CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 8, 391-402 (1983) Student Behaviors, Teacher Reinforcement, Student Ability, and Learning MARIBETH GETTINGER University of Wisconsin-Madison Ninety-eight children were observed for 6-min periods on each of 10 days during 50-min, small-group classes in either mathematics, science, geography, or language usage. Two student behaviors (on-task behavior and accuracy of responding to teacher-directed questions) and three types of teacher reinforcement (verbal re- inforcement for on-task behavior and accurate responding and tangible reinforcers) were coded during each observation period. A post-test of achievement, directly related to the content of the lessons, was administered at the end of the 10 days of instruction. The causal effects of student behaviors, teacher reinforcement, and student ability (reading achievement and intelligence) on achievement were eval- uated using path analysis. The strongest effects were from student ability mea- sures, with accurate responding by students and teacher reinforcement of accurate responding exhibiting smaller, but significant effects. Findings are discussed to qualify the relationship between overt classroom behaviors and degree of learning and the mediating effects of student ability. The identification of student characteristics that relate to amount learned or overall achievement has received a great deal of attention among ed- ucational researchers in recent years. In particular, considerable research has been carried out to suggest a causal relationship between classroom behavior and academic achievement. Several direct observation proce- dures have been devised in an attempt to categorize and code student behaviors (see Rosenshine & Furst, 1973, for review). As a result, prog- ress has been made in describing specific behaviors and, subsequently, quantifying the relationship between overt behavior and degree of learning. Student engagement during classroom instruction has emerged as one behavior that bears a significant relationship to academic achievement (Rosenshine & Berliner, 1978). While several indices of student engage- ment have been reported in the literature, those that measure on-task or attentive behavior have typically yielded significant correlations between level of student engagement and level of achievement. Bloom (1976) re- ported a median correlation of + .58 between student engagement (i.e., on-task behavior) and achievement gains from 14 individual studies. Sev- eral researchers (Anderson & Scott, 1978; Cobb, 1972; Gettinger & Fayne, The author thanks Ann Drivas for her assistance in the preparation of this manuscript and the staff and children at Englishton Park Training Center for their participation in this study. Requests for reprints should be sent to the author, Department of Educational Psy- chology, University of Wisconsin, 1025 West Johnson Street, Madison, WI 53706. 391 0361-476X/83 $3.00 Copyright 0 1983 by Academic Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
Student Behaviors, Teacher Reinforcement, Student Ability, and Learning
MARIBETH GETTINGER University of Wisconsin-Madison
Ninety-eight children were observed for 6-min periods on each of 10 days during 50-min, small-group classes in either mathematics, science, geography, or language usage. Two student behaviors (on-task behavior and accuracy of responding to teacher-directed questions) and three types of teacher reinforcement (verbal re- inforcement for on-task behavior and accurate responding and tangible reinforcers) were coded during each observation period. A post-test of achievement, directly related to the content of the lessons, was administered at the end of the 10 days of instruction. The causal effects of student behaviors, teacher reinforcement, and student ability (reading achievement and intelligence) on achievement were eval- uated using path analysis. The strongest effects were from student ability mea- sures, with accurate responding by students and teacher reinforcement of accurate responding exhibiting smaller, but significant effects. Findings are discussed to qualify the relationship between overt classroom behaviors and degree of learning and the mediating effects of student ability.
The identification of student characteristics that relate to amount learned or overall achievement has received a great deal of attention among ed- ucational researchers in recent years. In particular, considerable research has been carried out to suggest a causal relationship between classroom behavior and academic achievement. Several direct observation proce- dures have been devised in an attempt to categorize and code student behaviors (see Rosenshine & Furst, 1973, for review). As a result, prog- ress has been made in describing specific behaviors and, subsequently, quantifying the relationship between overt behavior and degree of learning.
Student engagement during classroom instruction has emerged as one behavior that bears a significant relationship to academic achievement (Rosenshine & Berliner, 1978). While several indices of student engage- ment have been reported in the literature, those that measure on-task or attentive behavior have typically yielded significant correlations between level of student engagement and level of achievement. Bloom (1976) re- ported a median correlation of + .58 between student engagement (i.e., on-task behavior) and achievement gains from 14 individual studies. Sev- eral researchers (Anderson & Scott, 1978; Cobb, 1972; Gettinger & Fayne,
The author thanks Ann Drivas for her assistance in the preparation of this manuscript and the staff and children at Englishton Park Training Center for their participation in this study. Requests for reprints should be sent to the author, Department of Educational Psy- chology, University of Wisconsin, 1025 West Johnson Street, Madison, WI 53706.
391 0361-476X/83 $3.00 Copyright 0 1983 by Academic Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
392 MARIBETH GETTINGER
1982; McKinney, Mason, Perkerson, & Clifford, 1975) have presented evidence that measures of on-task behavior are correlated with mea- sures of achievement for children within a wide range of grade levels (K through 10).
Another index of student engagement that has received somewhat less attention in recent research is overt responding to teacher questions. While the relationship between degree of student responding during in- struction and postinstruction achievement has not been consistently doc- umented (Wright & Nuthall, 1970), there is some evidence to suggest that the use of frequent questions during instruction increases on-task be- havior and, concomitantly, improves learning (McKenzie, 1979). Fur- thermore, there also appears to be a relationship between reinforcement of academic performance (including accurate in-class responding) and subsequent achievement (Lysakowski & Walberg, 1981; Walker & Hops, 1976). Thus, while the association between responding to questions and achievement is not as clearly established as it is between on-task behavior and achievement, particular aspects of responding (i.e., accuracy and reinforcement) seem most effective for learning.
In addition to focusing on student behaviors during classroom instruc- tion, researchers have concerned themselves with teacher behaviors and their impact on student learning (Anderson & Scott, 1978; Walker & Hops, 1976; Wright 8z Nuthall, 1970). In a review of research on teaching behaviors, Rosenshine (1976) concluded that asking narrow, content-spe- cific questions and providing positive feedback were two teacher behav- iors, in particular, that correlated highly with student learning. In a recent review and synthesis, Lysakowski and Walbert (1981) further suggested that the effect of teacher reinforcement on academic achievement is gen- erally large. Thus, as already suggested, positive teacher reactions to student behavior and responses appear to facilitate student achievement significantly.
In light of these separate findings concerning student and teacher be- haviors, the purpose of the present investigation was to examine the relationships among student behaviors exhibited during class instruction, teacher reinforcement of those behaviors, student ability, and achieve- ment. Through systematic observation and coding of both student and teacher behaviors during small-group instruction as well as the use of criterion-referenced achievement tests derived from the content of the instruction, this study sought to evaluate the causal relationship between classroom behavior and actual degree of learning of instructional content. Furthermore, the study evaluated the extent to which this relationship is mediated by student ability and/or teacher reinforcement of classroom behavior. Based on prior research that has documented both a facilitative effect of teacher reinforcement for improving student behavior and re-
STUDENT BEHAVIORS AND LEARNING 393
sponding as well as a significant relationship between student engagement and achievement, the present investigation will provide insight into the interrelationship among all three variables.
METHOD
Subjects A total of 98 boys, who had recently completed the fourth grade, participated in this
study. All children were attending a summer school program in southeastern Indiana, and came from predominantly white, rural, middle to lower-middle class surrounding commu- nities. The sample had a mean chronological age of 9-9 years (range = 8-9 to 10-5) an average IQ (as measured by the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Form A, Dunn, 1965) of 99.92 (SD = 11.25), and an average reading standard score (as measured by the Wide Range Achievement Test, Reading subtest, Jastak & Jastak, 1978) of 93.90 (SD = 11.31).
Procedure The study was conducted during 6 weeks in June and July. Approximately 32 children
attended each IO-day session of the summer program. The study was carried out during the first three sessions, which allowed for a total sample size of 98 boys. Within a session, children were divided into four units of eight to nine boys each. For the duration of a session, each unit attended four different morning academic classes. These classes ran for about 50 min every day. A description of these classes and the observational procedures employed to record teacher and student behaviors during the classes is presented below.
Small-group instruction. Each morning class was designed to simulate recitation- type instruction common in most elementary school classrooms. In addition, classes inte- grated academic content with related seatwork activities or games. Thus, behaviors were observed during both lecture-demonstrations and activities requiring participation on the part of children. The overall structure of the instruction was made as uniform as possible for the four classes so that variation in student and teacher behavior could be accurately assessed. Teachers in each class taught 10 grade-appropriate, subject-matter-controlled les- sons in a particular academic area. The areas were mathematics, science, language usage, and geography. Teachers (undergraduate and graduate students in psychology/education) were trained to manage their teaching in similar ways and to teach according to a similar overall pattern.
Within a session, each unit of eight to nine boys was randomly designated to be observed during one particular type of morning class. Thus, 24 to 25 children were observed being taught each of the four general content areas. The same lessons were taught across the three IO-day sessions, but in a different order. Furthermore, the order of morning classes was rotated every day so that one class type (e.g., science) would not always occur during the same time slot (e.g., 8 o’clock) each day. Due to the structure of the program, teachers could not be rotated across subject areas. One teacher taught only one content area for all sessions. However, neither content specificity nor teacher factors were found to have ap- preciable effects on the results. The rates of all teacher and student behaviors were similar across content areas. Furthermore, the amount learned (post-test scores) did not differ significantly from one class to another.
PerfOrmUnCe measures. Two ability measures were obtained for each child. For most children, standardized tests were administered by school personnel within 6 months prior to the investigation. Children who did not have these recent test scores were admin- istered the tests prior to the initiation of the study. Intelligence was assessed with the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Form A (PPVT) (Dunn, 1965). A total of 31 children
394 MARIBETH GETTINGER
were administered the PPVT upon arrival to the program. One of four trained examiners, assigned at random, administered and scored the tests. A standard score from the reading subtest of the Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT) (Jastak & Jastak, 1978) was used to estimate reading achievement for each child. It was necessary to administer this subtest to 29 children.
At the completion of the IO-day session, student achievement of the content taught in morning classes was assessed with a 50-item multiple-choice test. Four tests (one for each class type) were developed to cover material taught in the classes. Items were written by the experimenter on the basis of lesson outlines supplied by the morning class teachers. At the beginning of each IO-day session, teachers were asked to prepare lesson plans for every morning class. While there was, understandably, some variability in actual instructional styles, each teacher taught according to similar outlines incorporating presentation, prac- tice, and review of exactly 10 content items (e.g., in science, 10 parts of the body or 10 types of leaves). These items were listed in each lesson outline, from which five were randomly chosen for inclusion on the final post-test. Teachers were not aware of the exact content of these criterion tests. As a check on the reliability of the post-test of achievement, a split-half reliability coefficient, corrected by the Spearman-Brown formula, was calculated for each of the four criterion tests. The resulting estimates of reliability ranged from .86 to .94.
The use of performance measures derived from the content of lessons during which observational data were collected (see Observation System) made it possible to identify relationships between teacher and student behaviors and student learning of subject matter at the time of observation. That is, teacher and student behaviors could be related directly to immediate measures of student achievement rather than long-term measures of stan- dardized achievement test performance alone.
Observation system. Observations occurred between 8 and 12 o’clock in the morning on each of 10 consecutive days during the 50-min classes described above. Each child in a class of eight was observed for one continuous 6-min period every day. Both student and teacher behaviors were observed and recorded during these periods. This procedure in- volved observing the child and teacher for a IO-set interval, and then recording the occur- rence or nonoccurrence of target behaviors during the subsequent 5-set interval. Thus, 240 observations in total (40 min) were made for every child. The order in which children were observed during a class was rotated across days.
Three major types of information were coded: (a) instructional setting, (b) student be-
havior, and (c) teacher behavior. Two aspects of the instructional session were noted at the start of each 6-min observation period. First, the academic subject area was coded as M (mathematics), S (science), L (language usage), or G (geography). Second, the type of class activity was coded as either lecture/demonstration (L/D) or participation (P).
Two student behaviors were observed-on-task behavior (02) and accurate responding (AR). OT was defined as the child attending to the appropriate instructional directions of the teacher for the duration of the IO-set observation interval. This included orienting eyes to the teacher, task, or peer when appropriate, and/or being actively engaged in an assigned task. A score for OT was assigned to each child as the proportion of IO-set intervals during which the behavior occurred. AR was defined as any occurrence in which the child re- sponded to a question, directed specifically to him or to the entire group, with a correct answer. Accuracy was assessed on the basis of teacher judgment. An AR score was deter- mined for each child to reflect the proportion of questions answered correctly.
In addition to these student behaviors, three teacher behaviors were observed and re- corded. The first was verbal reinforcement of on-task behavior (ROT). This was operation-
STUDENT BEHAVIORS AND LEARNING 395
ally defined as the teacher giving verbal praise to the child or entire group1 for being on- task. Praise could be accompanied by gestures such as hugs, pats on the back, or other physical contact of a positive nature. A score for ROT was the proportion of IO-set intervals during which any instance (or more than one instance) occurred. A second teacher behavior was verbal reinforcement of accurate responding (RAR). This was defined as any occurrence in which the teacher provided verbal praise to the child for giving a correct answer to a question. Again, praise could be accompanied by gestural approvals. However, reinforce- ment for effort alone (e.g., “That was a good try!“) or simple feedback about the correctness of an academic response was not coded as RAR. An RAR score was determined for each child to reflect the proportion of correct responses that received verbal praise.
The third teacher behavior was use of tangible reinforcers for either on-task behavior or accurate responding (TAN). This behavior category included any instance in which the teacher gave one of two tangibles that are used as part of the summer program (i.e., tokens or edibles) to the target child. Tangible reinforcement could be accompanied by praise (coded ROT or RAR) or gestures. A TAN score was the proportion of intervals during which one or more tangibles were dispensed to the target student.
In summary, five behaviors were observed during a lo-set interval. These included the occurrence/nonoccurrence of (1) the target student’s on-task behavior and the teacher’s use of (2) verbal or (3) token reinforcement. Also recorded were (4) the number of correct responses to questions given by the target student, and (5) the number of correct responses from the observed student that received verbal praise from the teacher.
Reliability of observations. Two undergraduate students in psychology and the experimenter were observers in this study. The undergraduate students were trained during three I-hr sessions with written behavioral descriptions, videotapes of small-group classes identical to those being observed, and “in vivo” practice with demonstration classes. Each child was observed on two days (randomly selected) by a pair of observers, the experimenter and one of the two trained observers. Interobserver reliability was assessed by the per- centage-agreement method for each behavior category (both child and teacher behaviors). For each target behavior, the total number of agreements (IO-set intervals in which the experimenter and trained observer agreed on occurrence/nonoccurrence) was divided by the total number of agreements and disagreements. This number was then multiplied by 100. The mean rate of agreement based on 192 pairs of 6-min observations ranged from 86% (on-task behavior) to 100% (accurate responding).
In order to assess the stability of observed behaviors over time, data collected on odd- numbered days were correlated with data collected on even-numbered days. Correlations between odd and even days for frequency of occurrence within each category ranged from ..54 (use of tangibles) to .92 (verbal reinforcement of on-task behavior).
Data Analysis The major research question was addressed using a path analysis procedure which ex-
amined the causal effects of student and teacher behaviors during instruction, as well as student ability, on post-test achievement scores. Observational data were tallied and trans- posed into proportion scores for all five behaviors, while student ability data were standard- ized achievement test scores.
1 Verbal praise given to the group (e.g., “You are all paying good attention.“) was not differentiated from praise directed to the particular student (e.g., “Good John! You’re looking right at me.“). Group praise generally occurred more often. It was felt that a target student’s on-task behavior was reinforced in both instances.
396 MARIBETH GETTINGER
RESULTS
Summary of Observational Data and Performance Measures
Median and mean proportions of intervals coded for OT behavior were calculated for the total lo-day observation period. These are reported in Table 1 by class type and for the total sample. In the table, each per- centage point represents approximately 24 set of on-task behavior for each 6-min daily observation period. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed no differences among the four types of classes in proportion of intervals coded OT.
Median and mean proportions of questions answered correctly (AR) and correct responses that were verbally reinforced by the teacher (RAR) were also calculated for the total observation period. Table 1 reports these figures by class and for the entire group. The average number of questions directed to the target student (or entire group)* during 6-min periods summed over 10 days of observation ranged from 29.3 to 38.6 for the four class types, with an overall mean of 34.1 (SD = 9.1). Means and standard deviations of the number of questions asked were similar across the four classes. Thus, for the total group, 61.4% of all questions asked were answered correctly. This represents approximately 21 questions per child across 10 days, or close to 2 questions within a 6-min period. Similarly, for the entire sample, an average of 60.0% of these correct answers re- ceived teacher praise in the form of a positive verbal reaction to the accuracy of the response. There were no differences among the four classes in overall proportion of correct responding and verbal reinforce- ment of correct responding.
Median and mean proportions of intervals coded for ROT and TAN were also calculated for the 10 days by class and for the total group (see Table I). Typically only one instance of either reinforcement type oc- curred during an interval coded ROT and TAN. Thus, the proportion of intervals in which the reinforcements occurred that are reported in Table 1 can, in general, reflect actual number of occurrences. For the total group, an average 18.8% of the 240 intervals were coded ROT. This indicates that, on the average, 45 instances of ROT occurred across the 10 days, or between 4 and 5 during each daily 6-min period. It should be noted that while the frequency of verbal reinforcers remained between 4 and 5 consistently during each 6-min period across days, the number of tangibles used decreased over time (as part of the maintenance proce-
2 Questions directed to the class (e.g., “What kind of leaf is this?“) were not considered to be different from questions directed specifically to the target child (e.g., “Bill, what is the name of this planet?“) since both provided opportunities for correct responding by the child.
STUDENT BEHAVIORS AND LEARNING 397
TABLE 1 MEDIANS, MEANS, AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF PROFQRTIONS OF INTERVALS CODED FOR
STUDENT AND TEACHER BEHAVIORS AND OF STUDENT ABILITY MEASURES
Student behavior Teacher behavior Student ability
Class type N 07 AR ROT RAR TAN PPVT WRAT Achievement
dures inherent in the overall summer program). Again, the classes did not differ significantly in these reinforcement rates.
Finally, Table 1 presents descriptive statistics on the two student ability measures (PPVT and WRAT scores) and the achievement measure. Means and standard deviations of these scores were similar across the four classes.
Relationship among Student and Teacher Behaviors, Ability Measures, and Achievement
Correlations were calculated for the entire sample among student be- haviors, teacher behaviors, student ability, and postinstruction achieve- ment. Coefficients resulting from these correlational analyses are pre- sented in Fig. 1. High levels of association were obtained among student behaviors and achievement (r = .46 to .72). In addition, high rates of on- task behavior and accurate responding were generally associated with high rates of verbal reinforcement from the teacher (r = SO to .75). Interestingly, the frequency of tangible reinforcers exhibited low corre- lations with both verbal reinforcement (r = .23, .lO) and student behavior (r = .13, .24), suggesting the differential effectiveness of verbal praise over tangible (tokens, edibles) reinforcers. Student ability measures had moderate correlations with classroom behaviors (r = .30 to Sl), and, as
398 MARIBETH GETTINGER
expected, low relationships to teacher behavior (r = .04 to .21). It should be added here that classroom teachers did not have information con- cerning standardized test scores of children in their classes.
Path Analysis
A path analysis was performed employing achievement as the depen- dent variable. Figure 1 presents the results in path-analytic form. The zero-order correlations are indicated by r, and the path coefficient by p. Path coefficients (standardized regression coefficients) were derived from multiple regression analyses (Kenny, 1979) involving the regression of student behaviors on teacher behavior and student ability, in addition to the regression of achievement on all variables. The arrows in the model indicate a weak causal ordering, and do not assert a direct causal rela- tionship.
The analysis indicates that an increase in the proportion of questions answered correctly during instruction had a positive effect on achieve- ment. The large zero-order correlation (S63) between AR and ACH re-
1
il ACH
R1.2345670=.661
FIG . 1. Path diagram of effects of student ability (PPVT, WRAT), teacher behaviors RAR, TAN), and student behaviors (OT, AR) on achievement (ACH).
(ROT,
STUDENT BEHAVIORS AND LEARNING 399
duced to a smaller, but still significant, coefficient (.256) when ability and teacher behaviors were controlled, F(1,90) = 29.71, p < .Ol. It is inter- esting to note, however, that while the proportion of on-task behavior exhibited a high zero-order correlation with achievement (.455), it did not have an appreciable direct effect on achievement (p = .034) when ability and teacher variables were controlled.
The strongest effects on achievement were from reading achievement (r = .731, p = .462) and intelligence (r = .629, p = .391); higher ability students attained higher criterion test scores. Taken together, these stu- dent ability factors accounted for 43.3% (p < .Ol> of the total variance in scores on the achievement measure.
Finally, only one teacher reinforcement variable, verbal reinforcement of accurate responses, had a significant positive path (.211) to achieve- ment, F(1,90) = 4.77, p < .05. Neither ROT nor TAN had appreciable effects b’s = .037 and .007, respectively).
Student and Teacher Behaviors during Lecture vs Class Activities
Of the ten 6-min observation periods, at least two were coded L/D (lecture/demonstration) and two were coded P (participation in activity) for each student. When students had more than two periods coded LID or P, two periods were randomly selected for comparison. Thus, obser- vational data from 12 min of L/D class time were compared with analo- gous data from 12 min of P class time for every child. Proportions of the two student behaviors (OT, AR) and three teacher behaviors (ROT, RAR, TAN) were compared across class activity types using t tests for matched samples. Median and mean proportions for all coded behaviors are pre- sented in Table 2 by activity. In general, the frequency of teacher verbal
TABLE 2 MEDIANS, MEANS, AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF PROFQRTIONS OF INTERVALS CODED FOR
reinforcement was consistent between LID and P class activities. Pro- portion of questions that were answered correctly was also similar across activity types. Significantly more on-task behavior (M = 19.9) and less frequent use of tangible reinforcers (M = - 11.7) were observed during time periods in which children participated in class games or activities than during lectures or demonstrations by the teacher, t(97) = 12.06, 18.24, p < .Ol for OT and TAN, respectively.
DISCUSSION
The major purpose of this study was to investigate the relationships among student behaviors exhibited during class instruction, teacher reac- tions (in the form of positive reinforcement) to student behaviors, student ability (reading achievement and IQ), and degree of learning (as measured by achievement tests covering lesson content). Furthermore, the study evaluated the extent to which effects of behavioral measures on achieve- ment were independent of those explained by tests of ability. While pre- vious research has investigated the relationship between classroom be- haviors and achievement (Anderson & Scott, 1978; Cobb, 1972; Gettinger & Fayne, 1982; McKinney et al., 1973, the present investigation exam- ined how this relationship is mediated by student ability or teacher re- inforcement of appropriate behavior. In addition, the present study ex- panded upon prior research through its assessment of student learning of actual subject-matter content derived from achievement measures di- rectly related to information presented at the time of observation.
The results of this study lend only partial support for the assumption that overt classroom behavior is an important determinant of achieve- ment. As with the previous research cited above, strong correlations were obtained between on-task behavior and achievement. However, indepen- dent of the relative contributions of both student ability and accuracy of responding during class, on-task behavior did not have a significant effect on scores on achievement tests. The results did indicate that student engagement, in the form of overt, correct responses to teacher questions, was a relatively strong variable having a significant effect (p < .Ol) on achievement. These findings imply that continuous attending during class instruction may not be as critical a factor as accurate responding to ques- tions dealing with the academic content covered.
Related to this result is the finding that regular positive teacher reaction to student responses contributed significantly (p < .05) to overall achieve- ment scores. Implicit in the majority of teacher verbal reinforcements for responses was feedback regarding the accuracy or inaccuracy of answers. Thus, the implication of these results is that active student responding,
STUDENT BEHAVIORS AND LEARNING 401
paired with positive reinforcement that conveys informative feedback, enhances student achievement of class content.
The most likely explanation of this result is that mastery of information presented during class sessions, as evidenced by a high proportion of questions that are answered correctly, contributes to overall achievement to such an extent that the requirement of attending (operationally defined in the present study as continuous focusing on the teacher or directed activity) does not appreciably enhance learning. In effect, responding to questions is a type of selective attending behavior. Had a less rigid cri- terion for coding OT been employed in the observation system (i.e., par- tial interval rather than whole interval recording), it is possible that on- task behavior may have contributed to achievement test performance. It is probable that more selective attending to the salient points of each class lesson was ensured through questioning and subsequent reinforce- ment of correct responses. These findings suggest that this selective at- tending and frequent overt accurate responding, without the need for continuous attending, have a significant effect on achievement, at least in the short term.
A second major finding of this investigation was that student ability (as measured by performance on standardized tests of reading and intelli- gence) exhibited the greatest effect on achievement. It has been previ- ously argued (e.g., McKinney et al., 1975) that the addition of data con- cerning task-oriented classroom behaviors to standardized test informa- tion yields a more accurate explanation of achievement than with test data alone. Mixed results were obtained in examining the effects of two variables (OT and AR) that were similar to those studied by other re- searchers. Only AR added a significant independent effect to that pro- vided for by combined WRAT and PPVT scores. While more variance can be explained with both test data and behavioral information, student ability measures, independent of classroom behavior, account for a sub- stantially large proportion of variance in scores on achievement tests. This evidence points to constraints on the generalizability of tindings from other research which indicate that frequencies of observed behaviors add significant percentages of independent variance to the overall prediction of achievement.
In summary, while classroom task-oriented behaviors that are amena- ble to modification have been identified as correlates of long-term achievement, the findings from previous research may need to be some- what tempered by results of the present investigation. Attempts to im- prove achievement through interventions designed to increase attending behavior during group instruction may not meet with success unless the significant contributions of student ability are recognized. Thus, focusing
402 MARIBETH GETTINGER
on a uniform set of appropriate on-task behaviors may need to take into consideration significant mediating student characteristics.
REFERENCES ANDERSON, L. W., & SCOTT, C. C. The relationship among teaching methods, student char-
acteristics, and student involvement in learning. Journal of Teacher Education, 1978, 24, 52-57.
BLOOM, B. S. Human characteristics and school learning. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1976. COBB, J. A. Relationship of discrete classroom behaviors to fourth-grade academic achieve-
ment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1972, 63, 74-80. DUNN, L. M. Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. Circle Pines, Minn.: American Guidance
Service, 1965. GEXTTINGER, M., & FAYNE, H. R. Classroom behaviors during small group instruction and
learning performance in learning disabled and non-disabled children. Journal of Edu- cational Research, 1982, 75, 182-187.
JASTAK, J. F., & JASTAK, S. R. Wide Range Achievement Test. Wilmington, Del.: Jastak Associates, 1978.
KENNY, D. A. Correlation and causality. New York: Wiley-Interscience, 1979. LYSAKOWSKI, R. S., & WALBERG, H. J. Classroom reinforcement and learning: A quanti-
tative synthesis. Journal of Educational Research, 1981, 75, 69-77. MCKENZIE, G. A. Effects of questions and test-like events on achievement and on-task
behavior in a classroom concept learning presentation. Journal of Educational Re- search, 1979, 72, 348-351.
MCKINNEY, J. D., MASON, J., PERKERSON, K., & CLIFFORD, M. Relationship between class- room behavior and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1975, 67, 198-203.
ROSENSHINE, B. Recent research on teaching behaviors and student achievement. Journal of Teacher Education, 1976, 27, 61-64.
ROSENSHINE, B., 62 BERLINER, D. C. Academic engaged time. British Journal of Teacher Education, 1978, 4, 3-16.
ROSENSHINE, B., & FURST, N. The use of direct observation to study teaching. In R. M. W. Travers (Ed.), Second handbook of research on teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1973.
WALKER, H. M., & HOPS, H. Increasing academic achievement by reinforcing direct aca- demic performance and/or facilitative nonacademic responses. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1976, 68, 218-225.
WRIGHT, C. J., & NUTHALL, G. Relationships between teacher behaviors and pupil achieve- ment in three experimental elementary science lessons. American Educational Re- searchJournal, 1970,7, 477-491.
