Introduction
An innovative strategy in the field of learning that has been long discussed and debated over its effectiveness is the practice of block schedule. The implementation of the strategy has been the concern of several schools, school boards, etc and the practice has been deeply debated in various departments at the district and regional level. There are already various types of responses that are available on the question of the effectiveness of the practice. There have been several schools that have already implemented the type of scheduling and many more are considering the prospects in the implementation of the program. Moreover, the common nature of all these efforts is that there is uncertainty and confusion regarding the practice implementation among, teachers, authorities, parents, and students.
In this background, it is of pertinent consideration the relationship between the type of schedule and student achievement. “Broadly defined, block scheduling is a restructuring of the school day whereby students attend half as many classes, for twice as long. In a departure from the traditional 50-minutes per class, 6-8 classes per day ritual, students take four classes, in 90- or 120-minute blocks each day. In one of the two most common variations, the roster of class subjects alternates from day to day (AB format). In the other, it alternates from semester to semester (4X4 format).” (ABCs of Teaching, 1996). There have been large volumes of studies on the effectiveness of block scheduling about aspects such as teacher attitude, student achievement, and trends in grade point average the results of which have supported as well as denounced the implementation of block scheduling. The results of several studies are inconsistent, some of them finding achievement for students, others finding no differences, and yet some others finding losses in student achievement compared to the students of traditional scheduling.
Definition of the issue: the Relation between Type of Schedule and Student Achievement
An important concern of the paper has been the relationship between the type of schedule and the achievement of the students. In other words, the study attempts to bring about the significant influence of the type of scheduling on student achievement. Block scheduling is thought to be a central contributor to student achievement.
“Block scheduling has recently challenged the traditional high school schedule that emerged in the early 20th century. The literature revealed that approximately 50% of high schools in the US use some type of block scheduling. Improved student achievement, daily attendance, school climate, and student discipline were noted as advantages of block scheduling; however, retention of information, the scheduling of Advanced Placement courses, student achievement, and the implementation process were noted as areas of concern.” (Sue, 2003). Therefore, it is evident that block scheduling has a great impact on the performance of the students. It is also noteworthy that the research evidence is not unitary pointing out the need for scheduling in better achievement of the students. On the contrary, there is also evidences that it is not quite significant in student achievement. The literature review, therefore, attempts to make a judicious conclusion on the matter.
Block Scheduling and Student Achievement
As it has been mentioned several studies covering different subjects have been conducted which come to significant conclusions in compound subject areas and some of them suggest that there is not a large impact of block scheduling on student achievement. To make the point clear making use of some of the examples with such research results, Wronkovich, M., Hess, C. A., & Robinson, J. E. (1997) conducted studies using “retired” copies of SAT II Achievement Tests. They carried out regression analyses on the pre-and post-tests on the Otis-Lennon Scholastic Aptitude Test and the studies have been instrumental in making some significant conclusions that point to the inefficiency of block scheduling on certain areas including History and Geometry on the one hand and the effectiveness of the program on some others such as Biology and English on the other. (Wronkovich et al, 1997, P.32-41). The study has been significant as it suggests the mixed results of the employment of block scheduling and the results of the study signify some of the elementary aspects of block scheduling. It has not been a single example of researches that points out the inconsistent student achievement in block scheduling.
In another remarkable analysis of the student achievement in block scheduling, The College Board (1998) observed the test results of student achievement in subject areas such as US History, Biology, and Calculus, English literature. The study made use of analysis of covariance and it analyzed Advanced Placement examination scores making use of PSAT/NMSQT as a covariate. The study brought out significant research findings. The performance of students of AP English literature who underwent an extended traditional class time was outstanding and they scored appreciably greater scores than those who underwent a traditional schedule, and both fall and spring 4×4 schedules. The performance of students of the AP US History test in both the traditional and extended traditional format suggested another characteristic nature of scheduling as they came higher than students of the 4×4 block schedules. Similarly, there have been differences in the performance results in Biology and Calculus as those who came from an extended traditional AP Biology and Calculus class surpassed students of traditional schedule and the 4×4 block schedules in their results.
One of the limitations of this study has been that it did not incorporate in its analysis some important types of block scheduling including block 8, alternating block, trimester, and hybrid, and only the traditional, extended traditional, and the 4×4 schedules were used in the analysis. (The College Board, 1998). Among the several commendable studies on the effects of block scheduling, a prominent one has been the work by William R. Veal and James Schreiber (1999) which examined the effects of a tri-schedule on the academic achievement of students in a high school. The study was more extensive as tri-schedule includes traditional, 4×4 block, and hybrid schedules running at the same time in the same high school. For the assessment of the effectiveness of the schedules, the state-mandated test of basic skills in reading, language, and mathematics was used. The study was organized in a way to test the freshman year of the students who were on a particular schedule at the beginning of their sophomore year. The method of analysis and the findings of the study proved very significant in terms of the assessment of student achievement about the type of schedule.
“A statistical ANCOVA test was performed using the schedule types as independent variables and cognitive skill index and GPA as covariates. For reading and language, there was no statistically significant difference in test results. There was a statistical difference in mathematics computation. Block mathematics is an ideal format for obtaining more credits in mathematics, but the block format does little for mathematics achievement and conceptual understanding. The results have content-specific implications for schools, administrations, and school boards who are considering block scheduling adoption.” (Veal & Schreiber, 1999). The study proved significant in many ways and the value of daily instruction and contact time in the student achievement in mathematics as opposed to other academic skills has been emphasized. However, the study proves wanting in explaining some significant factors regarding block scheduling, and further researches in the area are called for. “More research is needed to address the concern of “time-of- discipline.” Does a block schedule improve student achievement even when the total amount of time is decreased within discipline areas? Which academic areas are most negatively and positively affected by the switch to a particular schedule type? Should one schedule be the model for all schools? These are important questions that need to be answered by researchers in different academic areas.” (Veal & Schreiber, 1999).
Block Scheduling: core areas
It is also pertinent that the literature that deals with the various aspects of block scheduling is considered, including its advantages, limitations, its relation to other theories, etc. Remarkably some of the important literature on block scheduling demonstrate the idea that the practice of block scheduling does not have any theoretical foundation and it cannot be regarded as constituting a school reform. Such studies view it as forming merely one constituent of an all-inclusive and contemporaneous package of reforms. In one of such works, “Constructivism and Block Scheduling: Making the Connection” Donald G. Hackmann concludes that constructivist theory assists faculties in comprehending the interrelationships of teaching and learning and in identifying how the schedule can be an essential tool in encouraging improved student achievement. Hackmann recommends that constructivist principles need to be the motivating force in making decisions regarding the execution of block scheduling. “The student-centered learning practices associated with constructivism could benefit from the increased class time that block scheduling offers… Constructivism and block schedules appear to have occurred in parallel, yet independent, movements. However, there are many points of convergence between these two concepts.” (Hackmann, 2004, P.697).
The article, apart from the relation it makes between constructivism and block scheduling, is also important as it points out some of the reasons for the ineffective implementation of block scheduling. It also proposes increased researches in the field of block scheduling about theoretical frameworks to make the practice more reputable. “Block scheduling has become established practice in high schools, but many educators are unable to explain why it is superior to traditional daily-period formats and what results from it are intended to produce. Currently, there is no solid theoretical foundation for block scheduling, and there also is limited research documenting its effectiveness in improving student achievement. Many teachers have struggled to make effective use of the longer time blocks because they lack a conceptual understanding of the purpose for these extended time frames and of how they may facilitate learning.” (Hackmann, 2004, P.697).
There have been other significant efforts to address the question of block scheduling about the issues it faces in affecting student achievement positively. Other than such assessments of the effectiveness of block scheduling these studies also cover areas that are significant in a study on the relationship between the type of schedule and student achievement. Thus, J. Allen Queen in his “Block Scheduling Revisited” makes a reassessment of block scheduling in which he considers the reasons for the schools in moving to block scheduling, examines the benefits and hazards experienced by educators, evaluates student achievement rates, pores over the overuse of the lecture approach, and appraises effective instructional strategies with a purpose of making the practice more effective. He arrives at the remarkable conclusion that “the success of block scheduling depends greatly on the professionals who implement it. The teachers, principals, students, and parents must give the same level of attention and effort to block scheduling as they would to any other school schedule. Using a variety of instructional methods effectively will help students learn at an optimal level. Thoughtful planning, organization, implementation, and evaluation are also imperative to the success of a block schedule.” (Queen, 2000. P. 214). The study points to the various aspects of block scheduling that cause the ineffective implementation of the practice which also relate to the relationship between block scheduling and student achievement.
High School Students and Block Schedule
William W. Lawrence and Danny D. (2000) researched the academic achievement of high school students on the block schedule in comparison with that of the students on the traditional schedule to establish the impact of block scheduling on academic achievement. It compared the test scores in selected school subjects such as Algebra, Biology, English, and U. S. History of the high school students enrolled in a school district in southeastern North Carolina on a traditional class schedule with those on a block schedule. The results of the study imply that an “instructional program that meets the needs of students and prepares them for the changing technological society they will face is still needed and advocates additional research in the area. Several innovations are being made and should be continued under scrutiny. However, wholesale block scheduling alone, may not be the most productive long-term solution to inadequate academic achievement for high school students. Educators must continue to study research conducted in the area and conduct research themselves in an attempt to design better scheduling alternatives that more adequately meet the needs of students and teachers since block scheduling does not meet all the desired outcomes.” (Lawrence & Danny D, 2000, p.178).
The policy report “Block Scheduling in Texas Public High Schools” presented a notable study that analyzed the relationships between different types of schedules and the overall student performance in Texas public high schools. “Overall performance was measured in terms of dropout rates, grade-level retention rates, campus-level results for the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS), and participation and performance on college admissions tests (SAT and ACT) and AP examinations. Before testing for meaningful performance differences by schedule type, variations in school context features were taken into account.
Findings from this study suggest that school context is much more closely related to overall student performance than the particular types of schedules high schools used.” (Block Scheduling in Texas Public High Schools, 1999). The characteristics that were found to be associated strongly with overall student performance in a collective analysis of the contextual features and performance measures include average student attendance rate for the campus, percentage of students enrolled on campus who were economically disadvantaged, campus enrollment, education service center region, district type (e.g., urban, rural), percentage of students enrolled on campus who were ethnic minorities, percentage of teachers on campus who were ethnic minorities. (Block Scheduling in Texas Public High Schools, Policy Research, 1999). It also suggests that the results of researches on the effects of block scheduling in significant areas of student performance, such as attendance, dropout rates, and test scores have shown mixed responses.
Middle Schools Block Scheduling
Among the limited researches on the effects of block scheduling on student achievement in middle schools, a recent and prominent one has been “Effects on Students of a 4 X 4 Junior High School Block Scheduling Program” by R. Brian Cobb, and Dennis Baker which investigated the effects of a 4 X 4 block scheduling program in a middle school on. The standardized achievement tests in mathematics, reading, and writing, cumulative and semester grades in middle school and high school, attendance rates, and enrollment rates in advanced high school courses which were only in mathematics were among the different student measures analyzed. “The block scheduling program had been in effect for four years allowing analyses of current middle and high school students who had experienced a minimum of one and one-half years of block scheduling while in middle school. The primary research design was a post-test only, matched pairs design. Students were matched on school characteristics, gender, ethnicity, grade level, and 5th-grade standardized reading scores. Results were relatively consistent with the extant literature and generally positive.” (Cobb et al, 1999).
Another important work that is useful in research on the relationship between the type of schedule and student achievement has been Scheduling Strategies for middle Schools in which the authors “advocate a reconsideration of the traditional scheduling arrangements and related practices of middle schools” guided by eight pertinent questions such as “what is an appropriate number of students a middle school teacher should see each day/term/year? Is there a relationship between how a teacher works with students and the number of students assigned to a teacher?” (Retting & Canady, 1950).
Conclusion
Therefore, it is clear from the research review that several sources deal with the relationship between the type of schedule and student achievement. “There are individual reports of block schedule proving disastrous over traditional scheduling, so it is no wonder that school leaders would enter into it cautiously.” (Research Brief: More on Block Schedules). This source provides more considerations on block scheduling which are useful for researches. All these are a very useful contributions to a research on the relationship between the type of schedule and student achievement.
References
ABCs of Teaching: Scheduling: On the Block, (1996). The Center for Education Reform. Web.
Wronkovich, M., Hess, C. A., & Robinson, J. E. (1997). An objective look at math outcomes based on new research into block scheduling, NASSP Bulletin. Vol.81 (593). P.32-41.
The College Board: Block schedules and student performance on AP Examinations, (1998). Research News, RN-03. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
Veal, William R., & Schreiber, James. (1999). Block Scheduling Effects on a State Mandated Test of Basic Skills, EPAA: Educational Policy Analysis Archives. Vol.7. No.29. Web.
Hackmann, Donald G. (2004). Constructivism and Block Scheduling: Making the Connection, Phi Delta Kappan. Vol.85. Iss.9. P. 697.
Queen, J Allen. (2000). Block Scheduling Revisited, Phi Delta Kappan. Vol.82. Iss.3. P.214.
Lawrence, William W., & Danny D. (2000). A Comparative Study of Block Scheduling and Traditional Scheduling on Academic Achievement, Journal of Instructional Psychology. Vol.27. Iss.3. p.178.
Block Scheduling in Texas Public High Schools, (1999). Policy Research. Report No. 13. Web.
Cobb, R Brian., Abate, Stacey., & Baker, Dennis. (1999). Effects on Students of a 4 X 4 Junior High School Block Scheduling Program, EPAA: Educational Policy Analysis Archives. Vol.7. No.3. Web.
Retting, Michael D., & Canady, Robert Lynn. (1950). Scheduling Strategies for middle Schools, New York: Eye on Education.
Research Brief: More on Block Schedules, The Principals’ Partnership: Union Pacific Foundation. Web.
Sue, Andrews. (2003). Research & resources – Student achievement: The effect of block scheduling on student achievement on standardized tests: Abstract. University of Minnesota. Web.