The effects of block scheduling vs. the seven period day schedule on Alabama High School Graduation Exam math scores in Alabama High Schools

The effects of block scheduling vs. the seven period day schedule on Alabama High School Graduation Exam math scores in Alabama High Schools


A Proposal Presented to the Graduate Faculty of Troy University
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for EDU 6691





April L. Medlen
EDU 6611
Troy University


Chapter 1
Introduction
Statement of the Problem
Several years ago, block scheduling became the new trend in daily class scheduling at high schools across Alabama. Block scheduling, a 4x4 format, refers to an academic schedule where high school students attend four classes in school each day, spending approximately 90 minutes in each class. Students on a 4x4 block schedule will take four classes during one semester of a school year and four different courses during the second semester of a school year. During a traditional schedule, or seven period day, students attend up to seven classes each school day, with each class lasting up to 50 minutes. Therefore, during the block schedule students will take only half of their classes at one time, broken up into two semesters. And on a traditional schedule, students will be taking all seven classes at once throughout the entire school year.

Block scheduling is supposed to allow teachers more time for instruction, and less time is spent on changing classes, which on a traditional schedule can be up to seven times per day. Although the effects of block scheduling were supposed to improve the academic performance of students in high schools, many schools are now converting back to the seven period day due to concerns that students have difficulty retaining information learned on the block schedule. Many advocates for the traditional schedule feel that teachers are covering too much information in one semester, which would normally be spread out over an entire year under a traditional schedule.

Core classes, mathematics classes in particular, have recently been an issue of concern with block scheduling. The concern is that students are not spending enough time within a given school year on learning mathematics concepts. Students on a 4x4 block schedule typically spend only half of their school year taking a math course, which means they are out of the math class for the remaining part of the year.
Learning mathematics involves skills of repetition and practice for most students. Mathematics concepts continuously build on one another, and students have difficulty connecting concepts when there is continuous interruption in their learning of math. Therefore, most students are negatively affected by block scheduling when it comes to math performance because they are not able to practice the skills throughout the year. Some students on the block schedule will go almost an entire year before seeing their next math class, which makes retention a major problem for many students who follow this type of schedule.
With an increase in standardized testing due to No Child Left Behind, the Alabama High School Graduation Exam (AHSGE) places an increasing amount of pressure on students to learn and retain a wide range of knowledge. Since the AHSGE is taken by students in the Spring, students on a block schedule who take Algebra in the Fall semester, for instance, are at more of a disadvantage than students who take math during the Spring semester because they have been out of a math class for half of a year. Therefore, block scheduling can lead to gaps in mathematics knowledge for many students.

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to determine the effects of 4x4 block scheduling versus the seven period day on mathematics achievement. School administrators, teachers, parents, and everyone else involved in the education process need to be aware of how scheduling impacts the learning of students. In order to make an informed decision about which schedule works best to increase academic achievement, school leaders, teachers, and parents need to know how each type of scheduling impacts student learning. Scheduling issues are a topic of discussion for many schools in Alabama at the present time; therefore informed decisions need to be made about whether or not block scheduling or the seven period day works to increase math performance in high schools.
The study will compare the Alabama High School Graduation Exam math scores of students who took Algebra on a block schedule to those students who took Algebra on a seven period day schedule. This study will show how scheduling effects the math performance of students taking standardized tests in high school.

Significance of the Study
Many students struggle to learn math skills taught in high school. With the increase in standardized testing in schools across Alabama, students are required to learn these skills and retain them more than ever before. Student performance is measured constantly, and it is important that students are receiving appropriate amounts of practice to ensure that they are meeting state and district level standards. This study will focus on whether or not scheduling (block vs. seven period day) affects the learning of those standards by examining the math scores of students who attend schools with each type of schedule.


Definition of terms
4x4 Block Scheduling—Schedule where students typically attend four classes per day and change classes mid-year, taking a different set of four classes to finish the school year. Students spend approximately 95 minutes in each class per day.
Seven Period Day—Schedule where students attend the same seven classes throughout an entire school year, and they spend approximately 50 minutes in class per day.
Core Classes--classes that are not electives, i.e. math, language, science, history.
Retention—refers to students being able to retain information learned.
AHSGE (Alabama High School Graduation Exam) –refers to a standardized achievement test used by Alabama high schools to determine whether students have learned state standards, and whether school districts are making Adequate Yearly Progress. It is an exit exam to finish high school. Students must pass the AHSGE to earn a diploma.
Semester---half of a year on the block schedule. A block schedule contains two semesters, each semester students are enrolled in a different set of classes.

Limitations
Carroll High School, located in Ozark, AL, and Dothan High School, located in Dothan, AL, are schools located in the southeast region of Alabama. Carroll High School contains approximately 800 students in grades nine through twelve, while Dothan High School contains approximately 1500 students in grades nine through twelve. The study will focus on comparing AHSGE math scores of tenth grade students who take Algebra at Dothan High School all year long to tenth grade students who take Algebra at Carroll High School in one semester.
Hypothesis
Block scheduling, compared to the seven period day, negatively affects the math scores of students taking the AHSGE. Students who are taught math on a seven period day are able to retain information learned throughout the year; therefore they score better on standardized tests than students who are only in a math class for half of the year. The study will show that students who are on a block schedule do not perform as well in Algebra as students who are on a seven period day schedule.
Chapter II
Review of Literature
Most studies focusing on the effects of block scheduling have reported that there is little or no effect of block scheduling on student performance. There is contradictory evidence as to the type of effects block scheduling has on student performance in school. Some studies report that block scheduling actually increases the academic performance of many schools. However, according to Trenta and Newman (2002), in the subject area of mathematics, students in block scheduling perform less well than those who are on a traditional schedule.



Research findings that support traditional scheduling
Lawrence and McPherson (2000) conducted a study comparing the academic achievement of high school students on a block schedule with high school students who are on a traditional schedule. Their sample included high school students from two high schools in the same school district. Data were collected from end-of-course tests, which included the subjects Algebra 1, Biology, English 1, and History. The data were analyzed using a t-test that compared the mean scores of the two high schools in the different subject areas. Lawrence and McPherson (2000) found that high school students on the traditional schedule scored significantly higher on the subject area tests than the students who were on the block schedule.
In a survey study conducted by Flinders and Williams (2001), teachers who were teaching on a traditional schedule and a block schedule were asked to complete surveys at the end of each semester of teaching. The surveys were completed voluntarily by the teachers. In the survey, teachers on a block schedule reported an increased pace in their teaching. Many teachers felt as if they were trying to squeeze a yearlong course into one semester. Other teachers on a block schedule commented that they felt like they were trying to cover a lot of material in a shorter time. One teacher reported that she “found herself giving more hurried explanations of new concepts, and she was less likely to slow down for slower students.” (2001)
Gruber and Onwuegbuzie (2001) conducted a study comparing the academic achievement of 115 high school students who received instruction on a 4x4 block schedule format versus 146 students who received instruction via a traditional schedule. The study involved using a t-test to compare the two groups’ grade point averages and scores from the Georgia High School Graduation Exam (GHSGE). There was no significant difference between the two groups based on grade point averages. However, in the study, students who received instruction via a traditional schedule received higher GSHGE scores that were moderately higher in language arts, mathematics, social studies, and science. In Gruber and Onwuegbuzie’s (2001) study, block scheduling had a negative effect on academic achievement.
Research into the effects of block scheduling on math performance was conducted by Hess, Robinson, and Wronkovich (1997). The study involved comparing test results from the Ohio Colleges Early Math Placement Test. One group received algebra and geometry instruction on a traditional schedule, while another group of students received algebra and geometry instruction on a block schedule. The researchers also used PSAT math scores from these same students, as well as their cumulative grade point averages to compare performance. The research study suggested that while there are advantages to block scheduling, there are questions about its effectiveness. Hess, Robinson, and Wronkovich (1997) suggested that there may be problems with students trying to retain large amounts of math skills over a short period of time; however more research would be needed to determine whether block scheduling actually benefits student learning (1997).
According to District Administration (2002), a study conducted by Iowa State University, students who changed from a traditional year long, eight-class schedule to a 4-class semester block schedule format in the Illinois and Iowa school districts received lower ACT scores than students who remained on a traditional schedule. Students who remained on the traditional schedule during this same time period reported scores with little or no change.
Schreiber and Veal (1999) studied the effectiveness of three types of scheduling on the academic achievement of high school students: 4x4 block schedule, traditional schedule, and a hybrid schedule. The hybrid was a schedule that consisted of two block classes and three traditional classes taught during the day. The purpose of the hybrid schedule was to accommodate special education students and advanced placement classes. During their freshmen year, a group of high school students were randomly assigned to either a block of traditional schedule. The two groups of students were given a post-test at the beginning of their sophomore year, which consisted of a state mandated basic skills test in reading, language, and mathematics. After analyzing the data using ANCOVA, the results were as follows: no schedule was significantly better than another for reading and language achievement; but there was a significant difference in mathematics computation on the test. Traditional scheduling was the ideal format for mathematics achievement (1999).



Research findings that support block scheduling
At the high school level, block scheduling has been shown to increase student achievement, decrease school discipline, and change the overall climate of a school in a positive manner. (Mattox, Hancock, and Queen, 2005)
Evans, Tokarczyk, Rice, and McCray (2002) conducted a study that examined the experiences of schools that have implemented the 4x4 block schedule in order to assess its effectiveness in such schools. The researchers collected data from three school districts where block scheduling was being implemented at the beginning of a school year. The data consisted of surveys and personal interviews collected from teachers, students, and parents from an urban, a suburban, and a rural school setting. Overall, teacher responses concerning block scheduling were positive in all three schools. Teachers reported similar beliefs that block scheduling allowed them to spend more time on learning activities in a variety of settings such as small group activities, large group activities, and individual assignments. Teachers also believed that they could spend more time working with individual students, and they could cover the same amount of material, sometimes more in depth, under the block schedule. The teachers’ only negative comment about block scheduling was the difficulty in developing activities related to a lesson that will keep students engaged for the entire class period. (2002)
Student responses concerning block scheduling were also very positive during the interview process (Evans, Tokarczyk, Rice, and McCray, 2002). The majority of the students reported that there was more time to concentrate on their studies due to fewer classes taken on the block schedule at one time. Students felt like the block schedule allowed them to devote more time on difficult assignments. Parents’ of students interviewed in the study reported mixed feelings about block scheduling. Parents reported concerns that students spend too much time during the day on one subject, which may be frustrating to some students. On the other hand, some parents felt like students were learning more on the block schedule. (2002)
Mattox, Hancock, and Queen (2005) conducted research in five middle schools to compare achievement in mathematics after the schools transitioned from a traditional schedule to a block schedule format. The study occurred in a suburban county school district, with diversity existing among the five schools in terms of race, socio-economic status, and intelligence level. The researchers examined state-mandated, end-of-year tests in mathematics over a six year period where the students were taught on a traditional schedule for three years and on a block schedule for the remaining three years. The mean scores from the three years on a traditional schedule were compared to the mean scores from the three years on a block schedule. The researchers also held teacher interviews and reviewed school records in order to identify possible variables that might have affected scores over the six year period. (2005)
The results of the study by Mattox, Hancock, and Queen (2005) showed no significant difference in mathematics achievement in the first year of transition from traditional to block scheduling. However, during the second and third year after the transition to block scheduling, there was a significant increase in mathematics achievement. Mattox, Hancock, and Queen (2005) reported several possible reasons for this outcome. First, block scheduling allows students to take more classes; therefore giving them the opportunity to take more advanced levels of mathematics. Second, students under a block schedule spend more time in each class; therefore they are receiving math instruction for longer periods of time in a given day. Another reason that students’ math performance might increase under a block schedule is due to an increase in planning and preparation time given to teachers. (2005)
The effects of block scheduling on high school student achievement in mathematics and reading was conducted by Lewis, Dugan, Winokur, and Cobb (2005) using a causal comparative research design. The researchers compared ACT scores and Levels test scores in grades ninth and eleventh at three different high schools in the same school district. A Levels test is an assessment tool used to measure annual growth in student learning. The schools in the district were on three different academic schedules consisting of one 4x4 block schedule, one traditional schedule, and one schedule that alternated between the a block and traditional schedule. The students’ scores were analyzed using their mean differences and ANOVA. The results of the study indicated that students on a 4x4 block schedule had greater gains in reading and mathematics than the students on a traditional schedule or an alternating schedule. (2005)









Chapter III
Methodology

This study will focus on how scheduling, a 4x4 block schedule or a traditional seven day period, effects performance on the math section of the Alabama High School Graduation Exam. The study will compare AHSGE math scores of 10th graders who took Algebra I on a traditional schedule to the math scores of 10th graders who took Algebra I on the block schedule. Dothan High School currently offers Algebra I on a traditional seven day period schedule, while Carroll High School offers Algebra I on a 4x4 block schedule. The study will involve comparing test results of tenth graders who took the math section of the AHSGE during Spring Semester 2009.

Research Questions
1. Are there significant differences in AHSGE math scores of tenth graders who took Algebra I on a block schedule compared to tenth graders who took Algebra I on a traditional schedule?
2. Does gender impact AHSGE math scores in either the block or traditional setting?
3. Does socioeconomic status impact AHSGE math scores in either the block or traditional setting?
4. Does race affect AHSGE math scores in either the block or traditional setting?
Population
The study will involve 100 tenth grade students who took Algebra I at Dothan High School and 100 tenth grade students who took Algebra I at Carroll High School. A pre-test will be given to the 200 students to eliminate any students who might skew the results based on their advanced intelligence. The study should only involve students who have equal intelligences.

Instrumentation
The instrument used in the study to compare the effects of the block schedule and the traditional schedule on math performance will be a paired sample t-test. The means of the two variables will be compared. That is, the means of the students completing Algebra I on a block schedule will be compared to the means of the students completing Algebra I on a traditional schedule.
Data Collection
Data collected for the study will involve scores from the math section of the AHSGE. A test will also be given to the two groups of students in order to ensure that only students with similar intelligences are used in the study. The study will compare AHSGE math scores of tenth grade students at Dothan High School and Carroll High school, therefore having different academic schedules.
Data Analysis
The study will use statistical software, Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), to help analyze the mean scores of the two groups of students. A t-test will be implemented to determine if there is a significant difference between AHSGE test scores of students on a traditional schedule compared to a block schedule format. The data will be analyzed to determine whether there are significant differences between performance on the math section of the AHSGE and the type of scheduling that schools use.
Ethical Treatment of Subjects
Administrators, students, and parents of Dothan High School and Carroll High School will be given full detail of the study, as well as what data will be used and how each student will contribute to the research. Confidentiality of the study will also be discussed. A permission form will also be given to each student with details of the study. Before the study begins, parents and students must sign the permission form in order for the individual student scores to be used in the study. Parents and students have the right to change their mind about participation at any time during the study.

References


District Administration. (2002). Scores dipped at block schools, 10.


Evans, W., McCray, A., Rice, S., and Tokarczyk, J. (2002). Block Scheduling. Clearing
House, 75, 319-323.



Flinders, W. R. & Flinders, D. J. (2001). How block scheduling reform effects classroom
practice. High School Journal, 84.


Gruber, C. D. & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2001). Effects of block scheduling on academic
achievement among high school students. High School Journal, 84.


Hess, C. A., Robinson, J. E. & Wronkovich, M. (1997). An objective look at math
outcomes based on new research into block scheduling. National Association of Secondary School Principals. NASSP Bulletin, 81, 32-42.

Lawrence, W. W. & McPherson, D. D. (2000). A comparative study of block
scheduling and traditional scheduling on academic achievement. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 27.


Lewis, C., Dugan, J., Winokur, M., & Cobb, R. (2005). The effects of block scheduling
on high school academic achievement. National Association of Secondary Principals,
NASSP Bulletin, 89 (645), 72-85
Mattox, K., Hancock, D. R., and Queen, J. A. (2005). The effect of block scheduling on
middle school students’ mathematics achievement. National Association of Secondary School Principals, NASSP Bulletin, 89, 624-644.

Schreiber, J. & Veal, W. R. (1999). Block scheduling effects on a state mandated test of
basic skills. Education Policy Analysis, 7.

Trenta, Louis & Newman, Isadore (2002). 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, 54-66.