Opportunity to Learn: The Impacts and Policy Implications

This study investigated the relationship between students’ opportunity to learn (OIL) and their science achievement. The data are of 623 8th-graders enrolled in five public schools in Los Angeles, California. Hierarchical linear modeling was used to analyze OTL variables at two levels of instructional processes: the classroom level and the student level. Students’ science test scores are based on a written test and a hands-on test. OTL effects on these two test scores were studied to see whether the effects differ depending on how science achievement is measured. It was found that OTL variables were significant predictors of both written and hands-on test scores even after students’ general ability level, ethnicity, and gender were controlled. The OTL effects varied by test format (written test and hands-on test). Content exposure was the most significant predictor of students’ written test scores, and quality of instructional delivery was the most significant predictor of the hands-on test scores. In conclusion, OTL variables are not unitary constructs; they are multidimensional, and different dimensions of OTL should be measured simultaneously to properly document the OTL-achievement relation.

[1]  M. David Miller.  Time Allocation and Patterns of Item Response. , 1986 .

[2]  G. Hall.  Alternatives for a National Data System on Elementary and Secondary Education. , 1985 .

[3]  J. Carroll.  A Model of School Learning , 1963, Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education.

[4]  L. Poundie Burstein.  Chapter 4: The Analysis of Multilevel Data in Educational Research and Evaluation , 1980 .

[5]  J. Scheerens.  Process indicators of school functioning: A selection based on the research literature on school effectiveness , 1991 .

[6]  Early Mathematics Performance and Achievement: Results of a Study within a Large Suburban School System. , 1993 .

[7]  W. Popham,et al.  Implications of a Landmark Ruling on Florida's Minimum Competency Test. , 1981 .

[8]  Peter W. Airasian,et al.  LINKING TESTING AND INSTRUCTION: POLICY ISSUES , 1983 .

[9]  L. Darling-Hammond.  Creating Standards of Practice and Delivery for Learner-Centered Schools , 1993 .

[10]  Gaea Leinhardt,et al.  Overlap: What's Tested, What's Taught?. , 1981 .

[11]  Educational Indicators in the United States: The Need for Analysis , 1990 .

[12]  William H. Schmidt.  Validity as a Variable: Can the Same Certification Test Be Valid for All Students?. , 1982 .

[13]  Andrew C. Porter,et al.  Validity as a Variable , 1983 .

[14]  L. Poundie Burstein.  The Multilevel Effects of Background on Science Achievement: A Cross-National Comparison. , 1980 .

[15]  Ross E. Traub,et al.  Chapter 8: Latent Trait Theories and the Assessment of Educational Achievement , 1981 .

[16]  School Achievement: Thinking About What to Test. , 1983 .

[17]  J. Raths,et al.  The Schools’ Contribution to the Cumulating Deficit , 1971 .

[18]  Bengt Muthén,et al.  Using item-specific instructional information in achievement modeling , 1989 .

[19]  M. O’Connor,et al.  Changing assessments : alternative views of aptitude, achievement and instruction , 1994 .

[20]  A. Odden.  Research news and Comment: Educational Indicators in the United States: The Need for Analysis , 1990 .

[21]  J. Brophy.  Teacher behavior and student achievement , 1984 .

[22]  Sue S. Conard,et al.  An analysis of textbooks in relation to declining SAT scores : prepared for the Advisory Panel on the Scholastic Aptitude Test Score Decline , 1977 .

[23]  Lawrence C. Stedman.  Incomplete Explanations: The Case of U.S. Performance in the International Assessments of Education , 1994 .

[24]  Jack J. Kramer,et al.  The eleventh mental measurements yearbook. , 1992 .

[25]  W. Schmidt.  High school course taking: A study of variation , 1983 .

[26]  James W. Stigler,et al.  Why Our Schools Are Failing and What We Can Learn from Japanese and Chinese Education , 1993 .

[27]  H. Walberg,et al.  High School Effects on Individual Students , 1983 .

[28]  The Distribution of Instructional Time to Mathematical Content: One Aspect of Opportunity to Learn , 1992 .

[29]  DETECTING IMPACTS OF CURRICULAR DIFFERENCES IN ACHIEVEMENT TEST DATA , 1986 .

[30]  L. Resnick,et al.  Assessing the Thinking Curriculum: New Tools for Educational Reform , 1992 .

[31]  Anthony S. Bryk,et al.  Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods , 1992 .

[32]  Leigh Burstein,et al.  Instructionally Sensitive Psychometrics: Application of a New IRT‐Based Detection Technique to Mathematics Achievement Test Items , 1991 .

[33]  Richard J. Shavelson,et al.  Research on Teachers’ Pedagogical Thoughts, Judgments, Decisions, and Behavior , 1981 .

[34]  L. Poundie Burstein.  The Analysis of Multilevel Data in Educational Research and Evaluation , 1980 .

[35]  C. Greenwood,et al.  Environmental Variables Affecting the School Achievement of Culturally and Linguistically Different Learners: An Instructional Perspective. , 1986 .

[36]  L. Winfield.  Teachers' Estimates of Test Content Covered in Class and First-Grade Students' Reading Achievement , 1987, The Elementary School Journal.

[37]  Leigh Burstein,et al.  Discovering what schools really teach : designing improved coursework indicators , 1990 .

[38]  L. Winfield.  Resilience, Schooling, and Development in African-American Youth , 1991 .

[39]  Senta A. Raizen,et al.  Indicators of Precollege Education in Science and Mathematics, A Preliminary Review. , 1987 .

[40]  I. Osafehinti.  Opportunity-to-learn and achievement in secondary school mathematics , 1987 .

[41]  P. David Pearson.  Handbook of reading research. , 1990 .

[42]  M. Wittrock.  Handbook of research on teaching , 1986 .

[43]  Noreen M. Webb,et al.  Using Group Collaboration as a Window into Students' Cognitive Processes. , 1995 .

[44]  Jeannie Oakes,et al.  Multiplying Inequalities: The Effects of Race, Social Class, and Tracking on Opportunities to Learn Mathematics and Science , 1990 .

[45]  The Sixth Mental Measurements Yearbook , 1966 .

[46]  Andrew C. Porter,et al.  Creating a System of School Process Indicators , 1991 .

[47]  Douglas A. Grouws,et al.  Curriculum Pacing: Some Empirical Data in Mathematics , 1978 .

[48]  Floraline I. Stevens.  Applying an Opportunity-to-Learn Conceptual Framework to the Investigation of the Effects of Teaching Practices via Secondary Analyses of Multiple-Case-Study Summary Data. , 1993 .

[49]  Leigh Burstein.  Conceptual Considerations in Instructionally Sensitive Assessment. , 1989 .

[50]  M. Hallinan.  The Social Organization of Schools , 1987 .

[51]  Gaea Leinhardt,et al.  Reading Instruction and Its Effects , 1981 .

[52]  J. Oakes,et al.  Opportunity to Learn and Conceptions of Educational Equality , 1995 .

[53]  David C. Berliner.  Allocated Time, Engaged Time and Academic Learning Time in Elementary School Mathematics Instruction. , 1978 .

[54]  G. Madaus.  The Courts, Validity and Minimum Competency Testing , 1982 .

[55]  Linda F. Winfield,et al.  Investigating Test Content and Curriculum Content Overlap to Assess Opportunity to Learn. , 1993 .

[56]  Rebecca Barr,et al.  How Schools Work , 1991 .

[57]  Gaea Leinhardt,et al.  The Instructional Dimensions Study , 1980 .

[58]  Joan C. Baratz-Snowden.  Opportunity to Learn: Implications for Professional Development. , 1993 .

[59]  J. Oakes,et al.  Indicators for Monitoring Mathematics and Science Education: A Sourcebook , 1995 .