Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
The block schedule and the English language learners: impact on academic performance and graduation rate at Oxbow High School
(USC Thesis Other)
The block schedule and the English language learners: impact on academic performance and graduation rate at Oxbow High School
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
THE BLOCK SCHEDULE AND ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS:
IMPACT ON ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE AND GRADUATION RATE AT
OXBOW HIGH SCHOOL
by
Graham Jeffrey Gurney
_______________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2009
Copyright 2009 Graham Jeffrey Gurney
ii
DEDICATION
This work is dedicated to my loving wife Francesca who has given me her
unconditional support from the start of my educational journey. This is also for
my daughter Laura who would always want to know when Daddy was going to
―school‖ and if he would be coming home late.
This work also is for my parents Desmond and Joan Gurney who did not
live to see me reach this personal goal.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to take the opportunity to thank Dr. Hocevar for all of his
support in helping me with the dissertation process.
My thanks also goes to Dr. Reed and Dr. Valles for taking time out of
their busy schedule to serve on my dissertation defense panel. A special note to
Dr. Brewer for his willingness to step in for Dr. Hocevar when he was unavailable
due to illness.
Also my thanks to the faculty and staff of the Rossier School of Education
who were always willing to help and give me the necessary advice ensuring that I
completed the program.
Finally, thank you to all of the students in my Cohort who shared this
journey with me for all of their support and encouragement.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ........................................................................................................ ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..................................................................................... iii
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................. vi
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................. viii
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................... ix
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY .............................................. 1
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................... 3
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................ 7
Research Questions ............................................................................................. 8
Analysis ............................................................................................................... 9
Importance of the Study .................................................................................... 13
Delimitations ..................................................................................................... 14
Definition of Terms ........................................................................................... 15
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................. 17
Changes in Teaching Methods .......................................................................... 22
Opportunities for Reflection .............................................................................. 22
Student-Teacher Relationships .......................................................................... 23
Anxiety Levels ................................................................................................... 23
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................ 33
Quantitative Evaluation Design ......................................................................... 33
Pre/post Independent Group Design .................................................................. 33
Nonequivalent Control Group Design ............................................................... 34
Intervention ........................................................................................................ 35
Participants and Setting ................................................................................. 36
Instrumentation and Procedures ........................................................................ 38
Instrumentation: Achievement...................................................................... 38
Instrumentation: Open and Closed- Ended Surveys ..................................... 41
Instrumentation: Interviews .......................................................................... 42
Instrumentation: Observation ....................................................................... 44
v
Formative Analysis ............................................................................................ 45
Summative Analysis .......................................................................................... 46
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS ...................................................................................... 48
Qualitative Findings .......................................................................................... 48
Quantitative Findings ........................................................................................ 53
Pre/Post Independent Groups Design ................................................................ 54
Nonequivalent Comparison Group Design ....................................................... 54
Findings Based on Research Questions: ............................................................ 55
Research Question 1 ...................................................................................... 55
Research Question 2 ...................................................................................... 57
Pre/post Longitudinal Results For OHS ............................................................ 58
CST Results of Both Schools ........................................................................ 62
CAHSEE Results of Both Schools ................................................................ 64
Research Question 3 ...................................................................................... 66
Research Question 4 ...................................................................................... 70
Research Question 5 ...................................................................................... 71
Summary and Conclusions ................................................................................ 77
CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................. 80
Summary ............................................................................................................ 80
Discussion .......................................................................................................... 81
Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 83
Recommendations ............................................................................................. 83
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 89
APPENDIX A MODIFIED MARZANO TEACHERS' SURVEY ..................... 93
APPENDIX B INFORMAL TEACHER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS............. 101
APPENDIX C TEACHER RESPONSES TO THE MODIFIED
MARZANO TEACHERS’ SURVEY ..................................................... 103
vi
LIST OF TABLES
1. Number and Percentage of Public School Students in the
United States Who Were Identified as English Language
Learners (ELL), By Nation and Region: 1993-94 and
1999-2000 ............................................................................................. 2
2. Percentage Distribution of Public Schools in the United States
by Concentration of English Language Learner (ELL)
Students, By Nation and Region: 1999-2000 ....................................... 3
3. Student Enrollment by Ethnic Group at Oxbow High School
2005–2006 ............................................................................................. 4
4. Dropout Rates of ELLs at Oxbow High School by Grade Level
2005–2007 ............................................................................................. 5
5. CAHSEE Results for 10
th
Graders 2004–2007 ..................................... 6
6. Graduation Rates of ELL at Oxbow High School Students
2005–2007 ............................................................................................. 6
7. Pre and Post Test Mean CST Values for 9
th
Through 11
th
grades .................................................................................................. 58
8. Ninth Grade CST Data for ELA, 2007–2008 ..................................... 60
9. Tenth Grade CST Data for ELA, 2007–2008 ..................................... 60
10. Eleventh Grade CST Data for ELA, 2007–2008 ................................ 61
11. Responses From the Teachers’ Survey that Focused on
Instruction ........................................................................................... 72
12. Responses From the Teachers’ Survey that Focused on
Curriculum. ......................................................................................... 74
13. Responses from the Teachers’ Survey that Focused on Goals
and Feedback ....................................................................................... 75
vii
14. Responses From the Teachers’ Survey that Focused on
Collegiality and Professionalism ........................................................ 75
15. Responses From the Teachers’ Survey that Focused on Student
Motivation ........................................................................................... 76
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
1: Graduation rate percentages of ELL and RFEP students at Oxbow and
Atlantic High Schools ............................................................................... 56
2: ELA scores for 9
th
Grade students. ........................................................... 62
3. ELA scores for 10
th
Grade students .......................................................... 63
4. ELA scores for 11
th
Grade students .......................................................... 63
5. Percentage of ELL Students Passing CAHSEE–ELA Compared to the
Total School Population ............................................................................ 65
6. Ninth Grade CST–ELA Scores Comparing the Economically
Disadvantaged Students to the Students Who Were Not Classified as
Economically Disadvantaged .................................................................... 67
7. Tenth Grade CST–ELA Scores Comparing the Economically
Disadvantaged Students to the Students Who Were Not Classified as
Economically Disadvantaged .................................................................... 67
8. Eleventh Grade CST–ELA Scores Comparing the Economically
Disadvantaged Students to the Students Who Were Not Classified as
Economically Disadvantaged .................................................................... 68
ix
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to examine the impact that the block
schedule has on the academic achievement of English Language Learners (ELL)
at Oxbow High School. A nonequivalent independent group design was used in
this study. In this quasi-experimental design, students were not randomly
assigned, but the comparison school that was used had similar demographic
characteristics to Oxbow High School. Comparisons were made between the
experimental school and the comparison school before and after the intervention.
Scores on the California Standards Test and the California High School
Exit exam for the 9
th
-11
th
grade students on the block schedule were compared to
students on the traditional six-period schedule. Another area that was also
examined was the academic achievement for economically disadvantaged
students and students who were not economically disadvantaged. Teachers were
also surveyed to gauge their opinion of the block schedule, as well as the faculty’s
report on best practices in the classroom and the effort required to implement
these practices.
The results of the data analysis for the English Language Learners showed
that students at Oxbow High School do not have any advantage taking classes
using the block schedule. The data presented only reflects the results for the first
year of the implementation of the block schedule and could be the result of the
implementation dip experienced when a new program is introduced.
x
The school needs to focus on supporting the teachers by providing
necessary professional development on block scheduling and best practices that
can be optimized with a block schedule. Professional development will enable
the teachers to close the achievement gap for all students at Oxbow High School.
Further research still needs to be done to understand why ELL students are not
closing the achievement gap between ELLs and their peers.
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
As the United States moves into the 21
st
century, one of the largest
challenges for educators will be working with students who have a home-
language other than English. In 1990 there were 32 million people over the age of
five who spoke another home-language other than English. This number
comprised 14 % of the population of the United States. By the year 2000, nearly
47 million people spoke another language other than English at home (Meyer,
Madden, & McGrath, 2004). The data from the 2002-2003 academic year
showed that 10.2% of all the students in the United States were considered
English learners or Limited-English-Proficient (LEP) students. During the 1990s,
the number of English learners increased by 104 % in the K-12 population, but
the overall enrollment of all students increased by only 15% (Callahan, 2005).
The students who were English Language Learners (ELL) were not evenly
distributed across the United States. The largest concentration of ELL students in
the public schools were found in the West, with the South having the second
largest concentration of ELL students. Table 1 shows the distribution of ELL
students throughout the United States. The Western region of the country had an
increase of 4% in their ELL student population. This increase was a total of
1,738,000 ELL students in the 1999-2000 school year.
2
Table 1
Number and Percentage of Public School Students in the United States Who Were
Identified as English Language Learners (ELL), By Nation and Region: 1993-94
and 1999-2000
1993-1994 1999-2000
Region
Number
of ELL
Percent of
all
Students
Percent of
all ELL
Number of
ELL
Percent
of all
Students
Percent
of all
ELL
United
States 2,121,000 5.1 100 3,042,000 6.7 100
Northeast 323,000 4.4 15.2 304,000 3.8 10
Midwest 136,000 1.4 6.4 276,000 2.6 9.1
South 521,000 3.5 24.6 723,000 4.5 23.8
West 1,142,000 12.3 53.8 1,738,000 16.3 57.2
Source: Meyer et al., 2004.
With the increase of ELL students throughout the country, the distribution
of these students is also an important point to consider. Across the nation, more
than one-half of the ELL students were in schools that had designated these
students as ELL (Meyer et al., 2004). The western region of the United States has
7 or more of the public schools with 50% or more of the student body designated
as ELL. Table 2 shows the distribution of the ELL students across the different
regions of the country with the highest concentration of these students.
3
Table 2
Percentage Distribution of Public Schools in the United States by Concentration
of English Language Learner (ELL) Students, By Nation and Region: 1999-2000.
Region
Less than 1
Percent
ELL
1-5
Percent
ELL
5-15
Percent
ELL
15-25
Percent
ELL
25-50
Percent
ELL
50 Percent
or more
ELL
United
States 61.7 17.0 10.4 4.1 4.3 2.4
Northeast 66.0 16.3 11.8 3.6 1.5 0.7
Midwest 78.5 11.6 5.7 1.3 1.6 1.3
South 62.0 19.9 10.2 4.1 2.8 1.0
West 36.5 20.3 15.8 8.0 12.0 7.0
Source: (Meyer et al., 2004)
Statement of the Problem
The growth of the ELL population in the United States has presented
many challenges to educators; for example, graduating the ELL students from
high school. In Southern California where this study took place, the ELL students
also needed to pass the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE), as well as
meet the graduation requirements of their particular district.
Oxbow High School had a student population of 2,983 students enrolled in
the school during the 2005–2006 school year (School Accountability Report Card
2005–06). The student population for the start of the 2007–2008 school year had
risen to just over 3,200 students. Using the data from Table 3, we can see that the
largest group of students in the school was Hispanics at 66.2 %, followed by
4
white students at 17.6 %. The socioeconomic disadvantaged students made up
45.9 % of the student body while the English learners in the school were 23.0 %
of the student body.
Table 3
Student Enrollment by Ethnic Group at Oxbow High School 2005–2006
Group Percent of Enrollment
African-American 6
American-Indian .5
Asian 2.3
Filipino 3.8
Hispanic o Latino 66.2
Pacific islander .7
White (not Hispanic) 17.6
Multiple or No Response 3
Socio-economically Disadvantaged 45.9
English Learners 23
Students with Disabilities 9
Source: Oxbow High School Accountability Report Card 2005–2006
One of the many challenges facing high school educators is the high
percentage of drop-outs that occur between the ninth grade year and senior year.
The data in Table 4 shows the breakdown of the dropouts by grade level and year
5
between 2005 and 2007. The critical grade levels were the 11
th
grade and 12th
grade levels at Oxbow High School as these were the two grade levels that had
the highest number of dropouts in each of the indicated school years.
Table 4
Dropout Rates of ELLs at Oxbow High School by Grade Level 2005–2007
Grade
2005
Dropouts
2006
Dropouts
2007
Dropouts
9 0 0.7% 0
10 0.8% 0 0
11 3.4% 1.3% 0
12 27.4% 24.5% 15.9%
Source: Oxbow High School District Testing Office.
Tables 5 and 6 show the CAHSEE results for the 10
th
grade students as
well as the graduation rates of the ELL students. The information from these two
tables gives a strong indicator of how many ELL students will graduate from high
school.
6
Table 5
CAHSEE Results for 10
th
Graders 2004–2007
Year Subject
All
Students
ELL
ELL
Passing
White Students
(not Hispanic
origin) Passing
n n N % N %
2004 Math 651 91 56 62 138 86
ELA 680 96 39 41 148 86
2005 Math 688 203 91 45 143 82
ELA 694 244 94 39 146 90
2006 Math 765 336 155 46 137 93
ELA 775 414 143 35 137 92
2007 Math 751 186 94 51 110 91
ELA 767 192 74 39 111 93
Source: California Department of Education (2008).
Table 6
Graduation Rates of ELL at Oxbow High School Students 2005–2007
Year 2005 2006 2007
ELL Graduates 76.3% 71.5% 72.0%
Source: Oxbow High School District Testing Office
7
Purpose of the Study
Oxbow High School implemented a block schedule at the start of the
2007-2008 school year to try and reduce the number of dropouts and increase the
graduation rates of students. The purpose of this study was to determine the
impact that a block schedule would have on the graduation and drop-out rates of
students at Oxbow High School. The previous schedule at the high school was
the traditional six-period day with each period lasting 55 minutes. This schedule
allowed students to earn 30 credits each semester, so at the end of the school year
students would have earned 60 credits. Students at Oxbow High School needed a
total of 230 credits to graduate. If students failed courses between their 9
th
and
12
th
grade year, it became difficult to make up these lost credits. The school did
offer a summer program, but the majority of the summer courses offered focused
on Math and English. These courses were offered to students who had failed the
CAHSEE or were in danger of failing the CAHSEE. Students who were behind
in elective credits had to attend Adult Education classes or cyber high to make up
lost credits. Students struggled to make up the credits if they were 15 credits or
more behind, as the traditional schedule only allowed students to earn 60 credits.
The new block schedule that was implemented at the start of the 2007-
2008 school year allowed the students to take four classes per day, with each class
being 90 minutes long. This schedule was similar to a schedule that a student
would have if they attended a university or community college. Students would
8
be able to concentrate on four classes, thus allowing the students to have a higher
success rate using this schedule. The block schedule has the flexibility that will
enable students to earn 80 credits each school year as well as make up credits if
they were deficient during the school year. The block schedule also allows
students to have more flexibility in their schedule to take elective courses earlier
on during their high school career.
Two schools were used in the study. One is Oxbow High school which
had completed one year on the block schedule. The other school in the study was
Atlantic High School which was on the traditional six-period schedule. Both of
these schools had a student population of approximately 3,200 students with
similar student demographics.
Research Questions
The research questions addressed by this study are:
1. What is the graduation rate of ELL students at Oxbow High School who
were enrolled in the block schedule for the 2007-2008? Does the block
schedule affect an increase in graduation rates compared to the traditional
six-period day schedule? How does the reclassifying rates for ELL
students compare between Oxbow High School and Atlantic High School?
2. How do the California Standards Test (CST) and California High School
Exit Exam (CAHSEE) scores for 9
th
–11
th
grade Oxbow High School
9
students in the block schedule compare to those of the 9
th
–11
th
grade
students in the traditional six-period day schedule at Atlantic High
School?
3. Are the scores from the English Language Arts section of the California
Standards Test indicating that the achievement gap is closing between
economically disadvantaged students and those students not economically
disadvantaged at Oxbow High School?
4. To what extent does the faculty report best practices and what is their
perception of the effort required to implement the best practices?
5. What is the faculty’s opinion of the block schedule and its impact on
classroom instruction?
Analysis
Marzano (2003) identifies the opportunity to learn as one of the strongest
predictors of student achievement. The Second International Mathematics Study
(SIMS) identified three types of curricula: The intended curriculum, the
implemented curriculum, and the attained curriculum (Marzano, 2003). The
intended curriculum is the curriculum that is set forth by the state or district. The
implemented curriculum is the curriculum that is actually delivered by the teacher
in the classroom. The attained curriculum is the content learned by the student.
The difference between the intended curriculum and implemented curriculum is
10
what makes opportunity to learn such an important factor in student success. The
concept of opportunity to learn is a simple but powerful one as Marzano states, ―if
students do not have the opportunity to learn the content expected of them, there
is little chance they will‖(Marzano, 2003, p. 24). Marzano stresses that it is of
utmost importance that the state and district give clear guidance to teachers
regarding content that needs to be addressed in all courses and grade levels. This
also means that the individual teachers do not have the option to replace or
disregard sections of the content that they do not feel like teaching or covering.
To ensure success, students need to have access to a viable curriculum, but
a viable curriculum will not be attainable if the teachers do not have the time to
cover the necessary instructional material in their classes. Marzano (2003) breaks
down the number of standards and benchmarks into the hours of instructional time
that is available. The numbers that Marzano uses is 15,465 hours of instructional
time to adequately address the content standards. The actual time of instruction
that is available to teachers to cover these content standards is 9,042. The
difference between these hours of instruction means that a teacher cannot cover
the necessary material in a school year.
Schools have the responsibility to implement a curriculum that is viable
and guaranteed. The block schedule allows the teachers to focus on three classes
during the instructional day, with the added benefit of each class having an
instructional period of 90 minutes. For the block schedule to be implemented
11
successfully, the teachers need to ― identify and communicate the content
considered essential for all students versus that considered supplemental or
necessary only for those seeking postsecondary education‖ (Marzano, 2003, p.
25.) The administration needs to structure time into the school year that will allow
teachers in departments time to collaborate on curriculum design that all agree
upon. Allowing teachers the time to design a curriculum that they all agree upon
will then ensure that a curriculum that is viable and guaranteed will be taught to
the students.
Another factor is to set challenging goals and provide effective feedback
(Marzano, 2003). Classes that have clear learning goals had a 0.55 standard
deviation higher achievement level than classes that did not have clear learning
goals established. This translates into a 21% point gain in achievement.
Schmoker (1999) notes that setting academic goals for the whole school will have
a powerful and coalescing effect on the teachers and administrators, ―Goals
themselves lead not only to success but also to the effectiveness and cohesion of
the team‖ (Schmoker, 1999, p. 24). When a school is setting academic goals, it is
critical to remember that the academic goal needs to be challenging for all of the
students in the school.
Once these learning goals have been established as part of the daily
instructional process, how will teachers know that their students were achieving
the learning goals? Marzano (2003) stresses that the feedback must be given to
12
the students in a timely manner. The feedback also needs to be given to the
students multiple times throughout the school year. This type of feedback is
known as formative assessment which differs from summative assessment which
is given at the end of the course or learning experience. Researchers have found
that appropriate use of formative assessment can improve the achievement of
students. Unfortunately many schools rely more on state or external tests for
feedback. This type of feedback is summative.
The assessments that a school employs need to be specific to the
curriculum taught and also provide timely feedback to students. Marzano (2003)
feels that, at a minimum, students need feedback every quarter on their academic
performance. To accomplish this, Marzano feels that report cards should be
tailored to reflect ―student competence in specific or essential‖ knowledge skills
(Marzano, 2003, p. 40). This will require a major shift in the attitude of teachers
as the traditional report card does not allow for this feedback that students and
parents would find more helpful.
The implementation of tailored report cards for students will also allow for
the establishment of specific goals for students. Students in Special Education
Programs have had individual goals set for them in their Individualized
Educational Plans (IEP’s) for many years. Implementation of the modified report
card will allow teachers to customize every student’s goals so that they will have
13
their own goal to achieve. These individual goals would ideally be tied into the
school’s academic goals.
With the change to the new block schedule at Oxbow High School, the
goal was to try and close the achievement gap between the ELL students and the
higher-performing white students on campus. One of the most compelling
reasons to move to the block schedule was that the longer periods of instructional
time in theory provided for more meaningful learning episodes for students
(Stidham, 2001). Student attendance should also increase due to the change in
schedule as each student would only have to focus on four classes instead of the
traditional six classes. This would also have a direct impact on the students’
grade point average. The block schedule also allows students and teachers to
form a closer connection due to the longer classes (Shore, 1995).
Importance of the Study
This study was important because schools across the country were being
held accountable with state and federal mandates. The federal mandate is the No
Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) which has an impact on the funding that schools
and districts receive. If a school or district does not meet the Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP) target set by the federal government, sanctions can be enacted on
the school or district. The state requirement for students in California schools is
the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). If a student does not pass the
14
CAHSEE which is comprised of two sections, English Language Arts and
Mathematics, the students will not receive a high school diploma even if they
have met all the other graduation requirements set forth by Oxbow High School
District.
The study gave other districts and schools the opportunity to determine if
the block schedule had a positive impact on the graduation and drop-out rates of
high school students. Educators can consider alternative options in their
curriculum to ensure that all students were meeting graduation requirements and
not dropping out of school. This study can be used as a model to determine if the
block schedule does, in fact, have a positive impact on graduation rates as well as
reducing the drop-out rates at the high-school level.
Delimitations
Due to the complexity and size of the intervention, the author
acknowledges multiple treatment interference as one of the limitations of this
study. A further limitation was that the high school examined had only been on
the block schedule for one year. The data gathered only reflects the first year’s
results. Ideally, a longitudinal study needs to be performed over five to six years
to obtain a clearer picture of the impact of the block schedule on ELL students at
Oxbow High School.
15
Definition of Terms
For the purpose of this study, the following terms were operationally
defined as follows:
Academic Performance Index (API): The Academic Performance Index is
the cornerstone of California's Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999 . The
purpose of the API is to measure the academic performance and growth of
schools. It is a numeric index (or scale) that ranges from a low of 200 to a high of
1000. A school's score on the API is an indicator of a school's performance level.
The statewide API performance target for all schools is 800. A school's growth is
measured by how well it is moving toward or past that goal. A school's API Base
is subtracted from its API Growth to determine how much the school improved in
a year.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Under No Child Left Behind
(California Department of Education, 2002), each state has developed and
implemented measurements for determining whether its schools and local
educational agencies (LEAs) were making adequate yearly progress (AYP). AYP
is an individual state's measure of progress toward the goal of 100% of students
achieving state academic standards in at least reading/language arts and math. It
sets the minimum level of proficiency that the state, its school districts, and
schools must achieve each year on annual tests and related academic indicators.
Parents whose children were attending Title I (low-income) schools that do not
16
make AYP over a period of years were given options to transfer their child to
another school or obtain free tutoring (supplemental educational services) (U.S.
Department of Education, 2008).
Block Schedule: The block schedule creates a large segment of
instructional time for staff and students. The traditional school schedule usually
has six classes that are 55 minutes long. The block schedule has four classes that
are 90 minutes long. This allows students to increase the number of credits they
can earn each year. Schools have also reported that discipline referrals decreased,
student attendance improved, and enhanced staff-student relationships were noted
(Robbins, Gregory, & Herndon, 2000).
California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE): A graduation requirement
that was authorized by law in California requiring all California public school
students to pass two components of this test, English Language Arts and
Mathematics to earn a high school diploma. The first class to take this exam was
the class of 2004, and the class of 2006 was the first class to have the CAHSEE as
a graduation requirement (California Department of Education, 2006a).
English Language Learner (ELL): English Language Learners are
children who come from a variety of different backgrounds who do not speak
English as a first language in their home environment. These students face the
challenge of the academic demands of school while working at the same time to
gain proficiency in the English language (Lachat, 2004).
17
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
A March 2008 EdSource Report showed that nearly half of the public
school students in the state of California speak a language other than English in
their homes. Of these students, about half of them were designated English
Language Learners (ELL) by their school districts (EdSource, March 2008).
The number of ELL students in California comprise about one-third of the
United States ELL students according to the 2005-2006 data from the National
Center for Education Statistics. Spanish is the primary language for 85% of all
ELL students with these students being predominantly of Mexican heritage. The
2006 Census Bureau’s Community Survey found that among a sample of
California children aged 5-18 who spoke Spanish at home, 83% were of Mexican
heritage, 4% were Salvadoran, 2% were Guatemalan and the remainder of the
children had roots in primary Latin American countries (EdSource, March 2008).
The majority of the ELL students were located in Southern California. The most
populous counties in California were Los Angeles, San Diego, Orange, San
Bernardino, and Riverside. They accounted for 55% of the state’s population and
56% of the schoolchildren. The ELL students in schools throughout California
defy stereotypes (EdSource, March 2008).
18
With the increase of the ELL student population across the state of
California, educators were aware that this particular group of students faces
hurdles to achieve academic success (EdSource, March 2008). The student who
is classified as an ELL student includes those students who are just starting to
learn English as well as the students who have developed considerable
proficiency in the language. The four areas in which students need to be
proficient are:
Reading: The ability to comprehend and interpret text at grade level.
Listening: The student needs to be able to understand the language of the
teacher, comprehend, and then extract the information to understand the
discussion.
Writing: The student needs to be able to produce text whose content is
age- and grade-level appropriate.
Speaking: The ability to use oral language appropriately and effectively in
a classroom environment as well as in social interactions during the school day
(Clements, Lara, & Cheung, 1992).
The ELL students in a school setting have significant challenges to
overcome compared to their English proficient peers. An ELL student is working
towards gaining English proficiency for academic and social purposes. At the
same time, they are expected to face the same academic challenges as their peers.
For many ELL students it is a daunting task to achieve academic success. Within
19
the ELL population, there are two groups of students of particular concern. The
first group is comprised of foreign born students who have had limited time to
master English and pass the required school-district subjects for graduation, as
well as meeting the state requirements for graduation. Another subgroup within
this population is comprised of the students who are under-schooled middle and
high school students who have critical gaps in their education. These students
bring weak foundation skills to learning which are critical to their success in
school (Lachat, 2004).
With the implementation of No Child Left Behind, schools have to ensure
that the achievement gap is closing between all students, including those who are
disadvantaged. One of the approaches that schools have taken to improve
achievement is to restructure the school day into a block schedule format.
Extensive research has been conducted on the block schedule and its
impact on student achievement. The data from the various research documents, at
best, have provided conflicting results on the block schedule. Some studies
suggest an impact on student achievement while others do not. Limited
information is available on the impact that the block schedule has on English
Language Learners in a high school.
The concept of the block schedule is not new. During the 1960s, Trump,
from the Oregon Department of Education, wanted to reexamine the traditional
school schedule so that longer class periods could be introduced as a way of
20
improving instruction. The longer class periods were known as Flexible Modular
Scheduling. Trump’s plan was to question the Carnegie Unit approach which
used classroom seat time to determine credits (Kienholz, Segall, & Yellin, 2003).
It was not until the 1990s that block scheduling became viable for schools. The
document that had a major impact on the education system was Breaking Ranks
(Lammel, 1996) which recommended a more flexible schedule by restructuring
time and space. This document became a major guide for secondary school
reform (Kienholz et al., 2003).
The traditional school schedule has seven periods that are approximately 45
minutes long or six periods that are 50 to 55 minutes long. The most widely used
block schedule is known as the 4 by 4. Students have four 90-minute classes each
day (Kienholz et al., 2003). Some schools have moved to the block schedule in
response to the mandates from the state as well as student demands for more
elective credits (Canady & Rettig, 1995).
The literature on the block schedule asserts that with the extended time,
teachers will be able to apply a greater variety of instructional methods to meet
the needs of the students (Jenkins, Queen, & Algozzine, 2002). The traditional
schedule usually has six classes of 50 to 55 minutes each. The longer classes
allow teachers to place less emphasis on lecturing and give freedom to
accommodate different learning styles. ―The degree to which teachers adopt
teaching strategies that take advantage of the longer time-blocks to create
21
improved learning opportunities for students‖ will determine if the block schedule
is successful in schools (Bryant, 1995, p. 5). Research performed by Queen
(2000) also stresses that the additional class time of the block schedule allows
teachers to engage in a variety of instructional strategies instead of the lecturing
format. The block schedule is one element in educational restructuring that gives
teachers the opportunity to make significant improvements in instruction
(Cawelti, 1994). ―The block schedule emerged as one obvious, if partial, solution
to a number of problems that plagued high school classrooms, thus allowing
teachers the opportunity to use teaching strategies that were difficult, if not
impossible in a traditional class period.‖ (Jenkins et al., 2002, p. 200). The
success or failure of the block schedule will be determined by the ability of the
teachers to take advantage of the longer class periods and improve instruction
(Canady & Rettig, 1995).
Other researchers have noted significant findings with respect to the block
schedule. For example Veal and Flinders noted significant changes in four areas:
―(a) methods of teaching, (b) opportunities for reflection, (c) student-teacher
relationships, and (d) levels of anxiety‖ (Veal & Flinders, 2001, p. 22).
22
Changes in Teaching Methods
The data gathered by Veal and Flinders (2001) showed that instructional
methods for most of the teachers changed when they taught in the block schedule.
Forty-five percent of the students surveyed agreed that their teachers changed
their instructional methods. In the surveys returned by the teachers, many of them
reported that they imparted information to the students in different ways.
Teachers reported incorporating more cooperative group activities and data
analysis as well as long-term problems. The students reported that the most
predominate methods of instruction were group work and lab work. Science and
art teachers had the most favorable comments regarding the block schedule.
Opportunities for Reflection
The research done by Veal and Flinders found that teachers did not have
time to reflect on their teaching. A social studies teacher responded to the survey
about reflection like this: ―I wouldn’t call it reflection, more like scrambling to
meet the spirit of longer classes, more in-depth, more variety while desperately
trying to cover enough material‖ (Veal & Flinders, 2001, p. 28). Other teachers
felt the same about not having time for reflection as they were busy preparing
lessons to adjust to the new schedule.
23
Student-Teacher Relationships
Teachers responded that the reduction of students in class permitted
teachers to spend one-on-one instructional time with students. The students
reported that their teachers had more time for them and cared about their learning
needs. A teacher reported that if a class was only one term long, the longer
instructional period allowed the teacher to get to know the student; however, once
the term ended, the contact and relationship with the students ended as they
moved onto another class and teacher.
Anxiety Levels
The first survey was given to teachers following the traditional six-period
schedule and revealed increased anxiety levels on the part of the teachers. The
second survey, given to teachers who were teaching in the block schedule,
showed a decrease in anxiety level. The block teachers experienced more stress
in the first half of the year compared to the second half of the year. The higher
stress levels at the start of the year could be attributed to the fact that the block
schedule was new. Survey responses from parents showed that 53% reported that
their children had a lower level of anxiety with their block schedule. Of the
negative responses, one parent stated that their son appeared to be more
disorganized due to the teacher covering the content of two regular scheduled
days in one block day.
24
Feedback from teachers and students also indicated that the block schedule
had the opposite effect on their day-to-day work. The subject-centered courses
tended to include more hand-outs and lectures, which provides a quicker way to
cover the necessary material due to the faster pace of teaching required in the
block schedule. According to a study by Veal and Flinders the common block
schedule reduces the contact time between the teachers and students during any
course. Evidence indicates that increasing the pace of instruction to meet the
needs of the block schedule can undermine the benefits of the schedule. The
teachers who adapt their instruction to meet the needs of their students will
succeed in adapting to the block schedule (Veal & Flinders, 2001).
Shore (1995) reported on the positive effects the block schedule had on
Harrington Beach High School. The school had approximately 2,000 students
enrolled between 9
th
and 12
th
grades, and 34% of these students were minorities.
The school administration had seen an increase in violence and suspendable
behaviors over the preceding years (Shore, 1995). In 1991, a new administration
decided to instate changes to the school, i.e. Adopt-a-Kid, Most Improved Student
Award, and Student of the Month.
The most significant change occurred during the 1993-1994 school year
when the faculty at Harrington High School voted to try the block schedule
(Shore, 1995). The staff realized that they had no control over the 180 students
they were responsible for. With the introduction of the block schedule, teachers
25
would teach on average three classes per day, but these classes were longer and
each teacher would have a class load of 80 students. The longer classes promoted
a more personalized environment for the students and teachers. The staff also
instituted a 30 minute tutorial period at the start of each day. During this tutorial
period, students could meet with any teacher for one-on-one help, which was a
radical departure from the traditional schedule.
The benefits from implementing the block schedule at Harrington High
School showed dramatic results (Shore, 1995):
1. The school had the lowest expulsion rate for the whole district between
1992 and 1993.
2. Of the students on the ―hot list‖ (students who were not on track to
graduate due to behavior problems) 51% of these students had improved
their grades in the following years.
3. The 1993-1994 school year saw the ―hot list‖ reduced by 50% from the
start of the school year.
4. The annual senior survey gave Harrington High School a higher rating
than any senior class in the district which included six comprehensive
high schools and one continuation school. (p. 78)
These results from Harrington High School were accomplished with no
extra funding or grants or additional manpower. The school had changed to a
more personalized place for the students which led to the dramatic improvements
(Shore, 1995). Shore believes that other schools can have the same positive
results if they are willing to invest the time and energy into the block schedule
and student support programs.
26
A longitudinal study conducted by Trenta and Newman (2002) examined
the block schedule in a small mid-western city. Their findings focused on hard
data such as grade-point averages and attendance instead of focusing on attitudes
and perceptions over a period of 3 years. The data collected in the study showed
that not all of the data relationships were significant. The researchers, however,
found that there was a positive relationship with time in the block schedule and
their findings were supportive of the block schedule (Trenta & Newman, 2002).
A 1997 study commissioned by the Metropolitan Educational Research
Consortium in Richmond, Virginia reported that grades seemed too improved
under the block schedule. The Chesapeake Public Schools Office of Program
Evaluation in 1996 reported that failure rates declined in 60% of the schools and
the percentage of A’s and B’s increased (Trenta & Newman, 2002).
In Florida, Willow High School had to make cutbacks in staffing due to
declining state budgets. This allowed the district to have a choice between the
block schedule and changing from the seven-period day to the six-period day. If
the school stayed with the traditional schedule, the elective programs would have
been severely impacted. The school decided to move to the block schedule which
allowed the school to save the elective program. The impact of the block
schedule was positive. Some of the findings from the staff are listed below (Dow
& George, 1998):
27
1. Fifty percent of the students made the school’s honor roll compared to
27% on the previous seven-period day.
2. All students increased their grade-point average.
3. The students’ daily attendance increased from 85% to 95%. The
school implemented a policy stating that students with perfect
attendance were not required to take the final exam for a class.
4. Discipline referrals were reduced by half.
5. The school’s dropout rate was 1.1% and was the lowest in the state.
6. With each class meeting for 86 minutes, students felt that they had a
better connection with their teachers and they felt that the teachers
cared for them.
7. There was increased dual enrollment in the local community college.
8. In general, students did not experience the typical grade drop from
middle school to high school.
9. Students could accelerate their math classes and could take higher-
level math classes during the school year.
10. The block schedule allowed more English and math classes to be
offered during the school year.
When principals in Florida were asked to identify the top reasons for
moving to the block schedule, the following reasons were the most frequently
cited (Dow & George, 1998):
28
1. Reduce the number of students each teacher taught daily.
2. Encourage teachers to use different instructional strategies in their
daily lessons.
3. Improve student behavior in the classroom and school.
4. Provide teachers a more flexible time frame to teach students.
Florida educators were asked to respond to a list of 17 possible choices
regarding the outcomes of the new schedule. Some of the respondents felt that it
was too early to determine the drawbacks or benefits of the block schedule. The
educators who responded had similar experiences to the results found in the
literature (Dow & George, 1998):
1. Sixty-three percent of the respondents noted a decline in discipline
referrals.
2. Sixty-five percent of the respondents noted an increase in the honor
roll numbers.
3. Fifty percent of the respondents reported an increase in the students
GPA scores.
4. Sixty percent of the respondents noted that there was a more positive
relationship between the teachers and students.
Teachers felt that they were revitalized due to the new schedule and 98%
of the respondents said the block schedule allowed them to be more creative in the
classroom. Another positive outcome was that teacher attendance improved as
29
well as communication between parents and teachers. The block schedule also
allows remediation to occur during the regular school year (Dow & George,
1998).
After teachers had 3 to 4 years of experience teaching in the block
schedule, teachers felt that the block schedule was more effective than the
traditional schedule (Stokes & Wilson, 2000). Teachers perceived the greatest
benefits of the block schedule to be increased student opportunities to gain credits
towards graduation and time in the schedule for remediation to accommodate
students behind in credits.
Schools reported that there was resistance to implementing the block
schedule. The resistance to the block schedule tended to come from teachers in
the foreign language and math departments. The majority of the teachers made
the transition to the block schedule with the assistance of focused professional
development. The professional development presented to the teachers focused on
preparing to teach in the block schedule and cooperative learning strategies. With
respect to the professional development that was offered the teachers, 54% of the
respondents felt that they needed more assistance in adapting their instructional
strategies to the longer classes of the block schedule (Dow & George, 1998). A
concern that teachers expressed was the reliance on the lecturing format to convey
information to students. This concern was confirmed by Carroll (1990), who
30
stated that ―Overuse of lecturing is a major problem of high school instruction‖
(Carroll, 1990, p. 362).
Research performed by Rettig (Rettig & Canady, 2001) over a period of 8
years in Virginia found that only 3 schools out of 231 schools returned to the
traditional six-period schedule. During the 2001-2002 school year, 228 schools in
Virginia out of 301 high schools (75.7%) were on some variation of the 4x4 block
schedule.
The success or failure of the block schedule will be determined by the
degree to which teachers use instructional strategies that engage students and
promote a high level of learning.
Regardless of a school’s time schedule, what happens between individual
teachers and students in classrooms is still the most important, and simply
altering the manner in which we schedule schools will not ensure better
instruction by teachers or increased learning by students. (Canady &
Rettig, 1995, p. 240)
When a school moves towards implementing a block schedule, the goal is
to provide a structure that allows teachers more time for instruction. The real
issue is how we decide to use the time that is allocated in an instructional day
(Lambert, 2003). Reeves points out that the schools with the greatest
improvement in academic performance have made dramatic changes to the school
schedule (Reeves, 2004). With the implementation of the block schedule, the
traditional schedule of six periods or 55 minute classes is changed to four 90
minute periods, providing teachers with additional instructional time.
31
Marzano and his colleagues (Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001) offer
researched-based instructional strategies that teachers can use to guide classroom
practices in such a way as to maximize the possibility of enhancing students’
achievement. The instructional strategies that Marzano and his colleagues
identified are research-based strategies that have a high probability of enhancing
student achievement in all subject areas as well as at all grade levels. These
strategies are:
1. Identifying similarities and differences.
2. Summarizing and note-taking.
3. Reinforcing effort and providing recognition.
4. Homework and practice.
5. Nonlinguistic representation.
6. Cooperative learning.
7. Setting objectives and providing feedback.
8. Generating and testing hypotheses.
9. Questions, cues, and advance organizers.
The use of the strategies listed above will give teachers the necessary tools to
make effective use of the longer instructional period (Marzano, Pickering, &
Pollock, 2001, p. 7).
It is common sense to note that the instructional strategies recommended
by Marzano (2003) can be implemented into classes taught in the block schedule.
32
When a school decides to change to the block schedule, this change is often the
catalyst that motivates the school to examine and change its instructional practices
and professional development activities to improve instructional techniques. It is
important to note that changing to a block schedule does not cure all of the ills of
secondary schools. It can, however, serve as a powerful tool to improve the
school climate, improve instruction, and aid in the implementation of research-
based instructional strategies (Rettig & Canady, 2001).
33
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Quantitative Evaluation Design
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the four-period
block schedule at Oxbow High School. The focus of this study is the graduation
and dropout rates of the English Language Learners (ELL). A key component
that determines whether or not a student graduates from high school is the
California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). This exam is first given to
students in the 10th grade and comprises two sections: Math and English
Language Arts. The data from the CAHSEE is a good predictor of how many
students will be expected to graduate from high school.
The summative evaluation for this study incorporated an independent
pre/post group design and a nonequivalent control group design.
Pre/post Independent Group Design
The design was to analyze the change at Oxbow High School from 2004-
2007, which was the pre-intervention to the 2008 post-intervention. The data
compared the results of the ELL students from 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 who
followed the traditional six-period day, with each class being 55 minutes in
length. The 2008 school year had the block schedule with four periods of 90
34
minutes of instructional time. This group was the intervention group for the
study.
Nonequivalent Control Group Design
The nonequivalent control group design had an experimental group and
one control group into which students were not randomly assigned. The control
group was Atlantic High School which was similar in size and demographics to
Oxbow High School. Atlantic High School was opened in 2001 and had
maintained a traditional six-period instructional schedule since its opening. The
students from Atlantic High School were also the ELL students from 2004, 2005,
2006, 2007, and 2008. The CAHSEE data was used only for the 10
th
grade
students for the listed school years to see if there was any correlation between the
CAHSEE scores and the two schools’ programs.
Using the scientific notation discussed in Creswell (Creswell, 2003) the
summative designs were annotated as follows:
Experimental Group: O–O–O–O–X–O
Control Group: O–O–O–O–C – O
The scientific notation is as follows:
Experimental Group Oxbow High School Pre (2004–07) X Post (2008)
Control Group Atlantic High School Pre (2004–07) C Post (2008)
35
Data for the students who were classified as having a high socio-economic
status at Oxbow High School was compared to the Hispanic students who were
socio-economically disadvantaged (SED). The other grouping of students
examined was the Hispanic English speakers and SED Hispanic students to see
whether the achievement gap was closing between these two sub groups.
Intervention
The CAHSEE test results for the 10
th
grade students at Oxbow High
School showed that there was an achievement gap between the ELL students and
the regular student population. The data in Table 5 shows that, on average, white
students at Oxbow High School were passing the CAHSEE at a greater rate than
the ELL students. White students had a 76.3% chance of passing the Math
component of the CAHSEE compared to a 41.3% chance for the ELL student.
The English Language Arts section showed the white student having a 76.5%
chance of passing the CAHSEE compared to 45.3% for the ELL student.
The intervention for the 2007-2008 school year was to restructure
completely the instructional school day. Prior to the 2007–2008 school year,
Oxbow High School followed the traditional six-period day with each class
having 50 to 55 minutes of instruction. For the 2007–2008 school year, the
instructional schedule was changed to a four-by-four block schedule. With this
schedule, students would only have four classes during the school day; however,
each class would be lengthened to 90 minutes. Students would also be able to
36
complete a one-year course in a semester due to the longer instruction time
allowed with the implementation of the block schedule. During the traditional
school six-period calendar, students would only be able to earn 60 credits per
year. The block schedule allows students to earn 40 credits per semester, with a
total of 80 credits per year. Student who are behind in credits have the
opportunity to make up credits during the regular school year with the new block
schedule.
Participants and Setting
The participants in this study were the 10
th
through 12
th
grade ELL
students at Oxbow High School. The data for the 10
th
grade students was the
California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) scores from 2004 to 2008.
The setting for this study was a high school located about one hour’s drive
north of Los Angeles and about thirty minutes south of Santa Barbara, California.
The School Accountability Report Card (SARC) for 2006–2007 showed that
Oxbow High School had 2,983 students enrolled with the following demographic
characteristics: (a) African American, 6.0 %; (b) Asian, 2.3 %; (c) Filipino, 3.8%;
(d) Hispanic or Latino, 66.2 %; and (e) White, 17.6 %. Of the 2,983 students
enrolled 45.9 % of the students were designated as Socio-economically
Disadvantaged and 23.0 % were designated as English Learners.
37
The data from the 2006–2007 SARC report indicates that Oxbow High
School had 115 fully credentialed teachers and 9 teachers working without a full
credential. Oxbow High School had 72 teachers who were mis-assigned to teach
ELL students. These 72 teachers had no training in supporting ELL students.
The support staff at Oxbow High School was comprised of seven academic
counselors, one librarian, one psychologist, one nurse, and one
speech/language/hearing specialist.
The control group was the ELL students at Atlantic High School. The
School Accountability Report Card (SARC) for 2006–2007 showed that Atlantic
High School had 3,287 students enrolled with the following demographic
characteristics: (a) African American, 2.5 %; (b) Asian, 1.7 %; (3) Filipino,
3.7%; (d) Hispanic or Latino, 83.9 %; and (e) White, 6.0 %. Of the 3,287
students enrolled at Atlantic High School 58.4 % of the students were designated
as Socio-economically Disadvantaged and 28.0 % were designated as English
Learners. This school was chosen as the control group as the demographics and
number of students were very similar to that of Oxbow High School.
The data from the 2006–2007 SARC report shows that Atlantic High
School had 118 fully credentialed teachers and 18 teachers working without a full
credential. Atlantic High School had 73 teachers who were miss-assigned to
teach ELL students. The support staff at Atlantic High School was comprised of
38
seven academic counselors, one librarian, one psychologist, one nurse, and one
speech/language/hearing specialist.
Instrumentation and Procedures
Instrumentation: Achievement
The data for this study came from the California Department of Education
(2007a) as well as from the Oxbow Union High School District Testing Office.
Jack O’Connell, who is the current Superintendent of Education for California,
stated in a 2006 letter that the CAHSEE was one of the cornerstones of
California’s accountability system. The primary purpose of the CAHSEE is to
improve student achievement expectations in public high schools so that when a
student graduates, they demonstrate competency in reading, writing and
mathematics. The CAHSEE also helps schools identify students who are not
developing the skills to pass the exam so that resources can be made available to
assist these students (California Department of Education, March 2008).
The CAHSEE has two parts: English-Language Arts and Mathematics.
Students take the exam for the first time in 10
th
grade. The dates are set by the
State Superintendent of Public Instruction. Students are allowed to retake the
exam if they fail the exam or a section of the exam. Students have two
opportunities to take the exam in their 11
th
grade year and three opportunities
during their 12
th
grade year (California Department of Education, March 2008).
39
The other program that provided data was the Standardized Testing and
Reporting (STAR) Program. The 2008 STAR program has six tests. One of these
tests is the California Standards Tests (CSTs). This particular test measures ―the
achievement of California content standards in English-Language Arts,
mathematics, science, and history-social science (for grades 2 through 11)‖
(California Department of Education, February 2008, p. 9). Students were rated
as far below basic, below basic, basic, proficient, and advanced and were also
given scaled scores.
The primary measure of achievement for ELL students was the number of
10
th
grade students who passed both sections of the CAHSEE during the 2008
school year. ELL results from the 2008 CAHSEE were then compared to the
results of all the students who took the test. Data from the California Standards
Test’s English-Language Arts and Mathematics was also used to measure the
achievement of the 9
th
–11
th
grade ELL students. Another measure of achievement
for the ELL students and their comparison groups were the graduation rates for
these students at the end of the 2008 school year.
The graduation and dropout rates were calculated by the California
Department of Education using a California Basic Educational Data System
(CBEDS) formula. To calculate the dropout rate for one school year the
following formula is used: Grades 9-12 dropouts divided by grades 9-12
enrollment x 100. To calculate the graduation rates at a school, the formula that is
40
used was negotiated and approved by the U.S. Department of Education
according to the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law (United States Department of
Education, 2002). This formula includes the four-year high school completion
rate: High school graduates Year 4 divided by dropouts grade 9 Year 1 + grade
10 Year 2 + grade 11 Year 3 + grade 12 Year 4 + high school graduates Year 4.
It is important to remember that the dropout rate data is reported using the
CBEDS data and the graduation rates are reported using data from the Adequate
Yearly Progress Report (U.S. Department of Education, 2007).
Procedure: The protocol to measure the achievement begins with the
results of the CAHSEE tests from 2004 to 2008. The results for the 10
th
grade
students and the ELL students at Oxbow High School were compiled. The CST
results from 2004 to 2008 for ELL students were also used to measure the success
of these students.
The control group, Atlantic High school, was compared to Oxbow High
School. The percentage of ELL students passing both sections of the CAHSEE
and who scored proficient or above for the CSTs was compared between both
schools. Graduation rates of the ELL students both in the experimental group and
control group were also compared.
41
Instrumentation: Open and Closed- Ended Surveys
According to Creswell (2006) ―a survey provides a quantitative or numeric
description of trends, attitudes or opinions of a population by studying a sample of
that population‖ (p. 153). The purpose of the interview was to determine the
teachers’ general opinion of the block schedule and to ascertain if, in their
experience, they found it to be advantageous compared to the six-period day.
Another component of the teacher survey was to measure school-level and
teacher-level factors to determine if the students were accessing a clear and viable
curriculum and if teachers were using evidence-based practices (Marzano, 2003).
The survey used a Likert Scale from 1 to 4 with a 1 = Not at all and 4 = To a great
extent. The complete survey form is included in Appendix A. The survey was a
modified 39 item version of the Snapshot Survey of School Effectiveness Factors
(Marzano, 2003, p. 179).
The teacher survey was structured so that each question had three
overarching questions that required the person taking the survey to use the Likert
Scale for each of these overarching questions (Appendix A). Question 1 focused
on the teachers engaging in a particular issue or behavior in their classes.
Question 2 asked the teachers if a change in their teaching practices would
increase the students’ academic achievement. The third question dealt with how
much effort it would take to change their practices and implement the new
strategy.
42
Procedure: The survey was given to all of the teachers at the start of the
2008-2009 school year during the first teacher meeting before the students arrived
back to school. New teachers to the school were not included in the survey as
they had not been present at the school when the block schedule was first
implemented. The survey was anonymous, resulting in a more reliable survey.
Teachers returned the surveys within 7 days.
Instrumentation: Interviews
Interviews were used to gather information from people about things one
cannot directly observe (Patton, 2002). Using interviews allowed the author to
gain the perspective of teachers regarding their opinions of the block schedule.
The interviews were used to supplement the information obtained from the
surveys.
The interview with each teacher was informal which allowed the author to
structure the questions according to the responses of the teacher. Using an
informal approach to interview the teachers allowed the author to obtain candid
responses from teachers regarding their opinions of the block schedule. The
questions posed in the informal teacher interviews are included in Appendix B. A
sample of these questions is listed below.
1. With the implementation of the block schedule, do you, as a teacher, have
enough time to cover the curriculum?
43
2. As a teacher, have you been able to identify and communicate the content
to your students that is essential for all students to be successful in your
class?
3. Is there enough instruction time in the block schedule to cover the
essential content to be successful in your class?
4. As a teacher, have you been able to sequence the essential content of your
course so that students have ample opportunity to learn the material?
5. As a teacher, do you feel that your instructional time is protected so that
you can cover the essential contents for your subject/course?
Procedure: The author interviewed 10 teachers from Oxbow High
School. The teachers interviewed were selected from the following departments,
Math, English, Science, and the English as a Second Language (ESL). The
interviews took place during the first 2 months of the new school year.
44
Instrumentation: Observation
The observations took place at Oxbow High School during my visitations
to the classrooms as well as during my normal day-to-day activities.
Observational data was also gathered during walkthrough observations. The data
was gathered using a hand-written note-taking method which allowed the
researcher to be as unobtrusive as possible.
Procedure: Patton (2002) notes that observational data allows the
researcher to understand the treatment or program more thoroughly than if he/she
had to rely on insights of others through interviews (Patton, 2002). The
advantage of observation in research is listed by Patton (2002):
1. Direct observations allow the observer to understand the contexts
within which people are interacting.
2. First-hand experiences allow the observer to rely less on prior
conceptualizations.
3. The inquirer also has the opportunity to see things that might
routinely escape the awareness of people who are in that setting.
4. Observation allows the inquirer to learn things that people would
not be willing to share in an interview.
5. The inquirer has the opportunity to move beyond the selective
perceptions of others.
6. The inquirer is able to draw on first-hand experiences during the
formal interpretation stage of analysis. (pp. 262-264)
45
Instrumentation: Document and Materials Analysis
Documents and materials were the final component for this mixed method
design. Patton (2002) references the work of Gale Miller (1997) when Miller
argues that ―Texts were one aspect of the sense-making activities through which
we reconstruct, sustain, contest, and change our senses of social reality. They
were socially constructed realities that warrant that study in their own right‖
(Miller, 1977, p. 77). The documents and materials analyzed for the purpose of
this study came from the California Department of Education web site and from
the Oxbow Union High School Testing Office.
Formative Analysis
The formative analysis was completed using the six generic steps
proposed by Creswell (2003):
1. Organize and prepare the data for analysis.
2. Read through all of the data to gain a general sense of the information
and then reflect on the overall meaning of the data.
3. Begin a detailed analysis with a coding process. Arrange the material
into ―chunks‖ for meaning.
4. Use the information from step 3 to organize the data into categories or
themes for analysis, using the categories or themes to find connections
between them.
5. Define how these themes or categories will be represented in the
qualitative narrative.
6. Interpret the data for meaning (Creswell, 2003, pp. 191).
46
Summative Analysis
The purpose of this study was to determine if there was significant
statistical data to show if the block schedule was having an impact on the ELL
students at Oxbow High School. The CAHSEE and CST data was collected from
the California Department of Education (2007a). This data was then used to
analyze the independent pre/post design and the nonequivalent control group
design.
The pre/post design was used to analyze the data from the experimental
school, Oxbow High School from pre-intervention 2004 to post-intervention
2008. The following analysis was conducted on the data used for each dependent
variable, outlined below:
1. An independent t-test to determine whether the change in test scores
from 2007 to 2008 was statistically significant.
2. Cohen’s d test was used to measure the effect size of the treatment on
proficiency based scores.
3. The percent change before and after the treatment was determined for
practical significance.
The non equivalent control group included the 10
th
grade students at
Oxbow High School. The control group were the students at Atlantic High
School who were not assigned randomly. Both groups were compared on the
47
post-test data to determine if the block schedule had a positive impact on ELL
student achievement.
48
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
The data for this study was gathered using a mixed-methods approach.
The goal of this research was to determine the impact of the block schedule on
ELL student performance. Two high schools were examined in this study:
Oxbow High School follows the block schedule, and Atlantic High School, the
comparison school, follows the traditional six-period day schedule. The data used
included dropout rates and graduation rates of the ELL students at the two
schools. Results from the English Language Arts (ELA) section of the California
Standards Test (CST) were also used to compare both student groups. Finally, the
ELA scores of the students classified as economically disadvantaged were
compared to those students who were not classified as economically
disadvantaged.
Qualitative Findings
One year after the block schedule had been first implemented, seven
teachers and a Math Specialist from the district office were interviewed. All
worked with ESL students on a daily basis. Two math teachers reported that the
block schedule did not permit them enough time to cover the curriculum, and as a
result, they both perceived the need to increase the pace of instruction to cover
essential content. One math teacher reported that the traditional six-period day
49
afforded sufficient instruction time compared to the block schedule, which
changes ―semesters‖ every 10 weeks. One teacher stated that the administration
needed to take more responsibility toward protecting instructional time in general,
such as relying more on email to communicate with faculty rather than
telephoning the classroom during instruction time.
The interviews yielded mixed reviews with regards to administrative
support to faculty toward adapting to the block schedule; while some reported that
support was adequate, others felt that it was lacking completely, especially given
the time period between the date the decision was made to adopt the block
schedule and its implementation.
With respect to having the additional time to give individualized help to
students within the schedule, the two teachers interviewed who make themselves
available to offer help to students both reported that very few students took
advantage of the extra help offer.
The Math Specialist from the district office expressed concerned about the
students who took math in the first two terms of the block schedule but did not
take math classes in the third and fourth terms. When these students had to take
the CAHSEE or the CST exams, there was a strong probability that they would be
in other core classes or elective classes. This could have a negative impact on
their math scores due to the time between their last math class and the test. In
50
addition, students placed in a math class during terms three and four would only
have covered 50% of the curriculum before testing.
The two English teachers, one a veteran and one with less than four years
experience, reported having sufficient time in the block schedule to cover the
essential content in their courses. My classroom observations of these two
teachers revealed that both were highly organized. Both used Edusoft, a data
program that gives students feedback on the work they complete. These two
teachers also use the computer laboratory extensively to provide another means
for feedback to students on their progress. Both teachers reported that their
teaching time was protected during terms one and two; however, during terms
three and four teaching time was affected due to the California High School Exit
Exam (CAHSEE) and the California Standards Test (CST). The use of pacing
calendars and district benchmark tests were problematic since Oxbow High
School was the only school in the district that was operating on the block
schedule; when the benchmark tests arrived at the school, they were not aligned
with the pacing calendar for the teachers. Pacing calendars for all departments
need to be adjusted to reflect the block schedule. Both English teachers offer
extra help to their students on a daily basis, and they estimated that between 10%
to 25% of their students took advantage of this opportunity. Both teachers
reflected that their teaching was more effective on the block schedule. The
veteran teacher shared an interesting observation in the interview--that in her
51
opinion, it was the veteran teachers who were struggling the most to adjust to the
challenges of the block schedule.
The woodshop teacher remarked that the block schedule complemented
his program. Students had time to complete projects and meet the daily
objectives. The teacher was able to cover the essential content for the course.
This teacher felt that his instructional time was protected during the first two
terms of the block schedule, but again, during the third and fourth terms, as
previously reported by other teachers interviewed, instructional time was eroded
due to the CAHSEE and CST exams. This teacher estimated that less than 10%
of his students took advantage of tutoring time that was offered to them; however,
after school, the woodshop was always busy with students working on projects.
In sum, the woodshop teacher reported the block schedule being favorable for his
goals and would not want to return to the traditional schedule.
The two ESL teachers felt strongly that the block schedule contributed to
the decreased effectiveness of their teaching. When the school followed the
traditional six-period day, the ESL teachers had two 55 minute classes back-to-
back for instruction. The block schedule has one 90- minute class, which
shortened their instructional time by 15 minutes. The teachers complained of
insufficient time to cover the required curriculum, which limited the time to re-
teach topics if students did not understand concepts. Instructional time was not
protected and these two teachers reported that there were too many interruptions
52
during class time. Pacing calendars were not aligned to the curriculum. The
calendar was not adjusted to reflect the block schedule. The benchmark tests also
needed to be rewritten to reflect the block schedule. Both teachers reported no
support from the administration, and that the block schedule did not meet the
needs of the ESL students.
In short, some of the teachers interviewed were of the opinion that the
block schedule did not allow them the time to focus on essential content as the
pace of instruction was necessarily too fast. Both the math and ESL teachers
reported that the traditional six-period day allowed them more time to cover the
curriculum and that the benchmark tests were aligned with the schedule. The only
teacher who stated that the block schedule complemented his program, except
during the administration of the CAHSEE and CST, was the woodshop teacher.
The feeling was very strong that the traditional six-period day would be a better
fit for the ESL students at Oxbow High School.
53
Quantitative Findings
The summative evaluation of this particular study incorporated three
dependent variables with both pre/post independent group design and a
nonequivalent control group design. The nonequivalent control group was used
as a comparison group to compare the results of the English Language Learners of
Atlantic High School and Oxbow High School in grades nine through eleven.
The California Standards Test (CST) for English Language Arts (ELA) was used
with the percentage of students who scored ―proficient and above‖ on the ELA
section of the CST. The performance band scores were coded as follows: 0 = Far
Below Basic; 1 = Below Basic; 2 = Basic; 3 = Proficient and 4 = Advanced.
The results of the English Language Arts section of the California High
School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) for the ELL students at Oxbow High School were
compared to Atlantic High School ELL students. The comparison was based on
the number of ELL students who passed the ELA section of the CAHSEE. The
number of ELL graduates from the two high schools was also used in the
Summative Evaluation. The final comparison was the percentage of ELL students
who were reclassified as fluent English-Proficient in the two high schools.
54
Pre/Post Independent Groups Design
This design was used to analyze the change at the experimental school
(Oxbow High School) from 2006 -07, which is the pre-intervention year to the
2007- 2008 post-intervention year. The following statistics were used to evaluate
the CST ELA performance band scores: (a) an independent t-test was used to
assess the statistical significance of the change (the statistical significance = p <
.15), (b) Cohen’s d was used to assess the practical significance (practical
significance = d > .20), and the (c) raw change between 2007 and 2008 was used
to assess the practical significance
Nonequivalent Comparison Group Design
This design included the experimental group from Oxbow High School
(OHS) and a nonequivalent comparison group from Atlantic High School (AHS).
The comparison group was chosen from a school that had similar ethnic/racial
composition, English Language Learners, and socioeconomic status as well as
overall comparable student population. The treatment was the implementation of
the block schedule at Oxbow High school. The two groups were compared using
the data from the CST ELA component of the test as well as the California High
School Exit Exam. The students in the control group (AHS) followed a
traditional six-period day receiving 55 minutes of academic instruction. The
experimental group (OHS) was receiving instruction in a four-period block
55
schedule with each class having 90 minutes of academic instruction. A
descriptive analysis for the experimental versus the comparison group using data
from the California Department of Educations web page DataQuest was
conducted.
Findings Based on Research Questions:
Research Question 1
What is the graduation rate of ELL students at Oxbow High School who
were enrolled in the block schedule for the 2007-2008? Does the block schedule
effect an increase in graduation rates compared to the traditional six-period day
schedule? How do the graduation rates for Re-designated as Fluent English
Proficient (RFEP) students compare between Oxbow High School and Atlantic
High School?
The graduation rates of the ELL students at Oxbow High School (OHS)
and Atlantic High School (AHS) were compared in Figure 1. The data for OHS
shows the data for 2006-2007 when the school was on the traditional school
schedule. In 2008, the data showed the results of the first year of OHS on the
block schedule. The data from AHS showed the scores of the ELL students who
had been on the traditional six-period day. The percentages of ELL students who
have graduated from the two high schools, as well as the percentage of students
who were RFEP who graduated are also shown in Figure 1.
56
4643
53
93
93
94
55
51
57
97
91
93
0
20
40
60
80
100
ELL RFEP ELL RFEP
2006
2007
2008
OHS PHS
%
Figure 1: Graduation Rate Percentages of ELL and RFEP Students at Oxbow and
Atlantic High Schools.
Source: Oxbow High School District Testing Office
Data from Figure 1 shows that the percentage of ELL students graduating
from each high school was increasing each year. The percentage of ELL students
graduating was similar for both schools, with Atlantic High School having a
slightly higher percentage of students graduating each year. The percentage of
ELL students who were RFEP is once again similar with Atlantic High School
having a slightly higher percentage of students RFEP than Oxbow High School.
The data from both schools shows no dramatic difference, and both schools were
57
having roughly the same amount of success graduating the ELL students and
graduating the RFEP students.
Conclusion for Research Question 1: The data from Figure 1 indicates
that the ELL students were graduating at a similar rate in both schools. The rate
at which the ELL students were RFEP at both schools was also similar at Oxbow
High School and Atlantic High School. The data for the ELL students on the
block schedule indicates that the there was no significant advantage for the ELL
students to be on the block schedule. For ELL students, graduation rates ere
unacceptably low at both schools. As expected, graduation rates for RFEP
students were much higher at both schools.
Research Question 2
How do the California Standards Test (CST) and California High School
Exit Exam (CAHSEE) scores for ninth to eleventh grade Oxbow High School
students in the block schedule compare to those of the ninth to eleventh grade
students in the traditional six-period day schedule at Atlantic High School?
The data for research question 2 compares the scores of the ELL students
from Oxbow and Atlantic High Schools. The focus is on the English Language
Arts section of the California Standards Test for the ninth through eleventh grade
ELL students. Then the results of each grade level are compared for years 2006
to 2008 in a longitudinal analysis of OHS.
58
Pre/post Longitudinal Results For OHS
Table 7 shows the mean values for the pre and post test of the 9
th
through
11
th
grade CST proficiency scores. This data shows that there is a decline in the
mean scores for the 9
th
and 11
th
grade students. The 9th grade students showed a
drop of 0.09 and the 11th grade students 0.29. The only increase in the mean was
with the 10
th
grade students with an increase of 0.16 from 1.84 to 2.00.
Table 7
Pre and Post Test Mean CST Values for 9
th
through 11
th
grades
Grade
2007
Mean
2008
Mean
Differences
9th 2.3 2.21 -.09
10th 1.84 2.00 .16
11th 1.95 1.66 -.29
The data in Table 7 shows the pre and post test mean scores for the CST
for the 9th through 11th grade students. The 10th grade students were the only
group who showed an increase from the pre–test to the post-test with an increase
of 0.16.
59
Tables 8 through Table 10 show the pre/post statistical findings for the
experimental school (OHS), grades 9 through 11. Different indices of change
were presented: proficiency band scores, % Basic and Above and % Proficient
and above.
60
Table 8
Ninth Grade CST data for ELA, 2007–2008
Performance
Band
% Basic and
Above
% Proficient and
Above
t -1.49 -1.35 -0.788
Observed
probability
0.137 0.176 0.431
Raw Δ -0.09 -0.03 -0.02
Cohen d -0.08 - 0.07 -0.04
* p < .15 2007: N = 789 students 2008: N = 848 students.
Table 9
Tenth Grade CST Data for ELA, 2007–2008
Performance
Band
% Basic and
Above
% Proficient and
Above
t +2.51* +3.04* 0.31
Observed
probability
0.012
0.002 0.759
raw Δ +0.16 0.08 0.01
Cohen d 0.12 0.16 0.02
* p < .15 2007: N = 769 students 2008: N = 765 students.
61
Table 10
Eleventh Grade CST Data for ELA, 2007–2008
* p < .15 2007: N = 688 students 2008: N = 696 students.
The data from Tables 8 through 10 indicates some statistical significance
for the t-test when the data is run for the 9
th
, 10
th
, and 11
th
grade students. The
sample size for each of the grades ranges between 688 students to 848 students.
The statistical significance of the data is always dependent on the sample size; so
Cohen’s d was computed for each contrast. The lack of practical significance,
however, is noteworthy.
The raw change for each of the grades is less than ten percent for each of
the performance classifications ―Basic and Above‖ as well as ―Proficient and
Above.‖ This indicates that the data for 9
th
through 11
th
grades indicated no raw
change using the threshold value of 10%. The 10th grade students who fell into
the performance band Basic and Above showed a raw change of 8%, which was
the greatest percentage raw change.
Performance
Band
% Basic and
Above
% Proficient and
Above
t - 4.03* - 2.95 * - 3.53
Observed
probability
0.000 0.003 0.000
raw Δ - 0.29 - 0.07 - 0.09
Cohen d - 0.21* - 0.14 - 0.19
62
CST Results of Both Schools
Data from the California Standards Test (CST) for the English Language
Learners (ELL) was used to generate figures comparing the experimental group to
the control group from the 9
th
grade to the 11
th
grade (Figures 2-4). The data
reflects the mean scores for the students taking the English Language Arts (ELA)
component of the test. The OHS ELL 9
th
grade students (Figure 1) in 2006 had an
overall 14.6 mean score advantage over the AHS students. By 2008 we see that
AHS had improved their mean score to 318.7 which was a difference of 25.2
points. In 2007 we see that OHS declined 1.4 points to 2008. For the 9
th
grade
students we see that greatest difference between the two schools is in 2008.
Figure 2. ELA Scores for 9
th
Grade Students
63
Figure 3. ELA Scores for 10
th
Grade Students
Figure 4. ELA Scores for 11
th
Grade Students
64
In 2006, the data for the two schools’ 10
th
grade students (Figure 2) was
separated by 3.9 points, and then in 2007 we noticed a drop in the mean scores for
both schools. The data for 2008 showed that the 10
th
grade students from AHS
had a significant increase in the mean scores. The difference between the
experimental school and control school was 16.9 points. The trends for the 9
th
and 10
th
grade students were similar with a larger increase in the scores for the
AHS students in 2008 compared to the OHS students.
The 11
th
grade data (Figure 4) shows the same similarities of the 9
th
grade
students. Initially, the OHS students’ mean score was 10.5 higher than that of
AHS. In 2007 the difference between the two schools was 4.2 points. In 2008
AHS had increased the mean score for the ELL students to 277 with OHS scoring
254.9—a difference of 22.1 points. With each of these grade level comparisons,
AHS measured the greatest gain in the mean scores during 2008.
CAHSEE Results of Both Schools
The data from Figure 5 shows the percentage of the ELL students passing
the ELA component of the CAHSEE compared to the total ELL school
population. Oxbow High School’s highest percentage is 20% in 2006.
65
Figure 5. Percentage of ELL Students Passing CAHSEE–ELA Compared to the
Total School Population
OHS then dropped down to 13% in 2007 and increases by 1% to 14% in
2008. The data for AHS indicates a high for 2005 of 25% and then we see a drop
in 2007, and then a rise to 15% in 2008. This data indicates that overall, AHS
was more successful than OHS in having their ELL students pass the ELA section
of the California High School Exit Exam.
Conclusion for Research Question 2. The data for question 2 indicates
that there was no significant advantage for students who were in the block
schedule compared to the students who were enrolled in the traditional six-period
day. The ELA scores for the 9
th
through 11
th
grade students from 2006 indicated
that the students at Oxbow High School (OHS) had higher scores than the
66
students at Atlantic High School (AHS). In 2007, both schools were still on the
traditional six-period day but the ELA scores for AHS were slightly better than
those for OHS. Once OHS transitioned to the block schedule in 2008, AHS had a
significant increase in ELA scores compared to OHS.
Research Question 3
Are the scores from the English Language Arts section of the California
Standards Test indicating that the achievement gap is closing between
economically disadvantaged students and those students not economically
disadvantaged?
Research question 3 required the data from the English Language Arts
section of the California Standards Test and compared the results of students who
were identified as socio-economically disadvantaged to the students who were not
socio-economically disadvantaged. The goal for this section was to determine if
the achievement gap was closing between these two groups.
Figures 6 through 8 compare the scores of students designated as socio-
economically disadvantaged to those students who were not at an economic
disadvantage. The achievement gap for the 9
th
grade students in 2005 was 40.9
points; in 2008 the achievement gap had closed to 27.9 points for the 9
th
grade
students who were not economically disadvantaged; the mean score dropped 10.9
points from 2005 through 2008. The trend for the students who were not
67
economically disadvantaged was a decline in the mean score. The students who
were economically disadvantaged during this same period time period maintained
the same score with a 2-point increase between 2005 and 2008.
Figure 6. Ninth Grade CST–ELA Scores Comparing the Economically
Disadvantaged Students to the Students Who Were Not Classified as
Economically Disadvantaged
Figure 7: Tenth Grade CST–ELA Scores Comparing the Economically
Disadvantaged Students to the Students Who Were Not Classified as
Economically Disadvantaged
68
The data for the 10
th
grade students (Figure 7) follows a similar pattern to
the 9
th
grade students. In 2005 the gap between the economically disadvantaged
and the students who do not have an economic disadvantage is 42.6 points. The
trend of the students who were not Economically Disadvantaged declines 13.4
points from 2005 to 2008. The general trend of the economically disadvantaged
10
th
grade students increases during the same period a total of 6 points and closing
the achievement gap between the two groups to 23.2 points.
Figure 8. Eleventh Grade CST–ELA Scores Comparing the Economically
Disadvantaged Students to the Students Who Were Not Classified as
Economically Disadvantaged
The 11
th
grade data shows that there is an achievement gap between the
two groups of 88 points in 2005. From 2005 to 2008 the students who did not
69
have an economic disadvantage declined a total of 72.5 points to a score of 316.3
points. The Economically Disadvantaged students had a decline of 4.6 points
from 2005 to 2008. The achievement gap had also closed 20.1 points between the
two groups. The perception that the achievement gap was closing for these
students is due to the 11
th
grade students who were classified as not economically
disadvantaged and had such a steep decline in the mean scores between 2005 and
2008.
This data was an area of concern as the students who were classified as
economically disadvantaged generally were not increasing their overall mean
score on the CST–ELA test. Students who were classified as not economically
disadvantaged showed a declining trend of their mean scores on the CST–ELA
test, with the largest decline for the 11
th
grade students.
Conclusion for Research Question 3. The data comparing the
economically disadvantaged students to students who were not economically
disadvantaged for 9
th
and 10
th
grades indicates that the ELA scores for the
economically advantaged declined from 2005 to 2008. The 9
th
and 10
th
grade
scores for the economically disadvantaged students remained approximately the
same for 2005–2008. The data for the 11
th
grade students for the same time
period indicated a dramatic drop in achievement for the students who were not
economically disadvantaged. This drop in scores was of concern and further
70
investigation needs to be carried out to explain this sudden drop in scores for this
group of students.
Research Question 4
To what extent do the faculty report best practices and what is their
perception of the effort required to implement the best practices?
The majority of the teachers reported back that they did not employ the
best practices regularly that were in the teacher survey. Table 11 shows the
responses that the teachers provided. An example of this is that 61.3% of the
respondents did not start an instructional unit with clear learning goals and 80.7%
of the respondents did not start a unit by asking the students what their learning
goals were for the new unit. Reviewing the data in Table 11, it is clear that
students were not receiving the support that would enable them to improve their
academic success.
Having students work in cooperative groups was carried out by 54.8% of
the respondents. This is an extremely low percentage considering that this topic
has been discussed in numerous trainings attended and has been presented at
faculty meetings. The overall picture presented is that the majority of the
respondents were not applying best instructional practices at all during the
instructional day.
71
The perceived effort by the teachers to make the necessary changes to
implement these best practices was high. This was an area of concern that needs
to be examined closely as student achievement could be negatively affected.
Conclusion for Research Question 4. The response from teachers
indicates that the majority of the respondents were not using best teaching
practices. Teachers felt that it would be difficult to make the necessary changes
to implement these best practices. This data can be used effectively to drive the
professional development of the school and give teachers the necessary support to
put into action best teaching practices into their daily instruction.
Research Question 5
What is the faculty’s opinion of the block schedule and its impact on
classroom instruction?
The staff survey also reflected how teachers felt about the block schedule.
The teachers’ responses were anonymous, encouraging honest feedback.
The data that the teachers provided for the Survey of School Effectiveness
is found in Appendix C.
72
Table 11
Responses From the Teachers’ Survey that Focused on Instruction
Present Status
%
Effort to Change
%
Instruction
Not at
all
To great
extent
Not at
all
To
great
extent
Clear learning goals, start of unit 61.3 41.9 35.5 67.7
Start unit asking students for learning goals 80.7 25.8 43.3 60.0
Provide students with specific feedback 64.6 38.7 32.3 70.9
Ask students to keep track of their learning goals. 45.2 58.1 38.8 61.3
Emphasize the importance of effort 64.5 38.7 40.0 60.0
Organize students into groups based on understanding 58.1 45.1 38.8 61.3
Students into cooperative groups 48.4 54.8 36.7 63.4
Provide specific feedback on homework assigned 64.5 41.9 38.8 61.3
End units with clear feedback on the learning goals. 61.3 38.7 41.9 58.1
End units by asking students to assess themselves 67.7 35.5 38.7 61.3
End units by recognizing and celebrating progress 51.6 51.6 32.3 67.8
Prior to starting new content, ask students about their
prior knowledge
58.1 45.1 32.3 67.7
Provide students with links to previous knowledge 54.8 48.4 29.0 71.0
Ask students to take notes on new content. 64.6 38.7 36.7 63.3
Students represent new content in nonlinguistic ways 64.6 38.7 38.7 61.3
In-class homework tasks that require students to
practice important skills and procedures
67.8 35.5 32.3 70.9
Students revise and correct errors in their notes 69.0 34.5 41.9 58.1
In-class and homework assignments that require
students to construct metaphors and analogies
58.1 45.2 33.4 70.0
Homework assignments that require students to
generate/test hypotheses regarding content
48.4 54.8 30.0 70.0
73
The first section of the survey deals with factors associated with best
practices in the school. The responses that many teachers provided on a Likert
scale from 1 to 4 showed that the teachers’ responses were a 2 or a 3 so the survey
responses were dichotomized. Both present status and effort to change were
assessed.
In Table 12 it is clear that the teachers felt that the essential content for
their subject had not been identified and their instructional time was not protected
from outside interruptions. The faculty also felt that they did not have enough
instructional time available to cover the essential content. Teachers felt that a lot
of work would be needed to make the changes but that it was possible.
Instructional time was interrupted and was not protected. If the instructional time
was protected from interruptions, students could achieve more.
In Table 13 the responses from the faculty indicate that the majority of the
teachers did not use the assessment system (benchmarks) to give feedback to the
students.
74
Table 12
Responses From the Teachers Survey that Focused on Curriculum
Present Status
%
Effort to Change
%
Present Status
Percent
Effort to Change
Percent
Guaranteed and Viable
Curriculum Not at all
To
great
extent
Not at
all
To
great
extent
Essential content (EC) for
students to learn
68.8 40.7 46.9 56.3
Essential content identifies
with time available for
instruction
48.4 58.1 31.2 71.9
Essential content organized
and sequenced
62.5 40.6 45.1 61.3
Somebody checks to see if
EC is covered
64.5 38.8 35.5 67.8
Instructional time protected
66.6 36.7 29.1 74.2
Table 14 suggests that the teachers at Oxbow High School feel that they
were not involved in the decision making process and that the level of collegiality
and professionalism was lacking. Teachers also reported that they had no input in
the selection of professional development activities to be made available for
teachers. Finally, the teachers’ feedback as shown on all Tables reveals that the
perceived effort to make changes in all practices would be extraordinary.
75
Table 13
Responses from the Teachers’ Survey that Focused on Goals and Feedback
Present Status
%
Effort to Change
%
Challenging Goals and Feedback
Not at
all
To
great
extent
Not at
all
To
great
extent
Assessment system is used for timely
feedback
48.4 54.8 51.6 51.6
Specific goals set for school as a whole 64.5 38.7 43.3 56.7
Specific achievement goals set for
students
61.3 41.9 43.3 60.0
Performance on school-wide and
individual-student goals is used to plan
for future actions.
62.1 41.4 29.1 74.2
Table 14
Responses From the Teachers’ Survey that Focused on Collegiality and
Professionalism
Present Status
%
Effort to Change
%
Collegiality and
Professionalism
Not at
all
To
great
extent
Not at
all
To great
extent
Norms that foster collegiality
established
71.0 32.3 29.1 74.2
Teachers involved in decision
making
70.0 33.4 38.7 64.5
Teachers involved in
Professional Development
61.3 42.0 32.2 67.8
76
Finally, as indicated in Table 15, teachers who responded to the staff
survey indicated that students were not receiving feedback on their knowledge
gained during the semester. Furthermore, teachers were not providing students
with motivation training on how motivation can affect their academic success. In
addition, students were also not involved in activities that were inherently
engaging.
The responses from the teachers regarding instruction revealed that the
majority of the teachers were not applying the strategies that could have a positive
impact on student achievement.
Table 15
Responses From the Teachers’ Survey that Focused on Student Motivation
Present Status
%
Effort to Change
%
Student Motivation
Not at
all
To great
extent
Not at
all
To great
extent
Students were provided with
feedback on their knowledge
gain
72.4 31.0 35.5 64.6
Students involved in
simulation games, etc
74.2 29.0 38.7 66.5
Construct their own
long-term projects
74.2 29.0 40.0 63.3
Students receive motivation
training and how it affects
them
80.0 23.3 42.0 61.3
77
Conclusion for Research Question 5. The data the teachers provided for
goals and effective feedback was between 2 and 3 on the Likert scale. The
responses with the highest percentages were nearly identical for all of the sections
of the survey.
The survey shows that the majority of the teachers took a slightly negative
stance when responding to the series of questions on school and teacher
effectiveness. That is, the published best practices were not used at Oxbow High
School to the extent that the literature recommends. The data from the survey
shows that teachers believe that to make any change in their educational practices
would require a lot of work.
Summary and Conclusions
The quantitative results for the English Language Learners show that
students at Oxbow High School did not have an advantage taking classes using
the block schedule. The data presented only reflects the results for the first year
of the implementation of the block schedule. Upon comparing the data for both
schools, one sees that Oxbow High School initially had the higher scores on the
California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) and the California Standards Test
(CST). Over a period of three years the students at Atlantic High School
increased their scores and eventually surpassed the scores of Oxbow High School.
78
The test score data gathered during the course of this study, which
compared Oxbow High School to Atlantic High School, presents a bleak picture
for Oxbow High School with respect to the performance of ELL students. All of
the data indicates that the ELL students at AHS were experiencing a higher level
of performance on standardized tests.
The informal interviews with teachers revealed a sense that the block
schedule did not have a positive impact on ELL students. In contrast to the block
schedule, the teachers overall found the traditional six-period day favorable with
respect to time allowance to cover the material and to the pacing calendars being
aligned with the classes.
The teachers’ survey conveys that the majority of the respondents were
not using best instructional practices on a daily basis and that teachers were not
included in decision-making concerning professional development activities.
Essential content was not identified, instructional time was not protected, and
student motivation was low. Regarding all of these areas, teachers felt that it
would be difficult to implement changes to achieve a more positive outcome in
each.
The data for OHS indicates that the school was struggling to adjust to the
implementation of the block schedule. An important consequence of the
implementation of the block schedule is that it magnified key issues that the
79
school needs to address and embrace to ensure that not only ELL students, but all
students reap the benefits of best practices all around.
80
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
The increase in English Language Learners (ELL) in public schools
necessitates that educators implement research-based practices to support these
students in meeting academic challenges and ultimately in achieving academic
success. ELL students need to be proficient in reading to comprehend and
interpret text at grade-level and then extract the information to understand the
discussion. The ELL student also needs to produce text and speak at an
appropriate level to enable academic-level discussion at grade level in the
classroom in addition to social communication.
One approach toward improving the schedule to support ELL students is
to reduce the number of classes a student is required to take during the school day
from six classes to four. The four classes would be extended from 55 minutes to
90 minutes, thus creating the block schedule. The advantage of the block
schedule is that it allows students to focus on four classes at a time with longer
instructional time for each. This format allows teachers increased time to provide
individualized instruction and apply a greater variety of instructional methods to
meet the diverse needs of the students. The research data for the block schedule
generally indicates that once students and teachers become accustomed to
operating within the block schedule, student achievement improves.
81
The data for English Language Learners at Oxbow High School shows
that students taking classes within the block schedule did not improve their
academic performance. The data presented only reflects the results for the first
year of the implementation of the block schedule and could be the result of the
implementation dip experienced when a new program is introduced. When
analyzing the data for Oxbow High School compared to Atlantic High School, the
longitudinal trend of the data shows that Oxbow High School initially had the
higher scores on the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) and the
California Standards Test (CST). However, over a period of three years, the
students at Atlantic High School increased their scores and eventually surpassed
those of Oxbow High School.
Discussion
This study was limited to two high schools in Southern California. The
author was an employee at Oxbow High School while performing the research.
The data gathered from the study reflects only the first year of implementing the
block schedule. To determine if the ELL students at Oxbow High School benefit
from this schedule the data needs to be gathered for at least five years. Examining
the data for a longer period of time will allow researchers to acquire a more
thorough understanding of how the block schedule impacts the graduation rate of
ELL students.
82
The internal validity of the study was low as the students in the
nonequivalent control group design were different groups of ELL students each
year. Thus, the ability to draw causal inference for the study was limited. The
pre-independent group used data from 2004 to 2007 and the post-independent
group used the data from 2008. Changes in the CST data set may further impact
the procedures’ internal validity of the study.
The external validity of the study has limitations due to the setting,
treatment, students, and the California Standards Test. The two high schools that
participated in this study are located approximately two miles apart from each
other. The demographics of each school are similar; both schools are urban
schools located in Southern California. The treatment in this study is Oxbow
High School, which is on the block schedule, and Atlantic High School, which is
on the traditional six-period day. The students in the study were not randomly
assigned, which also impacts the external validity of the study. Finally, the
California Standards Test limits the results of the test due to the fact that the test
data is relevant to students in California.
83
Conclusions
The data (discussed in Chapter 4) for the ELL students after one year on
the block schedule does not present a positive picture. The implementation of the
block schedule at Oxbow High School was done with limited planning at best,
and without addressing the challenges the teachers would face in adjusting so
quickly to the schedule without the benefit of training or time to plan.
The positive aspect of the implementation is that teachers were made to
examine the need to modify and improve their teaching practices. It is no longer
feasible to lecture for extended periods of time and distribute worksheets to
students for such lengthy class periods. Some teachers used this approach when
the lessons were only 55 minutes long, but with longer class periods it is even
more important that teachers apply a variety of instructional strategies daily.
Fortunately, some teachers on the faculty adjusted positively to the new schedule,
but still many teachers require support and training in adapting to the new
schedule. Future staff development activities must concentrate on improving the
teachers’ skill sets so that both students and teachers can take advantage of the
opportunities that the block schedule can provide.
Recommendations
The literature review completed for Chapter 2 suggests that the block
schedule can have a positive impact on students and teachers. The data gathered
84
at Oxbow High School did not reflect a positive picture of the block schedule
after the first year of implementation. The block schedule was discussed with the
staff and voted on over a period of 4 months (February to May 2007). The
planning for the block schedule took place between June 2007 (the end of the
school year) and September 2007 (the start of the school year). During these four
months the administration and counselors were making changes to the master
schedule and to students’ individual schedules to ensure that the block schedule
started smoothly. The implementation of the block schedule began on September
27, 2007, the first day of school.
The article ―To Block or Not To Block: That’s The Question‖ (Jenkins et
al., 2002) recommends that the superintendent require a school to spend between
one and two years planning effective staff development before the implementation
of the block schedule. The schools that have been effective in implementing the
block schedule had spent time making detailed plans to maximize the success of
the block schedule (Jenkins et al., 2002). Queen (2000) urged teachers to follow
pacing guides, have a minimum of five instructional strategies for engaging
students in the learning process, and change the pace of lessons by using different
grouping patterns and different instructional activities every ten to fifteen
minutes. The success or failure of the block schedule will be determined by the
teachers’ ability to harness the potential of the block schedule to improve
instruction for all students (Jenkins et al., 2002).
85
To take full advantage of the block schedule, all teachers at Oxbow High
School need to have intensive professional development focused on teaching in
the block schedule. The amount of training available to teachers to date has been
extremely limited and poorly attended. Many of the teachers are still combining
two 55 minute lessons to adjust to the 90-minute lesson of the block schedule.
Research by Marzano, Pickering and Pollock (2001) has shown that implementing
sound instructional strategies will have the greatest impact on student
achievement.
Another recommendation is for ninth and tenth grade students at Oxbow
High School to have math and English courses during all four terms of the block
schedule. A major area of concern was that students might be placed in an
elective class during the term they take the CST or CAHSEE exams. This would
place the student at a disadvantage if they had not had the recent support of math
and English classes. This could be accomplished if the master schedule were
constructed to accommodate this recommendation. The school counselors need to
be informed that this is an expectation from the principal and that all ninth and
tenth grade students must be placed in this recommended sequence.
If the following recommendations by Marzano, Pickering and Pollock
(2001) were implemented and monitored by the administration, research has
shown that student achievement would increase. The recommendations listed
below would benefit students at Oxbow High School. Data gathered during this
86
study showed that the ELL students had no advantage taking classes in the block
schedule compared to the traditional six-period day. With the implementation of
these recommendations and teaching strategies, hopefully all students will benefit.
1. Identifying Similarities and Differences:
When students are asked to identify similarities and differences, the
teacher gives the students the opportunity to learn the content at a deeper level.
The students need to have their prior knowledge activated, construct meaning,
make new connections and talk about their reasoning (Hill & Flynn, 2006). If
teachers use this instructional strategy, Marzano’s research has shown that there
will be a 45 percentile gain (Marzano, 2003, p. 80).
2. Summarizing and Note-Taking:
For students to summarize effectively, the student needs to be able to
delete unnecessary information, substitute information, and keep relevant
information (Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001). The student must be able to
analyze information at a deeper level to summarize the chapter or selected piece
of work (Hill & Flynn, 2006). Marzano has shown that this instructional strategy
has a 34 percentile gain.
87
3. Reinforcing Effort and Providing Recognition:
Many students do not realize or understand the importance of effort as a
means of academic success. Students can learn to believe that the effort they put
forth will pay off, even if they do not hold this belief initially (Hill & Flynn,
2006). Research has shown that using this instructional strategy effectively can
increase the percentile gain up to 29% (Marzano, 2003).
4. Homework and Practice:
When students are assigned homework and practice, the learning
opportunities are extended beyond the classroom environment. Research done by
Anderson (1995) and Newell and Rosenbloom (1981) has shown that to reach
80% competency, a student needs to practice a skill at least 24 times (Hill &
Flynn, 2006). When homework is assigned to the students, it is important for the
teacher to articulate clearly the purpose of the assignment and the expected
outcome to the students (Marzano et al., 2001). Implementation of this
instructional strategy will result in a 27 percentile gain (Marzano, 2003).
5. Cooperative Learning:
Cooperative learning groups need to be small in size. This is especially
important for the ELL students as they will feel more comfortable participating in
a discussion if the group is small in size (Hill & Flynn, 2006). Marzano stresses
the importance of using cooperative learning consistently and systematically but
also to be aware of overusing this strategy. When the students are organized in
88
homogenous groups, this appears to have a positive effect on the students’
achievement compared to when they are not grouped at all (Marzano et al., 2001).
Marzano’s research has shown that this strategy can have a 27% percentile gain.
89
REFERENCES
Anderson, J.R. (1995). Learning and memory: An integrated approach. New
York: Wiley and Sons.
Bryant, R. H. (1995). A comparative study of teaching strategies used in block
and traditionally scheduled high schools in the state of Wyoming.
Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming.
California Dept of Education. (2006a). High school graduation requirements.
Retrieved October 25, 2008, from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/gs/hs/hsgrgen.asp.
California Dept of Education. (2006b). 2005 Accountability progress report:
What is the API. Retrieved September 18, 2008, from
(http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/apidescription.asp)
California Dept of Education. (2006c). Schools' chief Jack O' Connell holds firm
on High School Exit Exam: Recommends options for struggling students.
Retrieved May 2,2009, from http://www.cde.ca.gov.
California Department of Education. (2007a). California High School Exit Exam
(CAHSEE) results for Mathematics and English Language Arts (ELA).
Retrieved November 24, 2007, from http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest.
California Department of Education. (2007b). Adequate yearly progress.
Retrieved October 11, 2008, from
California Department of Education. (2007c). School Accountability Report
Card Reported for School Year 2005-2006. Retrieved September 18,
2008, from http://www.ouhsd.k12.ca.us/educational_services/assessment/
docs/PVHS_SARC_06-07.pdf.
California Department of Education. (2007d). Dropout Rate and Graduation
Rate--School Accountability Report Card. Retrieved November 21, 2008,
from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/sa/def07dropout.asp.
California Department of Education. (2008). California High School Exit Exam.
Retrieved September 31, 2008, from
http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/cahsee.
90
California Department of Education. (February 2008). Standardized Testing and
Reporting (STAR) Program: Understanding 2008 STAR Program Tests.
from http:www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sr/resources.asp.
California Department of Education. (March 2008). Overview of the California
High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). Retrieved May 21, 2009, from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/hs/overview.asp.
Callahan, R. M. (2005). Tracking and High School English Learners: Limiting
Opportunity to Learn. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 305-
328.
Canady, R. L., & Rettig, M. D. (1995). Block scheduling: A catalyst for change
in high schools. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
Carroll, J. M. (1990). The Copernican Plan: Restructuring the American High
School. Phi Delta Kappan, 71, 358-365.
Cawelti, G. (1994). High school restructuring: A national study. Arlington,
VA: Educational Research Service.
Clements, B., Lara, J., & Cheung, O. (1992). The feasibility of collecting
comparable national statistics about students with limited proficiency.
Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-
methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Dow, J., & George, P. (1998, November). Block scheduling in Florida high
schools: Where were we now. National Association of Secondary School
Principals, 82, 93-103.
EdSource. (March 2008). English learners in California: What the numbers say.
Mountain View, CA: EdSource.
Hill, J. D., & Flynn, K. M. (2006). Classroom instruction that works with
English language learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.
Jenkins, E., Queen, A., & Algozzine, B. (2002, March/April). To block or not to
block. The Journal of Educational Research, 95, 200,201.
Kienholz, K., Segall, N., & Yellin, D. (2003, Winter). The Block: Implications.
Kappa Delta Pi Record, 62-63.
91
Lachat, M. A. (2004). Standards-based instruction and assessment for English
language learners. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.
Lambert, L. (2003). Leadership capacity for lasting school improvement.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Lammel, A. (1996). Breaking ranks: Changing an American institution.
Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.
Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research Into action.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction
that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student
achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Meyer, D., Madden, D., & McGrath, D. J. (2004). English language learner
students in U.S. public schools: 1994 and 2000. Education Statistics
Quarterly, 6(3), 4.
Miller Gale. (1997). Contextualizing texts: Studying organizational texts. In G.
Miller & R. Dingwall (Eds.). Context and method in qualitative research
(pp. 77-79). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Newell, A., & Rosenbloom. P. S. (1981). Mechanisms of skill acquisition and
the law of practice. In J. R. Anderson (Ed), Cognitive skills and their
acquisition (pp. 1-2). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum and Associates.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3 ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Queen, J. A. (2000). Block scheduling revisited. Phi Delta Kappan, 82, 125-
129.
Reeves, D. B. (2004). Accountability for learning: How teachers and school
leaders can take charge. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.
Rettig, M. D., & Canady, R. L. (2001). Block scheduling: More benefits than
challenges, response to Thomas (2001). National Association of
Secondary School Principals, 85(78), 78, 84 & 85.
92
Robbins, P., Gregory, G., & Herndon, L. E. (2000). Thinking inside the block
schedule (1
st
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Schmoker, M. (1999). Results: The key to continuous school improvement (2
nd
ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Shore, R. (1995). How one high school improved school climate. Educational
Leadership, 52(5), 76-78.
Stidham, J. (2001, Spring). Moving to the block schedule. Kappa Delta Pi
Record, 37(3), 134.
Stokes, L. C., & Wilson, J. W. (2000, November). A longitudinal study of
Teachers' perceptions of the effectiveness of block versus traditional
scheduling. National Association of Secondary School Principals, 84, 96.
Trenta, L., & Newman, I. (2002, Fall). Effects of a high school block scheduling
program on students: A four-year longitudinal study of the effects of
block scheduling on student outcome variables. American Secondary
Education, 31, 54-55.
United States Department of Education. (2002). No Child Left Behind Act of
2001. Retrieved May 19, 2009, from
http://www.nclb.gov/next/overview/index.html.
United States Department of Education. (2008). Adequate yearly progress.
Retrieved October 11, 2008 from, http://answers.ed.gov/cgi-
bin/education.cfg/php/enduser/std.
Veal, W. R., & Flinders, D. J. (2001, April/May). How block scheduling reform
effects classroom practice. The High School Journal, 84(4), 26.
93
APPENDIX A
MODIFIED MARZINO TEACHERS’ SURVEY
Snap shot Survey of
School Effectiveness
Factors
Question 1:
To what extent do
we engage in this
behavior or address
this issue?
1 Not at all
2 Optional
3 Optional
4 To a great extent
Question 2:
How much will a
change in our
practices on this
item increase the
academic
achievement of our
students?
1 Not at all
2 Optional
3 Optional
4 To a great extent
Question 3:
How much effort will
it take to significantly
change our practices
regarding this issue?
1 Not much
2 Optional
3 A lot but possible
4 Too much to do
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
IN MY SCHOOL…
Guaranteed and
Viable Curriculum
1. The content
considered essential
for all students to
learn versus the
content considered
supplemental has
been identified and
communicated to
teachers.
2. The amount of
essential content that
has been identified
can be addressed in
the instructional time
available to teachers
3. The essential
content is organized
and sequenced in a
way that students
have ample oppor-
tunity to learn it.
4. Somebody checks
to ensure teachers
address essential
94
Snap shot Survey of
School Effectiveness
Factors
Question 1:
To what extent do
we engage in this
behavior or address
this issue?
1 Not at all
2 Optional
3 Optional
4 To a great extent
Question 2:
How much will a
change in our
practices on this
item increase the
academic
achievement of our
students?
1 Not at all
2 Optional
3 Optional
4 To a great extent
Question 3:
How much effort will
it take to significantly
change our practices
regarding this issue?
1 Not much
2 Optional
3 A lot but possible
4 Too much to do
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
content
5. The instructional
time available to
teachers is protected
by minimizing
interruptions and
scheduled non-
instructional
activities.
Challenging Goals
and Effective
Feedback.
6. An assessment
system is used that
provides for timely
feedback (e.g. at least
every ten weeks) on
the specific
knowledge and skills
for individual
students.
7. Specific achieve-
ment goals set for the
school as a whole.
8. Specific
achievement goals
were set for
individual students.
9. Performance on
school wide and
individual student
goals is used to plan
for future actions.
95
Snap shot Survey of
School Effectiveness
Factors
Question 1:
To what extent do
we engage in this
behavior or address
this issue?
1 Not at all
2 Optional
3 Optional
4 To a great extent
Question 2:
How much will a
change in our
practices on this
item increase the
academic
achievement of our
students?
1 Not at all
2 Optional
3 Optional
4 To a great extent
Question 3:
How much effort will
it take to significantly
change our practices
regarding this issue?
1 Not much
2 Optional
3 A lot but possible
4 Too much to do
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
Collegiality and
Professionalism.
10. Norms for
conduct that foster
collegiality and
professionalism
among professional
staff and
administrators have
been established.
11. Governance
structures that allow
for teacher
involvement in school
wide decisions and
policies have been
established.
12. Teachers were
engaged in staff
development
activities that address
specific content area
issues and allow for
"hand-on" trial and
evaluation of specific
techniques.
Student Motivation
13. Students were
provided with
feedback on their
knowledge gain.
96
Snap shot Survey of
School Effectiveness
Factors
Question 1:
To what extent do
we engage in this
behavior or address
this issue?
1 Not at all
2 Optional
3 Optional
4 To a great extent
Question 2:
How much will a
change in our
practices on this
item increase the
academic
achievement of our
students?
1 Not at all
2 Optional
3 Optional
4 To a great extent
Question 3:
How much effort will
it take to significantly
change our practices
regarding this issue?
1 Not much
2 Optional
3 A lot but possible
4 Too much to do
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
14. Students were
involved in
simulation games and
activities that were
inherently engaging.
15. Students were
provided with
opportunities to
construct and work on
long-term projects of
their own design.
16. Students were
provided with training
regarding the
dynamics of
motivation and how
those dynamics affect
them.
TEACHERS IN MY
SCHOOL….
Instruction
17. Begin their
instructional units by
presenting students
clear learning goals.
18. Begin their
instructional units by
asking students to
identify personal
learning goals that fit
within the learning
goals presented by the
teacher.
97
Snap shot Survey of
School Effectiveness
Factors
Question 1:
To what extent do
we engage in this
behavior or address
this issue?
1 Not at all
2 Optional
3 Optional
4 To a great extent
Question 2:
How much will a
change in our
practices on this
item increase the
academic
achievement of our
students?
1 Not at all
2 Optional
3 Optional
4 To a great extent
Question 3:
How much effort will
it take to significantly
change our practices
regarding this issue?
1 Not much
2 Optional
3 A lot but possible
4 Too much to do
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
19. Systematically
provide students with
specific feedback on
the extent to which
they were
accomplishing the
learning goals.
20. Systematically
ask students to keep
track of their own
performance on the
learning goals.
21. Systematically
emphasize the
importance of effort
with students.
22. Organize students
into groups based on
their understanding of
the content when
appropriate.
23. Organize students
into cooperative
groups when
appropriate.
24. Systematically
provide specific
feedback on the
homework assigned
to students.
25. End their units
by providing students
with clear feedback
on the learning goals.
98
Snap shot Survey of
School Effectiveness
Factors
Question 1:
To what extent do
we engage in this
behavior or address
this issue?
1 Not at all
2 Optional
3 Optional
4 To a great extent
Question 2:
How much will a
change in our
practices on this
item increase the
academic
achievement of our
students?
1 Not at all
2 Optional
3 Optional
4 To a great extent
Question 3:
How much effort will
it take to significantly
change our practices
regarding this issue?
1 Not much
2 Optional
3 A lot but possible
4 Too much to do
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
26. End their units
by asking students to
assess themselves
relative to the
learning goals.
27. End their units
by recognizing and
celebrating progress
on the learning goals.
28. Prior to
presenting new
content, ask students
questions that help
them recall what they
might already know
about the content.
29. Prior to
presenting new
content, provide
students with direct
links with previous
knowledge or studies.
30. Ask students to
take notes on new
content.
31. Ask students to
represent new content
in nonlinguistic ways
(e.g., mental image,
picture, pictograph,
graphic organizer)
99
Snap shot Survey of
School Effectiveness
Factors
Question 1:
To what extent do
we engage in this
behavior or address
this issue?
1 Not at all
2 Optional
3 Optional
4 To a great extent
Question 2:
How much will a
change in our
practices on this
item increase the
academic
achievement of our
students?
1 Not at all
2 Optional
3 Optional
4 To a great extent
Question 3:
How much effort will
it take to significantly
change our practices
regarding this issue?
1 Not much
2 Optional
3 A lot but possible
4 Too much to do
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
32. Assign in-class
homework tasks that
require students to
practice important
skills and procedures.
33. Ask students to
revise and correct
errors in their notes as
a way of reviewing
and revising content.
34. Prescribe in-
class and homework
assignments that
require students to
compare and classify
content.
35. Prescribe in-
class and homework
assignments that
require students to
construct metaphors
and analogies.
36. Prescribe in-
class activities and
homework
assignments that
require students to
generate and test
hypotheses regarding
content.
100
Snap shot Survey of
School Effectiveness
Factors
Question 1:
To what extent do
we engage in this
behavior or address
this issue?
1 Not at all
2 Optional
3 Optional
4 To a great extent
Question 2:
How much will a
change in our
practices on this
item increase the
academic
achievement of our
students?
1 Not at all
2 Optional
3 Optional
4 To a great extent
Question 3:
How much effort will
it take to significantly
change our practices
regarding this issue?
1 Not much
2 Optional
3 A lot but possible
4 Too much to do
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
Classroom
Curriculum Design
37. When planning
units of instruction,
identify specific types
of knowledge that
were important for
students to learn
(e.g., important
categories of
knowledge, examples,
sequences,
comparisons etc)
38. When planning
units of instruction,
ensure that students
have multiple
exposures to new
content presented in a
variety of forms (e.g.,
stories, descriptions)
using a variety of
media.
39. When planning
units of instruction,
make a clear
distinction between
skills and processes
that were to be
mastered versus skills
and processes that
were to be
experienced but not
mastered
101
APPENDIX B
INFORMAL TEACHER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
The questions listed below were used to guide the discussion between the
teacher and author.
1. With the implementation of the Block Schedule, do you, as teacher, have
enough time to cover the curriculum?
2. As a teacher have, you been able to identify and communicate the
essential content to your students that is essential for all students to be
successful in your class?
3. Is there enough instruction time in the block schedule to cover the
essential content to be successful in your class?
4. As a teacher, have you been able to sequence the essential content of your
course so that students have ample opportunity to learn the material?
5. As a teacher, do you feel that your instructional time is protected so that
you can cover the essential contents for your subject/course?
6. As a teacher do you feel that you provide timely feedback to your students
during the learning process?
7. As a teacher, do you think that the course pacing calendars help you plan
your instruction for the students in your classes?
102
8. Are the district benchmarks aligned to the essential content area of the
class that you are teaching?
9. Do you feel that the district benchmarks assist you in planning your
instruction?
10. As a teacher, do you provide tutoring for your students?
11. If you provide tutoring for your students, what percentage (estimate) of
your students take advantage of this opportunity?
12. Has the school provided you with the necessary support so that you can
be successful teaching in the new block schedule?
13. After teaching on the block schedule for one year, would you choose to go
back to the traditional six-period day?
103
APPENDIX C
TEACHER RESPONSES TO THE MODIFIED
MARZANO TEACHERS’ SURVEY
Snap shot Survey of
School Effectiveness
Factors
Question 1:
To what extent do we engage
in this behavior or address this
issue?
1 Not at all
2 Optional
3 Optional
4 To a great extent
Question 2:
How much will a change in
our practices on this item
increase the academic
achievement of our Students?
1 Not at all
2 Optional
3 Optional
4 To a great extent
Question 3:
How much effort will it take
to significantly change our
practices regarding this issue?
1 Not much
2. Optional
3 A lot but possible to do
4 Too much to do
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
IN MY SCHOOL…
Guaranteed and Viable
Curriculum
1. The content con-
sidered essential for all
students to learn versus
the content considered
supplemental has been
identified and com-
municated to teachers.
9.4 59.4 34.4 6.3 6.3 62.5 31.3 3.1 9.4 37.5 50.0 6.3
104
Snap shot Survey of
School Effectiveness
Factors
Question 1:
To what extent do we engage
in this behavior or address this
issue?
1 Not at all
2 Optional
3 Optional
4 To a great extent
Question 2:
How much will a change in
our practices on this item
increase the academic
achievement of our Students?
1 Not at all
2 Optional
3 Optional
4 To a great extent
Question 3:
How much effort will it take
to significantly change our
practices regarding this issue?
1 Not much
2. Optional
3 A lot but possible to do
4 Too much to do
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
2. The amount of
essential content that has
been identified can be
addressed in the
instructional time
available to teachers
3.2 45.2 51.6 6.5 6.3 56.3 40.6 3.1 3.1 28.1 65.6 6.3
3. The essential content
is organized and
sequenced in a way that
students have ample
opportunity to learn it.
9.4 53.1 37.5 3.1 6.5 58.1 35.4 0.0 3.2 41.9 58.1 3.2
4. Somebody checks to
ensure teachers address
essential content
9.7 54.8 32.3 6.5 12.9 54.8 38.7 0.0 6.5 29.0 58.1 9.7
105
Snap shot Survey of
School Effectiveness
Factors
Question 1:
To what extent do we engage
in this behavior or address this
issue?
1 Not at all
2 Optional
3 Optional
4 To a great extent
Question 2:
How much will a change in
our practices on this item
increase the academic
achievement of our Students?
1 Not at all
2 Optional
3 Optional
4 To a great extent
Question 3:
How much effort will it take
to significantly change our
practices regarding this issue?
1 Not much
2. Optional
3 A lot but possible to do
4 Too much to do
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
5. The instructional time
available to teachers is
protected by minimizing
interruptions and
scheduled non-
instructional activities.
13.3 53.3 36.7 0.0 6.7 40.0 56.7 0.0 6.5 22.6 64.5 9.7
Challenging Goals and
Effective Feedback.
6. An assessment
system is used that
provides for timely
feedback (e.g. at least
every ten weeks) on the
specific knowledge and
skills for individual
students.
3.2 45.2 54.8 0.0 16.0 48.4 38.7 0.0 12.9 38.7 41.9 9.7
106
Snap shot Survey of
School Effectiveness
Factors
Question 1:
To what extent do we engage
in this behavior or address this
issue?
1 Not at all
2 Optional
3 Optional
4 To a great extent
Question 2:
How much will a change in
our practices on this item
increase the academic
achievement of our Students?
1 Not at all
2 Optional
3 Optional
4 To a great extent
Question 3:
How much effort will it take
to significantly change our
practices regarding this issue?
1 Not much
2. Optional
3 A lot but possible to do
4 Too much to do
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
7. Specific achievement
goals were set for the
school as a whole.
3.2 61.3 25.8 12.9 13.3 50.0 33.3 6.7 3.3 40.0 46.7 10.0
8. Specific achievement
goals were set for
individual students.
3.2 58.1 38.7 3.2 10.0 40.0 50.0 3.3 10.0 33.3 53.3 6.7
9. Performance on
school wide and
individual student goals
is used to plan for future
actions.
6.9 55.2 41.4 0.0 12.9 48.4 38.7 3.2 6.5 22.6 64.5 9.7
107
Snap shot Survey of
School Effectiveness
Factors
Question 1:
To what extent do we engage
in this behavior or address this
issue?
1 Not at all
2 Optional
3 Optional
4 To a great extent
Question 2:
How much will a change in
our practices on this item
increase the academic
achievement of our Students?
1 Not at all
2 Optional
3 Optional
4 To a great extent
Question 3:
How much effort will it take
to significantly change our
practices regarding this issue?
1 Not much
2. Optional
3 A lot but possible to do
4 Too much to do
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
Collegiality and
Professionalism.
10. Norms for conduct
that foster collegiality
and professionalism
among professional staff
and administrators have
been established.
25.8 45.2 32.3 0.0 12.9 54.8 32.3 3.2 6.5 22.6 67.7 6.5
11. Governance
structures that allow for
teacher involvement in
school wide decisions
and policies have been
established.
6.7 63.3 26.7 6.7 12.9 48.4 41.9 0.0 3.2 35.5 61.3 3.2
108
Snap shot Survey of
School Effectiveness
Factors
Question 1:
To what extent do we engage
in this behavior or address this
issue?
1 Not at all
2 Optional
3 Optional
4 To a great extent
Question 2:
How much will a change in
our practices on this item
increase the academic
achievement of our Students?
1 Not at all
2 Optional
3 Optional
4 To a great extent
Question 3:
How much effort will it take
to significantly change our
practices regarding this issue?
1 Not much
2. Optional
3 A lot but possible to do
4 Too much to do
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
12. Teachers were
engaged in staff
development activities
that address specific
content area issues and
allow for "hand-on" trial
and evaluation of
specific techniques.
6.5 54.8 35.5 6.5 3.2 58.1 35.5 3.2 3.2 29.0 58.1 9.7
Student Motivation
13. Students were
provided with feedback
on their knowledge gain.
0.0 72.4 27.6 3.4 9.7 51.6 35.5 3.2 9.7 25.8 58.1 6.5
109
Snap shot Survey of
School Effectiveness
Factors
Question 1:
To what extent do we engage
in this behavior or address this
issue?
1 Not at all
2 Optional
3 Optional
4 To a great extent
Question 2:
How much will a change in
our practices on this item
increase the academic
achievement of our Students?
1 Not at all
2 Optional
3 Optional
4 To a great extent
Question 3:
How much effort will it take
to significantly change our
practices regarding this issue?
1 Not much
2. Optional
3 A lot but possible to do
4 Too much to do
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
14. Students were
involved in simulation
games and activities that
were inherently
engaging.
3.2 71.0 29.0 0.0 12.9 38.7 51.6 0.0 3.2 35.5 63.3 3.2
15. Students were
provided with
opportunities to
construct and work on
long-term projects of
their own design.
9.7 64.5 29.0 0.0 12.9 48.4 38.7 0.0 6.7 33.3 60.0 3.3
110
Snap shot Survey of
School Effectiveness
Factors
Question 1:
To what extent do we engage
in this behavior or address this
issue?
1 Not at all
2 Optional
3 Optional
4 To a great extent
Question 2:
How much will a change in
our practices on this item
increase the academic
achievement of our Students?
1 Not at all
2 Optional
3 Optional
4 To a great extent
Question 3:
How much effort will it take
to significantly change our
practices regarding this issue?
1 Not much
2. Optional
3 A lot but possible to do
4 Too much to do
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
16. Students were
provided with training
regarding the dynamics
of motivation and how
those dynamics affect
them.
33.3 46.7 23.3 0.0 6.5 54.8 41.9 0.0 9.7 32.3 61.3 0.0
TEACHERS IN MY
SCHOOL….
Instruction
17. Begin their
instructional units by
presenting students clear
learning goals.
3.2 58.1 38.7 3.2 19.4 38.7 45.2 0.0 9.7 25.8 64.5 3.2
111
Snap shot Survey of
School Effectiveness
Factors
Question 1:
To what extent do we engage
in this behavior or address this
issue?
1 Not at all
2 Optional
3 Optional
4 To a great extent
Question 2:
How much will a change in
our practices on this item
increase the academic
achievement of our Students?
1 Not at all
2 Optional
3 Optional
4 To a great extent
Question 3:
How much effort will it take
to significantly change our
practices regarding this issue?
1 Not much
2. Optional
3 A lot but possible to do
4 Too much to do
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
18. Begin their
instructional units by
asking students to
identify personal
learning goals that fit
within the learning goals
presented by the teacher.
19.4 61.3 22.6 3.2 6.7 50.0 40.0 6.7 3.3 40.0 53.3 6.7
19. Systematically
provide students with
specific feedback on the
extent to which they
were accomplishing the
learning goals.
6.5 58.1 38.7 0.0 22.6 38.7 41.9 0.0 9.7 22.6 67.7 3.2
20. Systematically ask
students to keep track of
their own performance
on the learning goals.
6.5 38.7 48.4 9.7 3.2 35.5 54.8 6.5 19.4 19.4 54.8 6.5
112
Snap shot Survey of
School Effectiveness
Factors
Question 1:
To what extent do we engage
in this behavior or address this
issue?
1 Not at all
2 Optional
3 Optional
4 To a great extent
Question 2:
How much will a change in
our practices on this item
increase the academic
achievement of our Students?
1 Not at all
2 Optional
3 Optional
4 To a great extent
Question 3:
How much effort will it take
to significantly change our
practices regarding this issue?
1 Not much
2. Optional
3 A lot but possible to do
4 Too much to do
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
21. Systematically
emphasize the
importance of effort with
students.
16.1 48.4 35.5 3.2 12.9 48.4 35.5 3.2 6.7 33.3 60.0 0.0
22. Organize students
into groups based on
their understanding of
the content when
appropriate.
6.5 51.6 41.9 3.2 10.0 56.7 33.3 0.0 6.5 32.3 58.1 3.2
23. Organize students
into cooperative groups
when appropriate.
0.0 48.4 54.8 0.0 3.2 48.4 41.9 6.5 10.0 26.7 56.7 6.7
113
Snap shot Survey of
School Effectiveness
Factors
Question 1:
To what extent do we engage
in this behavior or address this
issue?
1 Not at all
2 Optional
3 Optional
4 To a great extent
Question 2:
How much will a change in
our practices on this item
increase the academic
achievement of our Students?
1 Not at all
2 Optional
3 Optional
4 To a great extent
Question 3:
How much effort will it take
to significantly change our
practices regarding this issue?
1 Not much
2. Optional
3 A lot but possible to do
4 Too much to do
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
24. Systematically
provide specific
feedback on the
homework assigned to
students.
3.2 61.3 41.9 0.0 6.7 36.7 56.7 0.0 6.5 32.3 61.3 0.0
25. End their units by
providing students with
clear feedback on the
learning goals
12.9 48.4 35.5 3.2 16.1 45.2 35.5 3.2 3.2 38.7 51.6 6.5
26. End their units by
asking students to assess
themselves relative to
the learning goals.
0.0 67.7 35.5 0.0 6.5 45.2 45.2 3.2 9.7 29.0 61.3 0.0
114
Snap shot Survey of
School Effectiveness
Factors
Question 1:
To what extent do we engage
in this behavior or address this
issue?
1 Not at all
2 Optional
3 Optional
4 To a great extent
Question 2:
How much will a change in
our practices on this item
increase the academic
achievement of our Students?
1 Not at all
2 Optional
3 Optional
4 To a great extent
Question 3:
How much effort will it take
to significantly change our
practices regarding this issue?
1 Not much
2. Optional
3 A lot but possible to do
4 Too much to do
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
27. End their units by
recognizing and
celebrating progress on
the learning goals.
0.0 51.6 48.4 3.2 6.5 35.5 51.6 6.5 9.7 22.6 61.3 6.5
28. Prior to presenting
new content, ask
students questions that
help them recall what
they might already know
about the content.
0.0 58.1 41.9 3.2 6.7 36.7 50.0 6.7 6.5 25.8 67.7 0.0
29. Prior to presenting
new content, provide
students with direct links
with previous knowledge
or studies.
3.2 51.6 45.2 3.2 12.9 38.7 45,2 3.2 12.9 16.1 71.0 0.0
115
Snap shot Survey of
School Effectiveness
Factors
Question 1:
To what extent do we engage
in this behavior or address this
issue?
1 Not at all
2 Optional
3 Optional
4 To a great extent
Question 2:
How much will a change in
our practices on this item
increase the academic
achievement of our Students?
1 Not at all
2 Optional
3 Optional
4 To a great extent
Question 3:
How much effort will it take
to significantly change our
practices regarding this issue?
1 Not much
2. Optional
3 A lot but possible to do
4 Too much to do
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
30. Ask students to take
notes on new content.
6.5 58.1 38.7 0.0 16.7 36.7 46.7 0.0 6.7 30.0 53.3 10.0
31. Ask students to
represent new content in
nonlinguistic ways (e.g.,
mental image, picture,
pictograph, graphic
organizer)
6.5 58.1 38.7 0.0 9.7 48.4 38.7 3.2 9.7 29.0 61.3 0.0
32. Assign in-class
homework tasks that
require students to
practice important skills
and procedures.
19.4 48.4 29.0 6.5 13.3 36.7 43.3 10.0 9.7 22.6 67.7 3.2
116
Snap shot Survey of
School Effectiveness
Factors
Question 1:
To what extent do we engage
in this behavior or address this
issue?
1 Not at all
2 Optional
3 Optional
4 To a great extent
Question 2:
How much will a change in
our practices on this item
increase the academic
achievement of our Students?
1 Not at all
2 Optional
3 Optional
4 To a great extent
Question 3:
How much effort will it take
to significantly change our
practices regarding this issue?
1 Not much
2. Optional
3 A lot but possible to do
4 Too much to do
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
33. Ask students to
revise and correct errors
in their notes as a way of
reviewing and revising
content.
13.8 55.2 34.5 0.0 10.3 41.4 44.8 3.4 12.9 29.0 58.1 0.0
34. Prescribe in-class
and homework
assignments that require
students to compare and
classify content.
6.5 61.3 35.5 0.0 6.9 41.4 48.3 3.4 6.7 36.7 53.3 3.3
35. Prescribe in-class
and homework
assignments that require
students to construct
metaphors and analogies.
12.9 45.2 38.7 6.5 6.5 58.1 35.5 3.2 6.7 26.7 63.3 6.7
117
Snap shot Survey of
School Effectiveness
Factors
Question 1:
To what extent do we engage
in this behavior or address this
issue?
1 Not at all
2 Optional
3 Optional
4 To a great extent
Question 2:
How much will a change in
our practices on this item
increase the academic
achievement of our Students?
1 Not at all
2 Optional
3 Optional
4 To a great extent
Question 3:
How much effort will it take
to significantly change our
practices regarding this issue?
1 Not much
2. Optional
3 A lot but possible to do
4 Too much to do
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
36. Prescribe in-class
activities and homework
assignments that require
students to generate and
test hypotheses regarding
content.
6.5 41.9 51.6 3.2 12.9 32.3 48.4 6.5 6.7 23.3 70.0 0.0
Classroom Curriculum
Design
37. When planning units
of instruction, identify
specific types of
knowledge that were
important for students to
learn (e.g., important
categories of knowledge,
examples, sequences,
comparisons etc)
3.2 54.8 38.7 6.5 12.9 38.7 48.4 0.0 16.1 25.8 58.1 0.0
118
Snap shot Survey of
School Effectiveness
Factors
Question 1:
To what extent do we engage
in this behavior or address this
issue?
1 Not at all
2 Optional
3 Optional
4 To a great extent
Question 2:
How much will a change in
our practices on this item
increase the academic
achievement of our Students?
1 Not at all
2 Optional
3 Optional
4 To a great extent
Question 3:
How much effort will it take
to significantly change our
practices regarding this issue?
1 Not much
2. Optional
3 A lot but possible to do
4 Too much to do
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
38. When planning
units of instruction,
ensure that students have
multiple exposures to
new content presented in
a variety of forms (e.g.,
stories, descriptions)
using a variety of media.
16.1 48.4 35.5 3.2 9.7 54.8 43.3 3.2 12.9 29.0 54.8 3.2
39. When planning
units of instruction,
make a clear distinction
between skills and
processes that were to be
mastered versus skills
and processes that were
to be experienced but not
mastered.
12.9 54.8 25.8 9.7 12.9 48.4 35.5 3.2 3.1 31.3 56.3 9.4
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the impact that the block schedule has on the academic achievement of English Language Learners (ELL) at Oxbow High School. A nonequivalent independent group design was used in this study. In this quasi-experimental design, students were not randomly assigned, but the comparison school that was used had similar demographic characteristics to Oxbow High School. Comparisons were made between the experimental school and the comparison school before and after the intervention.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
The impact of professional learning communities and block scheduling on English language learner students at Oak Point Middle School
PDF
An evaluation of the impact of a standards-based intervention on the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
The effect of a language arts intervention on the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
Alternatives for achievement: a mathematics intervention for English learners
PDF
An analysis of the impact of the total educational support system direct-instruction model on the California standards test performance of English language learners at experimental elementary school
PDF
An evaluation of the impact of direct instruction intervention on the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
English learners' performance on the California Standards Test at Aviles Elementary
PDF
The effects of open enrollment, curriculum alignment, and data-driven instruction on the test performance of English language learners (ELLS) and re-designated fluent English proficient students ...
PDF
English language learners utilizing the accelerated reader program
PDF
Examining the effectiveness of the intervention programs for English learners at MFC intermediate school
PDF
The effectiveness of the cycle of inquiry on middle school English-learners in English-language arts
PDF
Evaluating the efficacy of the High Point curriculum in the Coastline Unified School District using CST, CAHSEE, and CELDT data
PDF
Teach them to read: implementing high leverage pedagogical practices to increase English language learner academic achievement
PDF
An evaluation of the impact of a standards-based intervention on the academic achievement of algebra students
PDF
A longitudinal investigation of reading in high-stakes tests for adolescent English language learners
PDF
The impact of restructuring the language arts intervention program and its effect on the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
Leadership strategies employed by K–12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
Factors including student engagement impacting student achievement in a high performing urban high school district: a case study
PDF
The implementation of strategies to minimize the achievement gap for African-American, Latino, English learners, and socio-economically disadvantaged students
PDF
Influences that impact English language acquisition for English learners: addressing obstacles for English learners’ success
Asset Metadata
Creator
Gurney, Graham Jeffrey
(author)
Core Title
The block schedule and the English language learners: impact on academic performance and graduation rate at Oxbow High School
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
07/15/2009
Defense Date
05/12/2009
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
academic performance,block schedule,English language learners,graduation rate,OAI-PMH Harvest
Place Name
California
(states)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Hocevar, Dennis (
committee chair
), Reed, Margaret (
committee member
), Valles, Rocky (
committee member
)
Creator Email
ggurney@usc.edu,ggurney2@yahoo.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2367
Unique identifier
UC1175401
Identifier
etd-Gurney-3030 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-562719 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2367 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Gurney-3030.pdf
Dmrecord
562719
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Gurney, Graham Jeffrey
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
academic performance
block schedule
English language learners
graduation rate