University of West Georgia



Running head: MODIFIED A/B BLOCK SCHEDULED HIGH SCHOOL

Modified A/B Block Scheduled High School: Impact on Achievement in Science

Syd Morrison

University of West Georgia

Abstract

The latest estimation is 50% American secondary schools are switching over to a form of block scheduling (Dexter, Tai, & Sandler, 2006). Queen (2000) stated most high schools have adopted a block schedule that gives students more opportunities to complete course requirements and specific interest classes. One high school located in a rural, small Georgia county will make a second block scheduling change from accelerated (4 x 4) block scheduling to alternating day block scheduling for the 2009-2010 school year because of state accountability in student achievement. The research’s intent is to investigate alternating day block scheduling and how it can impact the school learning and academic achievement in a technology-rich classroom. After researching through ESBCO databases through University of West Georgia, the researcher sees a need for more trustworthy quantitative or mixed research on the impact of A/B block scheduling in a secondary school.

Keywords: alternating scheduling, block scheduling, accelerated (4 x 4) block scheduling, alternating-day (A/B) block scheduling, academic achievement, student achievement, technology-rich classroom, descriptive research.

Modified A/B Block Scheduled High School: Impact on Achievement in Science

              According to the Georgia Department of Education, high school students are required to pass the Georgia High School Graduation Test to receive a high school diploma. Classroom educators are under pressure to cover all the required Georgia Performance Standards (GPS) in a short time-frame; the time frame is even shorter if that school is on block scheduling. Gruber and Onwuegbuzie (2001) stated in their Effects of Block Scheduling on Academic Achievement among High School Students that one disadvantage of block scheduling is the loss of almost two class periods in a traditional class schedule. The Dade County High School (DCHS) Leadership team met and decided to change the time schedule for the 2009-2010 school calendar year because of low state-mandated test scores, high numbers of failures in mathematics classes, and a new mathematics curriculum. The LOW state-mandated test scores and failing grades in mathematics have been the reasons why DCHS has been a "Needs Improvement" school. DCHS is changing its type of block scheduling to alternating day block scheduling, in an effort to allow teachers to extend the time of classroom instruction to a year-long term rather than being limited to a single semester term. The researcher’s intent is to investigate alternating day block scheduling and how it can impact the school learning and academic achievement in a technology-rich classroom. Also, the researcher will investigate state-mandated testing in Georgia, because these tests are significant measures in schools meeting Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) as well as a quantitative and accountable measurement of student academic achievement.

Research Questions

In this descriptive research, the investigator has reviewed previous research articles concerning block scheduling, state-mandated testing, and computer-based instruction in the class. The search method has used EBSCO databases through the University of West Georgia Libraries for relevant articles. The databases searched include Education Resources Information Center and Professional Development Collection. These databases were chosen because they are reliable and peer-reviewed sites. The researcher will attempt to address the following questions:

1. How will the changing of alternating block schedule (4x4) to alternating day (2-day) block scheduling effect student academic achievement and state-mandated exams?

2. How does the state of Georgia use test results from their state-mandated exams, more specifically, End-of-Course Tests (EOCT)?

3. How beneficial IS computer-assisted instruction in improving state-mandated exams?

Research on Block Scheduling

              Originally, block scheduling was intended as an alternative scheduling to improve student learning and instruction by extending periods of uninterrupted time (Evans, Tokarczyk, Rice, & McCray, 2002). Gruber and Onwuegbuzie (2001) defined block scheduling as a restructuring of the school day into classes longer than 50-minute period classes. Canady and Retting (1995) state that alternative scheduling should intensify students’ learning experience, enabling them to complete more exigent classes in junior high and high school achievement thereby increasing academic achievement (cited in Evans et at.,2002). According to Gruber and Onwuegbuzie (2001), reorganizing the school day in blocked periods of 90 minutes relieves many of the problems associated with traditional six or seven daily classes because students have fewer class preparations and less class work and homework to complete. Block scheduling is beneficial to laboratory classes because it extends hands-on time in the laboratory, allowing students to finish investigations and allowing instructors to follow through with laboratory extensions in one class day. Also, Gruber and Onwuegbuzie (2001), Shultz (2000), and Queen (2000) felt that block scheduling would promote student motivation and interest in passing core courses and state-mandated exams. The flexibility of block scheduling allows the instructor to adjust the pace of the curriculum to fit the individual student needs (Shultz, 2000). This reform is a reason teachers have been able to vary instructional methods and encourage collaborative learning with high-level performance in the classroom (Nichols, 2005).

Research on Three Main Types of Block Scheduling

              The latest estimation is that 50% of American secondary schools have changed over to a form of block scheduling (Dexter, Tai, & Sandler, 2006). Queen (2000) in his Block Scheduling Revisited states THAT most high schools have adopted a block schedule, giving students more opportunities to complete course requirements and specific interest classes. Secondary schools modifying the time-schedule have three main types of alternative scheduling: Copernican plan, accelerated block (4x 4), and alternate day (A/B) or two-day block (Shultz, 2000). These are the main templates, and many schedules are modified to fit the school’s requirements and needs. The Copernican, or trimester, plan has the greatest flexibility and potential to change the curriculum. A daily method in this plan is to attend two main academic classes with lunch and a “singleton” course (Carroll, 1994). Block courses change after 60 days for completion, and consequently the calendar is separated into 60-day trimester segments. The advantages of this plan are the decrease teacher load FOR class preparation and instruction and the fact more courses can be offered within the school year.

              Accelerated block scheduling (4 x 4) reorganizes the school day with fewer classes, and each day offers longer class time (Marchant & Paulson, 2001). Accelerate block scheduling consists of four 90 minute blocks with a single lunch period between second and third blocks. This popular block schedule allows the student to compact a year’s worth of instructional time in a 90-day term and to take four new courses for the second term. If necessary, students can retake a failed core course in the second school term, allowing them to be on track with their age-mates. Also, teachers have additional planning time to organize classroom instructions, attend cross-curriculum team meetings, and other assigned duties. Educators spend less time on classroom routines (such as class attendance) and more time facilitating the students’ learning and collaboration. The flexibility of 4x4 scheduling lends to establishing mentoring groups for remedial instruction and tutoring, providing embedded time for students to make-up missed assignments and assessments. The extended lessons are developed and maintained with fluency and ease without instructional fragmentation.

              Shultz (2000) describes alternating day (A/B) block scheduling as an agenda with eight main block classes offered over the course of two successive days. Each day has four 90-minute classes with blocks 1-4 offered the first day along with a lunch period between second and third blocks. The second day offers block 5-8 with a similar lunch period. The A/B block scheduling offers this alternating pattern for 180 school days. Alternating the eight block classes on two consecutive days helps the students focus on the class work and eliminates stress of taking eight classes daily. The A/B scheduling allows teachers GREATER planning FOR instructional time and more teaching contact with students. Also, educators can still reduce the amount of daily non-instruction activities such as class attendance, yet the class time enables in-depth learning and collaborative interaction among students.

Research on Georgia’s End-of-Course Test

A federal reform known as the A+ Educational Reform Act of 2000 mandated that the State Board of Education implement end-of-course exams for secondary schools (Standards, Instruction, & Assessments, 2008). The Georgia education system’s primary focus is improving teaching and student learning. The state developed an end-of-course test based on core-curriculum standards, and this standardized test is just one measurement demonstrating accountability of improved teaching and learning in secondary schools. Georgia’s End-of-Course Test (EOCT) is an assessment that identifies the strengths and weakness of the student’s learning, as well as, the effectiveness of classroom instruction in secondary schools (Standards et at., 2008). The gathered diagnostic information helps to improve schools' performance on other assessments, such as the GHSGT.

Research on Technology-rich Classrooms

  Answering the call for accountability at the school level has become top priority for school districts and administrators. Schools are reforming the classroom environment to include technology and innovative teaching methods. Maninger (2006) asserts that, along with raising student achievement on state-mandated exams, educators are expected to increase the use of technology in the classroom. Rigeman and McIntire (2005) stated in Enhancing Curriculum in Instruction through Technology that the state requirements for school districts to submit annual progress reports to the state, based on student data, resulted in school districts implementing a technology-rich program to improve state-mandated mathematics scores. Technologies have created an avenue for students to work more productively in the classroom, and competent teachers are encouraging students to use technologies as a learning tool (Keengwe, Onchwari, & Wachira, 2008). With the movement of switching traditional classroom equipment to new innovations, technology is making learning more efficient and effective in the classroom, and it has the potential to make learning more collaborative and to aid in improving state-mandated test scores, such as GHSGT and EOCT. Computer-assisted instruction (CAI) is one possible path for schools to address low achievement scores in mathematics (Tienken & Wilson, 2007). The same pathway could be used in all disciplines, especially in core academic classes,

Discussion

              The researcher fulfilled the requirements of the descriptive research by examining the different types of alternative class schedules available to secondary schools. Many articles concerning alternative scheduling are in favor of the restructuring of daily school class schedules (McCray, 2002; Gruber & Onwuegbuzie, 2001; Evans et at., 2002; and Shultz, 2000). The alternating block schedule offers many advantages compared to the traditional school schedule. The obvious advantage is the extension of uninterrupted class time, extending and intensifying students’ learning opportunities in the classroom (Evans et at., 2002; Gruber & Onwuegbuzie, 2001). The flexibility of block scheduling allows educators to change the pace of the curriculum based on the needs of the individual students (Shultz, 2000). Block scheduling is inherently geared toward collaborative learning and a more hands-on approach teaching style, which in turn creates both rigor and relevance for the students. Many school districts and administrators agree that alternative scheduling can be utilized to improve data-driven curriculum and academic achievement, especially on state-mandated assessments. The researcher explored the three primary types of alternative scheduling: Copernican plan, accelerated block scheduling, and alternating day block scheduling. The researcher has found that the most popularly implemented form of alternative scheduling is the accelerated block scheduling (4x4 block scheduling). Interestingly however, the alternating block scheduling offers greater flexibility in allowing teachers and students to be more prepared for classroom learning. Yet, with the recent Georgia mathematics curriculum modifications based of low academic achievement in state-mandated test scores and class grades, many school systems are taking a second look at block scheduling. One school, DCHS, is changing over to alternating day block scheduling hoping to improve academic achievement.

         In 1991, DCHS decided to switch to block scheduling to enhance its curriculum and to offer more class selections. The staff felt block scheduling would help lessen classroom instructural fragmentation and ease teacher and student stress. DCHS has implemented an accelerated block schedule since the start of the 1991-92 academic year. The upcoming 2009-2010 calendar year is a transition period for DCHS, and the school is restructuring the ninth grade scheduling to a ninth grade academy format. Additionally, the school has implemented a new mathematics curriculum that lends itself to alternating day block scheduling. Consequently the block scheduling is changing in response to the implementation of the revised state-mandated, test-driven curriculum. In the past, DCHS administered EOCTs at the end of each 90-day term. Students have been assessed in four academic areas: English, mathematics, science, and social studies. The EOCT is administered in two 60-minute sections; one section is given daily in the assigned subject classroom. The EOCT will still be administered in a two day period scheme, yet the test will be given after 180 school days rather than 90 days as under the previous accelerated (4x4) schedule.   

              The researcher reviewed articles on technology-rich classrooms and how these classrooms are influencing state-mandated, test-driven curriculum in secondary schools. It is well known that secondary schools are accountable for improving teaching and learning in the classroom (Standards et al., 2008). Technology-based classrooms have shown slight or little difference in improving state-mandated test scores, but these classrooms have enhanced the learning taking place. The technology has been an effective tool for educators in the classroom. It is up to the teacher on how the technology will be used in classroom learning; however; the tool can help students work more productively in the classroom (Keengwe et al., 2008). At DCHS, educators are in technology-rich classrooms, and this past year even more new technology, electronic white boards, has been set-up in the classrooms. Teachers have been implementing inquiry-based learning in the classroom through various technology innovations. At the high school, computers are easily available for students and teachers to utilize for classroom learning; teachers are encouraged to apply new technology for enhancement and reinforcement of student academic achievement. At DCHS, students are using CAI as a tool to improve low achievement scores in the classroom and on state-mandated exams. One way teachers are using computers and web tools in test preparation is using test prep websites such as and .

              This study focuses on the researcher's questions concerning how A/B block scheduling could affect student academic achievement; this focus stems from the reality that the rural high school, where the researcher is employed, will be converting over to A/B block scheduling from accelerated block scheduling. The researcher feels a need to be aware of other schools' findings and efforts in adapting to alternating day block scheduling. Additionally, the researcher is concerned with how changing to A/B block scheduling will impact state-mandated testing, since standardized test scores are a driving force behind the changes in both curriculum and schedule. Research on the effect of A/B block scheduling effect on academic achievement and state-mandated testing is very limited. The studies available to the researcher were mostly qualitative research. The researcher has concerns on switching from a more flexible schedule with daily classes to a block scheduling similar to traditional school scheduling. The block schedule still has classes meeting 90 days, yet the 90 days are extended into a 180-day block scheduling or school calendar year. The researcher questions whether the scheduling changes are necessary given that Dexter (2006) asserts that students from A/B block scheduling usually make lower grades in science in colleges. Further research needs to focus on experimental research on how A/B block scheduling impacts classroom learning and state-mandated, test-driven curriculum. More research is needed on the difference between accelerated block scheduling and alternating day block scheduling  

Future Research Proposal

According to Nichols (2005), many educators and researchers are reviewing alternative scheduling; yet, despite renewed interest on block scheduling, little empirical research has been conducted on the impact of block-scheduling structures on student academic achievement. Despite block scheduling being widely accepted as a positive reform, there are some concerns about how much quantitative improvement has taken place (Nichols, 2005; Marchant & Paulson, 2001).With DCHS changing its accelerated block scheduling to alternating day block scheduling, the researcher is interested in the effects A/B block scheduling will have on student academic achievement. There appears to be a void of experimental evidence relating to alternating day block scheduling impact on academic achievement. The descriptive research on two-day block schedule has recorded different results. Marchant & Paulson (2001) did a qualitative investigation on the impact of A/B block scheduling on the student achievement and found alternating day block scheduling to be beneficial on improving student achievement and suggested further empirical research needs to be conducted on block scheduling and student academic achievement. Dexter (2006) has findings predicting students having alternating day block scheduling would earn lower college science grades. The researcher is attempting to answer the call for more quantitative research on the effects of block scheduling. The purpose of this causal comparative study is to conduct an investigation on the impact of alternating day block schedule on students’ academic achievement using EOCT test score results. In this non experimental quantitative study, the investigator will compare the DCHS state mandate EOCT scores from 2009-2010 school year to previous three years EOCT scores. The independent variable of this study is the changing of accelerated block schedule to alternating day schedule; and the dependent variable will be the effect on EOCT scores. The researcher’s prediction is the Georgia physical science and biology 2009-2010 EOCT scores will drop, because of the change of block scheduling to alternating day block scheduling. The researcher based this hypothesis on the previous research the effects of A/B block scheduling on academic achievement; the majority of the outcomes were a drop in test scores and grade point averages (Gruber & Onwuegbuzie, 2001; Marchant & Paulson, 2001). It should be noted the results were not that conclusive for showing significant levels (Gruber & Onwuegbuzie, 2001; Marchant & Paulson, 2001; Nichols, 2005).The study will take place during the school year in the science department. The researcher, a science instructor at DCHS, will focus on academic achievement in two science disciplines, biology and physical science, using EOCT score and open-source test preparation websites. The open-source test preparation websites have been previously integrated into the classroom lessons and test preparation for state standardized exams; the websites are and . Specifically the research questions guiding this study are:

1. Will physical science and biology EOCT test scores affected differently after the alternating day block scheduling is implemented?

2. What effect will A/B block scheduling have on a previously technology-rich classroom in preparing students for the state mandated examination?      

Experimental research

Method

              This study will use Georgia’s EOCT standardized test results as an intricate part of the experiment. The investigator will use quasi-experimental design because students are contained in intact groups in science classes and cannot be randomly selected for assigned groups.

Hypothesis

              The null hypothesis: There will be no difference in achievement on the physical science and biology section of Georgia End-of–Course-Test between student achievement from previous academic years and 2009-2010 school year.

Participants

The participants of this study will consist of students and teachers from a rural area high school located in the southeast. The school district includes four schools that serve 2,598 in grades Pre-K through 12. The high school population from which the sample will b drawn enrolls approximately 750 students and 42 teachers. According to website (2009), the student population includes 97% Caucasian, 2% Hispanic, and 1% other students. The gender diversity of the student population is 51% male and 49% female.

The participants will include 4 science teachers and approximately 250 students in science classes. The experimental group consists of three female educators and one male educator of two subjects (biology and physical science) and students in their block schedule classes. The comparison group will consist of the same four science teachers and approximately 230 students from the previous physical science and biology classes. The block schedule classes are rotating every other day and will be taught for 90 minutes daily for the whole school year. The comparison group’s block schedule classes met every day for 90 minutes for one 18 week semester term during the three preceding academic years.

Materials

              The central assessment of this study is the End-of-Course Test in physical science and biology given to all students in both science classes. Any student enrolled in an EOCT course must take the EOCT and the EOCT will count 15% of the course’s final grade. The EOCT assessments are administered in two days in the given course block. The 2008-2009 physical science and biology EOCT scores will serve as a benchmark. The 2008-2009 EOCT scores will be used to see if there is a significant difference in achievement levels between the two samples. The EOCT scores are divided into three performance levels: exceeds, meets, and does not meet. The benchmark or base this study will use as a comparison is as follows:  Physical Science-28% did not meet, 43% meets, and 29% exceeds. Biology-45% does not meet, 43% meets, and 12% exceeds (Governor’s Office of Student Achievement, 2008).

Procedure

              Students registered for physical science and biology classes during preregistration in the 2009 spring term. The students are then placed in block classes for the next school year. The students will be in the assigned class for the 2009-2010 school year. The first day of school, instructors will review class expectations and pacing guides for the class. During the class orientation, students will be informed of the state mandated exam given in April, 2010. The EOCT domains will be mentioned and their responsibilities in preparing for the EOCT. The four teachers will continue with online website preparation. Students will be instructed on how to use and at the beginning on the school year. To keep the validity of the research results, the four teachers will instruct the same pace as the 2008-2009 school year computer-based instructions and online websites. Students will receive a letter from the school inviting him or her to participate in the research. Only students with signed parental permission form will participate. After students take the EOCT exams in April, instructors will compare previous year’s EOCT scores and this year’s EOCT scores for evaluation.

Data Analysis

According to Katy Cox, State Superintendent of Schools, the reliability of the EOCT is based on an internal consistency called coefficient alpha. Coefficients at or above .70 are considered a high level of reliability for EOCT exams.

References

Carroll, J.M. (1994). Organizing time to support learning. School Administrator, 51(3).

Dade County School District. (2009). . Retrieved July 7, 2009, from



more. Dade County High School. (2009). Public School Review. Retrieved July 7, 2009,

from

Dexter, K. M., Tai, R. H., & Sadler, P. M. (2006, Apr-May). Traditional and block

scheduling for college science preparation: A comparison of college science success of

students who report different high school scheduling plans. High School Journal, 89(4) 22-

33, Retrieved June 26, 2009, from ERIC Database.

Evans, W., Tokarczyk, J., Rice, S., & McCray, A. (2002). Block scheduling. Clearing

House, 75(6). Retrieved July 8, 2009, from Professional Development Collection

database.

Governor’s Office of Student Achievement. (2008). Georgia Department of Education. Retrieved

July 8, 2009, from



Gruber, C. D., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2001). Effects of block scheduling on academic

achievement among high school students. High School Journal, 84(4) 32-42. Retrieved

June 26, 2009, from ERIC Database.

Keengwe, J., Onchwari, G., & Wachira, P. (2008). Computer technology integration

and student learning: barriers and promise. Journal Of Science Education and Technology,

17(6), 560-565. Retrieved June 15, 2009, from ERIC Database.

Knight, S. L., & De Leon, N. J. (1999). Using multiple data sources to evaluate an alternative

scheduling model. Home School Journal. 83(1). Retrieved July 8, 2009, from Professional

Development Collection Database.

Maninger, R. M. (2006, October). Successful technology integration: Student test scores

improved in an English Literature course through the use of supportive devices.

TechTrends, 54(5) 37-45. Retrieved June 13, 2009, from ERIC Database.

Marchant, G. J., & Paulson, S. B. (2001). Differential school functioning in

a block schedule: A comparison of academic profiles. High School Journal, 84(4).

Retrieved June 26, 2009 from ERIC Database.

Nichols, J. D. (2005). Block-scheduled high schools: Impact on achievement in English

and language arts. Journal of Educational Research, 98(5) 299, Retrieved June 30, 2009

from ERIC Database.

Queen, J. A. (2000). Block scheduling revisited. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(3). Retrieved

July 8, 2009, from Professional Development Collection Database.

Rigeman, S., & McIntire, N. (2005). Enhancing curriculum and instruction through

technology. T.H.E. Journal, 32(12). Retrieved June 15, 2009 from ERIC Database.

Schultz, R. A. (2000). Examining the effects of block scheduling on gifted and

talented students. Gifted Child Today, 23(5). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service

No. EJ614806) Retrieved June 26, 2009 from ERIC Database.

Standards, Instruction, and Assessments. (2008). Georgia Department of Education. Retrieved

July 5, 2009, from

Tienken, C. H., and Wilson, M. J. (2007). The Impact of Computer Assisted Instruction on

Seventh-Grade Students’ Mathematics Achievement. Planning and Changing, 38(3-4) 181-

190. Retrieved June 30, 2009, from ERIC Database.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download