I have been making decisions about the articles I require for my graduate class. I added a short Research Summary from AERA that considers the topic of Time to Learn (pdf). There are many facets to this topic. How long is the school day? How much time is spend on academic subjects and which subjects receive what proportion of the school day? How engaged are individual learners during the time allocated to a given subject?
I have long been interested in some of the theoretical issues associated with time. By long, I mean some of these topics were being raised when I was in graduate school. The notion that individual differences in time to learn may represent an alternate way to think about aptitude differences has long fascinated me. The assumed meaning of aptitude is that differences in aptitude are reflected in differences in how much is learned (given a fixed amount of time). Thinking of aptitude as differences in time to learn was originally not very practical – what is realistic about understanding that less capable students may require 3x more time? Where would that time come from? Of course, ignoring this reality is also unrealistic. What is practical about offering many students less time than is necessary to learn what they need to learn? Such students simply fall behind, become frustrated, and give up. Mastery learning (a model of individualizing instruction I find most of my younger peers have never heard of) argued that moving ahead when understanding was present offered the most efficient approach to learning. Is differentiated instruction a new version of this claim (time and method)?
Whatever the skills to be acquired (traditional or 21st century), there are still important issues to be resolved regarding time in group settings. Perhaps it is time to expect students to acquire certain skills outside of the “school day”. I suppose this already happens for those with motivation and opportunity.
