teachers with highly effective instruction and classroom management can

reduce, but do not fully eliminate, classroom behavior problems (Emmer & Stough,

2001). School climate may improve when school staff agree and collaborate over

disciplinary issues. This can be facilitated by the development of a school-wide

disciplinary policy that provides a framework for preventing and intervening with

4

disruptions and offering collegial support to teachers (Porter, 2006). Wide consultation

with staff, students and parents through the process should ensure that these

important actors are active participants in defining the disciplinary policy, both

because there is a moral obligation to consult them and also because doing so

improves policy effectiveness (Porter, 2006).

3. Data

This analysis is based on data from the OECD Teaching and Learning

International Survey (TALIS) from 2013. TALIS is an international, large-scale survey

that focuses on the working conditions of teachers and the learning environment in

schools.

The first cycle of TALIS was conducted in 2008 and surveyed teachers and

school leaders of lower secondary education in 24 countries. In the second cycle, TALIS

2013 has expanded to include additional countries, getting to a total of 33 participants.

TALIS data are based on self-reports from teachers and school leaders and

therefore represent their opinions, perceptions, beliefs and accounts of their activities.

This means all the variables analyzed by this paper are based on teacher or school

leaders’ reports, not on direct observation or on administrative records.

This study is focused on teachers working in the lower secondary education in

Brazil, Chile and Mexico.

4. Methods

The first purpose of this work is to identify the factors that are associated with

the percentage of time teachers report spending keeping order in the classroom. In

order to do this, the analysis takes in to account the hierarchical nature of TALIS data,

in which teachers (and their classes) are within schools, and schools are within

countries. Teachers within a school share the same school population, climate and

internal procedures. Because of this, it is expected that two teachers randomly chosen

within the same school will tend to spend more similar amounts of time keeping order

in the classroom than two teachers randomly chosen from different schools.

5

Hierarchical linear models (HLM) are commonly used in the educational field due to

their capacity to deal with the hierarchical nature of educational data (Raudenbush

and Bryk, 2002; Snijders and Bosker, 1999).

In this model, the dependent variable is the percentage of class time each

teacher reports spending keeping order in the classroom. The explanatory variables at

the teacher level are as follows:

• Percentage of students with behavior problems in the target class1;

• Percentage of students from socioeconomically disadvantaged homes in the

target class;

• Years of teaching experience;

• Gender of the teacher;

• Class size in the target class;

• The subject of the target class was included in the teacher’s initial formal

education;

• The pedagogy of the subjects taught was included in the teacher’s formal

education;

• The classroom practice (practicum, internship or student teaching) of the

subjects taught was included in the teacher’s formal education;

• Index on teacher’s participation on effective professional development. It is

composed of the elements contained in the kind of professional development

reportedly attained by the teacher:

• A group of colleagues from my school or subject group;

• Opportunities for active learning methods (not only listening to a

lecturer);

• Collaborative learning activities or research with other teachers;

• An extended time-period (several occasions spread out over several

weeks or months);

• Participation in professional development covering knowledge and

understanding of the teacher’s subject field in the last 12 months, with a

perceived large impact in his/her teaching;

1 Variable pertaining to the target class are reported by the teacher regarding a randomly selected class

they currently teach.

6

• Participation in professional development covering pedagogical competencies

in the teacher’s subject field in the last 12 months, with a perceived large

impact in his/her teaching;

• Participation in professional development covering student behavior and

classroom management, with a perceived large impact in his/her teaching;

The explanatory variables at the school level are as follows:

• Percentage of teachers with more than 10% of students with behavior

problems in the school;

• Percentage of teachers with more than 10% of students from

socioeconomically disadvantaged homes in the school;

• School management (publicly or privately managed school);

• School mean index of professional collaboration. It is composed of teachers’

answers to these questions:

o Teach jointly as a team in the same class;

o Observe other teachers’ classes and provide feedback;

o Engage in joint activities across different classes and age groups (e.g.

projects);

o Take part in collaborative professional learning.

The second purpose of this paper is to identify the factors that are associated

with higher percentages of students with behavior problems in the class. In other

words, it aims to identify the profiles of teachers – and their schools – who report

having the highest proportions of students with behavior problems.

An ordered logistic regression was conducted to address this research goal. The

dependent variable was the categorical variable representing the percentage of

students with behavior problems in the target class. The explanatory variables at the

teacher/class level included:

• Percentage of students from socioeconomically disadvantaged homes in the

target class;

• Years of teaching experience;

• Class size in the target class;

The explanatory variables at the school level included:

7

• Percentage of teachers with more than 10% of students with behavior

problems in the school;

• School management (publicly or privately managed school);

• School size;

• School location (according to the size of population);

• School mean index of participation among stakeholders. It is composed by

teachers’ answers to these questions:

o This school provides staff with opportunities to actively participate in

school decisions;

o This school provides parents or guardians with opportunities to actively

participate in school decisions;

o This school provides students with opportunities to actively participate

in school decisions;

o This school has a culture of shared responsibility for school issues;

o There is a collaborative school culture which is characterized by mutual

support.

Estimations were conducted for each country to examine the factors associated

with both time spent keeping order and the percentage of students with behavior

problems within each country. For each of these outcome variables, regression

analysis was conducted separately.

4. Main Findings

Some of the main findings show that initial teacher education, professional

development and teacher professional collaboration are important players in reducing

the amount of time spend by teacher keeping order in the classroom. Findings also

suggest that teachers in schools with higher levels of participation among stakeholders

are less likely to have high percentages of students with behavior problems.

Because TALIS 2013 results and database were not yet publicized (and still

under embargo until the official release on 25 June 2014), the following figure shows

only an overview of the results obtained in this analysis. It does not show detailed

8

results by country. Nonetheless, the final presentation will contain the detailed results,

since TALIS 2013 data will have been released by then.

Figure 1. Results' overview

Source: TALIS 2013 database.

Class time keeping order

Student behaviour

School location Socioeconomic

background

Participation among stakeholders

Teacher experience

Professional collaboration

Content on subject taught

Pedagogy on subject taught

Formal education

Professional development

9

5. References

Abadzi, H. (2007). Instructional time loss and local level governance. Prospects, vol.

XXXVII, no. 1, March 2007.

Baker, D.; Fabrega, R.; Galindo, C.; Mishook, J. (2004) Instructional time and national

achievement: cross-national evidence. Prospects, vol. XXXIV, no. 3, 311-334.

Carnoy, M.; Gove, A.; Marshall, J. (2003). As razões das diferenças de desempenho

acadêmico na América Latina: dados qualitativos do Brasil, Chile e Cuba. Revista

Brasileira de Estudos Pedagógicos, v. 84, n. 206/207/208, 7-33.

Carroll, J. B. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64, 723-733.

Cotton, K. (1989). Educational time factors. Close up #8. Portland, OR: Northwest

Regional Educational Laboratory.

Emmer, E.; Stough, L. (2001). Classroom management: A critical part of educational

psychology, with implications for teacher education. Educational Psychologist, 36, 103-

112.

Espin, C.; Yell, M. (1994). Critical indicators of effective teaching for preservice

teachers: relationships between teaching behaviors and ratings of effectiveness.

Teacher Education and Special Education, 17, 154-169.

Gettinger, M.; Seibert, J. (2002). Best practices in increasing academic learning time.

Best practices in school psychology, IV, v. 1, p. 773-787.

Hawley, D.; Rosenholtz, S.; Goodstein, H.; Hasselbring, T. (1984). Good Schools: What

Research Says about Improving Student Achievement. Peabody Journal of Education,

Vol. 61, No. 4, pp. iii-vi+1-178.

Husu, J. (2003). What a difference a discipline approach makes? Constructing

performing quality in teacher-student relations. Paper presented at the Biennial

Conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction in

Padua, Italy.

Jensen, B.; Sandoval-Hernández, A.; Knoll, S.; Gonzalez, E. (2012). The Experience of

New Teachers: Results from TALIS 2008. Paris: OECD Publishing.

Karweit, N. (1984). Time-on-task reconsidered: synthesis of research on time and

learning. Educational Leadership, May 1984, 32-35.

10

Karweit, N.; Slavin, R. (1981). Measurement and modelling choices in studies of time

and learning. American Educational Research Journal, vol. 18, n. 2, 157-171.

Martinic, S.; Vergara, C.; Huepe, D. (2013). Uso del tiempo e interacciones en la sala de

clases. Un estudio de caso en Chile. Pro-Posições, v. 24, n. 1 (70), 123-135.

McCormack, A. (1997). Classroom management problems, strategies, and influences in

physical education. European Physical Review, 3(2), 102-115.

OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) (2005) Teachers

matter: attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers. Paris: OECD Publishing.

_____ (2009) Creating effective teaching and learning environments: first results from

TALIS. Paris: OECD Publishing.

_____ (2013) PISA 2012 Results: Excellence through Equity - Giving Every Student the

Chance to Succeed (Volume II). Paris: OECD Publishing.

Oliver, R.; Wehby, J.; Reschly, D. (2011). Teacher classroom management practices:

effects on disruptive or aggressive student behavior. Campbell Systematic Reviews

2011.4.

Piwowar, V.; Thiel, F.; Ophardt, D. (2013). Training inservice teachers' competencies in

classroom management: a quasi-experimental study with teachers of secondary

schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 30, 1-12.

Porter, L. (2006). Behavior in schools: theory and practice for teachers. Maidenhead:

Open University Press.

Raudenbush, S.; Bryk, A. (2002) Hierarchical linear models: applications and data

analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Smith, B. (1998). It's about time: opportunities to learn in Chicago's public schools.

Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.

Snijders, T.; Bosker, R. (1999) Multilevel Analysis: An Introduction to Basic and

Advanced Multilevel Modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Stallings, J. (1980) Allocated academic learning time revisited, or beyond time on task.

Educational Researcher, v. 9, n. 11, p. 11-16.

Sutherland, K.; Wehby, J. (2001) The effect of self-evaluation on teaching behavior in

classrooms for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. The Journal of

Special Education, 35.3, 161-171.

11

Tartuce, G.; Nunes, M.; Almeida, P. (2010). Alunos do ensino médio e a atratividade da

carreira docente no Brasil. Cadernos de Pesquisa, v. 40, n. 140, p. 445-477.

Con formato: Español (Chile)