Review of Research 12-8-16 Final

Review of Research on the Efficacy of Block Scheduling in High Schools
Carl Peitz & David Maimone
Loyola University of Maryland
In partial fulfillment for
AD 776.601
Instructor: Gordon Michaeloski, Ph.D.
11/10/16
THE EFFICACY OF BLOCK SCHEDULING IN HIGH SCHOOLS
|2
Abstract
Scheduling constitutes one of the major types of restructuring considered by school systems and
administrators looking to improve student performance, teacher effectiveness, and behavior. The
relationship between the school schedule—the traditional seven period, A/B block, and 4 x 4
block—and student achievement, teacher effectiveness, and student behavior in high school was
examined in this study. Comparisons showed no consistent significant increase in student
performance indicators over time. Moving to a block scheduling model did show positive effects
in both teacher effectiveness and student behavior. Researchers concluded that other factors
such as teacher buy-in and professional development may have impacted the student
performance more when schools moved to a block scheduling model.
Introduction
Introduction to Education Issue
Within the education field there are many controversial topics that have influenced
researchers to gather data and present results. One of those topics that has been researched over
the years is the scheduling and how it impacts student achievement, behavior, instructional
practices, and teacher/student/parent perceptions. It is an important topic for school officials,
administrators, and districts all over the world. A schedule can impact many people within a
school district such as teachers, students, parents, and all other personnel involved in running a
school. Researchers have gained data and insight from many of these areas within school
districts around the United States. The purpose of this research review was to find the reason
why school districts are making the change to switch to a different schedule type. The question
|3
leading this review is: Does block scheduling have an effect on student achievement, behavior,
instructional practices, and teacher/student/parent perceptions?
Review Questions
• Does Block Scheduling Effect student behavior?
• Are instructional practices changed positively or negatively when teaching during a block
schedule?
• What are Student/Teacher/Parent perceptions who are on a block schedule?
• Is there a correlation between Student Achievement and block scheduling?
• Which content area is most impacted by block scheduling?
Significance of the Review
The educational system has many areas in which this topic can help. One of those variables is
student scheduling which impacts the daily lives of students, teachers, and administrators.
Scheduling is a structural element within a school that controls transitions, length of class time,
and length of semesters. It is important to have the appropriate schedule in order to create a
positive environment for those impacted by it. Students are at the bottom of the chain but are
most impacted by a school board or administrative decision. Teachers may find it helpful to
have a smaller class load each day to prep for but also have less transitions each day.
Administrators can be effected by student behavior lessening or heightening. The articles in this
review are about scheduling and how it may help student achievement, behavior, instructional
practices, and community perceptions. By sorting through the research articles administrators,
teachers, and school board members will be able to make a more educated decision when
changing the school schedule.

|4
Key Terms
• Block scheduling- A type of scheduling method used to chunk classes differently then all
in one day.
• 4X4 block scheduling- Consists of four classes on one day for a semester.
• A/B Block Scheduling- Consists of eight classes that include 4 on an A day and 4 on a B
day for an entire school year.
• Traditional Scheduling- Schedule consists of a 7-8 period day with 30-50 minute classes
which students complete throughout an entire year with no change.
• Achievement- Student benchmark that school employees or officials look at for growth.
Examples are: GPA, standardized test, state test, national tests
• Instructional practices- Strategies and ways teachers organize activities and lessons in
order to differentiate for their classes to keep students engaged in learning.

|5
Review of Literature
The Impact of Block Scheduling on Student Motivation and Classroom Practice in
Mathematics
Author: Devin D. Biesinger, Kent J. Crippen, Krista R. Muis
What was studied?
This article studied the effects of alternating block schedule model on student self-efficacy,
attitude, and instructional practices within the context of mathematics.
What methodology was used? Procedure?
A mixed-method quasi-experimental design was used. Data was collected over a school year
with a pretest/posttest method. The sample used was one of convenience and the results were
analyzed by each specific course. Students were of varying ability and had different exposures
to the amount of academic rigor. In other words, they basically went to schools and used the
current classes that were already in place. There were four schools that participated. Three of
the schools were treatment schools and one was a comparison school. The three treatment
schools were on an alternating block schedule and the comparison school was on a traditional
schedule (the study doesn’t mention what a traditional schedule actually is).
Data was collected in the areas of attitude, self-efficacy, and instructional practices. To assess
attitude, the participants were administered a revised version of the Fennema-Sherman Attitude
Scale pre-post. This was done to gauge changes in attitude toward mathematics. To assess self-
efficacy, the researchers constructed a 12-item mathematics self-efficacy survey which was also
|6
given pre-post. To assess instructional practices, the researchers conducted focus group
interviews with four random students chosen from each class involved in the study.
How was the data analyzed?
As far as the actual data goes, the researchers analyzed the student responses on the measures of
attitude and self-efficacy. They looked for statistical increases in the level of the student
responses (i.e. did the students measures of attitude toward mathematics become more positive
or more negative between pre- and post-test). For the instructional practices, which was
basically assessed through a forum interview, the researchers recorded and transcribed the
conversations of each group and then looked for trends. They also categorized the student
responses into six categories (class activities, connections with teachers, attitude toward block
schedule, balance of schedule, student attitude toward learning mathematics in block scheduling,
and learning). It seemed fairly simple to just compare pre- and post-test scores, however, the
researchers realized that variance between the sample groups could affect the results. So, for the
attitude and self-efficacy survey responses, the researchers used a variety of methods to compare
the data. They used paired sample t-tests and repeated measures ANOVAs to look at variance
between the samples. They looked at factors such as course rigor and ethnicity.
What did the researcher find?
During this study the researchers found that the ethnic make-up of the treatment schools was
significantly different than that of the comparison school (the comparison school had less
Caucasian students and more Hispanic students than the treatment schools). The researchers
found that there were no statistical changes in math attitude over time for the treatment groups.
However, math attitudes declines significantly for the comparison group. In terms of self-
|7
efficacy, both the treatment and comparison groups experienced a significant increase from
pretest to posttest. The researchers also concluded that neither course rigor nor ethnicity had an
impact on the results.
In analyzing the classroom observation data researchers found that instructional methods did
vary during class periods in a block schedule model. Although most of the instructional methods
were traditional in nature (lecture, note taking, individual practice, etc). What was interesting is
that when analyzing the student responses from the forum groups, students indicated that they
did not feel that teachers used the additional time provided by block scheduling to vary
instructional activities. They also indicated that there weren’t any personal connections made
between student and teacher.
What conclusions did the researcher make?
The researchers concluded that the alternating block scheduling in the treatment high schools did
result in significant changes in student attitude toward themselves and for learning mathematics.
In addition, students in block scheduling held more stable attitudes toward mathematics and the
students in traditional scheduling had their attitudes decrease. The results of this study also point
in an increase in self-efficacy as a result of block scheduling. However, the researcher did point
out that the effect size of this study was small and that the groups were not equivalent at the start
of the study. The researcher concludes that these results could not be replicated.
The researchers also concluded that students of varied backgrounds and academic experiences
responded similarly to the alternating block scheduling model. They suggested that this model
could possibly assist students with unique abilities and work habits.
|8
After analyzing student forum responses, the researchers concluded that there is a need for
intense professional development for teachers on how to effectively make use of the additional
time in a block schedule model.
Very few students felt that block scheduling created feelings of a better connection between them
and their teacher. This could be due to the larger class sizes that come as a result of block
scheduling.
Overall the researches state that the effects of block scheduling are difficult to gauge and
replicating results seems to vary from school site to school site.
Effects of Block Scheduling on Academic Achievement among High School Students
Author: Charlotte D. Gruber, Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie, Valdosta State University
What was studied?
During this study, students in high school were separated to follow two different schedules to
determine the effects of block scheduling on academic achievement.
The method used for the study was to compare grade point averages to scores on the Georgia
Graduation High School Test. They used this method because both groups being studied were
similar according to a number of variables. A few number of students moved school districts,
curricula did not change over the years, teacher turnover remained constant, and school race and
gender composition did not alter in a high degree. With the two groups of high school students
|9
being similar in variables they went ahead and took the scores of the Georgia High School
Graduation Test and compared them with the GPA’s.
During the tests the researcher found there is no statistical difference in GPA. The Mann-
Whitney test showed no statistical difference on the writing section. On other sections such as
Language Arts, Math, Social Studies, and Science students in the traditional schedule scored
higher.
Block scheduling is widely used in the United States and it is still unclear of the effectiveness of
it. Many researchers have found mix findings, some have reported positive outcomes, no
significant effects, and some with detrimental effects. Within this study the researchers have
found block scheduling students attained lower levels of achievement then did their traditional
schedule counter parts. Also researchers state what may work best for one school may not work
for another.
The relationship between secondary school scheduling models and ACT assessment scores
Author: Ann-Maureen Pliska, Matt T. Harmston, and Donald G. Hackman
What was studied?
This study was of a long study of 568 public high schools in Illinois and Iowa in which three
scheduling options were examined and averages of ACT scores were examined. The three
| 10
schedules that were being studied are the 4x4 schedule, eight block alternating day, and
traditional eight period schedules.
Only schools with pure schedules were used so hybrid schedules were excluded. This study
included 568 schools, 351 using eight period, 161 using an eight block alternating day, and 56
with a 4X4 semester schedule. Within the study other variables were considered such as school
size and lifestyle factors.
The data was analyzed using a PRISM database which clusters neighborhoods based on
demographics, census data, social rank, mobility, urbanization, and ethnicity. There wound up
being an insufficient sample size from some PRISM categories and they could not collapse those
categories because of the relationships between those that had information were too small.
Mean ACT scores equaled 21.28 in eight period schedule, 21.13 with eight block alternating
model, and 21.36 with a 4X4 semester plan. Over a six year period from 1991-1996 the
complete mean scores showed at least a one point decline but did not constitute a meaningful
difference.
As the data were analyzed, it was evident that the mean scores increased over the first year but
after that increases stopped. The study shows that an A/B block scheduling does not necessarily
increase overall achievement as measured by the mean scores. It does show that implementing
| 11
that scheduling will impact the scores briefly but then will go back to the same scores as below
or lower. When administrations and school boards are looking to switch to this type of schedule
they should not only look at test scores but should resort to look at other factors within the school
district.
Block Schedule and traditional schedule achievement: A comparison
Author: Douglass E. Arnold
What was studied?
Two schools were studied, one had an A/B Block schedule and the other a seven-period
traditional schedule. Within the study achievement was examined from 11th graders.
To determine the effect of the schedules he compared the 1996 grade 11 TAP (Tests of
Achievement and Proficiency) mean scale scores of public high schools in Virginia that used the
seven period A/B block scheduling to schools that used seven period traditional schedule.
51 schools were on a seven period A/B Block schedule and 104 were on a seven period
traditional schedule. He used two questionnaires that asked the schools to describe a variety of
things. These things were: free and reduced lunch %, length of block schedule implementation,
location, enrollment, textbooks, changes in curriculum, staff development, pupil teacher ratios,
and any changes that happened during block scheduling. From the results gathered only 29
| 12
seven period A/B block schedule schools responded and 64 seven period traditional schools
responded.
Comparisons showed no significant increase in students test scores over time.
When scores are combined between the years the researcher found the scores showed a negative
trend of one mean scale sore point. Mean scale scores in 1994 in all areas showed a one point
decline. As the data was analyzed it showed that block scheduling schools realized increases
within the first year but then the scores declined within the next two years.
Block Scheduling: An Evaluation of Outcomes and Impact
Author: William Evans, Jan Tokarczyk, Sheri Rice, Alison McCray
What was studied?
The study focuses on changes in instructional approaches that influence student learning in the
schools after implementing block scheduling.
The data was compiled from three districts which all had 4X4 block scheduling within the years
of 97-98. When teachers were interviewed from these districts 84% stated they had received
adequate training and support for this change in schedule. Within the three school districts
survey information was gathered from teachers, students, and parents to serve as a baseline. The
| 13
school sites are in New Jersey and included an urban, suburban, and a rural area. These
investigations focused on showing the increase or decrease towards the expected outcomes and
how well goals were achieved.
The responses were gathered and compiled for end results. They examined a number of student
outcomes including student grades, honor roll, and failure rate. Also compiled data on student
decorum and attendance.
The research found a decent amount of answers from these interviews.
1. Teachers were able to spend more than half the time of class on activities over
lectures.
2. Students seemed settled in class, fewer behavior issues.
3. Teachers can expand on lessons, could show a movie, and conduct a review in one
day.
4. Students can complete independent and present during class time.
5. Teachers could work with all students within a class period.
6. Cover more material over the time period
7. Teachers and students had less of a workload because of the A/B schedule.
The bad
1. Not enough work or substitutes
2. Student catch up time, absences

| 14
3. Longer boredom
4. Lose motivation within the long class time
5. Limited to a few classes of friends
6. Does it provide tougher courses?
The data compiled from student outcomes show honor roll over the three sites increased by 9%.
The number of students receiving a D or F for a final grade decreased by 7%. 25% more
students completed AP courses also from more being offered within the block period schedule.
The state testing and SAT scores increased from 67% to 73% in 98-99.
1. Teachers have changed their instructional approaches and can provide a greater number
of activities in one period and introduce concepts in greater detail.
2. Students can take more courses, are more involved in independent and group projects
3. Student achievement in these areas and dates have improved. Higher state and SAT
scores, honor roll, decrease in failure rate
4. Less behavior problems, less detentions
Majority of students, parents, teachers are satisfied with the implementation of block scheduling.
Measured Outcomes of Leaning Under Block Scheduling
Author: Caryl Hess, Michael Wronkovich, and James Robinson
What was studied?

| 15
Coventry (Ohio) Local Schools took on a 4X4 Block Schedule and were trying to study their
math outcomes from the years 96-97. The study was to determine if differences exist in test
performance between students who are taking the 4x4 Schedule versus students taking the
traditional schedule. The study was to focus on 4 areas and use pretest/posttest strategies. From
the gathering of the baseline data the school district asked themselves 2 questions
1. Could the study be done with a larger population?
2. Could the study be generalized to other subject areas?
Finally asking: Does the type of instruction predict the differences between pretest
and posttest subject scores while controlling for gender, ability, and individual
differences.
Tests were giving out during the first grading period and tested during the final month of school
within each subject area. So pre-test post-test method was used and the procedure was simple
teach and test.
The data included 270 students and involved type of instruction, GPA, OLSAT, gender, and pre-
test, post-test scores. All data was listed and compared in tables that were not in the article but
shown at request.
The research found Average post-test scores were higher the average pre-test scores, and
increases in Geometry and history were similar but were greatly increased in English and
| 16
biology. Students in block scheduling had significantly higher posttest scores while students in
traditional scheduling had significantly lower post-test scores. Within all four subjects block
scheduling groups had higher GPAs and OLSAT scores.
The authors recognize 3 major things:
1. The design is ex post facto so control of variables that could interfere is limited
2. Teachers judgment could be clouded by implementation
3. This study relies on students who have many different variables that relate to learning
math
In conclusion the researcher found a different picture then what was expected or foreseen in the
beginning. They concluded that in geometry and history students statistically performed no
difference but in English and biology there was a statistical difference in scores. In addition to
these findings, the author states it is important to set specific goals when adopting a schedule.
Goals at this school were orientated to curriculum goals which did help in two subject areas. As
educators and school districts we must establish goals and apply the schedule to fit those goals.
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.
Author: Louis Trenta, Isadore Newman
What was studied?

| 17
This study examined a controversial block-schedule program in a small mid-western city. 500
students were included in the study which have been in this schedule from 0-3 years.
Findings were based on Hard Data only which means GPAs and attendance, not opinions.
GPAs, ACT scores, attendance, and Ohio proficiency test scores where compared. GPAs were
calculated from four subject areas: Math, Science, Social Studies, and English. The district
provided data from a sample of 500 students from 1997,2000,2001,2002. Students who did not
stay in the school within those years were removed from the study. The data was analyzed for
statistically significant relationships.
Four questions were asked and the researchers gathered information to test the question.
1. Is there a relationship between block scheduling and student grades?
a. There is a positive and significant relationship and trend in the four subject areas.
2. Is there a Relationship between block scheduling and OPT scores?
a. Might have a relationship but hard to tell
3. Is there a relationship between block scheduling and ACT scores?
a. There was no significant relationship
4. Is there a relationship between block scheduling and attendance?
a. Did not seem to be related to time in block scheduling

| 18
Within this Mid-west school students who were being educated in the block schedule appeared to
do as well as students in the traditional schedule. The data shows better achievement in the four
subject areas studied. In conclusion Block schedule does have an influence on academic success
in schools.
Block Scheduling in Large, Urban High Schools: Effects on Academic Achievement, Student
Behavior, and Staff Perceptions
Author: Lois-Lynn Stoyko Deuel
What was studied?
In this study, the researcher looked at data from schools in Broward County, FL. to monitor the
impact of change to block scheduling on high schools after the second year of implementation.
During the first year of the study, it was found some positive impacts on student performance,
staff reported improvements in student behavior, and the use of new teaching strategies. The
researcher wanted to continue to track achievement, behavior, and staff perceptions into the
second year to see if the improvements from the first year continued.
What methodology was used? Procedures?
Data for student achievement and student behavior in this study were gathered through a review
of student records using the school system’s student database. This was analyzed at the end of
the school year. Staff perceptions were measured through the use of surveys given to a sample of
teachers and guidance counselors at schools using block scheduling. In addition, telephone
interviews were conducted with principals at schools using block scheduling. These confidential
| 19
surveys were sent to teachers and counselors three weeks before the end of school. Each item on
the survey provided a statement and respondents could indicate whether they agreed, disagreed,
or observed no change. The telephone interviews were also conducted at the end of the school
year. It is important to note that only 5 of the 10 principals of schools with the block scheduling
agreed to participate.
This study included a total of 49,829 Broward County high school students. These students
attended one of ten schools using block scheduling or one of the 12 schools using the traditional
seven-period day.
The researcher looked at the data and then computed the mean values on each dependent variable
for each group in year one and then for each group in year two. Next, the differences for year
one and year two were computed for each individual school. What this allowed the researcher to
do was to measure the change (either gain or loss) across two points in time. In addition, the
mean gains were computed for both groups and the difference between the change in the block
scheduling group and traditional group were compared to the normal variation seen in this
variable across time and between schools.
When looking at student behavior, the three dependent variables: mean daily attendance, internal
suspension rate, and external suspension rate were examined. No significant difference was
found with any of these variables between block and non-block schools over time. However
when looking at the results of the teacher and counselor surveys, teachers and counselors
reported improvements in student promptness, attendance, and a reduction of student misconduct

| 20
in the classroom. Principals reported that in schools with block scheduling there was more
controlled movement between classes and less transitions over all. This resulted in fewer
opportunities for students to misbehave.
There were many ways in which the researcher analyzed the data on student performance. One
of the things that was found was that while there were no group differences on the percent of
students passing various courses in mathematics and science, a significantly higher percentage of
students in block schedule schools earned a grade of “C” or better in advanced mathematics
courses. Keeping with grades, students at block scheduled schools achieved significantly more
“A” grades than their peers at non-block scheduling schools and significantly fewer “C’s” and
“D’s” as their peers in non-block scheduling schools. The study also found that on district-wide
standardized tests and advanced placement measures, there were no significant statistical
differences between the block-scheduling schools and the non-block scheduling schools.
In the area of staff perceptions, most teachers (93%) in block scheduling schools reported
increasing the number of learning activities in their classrooms. Teachers in block scheduling
schools also reported that instructional units were less fragmented and that with classes of longer
duration, teachers could provide more individualized attention and instruction to students. About
two thirds of teachers reported that they feel better about coming to school this year and a
majority of teachers reported the overall climate in the school has improved. A majority of
teachers also reported that if given the choice, they would stay with block scheduling as opposed
to going back to the traditional seven period day.

| 21
Many of the conclusions that the researcher made were discussed in the previous section.
However, the researcher reports that there was a significant increase in the number of “A’s”
earned and a significant decrease in the number of “C’s,” “D’s,” and “F’s” earned at schools with
block scheduling. Block Scheduling schools also reported higher grades in advanced
mathematics courses.
Based on these findings, the researcher concluded that the results do indicate that there are
benefits associated with a switch to block scheduling. The Broward County School district will
encourage schools to explore the possibility of block scheduling.
4-Block Scheduling: A Case Study of Data Analysis of One High School after Two Years
Author: Dave Snyder
What was studied?
In this study, the researcher looked at Angola High School, a moderately sized school, in
Indiana. Angola High changed their schedule from seven 55 minutes periods per day to four 90
minute periods per day. Data was collected from the two years prior to switching to a block
schedule and two years after switching to a block schedule. Data was collected from semester
grades, semester exam grades, honor roll lists, media center circulation records, number of
students assigned to in-school suspension, state attendance records, SAT scores, ACT scores, and
Indiana State Proficiency Exam scores. These data were then compared over time prior to and
after the switch to a block schedule.

| 22
In order to get perception data, a qualitative questionnaire was given to all teachers and students
in the spring before beginning the block schedule, again after three months and at the end of the
first block year. An abridged version of the questionnaire was given at the end of the second
block year. In addition, a random sample of parents were given the questionnaire.
Quantitative data was gathered from Angola High School over the two years prior to switching
to the block schedule. Data included semester grades, semester exam grades (teachers were
asked to use the same or very similar semester exam grades for the year prior to and the year
after moving to a block schedule), and honor roll lists. In addition, media center circulation
records were gathered to establish a baseline. In-school suspension data was also gathered to use
as a comparison for disciplinary issues. Testing data from the Indiana State assessment
(ISTEP+) as well as SAT, ACT, and Advanced Placement scores were also pooled in order to
compare student scores on a standardized measure.
The qualitative questionnaire was given to all teachers and students in the spring before the
switch to block scheduling and then again at the end of three months, one year, and two years
into block scheduling. In addition, a random sample of parents were polled using the same
questionnaire.
Scores and data were then compared pre- and post- block scheduling.
Grades were analyzed based on GPA on a 12 point scale. The data from the baseline years (the
two years before moving to block scheduling) was compared with data collected after moving to
a block schedule. The grades were also analyzed by departments. For example, data was
| 23
delineated by English, Math, Science, etc. The same comparison was done with the honor roll
lists. Basically it was just comparing the number of students who made honor roll pre- and post-
block scheduling. The same process was used when looking at semester exam grades and the
scores of state and national examinations given (ISTEP+, SAT, ACT). These scores were
compared pre- and post-. The media usage was measured by looking at the amount of materials
used and was reported with a percentage increase or decrease. They also broke down the usage
in terms of just general usage and usage of reference material.
Behavior incidents were measured pre- and post- with looking at in-school suspensions, but also
looking at hallway incidents. Student attendance was also analyzed.
The questionnaire that was administered consisted of 60 questions that addressed issues of
satisfaction and teacher/student relationships.
The researcher found that in almost every quantitative measure, the results were positive. For
example, almost every department (except physical education/heath) saw an increase in student
grades. This was the same for the number of students on the honor roll which was consistent
with each grade level. Positive results were also seen in the semester exam grades which showed
increases of more than an entire grade point. Scores on the State and National exams also
increased when students moved to block scheduling.
In terms of media center usage, there was a 28% increase in usage of materials in the media
center with the block scheduling. This was also the case with the percentage of reference
material used with an increase of 237% noted.

| 24
Measures of behavior were also positive. Because of the four period day, there were less
transitions. Because of this, hallway incidents decreased significantly thus lowering in-school
suspensions with the number of students assigned to in-school suspensions either remaining the
same or lowered. Attendance increased significantly almost every month under the block
schedule.
Questionnaire results were also positive for the block schedule model as parents, teachers, and
student all reported greater satisfaction with school. Students felt less stress, felt closer to their
teachers, and because there were only four periods a day the students could remember more of
what they were taught. In addition to all of this, the study mentions the benefit to the fine arts
classes, particularly with music. With the block schedule it gave more time each period to
practice. Because of the sustained practice time, student performance increased and the time
spent practicing before and after school decreased.
The researcher concluded that improved student learning took place at Angola High with the
block scheduling. All measures of student learning showed positive gains. Those measures were
student grades, student semester exams, and state and national assessments. The researcher also
concluded that the type of learning encouraged by the block schedule helps students develop life-
long learning skills. This was evident through increased use of the media center. This was also
evident in the analysis of the questionnaires. Teachers reported that classroom discussions,
teamwork, and cooperative learning activities occurred more frequently in classrooms.
Interestingly, the author reports that the data suggest that block scheduling was not the most
important factor in the improvement. Data suggested that staff development was the most
| 25
important. Because teachers were given ownership in the improvement plan, they were more
invested in its success. In addition, most classrooms included what the author refers to as “active
learning” although the author doesn’t define what that is.
The Effects of Block Scheduling on High School Academic Achievement
Author: Chance W. Lewis, James J. Dugan, Marc A Winokur, R. Brian Cobb
What was studied?
This study looked at two questions:
1. What is the effect of 4 x 4 block scheduling, A/B block scheduling, and traditional
scheduling on the mathematics and reading achievement of high school students?
2. How do the effects of different block scheduling formats vary by student gender and
ethnicity in regards to mathematics and reading achievement of high school students?
The students for this study attended one of the three district’s high schools in a city in Northern
Colorado. Each of the three high schools utilized one of the scheduling formats. For example,
one high school used 4 x 4 block scheduling, one used A/B block scheduling, and one used
traditional scheduling. In addition, the students also attended a junior high that followed the same
scheduling format as the high school they attended. From these schools, the actual study sample
needed to fit certain criteria. The student had to have attended one of the junior high schools
during the 200-01 school year, completed a reading or mathematics Levels (a nationally
recognized assessment tool intended to measure growth in student learning from one year to the
| 26
next), attended one of the three high schools during the 2002-03 school year, and completed the
reading and/or mathematics ACT assessment in the spring of 2003. About 355 students met the
criteria.
The study used the Levels assessment as well as the ACT to as outcome measures for student
growth. This information as well as student identification information and school demographics
were requested from the school district.
The data were analyzed in three different ways. First, a comparison of the mean differences
between 9th grade Levels test scores and 11th grade ACT test scores in mathematics and reading
was conducted for all three scheduling forms. Second, an ANOVA was generated to examine
the effect of the three scheduling formats on Levels test scores and ACT test scores. Third, a 3 x
2 x 2 factorial AVOVA was conducted to analyze test score data for main and interaction effects
by gender and eithnicity.
Before the data were analyzed, the gain scores were calculated for both the Levels and ACT
tests. Then the data were converted to z-scores to allow for comparison between the two sets of
testing data.
For the traditional and the A/B block scheduling formats, the standardized mean differences
(gain scores) in mathematics and reading declined over time in achievement for both content
areas. However, the 4 x 4 group showed an increase over time in both reading and mathematics.
| 27
The researchers then compared groups. They used a single-factor ANOVA on the standardized
z-scores for both 9th grade Levels tests and the 11th grade ACT test to determine if there were
statistically significant differences between the groups on these outcome measures. When
looking at the two groups (Levels and ACT scores), the variable was scheduling format with
three levels: traditional scheduling, A/B block scheduling, and 4 x 4 block scheduling. For
mathematics there were no significant difference between groups of standardized test scores. For
the reading comparison, a statistically significant difference was found between the standardized
z-scores for the 9th grade and 11th grade tests.
Although the interactions were not statistically significant, data indicate that male and female
students in the traditional and A/B block scheduling models performed poorly on reading tests,
while male and female students in the 4 x 4 group performed relatively well. However, the
researchers noted that female students performed better than males in all three formats.
In terms of minority and non-minority students, the students who were in the 4 x 4 block
scheduling format outperformed their peers in the traditional scheduling and A/B block
scheduling formats.
The researchers reported that the findings from this study show that students in block scheduling
performed academically as well or slightly better than students in a traditional scheduling format.
This supports the implementation of block scheduling in high school settings.
In addition, the findings of the present study suggest that a 4 x 4 block scheduling model may
provide students with an advantage over students in a traditional schedule or an A/B block
schedule with regard to reading and mathematics achievement.

| 28
Areas of future research should investigate why 4 x 4 block scheduling produces greater
academic gains for high school students. Researchers should also examine if reading is a more
appropriate content area for block scheduling than mathematics.
Block-Scheduled High Schools: Impact on Achievement in English and Language Arts
Author: Joe D. Nichols
What was studied?
The researcher looked at data from five high schools in a large metropolitan area on measures of
student success based on student grade point averages in English and Language Arts. The data
was collected several years before and after converting to either a Block 4 x 4 schedule or a
Block 8 schedule. The data was then analyzed to determine the impact that block scheduling
structures might have on students’ longitudinal academic achievement.
The five schools were chosen from the same school system described as a large, urban school
system. In addition to this all schools used traditional scheduling and then changed to a block
scheduling format. Although each of these schools had a unique student profile in terms of
ethnicity, SES, and prior academic achievement, the hypothesis was that after each school
converted to a block schedule, that there was no change in academic achievement in English or
language arts as measured by GPA. The researcher basically had three research questions:
1. Did student GPAs in English and language arts courses increase significantly when
schools adopted block format scheduling structures?

| 29
2. Were GPAs for high- and low-income students affected differently after block-scheduling
structures were implemented?
3. Were GPAs of minority and majority students affected differently after block-scheduling
structures were implemented?
This study was pretty basic in that it used an ANOVA to explore the initial differences among
GPAs prior to schools going to block scheduling. Initial analysis showed that the five schools
had varying GPAs prior to moving to a block schedule. ANOVA results also showed that after a
move to a block schedule, the GPA differences remained. Once getting this information, the
researcher explored comparisons within schools over the seven year span of time in terms of
GPA with particular emphasis on ethnic and socioeconomic factors.
What the researcher discovered seemed to be very inconsistent in terms of GPA gain/loss. For
one school, in the first year of block scheduling, the GPA saw a significant increase while in a
second school, the GPA actually decreased. The interesting thing about these schools was that
after a few years on being on the block scheduling, the GPAs reverted back to the levels they
were before the switch to block scheduling. The third high school experienced no significant
increase in the first year of block scheduling but did experience a steady increase of student
achievement over the five years after the conversion. The fourth high school experienced an
initial increase in student achievement in the first year and continued to see a steady increase in
student achievement going forward. The fifth school didn’t seem to have any significant gains
but, as the author notes, this school was the highest achieving schools to begin with.
| 30
In terms of SES, the researcher found that gains of students in the low SES category varied
among schools. In some cases the students made significant gains and in others there were no
significant gains. The same was true when looking at data after five years. In terms of high
income students, the gains were positive but varied by school with some schools showing
significantly higher scores than others.
The same was found when the scores were looked at in terms of ethnicity. For minority and non-
minority students, some of the schools showed significant differences while some schools did
not. Within school data also varied.
The researcher concluded that overall, after analyzing pre-block and post-block scheduling, that
there was a small overall increase in GPA in language arts courses. This slight increase was also
noted after five years of the conversion. Since the overall trend was for the GPAs to slightly
increase after the conversion to block scheduling, the researcher concluded that the conversion to
block scheduling did not have a negative impact on language arts achievement. The author did
make a note, twice in the discussion that one of the most significant things that was noted was
that there was a significant increase in the number of language arts courses completed at each of
the area high schools.
In terms of the impact of SES and ethnicity, the researcher concluded that low income minority
students experienced few academic gains in English language arts achievement since converting
to block scheduling. While some schools did experience overall gains in achievement,
achievement for low income and minority students remained consistently lower than did
achievement for higher income, ethnic majority students.

| 31
The author concluded that the results suggest that, at least for English and language arts
achievement, additional programs beyond innovative scheduling structures are needed to support
low income and ethnic minority student populations.
Traditional and Block Scheduling for College Science Preparation: A Comparison of College
Science Success of Students Who Report Different High School Scheduling Plans
Author: Kristen M. Dexter, Robert H. Tai, Phillip M. Sadler
What was studied?
This study compares frequencies of instructional practices across differing scheduling plans
(traditional and block), and explores the association between high school scheduling plans and
college science preparation. Specifically, the study looked at the following questions:
1. Do students who participated in a block science class report instructional practices at
frequencies different from their counterparts in traditional classes?
2. Controlling for secondary science achievement and differences in backgrounds, is
introductory college science performance associated with students’ reported participation
in high school scheduling plans? Are interactive associations between scheduling plan
and instructional practice associated with introductory college science performance?
The methodology for this study consisted of administering surveys to students. Once that was
complete, the college professors entered the students’ final grades on the survey sheets. The data
was then analyzed in two ways. First, the researchers conducted a descriptive analysis of
| 32
frequency distributions across various teaching methods. In other words, they looked at the
number of labs, the frequency of lectures, and the frequency of peer tutoring across varying
scheduling options such as traditional, A/B block, 4:4 block, and unique block. Second, the
researchers did a regression analysis which controlled for college effects such as demographic
backgrounds, highest parental education level, gender, race, and per capita income. Other
variables they looked at were high school course enrollment, last high school grades, and SAT
scores.
The first research question looked for variations in teaching methods across different scheduling
plans. The researchers looks at a variety of instructional methodologies in high school science
such as number of student-designed projects, number of demonstrations per week, and frequency
of lectures, whole class discussions, small group activities, individual work, peer tutoring,
community projects, and the number of labs per month.
The second research question investigated the existence of a connection between high school
scheduling plans and college performance while accounting for differences in student
backgrounds and academic achievement. This question also called for analysis accounting for
interactive associations between scheduling plans and instructional practices.
With regards to the first research question, the researcher found that with the exception of
lecture, the frequencies of teaching methods reported by students in traditional and A/B block
scheduling plans are very similar. The 4:4 scheduling plan also was similar with somewhat
higher instances of lecture, small group work and individual work. In terms of the unique block
| 33
scheduling plan, some of the instructional methods did differ from the other models but overall
they were still very similar.
With regards to the second research question, the results show that the scheduling plan
categorical predictors do contribute to the explained variance in the model, with the overall
model accounting for 31.1% of the variance in the outcome, final college science grades. The
data indicate that the scheduling plans are weak predictors of college success. While there were
some specific outcome data that showed that A/B block scheduling has a clear association with
the last high school science grade, ultimately, higher achieving students appear to be associated
with higher college science grades than students in other schedule plans. Conversely, it was also
shown that lower achieving students in A/B block schedules were predicted to earn lower grades
than in other scheduling models.
Overall, the researchers found that no more than a three-point difference separated the predicted
college science grades among the four scheduling plans within each level of science
achievement. While there was little variation found, the variation that was found suggests that
students on traditional schedules are predicted to earn higher grades across all backgrounds with
the only exception being the A/B block schedule for the high achieving student. The researchers
state that the advantages promised by block scheduling do not appear in the analysis. The results
do suggest that the differences in instructional practices across different scheduling plans are not
associated with differences in college science performance.
The analysis of the data revealed that no major differences were found among the scheduling
plans with the two most popular plans (traditional and A/B block) being almost identical in terms
| 34
of the frequency of various instructional practices. This finding supports the contention that
teachers are not altering their teaching to exploit the advantages of extended time that comes
with the A/B block scheduling.
As far as the effect that the scheduling plans had on predicted performance in students’
introductory college science courses the results showed no more than a three point difference
among scheduling plans. The researcher points out that this is about one third of a letter grade.
The only exception for this was with higher performing students in the A/B block plan who were
advantaged in their college preparation while lower achieving students were disadvantaged. This
led the researchers to conclude that the A/B block schedule may not be beneficial to lower
achieving students.
| 35
Analysis, Conclusions, and Synthesis
When reviewing the research on the effects of block scheduling on student achievement, student
behavior, student/teacher perceptions, and instructional practices, there were mixed results.
While in all the cases, there was not a decrease in any of the areas studied, there were mixed
results on the level of positive impact that moving to block scheduling had. Some of the
researchers also stated that while there were some positive gains in these areas, it wasn’t certain
that the gains can definitively be attributed to the implementation of block scheduling.
In looking at the impact that scheduling models had on academic achievement, the results were
inconclusive. To begin, they studies used many different ways to measure academic
achievement. The measures that were used were unit tests scores, student grades and GPA,
statewide assessments, national assessments (SAT, ACT), and college grades. In many of the
studies, there were mixed results within the study itself. For example, in some studies, the
student would show an increase in his/her GPA when moving from a traditional schedule to a
block schedule, but the standardized test score would not change. Other studies showed no
significant change in any of the measures. It was also important to note that in some of the
studies, the data was examined over a period of multiple years. What was found was that even
though students showed an increase in academic achievement when moving to a block schedule
during the first year, over time the students’ achievement levels would ultimately revert back to
their pre-block schedule levels.
While there was some slight inconsistency as to whether the implementation of block scheduling
had a positive impact on student behavior, for the most part the data did show that students in
block scheduling models had a decrease in behavior incidents. The studies that looked at
| 36
behavior used suspension rate as well as the number of behavioral incidents reported as measures
of student behavior. What the studies showed was that when moving to block scheduling from a
traditional schedule, the number of suspensions school wide decreased and the number of overall
behavioral incidents also decreased. There was one study in which these measures showed no
change. The researchers did mention that with block scheduling there were less transitions for
students during the school day and thus, less opportunities for misbehavior.
The research on parent/student/teacher perception of the effectiveness of block scheduling was
very positive. All three groups (parents, students, teachers) reported positive impressions of
block scheduling. Students reported that they did not feel as “rushed” during class. In addition,
with classes meeting every other day, students felt they had more time to complete homework
assignments. Teachers reported positive benefits of block scheduling also. Teachers reported
that with the increased class time, they were able to have more instructional opportunities and to
utilize a variety of instructional methods. Teachers also reported that with the extended time,
there was less instructional fragmentation. The data also show that teachers felt that they could
provide more individual student attention when there was more time.
The final variable that was studied was the type of instruction that was provided within various
schedule structures. The overall data from the studies shows that with block scheduling, the
number of instructional strategies increased. It was reported that group work, discussion, and
cooperative learning and independent work increased while lecture decreased in the block
scheduling model.
| 37
Conclusion
Overall, the benefits of utilizing a block scheduling model as opposed to traditional scheduling
are mixed. While there were some indications that student achievement did slightly increase in
the short term when moving to block scheduling, long-term effects are inconclusive. Positive
behavior gains were noticed when moving to block scheduling from traditional scheduling,
mainly due to the fact that there were less transitions. Regardless of actual educational benefit,
student, teacher, and parent perceptions of block scheduling were overwhelmingly positive with
all three groups reporting positive effects. Data show that when teachers are teaching in block
scheduling models and have a larger block of time to instruct, they tend to vary their
instructional methods and lecture less. The researchers in many of these studies also stated that
block scheduling, in and of itself, may not be the primary cause of any positive change. What
seemed to set the schools which reported a positive academic gain from those which did not was
the amount and type of staff development provided when making the switch from traditional to
block scheduling models. In studies where staff were given more “ownership” of the decision,
the results were more positive.
It is important to note that many of the studies examined looked at a small sample size of
schools. With this, researchers concluded that many of the results could vary by school. While
some of the studies did look at other variables such as median family income, race, and ethnicity
as impacting factors, more research needs to be done in these areas to assess the significance of
their impact.
| 38
References
Arnold, D. E. (2002). Block Schedule and Traditional Schedule Achievement: A Comparison.
NASSP Bulletin, 86(630), 42-53. doi:10.1177/019263650208663006
Biesinger, K. D., Crippen, K. J., & Muis, K. R. (2008). The Impact of Block Scheduling on
Student Motivation and Classroom Practice in Mathematics. NASSP Bulletin, 92(3), 191-
208. doi:10.1177/0192636508323925
Deuel, L. S. (1999, October/November). Block Scheduling in Large, Urban High Schools:
Effects on Academic Achievement, Student Behavior, and Staff Perceptions. The High
School Journal, 83(1), 14-25. Retrieved September 15, 2016, from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40364426
Dexter, K. M., Tai, R. H., & Sadler, P. M. (2006). Traditional and Block Scheduling for College
Science Preparation: A Comparison of College Science Success of Students Who Report
Different High School Scheduling Plans. The High School Journal, 89(4), 22-33.
doi:10.1353/hsj.2006.0007
Evans, W., Tokarczyk, J., Rice, S., & Mccray, A. (2002). Block Scheduling: An Evaluation of
Outcomes and Impact. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues
and Ideas, 75(6), 319-323. doi:10.1080/00098650209603964
Gruber, C. D., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2001). Effect of Block Scheduling on Academic
Achievement Among High School Students. The High School Journal, 84(4), 32-42.
| 39
doi:10.1353/hsj.2001.0010
Hess, C., Wronkovich, M., & Robinson, J. (1999). Measured Outcomes of Learning Under Block
Scheduling. NASSP Bulletin, 83(611), 87-95. doi:10.1177/019263659908361111
Lewis, C. W., Dugan, J. J., Winokur, M. A., & Cobb, R. B. (2005). The Effects of Block
Scheduling on High School Academic Achievement. NASSP Bulletin, 89(645), 72-87.
doi:10.1177/019263650508964506
Nichols, J. D. (2005). Block-Scheduled High Schools: Impact on Achievement in English and
Language Arts. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(5), 299-309.
doi:10.3200/joer.98.5.299-309
Pliska, A., Harmston, M. T., & Hackmann, D. G. (2001). The Relationship Between Secondary
School Scheduling Models and ACT Assessment Scores. NASSP Bulletin, 85(625), 42
55. doi:10.1177/019263650108562505
Snyder, D. (1997, October 15). 4-Block Scheduling: A case Study of Data Analysis of One High
School After Two Years. Speech presented at Meeting of Midwest Educational Research
Association in Illinois, Chicago. Retrieved September 21, 2016, from ERIC.
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(1), 54-66.

Review of Research 12-8-16 Final

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Review of Research 12-8-16 Final

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Review of Research on the Efficacy of Block Scheduling in High Schools

Carl Peitz & David Maimone

Loyola University of Maryland

In partial fulfillment for

Instructor: Gordon Michaeloski, Ph.D.

examined in this study. Comparisons showed no consistent significant increase in student

performance more when schools moved to a block scheduling model.

Introduction to Education Issue

practices, and teacher/student/parent perceptions. It is an important topic for school officials,

instructional practices, and teacher/student/parent perceptions?

• Does Block Scheduling Effect student behavior?

• What are Student/Teacher/Parent perceptions who are on a block schedule?

• Is there a correlation between Student Achievement and block scheduling?

• Which content area is most impacted by block scheduling?

Significance of the Review

changing the school schedule.

day for an entire school year.

which students complete throughout an entire year with no change.

Examples are: GPA, standardized test, state test, national tests

order to differentiate for their classes to keep students engaged in learning.

The Impact of Block Scheduling on Student Motivation and Classroom Practice in

Author: Devin D. Biesinger, Kent J. Crippen, Krista R. Muis

What was studied?

attitude, and instructional practices within the context of mathematics.

What methodology was used? Procedure?

How was the data analyzed?

What did the researcher find?

impact on the results.

between student and teacher.

What conclusions did the researcher make?

time in a block schedule model.

replicating results seems to vary from school site to school site.

Effects of Block Scheduling on Academic Achievement among High School Students

Author: Charlotte D. Gruber, Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie, Valdosta State University

What was studied?

determine the effects of block scheduling on academic achievement.

What methodology was used? Procedure?

Graduation Test and compared them with the GPA’s.

What did the researcher find?

What conclusions did the researcher make?

Author: Ann-Maureen Pliska, Matt T. Harmston, and Donald G. Hackman

What was studied?

traditional eight period schedules.

What methodology was used? Procedure?

size and lifestyle factors.

How was the data analyzed?

What did the researcher find?

What conclusions did the researcher make?

Block Schedule and traditional schedule achievement: A comparison

Author: Douglass E. Arnold

What was studied?

What methodology was used? Procedure?

How was the data analyzed?

What did the researcher find?

Comparisons showed no significant increase in students test scores over time.

What conclusions did the researcher make?

Block Scheduling: An Evaluation of Outcomes and Impact

Author: William Evans, Jan Tokarczyk, Sheri Rice, Alison McCray

What was studied?

schools after implementing block scheduling.

What methodology was used? Procedure?

how well goals were achieved.

How was the data analyzed?