http://bul.sagepub.com/NASSP Bulletin

http://bul.sagepub.com/content/81/589/45The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1177/019263659708158907

1997 81: 45NASSP BulletinDale V. Eineder and Harold L. Bishop

Behavior, And Student-Teacher RelationshipsBlock Scheduling the High School: The Effects on Achievement,

  

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of: 

  National Association of Secondary School Principals

can be found at:NASSP BulletinAdditional services and information for    

  http://bul.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

 

http://bul.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

http://bul.sagepub.com/content/81/589/45.refs.htmlCitations:  

What is This? 

- May 1, 1997Version of Record >>

at Uppsala Universitetsbibliotek on November 18, 2014bul.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Uppsala Universitetsbibliotek on November 18, 2014bul.sagepub.comDownloaded from

45

School Environment

Block Scheduling the High School:The Effects on Achievement, Behavior,And Student-Teacher RelationshipsBy Dale V. Eineder and Harold L. Bishop

Dale V. Eineder is assistant professor in the department of leadership and educational studies,Appalachian State University, Boone, N.C., and Harold L. Bishop is professor of educational lead-ership at the University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa; readers may continue the dialogue on the InternetEineder at EinederDV@Appstate.edu and with Bishop at hbishop@bamaed.VA.edu.

As high schools across the nation seek to improve delivery of instruc-

tion, increasing numbers are turning to block scheduling. Many ques-tions face school communities that are trying to decide whether or not

to move to block scheduling. This article seeks to answer questionsabout block scheduling by discussing current knowledge and by report-

ing the results of a study conducted at a small rural high school.

he faculty at Philo High School in Southeastern Ohio had beenM working hard to maximize instruction, but many students were

unmotivated, and their performance showed it. With the supportof the school board and the superintendent of Franklin Local School

District, the faculty and administration began searching for solutions.

Eventually, the group began to investigate the concept of block schedul-

ing. They read extensively, visited schools, and held ongoing discussionsabout block scheduling. Finally, after nearly a year of deliberation, a con-sensus was reached: Philo would implement a 4 x 4 block schedule the fol-

lowing year.The faculty and administrators were taking a risk. They had more

questions about the effectiveness of block scheduling than answers.Would student achievement improve? How would block schedulingaffect student behavior? What effect would longer class periods have onstudent-teacher relationships? Would students and teachers like the newschedule? The faculty knew the answers could only be found after

implementation.

at Uppsala Universitetsbibliotek on November 18, 2014bul.sagepub.comDownloaded from

46

Academic AchievementEducators who are considering block scheduling need to understand its

effects on academic achievement. A growing body of studies have reportedimproved achievement as indicated by honor roll, grade point average, andnumbers of A’s and F’s earned (Hottenstein and Malatesta, 1993; Hart, 1994;Buckman, King, and Ryan, 1995; Edwards, 1995; Schoenstein, 1997).

Another study by Whitla et al. (1992) exam-ined the effects of block scheduling on standardizedachievement tests. This study found no statistical dif-ference in scores in a school-within-a-school pilotstudy, even though the block scheduled studentswere academically less gifted than the control group.

Only a few studies have examined the effectof block scheduling on specific subjects: Reid (1995)reported improvements in writing ability in block scheduled English class-es, and Lockwood’s 1995 study of block scheduling on mathematics foundno significant differences in achievement in algebra and geometry as mea-sured by high school subject tests and standardized algebra or geometrytests under any of the following comparisons: ability, gender, or race.

Canadian high schools began semesterizing their schedules in the1970s. After 20 years of implementation, two Canadian studies of semester-ized scheduling have reported negative results in achievement. Raphael etal. (1986) found decreased achievement in mathematics, and Bateson’s(1990) study found reduced achievement in science as measured on a mul-

tiple-choice test. These studies have been criticized, however, because theydid not allow for the fact that students on the semester schedule were test-

ed months after completing the class. The difference in time between

course completion and testing date would give an unfair advantage to year-long students (Lockwood, 1995). Other Canadian studies have not support-ed the negative achievement results cited by Bateson and Raphael et al.

(Moodie, 1971; Davis et al., 1977; Traverso, 1991).

Academic Achievement at Philo High School

At Philo High School some of the effects of block scheduling becameapparent almost immediately. Block scheduling had a tremendous impact onthe academic success of ninth grade students who were making the transitionfrom the middle level to high school. During the first two years of the newschedule at Philo, the average number of ninth graders making the honor rolldoubled for the first grading period. Comparisons of the year-long totals forhonor roll attainment showed that the number of ninth graders achievinghonor roll status increased by 92 percent under the block schedule.

Educators who are con-

sidering block schedul-

ing need to understand

its effects on academic

achievement.

at Uppsala Universitetsbibliotek on November 18, 2014bul.sagepub.comDownloaded from

47

It should be understood that these are comparisons of different stu-dents who may have different levels of ability, who may have received dif-ferent instruction prior to their high school experience, or who may haveencountered other factors that could affect achievement. The student pop-ulation of the Franklin Local School District is not transient, however, andteachers and administrators were unable to identify differences that couldaccount for the overwhelming increase in achievement. Indeed, the facultyand administration believed that the vast increase in the number of first-yearstudents making the honor roll under block scheduling was due to factors

surrounding the scheduling innovation.In May 1996, the academic performance of eleventh and twelfth

grade students who attended the high school under both traditional andblock schedules was analyzed. These students also showed remarkable

gains. After one year of block scheduling, these students achieved a 24 per-cent increase in the number of A’s and a 15 percent decrease in the num-

ber of F’s. Application of statistical measures found significant improvementin the accumulative grade point average (Correlated t-test, p < .001) and in

the frequency of honor roll attainment (Chi Square, p < .001).

The achievement trends noted during the first year of the schedul-

ing innovation at Philo High School were impressive. Improvement in aca-demic performance was nearly universal.

Instructional MethodologyAdvocates of block scheduling claim that extending the instructional peri-od provides more in-class time for student activities and facilitates a wider

variety of instructional methods. Reports have stated that block scheduledteachers use more instructional strategies, individualize instruction more

often, are more creative, and use cooperative learning more often than tra-

ditionally scheduled teachers (Whitla et al., 1992; Hottenstein and Malatesta,1993; O’Neil, 1995). Canadian studies by Davis et al. (1977), Ross (1977),Brophy (1978), Raphael et al. (1986), and Bateson (1990) have generallyagreed with the U.S. studies but have not cited the use of cooperative learn-

ing per se.

Instructional Methodology at Philo High SchoolAt Philo High School, 97 percent of teachers and 77 percent of stu-

dents stated that a wider variety of projects were completed in class underthe supervision of a teacher. Additionally, 91 percent of teachers and 77percent of students reported more extensive use of cooperative learningunder block scheduling.

at Uppsala Universitetsbibliotek on November 18, 2014bul.sagepub.comDownloaded from

48

Student-Teacher RelationshipsGiven the findings of the National Education Commission on Time andLearning (1994) the need for positive relationships between students andadults cannot be overstated. The Commission reported:~ That 50 percent of U.S. children spend some portion of their childhood

in a single-parent home~ That 20.8 million working mothers have school-aged children~ That family time has declined 40 percent since World War II~ That 40 percent of high school students care for themselves after school~ And [no surprise] that students are bringing many more problems to

school.

Block scheduling has two advantages that have a positive impact on. relationships between students and teachers and

among students themselves:

1 Most types of block scheduling give teachers signifi-cantly smaller student loads and students significant-

ly fewer teachers to satisfy. Because teachers spendmore time with fewer students and vice versa, advocates

claim that student-teacher relationships improve.

block scheduling increases opportunities for stu-

dents to complete teacher-supervised group activi-ties and projects in class. The importance of this factorhas been highlighted by Johnson and Johnson (1989)and Slavin, Karweit, and Madden (1989) who found

cooperative learning to be more effective in promoting achievement and pos-itive interpersonal relationships than competitive and individualistic learning.

Reports from block scheduled high schools have stated that the

scheduling innovation had a positive impact on the instructional climate byimproving student-teacher and student-student relationships (Moodie, 1971;Gleadow, 1975; Davis et al., 1977; Brophy, 1978; Munroe, 1989; Whitla et

al., 1992; Carroll, 1994; Canady and Rettig, 1995; Reid, 1995).

Student-Teacher Relationships at Philo High School

The results of a survey administered to teachers and students at

Philo High School overwhelmingly supported the effects of block schedul-ing on student-teacher relationships. The surveys, administered in the sec-ond year of block scheduling, found that 95 percent of teachers and 80 per-cent of students felt that student-teacher relationships had improved.Perhaps as important, the number of students involved in fights wasreduced by 40 percent.

Most types of block

scheduling give

teachers significant

smaller student load!

and students signifi-

cantly fewer teachers

to satisfy.

at Uppsala Universitetsbibliotek on November 18, 2014bul.sagepub.comDownloaded from

49

Student BehaviorSymptoms of the many challenges facing this generation of youngsters canbe observed in the high dropout rates, disruptive behavior, and absen-teeism of many school-aged young people. Canady and Rettig (1995) havestated that traditional schedules create conditions that increase disruptivebehavior. A large percentage of negative behavior

occurs during class changes when the entire school

population, including faculty members, are in a stateof transition.

Adding to the problem, short instructional peri-ods do not allow adequate time for teachers to effec-

tively employ preventive discipline techniques. If a

disruptive student does not respond to initial correc-

tive measures, the teacher may feel pressed by timeconstraints to quickly remove the student from class.

In contrast, block scheduling reduces opportu-nity for disruptive behavior by reducing the number of transitions in a day;longer class periods allow teachers sufficient time to employ preventive dis-

ciplinary measures in class.

Student Behavior at Philo High School

Analysis of student behavior during the first year of block schedul-

ing at Philo High School supported Canady and Rettig’s premise. Tabulationof data found widespread improvement in student behavior. The Chi

Square test identified statistically significant reductions in the frequency of:~ Discipline referrals (p < .05)~ Tardy referrals (p < .001)~ In-school suspensions (p < .001)~ Out-of-school suspensions (p < .001).

Dropouts decreased from 4.6 percent to 4 percent, average dailyattendance increased from 93.7 percent to 94.7 percent, and the number of

students involved in fights was reduced by 40 percent.The comprehensive improvement in student behavior is likely a

result of three factors:

a. Extended class periods gave teachers more time to employ provenbehavior modification strategies.b. The 4 x 4 block schedule has fewer class changes than a traditional

seven-period day, giving students less opportunity to be tardy or to engagein disruptive behavior during less supervised transitions.c. Fewer transitions and less time in hallways meant more time in class-

...short instructional l

periods do not allow

adequate time for

teachers to effective-

ly employ preventive

discipline techniques.

at Uppsala Universitetsbibliotek on November 18, 2014bul.sagepub.comDownloaded from

50

rooms where interpersonal communication among students and betweenteachers and students could take place in a structured environment.

More than 80 percent of students and 95 percent of teachers stated

that they knew each other better under the block schedule. The importanceof this almost universal improvement in student-teacher relationships can-not be overstated. The extended class period made

possible by block scheduling not only gives teachersmore time to employ proven behavior modification

strategies, but also may unlock new clues as to the

cause and remediation of antisocial behavior throughbetter understanding of individual students.

The number of students involved in fights atPhilo High School decreased by 40 percent underblock scheduling. It is likely that reduced opportuni-ty was a key factor in this immediate reduction. It is

hoped that block scheduled students will also

improve interpersonal communication skills throughcontinued interaction with their peers in structured

classroom activities. The chance for students to participate in such activitiesunder adult supervision may help them learn appropriate conflict resolutionskills that will serve them throughout their life.

Schedule PreferenceA conservative estimate based on a survey indicates that the percentage of

high schools across the nation that have adopted block scheduling is near-

ing 50 percent (Cawelti, 1994). Few, if any, reports have been publishedthat document block scheduled high schools that have returned to the tra-ditional schedule. In fact, most reports have spoken about the transition inattitudes by faculty members from initial hesitation or opposition during thedecision stage to widespread popularity after one year in block scheduling.Attitudes among faculty and students are important since it is precisely these

people who are most affected by the change.

Schedule Preference at Philo High School

Survey questions about scheduling preference found that 97 percentof teachers at Philo High School preferred block scheduling. Seventy-sevenpercent of students preferred block scheduling and 13 percent were unde-cided. Examining the reasons teachers and students gave for their schedul-

ing preference may offer the best hope of understanding the underlying fac-tors for the popularity of block scheduling.

More than 80 percent

of students and 95

percent of teachers

stated that they

knew each other bet-

ter under the block

schedule.

at Uppsala Universitetsbibliotek on November 18, 2014bul.sagepub.comDownloaded from

51

Student Reasons. The reasons students gave for their schedulingpreference fell into two main categories: management factors and interper-sonal factors (see Table 1). Management factors centered around the reduc-tion in the number of classes required per semester and included responsessuch as fewer materials to organize, less homework, and fewer tests.

Interpersonal factors pertained to conditions within classes themselves, all ofwhich included the presence of an adult. The reasons clustered in the inter-

personal category included the ability to get more work done in class, moreteacher help, more frequent participation in activities and projects, and bet-ter relationships with teachers.

Teacher Reasons. Teachers also listed several reasons for their

preference for block scheduling (see Table 2). The most prevalent catego-ry of reasons given by teachers centered around in-class events such asmore variety in lesson plans. Nearly all activities mentioned student-cen-

tered, inquiry-based activities such as group projects, writing, and cooper-

at Uppsala Universitetsbibliotek on November 18, 2014bul.sagepub.comDownloaded from

52

ative learning which, by their nature, involve interpersonal communication.This category also included reasons such as more frequent completion oflessons in class, better relationships with students, more opportunity tomonitor student work, more time on task due to less administrative dupli-cation, and increased student use of the media center.

Given the findings of the National Education Commission on Timeand Learning (1994) about the world in which young people are living-specifically the reduction of time they spend with adults-it is not surpris-ing that a majority of students and teachers listed factors that included the

presence of adult leadership. Increased opportunities for guided instructionand interpersonal communication between students and teachers may bethe single most significant reason for the success of the block schedulingprogram at Philo High School.

at Uppsala Universitetsbibliotek on November 18, 2014bul.sagepub.comDownloaded from

53

ConclusionsThe study conducted at Philo High School supports other research: underblock scheduling students earn higher grade point averages, more studentsattain the honor roll, disciplinary referrals are reduced, student-teacher rela-

tionships are improved, and teachers and students prefer block scheduling -B

References

Bateson, D. J. "Science Achievement in Semester and All-Year Courses."

Journal of Research in Science Teaching 3(1990): 233-40.

Brophy, B. "Semestering and the Teaching-Learning Situation." Canadian

Journal of Education 3(1978): 47-54.

Buckman, D. C.; King, B. B., and Ryan, S. "Block Scheduling: A Means ToImprove School Climate." NASSP Bulletin, May 1995.

Canady, R. L., and Rettig, M. D. "The Power of Innovative Scheduling."Educational Leadership 3(1995).

Carroll, J. M. The Copernican Plan Evaluated: The Evolution of a Revolution.Topsfield, Mass.: Copernican Associates, 1994.

Cawelti, G. High School Restructuring: A National Study. Arlington, Va.:

Educational Research Service, 1994.

Davis, J. E.; Ross, J. A.; Ducharme, D. J.; and French, W. The Impact ofSemestering on Selected Secondary Schools in Ontario. Toronto: OntarioMinistry of Education, 1977.

Edwards, C. M., Jr. "Virginia’s 4 x 4 high schools: High School, College, andMore." NASSP Bulletin, May 1995.

Gleadow, N. The Semester System in Vancouver Schools and Its Effects onCurriculum. Vancouver Board of School Trustees, 1975.

Hart, K. "The Intensive Scheduling Model at a Suburban Public High School:Student and Teacher Behavior Changes." Doctoral dissertation, TempleUniversity, 1994.

Hottenstein, D., and Malatesta, C. "Putting a School in Gear with Intensive

Scheduling. The High School Magazine 2(1993): 28-29.

Johnson, D. W., and Johnson, R. Cooperation and Competition: Theory andResearch. Edina, Minn.: Interaction Book Co., 1989.

Lockwood, S. L. "Semesterizing the High School Schedule: The Impact onStudent Achievement in Algebra and Geometry." NASSP Bulletin,December 1995.

Moodie, A. G. An Evaluation of Semestering in Vancouver Secondary Schools.Vancouver Board of School Trustees, 1971.

Munroe, M. J. "Block: Successful Alternative Format Addressing LearnerNeeds." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association ofTeacher Educators, St. Louis, Mo., February 1989.

at Uppsala Universitetsbibliotek on November 18, 2014bul.sagepub.comDownloaded from

54

O’Neil, J. "Finding Time To Learn." Educational Leadership 3(1995).Prisoners of Time. Washington, D.C.: National Education Commission on Time

and Learning, 1994.

Raphael, D.; Wahlstrom, M. W.; and McLean, L. D. "Debunking the

Semestering Myth." Canadian Journal of Education 1(1986): 36-52.

Reid, L. "Perceived Effects of Block Scheduling on the Teaching of English."ERIC Document No. ED 382950, 1995.

Ross, J. "An Evaluation of Timetable Innovation in Ontario." Canadian

Journal of Education 1(1977): 23-36.

Schoenstein, R. From the Roy J. Wasson High School, Colorado Springs, Colo.,Web site: URL http://k12.oit.umass.edu/block/Before-After.Stats.txt.

Slavin, R. E.; Karweit, N. L.; and Madden, N. A. Effective Programsfor Studentsat Risk. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1989.

Sprumont, B. "An Evaluation of Timetable Innovation in Ontario." CanadianJournal of Education 1(1979): 23-36.

Stevens, R. S. Semestering in Vancouver Schools. Vancouver Board of SchoolTrustees, 1976.

Traverso, H. P., ed. Scheduling: From Micro to Macro. Reston, Va.: NASSP,1991.

Whitla, D. K.; Bempechat, J.; Perrone, V.; and Carroll, B. B. The MasconometRegional High School Renaissance Program: The First Implementation ofthe Copernican Plan. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Evaluation Team, 1992.

at Uppsala Universitetsbibliotek on November 18, 2014bul.sagepub.comDownloaded from