Block+Scheduling

//Team Research Design Project// Liza Ginis, Elaine Finan, Marisa Olivo
 * EDC 529

//The Effect of Block Scheduling on the math and verbal skills of Twelfth Grade Students attending Rhode Island High Schools://**

The effect of block scheduling, an alternative to traditional scheduling, has been a topic of discussion in educational circles for some time. During the recent years, more and more high schools throughout Rhode Island have been adopting this newer form of scheduling. Research indicates that there are many implications of block scheduling, including additional teacher training and support, and the challenge of implementation. Our research intends to examine whether the impact of block scheduling, with its clear affect on administration, teachers and students, is achieving the desired affect of actually improving academic achievement, with a particular focus on math and verbal achievement, among high school seniors.
 * //__Introduction:__//**

__**//Research Question://**__ Is there a statistically significant difference in math and verbal skills between twelfth grade students who attend a Rhode Island high school with block scheduling and twelfth grade students who attend a Rhode Island high school without block scheduling, as measured by the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT)?

__**//Hypotheses://**__
 * Null Hypothesis:** There will not be a statistically significant difference in math and verbal skills, as measured by the SAT, between twelfth grade students who attend a RI high school with block scheduling and twelfth grade students who attend a RI high school without block scheduling.


 * Non- Directional Hypothesis:** There will be a statistically significant difference in math and verbal skills, as measured by the SAT, between twelfth grade students who attend a RI high school with block scheduling and twelfth grade students who attend a RI high school without block scheduling.


 * Directional Hypothesis:** Rhode Island twelfth graders who attend a high school with block scheduling will have significantly higher math and verbal skills, as measured by the SAT, than Rhode Island high school twelfth graders who attend a high school without block scheduling.

For years educators have debated issues surrounding the effective use of time in secondary schools. Block scheduling, a scheduling trend which replaces traditional scheduling, is currently used by nearly half of the high schools in the United States (Zepeda & Mayers, 2006). It has been implemented widely on the premise that an increase in the length of a class period will improve active teaching, increase student learning and ultimately, academic achievement (Zepeda, 2006).
 * //__Literature Review:__//**

Traditional scheduling is defined as a typical six or seven class per day schedule, based mostly on the needs of the administration. Typically in block scheduling, however, classes exist in blocks of time centered around core courses which last 60-90 minutes (Irmsher, 1996). Variations of block schedules are designed to allow for creativity in course planning and diversity in instructional needs. Many other benefits have been identified as well (Sturgis, as cited in Irmsher, 1996), such as smaller class size, in-depth probing of course material, time to vary instructional techniques and activities, reduced transitions, and a reduction in disruptive behavior. The cornerstone of block schedules, however, is the flexibility of the model which can be adapted to suit the needs of the institution. The most popular examples of block schedules, each with distinct advantages and disadvantages are: Full Block (4 x 4) semester plan: Students take four 90 minute classes/day/semester; and Alternate Day Block (A/B) plan: Students take three to four 90-120 minute classes, every other day for the entire year (Cobb, Leech, Lewis, Viney, White, Winokur, 2003).

Transitioning to a block schedule requires a tremendous commitment from teachers who need to learn new instructional activities in order to use the additional class time to their students' advantage. Teachers must be supported with educational programs that provide them with new strategies as they transition from the traditional classroom teaching model to longer class periods. Advocates of block scheduling propose that these changes in teaching strategies cause a positive change in student achievement fostering teacher, classroom, and student behaviors which encourages greater involvement in the learning process, creates better working conditions for students and teachers, without lowering standards (Pisapia & Westfall, 1996).

Since 1963, interest in extended periods beyond the traditional schedule class period has existed, yet quantitative studies examining measurable effects of longer periods on student academic achievement are still relatively scarce (Chaika, 2006). Instead, researchers have focused on the effects of blocking on teacher/student relationships, administrative concerns, classroom climate, and instructional needs (Lewis, et al, 2003). Most concede that block scheduling does improve school climate and the quality of the school day for both students and teachers, but, as Zepeda and Mayers (2006) conclude, "As more testing and administrative milestones are put into place in response to new educational legislation, schools need protocols in place to measure impact."

Additionally, the research that has attempted to measure the effects of block scheduling on standardized test scores have had mixed results because of the many factors which affect the validity of the comparisons (Zepeda, 2006). These include the length of time the high school has been immersed in a block schedule, the variability of teaching styles within schools and between schools. Also, the different forms of block schdueling should not be compared because they each affect how and when a student learns. In 31 of 58 studies on block scheduling, more than half of the schools did not identify the type of block scheduling used (Zepeda, 2006).

In 2000, a large study of 128 high schools in Georgia, with at least one full year of block scheduling (unspecified) completed, provided comparative results for descriptive purposes only (Georgia Department of Education, 2000). For many of the schools, it was not unusual to see a drop in SAT scores when block was first implemented, and an unclear picture of any real positive or negative result after that. The researchers inferred that block scheduling, "is neither improving nor harming the performance of these schools on the SAT as a group" (Georgia Department of Education, 2000). Yet, in support of block scheduling, a 1995 study commissioned by the Metropolitan Educational Research Consortium (MERC) in Virginia, evaluated the impact of alternative block scheduling among seven high schools. Included among the measures were the effect on standardized test scores (Pisapia & Westfall, 1995). Over the life of the change in scheduling, both math and verbal SAT scores improved somewhat in the majority of the seven schools examined, with the greatest change seen in the scores of students in the Alternate Day (A/B) block schedule.

Vague results such as these are joined by mixed results in the available research. In a Pennsylvania high school that compared the SAT scores of students two years before, through three years after implementing block scheduling (Queen, 2006), there was a positive indication of the influence of block scheduling on measures such as attendance and grade point average, an increase of 12 points on the verbal SAT scores, a four point decrease in the math SAT scores, and no impact on the PSAT scores. A similar result was found in the Thomas Edison High School in Farifax, Virginia. They noted an increase in total SAT score from 978 to 1029, and an increase in other academic measures, such as grade point average, five years after implementing block scheduling (Chaika, 2006).

As of 2006, seven Rhode Island high schools reported using some form of block scheduling (University of Minnesota, 2006): Chariho Regional High School, East Providence High School, Exeter West Greenwich, Portsmouth High School, North Kingston High School, Charles Shea High School, and Westerly High School. Our research will look at the effects of block class scheduling in four different Rhode Island high schools, by examining whether there is a statistically significant difference in the math and verbal skills between seniors from two Rhode Island high schools using block scheduling and seniors from two Rhode Island (RI) high schools using traditional scheduling, as measured by the SAT. These comparisons will also be stratified by gender. Since this is a relatively small sample, the type of block scheduling will not be considered, but an attempt will be made to compare high schools with similar populations (ie. size, diversity, socioeconomic status, and location).

__**//Methods://**__


 * Research Design:**

This is a Quantitative Study:

R X O R C O

R= Random sample X= Treatment (block scheduling) C= Control group (no block scheduling) O= Post test (SAT)

We will use a random sample of 400 RI high school seniors who have completed the SATs, stratified on the basis of gender. Half of the seniors (200) will be from 2 RI high schools with block scheduling implemented for the past four years (freshman through senior year). The other half of the seniors (200) will be from 2 RI high schools without block scheduling (with traditional scheduling) for the past four years. Additionally, care will be taken to compare students from schools that are similar in location, inferred to have similar demographics.
 * Sample:**

SAT scores from 100 seniors that attend a high school with block scheduling in an urban setting, will be compared to the SAT scores of 100 seniors without block scheduling also located in an urban setting. And, the SAT scores of 100 seniors attending a high school with block scheduling from a rural location, will be compared to the SAT scores of 100 high school seniors without block scheduling also located in a rural location.


 * Independent Variable:** Block Scheduling
 * Dependent Variable:** Math and Verbal Skills, as measured by the SAT

We will collect the SAT scores for 400 Rhode Island high school seniors from four different RI high schools. Two of these high schools will be from urban locations with similar demographics and socioeconomic backgrounds: one with block scheduling, one without block scheduling. The other two high schools will be from rural locations with similar demographics and socioeconomic backgrounds: one with block scheduling, one without block scheduling
 * Data Collection:**

In an effort to analyze the data we collected, this research team will calculate the mean and standard deviations of the SAT scores of both the control group and the experimental group. We will then calculate the mean and standard deviation of SAT scores of each of the four subgroups (experimental rural (n=100), experimental urban (n=100), control rural (n=100) and control urban (n=100)). Our sample is randomly selected and stratified, therefore, we will calculate the mean and standard deviation of the SAT scores of the female and male high school senior subgroups in the control and experimental groups.
 * Data Analysis:**

Next, we will compare the means and standard deviations of the control group and the experimental group using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) statistical test. With our level of risk set at 5% (p< .05), this test will analyize the differences in mean and standard deviation of SAT scores from each of the four different groupings in this study: the experimental rural, the experimental urban, the control rural, and the control urban. Additionally, this test will analyze the difference between the mean and standard deviation of SAT scores from the following subsets of groups in this study: males in the experimental rural group, females in the experimental rural group, males in the experimental urban group, females in the experimental urban group, males in the control rural group, females in the control rural group, males in the control urban group and females in the control urban group.

This form of data analysis will attempt to present an accurate depiction of the effect of block scheduling on SAT test results from RI urban high schools with block scheduling, RI urban high schools with traditional scheduling, RI rural high schools with block scheduling and RI rural high schools with traditionally scheduling. This data will also make efforts to demonstrate the differences in SAT test results by senior males who attend in a RI rural high school with block scheduling, senior males who attend in RI rural high schools with traditional scheduling, senior males who attend RI urban high schools with block scheduling, senior males who attend RI urban high schools with traditional scheduling, senior females who attend RI rural high shcools with block scheduling, senior females who attend RI rural high schools with traditional scheduling, senior females who attend RI urban high schools with block scheduling and senior females who attend RI urban high schools with traditional settings.

Finally, using this ANOVA, we will determine whether or not there is a statistically significant difference in math and verbal skills, as measured by the SAT, between RI high school seniors that attend high schools where block scheduling is implemented and RI high school seniors that attend high schools where block scheduling is not implemented. Further, via this ANOVA we will investigate whether or not there is a statistically significant difference in the math and verbal skills of RI high school males in both rural and urban settings with block and traditional scheduling and RI high school females in both rural and urban settings with block and traditional setting.

This study will attempt to create a valid and reliable examination of the effects of block scheduling on the math and verbal skills of 400 RI high school seniors. This study is specific, both in region and demographics, and is not designed for generalization to high schools outside Rhode Island who may have diverse student populations. This research team will conduct a quantitative study utilizing four groups of high school seniors organized into an experimental group (200 students from schools with block scheduling) and control group, (200 students from schools with traditional scheduling).
 * Validity & Reliability:**

There exist some potential threats to the //internal validity// of this experimental design that should be addressed. First, the //history// of each participant in this study cannot be known, and the extent to which each participant has been previously exposed to the SAT could present as a confounding variable for this study. High school students are given several opportunities to take the SAT or SAT preparatory courses throughout their high school career. Participants who have had previous exposure to the SAT may score higher on the test due to either prior testing or test taking courses. This threat is minimized by using a control group which has the same opportunities to increase SAT scores. Also, the academic content and quality and technique of teacher instruction may differ significantly between and among the schools affecting the preparedness of the students to take the test. This threat has been minimized by attempting to compare SAT scores from schools that are as similar as possible in location and student demographics.

External threats to validity also exist in this study, in particular we may have committed a //sampling error//. Our sample size is relatively small when considering the number of high school seniors throughout the state of Rhode Island, and the significant demographic differences that exsit among the different schools. And, there are a limited number of high schools currently utilizing block scheduling. Therefore, our results may not be //generalizable// to high schools throughout Rhode Island. Our reserach team has attempted to negate this threat by enlarging our original sample from 200 high school seniors from 2 RI high schools, to 400 high school seniors from 4 RI high schools.

A third threat to the validity of our study is one that may be beyond the scope of this propsed research study, however the fact that the //face validity// of the SAT has been questioned by educators and educational researchers poses a potential threat to our study. Further, there has been much educational literature in recent years that discusses the extent to which the SAT is in fact a valid measure of math and verbal skills for all students, regardless of socioeconomic status and ethnicity. If in fact we are looking at the math and verbal skills of high school seniors instructed both with and without block scheduling, our study may be threatened by the very test we are using to measure these skills. One way that a further study could remediate this threat is by cross-referencing the SAT test results of its participants with their achievement level according to their quarterly grade reports.

The main strengths of our research design are the use of a control group and random sampling. The control group helps to minimize the threats to our validity, such as //history//. It minimizes these kinds of threats because it provides us with student data from a control group encountering similar life and educational situations as the student data from the experimental group. Random sampling provides us with an unbiased sample of participants for both the control and experimental groups.
 * Strength of Design:**

Another strength of our //research design// is that we are looking at schools from two different locations. This allows us to see if block scheduling has a different effect on the SAT scores from students in urban and rural schools. These characteristics provide us with real data from two types of locations in Rhode Island.

The main weakness with our design is the specific location, including both the state of Rhode Island and location of four schools (and towns) within the State, in which we are researching the effect of block scheduling on SAT's in high schools only. Rhode Island is known for its diverse cultural pockets and vastly differing towns and cities which may not be comparable. And, since every school is different, it is hard to generalize our data and findings to other schools throughout the state, or country.

A qualitative study based on the effects of block scheduling might be interesting to better understand how the extended class periods are used to the student's advantage in furthering academic achievement in math and verbal skills. Suggestions for further qualitative research include: Does increased class time mean increased student progress? Why do students prefer block scheduling and how does that affect their learning? How are teacher's teaching and students learning differently in block scheduled classes?

Additionally, it would be interesting to perform a quantitative research study to determine the effects of different forms of blocking on student achievement. Another research proposal could include measuring the affect of block scheduling on grade point average versus standardized test scores.


 * //__References:__//**

Chaika, Glori, (2006). Around the Block: The Benefits and Challenges of Block Scheduling, Education World. Retrived 6/14/07 from: http://www.educationworld.com/a_admin/admin/admin127.shtml__

Georgia State Department of Education, (2000). Review of selcted information from schools with a block scheduling waiver. ERIC ED 452241__. Retrived from: http://www.eric.gov/ERICocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/000000b/80/25/7d/90.pdf__

Irmsher, Karen. (1996). Block scheduling, ERIC Digest, 104, March. Retrived 6/11/07 from__: http://eric.uoregon.edu/publications/digests/ digest104.html

__Lawrence, W. and McPherson, D. (2000). A comparative study of block scheduling and traditional scheduling on academic achievement. Journal of Instructional Technology (Sept.). Retrieved 6/12/07 from__: __http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi____ _m0FCG/is_3_27/ai_66355137__

Lewis, C., Cobb, R., Winokur, M., Leech, N., Viney, M., White, W. (2003) The effects of full and alternative day block scheduling on language arts and science achievement in a junior high school. 11(41). Retrived 6/12/07 from: __http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/____ v11n41/__

Pisapia, J. and Westfall, A. (1995). Alternative high school scheduling, student achievement, and behavior - research report. Retrived 6/10/07 from: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/80/22/33/6a.pdf

Queen, J.A. (2006). Block scheduling revisited. Phi Delta Kappan International. Retrived 6/12/07 from: http://www.education.umn.edu/CAREI/Blockscheduling/Schools/Schools-RI-WY.html__

Univesity of Minnesota, CAREI (2006). Block Scheduling: Schools. Retrived 6/12/07 from__:__ http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kque0011__.__ htm#32a

Zepeda, S. and Mayers, S. (2006). Looking beyond the bell: An analysis of research in block scheduling. Retrived from__: [|http://rer.sagepub.com:80/cgi/reprint/76/1/137]__


 * Distribution of Duties:**


 * Ideas for each section of the research proposal were discussed and agreed upon by the whole group. Everyone took turns editing and reworking each section until the final result was mutually acceptable.


 * Elaine:** Performed the research and wrote the Literature Review, created the References section, edited all sections of the entire research proposal.
 * Liza:** Typed in: our agreed upon Research Question, Research Design, and Variables sections. Wrote: the Null and Non-Directional Hypotheses, Introduction, Sample, Data Collection, and Strength of Design sections, and keyed in the Literature review. Also performed editing.
 * Marisa:** Wrote the Data Analysis, Validity & Reliability, and Directional Hypothesis sections, performed research for the literature review, edited all sections of the entire research proposal. Keyed in the reference section.

Proposal grade = A (Pete Adamy)**
 * 6/25/07: An excellent proposal. This is well thought out and executed. My one peice of advice would be to keep your focus more narrow by not sub-dividing according to gender. It is not part of your research question, so it is not necessary to throw it in the mix. Great Job!