Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
THE EFFECTS OF 4X4 BLOCK SCHEDULING ON HIGH SCHOOL
STUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT AND CONTINUOUS
ENROLLMENT RATES
A Thesis Presented to the Faculty
of
California State University, Stanislaus
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
of Master of Arts in Education
By
Todd Walker
August 2015
CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL
THE EFFECTS OF 4X4 BLOCK SCHEDULING ON HIGH SCHOOL
STUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT AND CONTINUOUS
ENROLLMENT RATES
by
Todd Walker
_____________________________________ ______________________
Dr. John Borba Date
Professor of School Administration
_____________________________________ ______________________
Dr. Chet Jensen Date
Professor of Education
Signed Certification of Approval page is
on file with the University Library
© 2015
Todd Walker
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
iv
DEDICATION
This work is dedicated to my wife Danya Walker. Her love and patience
guided me through the journey of writing my thesis. Without her encouragement and
help in balancing work and life, none of my pursuits would have been possible.
This work is also dedicated to my daughter Abigail and my son Aiden, who
served as a pleasant distraction from my work.
Lastly, this work is dedicated to my parents, Dennis and RoseAnne Walker for
tolerating my temperament and mood through the writing process and watching my
children when I needed time to concentrate.
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to specifically thank Dr. Borba for his patience and
encouragement in guiding me through the completion of my paper. Without Dr.
Borba, I’m certain I would have fell short of completing my goals. Dr. Borba taught
me the significance, the discipline, and the process of writing a professional thesis.
I would also like to thank Dr. Jensen for his help in proofing my paper and
adding helpful comments to strengthen the content and structure of my paper.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
DEDICATION ............................................................................................................. iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...........................................................................................v
LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................... viii
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................. ix
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY.............................................................1
Background of the Problem .................................................................. 1
Statement of Problem ............................................................................ 2
Hypotheses ............................................................................................ 3
Significance of the Study ...................................................................... 4
Limitations and Delimitations ............................................................... 4
Limitations ................................................................................ 4
Delimitations ............................................................................. 4
Definition of Terms............................................................................... 5
Summary ............................................................................................... 5
II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...............................................................7
Introduction ........................................................................................... 7
History of High School Scheduling ...................................................... 7
Types of Block Scheduling ................................................................. 12
Studies on High School Schedules ..................................................... 14
vii
Summary ............................................................................................. 17
III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES............................................................18
Introduction ......................................................................................... 18
Sample Population .............................................................................. 18
Statistical Analyses ............................................................................. 19
Summary ............................................................................................. 20
IV. RESULTS ..................................................................................................21
Introduction ......................................................................................... 21
Findings Related to the Hypotheses .................................................... 21
Hypothesis 1............................................................................ 21
Hypothesis 2............................................................................ 22
Summary ............................................................................................. 23
V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................24
Introduction ......................................................................................... 24
Summary of Study .............................................................................. 24
Implications......................................................................................... 25
Recommendations ............................................................................... 27
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................30
viii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
1. CST Scores in Life Science, 4X4 Block and Traditional Schedules ................ 22
2. Continuous Enrollment Rates: 4X4 Block and Traditional Schedules ............. 23
ix
ABSTRACT
The academic achievement of high school students in the United States has remained
behind in science and mathematics compared to other industrialized nations. Block
scheduling is a reform movement that may increase proficiency rates of high school
students in the areas of science and mathematics and increase overall high school
graduation rates. This study presents the effects of 4X4 block scheduling on student
achievement and continuous enrollment rates. The researcher used archival test data
to determine whether a significant difference existed in the California State Standards
Test (CST) scores in life science between sophomore students who attended high
school on a 4X4 block schedule and those who attended high school on a traditional
schedule. The results of an independent t-test suggests that sophomore students who
attended high school on a traditional schedule performed significantly higher than
sophomore students who attended a high school on a 4X4 block schedule. This
researcher also used archival data to determine whether a significant difference
existed in continuous enrollment rates between students who attended a high school
on a 4X4 block schedule and those who attended a high school on a traditional
schedule. The results of the Pearson chi-square suggests that students who began
high school on a 4X4 block schedule were more likely to stay until they graduated
than students who began high school on a traditional schedule.
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
Background of the Problem
Educational reform is a hot topic for schools across America, especially in the
fields of science and mathematics. Recent discussions about science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM) have been brought to the forefront due to the
alarming fact that many high school students are not interested in meeting the
growing need for STEM related jobs across America (Kuenzi, 2008). According to
the Program for International Student Achievement (PICA), the United States rates
23rd among 65 countries in terms of student achievement in science (Fleischman,
etc.) Many attempts to overcome this achievement gap focused on hands-on and
enrichment activities in the classroom, as underscored by Common Core State
Standards (CCSS) and Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS).
Many schools have found it difficult to schedule enough time for the students
to not only learn the information presented to them, but to explore the information
and deepen their understanding through experimentation as well. One solution,
which has been around for the better half of 30 years, is the use of block scheduling,
mainly for the purpose of allowing more time for students to study subjects in depth.
Block scheduling when compared to the traditional 6-period, 55 minute class
schedule, offers many advantages according to proponents. One of the most notable
advantages
2
to a 4X4 block schedule (four 90-minute class periods per day) is the use of time
(Slattery, 1995). In theory, lengthening the amount of time will help students
strengthen their understanding of a topic, particularly in the realm of science, by
allowing a more inquiry based, hands-on approach to learning (Canady & Rettig,
1995). Other claimed advantages of 4X4 block scheduling when compared to
traditional high school scheduling is fewer classes and fewer students per teacher,
which equate to more time spent lesson planning, collaborating, and employing best
teaching practices (Irmsher, 1996). A block schedule may also allow students to
concentrate on fewer courses at a time and to reflect and process more information
through lengthened science labs (Schneider, Krajcik, Marx, & Soloway, 2002).
Statement of Problem
The measure of achievement in recent decades for most schools has been
standardized testing. Standardized testing is one way of using quantifiable data to
measure student success and readiness in a particular subject matter. The U.S. ranks
23rd in comparison with 65 other countries in terms of the academic achievement of
15-year old students in science (Chappell, 2013). The STEM curriculum is a national
effort to get students ready for careers in the United States that requires backgrounds
in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. The 1960s represented an era
of fierce competition with Russia during the Cold War; therefore, a feeling of falling
behind in technological advances was a fear held by most Americans. President
Kennedy launched, in 1963, the Higher Education Act, which provided college
funding to promote careers in mathematics and science (Graham, 2011). For the most
3
part, the efforts to fund mathematics and science education were a success. For
example, Americans put a man on the moon during the Apollo 11 mission in 1969
(Dick & Launius, 2006).
Due to 2.5 million jobs lost to competing countries in the area of STEM
occupations, the United States has launched new innovative programs such as “Race
to the Top,” Common Core State Standards (CCSS), and Next Generation Science
Standards (NGSS) (Gordon, 2009). The wave of new reform calls for high school
science courses to focus on helping students achieve a greater understanding of
applying science through inquiry-based learning rather than the lecture based teaching
method. The new inquiry-based learning, especially in science, may not be supported
by the traditional 55-minute class schedule, calling for more schools to explore the
4X4 block schedule that allows for 90-minute class periods per day to explore
complex science topics (Griffin, McGaw, & Care, 2012). In order to determine
whether block scheduling is the solution to improving student achievement,
comparing test scores on standardized tests with traditional schools may be one
plausible measure of success or failure.
Hypotheses
1. There is no significant difference in the California Standards Test (CST)
scores in life science between sophomore students who attended high
school on a 4X4 block schedule and sophomore students who attended a
high school on a traditional high school schedule.
4
2. There is no significant difference in continuous enrollment rates between
students who attended a high school on a 4X4 block schedule and students
who attended a high school on a traditional schedule.
Significance of the Study
The purpose of this study was to determine if block scheduling has a
significant effect on increasing student achievement. The findings of this study may
be useful to educators who are considering the implementation of the 4X4 block
schedule concept.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations
For Hypothesis 1, this study was limited to 100 randomly-selected sophomore
students who attended comprehensive high school on a traditional schedule and 100
randomly-selected sophomore students who attended a comprehensive high school on
a 4X4 block schedule. The two high schools in this comparative study were chosen
because of their similar population size and the ethnicity and socioeconomic status of
their students. For Hypothesis 2, continuous enrollment rates were compared
between the two schools. Lastly, the sample size of this study was small and may not
have reflected the general population.
Delimitations
This study did not take into consideration such variables as teacher
experience, student discipline referrals, student disabilities, and the quality or quantity
5
of educational materials. Learning philosophies of both teachers and administrators
were not considered in this study.
Definition of Terms
Semester 4X4 block scheduling. Four 90-minute classes each day for one
semester. During the subsequent semester, students enroll in another four classes of
the same duration. As a result, most students complete eight classes in a single
school year (Canady & Rettig, 1995).
Traditional schedule. A system that allows students to attend six classes per
day for 50-55 minutes during the school year.
Life Science (California Standards Test) Exam. A mandatory exam that is
required by California for all sophomore high school students. The exam is used to
measure the level of competence in the area of life science.
Next Generation Science Standards. Standards that place emphasis on
inquiry based science and the use of engineering and technology.
Continuous Enrollment Rates. The number of students who begin high
school on a given schedule and remain on the same schedule until senior graduation.
Summary
Chapter 1 was intended to introduce the reader to the background of the topic,
the research question, and establish the significance of this study. The overall
purpose is to determine if there is a significant difference in the CST scores in life
science between sophomore students on a 4X4 block schedule and sophomore
students on a traditional high school schedule and to determine if there is a significant
6
difference in continuous enrollment rates between high school students on a 4X4
block schedule and high school students on a traditional schedule. Limitations of this
study were mentioned and relevant definitions were presented. Chapter 2 will present
a review of the literature that is relevant to the topic of this study.
7
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to determine if there are significant differences
in science achievement and continuous enrollment rates between students who attend
a high school on a 4X4 block schedule and students who attend a high school on a
traditional schedule. Chapter 2 will present the history of high school scheduling,
types of block scheduling, and a summary of the literature.
History of High School Scheduling
Education has experienced a great number of challenges in the last 100 years
that can be summarized into three main categories: Development Period (1893-1959),
Experimental Period (1959-1983), and Restructuring Period (1984-present) (Fenske,
1997). Each period led to national debates and reforms in secondary education.
The Developmental Period (1893-1959) was brought to light by the National
Education Association in, The Report of the Committee of Ten (Mackenzie, 1894).
This committee attempted to define curriculum in terms of nine core subject areas:
Latin, Greek, English, modern languages, mathematics, sciences, natural history,
history (economics and government), and geography (Fenske, 1997). The goal of
standardizing secondary education during this time was to prepare students for
postsecondary study by establishing standards before college admissions came into
existence.
8
One standard, determined by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
Teaching in 1906, placed a quantifiable time standard, calling for 120 hours of
instruction per course of study. This first scheduling term for secondary schooling
became known as the Carnegie Unit defined by a course of five periods a week
through the academic year. This marked the beginning of the high school schedule
with a minimum standard of time per class and how often each class would be
attended during the school year (Fenske, 1997).
Educators by the 1900s found that many of their students in secondary
education would not be attending college, and the debate over academic curriculum
came into question once again (Fenske, 1997). Progressive educators, as they were
referred to in the early 1900s, called for a transition from college preparation courses
only to more practical courses that would prepare the growing number of high school
students for the work force (Fenske, 1997). The need for more diverse courses of
study became known as curriculum differentiation, whereby the focus shifted away
from a purely social and intellectual education to one of vocational skills (Fenske,
1997). The push for vocational training to improve the needs of the growing labor
force prompted President Theodore Roosevelt to urge Congress in 1907 to pass laws
that would promote industrial education as well as agricultural education in public
schools (Gordon, 2009). In 1914, President Woodrow Wilson appointed a
commission to investigate the need for vocational schooling. As a result, the Smith-
Hughes Act of 1917, was passed to provide government funds for teacher training in
vocational education (Altenbaugh, 1999).
9
The Developmental Era, that largely supported vocational education, came to
a close around the 1960s. Cold war fears and the civil rights movement during this
time, created a change in educational philosophy and a renewed emphasis on
American education to protect its democratic ideals emerged (Fenske, 1997). The
next era to emerge was the Experimental Period (1959-1983), largely inspired by
Conant and Gardner’s (1959) report, The American High School Today. This report
called for three forms of change: (1) provide a comprehensive education to all future
citizens, (2) provide elective classes to students seeking direct employment after high
school, and (3) provide educational programs that support college requirements.
Conant and Gardner’s report also supported the strengthening of mathematics and
science skills along with expansion of reading and writing skills. These new
curriculum areas of emphasis were an emerging effort to offer occupational skills in
business and commerce (Fenske, 1997).
In order to accommodate the emerging idea of a comprehensive education, a
new scheduling system was invented, called the Modular Flexible Schedule (Conant
& Gardner, 1959). This new scheduling system was inspired by J. Lloyd Trump and
later called the Trump Plan. The Trump Plan sought to eliminate the traditional
schedule of Carnegie Units, which was then defined as 5 to 6 classes per week of
approximately an hour in length that largely consisted of lecture. The new Trump
Plan called for classes to meet in “modules.” For instance, a biology class could be
split in a flexible schedule such as 40-minute lectures twice a week, a 100-minute lab
once a week, and a 20-minute instructional help module once a day (Canady &
10
Rettig, 1995). By the end of this experiment, many schools reverted to the traditional
Carnegie Unit schedule, citing that many discipline problems arose from the
unstructured time students had for instructional help module (Canady & Rettig,
1995).
By 1983, most high schools had returned to the traditional high school setting.
This new era, called the Restructuring Period (1983-present), marks an attempt to
improve schools to compete with the international market (Gardner, Larsen, Baker,
Campbell, & Crosby, 1983). This movement of reform, was inspired by the report by
the National Commission on Excellence, A Nation at Risk, which made four
recommendations: (1) strengthen high school requirements, (2) develop rigorous
educational standards, (3) better preparation for teachers, and (4) increase the time
spent in school or the more efficient use of available time (Gardner et al., 1983).
During this time of restructuring, the idea of block scheduling became an
attempt to manage time more appropriately during the school year. Block scheduling
was proposed by Joseph Carroll in 1987, called The Copernican Plan: A Concept
Paper for Restructuring High Schools. The Copernican Plan called for longer
‘blocks’ of instruction in order for teachers to individualize instruction for students
(Fletcher, 1997). This idea of block scheduling, while not originating with Joseph
Carroll, increased in popularity around the 1990s. A report by the National Education
Commission (NEC) of Time and Learning (as cited in Slattery, 1995) indicated that
schools were largely regulated by their use of time and made the recommendation
that the school day be expanded. The report also indicated that much of the school
11
day was lost to clerical routines such as attendance and students transitioning at least
six times during the day. This report by the NEC led many schools to address the
potential benefits of restructuring high school scheduling into various types of block
scheduling.
Proponents of block scheduling argued that the idea of better time
management could improve student achievement across America, making the nation
more competitive in the global market. The potential benefits included: (1) less
teacher stress, due to fewer students and theoretically more time tailoring lessons to
individual student needs, (2) increased time spent on a single class that can lead to
more inquiry-based learning and science labs to enrich student learning, (3) fewer
class loads that may allow the student to focus more on a single subject, (4) less
homework that may free students’ available attention to a single subject, (5) better
teaching practices or collaboration with teacher peers on methods to improve student
learning, (6) more classes per student in a 4-year term and early graduation, (7) more
opportunities to remediate classes in a 4-year term, (8) less missed work when
students are absent due to a lighter class schedule per term, (9) fewer distractions
caused by transitions between multiple classes, and (10) reduced number of discipline
issues due to fewer transitions between classes (Irmsher, 1996).
Critics of block scheduling claimed that although the length of time extends
from approximately 55 minutes to approximately 90 minutes per class on a typical
day, the duration in which to cover the material is shortened from approximately 9000
instructional minutes to approximately 8100 instructional minutes, which equates to
12
30 fewer class hours or 3 fewer weeks in a calendar year (Canady & Rettig, 1995).
Critics also pointed to the spring effect, which claims that teenagers generally learn
better from shortened class periods staggered over a greater amount of days because
less frequent, more intense, longer class schedules do not equate to active learning
due to the attention span of an adolescent (Dempster, 1988). Lastly, critics claimed
that quantity does not replace quality. Good teachers can utilize time efficiently even
with a traditional school calendar (Irmsher, 1996).
Types of Block Scheduling
The most frequently used types of block scheduling include the 4X4, the
alternate day, hybrid models, and the Copernican (Canady & Rettig, 1995). These
types of block scheduling have been tailored to fit the needs of schools as a result of
the community, school board and administrators, and the teachers attempting to
maximize student learning (Canady & Rettig, 1995).
The most popular type of block scheduling is the 4X4. The 4X4 focuses on
four classes per day (Monday through Friday) in the span of one semester, or half a
traditional school year. After the first semester, students are given a new schedule of
four classes to complete for the second semester, hence the term 4X4. Each class
typically meets for 90 minutes per day. The benefit of this plan is that it reduces the
number of children a teacher sees on a given day by 25%, thus encouraging more
individualized teacher to student instruction. This plan also sets forth the idea of
early graduation or the opportunity of remediation for failing students, given the fact
that eight classes can be completed in a calendar year when compared to the six
13
courses that are completed in a traditional school schedule (Queen, Algozzine, &
Eaddy, 1996).
Another form of the block scheduling is the Alternate Day model, also known
as the A/B or 8-block plan. Students take eight courses for 90 minutes each of a 6-
day cycle, four of the classes meet on Day A, while the other 4 classes meet on
alternating days, designated by Day B. The courses meet for the entire school year,
eliminating the need to switch schedules mid-year. One benefit to the teachers meant
having additional planning time on Day A. Students complete the same number of
classes as a traditional schedule, but the scheduling allows for extended class time for
enrichment learning (Canady & Rettig, 1995).
The hybrid model of block scheduling is the blending of courses into modules
according to the requirements of each course. Classes will consist of one, two, or
three modules in length depending on the need of the class. Although his method
theoretically allows greater freedom to tailor classes to student needs, the hybrid
model becomes a logistic nightmare for personnel who complete student schedules
(Gruber & Onwuegbuzie, 2001).
The Copernican plan reconstructs the school year into six 6-week semesters,
in which students only take two courses at a time. After completion of a single
semester, students enroll in another two courses. Each of the classes meet daily for 2
hours and the last 70 minutes of the day are spent on music, physical education, or
remediation based on the needs of the students. The proposed benefit of the lengthy
class times allows students to concentrate on fewer classes at a single time and allows
14
for fewer distracting transitions between classes. The drawback is having a teacher
who is mismatched with a student’s needs for a prolonged amount of time (Irmsher,
1996).
Studies on High School Schedules
A study was conducted by Veal and Flinders (2001) to determine the impact
on school climate and instructional practice of 4X4 block scheduling. The study took
place in Central Florida and involved 1800 students selected at random from three
high schools. The demographics included 72% White, 8.8% Black, 16.2% Hispanic,
1.3% Asian, and 0.5% American Indian. The study used qualitative data collected
from face-to-face interviews, emails, and phone interviews with administrators,
teachers, and students using a Likert-type survey questioner.
The findings of the study showed that there was a positive impact on student-
teacher relationships; however, teacher anxiety increased due to the fact that there
was more material to cover in a shortened amount of time in one semester. Reflection
time was found to be negatively impacted because of the accelerated pacing guide.
Based on the results of the surveys, it was found that 45% of the students felt their
teachers had changed their teaching methodology. Teacher surveys indicated that
time in class was the greatest influence over teaching strategy. Student to teacher
relationships were reported to have improved 42% with block scheduling. Surveys
indicated that the greatest positive increases to student to teacher relationships were
more daily contact and fewer students for the teachers to interact with daily. Levels
of anxiety, according to parent surveys, decreased 53% with their children on block
15
scheduling. Teachers’ levels of anxiety increased due to a perceived lack of time for
planning and an increased pace of instruction.
Comer (2012) conducted a study to determine if 4X4 block scheduling had an
effect on student achievement and school climate. The study took place in Arizona
and was a comparative study between a traditional schedule high school and a 4X4
block schedule high school. The study took place in 2008 using the school district’s
student information system (SASI) to obtain student data, including scholastic
Aptitude Test (SAT) scores, grade point averages, completed credits, office referrals,
detentions, truancies, tardies and suspensions. The schools were similar in terms of
gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status (SES). The number of participants from
the traditional schedule high school included 1,955 students and 86 teachers and the
4X4 block schedule high school included 1,843 students and 95 teachers. The data
were analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). The findings of the
study showed that SAT scores remained lower at the 4X4 block scheduling high
school compared to the traditional high school. However, the completion rate of high
school units was higher with block scheduling than the traditional high school
scheduling method.
Reames and Bradshaw (2009) conducted a longitudinal study of six high
schools of similar population and demographics over a 10-year period. The study
took place in Georgia and involved the collection of data from high schools
transitioning from a traditional Carnegie class schedule to a 4X4 block schedule,
which included student achievement over a 10 year period as determined by the
16
following exams: (1) SAT, (2) Advanced Placement Test (AP) and (3) Georgia High
School Graduation Test (GHSGT) in the subject areas of social studies, mathematics,
English/language arts, and science. This study also measured the graduation rates of
students during the transition to block scheduling from 1999 through 2009.
The findings of this study showed a significant increase in the mean values of
student SAT scores from the baseline year of 1999 until 2009. Although SAT scores
declined in a few specific years, the overall 10-year study showed an upward trend
over time. The number of students passing the AP test with a score of 3 or higher
showed marked improvement from 1999-2007. Findings of the t-test analysis using
Bonferroni adjustment on the GHSGT showed no significant difference in scores on
the written portion of the test during the first year of the longitudinal study. The
portion of the GHSGT that tests social studies, mathematics, English language arts,
and science reported a significant difference in scores during the first year of the
study (language arts d = .34 moderate, social studies d = .51 large, mathematics d
=.52 large, science = .46 large). The results of the t-test analysis during the transition
year from a traditional school to a 4X4 block schedule suggested that students from
the previous year on the traditional schedule outperformed students who took
GHSGT exam the following year while on 4x4 block scheduling. Over the course of
10 years, students’ academic achievement in mathematics made the greatest gain
while students’ achievement in science was the lowest. Administrators hypothesized
that mathematics would probably reveal the least gains in test scores due to the lack
of year-long courses and science would have the best increases in test scores because
17
the block schedule allotted for laboratory experiments and projects. Graduation rates
improved from 60.2% to 70.6% since the induction of 4X4 block scheduling.
The researcher indicated the following reasons for the success of 4X4 block
scheduling: (1) staff development on the pedagogical methods of block schedules was
maintained throughout the 10-year period, (2) Saturday sessions were held to prepare
students to pass the GHSGT, which was a mandated graduation requirement, (3) after
school review sessions for the SAT were held continuously throughout the school
year, and (4) graduation rates may have improved because block scheduling allowed
for the completion of six additional courses in a 4-year time frame, thus allowing for
either remediation of classes or additional electives.
Summary
This chapter presented the history of high school scheduling, types of block
scheduling, and a summary of the literature. Chapter 3 will present the research
design, population sample, instrumentation and data collection, and statistical
analysis.
18
CHAPTER III
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to determine if there was significant differences
in science achievement and continuous enrollment rates between students who
attended a high school on a 4X4 block schedule and students who attended a high
school on a traditional schedule. This chapter will present the following: (1)
description of the sample population, (2) instrumentation & data collection, and (3)
statistical analyses.
Sample Population
The participants included 100 sophomore students from each of the two high
schools. One high school adopted a 4X4 block scheduling system. Four-by-four
block scheduling consisted of four 90-minute class periods per school day each
semester (Chance, 2001). The other school adopted a traditional class scheduling
system that consisted of six 45-minute classes per day each semester.
The student populations of the two schools were similar in terms of ethnicity,
socioeconomic status (SES) and English proficiency. The participants in each group
were randomly selected. For Hypothesis 1 this researcher used an alphabetized list of
sophomores for the 2012-2013 academic year from each school. Beginning with the
first student on the list, every other student for each school was selected to participate
until 100 participants were reached (n=100) and drawn from (Traditional High School
19
Scheduling= 273 and 4X4 Block Scheduling = 271). For Hypothesis 2, this
researcher used an alphabetized list of freshman students for the 2011-2012 academic
year for both the 4X4 block schedule high school and traditional schedule high school
and compared the list to the 2014-2015 academic school year to determine the
percentage of students who remained at their respective high schools. Beginning with
the first student on the list, every other student for each school was selected until 100
participants were reached (n=100) and drawn from (Traditional High School
Scheduling = 375 and 4X4 Block Scheduling = 342).Instrumentation and Data
Collection
The assessment instrument used for this study was the California Standards
Test (CST) in life science, which was administered in the spring of 2013. The scores
from the CST in life science were used to test the first hypothesis. The lists of
students with continuous enrollment was used to test the second hypothesis. This
data was maintained by the Districts’ Data Director Software program.
Statistical Analyses
In order to determine if there is a significant difference in student achievement
between the two schools, a t-test for independent samples was conducted. To
determine if there was a significant difference continuous enrollment between the two
schools, a Pearson Chi-Square Test for Independence was conducted. Statistical
significance was set at .05 for both analyses.
20
Summary
This chapter presented a description of the sample population,
instrumentation, data collection, and statistical analyses. Chapter 4 will present the
results of the analyses.
21
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to determine if there was significant differences
in science achievement and continuous enrollment rates between students who
attended a high school on a 4X4 block schedule and students who attended a high
school on a traditional schedule. This chapter presents the following findings related
to the hypotheses.
Findings Related to the Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1
There is no significant difference in the California Standards Test (CST)
scores in life science between sophomore students who attended high school on a
4X4 block schedule and sophomore students who attended a high school on a
traditional high school schedule.
A t-test for independent samples was used to determine if there was a
significant difference in the CST scores in life science between sophomore students
who attended high school on a 4X4 block schedule and sophomore students who
attended a high school on a traditional schedule. Significance was set at p < .05.
The results indicated a significant difference in the CST scores in life science
between sophomore students who attended high school on a 4X4 block schedule and
sophomore students who attended a high school on a traditional schedule (see Table
22
1). Specifically, sophomore students who attended a high school on a traditional
schedule performed significantly higher than those who attended a high school on a
4X4 block schedule.
Table 1
CST Scores in Life Science, 4X4 Block and Traditional Schedules
Group n M SD t p
Block 4X4 100 336.63 42.385 -2.208 .024
Traditional 100 352.84 59.929
*p < .05
Hypothesis 2
There was no significant difference in continuous enrollment rates between
students who attended a high school on a 4X4 block schedule and students who
attended a high school on a traditional schedule.
The results of the Pearson chi-square analysis indicated that there was a
significant difference (p = .048) in the distribution of students between those who
were continuously enrolled for four years at the same high school on a 4x4 block
schedule and those who were continuously enrolled for four years at the same high
school on a traditional schedule (see Table 2). Seventy-five percent of the students
attending the high school on a 4X4 block schedule graduated from the same high
school on time. Sixty-two percent of the students attending the high school on a
traditional schedule graduated from the same high school on time.
23
The results suggest that students who attended a high school on a 4X4 block
schedule were more likely to graduate on time than students who attended high
school on a traditional schedule.
Table 2
Continuous Enrollment Rates: 4X4 Block and Traditional Schedules
Group n YES NO χ2 p
Block 4X4 100 75 25 3.916 .048*
Traditional 100 62 38
*p<.05. YES = number of students enrolled for four years and graduated from the
same institution. NO = number of students enrolled, but did not graduate from the
same institution
Summary
There was a significant difference in the CST scores in life science between
sophomore students who attended high school on a 4X4 block schedule and
sophomore students who attended a high school on a traditional high school schedule,
suggesting a positive significant difference favoring traditional class scheduling.
Additionally, there was a significant difference in continuous enrollment rates
between students who attended a high school on a 4x4 block schedule and students
who attended a high school on a traditional schedule in favor of the 4x4 block
schedule system. Chapter V will present a summary of the study, implications, and
recommendations.
24
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to determine if there were significant
differences in science achievement and continuous enrollment rates between students
who attended a high school on a 4X4 block schedule and students who attended a
high school on a traditional schedule. This chapter will present the summary,
conclusions, implications, and recommendations.
Summary of Study
High school students in the United States have remained behind in science and
mathematics when compared to other industrialized nations. The United States
currently ranks 23rd of 65 competitive countries according to the Program for
International Student Achievement (PICA) (Fleischman et al., 2009). There is a
growing need for science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) occupations
across the United States that are being outsourced for lack of qualified applicants in
the United States (Borjas, 2004). Block scheduling is a reform movement that may
increase proficiency rates of high school students in the areas of science and
mathematics. Secondly, block scheduling may improve graduation rates among high
school students. This study presents the effects of 4X4 block scheduling on student
achievement and continuous enrollment. The first hypothesis used archival test data
to determine if there was a significant difference in the California Standards Test
25
scores in life science between sophomore students who attended a high school on a
4X4 block schedule and sophomore students who attended a high school on a
traditional schedule. The results of a t-test for independent samples suggested that
sophomore students who attended high school on a traditional schedule performed
significantly higher than sophomore students who attended a high school on a 4X4
block schedule. The second hypothesis used archival data to determine if there was a
significant difference in retention rates between students who attended a high school
on a 4X4 block schedule and students who attended a high school on a traditional
schedule. The results of the Pearson chi-square suggested that students who began a
high school on a 4X4 block schedule were more likely to stay until they graduated
than students who began high school on a traditional schedule.
Implications
The results of the independent t-test analysis showed that students who
attended a high school on a traditional schedule scored significantly higher than
students who attended a high school on the 4x4 block schedule. Factors that may
contributed to the 4X4 block schedule falling short of improving student achievement
include: (1) failing to provide professional development related to teaching
effectively for an extended amount of time, (2) condensing two-semester courses into
one semester courses and (3) failing to retain information from a fall course not
offered in the spring when state testing was conducted (Zepeda & Mayers, 2006).
A story in the Los Angeles Times suggested the need for adequate staff
development training regarding lesson planning for 4X4 block scheduling. The study
26
found that students reported increases in unstructured instruction due to the longer
class schedule and insufficient teacher planning to cover the whole 90 minutes of
class, which lead to increased disciplinary problems among students who became
bored (Gorman, 2000). Further, condensing two-semester courses into one semester
courses does not appear to improve the mastery of course content because research
suggested that more frequent and spaced learning opportunities lead to better recall of
information (Dempster, 1988). The traditional schedule allows for more spaced
reviews over a period of days, rather than a single 90-minute block that crams
information into a single day (Dempster, 1988).
Further, the results of the Pearson chi-square analysis showed that a high
school on a 4X4 block schedule had a significantly higher continuous enrollment rate
than a high school on a traditional schedule. These results suggest that more students
on a 4X4 block schedule remain enrolled throughout their 4 years of high school than
students on a traditional schedule. Factors that contribute to a higher continuous
enrollment rate may include lower class sizes leading to better student-to-teacher
interactions and relationships and less course work for students, which may be more
manageable for them (Zepeda & Mayers, 2006).
A study conducted by Irmsher (1996) found that student-to-teacher
interactions and relationships improved during a 4X4 block schedule. This study
cited that due to the reduction in administrative duties, such as attendance taking,
introductions, and closures, teachers were able to become more acquainted with their
students. Block scheduling resulted in increased time with fewer students, reduced
27
student discipline and increased individualized instruction (Irmsher, 1996).
Furthermore, students experienced less transition time between classes and were able
to concentrate on fewer courses in a day.
The results of this study suggest that students on a 4X4 block schedule do not
outperform students on a traditional class schedule. In regards to continuous
enrollment rates, this study does suggest that students who begin a high school that
operates on a 4X4 block schedule are more likely to stay and graduate than students
who begin a high school that operates on a traditional schedule.
Recommendations
The significance of this study shows significant promise in continuous
enrollment rates of students participating on a 4X4 block schedule. However, the
study does not support the position that 4X4 block scheduling improves student
achievement. Factors contributing to the results of this study are suggested by prior
research pertaining to block scheduling. This researcher suggests the following
research studies to improve the scope of study on high school scheduling:
1. Conduct a cohort study of students who have attended a traditional
schedule high school and have transferred to a 4X4 block schedule high
school in order to determine if there is a significant difference in grade
point average (GPA).
2. Conduct a longitudinal study involving several high schools throughout
the United States that have transitioned from a traditional schedule to a
28
block schedule and determine if their state test scores have improved from
year to year.
3. Conduct a qualitative study to determine student, teacher, administrator,
and parent attitudes on block scheduling through a survey and to
determine through interviews the advantages and disadvantages of 4X4
block scheduling.
REFERENCES
30
REFERENCES
Altenbaugh, R. J. (1999). Historical dictionary of American education. Westport, CT:
Greenwood.
Borjas, G. J. (2004). Do foreign students crowd out native students from graduate?
(NBER Working Paper No. 10349). Retrieved from http://www.papers.ssrn
.com/sol3/delivery.cfm/nber_w10349.pdf?abstractid=515243
Canady, R. L., & Rettig, M. D. (1995). Block scheduling: A catalyst for change in
high schools (Vol. 5). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Carroll, J. M. (1987). The Copernican plan: A concept paper for restructuring high
schools. ERIC Clearinghouse. (ED281308)
Chance, B. S. (2001). A comprehensive review of literature contrasting the
advantages and disadvantages of block scheduling. Retrieved from
http://www2.uwstout.edu/content/lib/thesis/2001/2001chanceb.pdf
Chappell, B. (2013, December 3). U.S. students slide in global ranking on math,
reading, science. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-
way/2013/12/03/248329823/u-s-high-school-students-slide-in-math-reading-
science
Conant, J. B., & Gardner, J. W. (1959). The American high school today: A first
report to interested citizens. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Dempster, F. N. (1988). The spacing effect: A case study in the failure to apply the
results of psychological research. American Psychologist, 43, 627-634.
31
Dick, S. J., & Launius, R. D. (2006). Critical issues in the history of spaceflight.
Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Retrieved
from http://history.nasa.gov/SP-2006-4702/frontmatter.pdf
Fenske, N. R. (1997). A history of American public high schools, 1890-1990:
Through the eyes of principals (Vol. 37). Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen.
Fleischman, H. L., Hopstock, P. J., Pelczar, M. P., & Shelley, B. E. (2010).
Highlights from PISA 2009: Performance of U.S. 15-year-old students in
reading, mathematics, and science literacy in an international context (NCES
2011-004). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Fletcher, W. P. (1997). The development of a block scheduling evaluation model
(Doctoral dissertation). Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Retrieved from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-11797-
134311/unrestricted/fletcher.pdf
Gardner, D. P., Larsen, Y. W., Baker, W., Campbell, A., & Crosby, E. A. (1983). A
nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC:
United States Department of Education.
Gordon, E. (2009). The global talent crisis. The Futurist, 43(4), 34-39.
Gorman, A. (2000, November 25). College-style schedule may be the answer for exit
test. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2000/nov
/25/local/me-56972
Graham, H. D. (2011). The uncertain triumph: Federal education policy in the
Kennedy and Johnson years. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina.
32
Griffin, P., McGaw, B., & Care, E. (2012). Assessment and teaching of 21st century
skills (p. 36). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Gruber, C. D., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2001). Effect of block scheduling on academic
achievement among high school students. High School Journal, 84(4), 32-42.
Irmsher, K. (1996). Block scheduling in high schools. Eugene, OR: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Educational Management.
Kuenzi, J. J. (2008). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
education: Background, federal policy, and legislative action. Washington,
DC: Congressional Research Services. Retrieved from https://www.fas.org
/sgp/crs/misc/RL33434.pdf
Mackenzie, J. C. (1894). The report of the committee of ten. The School Review, 2,
146-155.
Queen, J. A., Algozzine, B., & Eaddy, M. (1996). The success of 4x4 block scheduled
in the social studies. Social Studies, 87, 249-253.
Reames, E., & Bradshaw, C. (2009). Block scheduling effectiveness: A 10-year
longitudinal study of one Georgia school system’s test score indicators.
Retrieved from http://coefaculty.valdosta.edu/lschmert/gera/volume-
7/Block%20Scheduling%20formatted.pdf
33
Schneider, R. M., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (2002). Performance of
students in project‐based science classrooms on a national measure of science
achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 410-422. doi:10
.1002/tea.10029
Slattery, P. (1995). A postmodern vision of time and learning: A response to the
National Education Commission Report Prisoners of Time. Harvard
Educational Review, 65, 612-634. Retrieved from http://people.cehd.tamu.edu
/~pslattery/documents/prison.pdf
Veal, W. R., & Flinders, D. J. (2001). How block scheduling reform effects
classroom practice. High School Journal, 84(4), 21-31.
Zepeda, S. J., & Mayers, R. S. (2006). An analysis of research on block scheduling.
Review of Educational Research, 76, 137-170.
