University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A study of teacher beliefs on the efficacy of block scheduling

(USC Thesis Other)

A study of teacher beliefs on the efficacy of block scheduling

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI
films the tmct directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some
thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter 6ce, while others may be
from any type o f computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the
copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality
illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins,
and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete
manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if
unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate
the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and
continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each
original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced
form at the back o f the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced
xerographically in this copy. Ifigher quality 6” x 9” black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations
appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to
order.
UMI
A Bell & Howell Information Company
300 North Zed) Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA
313/761-4700 800/521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
A STUDY OF TEACHER BELIEFS ON THE EFFICACY
OF BLOCK SCHEDULING
by
James Thomas Staunton
A Dissertation Presoited to
FACULTY OF THE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillmait of
the Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May, 1997
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 9733141
UMI Microform 9733141
Copyright 1997, by UMI Company. All rights reserved.
This microform edition is protected against unauthorized
copying under Title 17, United States Code.
UMI
300 North Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
School of Education
Los Angeles, California 90089-0031
This dissertation, written by
James T. Staunton
under the direction o f hJjiJDissertation Committee, and
approved by all members of the Committee, has been
presented to and accepted by the Faculty of the School
of Education in partialfulfillment of the requirementsfor
the degree of
D o c t o r o f E d u c a t io n
Bate'
Dissertttion Committee
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I gratefully acknowledge the unwavering support and patience of Susan,
Erin, Kevin, Dr. Gothold and my committee members who made this effort possible.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
DEDICATION
To Agnes Staunton, who always wanted to have a doctor in the family,
and to my wife who provided unfailing support.
m
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
E a g e
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.............................................................................................i
LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................ ii
U ST OF APPENDIXES...........................................................................................vii
Chapigj
I. THE PROBLEM...................................................................................1
Background of the Problem................................................................ 3
Statement of the Problem.................................................................... 8
Purpose of the Study........................................................................... 9
Questions to be Answered................................................................. 10
Importance of the Study....................................................................10
Assumptions....................................................................................... 11
Delimitations of the Study................................................................. 12
Limitations.......................................................................................... 12
Rationale and Theoretical Framework............................................ 12
Methodology....................................................................................... 15
Definition of Term s...........................................................................16
Research Design................................................................................ 16
Organization of Remaining Chapters...............................................17
n . REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE................................................ 18
Time and School................................................................................ 18
The School Y ear................................................................................ 18
Issues on the Use of Time in Schools............................................. 22
Time on Task......................................................................... 27
Interruptions in the School D ay.......................................... 29
The Call to Restructure..................................................................... 36
New M odels.......................................................................................39
Block Scheduling...............................................................................41
Block Schedule Types........................................................................42
The Need for Instructional Change................................................. 49
Informal Data......................................................................................53
Summary............................................................................................ 54
IV
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
in . METHODOLOGY............................................................................. 57
Methodology...................................................................................... 57
Instrument...........................................................................................59
Participating Schools.........................................................................61
Previous Studies.................................................................................64
Selection of the Problem................................................................... 67
Social Interaction..................................................................68
Curricular Component......................................................... 70
Instructional Coihponent..................................................... 71
Assessment Component........................................................73
School-Wide Management.................................................. 74
The Problem...................................................................................... 75
Questions to be Answered................................................................ 76
IV. THE FINDINGS................................................................................. 78
Purpose of the Study.........................................................................78
Purpose of this Chapter.....................................................................78
Results................................................................................................ 79
Question Families.............................................................................. 87
Research Fam ilies.............................................................................89
V. SUMMARY, SELECTED FINDINGS,
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS......................112
Summary of this Study.................................................................... 112
Methodology.....................................................................................112
Conclusions......................................................................................114
Sum m ary.......................................................................................... 124
Recommendations............................................................................ 124
BIBLIOGRAPHY......................................................................................................126
APPENDIXES............................................................................................................131
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF TABLES
Table Eage
1 Individual Item Responses................................................................. 80
2 Mean Response Rating Over 3 .........................................................83
3 Mean Response Rating Over 2.5......................................................84
4 Mean Response Rating Below 2 .0 ................................................... 86
5 Mean Response by Question “Family” ...........................................88
6 Instruction/Instructional Practices................................................... 90
7 Assessment.......................................................................................... 91
8 Social Interaction...............................................................................92
9 Curriculum..........................................................................................93
10 School-Wide Management................................................................94
11 Teacher Experience............................................................................ 96
12 Teachers Grouped by Experience.................................................... 97
13 Respondents by Subject Discipline..................................................97
14 Combined Subject Discipline Departments.....................................98
15 Grouped School..................................................................................99
16 Grouped Schools Social Interaction...............................................100
17 Grouped Schools Assessment......................................................... 101
18 Grouped Schools Curriculum......................................................... 101
19 Grouped Schools Instructional Practices........................................102
20 Grouped Schools School-Wide Management...............................102
21 Grouped Schools Curriculum Instruction......................................103
22 Total Years Teaching Under Block................................................104
23 Years Teaching Under Block Social Interaction...........................104
24 Years Teaching Under Block Assessment.....................................105
25 Years Teaching Under Block Curriculum.....................................106
26 Years Teaching Under Block Instructional Practices...................106
27 Years Teaching Under Block School-Wide Management 106
VI
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF TABLES
(continued)
28 Years Teaching Under Block Curriculum/Instruction.................106
29 Years Teaching Under Block......................................................... 108
30 WHS Comparison - Social Interaction..........................................108
31 WHS Comparison - Assessment....................................................109
32 WHS Comparison - Curriculum................................................... 109
33 WHS Comparison - Instructional Practices................................. 109
34 WHS Comparison - School-Wide Management...........................110
35 WHS Comparison - Curriculum/Instruction................................ 110
V ll
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF APPENDIXES
Appendix Ease
A-l Survey Questions.............................................................................131
A-2 Responses by Years of Teaching Experience...............................133
V lll
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER ONE
THE PROBLEM
Across the nation educators, administrators and parents have initiated a debate about
the effective use of time in schools. Critics of the educational system in general question the
effectiveness of the 54 minute period and the time honored teaching method of lecturing.
They assert that the standard secondary curriculum is a narrow collection of facts that bear
little relevance to the needs of the marketplace (Sizer, 1984,1992). The debate has been
fueled by the publication of Prisoners of Time, a report by the National Commission on
Time and Learning. In 1991 Public Law 102-62 (The Education Council Act of 1991)
established the National Education Commission on Time and Learning as an independent
advisory body and called for a comprehensive review of the relationship between time and
learning in the nation’s schools. The conclusion of that nine member commission was
sharp and direct, “Learning in America is a prisoner of time” (National Commission,
1994). It is apparent that at the national level, the notion of re-structuring the standard fifty
minute hour and Carnegie unit has gained a substantial push. The committee calls the
uniform six-hour -180 day school year the “unacknowledged design flaw” in American
education (p. 8). To the extent that national initiatives affect local school action, this
document has added to the argument that business as usual in today’s schools is
imacceptable and may have to change in favor of new structures as they relate to time.
Current literature contains a number of articles describing how schools are
restructuring their teaching day to maximize learning time and provide students with a more
personalized learning experience. The notion that every high school apportion its day into
six or seven periods of fifty minutes or less is seriously questioned.
As with a number of Federal initiatives, the call to re-structure the use of time in
schools has come to the states with little or no funding to support such change. School
I
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
districts throughout California have had to deal with the call to change strategies and
offerings to students in the midst of a financial crisis. The school that adjusts or modifies
its offerings does so in a 0 sum environment The site administrator must deal with a
number of new ideas, yet no new money. Faced with community pressure to initiate
change, schools have had to exercise creativity in restructuring efforts. Creative scheduling
approaches have recently gained favor in a number of school districts throughout the
country. In Virginia, Florida, Massachusetts and California educators are reporting positive
results from restructuring the school day aroimd longer class periods. These class offerings
allow for longer exposure to the teacher in the classroom, and the prospect of lower daily
class loads. These schedules have been imaginatively titled to reflect their structure, or to
reflect their departure from the norm. The “Copemican Plan”, “4x4 scheduling”, “Block
Scheduling”, “Quarter on Quarter off’, and “Trimester Hans” all have received support
from educators and researchers.
Do these plans deliver the desired conditions of more effective teaching and
learning? Can schools improve instruction through imaginative scheduling? Are teachers
genuinely satisfied with modified plans? Do teachers adjust their classroom teaching
techniques as a result of extended class periods, or do they simply lengthen lectures? Will
teachers give up the podium and the daily fifty minute lecture in favor of new classroom
methodologies? Does modified scheduling result in smaller daily class loads?
Unless there is a clear picture about instructional practices under altered bell
schedules, restructuring efforts may stall as a result of disappointment and disaffection by
staff who see this as merely another wave of change that will soon disappear. Unless
teachers embrace the concepts of change which follow re-structuring instructional time, we
face the possibility of failure. Fullan (1993) tells us that
The hardest core to crack is the learning core-changes in instructional
practices and in the culture of teaching toward greater collaborative
relationships among students, teachers and other potential partners.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
...Changing formal structures is not the same as changing norms, habits,
skills and beliefs (p. 49).
This caution is a reminder that both form and function need to change in the
educational setting in order for that change to be successful.
In southern California a number of high schools have experimented with a form of
scheduling that has come to be called “block scheduling”. While there are a number of
variations, the schedule basically consists of two fifty minute periods combined into one
longer block of time. Students only attend class half as often, usually alternating days on a
1-3-5, 2-4-6 basis. Since there are five days in a school week, the schedule either rotates
constantly or one day a week, usually Monday or Friday, is scheduled in a traditional
manner. Schools in San Diego county have employed this schedule with varying degrees of
success for a number of years. With schools and school staffs interested in block
scheduling the question begs analysis, does block scheduling offer advantages to the
teachers who must work in their classrooms for extended periods of time without the
“relief’ of the familiar passing bell? Does block scheduling offer the opportunity for
teachers to make adjustments in their instructional styles, to assess progress better, deliver
curriculum effectively and work in an improved school environment?
Analyzing teacher beliefs and attitudes about block scheduling and its effect on their
classroom practices will offer insight into whether this plan enhances the educational
experience for students and results in improved instruction.
Background of the Problem
Does the typical high school schedule (six to seven period day) promote student
achievement and satisfaction with school? Was the development of the 50 to 54 minute
period the result of careful analysis of student needs, or did it develop from an industrial
model that valued production, efficiency and speed? Certainly the adult workplace is no
longer structured around constant changes in location and supervision.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Increasingly, this structure, so long accepted throughout the country, has come
under scrutiny. Carroll (1990) stated that “at no other time, whether at school or at work, is
anyone placed in such an impersonalized, unproductive, frenetic environment than in a
typical high school” (p. 365). The traditional schedule places additional burdens on
teachers who must plan for a minimum of five periods a day, with thirty or more students
per class. In districts throughout the state it is not unusual to have high school teachers deal
with 150-180 students every day. Ted Sizer (1984) argues that teachers should not have to
be responsible for more than 80 students per day. He challenges the notion that teachers
should have to serve such large numbers of students. He tells us that “...Ways must be
found to give high school teachers a load that allows them to personalize their work, and
thus to help pupils and avoid the stunning waste of everyone’s time that now characterizes
so many schools” (p. 198). As if to underline this point, Rossmiller (1983,) analyzed the
number of instructional hours available in a school year and then subtracted time for
passing periods, “housekeeping”, administrative items, time off task and teacher
transitions. He concluded that of 1,080 instructional hours available, the net time on task
for an “average” student was 364 hours! If this is true, fully two-thirds of the available time
is wasted. Justiz ( 1984) computed similar numbers and indicates that “we lose 55% of the
time we allocate for learning in our elementary and secondary schools”(p. 483). Relating
the criticisms of the National Commission on Excellence in Education ( 1984) to the use of
time, Justiz concluded that schools “might also experiment with keeping small groups of
students together for larger blocks of time during the school day” (p. 484). Gilman and
Knoll (1984) also indicted the traditional school day, stating that “Classroom teachers and
school adminisu-ators agree that the erosion of the instructional day is one of the biggest
problems they face. Making better use of the school day is a movement whose time has
come” (p. 42). Fully eleven years have passed since authors in the educational area called
for scientific analysis of the use of time as a vehicle for improved insuiiction.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The typical school schedule (defined here as having 5 to 7 periods per day of from
40 to 60 minutes in length) often serves to limit instructional possibilities for teachers.
Canady and Rettig (1995) found that “The short single periods offered by most scheduling
models limit flexibility in terms of the kinds of instructional strategies that can be
accomplished” (p.8). The typical schedule has fostered the lecture format for most teachers,
given the pressures of exposure to the curriculum and the need to prepare for five classes
per day. Laboratory work, essential to the demonstration of scientific concepts is often cut
short by the passing bell in schools that utilize the fifty minute period. Subtract the number
of minutes that must be dedicated to routine housekeeping in a classroom, and most
teachers are severely limited in what can be accomplished in a class period. Canady and
Rettig ( 1993) observed that in schools that have abandoned the typical schedule and
expanded the available time, teachers “...are encouraged to break away from overreliance
on lecture/discussion as the primary (often only) model of teaching” (p.312).
Joseph M. Carroll, a superintendent emeritus, and now a senior associate for
Copernican Associates has written extensively on the subject of re-structured bell schedules
(Carroll, 1990, 1994). His experience stems from the observation that a group of remedial
students performed very well in an intensive summer program in Washington DC schools.
That program featured longer periods of instruction. He and his associates wondered why
this success couldn’t be seen with non-remedial students during the regular school year. In
looking at the history of school schedules and their development he found, “we probably
knew a lot more about teaching than we did about how students learn” ( 1994, p. 105).
Further evidence of the success of longer classes presented itself when Carroll saw similar
student performance in schools in New Mexico. He hypothesized that students would
succeed in a year round situation that utilized an altered bell schedule.
The opportunity to test the hypothesis came from a severe budget crisis in a
Massachusetts School District. In 1983 the Masconomet Regional School District adopted
what Carroll referred to as “the Copernican Plan.” The title of the plan was in recognition
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
of Copernicus who hypothesized that the sun did not revolve around the earth, heretical for
his day. The notion of abandoning the traditional Carnegie unit and 54 minute class seemed
equally heretical to many teachers and administrators who opposed changing from the
standard class schedule.
The plan that was put into place divided the school year into three trimesters of 60
days each. Students following this schedule took two 100-minute classes each morning for
a full trimester, for a total of 100 hours per class. That program was eventually adjusted to
give each student 118 hours total class time. Students at each of the schools that adopted
the plan were given the option of the new program, or a typical schedule. The students
eventually became known as “Traditional” or “Renaissance” students.
In 1989 a team of researchers from Harvard University was contacted by a
committee composed of supporters and detractors of the Copernican Plan. They were
invited to conduct an investigation. The purpose of the study was to determine what
happened to students as a result of the Copemican change. The focus was to examine
student performance when compared against students who were enrolled in a traditional
program at the same school site. Since tests, quizzes and other assessments were the same
for both groups, the setting was ideal for comparison. The researchers published the
following findings;
1. Renaissance (Copemican Plan) students were better known by their teachers, were
responded to with more care, did more writing, pursued issues in greater depth,
enjoyed their classes more and gained deeper understandings.
2. Renaissance teachers were excited about their teaching. Simple changes in the length of
class periods, and in class size can in themselves invite teachers to rethink their
pedagogical styles.
3. Renaissance students, while actually scheduled for fewer minutes in class per year,
actually completed 13% more course credits than traditionally scheduled students at the
same school.
6
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4. Renaissance students comprehended materials on a par with the traditionally scheduled
students.
5. Oral exams assessing students’ capacities for thinking through problems and working
cooperatively showed that “...Renaissance students performed significantly better than
Traditional students on these dimensions. When the sign test was applied to these data
collectively, the Renaissance students performed significantly better than Traditional
students” (p. 109).
Carroll ( 1994) concludes an analysis of the research by stating that, “Indeed, these
schools experienced improvements of a magnitude seldom if ever reported from a group of
our nation’s high schools” (p. 112). Finding number two is particularly pertinent. The
researchers concluded that “Simple changes in the length of class periods can in themselves
invite teachers to rethink their pedagogical styles”(p. 108). While the finding was positive
with regards to teaching styles, it does not clearly identify the extent to which the teachers
changed their styles, nor does it report on the type of teaching practices that replaced the
prior classroom behaviors.
In southern California, a number of high schools have altered their bell schedules
according to a variety of different configurations. The reason for these changes has varied,
but they generally focused on:
1. I ncreased student achievement.
2. Improved performance on standardized tests.
3. Increased higher-order thinking and problem solving skills.
4. Increased student concentration and more in-depth student questions.
5. Greater flexibility in laboratory oriented classes (science, industrial tech., home studies)
6. Tutorial periods
7. Improved student-teacher relations
Schools that have instituted block scheduling (described herein as class periods that
are extended, usually to 100 minutes or more, on an alternating schedule) have reported
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
various levels of success in one or more of the seven areas described above. Informal
student and staff surveys conducted at the end of the school year have indicated satisfaction
with the changes (unpublished surveys, 1994, 1995). There is a paucity of literature
however, that substantiates more effective use of classroom time and changes in teacher
behavior in the classroom, nor are there qualitative measures on teacher satisfaction with
these bell schedule schemes. Sessoms ( 1995) in an unpublished manuscript, reports
teacher satisfaction across three different types of bell schedules, all of which incorporated
longer class periods and fewer meetings. His survey on block scheduling was confined to
one school, however.
The Health and Media Academies in Oakland, CA , a project dealing with at-risk
students, reports a positive impact on students in terms of their improved attitudes toward
school, academic performance, social bonding and future orientation. Among the features
of this academy is block scheduling and extended classroom periods.
Statement of the Problem
Educational periodicals, qualitative reports, recent publications and educational
consultants have reported success with altered bell schedules which provide longer blocks
of time for students in high school classrooms. The reports suggest that teachers are able to
make more productive use of their available time and implement instructional strategies that
they were unable to use under the more compressed fifty minute schedule. Preliminary
evidence from practitioners indicates that teachers in block scheduled schools “reported that
they liked having more...time for creative and meaningful student woric; and the ability to
structure a full lesson, to introduce a topic or concept, discuss it, and bring it to closure”
(Buckman, King, Ryan, 1995, p. 18). The use of time is a central issue in the National
report Prisoners of Time (1994). According to the authors, “Above all, it [time] governs
how material is presented to students and the opportunity’ they have to comprehend and
master it” (p.8). Presently however, there is little documentation to support the proposition
8
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
that teachers are actually implementing new and innovative instructional strategies in
schools that have implemented block schedules. Nor do we know that teachers see
advantages in the areas of social interaction, curriculum, assessment and school-wide
management
It is important to hear from teachers in high schools to find if they are utilizing the
increased time blocks to engage in meaningful teaching activities other than extended
lectures. While lectures have a place in an engaging school curriculum, their over use can
lead to a stilted, pedantic experience in which students are passive vessels not engaged in
concept formation or synthesis of material. If we accept the premise advanced by Carroll
( 1990) that, “overuse of lecturing is a major problem of high school instruction” (p.362),
then improper use of block time may result in instructional problems in the long run. If
block scheduling is to be successful in providing students with an improved educational
experience, then teachers must utilize their time in meaningful ways that support students.
Canady and Rettig ( 1995) state:
We predict that the single most important factor in determining the success or
failure of block scheduling programs will be the degree to which teachers
successfully alter instruction to utilize extended time blocks effectively. If
instructional practices do not change, the block scheduling movement of the
1990s, like the flexible modular movement of the 1960s and 1970s will be
buried in the graveyard of failed educational innovations (p. 22).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to connect three aspects of time allocation;
psychological, economic and structural, to the realities of teacher behaviors in the
classroom. How can restructuring time in the instructional day affect teacher behaviors in
the classroom? Canady ( 1993) argues that the simple intervention of increasing the amount
of time a teacher is exposed to students in the classroom can lead to experimentation with
learning activities that increase student engagement and satisfaction. He states that
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
“teachers...are encouraged to break away from overreliance on lecture/discussion as the
primary (often only) model of teaching” (p. 312). Indeed, based on teacher interviews, the
reports from Carroll’s Copemican Plan indicate greater teacher experimentation with active
learning strategies. He writes, ‘The longer class periods forced them to examine their
teaching practices, and to do irmovative planning” (1994, p. 118).
This study will ask teachers at four high schools that have changed to block
scheduling whether the change has resulted in differences in instructional practices,
assessment techniques and curriculum. It will also ask if teachers have found changes in
social interaction with and among students and whether it has resulted in changes in the
management of the school.
Questions to be Answered
1. Do teachers report that they utilize a variety of instructional practices during the
extended block schedules?
2. Has block scheduling affected the way teachers assess student progress?
3. Do teachers believe that block scheduling fosters improved social interaction in the
classroom?
4. Does block scheduling affect coverage of the curriculum?
5. Does block scheduling affect the management of the school and its climate for learning?
6. Are there differences between teacher responses based on department assignment, years
teaching, years teaching imder block, or based on school demographics?
7. Is block scheduling preferred over the traditional schedule?
Importance of the Study
In the Huntington Beach Union High School District, four of six comprehensive
high schools have implemented block scheduling. There are presently two schemes in
10
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
operation, one with a rotating block and another with one traditionally scheduled day and
four block scheduled days. Neighboring districts in Orange County are conducting
investigations into whether or not they will implement the schedules. The increase in block
scheduled schools suggests that there is an acceptance of new ideas regarding time and
schools. The inherent danger in implementing changes without a sound theoretical and
practical basis is that the block schedules may not meet the expectations and claims of its
supporters. Failed educational change can cause significant problems for reformers and
visionaries. Fullan (1993) cautions against “Groupthink”, which he defines as the
"uncritical acceptance and/or suppression of dissent in going along with group decisions”
(p. 82). He suggests that implementation of educational change is a deeper activity than
simple mechanical changes in schools. The core of irmovation is what the teacher does in
the classroom. While we may understand that changes in scheduling facilitate change, we
need to know if those changes are happening. In continuing his discussion on change,
Fullan ( 1993) says “It is not farfetched to conceive of teachers as change agents. Teachers
are the sine qua non of getting anywhere”(p. 6). The knowledge of what teachers are
doing under block schedules will add to our knowledge regarding classroom activities and
their effect on students. If we accept the notion that educational change must have its effect
within the classroom, then we must increase our data base on what is actually accomplished
under different time schemes in our schools.
Assumptions
The study will be conducted under the following assumptions:
1. The sample of teachers is representative of a range of experience, expertise, skill and
background.
2. The responses on the investigative instrument are reflective of the attitudes and activities
of the respondents.
11
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3. The block schedules investigated are representative of the types of schedules that are
being implemented in the southern California area.
4. The sampling method and questionnedre will be a true reflection of the teachers beliefs.
Delimitations of the Study
1. The study will confine itself to the teachers in the Huntington Beach Union High
School District who work under the condition of block scheduling. The District
represents a wide range of student socioeconomic levels, teachers with a range of years
of experience, and a range of years under block scheduling of from five years to one
year.
2. All teachers working under Block will be given the opportunity to respond to the
survey anonymously, separated by department for analysis of trends by discipline.
3. The conclusions are limited to those respondents within the Huntington Beach Union
High School District.
4. The investigation will not attempt to tie student achievement to the use of block
scheduled time.
Limitations
The following limitations can affect the conclusions of the study:
1. The survey instrument itself may place limitations on the respondents ability to express
certain perceptions.
2. Teacher responses may be affected by the political climate within the district because of
contractual implications of the schedules.
Rationale and Theoretical Framework
Time has been linked to school learning for decades. In the 1970’s, flexible
modular scheduling was promoted as a way to answer individual student needs in an
12
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
increasingly complex society. Trump (1977) argued for a school structure that provided
small modules of time in which students could receive an intense, individualized experience
with a teacher. He argued that “the school for everyone sees independent study as the
central phase of its efforts” (p. 137). Trump was critical of the standard school schedule
and saw that how time was used was an important indicator of the success of a program.
He stated that “A school system that schedules standard length class periods and controls
the time by sounding bells every 30-60 minutes does not help students to learn to use time
productively” (p. 141). Ultimately, managerial and administrative problems with this
concept caused it to disappear; the organization of most schools that experimented with
flexible scheduling reverted back to the traditional schedule which had developed as a result
of the recommendations of James Conant ( 1959).
In the 1980’s the influence of time on learning gained an impetus from the
accountability movement. Seifert and Beck ( 1984) reflected this concern when they wrote,
“Researchers may disagree on the best ways to evaluate the influence of this variable, but
little disagreement exists concerning the notion that time is crucial” (p.5). Time as a variable
is dependent on several other conditions before learning can be predicted to be enhanced.
While there is some disagreement on exactly which variables are critical, the literature
seems to indicate that classroom practices which make a difference in academic expectations
and student achievement are;
1 . Time allocation
2. Engagement rates
3. Classroom management and discipline
4. Instructional practices that promote student achievement
5. Opportunities for student responsibility and leadership
Seifert and Beck (1984) outline other factors influencing classroom success, but
conclude that Academic Learning Time is derived from engaged time, which is a function
of the allocated time within the classroom. Allocated time is determined by administrative
13
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
practices and district policy. It is the merger of allocated time and academic learning time
that is central to this dissertation topic. If the allocated time can be expanded through
changes in administrative policy, then it would follow that adjustments in teaching
strategies will enhance academic learning time; student achievement will increase. It is not
within the scope of this investigation to tie block scheduling to student achievement, but to
document teacher beliefs regarding block scheduling on several aspects of school
functioning. Walberg, (1988) in arguing for more productive use of time in schools
indicates that lengthening the school day is not desirable, rather the day needs to be more
productive. He indicates that, “Raising time allocations and engaging students for a greater
fractions of allocated time are likely to help learning” (p. 85).
Both Seifert and Beck (1984) and Justiz ( 1984) reported that instructional time in
traditionally scheduled secondary schools suffers from disruptions, distractions and
administrative processes. While their estimates vary, both report that classroom time is lost,
in the amount of anywhere from 54.2% of the total to 55%. Justiz ( 1984) advanced the
notion of longer class periods in his report when he suggested that “It might also
experiment with keeping smaller groups of students together for larger blocks of time
during the school day. This organizational pattern would allow students intensive
engagements with the subject matter” (p. 484). Arlin (1979) found that teacher transitions
during the school day cost students unnecessary time wasted as a result of the disruption of
activity and the additional time needed to re-focus the class. The traditional secondary
school day is full of transitions and movement that is a costly waste of student time. If this
time can effectively be restructured to lessen the amoimt of transition time, then it is
believed that there will be a benefit not only to students, but to the teachers who need not
work through as many transitions per school day.
The traditional school schedule supported an industrialized America for several
decades. Changes in the economy, the structure of work in America and the demands of the
business community have caused educators to question whether the segmented, regimented
14
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
traditional day results in greater student learning and supports the recent wave of
restructuring efforts. If the time in a traditional day can be rearranged to allow for less
record keeping and more instruction, then there should be greater opportunity for teachers
to move away from the traditional lecture format that typifies instruction in public high
schools. Teachers, presented with a day that features fewer transitions, fewer students and
more time for instructional activities should avail themselves of the opportunity to vary
instruction and use such techniques as, simulations, cooperative group activities, Paideia
Seminars, and group processing and evaluation; techniques which promote greater student
participation in the acquisition of knowledge promote independent thinking, judgment and
the synthesis of knowledge. Knowing whether these activities are facilitated by the
condition of block scheduling will facilitate its implementation in schools throughout the
country. If teaching methods do not change as a result of the condition of block scheduling,
then, as Canady and Rettig ( 1995) state, it “will be buried in the graveyard of failed
educational innovations” (p. 22).
With schools throughout Orange County, and southern California adopting block
scheduling schemes, substantive data on the effectiveness of these ideas is imperative. By
surveying a number of teachers who are at various stages in the development of block
scheduling strategies, data will be made available on its effect on classroom behaviors.
Methodology
A survey of teachers who are presently teaching under block scheduling will be
administered to teachers in a Union High School District which contains students from a
broad range of socioeconomic levels and ethnicity. Four high schools will be surveyed,
one with a five year history of block scheduling, two with a three year history, and one
with a two year history. In studying the teacher responses from the various schools,
information should be available on the function of time under the condition of block
15
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
scheduling as it relates to social interaction, assessment, curriculum, instructional practices
and school-wide management
Analysis of the questions posed in the survey will provide information on whether
teachers are changing their instructional practices as they adjust to extended periods of
instructional time. Free response opportunities from the teachers will allow the participants
to illustrate their beliefs about block scheduling.
Comparison of groups of teacher responses will allow for analysis of critical
variables that might affect teacher assessment of block scheduling.
Definition of Terms
1. Block Schedule: Strategy of doubling the length of class time, with a decrease in the
number of class meetings per week. One day per week remains traditionally scheduled.
2. Carnegie Unit: A standard number of credit hours awarded to a student. Student seat
time in a given subject area is equated to completion or mastery of that subject.
3. Rotating Block: Block scheduling scheme in which the even and odd number school
days rotate day by day.
4. Traditional Schedule: Six, to seven period day with a class length of from 45 to 54
minutes. The length varies according to the particular school, but classes meet daily
with transitions between classes lasting from four to seven minutes.
Research Design
This is a descriptive study. The study includes the following elements:
1. Statement of the Problem
2. Review of the literature
3. Administration of confidential survey to all eligible survey participants
4. Tabulation and analysis of results.
16
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Organization of Remaining Chapters
The remainder of the study is organized into four additional chapters, a
bibliography and appendices.
Chapter 2 is a review of related literature. This review offers an historical
perspective as well as acquainting the reader with existing studies relative to the topic.
Chapter 3 describes the research methodology, the development of the survey
instrument, the sampling and the treatment of the data.
Chapter 4 presents an analysis and interpretation of the findings.
Chapter 5 presents a summary of the study with conclusions and recommendations.
17
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER!
REVIEW OF THE UTERATURE
Time and Schools
The school calendar as it exists today developed as a result of social and economic
needs which were operant in the 17th century. Based on an agrarian society, which
depended on the seasons to dictate activities, schools opened when young children were
available and closed when they were needed at home. Schools today still maintain the last
vestige of that dependence on the calendar, with the summer recess and winter break.
Concern about this state of affairs is not new. The National Commission on Time
and Learning, in its publication. Prisoners of Time (1994) indicate that as early as 1894,
then Commissioner of Education William T. Harris complained about the shortening of the
school year by two days. Since then, there have been changes in the number of days in the
yearly calendar and in the number of hours per day that students are exposed to instruction.
From 1890 to 1988, the number of days per school year have risen from 135 to 178. The
average number of days that students have attended increased and the number of five to 17
year old students has risen from 69% to over 88% (Walberg, 1988). Those changes have
not diminished concern over the use of time and its effect on learning.
This study will examine Block Scheduling which attempts to rectify problems
associated with inefficient use of time in the traditional secondary school schedule, and
determine if there are resultant changes in classroom functioning.
The School Year
The length of the school year and the number of hours in the school day were
influenced by historical and economic factors. Dating back to 1642, laws were enacted that
condemned parents who did not take steps which allowed their children to “read and
18
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
understand the principles of religion and the capitol laws of the country” (Sonnenberg,
1995). Subsequent laws sought to force students to spend a specified amount of time in
school. This usually coincided with times in which the family did not require that children
be available to work in the fields or on the farm. It was Horace Maim who, while presiding
over the Massachusetts Board of Education, saw to the enactment of the first compulsory
elementary school attendance law. It required students to attend school for 12 weeks. By
1869-70, the school year was only about 132 days long compared to an average of 180
days today. In 1869, the attendance rate was only 59 percent, compared to the 90% figure
calculated for 1979-1980. (Sonnenberg, 1995) The purpose of schooling then was to
support the development of reading skills during times of the year when youngsters were
not needed to support the family in the fields.
Slowly, however, the agrarian economy gave way to an industrial economy with
different needs. With the rise of industrialism, the need for a skilled workforce became
more pronounced. As a result, the average school year increased to 36 weeks.
(Sommerfeld, 1993)
At the turn of the century, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
Teaching, concerned about regional differences in school records, proposed a standard unit
to measure high school work which was based on time in class. Henry Pritchard, then
President of the Carnegie Foundation, sensitive to concerns about time as the factor in
credits, made it clear that the definition of the “Carnegie Unit” was the amount of work
completed by the student, not simply seat time (Carroll, 1994, p. xi). The Committee
ultimately established that a total of 120 hours in one subject, meeting four to five times a
week, for 40 to 60 minutes, 36 to 40 weeks each year earned one “unit” of high school
credit (Boyer, 1983). This became a convenient and useful way of tracking student
progress throughout the country. While it may not have been the Committee’s intention to
establish seat time as the measure of student progress, it nevertheless became practice to
associate the amount of time spent with the amount of progress made. Presently, students
19
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
are able to transfer from school to school across the country wthout any significant
disruption thanks to the uniformity of the system. The transfer of units notwithstanding,
the problems inherent in the Carnegie system are still related to the arbitrary nature of units
based on minutes of instruction.
Carroll (1994) takes issue with the importance of the Carnegie Unit because it tends
to focus teacher attention on the amount of curriculum covered, not the depth. Time
becomes an issue as the semester advances. Teachers must reconcile the length of the text
book with the amount of time left in terms of the number of remaining 55 minute classes.
Text books are not written with the amount of time apportioned in mind, they deal with the
academic subjects and leave it to the teacher to determine how to pace the material. Sizer
( 1984) has observed that too often, teachers sacrifice quality of instruction for greater
coverage of material.
More importantly, Carroll (1994) notes that there are tremendous variations from
state to state and even district to district in the number of instructional minutes available for
teaching. The determiner of the number of minutes that students are exposed to the
curriculum is not related to research or rational study of student progress, it is related to the
collective bargaining process. District contracts with teacher unions have a maximum
number of minutes per day imbedded within them. This can vary by as much as 50% from
district to district (Carroll, 1994). This situation has caused a number of problems for
schools wishing to restructure. The question of coverage is often raised when schools
attempt to change the configuration of the class schedule. Union contracts and bargaining
agreements set arbitrary limits on the number of minutes per day and how those minutes
will be spent. Carroll concluded that ‘The need to break from the conceptual bind of this
century-old, ’nonstandard’ Carnegie Unit and the current politicized practice is critical if
successful restructuring is to be achieved” (p. 79).
Another, and considerably more important, issue in terms of the Carnegie unit is
that there is little recognition that there can be significant differences in student performance
20
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
regardless of the amount of time spent in the class. The Carnegie Unit prescribes a
minimum number of days that must be accrued before a student can be awarded credit for
his/her performance. The National Commission on Time and Learning takes issue with this
premise in Prisoners of Time ( 1994). The observation of the Commission is that arbitrary
units of time for exposure to a curriculum shortchanges students from authentic learning
experiences and places teachers in an untenable situation; rush through the curriculum to
complete the chapters or adjust to allow for more in-depth learning. The Commission
states; “As time nms out on the teacher, perceptive students are left to wonder about the
integrity of an instructional system that behaves, year-in and year-out as though the last
chapters of their textbooks are not important”(p. 8).
Publication of Prisoners of Time (1994) signaled a change in thinking with regards
to the structure of time in schools. The authors foimd the six hour day, ISO day school year
the “unacknowledged design flaw” in American schools (p. 8). However, the prescription
for change was not to add more time to the education equation, but to examine how time is
spent in the schools and to begin to restructure the allocation of that time. The introduction
states;
The six-hour, 180-day school year should be relegated to museums, an
exhibit from our educational past Both learners and teachers need more
time-not to do more of the same, but to use all time in new, different and
better ways. The key to liberating learning lies in unlocking time (p. 10).
Prisoners of Time was not the first document to criticize the educational day. A
Nation at Risk ( 1983), and High School (Boyer, 1983) before it, both scrutinized the
structure of time in the secondary school. In his summary of the research on time and
learning, Smyth ( 1985) states.
With the mounting concern about the student outcomes in secondary
schools, we should be looking a lot more carefully at the ‘process’ aspect
within secondary schools... We may, for example find that allocated time
emerges as a much more salient variable here than is the case in elementary
schools. If this is the case, then maybe we will be speaking to a different
audience for our research findings-principals and others who control
scheduling and timetabling-^ather than teachers. These are important matters
that should be investigated (p. 18).
21
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Issues on the Use of Time in Schools
Research on the use of time in schools began in earnest in the 1920s and 1930s.
Powered by the pioneering woric of Mayo at the Harvard Business School, researchers
discovered the powerful impact that psycho-social variables had on production in industry
(Hanson, 1991). This ethos of “scientific management” centered on maximizing time
management and cost effectiveness. In the educational world, researchers attempted to
document student attention as the critical variable in the measure of instructional
effectiveness.
The 1930s saw a rejection of the notion that strict measures of attention could
predict student achievement: other factors were seen to have an effect on the achievement of
students (Smyth, 1985). This industrialized approach accepted a hierarchical, formal
approach to student achievement and at its core was an acceptance of extrinsic rewards as
the primary motivator behind student production (Hanson, 1991). Smyth (1985) capsulized
the nature of eariy studies by concluding that there were five major aspects to the
educational studies of time;
1. They were mechanistic, focusing on observations of overt student behavior.
2. They were group oriented, the unit of analysis was the total class.
3. They were superficial, there was no overt connection between pupil behavior and their
reasons for achieving.
4. They were content free with no connection drawn between behavior and curriculum
content
5. They were evaluative, the purpose of these studies was to obtain an index of teacher
effectiveness. (Smyth, 1985)
The late 1930s and the 1940s saw a change in organizational theory, in part
reflective of tremendous social changes. Organizations demonstrated an increased
understanding of human relations, peer pressure, intrinsic rewards and psychological needs
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(Hanson, 1991). Attention turned to student engagement at the time of the introduction of
new material and the students’ reactions to the content
In 1985 Smyth recognized that the amount of time a teacher allocates to a topic
constitutes the maximal in-class exposure of students. Under the most optimistic conditions
however, the student will not be actively engaged in learning throughout the entire lesson.
Smyth cautioned teachers that they should recognize the long-term potential of their
allocations of learning time. He saw time as more than something to be used up, or a void
to be filled. “In real terms it represents the expenditure of a scarce resource, the allocation
of which precludes other alternative uses. In real terms it represents a reflection of values
held to be important” (p. 15).
The authors of Prisoners of Time (National Commission on Time and Learning,
1994) call for time to become an adjustable resource. They state “Both learners and teachers
need more time-not to do more of the same - but to use all time in new, different, and
better ways. The key to liberating learning lies in unlocking time” (p. 10).
Allocated learning time was found in early studies of time to have a critical effect on
student learning. While observations of students in the classroom could not necessarily
predict classroom success, time was recognized as having a significant impact on student
achievement
The Model Schools Project
During the late 1970s and early 1980s the structure of the American high school
came under scrutiny by researchers interested in the effect of large schools on graduation
rates, personal support for students and effectiveness of instruction.
In May of 1970, J. Lloyd Trump reported on the NASSP Model Schools Project.
Working with the National Association of Secondary School Principals and the Danforth
Foundation, Trump proposed restructuring schools to provide a program with varied
strategies and environments for learning. He envisioned principals spending the majority of
23
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
their time working with teachers to improve instruction, develop materials and organize
learning. A centerpiece of the proposal was the use of “flexible time” in the school day.
Trump recommended that there be time during the day for students to work independently,
or out in the community. Depending on the subject being studied, a student might spend
100 minutes in a laboratory or classroom, and then only thirty minutes on a different
subject area. The size of the study group might also vary. Regrouping of students would
happen frequently, as students mastered material and moved on to other learning
experiences (Trump, 1970). Under this structure, teachers would work individually in
offices or in groups organized by departments, and act as counselors to about 35 pupils.
Their work week would be apportioned to provide for large group instruction, small group
work, and preparation. The striking aspect of the proposal was that teachers would not
perform direct instruction more than 10 hours per week. Thirty schools participated in the
project, as reported by Trump in 1973. The schools were encouraged to accomplish ten
changes in structure, however Trump ( 1977) indicated that few of the schools were able to
implement all ten recommendations.
By 1975 the project was officially terminated. Schools that had attempted to
implement the ten recommendations reverted back to traditional configurations. In 1977
Trump and Georgiades reviewed what worked, and what didn’t work about the project.
Among their favorable findings was the practice of making schedules more flexible. They
found that the Model Schools schedule “provided more variety in the use of time than do
conventional six-period days” (p. 75).
Ultimately, what caused the termination of the project were problems related to
school leadership, school climate and discipline. Canady and Rettig ( 1995), indicate that
the allocation of 30 to 40% of a student’s time to independent study or individual tutorials
caused insurmountable problems for school staff. Another major factor in the failure of the
project was the issue of teaching methods and teacher behavior. “Teachers often found it
difficult to tailor their teaching practices to the varying lengths of time” (p. 15).
24
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The Model Schools Project proved to be a failure. There were more factors
involved besides a change in the school schedule. Changes in the nature of the teachers'
role, the principals’ role and the students themselves mitigated against the Model Schools
Project. Nevertheless, Trump found that the change in the school day provided flexibility
and a certain amount of freedom for students. This early experiment provided some
qualified success and gave later researchers a hint at what could be accomplished during the
day. Canady and Rettig (1995) cite Goldman (1989) who researched the Project and said
“Some form of flexible, adapted scheduling is a sophistication which we probably cannot
afford to overlook”(p. 15).
The use of flexible scheduling as a factor in the failure of the Model Schools Project
must be remembered when considering the change to block scheduling. It is possible that
the single most important factor that could affect the success of block schedules is the
ability of teachers to adjust to the differences in classroom time. Teachers used to a set
period of lecture time may reject the change because of their inability, or refusal to alter
their methods.
The Carnegie Report
In the spring of 1980, the Board of Trustees of the (Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching proposed a study of the American high school. It was
determined that the study would focus on public high schools, where at the time 91 percent
of the nation’s secondary students-some 31 million people went to school (Boyer, 1983).
The report was issued in the form of the book High School (Boyer, 1983). It saw
schools as troubled institutions. Deteriorating infrastructure, crowded classrooms,
uninspired teaching, lack of leadership and an unclear mission in the face of a changing
society led the authors to propose twelve goals for the improvement of schools. One of the
goals was to provide flexibility in the school day, and move away from the mechanistic,
systematized approach that treats students in an impersonal fashion. Boyer, and the
25
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
associates who contributed to the report, believed that schools should combine the
advantages of “bigness” (more program and offerings) with the social advantages of a
small institution. Ironically, this report was proposed and fimded by the Carnegie
Foundation, the very institution that at the turn of the century prescribed much of the
program and the time frames that schools now offer.
Boyer noted in 1983 that the school year had increased to 178-180 days. This was
an increase from 1870, when the school year lasted only 132 days (Sotmenberg, 1995).
There had been little change in the length of the school day, however, since 1908 when the
five and one half hour day was prevalent. Over the years, school size increased as rural
districts merged and formed larger districts. Students traveled longer distances to attend
schools that provided more program options as a result of greater enrollment. Much of this
change came about as a result of recommendations from James Conant (1959), who saw
that small high schools, those with graduating classes of less than one hundred students,
usually could not afford to offer senior science and foreign languages. It was his opinion
that small schools could not offer a comprehensive curriculum.
The length of the school day did not necessarily concern Boyer and the Carnegie
researchers, however. Even with the knowledge that European and Asian students were
spending more hours in school, Boyer did not feel that the answer to the American school
dilemma was to lengthen school hours or the school year. He stated;
The urgent need is not more time, but better use of time. The great problem
today appears to be the incessant interruption of the bell, the constant
movement of students from room to room, the feeling that the class is over
just as learning has begun (p. 232).
This frustrating aspect of the American high school came to the researchers from
numerous interviews with staff members, teachers and administrators. Boyer saw a
tremendous waste of time in the school day as a result of changes and disruptions in the
schedule. He saw the potential to restructure available time, thereby creating greater
efficiency.
26
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
He cited the description of a school in Washington D C. in which students attended
in two and one-half hour “blocks”, taking only two classes per day. This schedule fostered
a type of intimacy which would ensure students a greater exposure to instruction in a
setting where the teacher was able to complete themes and get to know a smaller number of
students on a daily basis. This recognition of the need for alternative scheduling formats
was particularly true for laboratory sciences in the high schools. Boyer ultimately argued
not for more time, but for the flexible use of time in the school day. Additionally, he argued
that large high schools, defined as those with over 2,000 students should organize
themselves into smaller units, “schools within schools” to establish a more supportive
social network (p. 315). He cited analyses of schools with small graduation classes that
were able to offer a more intimate school experience (Barter and Gump, 1964).
Interestingly, fifteen years later Marshak ( 1995) argues for smaller school
communities that ignore the advice of Conant Smaller school communities, built around
longer exposure to fewer teachers is proposed as a way to create more success for students,
engage at-risk students and to “re-engage students in adult society”(p.32). Both Marshak
and Boyer see an inherent danger in the large high school becoming impersonal and distant
as a result of the desire to increase program offerings. Rigid, fixed schedules based on the
arbitrary nature of the Carnegie Unit were seen as counter to the needs of students.
Despite the failure of the Model Schools Project, later research affirmed that there
was a need to move students away from rigid, fixed schedules. Boyer saw problems
inherent in a large high school with a fixed schedule. Exactly how to fix that flaw, however
was left unclear, except for the recommendation for more flexibility during the day and the
need to personalize the school experience for students.
Time on Task
Studies of the use of classroom time have produced a number of generalizations that
can be made with regards to time and its function in learning. Prior to the publication of
27
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
High School, and A Nation at Risk, researchers looked at those critical factors involved in
the use of time in schools. Bloom (1953) had previously begim investigations which
attempted to understand the covert mental activities involved in learning. Bloom ( 1974)
sought answers to his research questions by asking students about their thoughts during
lectures and classroom discussions. He later reported;
I have considered differences in learning achievement between nations,
states, and communities. I have also considered differences in the learning
of particular subjects imder different classroom conditions. While there can
be no simple explanation for all of these differences, it seems to some of us
that the percent of time the students spend on task in the classroom may be a
powerful variable underlying most of these differences (p. 687).
This emphasis on time on task became a persistent theme during the 1970s. Bloom
and others devoted energy towards establishing connections between the amount of time
students were overtly engaged in classroom activities and their achievement. Based on
studies which calculated the amount of time students appeared to be attending during class,
researchers saw a causal relationship between on task activities and performance in the
classroom. Ultimately, researchers at the Far West Laboratory for Educational Research
and Development published the Beginning Teacher Evaluation Study (BTES) which
generated interest in the conceptualization of “a group of loosely linked variables they
described as Academic Learning Time (ALT)” (Smyth, 1985). Described by Fisher et al.,
in 1978, the elements that collectively constitute ALT are; allocated time, engagement rate,
and success rate.
Under this conceptualization, allocated time is described as the amount of time made
available for learning. This rather broad variable describes the students’ opportunity for
exposure to learning material. This variable is controlled by the teacher and has come under
scrutiny as a result of the BTES. Goodman ( 1990), cautioned that “The BTES data reveal
that only a moderate amount of the time (less than half) available for instruction actually
involves children in meaningful academic pursuits...Undeniably, there is competition
between instructional and non-instructional activities in the classroom” (p.33).
28
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Interruptions in the School Dav
Subsequent studies (Rosenshine, 1980, Justiz, 1984, Seifert and Beck, 1984)
demonstrated that non-instructional activities impinge on the teaching day and affect the
amount of time that students are exposed to instruction. Housekeeping activities,
interruptions, aimouncements and other activities conspire to decrease the amount of time
that can reasonably be allocated to instruction. Goodman (1990) states;
For the classroom teacher, time is a limited and critical resource. There is
only a finite amount of time in which to accomplish a long shopping list of
educational goals and objectives. ...A combination of academic and
nonacademic factors vie with the teacher for the limited time available during
the school day and over the course of the school year...Teachers know that
time is a critical factor in student achievement (p. 10).
&igagement rates represent an attempt to gauge the proportion of the allocated time
that the student appears to be learning. This is an admittedly subjective evaluation since the
cues for student engagement may not indicate that the student is actively engaged in the
learning task. Moreover, it is not reflective of the deeper understandings that the student
may have of the material. In conducting research on student engagement rates, there was no
attempt to impute value to those measures of engagement. Nevertheless, allocated learning
time, coupled with measures of student engagement proved to be predictors of the third
element of ALT, success rate. Thus, it was foimd that in elementary classrooms where
teachers allocated maximal time to basic instructional tasks and where student engagement
rates were high, there was a high success rate on the part of students. Those three factors
were correlated with high levels of achievement
Much of the research which led to conclusions about classroom time focused on the
elementary classroom. Consequently, criticism of Academic Learning Time as a conceptual
framework centered on that elementary bias. Seifert and Beck ( 1984) related ALT to the
secondary classroom. They attempted to find a relationship between student achievement
gains and selected time-related variables at the secondary level. They found that effective
schools were characterized by factors that they saw as time related, or dependent.
29
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Establishing an academically demanding climate, conducting an orderly, well-managed
classroom, ensuring student academic success, implementing instructional practices that
promote student achievement and providing opportunities for student responsibility and
leadership all required time to establish and nurture. They cited Clauset ( 1982) who
reported that allocated time is in large measure a function of school practices and policies.
The construction of those policies were felt to be outside the sphere of influence of many
secondary teachers.
For their study, Seifert and Beck selected five high schools and applied a
methodology similar to that used in the BTES study to calculate engagement rates of
algebra students. They compared these with achievement on a standard algebra test Their
results were telling. The average number of minutes on-task for a given class period was
27, or 54% of a 55 minute class period. That percentage was lower than the 70% which
was recorded for elementary classrooms in the BTES study. The authors concluded that the
difference between the BTES study and their research could have been due to the greater
amount of direct instruction foimd in elementary schools. They saw another possibility in
the self-contained structure of the elementary school versus the departmentalized structure
of the high school. What was particularly interesting was their contention that “On task time
is maximized in the elementary setting [because students are] under the supervision of one
teacher for longer periods of time” (p.8). A critical question then, if their analysis is
correct, is whether the longer exposure to a teacher in the secondary setting could increase
engagement rates and improve student learning. Seifert and Beck conceptualized the 55
minute period as standard in the secondary setting. By structuring the secondary school day
to more closely resemble the elementary day, with longer periods of time with one teacher,
could secondary teachers increase the engagement time percentages that were found in the
elementary schools?
Rosenshine (1980) conducted a study of time on task. His investigators reported
that about 60 percent of the school day for second and fifth-graders was allocated to the
30
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
study of academic subjects. Their findings showed that in the course of a school day, a
second grader spent an average of about 1 hour and 30 minutes actively engaged studying.
That number increased to only 1 hour and 55 minutes for fifth graders (p. 108).
At the elementary level, time can also be squandered in activities that are not related
to instruction. Walberg (1991) found that waiting occupied 20 percent of total class time for
elementary students. The teachers’ general management activities encompassed 17 percent
of class time. Other non-instructional activities occupied a full 15 percent The subtraction
of these percentages from total time left only 47 percent of the time available for meaningful
academic activities. If we accept the premise that the elementary setting is optimal for
teacher engagement of student interest and continuity of instruction, then we are allowing
tremendous wastage at a most critical time for students.
Rossmiller ( 1983) recognized that, while time is a critical factor in student success
or failure, it is quickly eroded by a variety of non-instructional factors. He calculated the
number of possible hours in a school year as 1,080. Using 90% as an average attendance
rate, he saw that the average student lost 108 hours due to non-attendance. Given a 5%
contingency for staff in-service, natural phenomenon or other unforeseen interruptions, the
school year was reduced by almost nine days, or 54 hours. The school day incorporates
time for passing, lunch, housekeeping, announcements and other interruptions. Rossmiller
calculated a 40% daily loss due to these activities. This would mean that 144 minutes out of
a possible 360 per day is lost to non-instructional activities.
Even if one was to calculate conservatively and subtract passing, one homeroom, a
thirty minute lunch and five minutes per period for roll taking and attendance, 105 minutes
or 29.16% of the school day is lost.
Learning however, is not a function strictly of time (Rossmiller, 1983). The amount
of time the student spends on task is critical to the acquisition of information. Rossmiller
calculated that student on-task behavior constitutes about 70-75% of actual class time. This
means that another 25% of a given class period, already eroded by non-teaching
31
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
activities, is lost for meaningful instruction. Eventually, with subtractions for a variety of
non-instructional activities and interruptions, he calculated that only 364 hours dining a
school year were devoted to meaningful learning. According to the scenario that he
calculated, only 33% of the available time reflects active learning.
In 1984 Justiz reported a slightly more optimistic figure for instructional time. His
conclusion was that 55% of the available time for instruction is lost to attendance,
attendance accounting, class changes, assemblies, lunch hours and other activities. In his
view, ‘The school is a social institution, and there is a normal and expected amount of
slack in the school day. But some of the losses cited above represent utmecessary wastes of
time”(p. 483).
Justiz admitted to the loss of time in the day and questioned a number of activities
that detract from the instructional environment He agreed with the findings of the National
Commission on Excellence in Education (A Nation at Risk. 1983), which called for a
longer school year, but argued in favor of better use of available time. He cites the
recommendations of the Commission, then states;
I strongly agree with the Commission that we need to extend both the
school day and the school year, but I also think that the Commission
consider the way we use time in education to be just as important as the
amount of time that we allocate to instruction (p. 483).
One of Justiz’ recommendations for how to make better use of time in the day was
to treat the student as an academic worker, instructing him or her to learn how to learn, a
sentiment that is echoed by Sizer (1992).
Justiz ( 1984) urged schools to teach students how to use time better. Ultimately, he
concludes that “How one learns determines both the quantity and the quality of what one
learns, regardless of time spent on the task” (p. 484).
In addition to teaching students how to make better use of their time during the
school day, Justiz recommended that the allocation of time be examined. He argued that
there are three options open to schools; increase academic learning time, institute mastery
32
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
learning programs for the special needs of students and the creation of longer blocks of
learning time for students. It is the third recommendation that is cogent to this investigation.
Justiz, in 1984 saw the need for smaller groups of students to study together for longer
periods of time during the school day. He proposed that;
It (the school) might also experiment with keeping small groups of students
together for larger blocks of time during the school day-covering a number
of related subjects (e.g., English, history) without losing time in changing
classrooms. This organizational pattern would allow students more
intensive engagements with the subject matter (p. 484).
Justiz’ recommendation would affect the social aspect of the classroom and the
instructional component as well. With greater time available for instruction, teachers would
presumably have the opportunity to group students for cooperative learning and to come to
know the students better.
Increased efficiency in the school day is what was seen as important for secondary
schools throughout the nation. Seifert and Beck ( 1984) saw time as crucial to the
improvement of schools. The report A Nation at Risk (1983) raised concerns about the
amount of time devoted to academic pursuits. The realization that countries around the
globe were devoting more days per year and hours per day sparked a surge of
accountability efforts around the country.
In May of 1984, Herbert Walberg published the results of synthesis of research
studies on the most important factors that influence learning. He reviewed the data from
three thousand studies of education and produced a theory of educational productivity.
From that theory, he determined that there were nine factors which have a potent and
recognizable effect on learning. Each factor was calculated in terms of its effect on learning
and given a numerical rating. Walberg reported that “Collectively the various studies
suggest that the three groups of previously-defined nine factors are powerful and consistent
in influencing learning” (p. 22).
Of the nine factors found to influence student learning. Instructional Time was
reported to have an effect. The overall correlation of about .4 was found to be “neither the
33
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
chief determinant nor a weak correlate of learning: like the other essential factors, time
appears to be a necessary ingredient but insufficient by itself to produce learning” (p. 23).
Walberg did dwell on the question of instructional time and its effect on learning because of
the calls for increasing the school day and year (in 1984) and because it is a factor that can
be easily measured. He recognized that no time spent on learning would result in no
learning. What confused the issue was the realization that increasing instructional time
without any corresponding increases in the other factors that influence learning would not
necessarily increase the amount or the power of learning. Walberg found that personalized
instruction, reinforcement and cooperative learning all had high correlations to learning.
Time optimized these factors and strengthened learning. The synthesis research that
Walberg and his associates conducted led them to conclude that;
In addition, we educators can learn more from our p ^ successes and
failures in using scarce resources, especially human time, to meet competing
goals. Recent national reports may rightly call for more emphasis on
academic subject matter and the National Commission on Excellence ( 1983)
seems right in emphasizing the need for more time in school. But students
should also be employing more time in academic pursuits outside the school
and using both in-school and out-of-school time more efficiently (p. 26).
While Walberg reported that instructional time had a moderately powerful effect on
learning, Gillman and Knoll ( 1984) suggested that “the amoimt of time allocated to the task
of learning can be interpreted as an immediate ongoing measure of student learning”
(p. 41). Eroding that time, however was the expectation that schools teach elective courses,
technological applications and other “non-academic” offerings. They recognized that there
is a corresponding increase in cost associated with increasing the student instructional day.
Additionally, they saw that lengthening the school day or the year could also increase
school management problems. Summarizing the Carnegie Report on schools Gillman and
Knoll (1983) stated that “Making better use of the school day is a movement whose time
has come. It is worth noting that for more than 65 years it has been documented that a large
proportion of the school day is wasted time” (p. 42). This conclusion supported the
34
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
findings of Justiz and Rossmiller, who agreed that management problems and other
housekeeping duties eroded the available instructional time.
Arlin ( 1979) recognized that time during the instructional day could be eroded by
teachers themselves as they transitioned from one activity or subject to another. He
hypothesized that smoothness, momentum, and continuity of signals from teachers could
contribute to disruptiveness and off-task pupil behavior. His study centered on the activities
of 50 student teachers as they conducted lessons in the presence of observers. His
expectations were confirmed that transitions disrupt time flow in the classroom and that
disruptive pupil behaviors increased during these unstructured periods of time. Two factors
of this study are significant for this discussion;
1. Teachers must determine how much time should be allocated during a class
period to a given activity or lesson.
2. The more continuous and unlagging the systems the teacher has in place, the
more task involvement on the part of the students.
With the time available for teachers as a constant, “a major part of teacher decision
making should be deciding how best to use the limited amount of time available” (p. 44).
Arlin found that transitions can disrupt time flow in classrooms. Properly planned,
however, transitions can be structured without much effort, to minimize disruptive
behavior. This can be effectively accomplished through the use of active learning strategies
which engage students and keep their interest high. He cites the example of a student
teacher who saw the time in class as something to use up - “to kill”. The class was off-task
and engaged in disruptive behavior until an experienced teacher arrived and engaged the
students in activities that kept them occupied and interested. Ariin concluded that “If pupils
know what they are expected to do during the change from one activity to another, they
often will do it in an on-task manner” (1979, p. 55).
This research effort confirmed that time is a commodity which is under the control
of teachers and can be seen by those teachers as a resource which is precious and to be
35
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
spent wisely. In the case of ineffective teachers, time becomes something which must be
spent; or in some cases, killed. Successful teachers in this study made transitions in the
time flow smooth and active. The emphasis in the study was on the active nature of the
teacher’s approach and the level of engagement of the pupils observed.
The Call to Restructure
Across the country, the need to change the methodology of schools has become
increasingly evident The publication of A Nation At Risk ( 1983) prompted legislation
aimed at holding public schools more accountable and at increasing the amount of
instructional time to students. This “first wave” of instructional reform extended from the
1970’s to the present (Elmore, 1990). In California, the instructional year was increased to
180 days. In the time that has passed since then, educational initiatives have attempted to
shift from accoimtability to individual student achievement
In California, publication of Caught in the Middle ( 1987) signaled a recognition of
the need to restructure time in schools. Embedded among a number of structural and
organizational ideas was the recommendation that ‘T he school structure for the middle
grades should be a direct reflection of a sound educational philosophy and should facilitate
equal access by all students to the full range of instructional and support services” (p. 106).
Among the logistical considerations that accompany this change in philosophy is the need
for “extended blocks of uninterrupted instructional time for selected core curriculum
courses” (p. 107).
While the report is not prescriptive, it is dynamic and powerful in its
recommendations for flexible, alterable schedules that recognize individual student needs
and the ability for teachers to plan and collaborate. The section on scheduling concludes
that “ The dominant theme is flexibility. The school schedule should be dynamic, alterable,
and always subordinate to the changing requirements of students and faculty “(p. 108).
36
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Much of the language describing these recommendations is reminiscent of Trump’s (1977)
call for a more flexible school day.
In 1992, the California High School Task Force published Second to None: a
vision of the new California high school. The Task Force addressed the need to restructure
high schools by recommending several fundamental changes; particularly the need to
reduce daily student contacts and make better use of time. The solutions suggested included
longer blocks of time for student work, flexible use of time controlled by interdisciplinary
teams and emphasizing the academic foundations through personalizing the experience for
younger students (grades 9 and 10). The Task Force concludes their recommendations with
the recognition that “A lower student-teacher ratio can be achieved by reorganizing
scheduling to allow teachers longer blocks of time, and share a ‘core’ unit with other
teachers.” Additionally, “the number of students that a teacher sees in a day can be lowered
to fewer than 100 students” (p. 54). The accomplishment of those two goals would play a
large part in “personalizing” the school to a greater degree than is currently seen in
traditionally scheduled schools.
The suggestions contained in Second to None and Caught in the Middle appear to
reflect the works of Boyer (1983) and Sizer (1984) who both argued for restructuring the
standard school day in order to provide for greater personalization and the chance for
students to study topics in depth.
Boyer (1983) and the Carnegie Foundation Researchers foimd that large school size
increased the students’ sense of alienation and promoted disconnectedness with the life of
the school. They reviewed Conant’s recommendation for the creation of schools with larger
student bodies and disagreed with his conclusion that a large school could afford greater
educational opportunities for students. They found several outstanding examples of small
schools that provided adequate curricular options within a more supportive and
personalized setting. Boyer ( 1983) created a vision of large schools as desegregating into
37
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
smaller “schools within schools” to “establish more supportive social settings for all
students” (p. 315).
In 1991, Public Law 102-62 (The Education Council Act of 1991) established the
National Education Commission on Time and Learning as an independent advisory body
and called for a comprehensive review of the relationship between time and learning in the
nation’s schools. The conclusions of that nine member commission are explicit.
We have been asking the impossible of our students-that they learn as much
as their foreign peers while spending only half as much time in core
academic subjects. The reform movement of the last decade is destined to
founder unless it is harnessed to more time for learning. ( 1994, p.4)
It is apparent that at the national level, the notion of re-structuring the standard
Carnegie unit has gained a substantial push. The committee calls the uniform six-hour day
and 180 day school year the “unacknowledged design flaw” in American education (p. 8).
To the extent that national initiatives affect local school action, this document has added to
the notion that business as usual in today’s schools may have to change in favor of new
structures.
The committee cited a number of ways in which American school children are
controlled by a rigid system of clocks, schedules and unyielding requirements.
They cited the following findings across the country; the standard school year is
180 days, the average length of a class period is 51 minutes whether the class is physics or
physical education. In 42 states only 41 percent of secondary time must be spent on core
academic subjects. Secondary school graduation requirements are universally based on seat
time.
In short, the Commission concluded, “Time is learning’s warden. Our time bound
mentality has fooled us into believing that schools can educate all of the people all of the
time in a school year of 180 six-hour days”(Commission report, p. 7). Eleven years ago,
Smyth (1984) wrote that, “time is indeed the ‘coin of the realm’ in schooling. Far from
38
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
being a variable that is merely consumed or used up in the process of schooling,
instructional time has important quantitative and qualitative dimensions” (p. 128)
The National Commission concluded that eight recommendations be considered and
implemented in American schools:
1. Reinvent schools around learning, not time.
2. R x the design flaw: use time in new and better ways.
3. Establish an academic day.
4. Keep schools open longer to meet the needs of children and communities.
5. Give teachers the time they need.
6. Invest in technology.
7. Develop local action plans to transform schools.
8. Share the responsibility: finger pointing and evasion must end.
Gerald Bracey (1994), in his fourth aimual report pronounced these
recommendations “commonsensical” but without a great deal of substance. What is perhaps
worthy of more criticism is the fact that this prestigious national report suggested little in
the way of financing these ideas. Some mention is made of using federal compensatory
funds for extending the school day, and summer opportunities. Nevertheless, the re
structuring of the school day appears to be left up to local educators and school boards.
New Models
Some educators, fortunately, have found that modifications in the school day can be
accomplished through internal re-structuring and manipulation of the use of time. Joseph
M. Carroll, a superintendent emeritus and school researcher tells us that we have the tools
to meet the economic and civic demands of oiu’ critics and that they can be implemented
easily and for the most part without cost
The solution that Carroll referenced is a new approach to the structure of time in the
classroom. Dubbed the “Copemican Ran” by Carroll and other east coast educators, their
39
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
solution is to re-structure the teaching day to allow for more teacher contact with students,
and fewer total daily student contacts.
Restructuring bell schedules in our public schods is a challenge to the Carnegie
Unit that has been in place for 100 years. This arbitrary structure has dominated secondary
schools. Typically, teachers see students in blocks of time imder one hour, usually 45-54
minutes (average time; 51 minutes). As we have seen from the work of Arlin (1979) and
Rossmiller (1983) we must subtract daily “housekeeping” such as roll taking, absence
excuses and assignment of homework. Consequently there is precious little instructional
time available to the teacher and students. Carroll (1994) is explicit in his condemnation of
the Carnegie unit when he says that ‘This is an impersonal, procrustean structure that
prevents the teacher from working closely with each student. Indeed, a student may go
through an entire day-or several days-without having a meaningful interaction with a
teacher”(p. 106). He sums his arguments by indicating that teachers can’t teach effectively
and students can’t learn effectively under the old plan. His findings, along with those of the
National Commission, is that secondary teachers are caught in a structure that fosters
lecture centered, large-group oriented instruction and sharply limits their efforts to
individualize. This is a strong indictment of a system that has been turning out millions of
students for dozens of years.
Carroll’s plan, and other bell schedule adjustments, attempts to give teachers a
better use of the time they have available, and provide more contact with students in a more
personalized setting. His “Copemican Plan” divided the school year into three trimesters of
60 days each. Students following this schedule take two 100-minute classes each morning
for a full trimester, for a total of 100 hours per class. That program eventually was adjusted
to give each student 118 hours total class time. At each of the schools that adopted the plan,
students were given the option of the new program, or a typical schedule. The students
eventually became known as “Traditional” or “Renaissance” students.
40
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Block Scheduling
Much of the information reported on block scheduling indicates that the longer
periods of time during the instructional day cause a more relaxed approach towards the time
available, easier transitions between activities and more active learning techniques (Carroll,
1994). Presumably, block scheduled classes can cause less disruption in the classroom as a
result of a more relaxed classroom atmosphere and more active learning strategies by the
teachers. Time can be spent more wisely and with fewer frustrating routine interruptions.
The block schedule additionally creates fewer disruptions during the day as a result
of fewer class changes. Instead of preparing for 5 to 6 classes, teacher and student will
prepare for 2 or 3 classes. This can have a beneficial effect on the student because the day
is relatively more consistent. Canady and Rettig (1995) ask whether any adult in America
today would tolerate a job with five or six different desks, lighting, heating and cooling
systems in any given day. What adult would tolerate five or six different bosses? Truly,
when we look at the high school in comparison to adult working conditions, we see the
traditional school day as ludicrous. By reducing the changes in a day, Canady and Rettig
( 1995) foimd “A reduction in the number of transitions during the school day nearly always
has a positive effect on a school’s disciplinary climate” (p. 6). Flantzer (1993) states the
case for a change in the learning process more forcefully when he states;
Schools that compartmentalize the day into unrelated 45-minute periods,
with students predominantly working alone under stringent and often
dehumanizing rules of behavior, cannot successfully prepare students for a
workplace in which most woiic is done cooperatively, the latest technology
is constantly being upgraded, and worker psychology is increasingly
important (p.75).
The conclusions that can be drawn from these studies is that the typical high school
schedule dissects the school day into a number of small pieces that can act as barriers to
learning. Frequent interruptions, institutional structure, student movement from class to
class and other mandated activities yield a number of small doses of learning. Within the 50
minute class period, teacher skill at transitions and student discipline can affect the quality
41
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
of the student experience. The development of alternative schedule models seems to have
been an outgrowth of the common observation that high schools are busy places with
ccmstant movement in sometimes overcrowded conditions. Sizer (1992) wryly comments
that school bureaucracies survive in this state of near paralysis only because “teenagers are
remarkably tolerant animals” (p. 211).
Relating the studies on allocated learning time and student time-on-task, we find
that the greater the opportunity for the teacher to engage students in meaningful classroom
activities, the greater the likelihood of student success. Reducing the number of daily
disruptions, increasing allocated classroom time, and freeing the teacher from numbing
classroom routine should result in an increase in teacher and student satisfaction. Students
are more hkely to succeed and teachers more likely to attempt to engage students in
authentic learning activities.
Block Schedule Types
The literature on Block Schedules is just now beginning to indicate the variety of
approaches that schools are taking. Most of the publications that outline specifics about
scheduling have been published within the last three years. Carroll (1990,1994) and
Canady and Rettig (1993,1995), have written extensively about the nature of the traditional
schedule and the advantages in moving to longer instructional blocks of time. Carroll
proposes the “Copemican Plan” described in the previous section. Canady and Rettig
( 1995) in reviewing high school schedules, have categorized five basic designs:
1. Single period daily schedules in which students participate in six, seven, or eight
classes every day, 40-60 minutes in length. This is the traditional schedule that
dominates most high schools.
2. Alternating plans that meet classes on alternating days for double the traditional length
of time. Since the week is five days, some plans have a traditionally scheduled day on
Monday or Friday.
42
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3. The 4/4 semester pian; also called the “4 by 4”. Students enroll in four courses which
meet for approximately 90 minutes every day for 90 days.
4. Trimester, quarter-on-quarter-off “intensive model”. These schedules offer shorter,
more intense courses of instruction. Students will take two core courses and related
subjects every 60 days.
5. Various configurations of the 180 day school year. Some districts are reconfiguring the
180 day school year into combinations of short terms and long terms, thereby
providing both instructional time and remediation time for those students who need
additional time. One example is the 75( 15)-75( 15) plan in which a 75 day instructional
term is followed by a 15 day term which is used for enrichment, community service or
remediation.
On the west coast, and in the district studied for this investigation, high schools
have begun to adopt “block schedules”, doubling the normal 54 minute period and
alternating days of the week for the class. In a typical block schedule, students attend one
day of the week on a traditional schedule of 54 minutes per period. Tuesday and Thursday,
students attend odd numbered classes, and Wednesday and Friday, even numbered classes.
The most comprehensive quantitative evidence of the success of these plans has
come from Carroll ( 1994) who reports on the results of a team of investigators from
Harvard that studied his “Copemican Plan” for two years.
In 1989 a team of researchers from Harvard University was contacted by a
committee composed of supporters and detractors of the Copemican Plan. They invited
them to investigate the effects to the plan. The purpose of the study was to determine what
happened to students as a result of the Copemican change. The focus was to examine
student performance when compared against students who were enrolled in a traditional
program at the same school site. Since tests, quizzes and other assessments were the same
for both groups, the setting was ideal for comparison. The researchers published the
following findings;
43
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1. Renaissance (Copemican Pian) students were better known by their teachers, were
responded to with more care, did more writing, pursued issues in greater depth,
enjoyed their classes more and gained deeper understandings.
2. Renaissance teachers were excited about their teaching. Simple changes in the length of
class periods, and in class size can in themselves invite teachers to rethink their
pedagogical styles.
3. Renaissance students, while actually scheduled for fewer minutes in class per year,
completed 13% more course credits than traditionally scheduled students at the same
school.
4. Renaissance students comprehended materials on a par with the traditionally scheduled
students.
5. Oral exams assessing students’ capacities for thinking through problems and working
cooperatively showed that ..."Renaissance students performed significantly better than
Traditional students on these dimensions. When the sign test was applied to these data
collectively, the Renaissance students performed significantly better than Traditional
students.”
Carroll (1994) concludes an analysis of the research by stating that, “Indeed, these
schools experienced improvements of a magnitude seldom if ever reported from a group of
our nation’s high schools’’(p. 112).
As part of the study, teachers were questioned about their level of satisfaction with
the program. The researchers characterize teacher responses as enthusiastic. In an appendix
to his book on the evaluation of the “Copemican Plan”, Carroll (1994) states that “Teachers
are more able to individualize instruction so as to meet the learning needs of ALL (sic.)
students, not just the “top” or the “bottom” (p. 161).
In summarizing teacher responses to questionnaires and interviews, Carroll ( 1994)
made the following comments:
44
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1. ‘Teachers had excellent perscsial relationships with their students and saw this as a
measure of their success,”
2. ‘Teachers felt renewed enthusiasm for their profession. The longer class periods forced
them to examine their teaching practices.”
3. ‘Teachers and students alike were pleased with the quick turnaround on students’
p ^ r s . They were able to go over student work while it was still fresh in everybody’s
mind.”
This data was compiled from a questionnaire and from teacher interviews. The
questionnaire approach will be employed in this study in an attempt to find if the alternating
block schedule results in the same degree of teacher satisfaction, and the types of
pedagogical changes that are believed necessary to answer the needs of students today.
Data is now appearing in educational journals that bear out several of the findings of
the Harvard group. Hottenstein and Malatesta (1994) report that a modified block schedule
in a high school resulted in an improved attendance rate, an increase in seniors graduating,
a major increase in the number of students making the honor roll and a decrease in failure
on final exams. With regards to the effect in the classroom, they state, “One of the key
benefits was that teachers became more intimately involved on a daily basis with helping
individual students in the classroom. The instruction became much more student-centered
rather than teacher-centered” (p.28).
In British Columbia, Reid, Hierick and Veregin (1994) report a decrease in 10th
grade failure rates in four of five subject areas at a large high school. There was a minor
increase in failure rates in French language class. In applying a chi-square test, they found
significant results in five subject areas that they tested They found that average final grades
improved in six of nine courses studied These findings prompted them to conclude that
their re-structuring of time “is a highly effective structure for a senior secondary school.”
Their concluding comments illustrate what can be found in a great deal of the literature
45
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
regarding bell schedules. They state, “At least in the short term, the new timetable has
created a positive atmosphere for academic achievement”(p.33).
In November, 1995, Educational Leadership published an entire issue devoted to
alternative schedules. In that issue, O’Neil (1995) provides a broad overview of the
advantages and disadvantages of alternate block schedules. Embedded within the article are
indicators that the longer blocks of time facilitate changes in teacher classroom behavior.
He states that “The longer class periods liberate teachers whose innovative methods didn’t
fit the traditional schedule-and provide a nudge to teachers who ‘stand and deliver’”(p. 12).
Cited within the article are teachers who give testimony to the changes that they
have made in their own instructional approaches. The principal of one high school is
quoted as saying, “1 definitely see a wider variety of activities being used, such as
cooperative learning, hands-on projects, and other strategies”(p. 13). A cautionary note is
sounded however, by one interviewee, Tom Shortt, director of secondary education for the
Virginia Department of Education. He reminds educators that although longer class periods
support innovation, they don’t necessarily result in those irmovations. His own experience
as a principal taught him that some teachers “would give a lecture and then allow students
to do homework, turning the course into an impromptu study hall” (p. 14).
The final section of the article indicated that there is little hard data on the effects of
block scheduling. O’Neil states, “In general, research has found that teachers and students
like longer classes, and that students do at least as well on measures of academic
achievement”(p. 15).
Salvatera and Adams ( 1995) report on the experiences of two schools in
northeastern Pennsylvania that adopted block schedule plans. The intention of the two
schools was to move from teacher-directed, lecture oriented instruction to a more student
centered, collaborative environment. As the schools progressed in making the change
through the implementation of block schedules, problems with teachers centered on
coverage of material, reliance on lectures during the extended periods, and failure to
46
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
compete assessments. The authors concluded that the teachers tended to divide into two
types; those who adapted well to the change and were collaborative with other staff, and
those who did not adapt well and who withdrew from other staff. Those who withdrew
tended to inhibit professional dialogue and collaborative problem solving. After two years
on the schedules, the authors concluded that innovative scheduling “may increase student
achievement, foster critical thinking and encourage cooperative leaming”(p. 35). An
important caveat that they included, however was that future successes of any major change
might actually hinge on the perceptions of that change, (by teachers) rather than the
change’s actual merits. This would seem to add greater urgency to teacher willingness to
implement schedule changes in a collaborative manner.
Data on the effect that expanded class periods has on teacher behavior can help to
re-enforce the reports from practitioners who have all observed the positive effects of block
schedules in various schools. Certainly, schools in the State of Virginia have moved ahead
with a variety of scheduling alterations. According to Michael Rettig of James Madison
University, 133 of the state’s 290 high schools use some form of schoolwide block
schedule. Those schedules are categorized as 4x4 semester plans, A/B block schedules, or
other configurations. 4x4 plans constitute 43% of the total block scheduled schools, with
the other schools employing some variation of block days along with traditionally
scheduled days.
Many of the articles dealing with time in schools point to rejuvenated staff, positive
student attitudes and improved school climate. Alam and Seick (1994), Canady and Rettig
(1993) and Anderson, (1994) all observe that block scheduling or the equivalent, allows
teachers more time to explore different instructional techniques and get to know students on
a more personal level. Canady and Rettig tell us that ‘Teachers can venture away from
lecture and discussion to more productive models of teaching, in class sessions that are 90
to 120 minutes long”(p. 311).
47
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Researchers working as part of Sizer’s Coalition of Essential Schools have
endorsed alternative schedules. The Common Principles of the Coalition include; helping
adolescents use their minds well, student mastery of a limited number of essential skills and
areas of knowledge, personalizing to the maximum extent feasible, and using teachers as
coaches and students as workers. Block schedules have been found to foster one or more
of these principles in schools where they have been tried. Pat Wasley (1991), in studying
teachers in the midst of change found that re-structured time fostered a “shifting from
‘coverage’ to learning in depth.” She noticed that the teachers she studied moved away
from the lecture format toward depth and mastery. These teachers slowly began to grade
less and diagnose more. Performance assessment took on a new significance as they
learned their students’ strengths and abilities. She is clear to point out that these changes
were not strictly an outgrowth of the bell schedule changes, they were part of a re
structuring effort that looked at the coalition principles first, then attempted to deal with the
changes necessary to implement them. Andersen ( 1982) reports a similar change in teacher
behavior during “Intensive Scheduling” in which students study the same subject for four
hours a day, for four weeks. Under this type of schedule teachers became more
“humanized,” they were “forced to modify their methods.” This modification resulted in a
change from the lecturer or sage, to counselor and helper. The relationship betw een teacher
and student was “closer in intensive education than in concurrent classes” (p. 27).
While there is general agreement that the restructured bell schedules have resulted in
different approaches in the classroom, not every author has reported changes. Alam and
Seick (1994) indicate that an “Intensive Core Program” (ICP) produced better student
grades and satisfaction with the program. Teachers felt that they could spend more time and
energy focusing on students who needed help. They agreed that they modified their
methods to some degree to accommodate the schedule change but, “for the most part, their
instruction remained basically the same.” This reporting runs contrary to the statements of
48
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
other researchers such as Canady and Carroll who have found that teachers change their
methodology to suit expanded units of time that have fewer interruptions.
The Need for Instructional Change
A basic concern of this investigation is whether block scheduling facilitates teachers
in implementing new and different teaching strategies, helps with assessment, social
interaction, curriculum and school-wide management The presumption is that there is a
need to move teachers away from traditional teaching methodology, primarily the lecture
method.
There is mounting evidence that this strategy leaves students unprepared for the
changing world beyond secondary education and that the nature of the workplace requires
new and different skills from workers. What then, is the condition of schooling presently?
In summarizing the major criticisms of American schooling today, Cawelti ( 1994)
found that several aspects of current pedagogy have been held up to unfavorable scrutiny
by a number of educational authors. He found that “A persistent criticism centers around
the growing recognition that tomorrow’s citizens will need to be intellectually equipped
with far more than the basic skills traditionally taught in the schools” (p. 1). He also found
that there is widespread criticism of pedagogical approaches that promote students as
passive learners who are not actively engaged in the learning process. He found that;
“Large-scale studies of classroom life in high schools reveal that students mostly sit and
listen to lectures” (p. 2). He concludes his analysis by finding that research on learning in
recent years encourages students to be more active in constructing meaning if they are to
derive meaning out of the curriculum.
To support the notion that there is far too much passive activity on the part of
students. Brooks and Brooks ( 1993) state that, “the American classroom is dominated by
teacher talk” (p. 6). Additionally, they found, teachers rely heavily on textbooks, which
provides only one view of the subject matter and risks being out-of-date by the time it is
49
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
presented to the class. They find that “most classrooms structurally discourage cooperation
and require students to work in relative isolation on tasks that require low-level skills,
rather than higher order reasoning”(p. 7). This situation devalues student thinking in the
classroom and often demotivates them to participate in meaningful discussions. Their final
premise about the state of classrooms today is that “schooling is premised on the notion that
there exists a fixed world that the learner must come to know”(p. 7). They counter this
notion with the idea that construction of new knowledge should be as highly valued as
mastery of a fixed, static body of knowledge. To them, schooling must be a time of
curiosity, exploration, and inquiry. Memorizing information must be subordinated to
learning how to find information to solve real problems. To that end, they propose that the
teacher move out from behind the podium and take more a more active role in the creation
of new knowledge with the students.
Bechtol and Sorenson (1993) describe three successful teaching strategies that they
have found help teachers individualize instruction. Their intent was to identify strategies
that provide intensive instruction and feedback to students. They found the direct teaching
model, which has existed for almost a century to be among those strategies. However, the
direct teaching model was found in successful elementary schools. Teachers were found to
be able to help students by getting immediate feedback and then making corrective changes.
Interestingly however it was found that central to teacher success was the completion of six
goals on a daily basis. Among those goals were; scheduling adequate time to achieve goals,
starting immediately, staying on schedule in classes and keeping transitions within and
between lessons smooth and brief. The authors agreed with Berliner’s (1979) conclusion
regarding time on task. Effective teachers engage their students in appropriate instructional
activities. It can be argued that under the secondary school model of 6-7 periods a day,
teachers are not able to meet those six goals because they have control over only one
fractional part of the students’ day.
50
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Bechtol and Sorenson ( 1993) also found that cooperative learning strategies not
only work in the classroom, they are essential to meet the demands of the American work
place. They have found that cooperative learning supports student achievement and have
“been found to promote prosocial patterns of interaction among students who differ in
achievement, gender, race, or ethnicity and to promote the acceptance of mainstreamed
handicapped students by their non-handicapped classmates”(p. 121).
The case for active learning strategies in the classroom and group, cooperative work
has been strengthened by recent findings on the workings of the brain and how it seeks to
create meaning from stimuli. Caine (1991) relates a considerable body of knowledge on the
functioning of the brain to the process of teaching. She recognizes that in the classroom,
there is some need to introduce new information in a traditional matmer, but current practice
fails to value the way in which learners construct meaning and make that information
personal and important She finds that many educators have assumed that learning takes
place “primarily through memorization of facts and specific skills...This is like looking at
the moon and believing that we have understood the solar system” (p. 4). Caine
summarizes the problems inherent in teaching today, with the multiple demands on student
time and concludes that “Teaching in the traditional way, dependent on content and the
textbook, is demanding but not very sophisticated”(p. viii). The guiding principle behind
brain research and its impact on teaching methods is that “multiple complex and concrete
experiences are essential for meaningful learning and teaching” (p. 5). This means that the
human brain seeks to make connections with new learning and previous experience and to
construct meaning from that experience. As far as learning is concerned, content is
inseparable from context. Caine’s prescription for teaching is extensive and involves a
number of meaningful experiences. She prescribes three interactive elements to the learning
experience;
1. Teachers need to orchestrate the immersion of the learner in complex interactive
experiences.
51
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2. There must be a personally meaningful challenge.
3. There must be intensive analysis so that the learner gains insight about the problem.
Implementing more active learning approaches is seen as a method for solving the
problem of the unmotivated and unengaged student Cawelti (1993) believes that this
constructivist approach to learning and to teaching will do much to help get students more
involved, especially if students can be helped to see that in adult life they will be asked to
know what they are being asked to leam.
One method of assisting teachers to implement active learning strategies is to
promote interdisciplinary teacher teams. In reporting on the effect of teacher teams. Spies
(1995) summarizes the current literature which supports the use of teacher teams. Among
the benefits are improved attendance, reduced discipline problems, greater teacher
motivation and satisfaction, improved instruction, reduced failure rate and improved
student skills.
In order to effectively accomplish the change from individual teacher instruction, to
team approaches, however, the basic structure of the school day must be adjusted. In order
for teachers to have the time to plan, collaborate and execute new instructional strategies,
the school day must accommodate the teachers. Spies recommends that the teachers on a
learning team be given “a block of time and a common group of students.” He concludes,
“Learning teams can range from being purely student support efforts with no curriculum
changes, to those that utilize flexible block schedules without bells and can engage students
in a completely integrated, emerging, and student centered curriculum” (p. 9).
All of these recommendations are based on a recognition of the need to restructure the basic
school day. Spies cites Phillip Schlechty, president of the Center for Leadership in School
Reform who recognizes that in order to restructure there must be changes in what happens
to the time and space in classrooms. Schlechty is quoted as saying, “You’ve got to
restructure the rules, roles, and the relationships that govern the way time is used” (High
Strides, 1994). Spies recognizes that while the changes in school structure are necessary to
52
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
accomplish change, they do not necessarily cause the change, an important admission
regarding the nature of school functioning. There can only be meaningful and lasting
change if the people most affected accept the purpose and process of change.
Anderson and Walberg ( 1993), in summarizing essays on time and learning argue
for extending learning time. While they do not equate time with learning, they agree that
“the wise allocation and productive use of time increases the chance that learning will occur
and influences both the extent and quality of that learning” (p. 41). They recommend a
number of strategies to enhance the amount of time available for students, among them;
institute flexible scheduling and to use instructional techniques and teaching strategies that
involve students in learning. They have teamed their recommendations in recognition of the
role that adjusted time in schools can have in facilitating new and engaging teaching
strategies. Their conclusion is that making adjustments in the allocation of time in the
school day will result in greater student achievement and more powerful learning.
Informal Data
An informal survey conducted at Huntington Beach High School (one of the four
schools in the study) at the conclusion of the 1993-1994 school year found that parents
were mixed in their feelings about the efficacy of block scheduling. In 1994,54% of the
parents surveyed favored the continuation of block scheduling. Their reasons varied: many
parents felt that there was greater opportunity for the teachers to devote time to their child,
other parents believed that their average student was able to perform better under block.
Many comments on the survey expressed parental displeasure with how classes were
conducted and indicated that students reported they were able to use class time to complete
homework or other assignments. Parents believed that this was a waste of time and that
teachers were not apportioning instructional time well.
Students were surveyed in 1995 and indicated that 37% of them were completing
some homework in class. Only 10% of their homework was completed during the morning
53
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
tutorial period. They were not asked, however to indicate how much homework they were
completing in class under the traditional schedule.
Overall, 77% of students surveyed favored block scheduling. Students were given
the opportunity to respond to a scantron survey in their home room on a strictly voluntaiy
basis. A total of 1243 students responded, representing 60% of the 2050 students enrolled.
The survey was intended to determine student attitudes and give administrators and staff
ideas about proceeding with the block schedule.
In staff meetings, teachers voiced a number of concerns about the efficacy of block
scheduling. Some staff believed that the double block time leads to boredom and off-task
behavior. Others expressed a desire to see students every day in order to provide carry-over
and assign tasks. Additionally, there were variations based on the academic discipline
represented and on personal teaching philosophy. Meetings to reconcile the needs of
individuals often resulted in frustration because the schedule did not have the flexibility to
meet all of the needs the teachers presented. Nevertheless, in the spring of each school
year, the staff approves of the block schedule by a union supervised vote that must carry at
least two-thirds of the staff.
Summary
The evidence to date suggests that schools across the country are dealing with the
need to alter the delivery of instruction and the structure of the school day. The call of the
National Commission on Time and Learning has been heard and endorsed by a number of
educational leaders. Experiments with re-structuring the school day have focused on
manipulating the time available; given legislative guidelines and monetary considerations.
The results show that there is considerable support for these strategies. Carroll, perhaps the
most prolific of these leaders, believes that re-structured bell schedules can optimize time
between teacher and student and foster a more personalized school setting thereby affecting
the social interaction between teacher and student. He states that “Virtually every high
54
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
school in the U.S. can reduce its average class size by 20% and increase the number of
courses or sections by 20%”( 1990, p. 358). He reported in 1994 that a Harvard
investigation found students in schools using his plan were as successful as their peers and
reported greater satisfaction with their classes than students in non re-structured classes.
Students learned more material and had better retention. Similar findings are being reported
by practitioners throughout the United States and Canada.
Carroll (1994) reported on seven high schools across the coimtry which had
instituted the Copemican Plan. These plans feature block scheduled classes that range from
90 to 118 minutes. Each school is different in its plan, demographics and socio-economic
status. While there were individual variations, the team of Harvard Evaluators reported that
“Implementing a Copemican style (Mock schedule) can be accomplished with the
expectation of favorable pedagogical outcomes” (p. 71). That conclusion is an important
finding for this study. If the institution of the structure of block scheduling can result in
favorable teaching situations, then the thesis that block scheduling is beneficial can be
accepted. Prior investigations into school change however, would indicate that other
conditions must be present in order to see a significant change in teaching behaviors.
(Wasley, 1991, Fullan, 1993)
Recent literature regarding block scheduling suggests that the longer class periods
contribute to improved social interaction between teachers and students (Carroll, 1993,
1994), changes in instructional techniques (Canady and Rettig, 1993, Alam and Seick,
1994) better and more accurate assessment of student progress (Wasley, 1991), and
improvement in the management of the school (Hottenstein and Malatesta, 1994, Canady
and Rettig, 1995).
Coverage of the curriculum, however, does not seem to receive the mention that
the other aspects of school functioning has received. Wasley ( 1991) discusses the move
from coverage of material to mastery in depth in block scheduled schools as a reflection of
one of Sizer’s principles that less is more. Canady and Rettig ( 1996) recognize that teachers
55
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
working under block can succumb to a feeling that there is plenty of time, given that class
periods are double in length, to get through their material. They state that “It also is true that
teachers will be ineffective in the block if two formerly 45-minute long lessons are simply
stacked on top of each other to form one 90 minute lesson” (p. 20). They strongly urge
teachers to prepare to handle the pacing of instruction under block differently than under
traditional scheduling. Coverage of curriculum under block is an area worthy of
investigation if block is to be accepted as a method of implementing change in schools.
The informal data gathered from a small pool of survey participants in the
Himtington Beach Union High School District would indicate that while there appears to be
satisfaction with the schedule, there is criticism of some of the teachers’ practices under
block. Additionally, teass the country wo the schedule vary based on the department in
which they are assigned and on their personal teaching philosophy.
It is clear that a number of sources are citing the benefits of block scheduling. Their
conclusions are based observation, interview and small scale studies. (Hottenstein, &
Malatesta, 1993, Sommerfeld, 1993) The conclusions being advanced are that teachers and
students benefit in terms of socialization, assessment, instruction, curriculum, and
management of school. This situation begs the question as to whether teachers are realizing
the benefits that are purported to result from the re-structured bell schedule.
The piupose of this study is to survey teachers who are working under the
condition of block scheduling and determine their level of satisfaction with the longer class
periods and to determine if the condition of block scheduling facilitates the changes in the
areas reported in the literature; assessment, instructional practices, curriculum, social
interaction and school-wide management. If changes are happening in the schools in the
study, then it can be inferred that teachers are responding to the longer instructional periods
and that block scheduling does act as a “catalyst for change” as Canady and Rettig ( 1995)
suggest This catalyst can then be seen as a benefit for students and staff in the Huntington
Beach Union High School District.
56
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTERS
METHODOLOGY
This chapter describes the methodology used in this study, a description of the
instrument and the participants. A summary and review of the relevant literature follows, in
addition to the identification and selection of the problem and questions to be answered.
The procedure used to conduct this study was to carried out in six phases:
1. Identification of all eligible teachers to participate in the study.
2. Construction of survey instrument and selection of process for data collection.
3. Distribution of survey instruments to teachers along with free response sheets.
4. Reminders to teachers.
5. Collection of data.
6. Data analysis.
Methodology
An anonymous survey instrument was chosen in order to ascertain responses from
the teachers who work under the condition of block scheduling The specific purpose of the
survey was to ascertain teacher perceptions about block scheduling and its effect on five
areas of school functioning. Eventually, those five areas were expanded to six by
combining responses in two areas. It is important to survey teachers because an overriding
premise of Block Scheduling is that this condition will result in a number of desirable
outcomes for teachers as well as students. Chief among those outcomes are differences in
teaching strategies and a more personalized classroom experience (Carroll, 1994).
Attitudes, preferences and beliefs are all measurable through the use of a survey, and they
can be used to study change over time. (Weisberg, Krosnick and Bowen, 1989)
57
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Scantron forms were prepared for each school staff. An introductory letter was
prepared asking for participation. Teachers were asked to fill out the identifying
information, and scantron form. Space on the form was left for a free response. Teachers
were asked to deposit their responses in a collection box at each site. This was done to
allow for separation by school.
The Huntington Beach Union High School District is located in northwest Orange
County. It has a total student enrollment of approximately 13,500 students from a variety
of ethnic backgrounds and socio-economic levels. It houses six comprehensive high
schools, four of which have recently moved from traditional bell schedules, to block
scheduling. The District was selected for this study because of its wide student diversity,
the potential pool of teacher participants and because experience with block scheduling in
the four participant schools ranged from five years experience to two years.
Certificated teachers were selected for survey participation. All departments within
the school were allowed to participate. Non-teaching certificated personnel (psychologists,
therapists and nurses) were excluded. The total of eligible participants at each site was;
Westminster, 86, Huntington Beach, 82, Ocean View, 63, and Edison 69 for a total of
300.
Scantron forms were compiled and percentage responses were computed.
Groupings were made to determine if there were differences in teacher responses based on
number of years teaching, number of years working under block schedule and department
(discipline). The four participating schools were grouped into two, based on the population
they serve and community demographics. Huntington Beach High School and Edison High
School were paired and compared to Westminster High School and Ocean View High
School. The Duncan Multiple Range Test was used to compute differences between
selected groups for the purpose of comparison. The level of significance was set at the .050
level of confidence.
58
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Two weeks were allowed for collection of data. At the mid-point of the collection
time, teachers received a reminder asking them to complete the questionnaire if they hadn’t
already. Surveys were collected at the end to the period, tabulated and analyzed.
Instrument
The instrument for this survey was devised using a five point Likert scale with
response choices ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. A no opinion option
was included to accommodate those teachers who expressed no opinion or a neutral
position on a given answer. A Scantron response sheet was used to facilitate ease of use
and for statistical purposes.
The respondents were asked to compare their experience under block schedules
with their experience under traditional scheduling. Most of the teachers who were asked to
respond had experienced the transition from traditional schedule to block schedule. The
total pool of teachers available for study was 300 at four of the six schools in the district.
This represents 52% of the 575 FTE within the district. The two schools not surveyed
remain on the traditional schedule.
An analysis of the teacher salary schedule reveals that 81% of the teachers in the
district have taught for more than 10 years. The average salary in the district is $47,002,
which represents a number of teachers (70%) with an advanced degree and at least 10 years
of teaching experience. While the total percentage of Caucasian students in the district is
55.7%, the number of Caucasian teachers totals 93%.
The survey instrument (see appendix) consisted of 50 statements, to which the
respondent could disagree, strongly disagree, strongly agree or agree. The teachers
surveyed were told to give a “no opinion” response if they had no opinion or if they felt
that they had too little information to render an opinion. For statistical piuposes, the no
opinion option was given a neutral weight of 2 on the five point scale (range from 0 to 4).
59
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Data collection at each site was facilitated by an assistant who placed the
questionnaire in each teachers’ mailbox and distributed reminders mid-way through the two
week process. Teachers were asked to return completed questicmnaires to a central
collection location.
Identifying data was restricted to the nimiber of years in teaching, teaching
department (majority of assignment) and number of years teaching on block.
Since block scheduling represents a change for a number of teachers who have
spent their careers working under traditional scheduling, their willingness to adapt to the
change will constitute a factor in the permanence of the change. Fullan ( 1993) discusses the
nature of the educational system as fundamentally conservative and resistant to change.
This is due in part to the way teachers are trained and to the nature of the system into which
they enter. Fullan states that teachers are “in the business of making improvements (sic)
and to make improvements in an ever changing world is to contend with and manage the
forces of change on an ongoing basis”(p. 4). This study sought to discover teacher
perceptions with regards to block scheduling and whether those changes were viewed as
beneficial to students.
In the district under study, and in many others, the ability to move from the
traditional schedule to block scheduling rests on teachers union approval of a “side letter”
attachment to the district collective bargaining agreement. In order to implement block
schedules, teachers must be willing to forgo the traditional daily preparation period that is
written into many contracts. When schools move to block scheduling four days a week,
classes alternate Tuesday through Friday. As a result a teacher will receive a preparation
period only three days a week. On two of those days, the preparation period will be double
in length and one day it will be a single six period day. The Huntington Beach Union High
School District teachers conduct a union vote (District Educators Association, DBA) in the
spring of each year to approve the continuation of block scheduling. The union has decided
that the vote must pass by a two-thirds margin. The choice of such a large majority was
60
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
made by the union leadership to ensure active support of the change from the traditional
schedule.
It could be presumed from the presence of block scheduling in four of six
comprehensive schools that teachers are in favor of the schedule based on these union
votes. However, there are many other factors that could be attributed to the outcome of the
union vote other than instructional benefit to students.
The secondary master schedule is unique. There is a need for resident teacher-
coaches who must have the afternoon free to coach and go to games. Performing groups
often meet in the afternoon for audition and rehearsal. This necessitates early morning
classes for athletes and performers. Some staff have privately expressed the desire to have
the open afternoon schedule that comes with an early morning class and subsequent early
release. Still other teachers favor block scheduling because it builds tutorial time into the
instructional day four days a week, thereby allowing teachers more time to meet in
department meetings at lunch. District teacher union representatives, informal surveys of
teachers and parental input have all indicated that there may be reasons other than
instructional considerations why a teacher may vote for the block schedule. These
peripheral reasons may be responsible for the favorable votes that were seen at each of the
four schools under study.
Participating Schools
Four of the six comprehensive high schools in the HBUHSD have implemented
block scheduling. Each serves a slightly different population.
Edison High School is in its second year on block scheduling. Located in the
western end of the district, it serves a community with a high Socio-Economic Status
(SES) and preponderance of white families. In the last five years the white population has
moved from a range of 67.47% white to a high of 70.15%. Presently the white population
is at 68.38%. The largest ethnic group served is the Asian population, comprising 11.48%.
61
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The Hispanic population comprises 7.94%. The remaining 12.20% of students distributed
among Black, Pacific Islander, Filipino and American Indian.
According to the State Department of Education High School Performance Report,
Edison High School’s population has 4.4% LEP, 2.9% receiving AFDC and 3.7% eligible
for free and reduced meals. The 19%-94 graduating class had 423 graduates and 30
dropouts. 53% of the seniors took the SAT, with the total math and verbal score averaging
1002. 15.1% of the senior class was enrolled in Advanced Placement classes. 74.4% of
seniors indicated that they were college boimd.
Huntington Beach High School (HBHS) serves an established community, with a
longer history of existence (90 years). The ethnic make-up of the school is slightly more
diverse than Edison High School. In the last five years, the white population has ranged
from a low of 62.62% to its present 64.62%. The largest ethnic group is Hispanic
comprising 14.67% of the total population. There is an Asian population of 9.38%. The
remaining groups comprise 11.33% of the total.
Huntington Beach High School’s LEP population comprises 10.8% of the student
body. 10.4% receive AFDC and 13.2% are eligible for free or reduced meals. According to
the High School Performance Report, 1994-95, there were 435 graduates and 50 dropouts.
46.1% of the seniors took the SAT. The average score total was 963. 67.4% of the seniors
indicated that they were college bound. 24.7% of the seniors were enrolled in Advanced
Placement classes.
While Huntington Beach High School is slightly lower in SES than Edison, the two
schools are comparable, given the similarities in college bound population, advanced
placement students, standardized test performance and dropout rate. There is a larger
population receiving assistance and compensatory education at HBHS, however that
number represents a difference of only 120 students between the two schools.
Ocean View High School (OVHS), serves a more diverse population that is
42.29% white. There is a large Hispanic population at 29.24% that has shown a steady
62
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
increase in the last five years. The Asian population has remained relatively stable at
between 19.30% and 2035% over the last five years. Other races and nationalities make up
only 9% of the remaining students. OVHS has lost enrollment over the last five years. It
has decreased from 2,036 students in 1992-93 to 1349 in 1995-96, a total loss of 487
students. Ocean View has a 25.7% Limited English Proficient population, with 12.5%
receiving AFDC and 14.2% receiving free or reduced meals. In 1994-95, there were 388
graduates and 64 dropouts. 39.1% of the seniors took the SAT and scored an average score
of 956. 67.7% of the seniors indicated that they were college bound. 20% of the seniors
were eruolled in Advanced Placement classes.
Westminster High School (WHS) has the smallest percentage white population in
the district Making up only 23.49% of the student body, there are fewer whites by
percentage than Hispanics, who make up 28.27% and Asians who are the largest group at
39.23% of the student body. The rest of the ethnic groups make up 8.96% of the students.
40.5% of the student body is Limited English Proficient, 35.6% of the students are on
AFDC and 30.1% are eligible for free or reduced meals. In 1994-95, there were 425
graduates and 110 dropouts. 32.6% of the seniors took the SAT with an average total of
911. 17.5% of the seniors were enrolled in Advanced Placement classes and 18.6% scored
above the national average on the SAT.
The four schools in the survey represent a range of Socio Economic Status that can
be seen within Orange Coimty. Taken together, Edison and Huntington represent
predominantly white populations with a slightly over 35% of their students from a variety
of minorities. Ocean View and Westminster high schools represent minority majority
schools. Westminster has the longest history of minority population, with Ocean View
transitioning to a minority majority in the last seven years. Teachers at the two schools face
different challenges based on the population they serve. The demographics of these
schools allow for factor analysis among the survey participants.
63
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
There are also differences in terms of the amount of time that the teachers have
worked under the condition of block scheduling. Westminster high school was the first
school in the district to switch to block scheduling, Edison the last school. That represents
a range of experience under block scheduling of from five years to two years, respectively.
Previous Studies
Sessoms (1995) study of Virginia schools provides information about teacher
perceptions of block scheduling. He combined a teacher survey with interviews to obtain
information about fourteen indicators of school functioning under the condition of block
scheduling. He studied three models; the trimester plan, the day-on, day-off and a semester
plan. One school each was studied under each plan. While there were some differences,
there was general agreement about the changes that can be expected under the condition of
block scheduling. He found that all teachers, under all models discovered that there was a
strong positive influence on instructional time. Sessoms’ finding appears to be in
agreement with the Beginning Teacher Evaluation Study (ETES) which taught us that
allocated time in the classroom was linked to instructional time and consequently, student
success (Hsher, et al., 1978).
In terms of teacher planning time, Sessoms ( 1995) found that teachers reported
increased planning time, but that they needed more time to cope with the change under
block scheduling. In terms of the curricular influence of block scheduling, teachers from all
three models of block indicated the need to spend additional time revising the curriculum.
Teachers, under all three models, reported that they found block scheduling to have
a strong influence on their instructional strategies. “In general, they indicated that they had
more opportunity to vary the activities in their classes. Specifically, they revealed that the
quantity and frequency of different activities and of new teaching strategies used in class
had increased” (p. 220). They also indicated that they were using more project work under
block scheduling. Central to this finding was the fact that, of the teachers interviewed,
64
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
block scheduling allowed them to have complete lessons instead of breaking up instruction
into small parts under traditional scheduling. It is interesting to note that teachers reported
that it was the condition of block that “facilitated, even forced, teachers to change their
instructional strategies” (p. 222).
In the area of teacher-student relations, all of the teachers reported that their overall
relationships with students had improved. Another related study, (Buckman, King and
Ryan (1995) found that teachers liked having more time to give individual assistance, they
had opportunities to get to know students personally and the ability to structure a full lesson
under block. Sessom’s study revealed that the relationship between teacher and student was
positively influenced by block as a result of the more relaxed pace of the school day. This
relaxed pace had an effect on how teachers and students interacted (p. 223).
Sessoms specifically studied the day one-day two model which is similar in
structure to the schedule used in the Huntington Beach Union High Schod District. The
school that he studied offered one traditicmally scheduled day, then alternated block days
with periods of 1 (X ) minutes. He found that the teachers working under this model found
that there is a large quantity of time saved each day because of the reduced transition time.
Consequently, teachers perceived that they had more time for teaching.
Teachers in the day one-day two model did report a finding that seems contrary to
what has been reported by Canady and Rettig (1995), and what would be predicted from
sources in the literature. The teachers initially reported that their use of lecture during block
periods had actually increased modestly since the change to block scheduling. However,
when asked in interviews about this reported change, the teachers indicated that the use of
lecture had not changed. A question on the use of lecture in the classroom was included in
the teacher survey.
Teachers in the Sessoms study reported that they are able to increase the amount of
the curriculum covered and to do so in greater depth. It is the depth of coverage issue that
could be found to have an effect on student achievement. Sizer (1984) recommends that
65
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
schools explore curriculum in greater depth in order to foster critical thinking and student
engagement in the subject
Joseph Carroll (1994) has published results of a study of the Copemican Plan in
place in eight high schools in Massachusetts. A team of Harvard educators developed a list
of questions which were answered from observations, evaluation of student data and from
student, parent and faculty questionnaires. The questions to be answered were:
1. Will the students be able to function effectively in long “macroclasses” of about two
hours?
2. Will the teachers find the intensity of teaching in roughly two hour classes draining;
will they suffer “bum out”?
3. Will the students learn as much as they would under the traditional structure?
4. Will the students retain as much of what they learn?
5. Will the quality of instruction under the Copemican Han be in as much depth as that of
the traditional program?
The conclusions of the panel were that students were able to function well in the
longer classes. They did more writing, were better known by the teachers, pursued issues
in greater depth and enjoyed their classes more. Students also felt more challenged and
gained deeper understanding of the material. The ability to concentrate on fewer classes
than under the traditional schedule allowed the students to explore material in greater detail
and in a more relaxed environment.
Teachers under the new schedule not only felt less stress, but the researchers found
that they “felt rejuvenated and believed that they were teaching students more productively
than ever”(1994, p. 8). Carroll found that “Simple changes in the length of class periods
and in class size can in themselves invite teachers to re-think their pedagogical styles”
(p. 8). This conclusion would support the notion that the mechanics of the school day,
when manipulated properly, will cause changes in teacher behaviors.
6 6
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reid’s, (1995) study of four high schools in Colorado was confined to the effects
of block on the teaching of English, but it shed light on teacher perceptions and student
responses to block scheduling. They found the greatest changes as a result of the new
scheduling came in the area of teaching strategies and classroom interaction. Teachers
reported that they had more time to get to know students and therefore gauge student
progress and achievement. The schedules were felt to allow time in class for thinking and
the development of projects. Teachers also said that they could do more in-depth writing
assignments, noting that in a traditional 45 minute period, there was only about 25 minutes
for the development of the assigmnent The teacher perceptions regarding writing appear to
be validated by students who responded that they had improved their writing skills. The
students cited the ability to practice in the longer class and additional time available to
conference with teachers. The 90 minute classes were treated as workshops by teachers and
students alike. This workshop atmosphere fostered collaborative work among students,
according to teacher and student interviews. The conclusions of the study are that students
and teachers alike regard the schedule change positively.
Selection of the Problem
Practitioners involved in block scheduling approaches to school scheduling cite
advantages over the traditional, 54 minute school day. Canady and Rettig ( 1995) cite
improved school climate, individualized approaches to accommodate student needs and the
ability to provide quality time for all students. Carroll (1994) cites improved relationships
with students, and the ability to individualize and meet student instructional needs.
Sessoms, (1995) in an unpublished dissertation, studied three types of block
schedules. He attempted to ascertain the before and after teacher perceptions of fourteen
identified instructional practices and on two selected performance indicators. Among those
factors were; the overall relationship developed between the teacher and the student, the use
of varied instructional practices and interdisciplinary teaching, the frequency of
67
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
opportunities allowed during the school day to help students and instructional strategies
used by teachers. Sessoms found general agreement among the teachers in his study on
several indicators: teachers believed that their overall relationship with students had
improved, they reported an increase in “hands-on” activities in the classroom and he found
that “Block scheduling had a strong influence on their instructional strategies”(p. 220).
Whether block scheduling has an influence on instructional strategies is a critical aspect of
this study. Summarizing the literature on block scheduling, it can be seen that proponents
believe there are advantages in a number of areas; social interaction, curriculum,
instruction, assessment and management.
For the purposes of this study, the primary areas under consideration for
investigation were grouped into five major “families” relating to the practices of teachers
and the relationship with their students.
Social Interaction
The relationship formed between teacher and student is important in the classroom.
Boyer ( 1983) described the American high school as a place with an often frenetic pace in
which teachers are stressed with multiple preparations, frequent interruptions, clerical
burdens and other non-instructional tasks. He considered this state of stress to be
detrimental to building relationships with students. A school schedule that could provide a
more relaxed pace with fewer interruptions presumably would result in a more positive
experience for teacher and student
Odden ( 1995) argues that new understandings in the area of learning support the
need for students to engage in meaningful activities that involve sharing, discussing and
thinking. He states, “Through social discourse-conversations, debates, discussions, and
cooperative work groups-students learn what to notice, how to interpret events, and what
is counted as thinking for a particular culture”(p. 74). Classrooms in which social
6 8
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
interaction is evident are found to inform students of what is socially valued, engage
students in the thinking process, and help refine individual knowledge.
Canady and Rettig (1995) report that single-period traditional schedules contribute
to the impersonal nature of schools. They indicate that, ‘ Teachers are under a tremendous
stress simply trying to deal with the large number of students passing through their
classrooms each day”(p. 5). Dealing with over one hundred students per day in five classes
fosters a “subject centered” approach instead of a “student centered” approach. They
believe that changing classes frequently, dealing with different teachers and moving across
campus five or more times a day creates an impersonal climate that interferes with the
teaching-Ieaming process.
If the number of class changes can be reduced and the pace of the day relaxed, then
presumably, teachers and students will experience improved social interaction. Knowing
individual student differences can also support learning. Odden (1995) clearly states that
“teachers need to know and understand how students learn to be constructivists in different
content domains because the types of prior strategies and errors students bring to learning
vary by content area” (p. 76)
Can longer class periods enhance the relationship between teacher and student as
perceived by the teacher? This section of the survey attempted to ascertain teacher
perceptions on this aspect of classroom performance. Questions centered on whether
teachers to got to know students better, student participation in class discussions and
general productivity. Changes in the number of writing assignments and reflective journals
were measured as a reflection of student time spent in activities that promote metacognition.
Teachers were asked to determine if students appeared more relaxed during class
and whether they themselves felt more relaxed during the instructional day. Finally,
teachers were asked whether block scheduling favored one group of students over another
as described in terms of low functioning, average and high functioning. A total of seven
questions dealt directly with the area of social interaction.
69
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Curricular Component
Are teachers satisfied with their progress through the curriculum in their primary
subject area? Canady and Rettig (1995) assert that teachers under the traditional schedule
rush through their material in small increments because of the time that is lost in performing
routine daily tasks and dealing with interruptions. They believe that “When teachers are
faced with only 45 minutes, they often feel pressed to at least expose children to
curriculum” (p. 8). The method that is most often chosen, according to Canady and Rettig,
is the lecture; a choice that the authors believe is “not the most effective means for students
to learn material”(p. 8). Brooks and Brooks (1993) cite problems related to rigid timelines
in school curricula. They state;
Rigid timeUnes are also at odds with research on how human beings form
meaningful theories about the ways the wwld works, how students and
teachers develop an appreciation of knowledge and understanding, and how
one creates the disposition to inquire about phenomena not fully understood
(p. 39).
The authors conclude that “most curriculums simply pack too much information
into too little time-at a significant cost to the learner” (p. 39). They argue for more
thorough coverage of the curriculum to allow learners to make better coimecdons with the
material. Longer blocks of time are arguably one way to foster deeper curricular
connections.
There is not unanimous agreement that block scheduling results in curricular
change. Reid (1995) surveyed teachers of Biglish in four Colorado schools that have a
block schedule format and found that “Some teachers perceive no change in curriculum,
although they think that changes should have been made” (p. 10). Several of the teachers
interviewed, however thought that the schedule change could serve as a “catalyst for
necessary curriculum changes-but that it hadn’t”(p. 10). The researchers did find,
however, that there were positive changes in teaching and classroom interaction: areas
related to the instruction and social interaction components of the survey instrument
70
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The more serious problem with traditional scheduling though, is that students are
exposed to fragments of the curriculum each day, with little sense of connection or
coherence. Sizer (1984) describes how subjects come at students “in random order, a
kaleidoscope of worlds" (p. 81). He sees no real connection on a daily basis within and
between subjects taught
The survey asked teachers about their ability to move through the curriculum to
their satisfaction imder the condition of block scheduling. Since block scheduling has been
linked to school restructuring efforts (Cawelti, 1994) there appears to be a connection
between the longer blocks of instruction and teacher willingness to adjust curricular
expectations. Cawelti (1994) saw a connection between block and interdisciplinary team
teaching which helps to overcome “the fragmentation of the school day and facilitate a more
integrated curriculum and a greater variety of teaching activities”(p. 66). Teachers in the
survey group were asked whether they have made alterations in the delivery of the
curriculum and if they had worked to adapt their curriculum to the longer periods of
instruction. An additional question set asked whether they had attempted to write a pilot
class or new curriculum since the change. There were five total questions dealing directly
with the curriculum area.
Instructional Component
This critical component addressed whether teachers believe that block scheduling
promotes the use of a variety of instructional practices. Practitioners report that block
scheduling promotes the use of different instructional techniques given the longer class
periods. Bockol (1995) reports that at a high school in Maryland, the change to block
scheduling resulted in “greater opportunity to experiment with new instructional
techniques’Xp. 15). While Bockol indicates that there was a greater opportunity to
experiment, he did not clarify whether or not teachers actually use new techniques. The
71
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
questions in this survey attempted to find whether teachers are actually using new
techniques as an adaptation to the longer instructional periods.
The impetus for this change comes from a number of educational sources which
advocate more active learning in the classroom. Huff (1995), in supporting block
scheduling states, “Research has demonstrated that lecturing is the least effective form of
instruction that teachers can use, but lectiuing is common in most U.S. secondary
classrooms”(p. 20). At his school, a survey of staff resulted in favorable reactions to the
block plan. Among the reasons cited by staff were; the ability to employ a variety of
teaching techniques, more creativity on the part of teachers, longer lab experiments, more
in-depth class discussions, and more opportunity to foster cooperative learning exercises.
All of these reasons re-enforce the notion that block scheduling can result in instructional
improvements in the classroom. If the findings from practitioners are true, then the results
of the survey should show that teachers are employing a wider variety of instructional
techniques under the block model. This finding could then be compared to Reid’s (1995)
study of English teachers in which teachers reported that they are doing more cooperative
learning and group activities under two different but related types of block schedules. Some
of those teachers reported a change in their basic methodology, moving more into the role
of coach as opposed to teacher or sage. One teacher in her study reported putting more
individual responsibility on her students and more sharing of individual student work. Reid
ultimately reported that “On the whole, the change to a schedule of 90 minute blocks of
time appears to have advantages for curriculum and instruction’’(p. 11).
Questions in the study centered on the use of simulations, experiments,
discussions, small group activities, cooperative learning activities, the use of movies and
videos and whether or not the use of lecture is increasing or decreasing. Another factor
studied under classroom instructional practices was whether or not teachers felt that there is
more or less wasted time in block classes. These questions were grouped imder the
Management Component since they dealt with the structure of the school day. The effect,
72
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
however, is on instruction and classroom flow. There is a great deal of support for the idea
that class time under the traditional schedule is often subject to disruptions, interruptions
and other non-instructional activities. (Arlin, 1979, Justiz, 1984) Block scheduling has
been reported to lessen interruptions. (Canady and Rettig, 1994) Twenty questions on the
survey instrument dealt with instruction and instructional practices.
Assessment Component
Do teachers believe that they are better able to know their students’ needs and make
appropriate assessments and placements? Is block scheduling changing the way that they
assess student progress? Huff ( 1995) found that block created a “better opportunity for the
teacher to evaluate learning and to give appropriate feedback to students”(p. 22). Two
factors from the survey should give credence to the assertion that block fosters more
accurate assessment; the chance for teachers to know their students better and the use of
authentic assessment instead of traditional tests. Brooks and Brooks explain the problem
when they describe the current state of schools;
Teachers everywhere lament how quickly students forget and how little of
what they initially remembered they retain over time. Our present curricular
structure has engineered that outcome. Students haven’t forgotten: they
never learned that which we assumed they had. In demanding coverage of a
broad la n d s c ^ of material, we often win the battle but lose the war (p.
40).
The authors go on to cite the fragmented school day, with six or seven
periods, as promoting the idea among students that knowledge is separate and
parallel, not related. This situation promotes short-term information retention, not
long-term acquisition of knowledge.
If block scheduling allows teachers to know their students better and gives
them the time to devise more appropriate methods of assessment, then we may
accept the premise that block scheduling is beneficial to the curricular aspects of
school.
73
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reid ( 1995) surveyed twenty-two teachers and forty-four students in four
schools who are operating under block schedules in the state of Colorado. Her
findings indicate that the majority of students believed that their ability to write had
improved and that there was at least a perceived improvement in achievement in
English and the ability to understand literature. The 90 minute periods gave time for
presentations and greater student responsibility fœ learning. One teacher was
quoted in the study as saying, with regards to assessment, “There is more time to
learn and more time to ask questions”(p. 13). Rve questions on the survey deal
with the area of assessment.
School-wide Management
Canady and Rettig( 1995) argue forcefully for the use of block scheduling as a
means of improving the climate of the school and of streamlining the instructional day.
Chief among their reasons are fewer class interruptions, less “housekeeping” tasks per
period and a calm campus. They cite the need to train staff however, in techniques that are
effective imder extended periods of time. In fact, they state, “We fear that if teachers do not
alter techniques to utilize extended blocks of time effectively and efficiently, the promise of
the block scheduling movement will die, as did the flexible modular scheduling effort of the
‘60s and ‘70s” (1996, p. 50).
Are teachers satisfied with the training they have received in order to implement
block scheduling? Are teachers satisfied with the effects on management issues such as
classroom interruptions, school calendar and other aspects of secondary school life? Does
block scheduling promote greater collegial interaction? Does school climate improve and are
there fewer urmecessary interruptions?
This section of the survey asked teachers whether the structure of the block
scheduled day provided for fewer interruptions, more instructional time, fewer disciplinary
problems and more planning time. Teachers were asked if the number of preparations per
74
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
day had decreased or increased. The use of a tutorial period was also explored in terms of
whether students made use of the additional time and were perceived to benefit from the
instruction. The effect on collegial relations was explored to determine if the restructured
day relieved some of the isolation teachers experience under traditional scheduling.
A total of fifteen questions on the survey dealt with school-wide management
The Problem
The previously cited studies give strong support for block scheduling or similar
forms of extended classes. Carroll (1994) and Reid ( 1995) report on strengthened student,
teacher relationships, greater flexibility in teaching practices and an increase in authentic
assessment approaches. Canady and Rettig (1995) discuss improved school climate,
increases in innovative classroom practices and interdisciplinary teaching as resulting from
the change to block. Cawelti (1994) makes a connection between block scheduling and the
restructuring process. He sees block schedule and divisional organization as two elements
of the restructuring process that facilitate flexibility of instruction and reduced
fragmentation of the curriculum. This evidence supported an investigation into changes that
have resulted in the Huntington Beach Union High School District (HBUHSD) as a result
of the change to Block Scheduling in four of its six comprehensive high schools.
Informal data gleaned from student, parent and staff interviews provide support for
the use of block in the HBUHSD. Despite the support of teachers in the form of union
votes favoring block for the last five years, there remains a substantial amount of criticism
among staff who believe that the desired goals of the block change aren’t being realized.
The school district’s history of success on standardized tests such as the SAT and ACT has
led some teachers to express the belief that the change to block is unnecessary. Still others
have expressed the belief that there is little substantial change in the classroom. Teachers
are simply extending lectures and allowing additional time in class for homework,
according to some critics of the schedules. These informal concerns are not without some
75
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
support in the literature. O’Neil (1995) discusses the phenomenon of teacher resistance and
the lack of coverage in curriculum as obstacles to successful change. Salvatena and Adams
(1995) also report problems in two schools that are in the midst of change. They report
frustration among teachers with their preparation for Itmger blocks of time and with
administrative support for the change. In one school, teachers expressed the desire to return
to traditional scheduling after the second year on block because of their concerns about the
logistics of the change.
With a growing body of evidence to support the change to block scheduling, the
problem of teacher resistance as voiced by small groups in schools needs to be investigated
in order to determine the degree of satisfaction with block schedules and to judge whether
the desired outcomes are being realized.
Favorable responses from teachers and evidence that there is increased use of
active learning strategies in the classroom will support the thesis that block scheduling
indeed supports change in schools and is an important element in the restructuring
movement, as Cawelti (1994) suggests.
Weak support for the use of active learning strategies, dissatisfaction with the
curricular, instructional and assessment aspects of block will support the observ ations of a
number of teachers that block is an innovation that will soon pass, as other initiatives have.
The thesis that block is a “catalyst for change” as Canady and Rettig (1995) suggest will
not be supported.
The data collected will have significance for the HBUHSD staff since it will relate
directly to their practices and beliefs about teaching. It will also hold significance for those
schools that are investigating the change, or plarming its implementation.
Questions to Be Answered
Block scheduling has been referred to as a “Catalyst for change” (Canady and Rettig,
1995). The move to longer class periods has caused some teachers to examine their
76
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
classroom practices in light of the additional time available and the need to engage students
in extended blocks of instruction (O’Neil, 1995). If block scheduling actually results in the
benefits described by authors such as Canady and Rettig, and Carroll then it would appear
to be an irmovation with promise for secondary schools. Canady and Rettig, however
sound a cautionary note when they state, “If instructional practices do not change, the block
scheduling movement of the 1990’s, like the flexible scheduling movement of the 1960’s
and 1970’s, will be buried in the graveyard of failed educational irmovations” (p. 22). The
study intended to answer the following questions:
1. Do teachers report that they utilize a variety of instructional practices during the
extended block schedules?
2. Has block scheduling affected the way teachers assess student progress?
3. Do teachers believe that block scheduling fosters improved social interaction in the
classroom?
4. Does block scheduling affect coverage of the curriculum?
5. Does block scheduling affect the management of the school and its climate for
learning?
6. Are there differences between teacher responses based on department assignment, years
teaching, years teaching under block, or based on school demographics?
7. Is block scheduling preferred over the traditional schedule?
The survey instrument was devised to examine five components of the instructional
experience: social interaction, curriculum, instruction/instructional practices, assessment
and school-wide management Each of these components of school functioning has been
mentioned in the literature as changing positively as a result of the change to block
scheduling.
77
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 4
THE HNDINGS
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study, as stated in Chapter I, was to connect findings in the
literature on restructuring time in the classroom to the realities of teacher behaviors in the
classroom. The specific subject of the study was block scheduling, in which class length is
doubled and the number of classes reduced by half. Teachers at schools in the Huntington
Beach Union High School District where block scheduling is used were questioned, using
an anonymous survey instrument, on their beliefs about the effect of block scheduling on
assessment, instructional practices, social interaction, curriculum and school-wide
management.
Purpose of this Chapter
The purpose of this chapter is to present the findings of the survey questionnaire in
relation to the seven research questions posed in this study. The survey attempted to
determine if, in the opinion of the teachers, the block scheduling model had an effect on
their instructional practices, on the social aspects of the classroom, on curriculum,
assessment and on school-wide management issues. Proponents of the block schedule
model attribute improvements in these areas as a result of the change to block (Carroll,
1994, Canady and Rettig, 1995). However, Fogarty ( 1996) neatly summarizes one of the
problems associated with the move from traditional to block;
As schools move toward a learner-centered approach and integrated, holistic
learning that connects ideas purposefully, they recognize the need for large
blocks of time. Paradoxically, when teachers get these blocks, they are not
always sure how to orchestrate their teaching for the new time allotments
(p. 77).
78
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
This study attempted to document teacher responses to fifty questions regarding
five aspects of schooling under the condition of block schedule; assessment, curriculum,
instruction, social interaction and school-wide management For the purposes of statistical
reporting a sixth area was created by combining curriculum responses with instruction
responses into an area called, curriculum/instruction.
The questions were written to elicit responses about teacher practices imder block
scheduling. They were asked to reflect on differences between their prior traditional
schedule, and the block model they are now employing. Teacher responses were recorded
on Scantron sheets, scanned optically and tabulated: the results were reported as means
with a standard deviation. Teacher responses on the individual items are reported first
followed by means on the six comparison areas. Further comparisons were computed
based on the identification factors of: departmental area, years teaching, years teaching on
block schedule.
Results
The survey questiormaire consisted of 50 statements related to the five major areas
under investigation. Teachers were asked to respond to one of five choices: Strongly
Disagree, Disagree, No Opinion, Agree, and Strongly Agree. For the purposes of the
investigation, values were assigned ranging from zero to four; therefore, a mean value over
two would indicate a measure of agreement with the statement and under two, a measure of
disagreement A “no opinion” response was assigned a neutral value and resided in the
mid-point range of the responses. Individual item mean scores and standard deviations are
contained in Table 1.
79
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table I
Individual Item Responses
17. Since the change I allow students to complete more
homework in class.
18.1 cover material in greater detail. 2.659
19. My students complete more independent projects. 2.481
1.287
QUESTION Mean Standard Deviation
1. High functioning students are well served by block
scheduling. 2.770
2. Good students are well served by block scheduling. 3.089 1.168
3. Average students are well served by block scheduling. 2.919 1.276
4. “At risk” students are well served by block scheduling. 2.474 1.515
5. 1 am better able to use Cooperative Learning Strategies. 3.111 1.170
6. 1 complete more units of instruction. 1.859 1.415
7. 1 am better able to personalize my approach with
students. 3.015 1.113
8. 1 am better able to vary my instructional practices. 3.259 1.022
9. 1 show more movies and videos. 1.126 1.102
10.1 am better able to conduct student debates and
discussions. 2.719 1.131
11.1 am more accurate in assessing my students’
level of understanding.
12. Students are more productive. 2.474
13.1 am more relaxed during the instructional day. 3.385 1.065
14.1 use more authentic assessment to determine my
students’ progress since the change.
15.1 devote less time in class to lecturing now. 2.348 1.186
16.1 believe that 1 know more about my students’
learning .stvles.
2.556 1.207
1.332
1.065
2.504 1.215
learning styles. 2.600 1.141
1.889 1.359
1.294
1.145
80
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table I - continued
QUESTION Mean Standard Deviation
2 0.1 assign more writing to my students (journals, diaries
reflections). 2.296 1.079
21. Students appear more relaxed. 3.126 1.025
22. In the last year, I have attempted at least one new
teaching strategy that I hadn’t used before. 3.081 .955
23.1 am better able to conduct small group activities. 3.126 1.082
24.1 have attempted new methods of testing and
assessing progress. 2.689 1.123
2 5 .1 assign less homework now. 1.511 1.184
26.1 am better able to conduct experiments in my class. 2.496 .984
2 7.1 am better able to assess the individual needs of my
students. 2.659 1.147
28.1 am more willing to attempt new teaching strategies
since the change to block scheduling. 2.941 1.111
29. The content of my subject area adapts well to block
scheduling. 2.911 1.443
3 0 .1 am better able to conduct simulations. 2.578 1.040
31. Block scheduling fosters the development of critical
thinking in my students. 2.504 1.227
3 2 .1 am better able to complete my objectives. 2.563 1.342
3 3.1 am more satisfied that my students are receiving
adequate exposure to the material in my subject area. 2.630 1.386
34. Students engage in classroom discussions with
greater frequency. 2.763 1.134
35. Tutorial has been beneficial to my students. 3.119 1.166
36. There is less wasted (non-instructional) time under
block scheduling. 2.400 1.492
37. There are fewer disciplinary problems (disruptions)
outside my classroom. 2.889 1.244
81
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 1 - continued
QUESTION Mean Standard Deviation
38. The climate in my classroom is more relaxed. 3.163 1.101
3 9 .1 am able to maintain closer communication with
parents. 2.289 1.119
40. Tutorial provides additional time for students to get
help and understand material. 3.422 .868
4 1 .1 have fewer disciplinary problems in my classroom. 2.467 1.376
4 2 .1 received adequate training, support and in-service in
order to make the change to block. 1.815 1.334
4 3 .1 net more instructional time on a weekly basis. 2.237 1.441
44. Student athletes lose less class time. 1.852 1.307
45. My schedule allows me to prepare for only one subject
on block scheduled days (for teachers with more than
one preparation). 2.044 1.286
4 6 .1 have fewer classroom interruptions since the change. 2.481 1.275
4 7 .1 am in favor of block scheduling over traditional
scheduling. 3.104 1.405
48. Since the change I spend more time with my teaching
colleagues. 1.881 1.107
49. Since the change I spend more time with my department
colleagues. 1.844 1.145
5 0 .1 have worked with another department(s) to integrate
my curriculum since the change. 2.259 1.191
Teachers responded positively on 45 of the aspects examined on the questionnaire.
For the purposes of the study, positively is described as a mean response of over the “no
opinion” value of two. Twelve of the fifty items received approval ratings with means over
3, in the range of “agree” to “strongly agree” (for reporting purposes three digit percentages
were rounded up to the next highest number).
82
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 2 illustrates the items receiving a mean score of 3 or more. Table 3 indicates all
responses that received a mean score of 2.5 or higher, up to 3. Table 4 indicates scores
below the approval mean number of 2. Three of the questions (niunbers 9, 17 and 25)
receiving low means however, were stated negatively and can be interpreted as positive
with regard to the item in question.
Table 2
Mean Response Rating Over 3
QUESTION Mean Standard Deviation
2. Good students are well served by block scheduling. 3.089 1.168
5. I am better able to use Cooperative Learning Strategies. 3.111 1.170
7. I am better able to personalize my approach with
students. 3.015 1.113
8. I am better able to vary my instructional practices. 3.259 1.022
13.1 am more relaxed during the instructional day. 3.385 1.065
21. Students appear more relaxed. 3.126 1.025
22. In the last year, I have attempted at least one new
teaching strategy that I hadn’t used before. 3.081 .955
2 3 .1 am better able to conduct small group activities. 3.126 1.082
35. Tutorial has been beneficial to my students. 3.119 1.166
38. The climate in my classroom is more relaxed. 3.163 1.101
40. Tutorial provided additional time for students to get
help and understand material. 3.422 .868
47.1 am in favor of Block Scheduling over traditional
scheduling. 3.104 1.405
83
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Total response items with mean over three 12
Of the 12 items with a mean of over three, six dealt with the instruction area. On the
survey, there were 16 total questions that investigated block and the effect that it had on
instruction and instructional practices. That would indicate that 35% of the instruction
questions received a rating of over three which represents the “agree” to “strongly agree”
response area. Three of the responses with means over three were from the social
interaction area. This represented 42% of the seven questions related to social interaction on
the campus. The remaining three items receiving a mean score of over three dealt with
school-wide management representing 20% of the responses related to that area.
Tables
Mean Response Over 2.5
Q LIESTIO N Mean Standard Deviation
I. High functioning students are well served by block. 2.770 1.287
3. Average students are well served by block. 2.919 1.276
4. “At risk students are well served by block. 2.474 1.515
10.1 am better able to conduct student debates and
discussions. 2.719 1.131
11.1 am more accurate in assessing my students’
level of understanding. 2.556 1.207
12. Students are more productive. 2.474 1.332
14.1 use more authentic assessment to determine my
students’ progress since the change. 2.504 1.215
16.1 believe that I know more about my students’
learning styles. 2.600 1.141
84
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3 - continued
Mean Response Over 2.5
QUESTION Mean Standard Deviation
18.1 cover material in greater detail. 2.659 1.294
24.1 have attempted new methods of testing and
assessing progress. 2.689 1.123
26.1 am better able to conduct experiments in class. 2.496 .984
27.1 am better able to assess the individual needs of my
students. 2.659 1.147
28.1 am more willing to attempt new teaching strategies
since the change to block scheduling. 2.941 1.111
29. The content of my subject area adapts well to block
scheduling. 2.911 1.443
30.1 am better able to conduct simulations. 2.578 1.040
31. Block scheduling fosters the development of critical
thinking skills in my students. 2.504 1.227
32.1 am better able to complete my objectives. 2.563 1.342
33.1 am more satisfied that my students are receiving
adequate exposure to the material in my subject area. 2.630 1.386
34. Students engage in classroom discussions with
greater frequency. 2.763 1.134
37. There are fewer disciplinary problems (disruptions)
outside my classroom. 2.889 1.244
41.1 have fewer disciplinary problems in my classroom. 2.467 1.376
Total response items with mean over 2.5 21
Of the 21 responses with a mean rating of over 2.5, nine were related to the area of
instruction/instructional practices. Those nine represented 52% of the items on the survey
related to this area. Rve items with a mean over 2.5 were related to the area of assessment,
85
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
which represented the entire group of questions from that area. Two questions were related
to the area of social interaction, representing 28% of the questions from that area. Two
questions receiving a rating of over 2.5 were from the school-wide management area,
which constituted 13% of those items. Three items were from the curriculum area which
represents 60% of those questions investigated.
A total of five items from the questionnaire received a mean score of less than two.
These items would indicate disagreement with the statements. Of those five, four dealt with
the area of block scheduling and school-wide management The fifth item was from the
curriculum area and shows that teachers believe that they do not complete more units of
instruction under the condition of block scheduling. Table 4 contains the mean scores.
Table 4
Mean Ratings Below 2.0
QUESTION Mean Standard Deviation
6. I complete more units of instruction. 1.859 1.415
4 2 .1 received adequate training, support and in-service in
order to make the change to Block. 1.815 1.334
44. Student athletes lose less class time. 1.852 1.307
48. Since the change I spend more time with my teaching
colleagues. 1.881 1.107
49. Since the change I spend more time with my
department colleagues. 1.844 1.145
Total responses with mean below 2.0 5
A total of 45 items on the questionnaire were rated positively (above a mean of two)
by the teachers responding. There were 12 items with a rating of over 3 on the 4 point
86
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
scale, indicating that these responses fell into a range interpretable as “agree” to “strongly
agree.”
Five items received a mean score of imder two. Four of those five negatively rated
items dealt with the aspect of school-wide management The only other item rated with a
disagree, or negative, was the question that dealt with coverage of the curriculum.
As noted eariier, the questionnaire sought to cover five areas of school functioning
affected by block scheduling. A sixth area resulted from combining curriculum with
instruction/instructional practices.
Question Families
Five research questions in this study sought to determine if block scheduling
affected teacher classroom behaviors with regards to; instructional practices, assessment
social interaction, curriculum and school-wide management Each of these question areas
were grouped into question families. This group of questions was pooled for analysis.
Ultimately, a total of six aspects of schooling were analyzed by grouping the related
questions and computing teacher responses. The families dealt with:
1. Instructional practices: Sixteen questions dealt with the use of different instructional
strategies including, cooperative learning, independent projects, small group activities,
experiments, simulations, debates and discussions. Teachers were asked if they had
attempted new teaching strategies and if they were more willing to try new strategies.
They were asked if students were more productive and whether they devoted less time
to lecturing.
2. Assessment Five questions asked teachers if they believed that they were more accurate
in their assessment of students’ level of understanding, knew more about student
learning styles, and were better able to assess individual student needs. Two of the five
87
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
asked whether teachers were using authentic assessment under block and whether they
were attempting new methods of testing and assessing progress.
3. Social Interaction: Seven questions on the survey dealt with changes in the social
interaction of the classroom. Teachers were asked if they were able to better personalize
their instruction, engage students in classroom discussions, and assign more writing
and reflective journals. Additionally, teachers were asked if they and their students
were more relaxed during the school day and if students were more productive.
4. Curriculum: Rve questions in this area asked teachers whether they complete more
units of instruction, cover material in greater detail, assign less homework and are
satisfied that students are receiving adequate exposure to the material in their subject
area. Teachers were also asked if the material in their discipline adapts well to block
scheduling.
5. School Wide Management This area of the survey asked teachers their reaction to
statements dealing with the effect of block on the management of the school. Had
school climate improved? Were there fewer disruptions both in and out of the
classroom? Has the schedule promoted teacher collegiaiity, meeting time, preparation
time, and fewer preparations per day? The effectiveness of tutorial was examined, as
well as the school’s preparation to make the change to block.
6. Curriculum/Instruction: The two areas of curriculum and instruction, a total of 25 items
on the questionnaire were combined to compute a mean in this combined area.
The cumulative results for all six families from the 135 teacher responses can be
seen in Table 5.
Table 5
Mean Response by Question “Family”
Family Mean Standard Deviation
Social 2.795 .886
88
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 5 - continued
Mean Response by Question “Family”
Family Mean Standard Deviation
Instructional Practices 2.727 .712
Curriculum and Instruction 2.673 .756
Assessment 2.601 .957
Curriculum 2.498 1.020
School Wide Management 2.410 .793
With the exception of school-wide management, the data indicates that teachers
responded within the “no opinion” to “agree” range in all areas studied. Social interaction
recorded the highest mean score, with school-wide management rated the lowest It should
be noted that for the purposes of computing means, questions number 9, 17 and 25 were
computed to reflect a positive score. The questions were stated negatively. If the teacher
disagreed, the score rating would be below the number 2. However, for comparing means
and in order to record accurate means in the six question areas, the means were reversed,
hence, a one response was changed to a three.
Research Questions
Research Question Number 1
Do teachers report that they utilize a variety of instructional practices during the
extended block schedules? There were 16 questions computed to arrive at the mean for this
question, dealing with instruction/instructional practices. Table 6 lists the individual item
response means for research question number one.
89
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 6
Instruction/Instructional Practices
QUESTION M ean Standard Deviation
5.1 am better able to use Cooperative Learning Strategies. 3.111 1.170
8.1 am better able to vary my instructional practices. 3.259 1.022
9.1 show more movies and videos. 1.126 1.102
10.1 am better able to conduct student debates and
discussions. 2.719 1.131
12. Students are more productive. 2.474 1.332
15.1 devote less time in class to lecturing now. 2.348 1.186
17. Since the change 1 allow students to complete more
homework in class. 1.889 1.359
19. My students complete more independent projects. 2.481 1.145
22. In the last year 1 have attempted at least one new
teaching strategy that 1 hadn’t used before. 3.081 .955
23.1 am better able to conduct small group activities. 3.126 1.025
26.1 am better able to conduct experiments in my classes. 2.496 .984
28.1 am more willing to attempt new teaching strategies
since the change to block scheduling. 2.941 1.111
30.1 am better able to conduct simulations. 2.578 1.040
31. Block scheduling fosters the development of critical
thinking in my students. 2.504 1.227
32.1 am better able to complete my objectives. 2.563 1.342
35. Tutorial has been beneficial to my students. 3.119 1.166
Instructional Practices 2.727 .712
In response to the specific question, teachers agree that they are better able to vary
their instructional practices. They showed agreement that they were better able to use
90
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Cooperative Learning Strategies, and small group activities. The teachers indicated that
they do not show more movies and videos. Block scheduling also appears to facilitate
student debates and discussions. There was agreement with the statement that the teachers
have attempted at least one new teaching strategy that they hadn't used before. Teachers
agreed that they devote less time in class to lecturing, however the mean rating fell in the
area of no opinion to agree (2.348).
Research Question Number 2
Has block scheduling affected the way teachers assess student progress? There
were five questions devoted to this question in the area of assessment Table 7 documents
means computed for those questions.
Table 7
Assessment
QUESTION Mean Standard Deviation
11.1 am more accurate in assessing my students’
level of understanding. 2.556 1.207
14.1 use more authentic assessment to determine my
students’ progress since the change. 2.504 1.215
16.1 believe that I know more about my students’
learning styles. 2.600 1.141
2 4 .1 have attempted new methods of testing and
assessing progress. 2.689 1.123
2 7 .1 am better able to assess the individual needs of my
students. 2 .6 5 9 1.147
Assessment 2.601 .957
91
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Research Question Number 3
Do teachers believe that block scheduling fosters improved social interaction in the
classroom? There were seven questions on the survey that addressed social interaction.
Table 8 illustrates the individual means.
Tables
Social Interaction
QUESTION M ean Standard Deviation
7. I am better able to personalize my approach with my
students. 3.015 1.113
12. Students are more productive. 2.474 1.332
13.1 am more relaxed during the instructional day. 3.385 1.065
20.1 assign more writing to my students (journals, diaries,
reflections). 2.296 1.079
21. Students appear more relaxed. 3.126 1.025
31. Block scheduling fosters the development of critical
thinking skills in my students. 2.504 1.227
34. Students engage in classroom discussions with
greater frequency. 2.763. 1.134
Social Interaction 2.795 .886
Teachers agreed that they and their students are more relaxed during the
instructional day. They also believe that they are better able to personalize their approach
with students. There was agreement that students engage in classroom discussions with
greater frequency and that block scheduling fosters the development of critical thinking
skills.
92
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Research Question Number 4
Does block scheduling affect coverage of the curriculum? The survey asked five
questions related to curriculum, coverage of material, homework and adaptability of
material to block scheduling. Table 9 illustrates the means for the five items in the area of
curriculum.
Table 9
Curriculum
QUESTION M ean Standard Deviation
6. 1 complete more units of instruction. 1.859 1.415
18.1 cover material in greater detail. 2.659 1.294
25.1 assign less homework now. 1.511 1.184
29. The content of my subject area adapts well to block
scheduling. 2.911 1.443
33.1 am more satisfied that my students are receiving
adequate exposure to the material in my subject area. 2.630 1.386
Curriculum 2.498 1.020
Teachers responded with a mean of 2.5, which is mid-way between “no opinion”
and “agree”. They showed agreement that the content of their subject adapts well to block
scheduling.
Research Question Number 5
Does block scheduling affect the management of the school and its climate for
learning?
This question area received the lowest mean. There were 15 questions which
addressed areas of school management The mean of 2.410 fell into the “no opinion” to
“agree” area. Table 10 documents the questions, and the means.
93
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 10
School-wide Management
QUESTION Vlean Standard Deviation
35. Tutoriai bas been beneficial to my students. 3.119 1.166
36. There is less wasted (non-instructional) time under
block scheduling. 2.400 1.492
37. There are fewer disciplinary problems (disruptions)
outside my classroom. 2.889 1.244
38. The climate in my classroom is more relaxed. 3.163 1.101
39.1 am able to maintain closer communication with
parents. 2.889 1.244
40 Tutorial provides additional time for students to get
help and understand material. 3.422 .868
4 1 1 have fewer disciplinary problems in my classroom. 2.467 1.376
4 2 .1 received adequate training, support and in-service in
order to make the change to block. 1.815 1.334
4 3 .1 net more instructional time on a weekly basis. 2.237 1.441
44. Student athletes lose less class time. 1.852 1.307
45. My schedule allows me to prepare for only one subject
on block scheduled days (for teachers with more than
one preparation). 2.044 1.286
4 6 .1 have fewer classroom interruptions since the change. 2.481 1.275
4 7 .1 am in favor of block scheduling over traditional
scheduling. 3.104 1.405
48. Since the change I spend more time with my teaching
colleagues. 1.881 1.107
49. Since the change 1 spend more time with my department
colleagues. 1.844 1.145
5 0 .1 have worked with another department(s) to integrate
my curriculum since the change. 2.259 1.191
School-wide management 2.410 .793
94
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
From the teachers’ perspective, the management of the school is affected positively
by the tutorial period offered, and in the area of classroom climate. The teachers did not
agree that they received adequate training, support and in-service in order to make the
change to block. Teachers indicated that they do not spend more time with teaching
colleagues, or members from other departments.
Research Question Number 6
Are there differences between teacher responses based on department assigmnent
(discipline), years teaching, years teaching under block or school demographics?
The data was analyzed to determine if there were significant differences in
responses based on any of these variables.
Respondents bv school
Certificated staff members from four schools were asked to participate in the study.
A total of 300 teachers were determined to be eligible for participation on the basis of their
contract status (three-sixths contract or more and teaching in a block schedule). Responses
were completely anonymous. This limited identifying information to years of experience,
years teaching imder block and department with majority of assignment. Of the three
hundred questioimaires, 154 were returned. Nineteen were excluded from the study
because the teachers had neglected to answer all 50 questions. Another 43 teachers
subverted the directions by sending their answer sheets back to the investigator through
district mail. This posed a problem because pick-ups at each school were to be used to
group the responses by school. Hence, 43 were from an indeterminate site.
Ninety-two, however, were coded by school for the purpose of comparison.
Westminster high school, with the longest history on block, returned 43 responses,
composing 32% of the total. Huntington Beach High School totaled 17 responses, for 13%
of the total. Edison High School returned 20, comprising 15% of the total and Ocean View
95
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
High School returned 12 for 9%. Another 32% of the 135 total responses were not coded
by school.
Total years teaching
Teachers responded to a question regarding the number of years they have been
teaching. The response sheet was broken down into increments of 1-5 years, 6-10 years,
11-15 years, 16-20 years and over twenty years experience. Table 11 expresses the
experience reported by the teachers:
Table 11
Teacher Experience
Years Teaching Total Percent Cum. Percent
1- 5 5 3.7 4.3
6- 10 8 5.9 11.2
11-15 12 8.9 21.6
16-20 23 17 41.4
20+ 68 50.4 100
19 Missing data
The group of teachers surveyed was predominantly an experienced group. Slightly
more than half of the teachers had over 20 years of experience in the classroom. Only 4%
of those responding had between one to five years of experience. This finding allowed the
researcher to pose questions for study regarding the relationship between years teaching
and responses to survey questions.
Because of the low number of cases of teachers who had taught for 15 or fewer
years, a new distribution was computed. Three groups were created; 15 years or less of
experience, 16-20 years, and over 20 years of experience. Table 12 indicates the number of
teachers in each of the groups by years of experience and their percentage of the total.
96
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 12
Teachers Grouped by Experience
Group Label Total Percent Valid Percent
15 or less
16-20
20+
1
4
5
25
16-20
68
18.5
23
50.4
21.6
19.8
58.6
An analysis of variance was performed to determine if teaching experience appeared
to be a variable in responses regarding Block Scheduling. The Duncan Multiple Range Test
was performed to determine if any group, based on experience varied from any other with
regards to the six families investigated. There were found to be no significant differences
between years of teaching experience and responses on the questionnaire.
Comparisons bv Discipline
Teachers were asked to identify their subject area taught. The Table 13 represents
the distribution of respondents by subject area:
Table 13
Respondents by Subject Discipline
Subject Area Total Percent Cum. Percent
Vocational Education 26 19 19
Consumer-Family Study 3 2 21.5
Physical Education 5 4 25.2
Science 18 13.3 38.5
Social Studies 14 10.4 48.9
Math 19 14.1 63.0
English 18 13.3 76.3
Special Education 22 16.3 92.6
Foreign Language 6 4.4 97.0
Art 4 3 100.0
Total 135 100.0 100.0
97
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
In order to determine differences between disciplines, departments not engaged in
teaching core academic subjects were combined to provide comparative data. These groups
were numbered as illustrated in Table 14.
Table 14
Combined Subject Discipline Departments
Department Value Total Percent
Cons-PE-Voc. Ed. 1 34 25.2
Science 3 18 13.3
Social Studies 4 14 10.4
Math 5 19 14.1
English 6 18 13.3
Special Education 7 22 16.3
Foreign Language 8 6 4.4
Art 9 4 3.0
Based on teacher comments from the free response section, it could have been
assumed that there would be differences by discipline in terms of the approval of block and
the effect on classroom practices. One teacher from OVHS stated, “Block works well for
many areas such as science, English, voc. ed.. But others such as math and foreign
language it does not work well.”(sic) Still another from EHS stated, “1 believe block
scheduling is good for classes which tend to have many discussions and group activities
(English and social studies).” A foreign language teacher stated that “it has slowed down
foreign language teaching.”
The instructional departments were coded and their responses in each of the six
school families were compared. The Duncan Multiple Range test was applied to all
comparison groups. On all of the six areas, there were no significant differences between
departments. This finding was not expected, given the written statements from survey
respondents and from informal surveys conducted within the district
98
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The paucity of responses from foreign language teachers may have had an impact
on this finding. Only three foreign language teachers responded in the free response
section. Two of those teachers were strongly opposed to block scheduling, indicating that it
disrupted the flow of lessons and that daily practice was needed for second language
mastery.
This was the only indication however that there was one specific instructional area
which reflected disapproval of block scheduling. There were no statistical differences
found however, by comparing departments.
School Comparisons
For the purposes of this study, the schools Edison (EHS) and Huntington (HBHS)
were grouped to compare against Westminster (WHS) and Ocean View (OVHS). Both sets
of schools present similar Socio-Economic backgrounds and are similar in terms of student
groups served. The teaching staffs at each site have similar backgrounds in terms of
education and years of service. Were there differences in how the staffs at these schools
viewed block scheduling? The combined staff of Edison-Huntington High Schools totaled
37 cases, the combined staffs from Westminster and Ocean View High Schools totaled 55
cases.
Table 15
Grouped Schools
Group Label Total Percent Valid Percent
HB + Edison Schools 1 37 27.4 40.2
WHS + OVHS Schools 2 55 40.7 100.0
99
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Combining the two school groups yielded data on the six families studied: social
interaction, assessment, curriculum, instructional practices, school wide management and
curriculum and instruction. A t-test was applied to the two groups to determine if there
were significant differences between them. A pooled variance estimate was used, except in
those cases in which the 2-tailed probability was smaller than .05.
Social Interaction
This grouping of questions reflects teacher perceptions on the effect of block
scheduling on student-teacher interaction and student-student relationships.
Table 16
Grouped Schools Social Interaction
School Mean Standard Deviation t P
HB- Edison 2.529 .935
2.59 .012
WHS - OVHS 3.005 .745
While both school groups demonstrated positive responses, there was a significant
difference between them. The WHS - OVHS group was almost a half a point higher in their
responses on the social aspects of block. This difference was significant at the .05 level of
confidence.
Assessment
Teachers were asked for their perceptions regarding the ability to assess student
progress under block scheduling and any effects on accuracy of that assessment. The
teachers were asked about whether they made any new attempts at assessment practices.
Table 17 illustrates the differences between schools.
1 0 0
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 17
Grouped Schools Assessment
School Mean Standard Deviation t
3.81 .001
HB-Edison 2.1892 .963
WHS - OVHS 2.9273 .826
Teachers in the WHS-OVHS agreed that block scheduling affects assessment The
teachers in the HB-Edison group indicated a response between “no opinion” and “agree”.
There was a significant difference between their responses.
Curriculum
This grouping of questions asked teachers for their responses to questions
regarding the amount of curriculum covered under block, exposure to material, whether
material adapted well to block and the amount of detail they provide to their students.
Table 18
Grouped Schools - Curriculum
School Mean Standard Deviation
HB - Edison 1.983
WHS -OVHS 2.560
1.062
.794
4.00 .001
There was a significant difference between these two response sets. Westminster -
Ocean View High School showed significantly higher mean ratings in this area.
Instructional Practices
This section of the questionnaire addressed classroom practices and the effect (if
any) of block scheduling on what teachers did during the longer instructional period.
101
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 19
Grouped Schools - Instructional Practices
School Mean Standard Deviation t P
HB - Edison 2.511 .728
2.92 .005
WHS - OVHS 2.928 .576
The Westminster-OceanView High School responses reflected signiflcant differences from
the Huntington Beach-Edison High School group in teacher responses regarding classroom
practices. Both groups responded affirmatively to the questions, however the Westminster-
Ocean View High School group was significantly higher.
School Wide Management
Fifteen questions addressed issues related to the management of the school, its
climate and teacher perceptions on the effect of Block Scheduling. Table 20 expresses the
means computed from the two school groups.
Table 20
Grouped Schools - School-Wide Management
School Mean Standard Deviation t P
HB Edison 2.059 .858
3.67 .001
WHS - OVHS 2.660 .620
Significant differences again exist between the response sets of the two groups. The
Westminster-Ocean View High School group showed a significantly higher mean than the
Huntington Beach-Edison High School group.
1 0 2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Curriculum/Instruction
The two sets for curriculum and instruction/instructional practices were combined
for comparison purposes.
Table 21
Grouped Schools Curriculum/Instruction
School Mean Standard Deviation t P
HB - Edison 2.386 .779
3.40 .001
WHS - OVHS 2.898 .592
In each case of the “families” examined, the schools Westminster High School and
Ocean View High School demonstrated significantly higher positive responses. The staffs
at each of the four schools reported similar years of teaching experience and represent a
broad number of instructional departments. The differences between the two groupings are
the different socio-economic areas served in terms of student population, and the number of
years teaching under block scheduling. Westminster High School initiated the change in the
district five years ago, with the other three schools changing two (OVHS and HBHS), then
three (EHS) years later. Westminster High School teacher responses totaled 45. This
constituted a significant percentage of the responses (46%) from teachers with extensive
experience under block.
Years Teaching Under Block
Teachers were asked to indicate the number of years they had taught under block
scheduling. This information helped in the identification of teachers by school, since there
was a range of experience of from two years (EHS) to five years (WHS) within the district
studied. Table 22 illustrates the distribution of responses.
103
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 22
Total Years Teaching Under Block
Number of Years on Block Total Percent Cum. Percent
2 Years 26 19.3 22.8
3 Years 42 31.1 58.6
4 Years 11 8.1 69.3
5 Years 35 25.9 100.0
2 1
15.6 Missing
Total 135 100.0 100.0
Responses
Three groups of teacher responses were created; those with 2 years of experience
teaching under block schedule, those with 3 years and those with four or more years. Each
of these groups’ responses were computed against their responses in the family areas. A
Duncan Procedure was used to determine if there were any significant differences in terms
of the number of years teaching under block scheduling.
In each of the six areas under investigation, a significant difference was found
between the group with the most years of experience reported, and the two other groups.
The groups were coded Group 2, two years of experience or less. Group 3, three years of
experience, and Group 4, with four to five years of experience. The results are reported in
Tables 23 through 27
Table 23
Years Teaching Under Block-Social Interaction
Group Mean Standard
Deviation
Sum of
Squares
Mean
Squares
F
Ratio
F
Prob.
Gp
2
Gp
3
Gp
4
5.5292 2.7646 3.7299 .0271
Group 2
Group 3
Group 4
2.5275
2.7415
3.0776
.8804
.9184
.7932 X
104
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The (X) denotes pairs of groups significantly different at the .050 level of
confidence. Thus the group with the most experience under block. Group 4 has reported
the highest ratings in the social family area for block scheduling at a satisfactory level of
confidence greater than Group 2 teachers with two years or less imder block.
Table 24
Years Teaching Under Block-Assessment
Group Mean Standard
Deviation
Sum of
Squares
Mean
Squares
F
Ratio
F
Prob.
Gp
2
Gp
3
Gp
4
9.5573 4.7786 5.5324 .00551
Group 2
Group 3
Group 4
2.3615
2.4619
3.0087
.9278
.9980
.8630 X X
On this measure. Group 4 showed significant differences between both groups.
These teachers saw changes in their methods of assessment, and in how they were able to
measure student progress under the condition of block scheduling.
Table 25
Years Teaching Under Block-Curriculum
Group Mean Standard
Deviation
Sum of
Squares
Mean
Squares
F
Ratio
F
Prob.
Gp
2
Gp
3
Gp
4
10.2617 5.1309 5.1471 .0073
Group 2
Group 3
Group 4
2.1462
2.3762
2.8739
.9600
.9780
.8580
1.1364
1.1054
.7926 X X
In the area of curriculum, teachers in the group with the most experience under
block scheduling responded more favorably to a significant degree than both of the
comparison groups.
105
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 26
Years Teaching Under Block-Instructional Practices
Group Mean Standard
Deviation
Sum of
Squares
Mean
Squares
F F
Ratio Prob.
Gp
2
Gp
3
Gp
4
4.7330 2.3665 5.1305 .0074
Group 2
Group 3
Group 4
2.4639
2.7054
2.9851
.6938
.7487
.6548 X
With regards to instructional practices. Group 4 responses (most experience) were
significantly different from Group 2, the least experienced under block.
Table 27
Years Teaching Under Block School -Wide Management
Group Mean Standard
Deviation
Sum of
Squares
Mean
Squares
F
Ratio
F
Prob.
Gp
2
Gp
3
Gp
4
6.9323 3.4662 6.0708 .0031
Group 2
Group 3
Group 4
2.1205
2.3254
2.7246
.8348
.7636
.7000 X X
While school wide management represented the lowest response for Group 4, there
were still significant differences, when compared to the less experienced groups.
Table 28
Years Teaching Under Block - Curriculum/Instruction
Group Mean Standard
Deviation
Sum of
Squares
Mean
Squares
F
Ratio
F
Prob.
Gp
2
Gp
3
Gp
4
5.8218 2.9109 5.5516 .0050
Group 2
Group 3
Group 4
2.3883
2.6270
2.9586
.8017
.7628
.6373 X X
106
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
In virtually ail comparisons. Group 4 responded with a significantly different mean
from the other groups. The only comparisons in which Group 4 did not differ from both
groups was in the social interaction area and instructional practices. Group 3 indicated a
lower mean score in both areas, but not one that was found to be significant. Group 2
teachers showed the lowest mean scores on all of the families examined.
The Group 4 teachers, those with the most experience teaching under block,
differed significantly on 27 of the 50 items on the questionnaire from teachers in Group 2.
These groups represented the widest discrepancy in terms of years of teaching under block
scheduling. Group 4 also differed significantly from the Group 3 teachers on a total of 20
individual items. Overall, this group of experienced teachers expressed greater satisfaction
with the instructional aspects of block and their ability to assess student progress. See
Appendix for specific item analysis and differences by years of experience.
The experienced teachers (Group 4) indicated agreement on the item indicating that
they had received adequate training, support and in-service in order to make the change to
block. They were the only group to indicate a mean score of over two. They also indicated
that they are in favor of block scheduling over traditional scheduling, differing significantly
from both Groups 2 and 3.
Westminster High School
Data from years of experience on the response sheets led to an investigation of the
responses from Westminster High School. As reported in Chapter 3, Westminster High
School teachers were the first staff in the district to initiate block scheduling. They serve a
student body that represents the lowest socio-economic level in the district and the most
racially diverse student body. Research question number six attempted to answer if there
were differences based on years of experience and demographic characteristics.
There were a total of 43 cases identified from Westminster High School. Eight
teachers had four years experience on block scheduling and 35 had five years experience.
This group was compared against 49 cases from the other three schools, Huntington Beach
107
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
High School, Ocean View High School and Edison High School. This comparison
represents the most experienced group of teachers under block compared against three
school staffs with fewer years experience. Table 29 illustrates the distribution of responses
by years teaching under block schedule and by school site.
Table 29
Years Teaching Under Block
Under Block 2 Years 3 Years 4 Years 5 Years Total
H.B.H.S.
E.H.S.
W.H.S.
O.V.H.S.
92 26 35 Column Total 9
Westminster High School responses (43 total) were compared against the 49 total from the
other three schools. Tables 30 through 35 show the comparisons on the six groupings of
questions investigated. The combined schools are identified as Group 1, Westminster High
School as WHS.
Table 30
WHS Comparison - Social Interaction
School Mean Standard Deviation
Group 1
WHS
2.5423
3.1229
.923
.652
3.44 .001
The Westminster High School teachers differed significantly from the other
grouped teachers with less experience under block scheduling.
108
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3 1
WHS Comparison - Assessment
School Mean Standard Deviation t P
Group 1 2.2571 .960
4.41 .001
WHS 3.0558 .746
Westminster High School teachers differed significantly from the other grouped
teachers who have less experience under block scheduling
Table 32
WHS Comparison - Curriculum
School Mean Standard Deviation t P
Group 1 2.0857 1.071
4.39 .001
WHS 2.9163 .667
Westminster High School teachers differed significantly from the grouped teachers
with less experience working under block scheduling.
Table 33
WHS Comparison - Instructional Practices
School Mean Standard Deviation t P
Group 1 2.5051 .721
4.26 .001
WHS 3.0523 .465
Westminster High School teachers differed significantly from the grouped teachers
with fewer years of experience under block scheduling.
109
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 34
WHS Comparison - School Wide Management
School Mean Standard Deviation t P
Group 1 2.1034 .800
WHS 2.7783 .579
4.58 .001
Westminster High School teachers differed significantly from the grouped teachers
with fewer years of experience under block scheduling.
Table 35
WHS Comparison - Curriculum/Instruction
School Mean Standard Deviation t P
Group 1 2.4052 .773
4.53 .001
WHS 3.0199 .469
The Westminster High School teachers differed significantly from the teachers who
have fewer years of experience on all of the families of questions. An individual item
analysis, comparing the Westminster High School teachers on all 50 questions showed that
they were significantly different on 38 items.
Familiarity with block scheduling and comfort with the rhythm of the school day
may contribute to favorable opinions regarding block scheduling. The more experienced
group of teachers appears to have greater satisfaction than those who have fewer years of
experience. The differences between the teachers at Westminster High School and the other
less experienced teachers are years of teaching under block scheduling, and the
1 1 0
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
demographics of the student bodies. Westminster teachers additionally reported greater
satisfaction with their preparation to make the change to block scheduling.
Research Question Number 7
The final question to be researched was whether the teachers participating in the
study preferred block scheduling over traditional scheduling.
The aggregate total mean for this item on the questionnaire was 3.014, indicating
agreement This total rating indicates that, despite some areas of disagreement over certain
aspects of block scheduling, teachers prefer block scheduling. Teachers with more years of
experience under block scheduling favor it to an ever greater degree. The Group 4 teachers,
those with four of more years of experience, rated this item with a mean of 3.652. Teachers
from Westminster High School, the majority of whom have practiced under block
scheduling for five years rated the item with a mean of 3.720. It is evident, given this
strong approval, that as teachers continue to work under block scheduling, they prefer the
extended class periods over the traditional schedule.
Ill
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, SELECTED RNDINGS,
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter reviews the study, summarizes selected findings, discusses the conclusions
drawn from the findings, and suggests several recommendations.
Summary of this Study
The purpose of this study, as stated in Chapter I, was to connect findings in the
literature on restructuring time in the classroom to the realities of teacher behaviors in the
classroom. The specific subject of the study was block scheduling, in which class length is
doubled and the number of classes reduced by half. Teachers at schools in the Huntington
Beach Union High School District where block scheduling is used were questioned, using
an anonymous survey instrument, on their beliefs about the effect of block scheduling on
assessment, instructional practices, social interaction, curriculum and school-wide
management.
Methodology
An anonymous survey instrument asked teachers in the Huntington Beach Union
High School District 50 questions concerning their beliefs about block scheduling and
instructional practices under the condition of block scheduling. Block scheduling was
defined in this study as the combination of two traditionally structured classes into one
longer “block” of time. The schools under the investigation all offered class periods of 103
minutes in length. A school day therefore, offers fewer class periods, but of a greater
length.
Teachers identified their instructional department, the total number of years teaching
and the number of years teaching under the condition of block scheduling. Depending on
112
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the site at which the teacher taught, the number of years teaching under block scheduling
could vary from two years to five years.
A five point Likert scale was used. Teachers were instructed to respond to one of
five choices: strongly disagree, disagree, no opinion, agree and strongly agree. Values
were assigned from zero, strongly disagree, to four, strongly agree. A no opinion response
was assigned a neutral value and resided in the mid-point range of the responses at a value
of two. Therefore any score over the neutral of two indicated some measure of agreement
with the statement on the survey. A score in the range of three or above indicated a
response in the agree to strongly agree range. The same is true of responses below the
value of two. From two to one was considered to be a measure of disagreement, with a
score of below one considered to be in the range of disagree to strongly disagree.
Data from the questionnaires was tabulated and reported; first using the aggregate
data and then on factors related to school site, department, number of years teaching and
number of years teaching under block scheduling. Differences between groups from the
disaggregated data were discovered on several items and found to be significant based on
the school sites and on the number of years teaching under block scheduling.
Block scheduling has been reported to have an effect on five areas of school
functioning: assessment, instructional practices, social interaction, curriculum, and school-
wide management. Questions related to each of those areas were pulled from the survey
data and means were calculated. Those means were reported in each of the five areas, plus
a combined area called curriculum/instructional practices. Seven questions were posed for
the purpose of this study:
1. Do teachers report that they utilize a variety of instructional practices during the
extended block schedules?
2. Has block scheduling affected the way teachers assess student progress?
3. Do teachers believe that block scheduling fosters improved social interaction in the
classroom?
113
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4. Does block scheduling affect coverage of the curriculum?
5. Does block scheduling affect the management of the school and its climate for learning?
6. Are there differences between teacher responses based on department assignment, years
teaching, years teaching under block, or based on school demographics?
7. Is block scheduling preferred over the traditional schedule?
Conclusions
In the survey of the literature reported in Chapter 2, block scheduling has been
reported to facilitate changes in instructional practices, assessment techniques, social
interaction in the classroom, curriculum and school-wide management. The first five
research questions addressed those areas.
Research question number 1
The mean score for the group of questions dealing with instructional practices was
2.727. The aggregate mean placed teacher responses on the survey in the range of no
opinion to agree, although the mean of 2.727 would place those questions closer to the
agree area than no opinion.
Within the instructional practices family of questions, teachers showed agreement
with several individual items. The statement “I am better able to use Cooperative Learning
Strategies” received a mean rating of 3.III. When asked if they agree with the statement “I
am better able to vary my instructional practices.” The mean rose to 3.259. The response
on this item appears to be a clear indicator that block scheduling allows for different
instructional practices in the classroom. The teachers agreed that they were better able to
conduct small group activities, rating that item with a mean score of 3.126.
Two related items from the survey support the conclusion that block scheduling
facilitates the use of a variety of instructional practices. Item number 22 states, “In the last
year, 1 have attempted at least one new teaching strategy that 1 hadn’t used before.” The
114
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
mean response for that item was 3.081. When asked whether they agree with the statement
“I am more willing to attempt new teaching strategies since the change to block
scheduling,” teachers responded with a mean of 2.941, which is fractionally below the
“agree” mean of three. Canady and Rettig (1995) call block scheduling a “catalyst for
change.” It is clear from the teacher responses on the survey that block scheduling
facilitates new instructional strategies and attempts to deliver content differently.
Items from the instructional practices family that received lower mean scores
included the statement “I am better able to conduct student debates and discussicais” which
showed a mean of 2.719. Given that the item specifically addressed debates and
discussions, it might be assiuned that the reason for this relatively depressed score was that
certain departments may have expressed a no opinion because of the nature of subject
taught. Analysis of responses by department indicate that Social Studies teachers showed a
mean of 3.071 and English teachers showed a mean of 2.944. These scores were not
determined to be significantly different from other department scores based on the Duncan
Multiple Range Test, however they do indicate that there was some difference based on the
nature of subject taught. Humanities classes in which students are asked to consider
questions that deal with ethics, morals, author’s intent and values are aided by the longer
blocks of instructional time.
Three items on the survey in the area of instructional practices showed means of
2.5, which is a mid range between no opinion and agree: item 19, “My students complete
more independent projects,” (2.481), item 30 “I am better able to conduct simulations,”
(2.578) and item 31, “Block scheduling fosters the development of critical thinking in my
students” (2.504). These three areas under the family of instructional practices appear to be
influenced less by block scheduling than the use of cooperative learning strategies and
small group activities.
When teachers were asked if they devote less class time to lecturing, the mean score
showed only mild agreement at 2.348. This particular item from the instructional practices
115
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
group indicates that while teachers believe that they are able to use new strategies, and
believe that they have attempted new teaching strategies, the use of the lecture does not
appear to be significantly affected by block scheduling. Group 4 teachers, those with more
experience under block scheduling, showed a higher mean than the other less experienced
groups at 2.630, but that difference was not significant
Westminster High Schol teachers, those with the most experience under block
scheduling were significantly different from their less experienced peers. The mean score
under instructional practices was 3.052. They reported significantly higher responses in the
instructional area. Familiarity with block scheduling affects instructional practices.
From the data reported by the teachers, the assertion that block scheduling affects
the use of lecture is not supportable, except for the most experienced group. There was
only mild agreement with this item on the survey. When responses from the Westminster
High School group were analyzed, however, they differed significantly from the less
experienced teachers. Block scheduling appears to be a facilitating factor for teachers to
attempt new strategies. The greater the experience with block scheduling, the less likely the
teacher is to use a lecture format for instruction.
Research question number 2
Teachers on the survey indicated agreement that block scheduling affects the way
that they assess student progress. The aggregate mean score of 2.601 is in the range of no
opinion to agree.
There were five statements on the survey which specifically addressed assessment
practices under block scheduling. The highest rated survey item was number 24, “I have
attempted new methods of testing and assessing progress.” with a mean of 2.689. The
score on this item indicates that teachers, working under the condition of block scheduling,
are experimenting with methods of assessing progress. It appears to follow that teachers
indicated agreement with the item that stated “1 am better able to assess the individual needs
116
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
of my students.” The mean score for that item was 2.659. Additionally, teachers agreed
that they know more about their students’ learning styles (2.600). The teachers showed
mild agreement with the statement that they were more accurate in assessing their students’
level of understanding, with a mean score of 2.556. The statement that they use more
authentic assessment to determine their students’ level of understanding produced a mean
score of 2.504.
It can be stated that block scheduling affects assessment practices, given mean
scores in the mid-range between no opinion and agree. However, from individual item
analysis, the most powerful factor with regards to block scheduling seems to be that it
facilitates teachers in attempting new methods of assessment.
The most experienced group of teachers, the Westminster High School group,
differed significantly from the other teachers. They rated the assessment family of
questions with a mean of 3.055. Experience with block scheduling appears to facilitate the
use of authentic assessment practices and assessment of individual student needs.
Westminster teachers also believe that they are more accurate in assessing their students’
level of understanding.
Research question number 3
The aggregate data indicates that the strongest agreement shown by the teachers was
in the area of social interaction. The mean score for the social interaction family was 2.795.
Individual items within this family indicate that teachers are more relaxed during the
instructional day (3.385). Teachers also showed agreement with the statement that students
appeared more relaxed during the instructional day (3.126). These two items suggest that
block scheduled schools have managed to reduce the hectic pace of the traditionally
scheduled day that Boyer ( 1983) found to be undesirable.
Personalization in the classroom appears to be facilitated by block scheduling.
When teachers were asked if they were better able to personalize their approached with
117
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
students, they agreed with a mean of 3.015. The statements in the literature that block
scheduling helps to reduce the stress found in the traditionally scheduled, five to six period
day, is supported by the teachers surveyed in this study.
Interestingly, two items within this question family that dealt with student
classroom production received comparatively lower ratings. Teachers showed mild
agreement with the statement that “Students are more productive” rating that item with a
mean of 2.474, which was closer to no opinion that to agree. Additionally, teachers
responded to the item which stated, “I assign more writing to my students (journals,
diaries, reflections) with a mean of 2.296. Assignment of writing tasks in the classroom
may be dependent on class size, given the need to read, correct and respond to the written
assignments. On this item, it may be that teachers are expressing problems related to
contractual matters rather than block scheduling.
Experience with block scheduling appears to affect responses in this family also.
Group 4 teachers were significantly different from Group 2 teachers with two years of
experience under block. Westminster High School teachers differed significantly from
lesser experienced teachers, with a mean response of 3.123. They saw improvement in
social interaction in the classroom to a greater degree than lesser experienced teachers.
Research question number 4
Teachers indicated mild agreement with the items in the family of questions dealing
with coverage of the curriculum. The mean score of 2.498 placed their responses in the
range of no opinion to agree.
Teachers were in agreement with the survey item that the content of their subject
area adapts well to block scheduling. The mean rating of 2.911 indicates agreement.
Teachers also agreed with the statement that they cover material in greater detail (2.659).
This was in contrast to the item which stated “I complete more units of instruction.” On that
item teachers disagreed, with a mean of 1.859. These two items are related. If teachers
118
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
cover material in greater detail, which is supported in the literature on block scheduling,
then it follows that teachers would not be able to complete more units of instruction, as a
function of the time necessary to engage in greater detail. When asked if they are more
satisfied that their students are receiving adequate exposure to material in their subject area,
teachers agreed, with a mean of 2.630.
The effect that block scheduling has on coverage of the curriculum appears to be
that there is less material covered, but in greater detail. Teachers do not appear to dislike
this situation, given that they are satisfied with the amount of exposure to the curriculum.
The final item in this question set asked if the teachers assign less homework now.
They disagreed, with a mean of 1.511. This mean score fell in the range of no opinion to
disagree. This item would appear to refute statements from informal parent surveys that
teachers allow students to do homework in the classroom, or to assign less.
Experience was again a factor in terms of the curriculum family. The Group 4
teachers differed from both comparison groups with lesser experience under block
scheduling. Westminster High School teachers, those with the most experience under block
scheduling differed significantly from the lesser experienced groups, with a mean rating of
2.916, fractionally below the agree rating. The Westminster High School teachers differed
significantly on five of the six items in the curruculum area, rating all five higher than the
less experienced group. The only item in which they did not differ significantly was on
assignment of homework.
Research Question number 5
The effect of block scheduling on the management of the school drew an aggregate
score of 2.410. Within the fifteen questions dealing with school-wide management, there
was a wide range of responses. Questions dealing with tutorial showed that teachers
believe it is beneficial to students. Their response to the question asking if tutorial provided
additional time for students to get help and understand material drew a mean of 3.422.
119
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Three questions addressed the issue of whether block scheduling provided more
instructional time for teachers. The question of whether block scheduling nets teachers
more instructional time received a rating of 2.237, slightly above the no opinion response.
The assertion that there is less wasted (non-instructional) time under block scheduling was
not strongly supported, with a mean of 2.400. The issue of decreasing classroom
interruptions was not strongly supported, with a mean of 2.481.
Block scheduling does appear to have an effect on the climate of the school. As
previously noted, teachers believe that they are more relaxed, as are their students.
Teachers agreed with the statement that the climate in their classroom was more relaxed,
with an agree rating of 3.163. Teachers see fewer disciplinary problems and disruptions
outside their classroom. With regards to disciplinary problems in their classrooms, teachers
did not agree as strongly (2.467). The effect of block scheduling on the climate of the
school was generally rated as positive.
Teachers did not believe that block scheduling supported collegial time, disagreeing
with both items that asked if they spend more time with colleagues either within or outside
their department The question of whether teachers were working to integrate their
curriculum with another department received a rating of 2.259, only slightly above the
rating of no opinion.
Experience under block scheduling is a factor in the rating of this area. Group 4
teachers rated school-wide management significantly higher than the lesser experienced
groups. Westminster High School teachers differed significantly from the other, lesser
experienced groups, rating school-wide management with a total score of 2.778
Research Question number 6
Comparisons between subject disciplines and years of teaching experience yielded
no significant differences. However, when the two schools serving lower socio-economic
areas were compared to schools serving students from higher income families, differences
120
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
were seen. The responses from the combined group of Westminster High School and
Ocean View High School differed significantly from the responses from Huntington Beach
High School and Edison High School. These differences were seen in comparisons on
every one of the questions families; social interaction, curriculum, assessment, instructional
practices and school-wide management. Additionally, they differed on the combined group
of curriculiun/instnictional practices.
These school groups serve different school populations and there is a difference in
the number of years of experience under block scheduling. Westminster High School has a
five year history of teaching under the condition of block scheduling. This group of
teachers formed a significant number of respondents. Ocean View teachers have three years
of experience and utilize a rotating block in which there are no days that are traditionally
scheduled.
Edison High School teachers have two years of experience under block scheduling,
the least amount in the district under study.
Amount of experience working under block scheduling appears to be a factor in the
perception of its effectiveness. Group 4 teachers, those with the more experience under
block scheduling scored their responses higher than their colleagues with less experience.
They showed differences in each of the question families from both groups with less
experience, with the exception of social interaction. On that family of questions, they
differed significantly only with Group 2 teachers, those with two years experience.
An analysis of the Group 4 responses and their difference from teachers with three
years of experience show that they differed significantly on 20 of the 50 items on the
questionnaire. They differed significantly from the teachers with two years of experience
on 27 of the 50 items.
Westminster High School teachers, that group with the most experience teaching
under block scheduling, differed significantly from all of the other teachers in all six of the
grouped areas. Their beliefs regarding block scheduling appear to reinforce the finding that
121
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the greater the experience with block scheduling, the more likely the teacher is to approve
of the schedule.
Experience and familiarity with block scheduling appears to be a factor in how
teachers perceive the efficacy of block scheduling. The more experienced teachers believe
that block scheduhng works well with students at all levels of ability. The more
experienced teachers see changes in their methods of assessment and in measuring student
progress. They believe that they cover material in greater detail, and that students are
receiving adequate exposure to the material in their subject areas.
With regards to instructional practices. Group 4 teachers agree that students are
more productive and that there is more instructional time in the school day. They agreed
that block scheduling fosters the development of critical thinking skills and that they were
better able to complete their objectives.
Research Question number 7
Is block scheduling preferred over the traditional schedule? Teachers rated this
question with a meaii of 3.104, in the “agree” range. While there were several items on the
questiormaire that showed only mild agreement with means of less than three, teachers
appear to prefer the block schedule configuration. Group 4 teachers, those with four or
more years of experience were even stronger in their agreement, with a rating of 3.652 in
the range of “agree” to “strongly agree”. Teachers from Westminster High School, the
majority of whom have practiced under block scheduling for five years rated the item with a
mean of 3.720, the strongest agreement of any group surveyed. It appears clear that as
teachers continue to work imder block scheduling, they develop a preference for the
extended periods of instruction over the traditional schedule.
1 2 2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Areas of Disagreement
There were five items on the questionnaire that scored in the “no opinion” to
“disagree” range. As noted in the discussion under curriculum, teachers do not believe that
they complete more units of instruction. The significance of this item is debatable. As seen
in the Review of the Literature, a number of educational writers advocate a “less is more”
approach to curriculum. If we accept that premise, then this item might not be seen as a
negative response.
Four areas of disagreement under the area of school-wide management indicate
problems related to block scheduling. Teachers surveyed did not believe that they received
adequate training, support and in-service in order to make the change to block scheduling.
The aggregate rating on this item was, 1.815 in the range of “disagree”. The more
experienced teachers from Group 4 (with four of more years of experience under block
scheduling) rated this item with a measure of agreement, with a rating of 2.173. Teachers
from Westminster High School rated this item with a mean of 2.279 only slightly higher,
or closer to the “agree” range.
Failure to adequately prepare teachers for the longer class sessions would appear to
be a significant issue to be discussed when considering the move from the traditional
schedule to block schedule. It should be noted that the Westminster High School staff was
in-serviced for one year, during Staff Development Days on methodologies that were
appropriate for the longer class periods. This may well be a contributing factor to the
relative success of the transition to block scheduling.
The teachers surveyed disagreed with the statement that student athletes lose less
class time. This aspect of block scheduling does not prove to be advantageous over
traditional scheduling.
As reported earlier, block scheduling does not facilitate collegial time among
teachers. It had been seen as a facilitator for teachers because preparation periods double in
length, thereby allowing more time for teachers with similar preparation periods to meet
123
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and plan. Teacher responses on both of these items fell in the range of no opinion to
disagree.
Summary
The literature on block scheduling suggests that it can be seen as a catalyst for
change in schools. Teacher responses to the survey confirm that block scheduling facilitates
social interaction in the classroom and contributes to a positive school climate.
Teachers report that they are better able to use cooperative learning strategies, vary
instructional practices and attempt new learning strategies. Small group work is aided by
block scheduling and the tutorial period that is built into the block scheduled day is seen as
beneficial to students.
Teachers surveyed prefer block schedule over the traditional, 54 minute, six period
per day schedule.
Teachers who have worked under the block schedule for a longer period of time
than their peers are more positive about their experience with block schedule. They rate the
effect of block scheduling on social interaction, instructional practices, assessment and
curriculum significantly higher than teachers with fewer years of experience. The group of
teachers with the most experience under block scheduling, those from Westminster High
School, showed the strongest support for block scheduling
Recommendations
This survey asked teachers to agree or disagree with 50 statements about the effect
of block scheduling on five aspects of school functioning. Responses to several of the
items indicate the need for further study.
1. While teachers indicate that block scheduling allows them to vary their instructional
practices, they do not appear to be strong in their agreement that they use lecturing less
under the condition of block scheduling. Classroom observations of teachers under
124
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
block scheduling could determine how teachers use the extended blocks and quantify
how much time is devoted to active learning strategies versus more passive classroom
techniques. The number of activities that are incorporated into each class period could
be monitored in order to verify whether teachers are providing a variety of instructional
experiences.
2. Investigate student satisfaction with block scheduling. The scope of this study did not
include student perceptions, although teachers were asked to comment on their beliefs
regarding student reaction to block scheduling.
3. Preparing teachers to make the change to block scheduling should be investigated.
Methods of using time effectively and of pacing lessons in the longer class periods
should be defined and disseminated to teaching staffs preparing to make the change to
block scheduling.
4. Student achievement under the condition of block scheduling should be investigated.
Carroll (1994) reports positive results under the Copemican Plan. Block scheduling,
however, has not been studied to determine if students are able to achieve at similar or
better levels than under traditional scheduling.
5. The conclusions of this study are confined to the teachers working in the Huntington
Beach Union High School District A broader base of respondents on a survey would
serve to validate conclusions from these seven research questions.
6. The influence of demographics on teacher satisfaction with block scheduling could not
be determined. Does block scheduling lend itself well to students from low socio
economic areas? Are there significant differences in student performance between
schools that differ in terms of the communities that they serve? This was not determined
from the data gathered.
125
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1 2 6
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alam, Dale, & Seick, Roger. (1994, May). A block schedule with a tw ist Phi
Delta Kaopan. 75. (9), 732-733.
Andersen, John, K. (1982). Intensive scheduling: An interesting possibility. The
Clearing House. 56. (1), 26-28.
Anderson, Julia. (1994). Alternative approaches to organizing the school
day and year. The School Administrator. 8-12.
Anderson, Lorin W., & Walberg, Herbert (1993). Summary and Conclusions,
in Anderson, Lorin, W. & Walberg, Herbert J (Eds.), Timepiece: ex ten ^ g and enhancing
learning time Restin, VA.: National Association of Secondary School Principals.
Ariin, Marshall (1979, Winter) Teacher transistions can disrupt time flow in
classrooms. Amaican Educational Research Journal 16. (1), 42-56.
Barker, Roger G., & Gump, Paul V. (1964). Big school, small school: High
school size and student behavior. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Bechtol, William & Sorenson, Juanita. (1993). Restructuring schooling for
individual students. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Bloom, B.S. (1953, April). Thought processes in lecture and discussion. Journal
of General Education. 7 (3), 160-169.
Bockol, Robin F. (1995) Block scheduling. College Prep: Counseling students for
higher education. (14), The College Entrance Examination Board: New York, NY.
Boyer, Ernest L. (1983) High School: A report on secondary education in
Amoica. San Francisco: Harper and Row.
Bracey, Gerald W., (1994). The fourth Bracey report on the condition of
public education. Phi Delta Kappan.76. (2), 114 -128
Branson, Robert K. (1990). Issues in the design of schooling: Changing the
paradigm. Educational Technology 30. (4), 7-10.
Brooks, Jacqueline G., & Brooks, Martin, G. (1993). In search of understanding:
The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development
Buckman, D. C., King, B., & Ryan, Sheila. (1995). Block scheduling: A means to
improve school climate. NASSP Bulletin 79. (571), 9-18.
Caine, Renate N. & Caine, Geoffrey. ('19911. Making connections: teaching and
the human brain. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development
127
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
California Department of Education. (1987). (Taught in the middle: Report of the
superintendent’s middle grade task force. Sacramento, CA: California Department of
Education. Office of State Printing.
California Department of Education. (1992). Second to none: A vision of the new
California high school. Report of the (Talifomia High School Task Force. Sacramento, CA:
(Talifomia Department of Education. Office of State Printing.
(Tanady, Robert Lynn & Rettig, Michael D. (1993). Unlocking the lockstep high
school schedule. Phi Delta Kappan.75. (4). 310-314
Canady, Robert Lynn And Rettig, Michael D. (1995). The power of
innovative scheduling. Educational Leadership. 53. (3), 4-10.
Canady, Robert Lynn. & Rettig, Michael D. (1995). Block scheduling: A catalvst
for change. Princeton, NJ: Eye on Education.
Canady, Robert Lynn. (1996). Teaching in the block: strategies for active
learners. Princeton, NJ: Eye on Education.
Carroll, Joseph. (1963). A model for school learning. Teachers College Record
(641. 723-733
Carroll, Joseph M. (1990). The Copemican Plan: Restructuring the
American high school. Phi Delta Kappan. 71. (5), 358-366.
Carroll, Joseph M. (1994). The Copemican plan evaluated: The evolution
of a revolution. Phi Delta t^ppan. 76. (2), 104-114.
Carroll, Joseph M. (1994). The Copemican Plan Evaluated: The Evolution of a
Revolution. Topsfield, MA: Copemican Associates.
Cawelti, Gordon. (1993). Conclusion: The search for a system, in Gordon Cawelti
(Ed.). Challenges and Achievernents of American Education. Alexandria, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development
Cawelti, Gordon. (1994). High school restructuring: A national studv. Arlington,
VA: Educational Research Service.
Clauset, K.H., & Gaynor, A.K. (1982). A systems perspective on effective
schools. Educational Leadership. 40. (3), 54-59.
Conant, J.B. (1959). The American high school todav. New York: McGraw Hill.
Darling-Hammond, Linda. (1993). Refiaming the school reform agenda. Phi
Delta Kanpan.75. 753-761.
Elmore, Richard F. (1990). Restmcturine Schools: The Next Generation of
Educational Reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
128
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Fisher, C.W., Filby, N.N., Marliave, R.S., Cahen, L. W., Dishaw, M.M.,
Moore, J.E., and Berliner, D C. (1978). Teaching behaviors, academic learning time, and
student achievement: Technical Report, V-I, Find Report of Phase m-B, Beginning
Teacher Evaluation Study, San Francisco, CA: Far West Laboratory for Educational
Research and Development (ERIC ED 183 525).
Fogarty, Robin. (Ed.). (1996). Block Scheduling: A collection of articles.
Palatine, Illinois: IRI/Skylight Training and Publishing, Inc.
Flantzer, Howard. (1993). What we say and what we do. Phi Delta Kaopan. 75.
(1), 75-76.
Fullan, Michael. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform.
London: The Falmer Press
Gillman, D A. & Knoll, S. (1984). Increasing instrucional time: What are the
priorities and how do they affect the alternatives? National Association of Secondary
School Principals Bulletin. 68. (470), 41-44.
Goodman, Libby. (1990). Time and learning in the special education classroom.
Sabatino, David A, (Ed.). State University of New York Series in Special Education. NY:
State University of New York Press.
Hanson, Mark, E. (1991). Educational administration and nrganiTatinnal
behavior. Boston: Allyn and Bacon
High Strides: the Bimonthly Report on Urban Middle Grades. (1994,
September/Octoberl.National Middle School Association. 7. (1).
Hottenstein, David., & Malatest^ Constance. (1993). Putting a school
in gear with intensive scheduling. The High School Magazine. 1. (2), 28-29.
Huff, Leroy A. (1995). Flexible block scheduling: It works for us! National
Assciociation of Secondarv School Principals Bulletin. 79. (571), 19-22.
Justiz M. (1984). It’s time to make every minute count. Hii Delta
Kappan.64. (7), 483-485.
Marshak, David (1995, March). How to make our schools communities. High
School Magazine. 3. (3), 32-34.
McCarthy, Colman. (1983 May 7). An alternative to factory schools. Washington
Post. A-23.
Mitchell, T., Sommerfeld, Meg. (1993, March 3). Issues in time and space.
Education Week. 13-19.
National Commission for Excellence in Education. (1983) A nation at risk: The
imperative for school reform, a report to the Secretary of Education, U.S. Department of
Education.Washington, D C: U S Government Printing Office.
129
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
National Commission on Time and Learning. (1994). Prisoners of Time. Report of
the National Commission on Time and Learning. Washington D C., U.S. Government
Printing Office.
Odden, Allan R. (1995). (in press). Educational leadership for America’s schools:
An introduction to organization and policy. New York: McGraw-Hill
O’Neil, John. (1995). Finding time to leam. Educational Leadership. 53. (3), 11-
15.
Reid, Louann. (1995). Perceived effects of block scheduling on the teaching of
English. (Report No. CS 214828). Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University. (ERIC
Reproduction Service No. ED 382 950).
Reid, Wm., Hierick, Thomas, & Veregin, Larry. (1994, March). Measurable gains
of block scheduling. The School Administrator. 32-33
Rettig, Michael D. (1995) Directory of high school scheduling models in Virginia.
Virginia State Department of Education University Research Consortium. Virginia: [James
Madison University Web site: ht^://www.jmu.edu].
Rosenshine, B. V. (1980). How is time spent in elementary classrooms? In C.
Denham. & A. Lieterman. (Eds.) Time to Leam. Washington DC: U.S.
Department of Education.
Rossmiller, Richard, A. (1983). Time on task: A look at what erodes time
for instruction. National Association nf S^nndary School Principals Bulletin. 67. (465),
134-138.
Salvateira, Mary & Adams, Don. (1995). Departing from tradition:
Two schools’ stories. Educational Leadership. 53. (3), 32-36.
Seifert, E.H., and Beck, John J., (1984). Relationships between task time and
learning gains in secondary schools. Journal of Educational Research.78 (1), 5-10.
Sessoms, John C., (1995). Teachers’ perceptions of three models of high school
block scheduling. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Virginia:
Charlottesville, VA.
Sizer, Theodore R. (1984). Horace’s Compromise: The dilemma of the
American high school. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Sizer, Theodore R. (1992). Horace’s School: Redesigning the Americah high
school. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Smyth, John W. (1984). Time, achievement and teacher development in
Anderson, Lorin W. (Ed.). Time and school learning. New York: St. Martins Press.
Smyth, John W. (1985). A context for the study of time and instruction. In Fisher,
Charles.W. & Berliner, David C. (Eds). Perst)ectives on instructional time. New York:
Longman.
Sommerfeld, Meg (1993, March 3) Time and Space. Education Week. 14-19.
130
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Sommerfeld, Meg (1996, May 22), More and more schools putting block
scheduling to test of time. Education Week, v. XV. n.35. 14.
Sonnenberg, William C. (1995). The Condition of Education. National Center for
Educational Statistics. Washington D C: U.S. Dqiartment of Education: Office of
Education Research and Improvement. NCES 95-273.
Spies, Paul (1995, December). High school interdisciplinary learning teams. High
School Magazine.3. (2), 6-11.
Trump, J. Lloyd, & Georgiades, William., (1970). Doing better with what you
have. National Association nf Semndarv Schnnl Principals Bulletin. 54. (346), 107-122.
Trump, J. Lloyd, and Georgiades, William., (1977, May). What happened and
what did not happen in the model schools. National Association nf Sftrnndary School
Principals Bulletin. 61. (409), 72-79.
Walberg, H. J. (1988). Synthesis of research on time and learning. Educational
Leadership. 45. (6), 76-85.
Walberg H. J. (1991). Extended Learning Time. Washington D C.: U.S.
Department of Education. U. S. Printing Office.
Wasley, Pat (1991). Stirring the chalkdust: Three teachers in the midst of
change. Teachers College Record. 93. (1), 28-58.
Weisberg, Herbert F., Krosnick, Jon A. & Bowen, Bruce D., (1989). An
Introduction to Survey Research and Data Analvsis. Boston: Scott, Foresman and Co.
131
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX
132
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX A-1
Survey Questions
1. High functioning students are well served by block scheduling.
2. Good students are well served by block scheduling.
3. Average students are well served by block scheduling.
4. “At risk” students are well served by block scheduling.
5. I am better able to use Cooperative Learning Strategies.
6. I complete more units of instruction.
7. I am better able to personalize my approach with students.
8. I am better able to vary my instructional practices.
9. I show more movies and videos.
10.1 am better able to conduct student debates and discussions.
11.1 am more accurate in assessing my students’ level of understanding.
12. Students are more productive.
13.1 am more relaxed during the instructional day.
14.1 use more authentic assessment to determine my students’ progress since the change.
15.1 devote less time in class to lecturing now.
16.1 believe that I know more about my students’ learning styles.
17. Since the change I allow students to complete more homework in class.
18.1 cover material in greater detail.
19. My students complete more independent projects.
2 0 .1 assign more writing to my students (journals, diaries reflections).
21. Students appear more relaxed.
22. In the last year, I have attempted at least one new teaching strategy that I hadn’t used
before.
2 3 .1 am better able to conduct small group activities.
2 4 .1 have attempted new methods of testing and assessing progress.
133
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 5 .1 assign less homework now.
2 6 .1 am better able to conduct experiments in my class.
2 7 .1 am better able to assess the individual needs of my students.
2 8 .1 am more willing to attempt new teaching strategies since the change to block
scheduling.
29. The content of my subject area adapts well to block scheduling.
3 0 .1 am better able to conduct simulations.
31. Block scheduling fosters the development of critical thinking in my students.
3 2 .1 am better able to complete my objectives.
3 3 .1 am more satisfied that my students are receiving adequate exposure to the material in
my subject area.
34. Students engage in classroom discussions with greater frequency.
35. Tutorial has been beneficial to my students.
36. There is less wasted (non-instructional) time under block scheduling.
37. There are fewer disciplinary problems (disruptions) outside my classroom.
38. The climate in my classroom is more relaxed.
3 9 .1 am able to maintain closer communication with parents.
40. Tutorial provides additional time for students to get help and understand material.
4 1 .1 have fewer disciplinary problems in my classroom.
4 2 .1 received adequate training, support and in-service in order to make the change to
block.
4 3 .1 net more instructional time on a weekly basis.
44. Student athletes lose less class time.
45. My schedule allows me to prepare for only one subject on block scheduled days (for
teachers with more than one preparation).
4 6 .1 have fewer classroom interruptions since the change.
4 7 .1 am in favor of block scheduling over traditional scheduling.
48. Since the change I spend more time with my teaching colleagues.
134
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
49. Since the change I spend more time with my department colleagues.
5 0 .1 have worked with another department(s) to integrate my curriculum since the change.
135
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Analysis of Variance Between Groups by Experience with Block
Group 2 (2 years), Group 3 (3 years) Group 4 (4 or more years)
X Denotes pairs o f groups significantly different at the .050 level o f confidence.
Group Mean Standard Standard Sum o f Mean F F Gp Gp Gp
Deviation Error Squares Squares Ratio Prob. 2 3 4
Survey Question
1. High functioning students are well served by block.
28.7643 14.3822 9.8088 .0001
2 2.3846 1.3879 .2722
3 2.3571 1.3583 .2096
4 3.3913 .9304 .1372
2. Good students are well served by block.
18.8742 9.4371 8.1482 .0005
2 2.7692 1.2102 .2373
3 2.7857 1.2598 .1944
4 3.6087 .7740 .1141
3. Average students are well served by block.
22.0752 11.0376 8.4544 .0004
.2556
.1972
.1309
4. “At risk” students are well served by block.
45.5088 22.7544 11.8604 .0001
2 2.5385 1.3033
3 2.6905 1.2781
4 3.5217 .8879
2 1.6154 1.5252 .2991
3 2.3095 1.4896 .2299
4 3.2174 1.1909 .1756
5. lam better able to use Cooperative Learning strategies.
5.9704 2.9852 2.5129 .0856
2 2.8846 1.0706 .2100
3 3.0476 1.2485 .1926
4 3.4348 .9346 .1378
6.1 complete more units of instruction.
21.9002 10.9501 5.7437 .0042
7 .1 am better able to personalize my approach with students.
9.0956 4.5478 4.0518 .0200
2 1.4231 1.4191 .2783
3 1.5952 1.3626 .2102
4 2.4130 1.3756 .2028
2 2.6154 1.2354 .2423
3 3.0000 1.1476 .1771
4 3.3478 .8490 .1252
X
X
X
X
136
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix A-2 continued
Analysis o f Variance Between Groups by Experience with Block
X Denotes pairs o f groups signiricantly different at the .050 level of confidence.
Group Mean Standard Standard Sum o f Mean F F Gp Gp Gp
Deviation Error Squares Squares Ratio Prob. 2 3 4
Survey Question
8. lam better able to vary my instructional practices.
10.8333 5.4167 5.6395 .0046
2 2.8077 1.2335 .2419
3 3.2381 1.0548 .1628
4 3.6087 .7142 .1053
. I show more movies and videos.
5.0041
2 1.4615 1.3633 .2674
3 .9048 .9321 .1438
4 1.0870 1.0714 .1580
.1302
10.1 am better able to conduct student debates and discussions.
5.8666 2.9333 2.3559 .0995
2 2.3846 1.2354 .2423
3 2.7857 1.1590 .1788
4 2.9783 .9998 .1474
11. lam more accurate in assessing my students’ level of
understanding.
16.4882 8.2441 6.1220 .0030
2 2.2692 1.2508 .2453
3 2.3810 1.3243 .2043
4 3.1087 .9244 .1363
12. Students are more productive.
19.9098 9.9549 6.1901 .0028
2 2.0385 1.4277 .2800
3 2.2857 1.3843 .2136
4 3.0217 1.0433 .1538
13.1 am more relaxed during the instructional day.
2.8148 1.4074 1.3587
2 3.1538 1.2866 .2523
3 3.4286 .9663 .1491
4 3.5652 .8857 .1306
.2612
14.1 use more authentic assessment to determine my students’
progress since the change.
16.4830 8.2415 5.8648 .0038
2 2.1538 1.0077 .1976
3 2.2381 1.3400 .2068
4 2.9783 1.1252 .1659
X
X
X X
137
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix A-2 continued
Analysis o f Variance Between Groups by Experience with Block
X Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at the .050 level of confidence.
Group Mean Standard Standard Sum of Mean F F Gp Gp Gp
Deviation Error Squares Squares Ratio Prob. 2 3 4
Survey Question
15.1 devote less time in class to lecturing now.
6.4130 3.2065 2.2635 .1088
2 2.1538 1.1204 .2197
3 2.1429 1.0493 .1619
4 2.6304 1.3393 .1975
16.1 believe that 1 know more about i
styles.
2 2.4615 1.2722 .2495
3 2.5714 1.1507 .1776
4 2.9348 .9978 .1471
17. Since the change 1 allow students
homework in class.
2 2.2692 1.1852 .2324
3 1.5714 1.3460 .2077
4 1.9348 1.4048 .2071
18.1 cover material in greater detail.
2 2.4615 1.4207 .2786
3 2.4524 1.5013 .2316
4 3.0435 .9651 .1423
19. My students complete more indep
2 2.2308 1.2428 .2437
3 2.3571 1.1650 .1798
4 2.7826 1.0732 .1582
20 .1 assign more writing to my stude
reflections).
2 2.1923 .9389 .1841
3 2.3095 1.0930 .1686
4 2.2826 1.1863 .1749
4.7028 2.3514 1.8703 .1589
8.0753 4.0376 2.2612 .1090
9.4750 4.7375 2.8459 .0623
6.4157 3.2078 2.4374 .0921
.2294 .1147 .0948 .9096
138
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix A-2 continued
Analysis of Variance Between Groups by Experience with Block
X Denotes pairs o f groups significantly different at the .050 level of confidence.
Group Mean Standard Standard Sum of Mean F F Gp Gp Gp
Deviation Error Squares Squares Ratio Prob. 2 3 4
Survey Question
21. Students appear more relaxed.
3.0686 1.5343 1.5568 .2154
22. In the last year, I have attempted at least one new teaching
strategy that I hadn’t used before.
.4981 .2491 .2652 .7675
2 3.0385 1.0385 .2037
3 3.0000 1.1262 .1783
4 3.3478 .8224 .1213
2 3.1154 .7114 .1395
3 3.0238 1.0474 .1616
4 3.1739 1.0177 .1501
2 3.1 am better able to conduct small group activities.
4.7434 2.3717 2.2484 .1104
2 2.9615 1.0763 .2111
3 3.0238 1.1150 .1721
4 3.4130 .9086 .1340
2 4 .1 have attempted new methods of testing and assessing
progress.
2.8225 1.4113 1.0925 .3381
2 2.5385 1.0288 .2018
3 2.5952 1.1699 .1805
4 2.8913 1.1591 .1709
2 5 .1 assign less homework now.
3.5088 1.7544 1.2405 .2932
26.1 am better able to conduct experiments in my classes.
7.5555 3.7777 3.7808 .0285
2 1.7308 1.1825 .2324
3 1.2857 1.1537 .1780
4 1.5652 1.2230 .1803
2 2.1538 1.0466 .2053
3 2.4286 .8874 .1369
4 2.8043 1.0671 .1573 X
27.1 am better able to assess the individual needs of my students.
12.2578 6.1289 5.3213 .0062
2 2.3846 1.2026 .2358
3 2.5238 1.1527 .1779
4 3.1304 .9094 .1341 X X
139
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix A-2 continued
Analysis o f Variance Between Groups by Experience with Block
X Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at the .050 level of confidence.
Group Mean Standard Standard Sum o f Mean F F Gp Gp Gp
Deviation Error Squares Squares Ratio Prob. 2 3 4
Survey Question
2 8.1 am more willing to attempt new teaching strategies since
the change to block.
4.3872 2.1936 1.9233 .1510
2 2.7692 1.0318 .2024
3 2.9048 1.0548 .1628
4 3.2391 1.0992 .1621
29. The content of my subject area adapts well to block
scheduling.
25.2911 12.6456 6.7436 .0017
2 2.2692 1.5889 .3116
3 2.7619 1.5271 .2356
4 3.4565 1.0479 .1545
3 0 .1 am better able to conduct simulations.
3.1020
2 2.3846 .9414 .1846
3 2.5714 .9663 .1491
4 2.8043 1.1079 .1634
1.5510 1.4883 .2302
31. Block scheduling fosters the development of critical
thinking skills in my students.
14.9567 7.4783 5.3047 .0063
2 2.1538 1.2551 .2462
3 2.4048 1.3263 .2046
4 3.0217 .9998 .1474
32.1 am better able to complete my objectives.
21.0822 10.5411 6.2259 .0027
2 2.1538 1.4613 .2866
3 2.3333 1.4427 .2226
4 3.1304 1.0458 .1542
33.1 am more satisfied that my students are receiving adequate
exposure to the material in my subject area.
20.2111 10.1056 5.7695 .0041
2 2.3077 1.4905 .2923
3 2.3571 1.4621 .2256
4 3.1957 1.0671 .1573
X
X
X
140
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix A-2 continued
Analysis o f Variance Between Groups by Experience with Block
X Denotes pairs o f groups signiricantly different at the .050 level of confidence.
Group Mean Standard Standard Sum o f Mean F F Gp Gp Gp
Deviation Error Squares Squares Ratio Prob. 2 3 4
Survey Question
34. Students engage in classroom discussions with greater
frequency.
3.4855 1.7427 1.3620 .2604
2 2.5000 1.1747 .2304
3 2.7619 1.1647 .1797
4 2.9565 1.0741 .1584
35. Tutorial has been beneficial to my students.
3.8487 1.9243 1.3554 .2621
2 2.9615 1.1129 .2183
3 3.3095 1.0704 .1652
4 2.9130 1.3304 .1962
36. There is less wasted (non-instructional) time under block.
24.7359 12.3680 6.6102 .0019
2 2.0385 1.4277 .2800
3 2.2143 1.5228 .2350
4 3.0870 1.1705 .1726
37. There are fewer disciplinary problems (disruptions) outside
my classroom.
8.4636 4.2318 2.9547 .0562
2 2.4615 1.3336 .2615
3 2.9524 1.1252 .1736
4 3.1739 1.1795 .1739
38. The climate in my classroom is more relaxed.
6.9591 3.4796 2.9216 .0580
2 3.0000 .8944 .1754
3 2.9286 1.3506 .2084
4 3.4565 .9118 .1344
39.1 am able to maintain closer communication with parents.
1.7487 .8744 .6841 .5067
2 2.0769 1.1286 .2213
3 2.2143 1.2598 .1944
4 2.3913 .9995 .1474
X
X
X
141
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix A-2 continued
Analysis o f Variance Between Groups by Experience with Block
X Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at the .050 level of confidence.
Group Mean Standard Standard Sum o f Mean F F Gp Gp Gp
Deviation Error Squares Squares Ratio Prob. 2 3 4
Survey Question
40. Tutorial provides additional time for students to get help and
understand material.
.3809 .1904 .2434
2 3.4615 .5084 .0997
3 3.4286 .8007 .1236
4 3.3261 1.0965 .1617
.7844
41.1 have fewer disciplinary problems in my classroom.
12.0905 6.0425 3.4932 .0338
2 2.1538 1.3474 .2642
3 2.3810 1.5134 .2335
4 2.9348 1.0832 .1597
42.1 received adequate training, support and in-service in order
to make the change to block.
9.7937 4.8698 2.8945 .0595
2 1.5000 1.2083 .2370
3 1.6429 1.3219 .2040
4 2.1739 1.3217 .1949
4 3.1 net more instructional time on a weekly basis.
21.4790 10.7395 5.6718 .0045
2 1.9615 1.3995 .2745
3 2.0000 1.5302 .2361
4 2.8696 1.2039 .1775
44. Student athletes lose less class time.
2 1.9231 1.4676 .2878
3 1.9524 1.3243 .2043
4 1.5870 1.2216 .1801
3.4566 1.7283 .9945 .3732
45. My schedule allows me to prepare for only one subject on
block schedule days (teachers with more than one prep.).
10.6207 5.3103 3.2949 .0407
2 1.5769 1.4191 .2783
3 2.1667 1.2281 .1895
4 2.3696 1.2176 .1795
142
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix A-2 continued
/dialysis of Variance Between Groups by Experience with Block
X Denotes pairs o f groups significantly different at the .050 level of confidence.
Group Mean Standard Standard Sum o f Mean F F Gp Gp Gp
Deviation Error Squares Squares Ratio Prob. 2 3 4
Survey Question
4 6 .1 have fewer classroom interruptions since the change.
5.1923 2.5962 1.6084 .2048
2 2.1154 1.2434 .2439
3 2.4524 1.2726 .1964
4 2.6739 1.2833 .1892
4 7 .1 am in favor of block scheduling over traditional scheduling.
26.2454 13.1227 7.7159 .0007
2 2.4231 1.6291 .3195
3 3.0000 1.4650 .2261
4 3.6522 .8748 .1290
48. Since the change I spend more time with my teaching
colleagues.
9.0951 4.5475 3.9795 .0214
2 1.4615 1.2077 .2368
3 1.8571 1.1806 .1822
4 2.1957 .8594 .1267
49. Since the change I spend more time with my department
members.
7.8599 3.9300 3.2726 .0416
2 1.4615 1.2403 .2433
3 1.7619 1.2259 .1892
4 2.1304 .8592 .1267
50 .1 have worked with another department(s) to integrate my
curriculum since the change.
19.4954 9.7477 7.9117 .0006
2 2.1923 1.2335 .2419
3 1.9286 1.1560 .1784
4 2.8478 .9881 .1457 X
143
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A comparative case study of accreditation/program quality review in two policy contexts: An international perspective

PDF

Analyzing the cost effectiveness of using parents and community volunteers to improve students' language arts test scores

PDF

Communication patterns with electronic mail within a central school office

PDF

A "stacked for success" sustained silent reading program for high school English language development (ELD) students: its impact on reading comprehension, attitudes toward reading, frequency of o...

PDF

A Cross-State Analysis Of State Curriculum Frameworks For Mathematics

PDF

Analysis of the distribution, equity, and encroachment of special education transportation funding in California: An intergovernmental grants perspective

PDF

Core components of the service climate: Linkages to customer satisfaction and profitability

PDF

Community college re-entry students: Correlates of access to special support programs and goal progress

PDF

Attitudes of honors and non-honors high school students about weighted grading, grade point averaging, class ranking, and access to honors courses

PDF

A multicultural curriculum's relationship to attitudes of prejudice and stereotyping in 5th and 6th-grade students

PDF

An analysis of teachers' perceptions of the efficacy of an instructional method for English language development using music and singing paired with movement

PDF

A study of the English Canadian feature film industry 1977-1981

PDF

A study of teacher motivation in a public California university

PDF

An examination of California school districts' response to AB 1626, AB 1639, and SB 1370: The Pupil Promotion and Retention Act of 1998

PDF

A study of the double sulphates of some rare-earth elements with sodium, potassium, ammonium and thallium

PDF

A historical study of the influence of the house committee on un-American activities on the American theatre, 1938-1958

PDF

An analysis of Long Beach Unified School District's EXCEL model of providing gifted programs for urban students and their effect on student achievement

PDF

A comparison study: Job satisfaction factors and retention of minority versus non-minority teachers

PDF

Administrative considerations for the inclusion of high school students with the label of seriously emotionally disturbed in regular education classes

PDF

Attitudes of chief financial officers about modifying state required audit guidelines and procedures in order to increase the effectiveness of the audit as a management tool

Asset Metadata

Creator Staunton, James Thomas (author)

Core Title A study of teacher beliefs on the efficacy of block scheduling

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Education, administration,education, curriculum and instruction,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Gothold, Stuard (committee chair), [illegible] (committee member), Baker, Robert (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c17-278101

Unique identifier UC11352896

Identifier 9733141.pdf (filename),usctheses-c17-278101 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 9733141.pdf

Dmrecord 278101

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Staunton, James Thomas

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA