Schools And Scheduling

I. Title Page:

Running head: OUTCOMES USING THREE SCHEDULING METHODS

Which Schedule? Learning and Behavior Outcomes of At-Risk, Ninth Grade, Math and Science Students Using Three Scheduling Methods: Parallel Block Alternate-Day Block and Traditional

Name

University Name

Name of Class / Title of Project / Name of Professor and his/her title

Abstract Page: (State the Purpose of the Study)

Abstract

For many generations, high school students have had a schedule of six to eight periods a day with each class meeting every day for forty-five to sixty minutes. To better utilize the time spent with students, many schools have begun to reform scheduling practices. Many schools have chosen to change to block scheduling with the purpose of improving the outcomes of student learning and student behavior. There are many variations of block schedule in use. This study examines the effect of this reform in scheduling practices by comparing the learning and behavior outcomes of parallel block, alternate-day block, and traditional scheduling over an eighteen week period. Learning outcomes were obtained from pre-test and post-test measures and behavior outcomes were measured through absences, tardies, and office referrals for suspensions and detentions.

II. Review of Research Literature including Definition of Terms: Review all literature that supports the importance of the study (what has been done and what needs to be done.) Also review literature related to your independent variables in each arm and dependent variables (measures and instrumentation).

Which Schedule? Learning and Behavior Outcomes of At-Risk Ninth Grade Math and Science Students Using Three Scheduling Methods: Parallel Block, Alternate-Day Block, and Traditional

Secondary schools were originally designed very much like factories. Classrooms were designed as isolated work stations that could be used only by specific persons at specific times of day and students moved from room to room to receive instruction from the teacher assigned to that room, controlling the four critical facets of the school day: time, the use of space, the grouping of students, and the role of staff members in the use of space (Khazzaka & DeLeon, 1997). To better use these critical facets, educators have been experimenting with the traditional school day schedule since the late 1960Ð'ÐŽÐ'Їs and early 1970Ð'ÐŽÐ'Їs. One of the innovators in this area was J. Lloyd Trump who wanted to eliminate the traditional time schedule and simply allow class time to vary to meet the instructional needs of students (Queen, 2000). However, after the mid-1970Ð'ÐŽÐ'Їs there was little experimentation with block scheduling.

As the needs and demands of modern technology, the business world, and society have changed, the role of the school has also changed. Creativity and knowledge of technology which was once discouraged is now a necessity (Lawrence & McPherson, 2000). With a need to reform educational practices, educators again are exploring the possibilities of rearranging the use of time in schools in order to improve student learning and allow for time for innovative instruction methods (Queen, 2000).

To meet the challenge of the new demands of secondary education, the most common transformation in structural modifications to the traditional school day is block scheduling (Deuel, 1999). Educators have been motivated to convert to block scheduling in an effort to improve student test scores, reduce discipline problems, and to enhance learning through longer learning class periods (Gruber & Onwegbuzie, 2001). The theory promoting the movement to block scheduling is that the fifty minute period was insufficient for students to learn school subjects in depth. Block scheduling has been promoted as an alternative to improve student attendance, discipline, and performance (Khazzaka, 1997).

Block scheduling has been implemented in a variety of ways. Two of the most common block schedules are the alternate-day block and the parallel block. The alternate-day block, also known as the block-8 (A/B) schedule, allows students to take eight classes for a full year. The parallel block integrates subjects, such as math and science or English and social studies, in an extended period of 75-90 minutes for four periods a day. This scheduling design still allows students to take six to eight classes for a full year.

There are many reports on the effectiveness of block scheduling in the high school. A difficulty with this is that most are unpublished documents compiled by investigative teams made up of teachers, administrators, and staff. There is much of this qualitative data, but little of the quantitative data using descriptive statistics and statistical tests (Veal, 1999). Another group of researchers who agree that this is a problem state that most of the published articles rely on theoretical suggestions and suppositions (Evans, Taokarczyk, Rice, & McCray, 2002). Yet, even without research-based findings and recommendations, many schools have changed to the block schedule. Some research estimates that of the nationÐ'ÐŽÐ'Їs schools, a third are using block (Howard, 1997; Evans, 2002). Our study was designed to provide necessary research-based findings in the comparison of parallel block, alternate-day block, and traditional schedules.

The results of research about the effects of block scheduling specifically on math and science have been mixed. In Broward County, Florida, a study was conducted which compared scores of students attending schools using traditional scheduling to the scores of students attending schools using block scheduling. The findings were that there was no difference on the percent of students passing the various mathematics and science classes between the two groups, but the percentage of students in the block scheduling schools who earned grades of Ð'ÐŽÐ'oCÐ'ÐŽÐ'± or better was significantly higher (Deuel, 1999). In another quantitative study which took place in North Carolina, the algebra 1 and biology test scores of students from the two types of scheduling were analyzed. Using scores from the North Carolina End of Course tests, the findings revealed that students on the traditional schedule scored significantly higher in algebra 1 and biology (Lawrence, 2000). In yet a third, quantitative study, comparing test scores from when three New Jersey schools were on traditional schedules to test scores after the schools had switched