PACING AND RHYTHM
Matching has been an important theme with each area of performance. We have advanced the notion that an area of performance contains a repertoire and that skillfulness comes in matching choices from it to individuals, groups, and curricula. So it is with pacing and scheduling. The same pace will not work equally well for all classes. Carolyn Evertson (1982) found that the way teachers paced activities varied greatly and corresponded to their success with high and low performing classes, but they made quite a difference in low-performing groups. Students in low-performing classes have a clear tendency to drop in and out of participation, especially during seatwork. Some students refuse to participate at all. Evertson (1982) provides descriptions and commentary on two junior high teachers’ classrooms to show how differences in pacing affect low-performing students.
Example 1: Teacher B and the disrupted classroom
[The teacher has just put the seatwork assignment on the board.] Marie says, “I don’t have a book.” The teacher says, “Look on those shelves,” pointing. Marie says, “Those aren’t ours.” The teacher says, “Some of
T H E S K I L L F U L T E A C H E R94
PART TWO | MANAGEMENT | TIME
them are.” Marie gets herself a book. Chico raises his hand and says, “I need help.” About five students start the assignment right away. [There are twelve students present.] The others are talking, have their hands raised, or are going to the teacher’s desk. The teacher says, “Come on up, Randy,” when she calls on him. When he gets there, “Larry, leave him alone.” Larry stands and visits by the teacher’s desk. Chico puts his hand up again. The teacher says, “Chico, what do you need?” He says, “Help.” The teacher says, “Okay, wait a second.” Larry sits down by the teacher’s desk and looks on as she tells him something. Chico calls out, “Miss, are you going to help me?” She says, “Yes, Chico, but come up here.” He says, “Aw, Miss, it’s too far.” The teacher ignores him, and he goes to the teacher’s desk. [At this point, five students are at the teacher’s desk.] (Evertson, 1982, p. 182)
This classroom description shows rather dramatically the difficulty students in a lower-performing class can have in getting started and participating successfully in an activity. At one point, five students were at the teacher’s desk, and most of them were waiting for help. The teacher eventually helped nine students at her desk during this seatwork activity. Having so many students in such close prox- imity to each other frequently created problems and led to misbehavior which the teacher was forced to respond to.
The dialogue also illustrates the poor task orientation that generally character- izes the lower-performing classroom. Chico’s behavior here is typical of many other students who are behind. He did not take academic activities seriously, he was not willing to begin work on learning tasks, and he was not interested in participating. Poor task orientation on the part of one student can lead to dis- ruptive behavior from others, as we find when we continue this activity:
While the teacher is trying to work with Marie, Marie follows Chico’s lead in teasing the teacher. She grabs the stapler. The teacher says loudly, “Uh uh, come on, Marie.” Later, Marie grabs her paper away from the teacher, wads it up, saying, “You wrote on my paper. You’re not supposed to write on my paper.” Marie sits down. Billy, meanwhile, has continued to play around and talk to Larry. The teacher says sharply, “Billy, you come up here!” Larry says loudly, “That’s exactly what Miss ____ says, and it works for her, too.” As Billy scoots his desk up, Larry sings, “Row, row, row your desk.” (Evertson, 1982, p. 182)
When the teacher had to give individual attention to so many students, she could not monitor the class efficiently, and it was more difficult for the students to get the teacher’s attention according to the prescribed procedure:
T H E S K I L L F U L T E A C H E R 95
PART TWO | MANAGEMENT | TIME
Chico, who has his hand up, calls out, “Miss, I can’t wait forever.” The teacher says, “Just a minute.” Mark yells loudly, “Miss!” The teacher ig- nores him and continues helping Marie. Then she goes to Pam, who has had her hand up for a long time. A girl calls out from the front of the room, “I need help.” She has her hand up, but she calls out. The teacher looks at her and says, “Okay, I’ll be there in a second.” (Evertson, 1982, p. 182)
It should be noted that two of these students do not simply call out; they have their hands raised. However, they know that simply raising their hands is not as effective a signal as calling out. The teacher did not consistently enforce (in fact, hardly enforced at all) the rule against calling out under these circumstances:
Chico calls out, “What time is it?” Billy tells him what time it is. The teacher ignores them both. Billy and Chico are trading epithets like, “Dumb head.” The teacher, helping the girls near the front, ignores them. Then, she looks up and says, “Chico, do you need something else to do?” Chico says, “No.” The teacher says, “Then be quiet.” (Evertson, 1982, p. 182)
A basic conflict existed in lower-performing classes between two demands of the teacher: (1) the need to help students, and (2) the need to control disruptive behavior. In this example, the teacher did not want to interrupt her interchange with the girls near the front, but she was finally forced to respond when the off- task behavior threatened to become disruptive.