DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 458 269
TM 033 432
AUTHOR
TITLE
PUB DATE
NOTE
PUB TYPE
EDRS PRICE
DESCRIPTORS
IDENTIFIERS
Trenta, Louis; Newman, Isadore
Evaluation of an On-Going Block Scheduling Program.
2001 - 10-00
3 6p . ; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
Mid-Western Educational Research Association (Chicago, IL,
October 24-27, 2001) .
Reports - Evaluative (142) -- Speeches/Meeting Papers (150)
MF01/PC02 Plus Postage.
* Attendance; *Block Scheduling; *Grade Point Average; *High
School Students; High Schools; *Time Factors (Learning) ;
Urban Schools
Ohio Ninth Grade Proficiency Test
ABSTRACT
The block scheduling program used in a high school in a
small Midwestern city was evaluated, considering the "hard" data of effects
on grade point average (GPA) and attendance, but not information about
student attitudes and perceptions. Data were available for approximately 500
students from the classes of 1997 (before the block scheduling) , 2000, 2001,
and 2001. The relationship between block scheduling and cumulative GPA was
not significant, but there was a significant positive relationship in terms
of the four individual subject areas. Data suggested that block scheduling
had an influence on passage of the Ohio Proficiency Test (OPT) for those
students who did not pass the test before starting high school . Trends
relating block scheduling to attendance were not clear. Also studies was the
relationship between participating in the school band and student grades. The
relationship was significant in mathematics, English, and social studies, but
not in science. The block schedule did not appear to affect this
relationship, and the relationship between participating in band and passing
the OPT was a matter of chance. All the data that were significant were
supportive of block scheduling, but not all data were significant. Six
appendixes contain tables of study data. (SLD)
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.
TM033432
EVALUATION OF AN ON-GOING BLOCK
SCHEDULING PROGRAM
u s DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of Educational Research and Improvement
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
J CENTER (ERIC)
A This document has been reproduced as
received from the person or organization
originating it.
□ Minor changes have been made to
improve reproduction quality.
• Points of view or opinions stated in this
document do not necessarily represent
official OERI position or policy.
By
Louis Trenta
The University of Akron
and
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND
DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS
BEEN GRANTED BY
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
1
Isadore Newman
The University of Akron
BEST COP? AVAILABLE
A paper prepared for presentation at the
Midwestern Educational Research Association Annual Meeting
Chicago, IL, October 2001
2
MWERA 2001: Proposal abstract
Evaluation of a Block Scheduling program in place in the high school of a small, mid-western city.
Description of the context of the evaluation, data selection rationale, methodology used for data analysis
and interpretation, reporting to stakeholders, and the findings will comprise the principal content of this
presentation. Based on the requirements of the client, only “hard” data were considered, for example,
grade point average and attendance. Such things as attitudes and perceptions were not considered. All
the data that were significant were supportive of block scheduling; but not all the data were significant.
The impact of the evaluation, as perceived by the evaluators, and lessons learned will be discussed.
3
EVALUATION OF AN ON-GOING BLOCK SCHEDULING PROGRAM
By
Louis Trenta and Isadore Newman
Introduction
Within the context of reform of education, one of the attributes of the traditional
educational system that has been a focus for systemic change has been the use of time. While
some efforts have focused on, seeking ways to add time to the academic year and the academic
day, other efforts have focused on redeploying the time already in the calendar. One set of
efforts has centered on the daily schedule offering modifications commonly called “Block
Scheduling” in which modifications are made to allow for larger (typically 80 to over 100
minutes) blocks of time per class/subject period.
There are a number of variations since schools that adopt such a plan are not bound to a
particular pattern but can adapt it to meet their unique circumstances. Nonetheless, several
variations are more common than others. The two most common ones are the 4 x 4 schedule and
the AB schedule. In the 4 x 4 schedule, four extended length periods are scheduled for each day
and students typically take four courses each semester — hence 4 by 4. Each semester course in
this variation is equivalent to a full year course in the traditional 8 period day. The AB schedule
typically has the same 4 period day, but all courses are taught all year long, on alternate days —
the A day schedule has four classes and the B day schedule has four different classes.
Over the last decade, a number of studies and evaluations have been done on block
scheduling with some finding evidence of improved student achievement under block scheduling
and others finding so significant improvement or a significant decline in achievement. In 1996
the Office of Program Evaluation for the Chesapeake Public Schools reported that in the studied
high school failure rates declined in 60% of the school’s departments and the percent of A’s and
B’s increased (p. 5. See also Mutter, Chase, and Nichols, 1997.). A 1997 study commissioned
by the Metropolitan Educational Research Consortium in Richmond, VA found that grades
seemed to improve under both AB and 4 x4 block scheduling although more so in the 4x4
schools (Pisapia and Westfall, p. 27). David Snyder in a paper presented at the 1997 Annual
Meeting of MWERA reported that student grades in the studied high school improved and
significantly more students were on the honor rolls under block scheduling than during the
baseline years before block scheduling (p. 4). Stanley and Gifford in their review of the
literature on 4 x 4 block scheduling cited nine other studies that found that intensive block
scheduling resulted in improvements in student achievement (1998, p. 8). R. Brian Cobb, Stacy
Abate, and Dennis Baker (1999, February) reported a study of a junior high block scheduling
program that had been in operation for four years. They reported consistently higher grade point
averages in favor of block scheduling in all subject areas studied except for mathematics where
students in block scheduling performed less well than those on the traditional schedule. Going
further they noted that the data suggests block scheduling has a more positive effect on male
students than female and on 10 th and 1 1 th graders than on 8 th and 9 th graders (p. 15).
On the other hand, Guskey and Kifer in a 1995 interim report presented at the AERA
annual meeting noted that grades generally remained much the same after the introduction of
block scheduling at the studied high school (p. 1 1). Laura Williams (1999) studied one high
school whose students experienced traditional scheduling as 9 th graders and 4x4 block
scheduling as 10 th graders. In comparing the course grades, she found no significant difference
between the 9 th and 10 th grade scores in English and math; the core courses of English, science,
math, and social studies; or in overall grade point average. Lawrence and McPherson, on the
other hand, found a significant difference but one that favored the traditional schedule when
mean scores on four end-of-course tests were compared in two high schools. Both schools
provided data from two years under traditional scheduling and two years under block scheduling
for Algebra I, biology, English I, and U. S. history (2000, pp. 179-181).
To the point of this study. The administration and faculty of high school of a small mid-
west city initiated a 4 x 4 block schedule for the 1997-1998 school year with the approval of the
local board of education. Over the years since, critics of the schedule have pressed for a return to
the traditional schedule. During the 2000-2001 school year, the Board requested an evaluation of
the program prior to making a decision about continuing, terminating, or modifying the program.
Since they had received reports that the great majority of the faculty and students preferred the
block schedule, they were not looking for more qualitative information, rather they wanted an
evaluation based on what might be called “hard data,” data not derived from opinions or attitudes
of either supporters or critics but rather data that was a measure of achievement. A tangential
request from the Board was for the evaluators to report on the relationships with participation in
Band. Finally, there was a request for the number of Studied Community Foundation merit
scholarships that were renewed by graduates who had experienced block scheduling.
Thus, there were three key questions to guide the inquiry and data analysis:
1 . What is the relationship between block scheduling and (a) student grades, (b) Ohio
Proficiency Test scores, (c) ACT scores, and (d) attendance?
2. What is the relationship of participation in Band and (a) student grades, (b) Ohio
Proficiency Test scores, (c) ACT scores, and (d) attendance?
3. What is the number of graduates who experienced block scheduling who also
received and renewed Studied Community Foundation merit scholarships?
Focus of the Evaluation
This evaluation began with one foundational question, “What is the relationship of block
scheduling and student grades, Ohio Proficiency Test scores, ACT scores, and attendance?” A
second question was put forward about the relationship of the arts programs and student
performance. For the purpose of this evaluation and due to limitations in applicable data, the
second evaluative question was stated as, “What is the relationship of participation in Band and
student grades, Ohio Proficiency Test scores, ACT scores, and attendance?”
Data Needed to Complete the Evaluation
In general the information needed to respond to the evaluative questions was duration of
exposure to classes in the block scheduling format and the selected performance measures for
each student selected for the sample. More particularly, data gathered from each selected
student’s transcript included years experience under the block scheduling paradigm; cumulative
grade point average (GPA); courses taken and grades in math, science, social studies, and
English; ACT scores, if taken; number of days absent for each year at the High School; whether
the student had passed the ninth grade Ohio Proficiency Test in reading, writing, math, science,
and citizenship; and whether the student participated in band. From the courses taken and grades
4
7
received in the four specified subject areas, the evaluators generated a GPA for each of the four
subject areas.
Overview of Evaluation Plan and Procedures
This evaluation began with the Board’s request for statistical data related to the
relationship of block scheduling and student performance as measured by four specified
methods — student grade point average, student attendance, ACT test scores, and Ohio
Proficiency Test scores. The district provided transcript data for a sampling of approximately
500 students from the classes of 1997, 2000, 2001, and 2002. Information related to the four
factors plus band participation and duration in school under block scheduling was entered into a
database. The data was analyzed for statistically significant relationships.
Conclusions
Going back to the key questions that were used as the starting point for gathering and
reporting the data contained in this report, we can point out some conclusions. The two key,
focusing questions were
1 . What is the relationship of block scheduling with student grades, Ohio Proficiency
Test scores, ACT scores, and attendance?
2. What is the relationship of participation in Band and student grades, Ohio Proficiency
Test scores, ACT scores, and attendance?
Since the two questions asked about eight potential relationships, in essence, we dealt
with eight questions and will present the results as responses to those eight questions. First, is
there a relationship between block scheduling and student grades? A review of the data
summarized in Chart A and Table 1 below leads to the conclusion is that there is a positive and
significant relationship and a positive trend in the four academic subject areas (see Appendix B:
5
8
Correlations: Total Sample and Appendix C: Regression: Total Sample for additional regression
analyses, pages 18 and 19). Since correlations only show relationships and do not determine
cause, it is not possible to say block scheduling was the cause of the greater degree of the
relationship. There is reason to say there is support for the inference of “an influence” on
academic success. On the other hand, the relationship between block scheduling and the
cumulative GPA was not significant. Students did not tend to do either significantly better or
worse in terms of their cumulative GPA but did show a significant positive relationship in terms
of the four individual academic subject areas.
Chart A: Grade Point Averages
Grade Point Averages
01997-0
02002-2
B 2001 -3
□ 2000-3
The year is the class graduation year. The numeral after
the year is the number of years in block scheduling.
Table 1: Block Schedule and Grade Point Average*
CUMGPA
GPAMATH
ENGGPA
GPAS
GPASS
YRBLOCK
Pearson
Correlation
.057
.149
.228
.178
.359
Sig. (2-tailed)
.205
.001 |
.000
.000
.000
N
500
500 ]
500
500
500
*See Appendix A, page 17, for a list of the Variables.
Another way of looking for potential influence by block scheduling on academic
performance was to speculate that if there were a positive effect, there would be more significant
ERIC
6
9
positive correlations between the selected indicators of success after block scheduling than
existed before it was implemented. We sorted the sample population according to years in block
scheduling (zero years, two years, and three years). Then we looked for correlations, positive or
negative, between the factors. There were 66 potential pairs for the zero class (there was no OPT
Science examination when they were tested) and 78 for the other two groups. As can be seen in
Chart B below, the class that did not experience block scheduling had significant positive
relationships between approximately 58% of the potential pairs. The class with two years of
block scheduling had approximately 64% of their potential 78 pairs showing a significant
positive relationship. In the classes with three years under block scheduling we found
approximately 72% of the pairs of indicators had significant positive relationships. The
“presumed” add-ons in the chart are to account for OPT tests where there was no variability
since all the students in the sample had passed the test. In those cases, we presumed a significant
positive relationship. See Appendices D and E, pages 20 and 23, for correlations with years in
block scheduling.
Chart B: Significant, Positive Academic Relationships
7
10
Second, is there a relationship between block scheduling and OPT scores?
Considering that the OPT examinations are given starting in the spring of the eighth grade and
block scheduling does not begin until the ninth grade (tenth grade for the Class of 2000), one
could not expect anything but a chance relationship between block scheduling and passage of the
OPT tests. Chart C and Table 2 below bears this out. It would be very unusual to find a
significant relationship between the two. However, indirect inferences can be made from a
relationship that exists between GPA in the academic subject areas of math, English, social
studies, and science and passage of the OPT and the relationship that exists between block
scheduling and the GPA in those subjects. This double relationship with academic GPA
supports the inference that block scheduling may have “an influence” on passage of the OPT for
those who did not pass it before starting high school.
Chart C: Passing the Ninth Grade Ohio Proficiency Tests
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Q 1997-0
02002-2
□2001-3
H 2000-3
The year is the class graduation year. The numeral after
the year is the number of years in block scheduling.
Table 2: Block Schedule and Passage of Ohio Proficiency Tests
WRITING
READING ]
MATH
CITIZEN
SCIENCE
YRBLOCK
Pearson Correlation
.013
-.028 j
.007
-.025
-.097
Sig. (2-tailed)
.780
.538 |
.869
.582
.062
N
499
499 |
499
499
373
Third, is there a relationship between block scheduling and ACT scores? There was
no significant relationship between years in block scheduling and ACT scores. A related
question raised during the process of preparing this evaluation was, “Are the recent declines in
ACT scores related to block scheduling?” Since not all students take the ACT and those that
do self-select, this creates potential for underlying variation in ability to cloud relationships with
other factors such as time in block scheduling. To peer beyond the effect of ability on ACT, the
initial abilities of the students taking the test were held constant. When this was done, the
decline was not significant. That is, when variations related to ability are removed, the variation
that remained was so slight as not to be significant. Chart D below shows the similarity in
outcomes one would expect from a comparison of ability and ACT scores. Cumulative GPA
tended to follow the same pattern although GPA is on a different scale than the other two. The
ability score is on a 3-point scale with 3 being high and 1 low. ACT scores were divided by 10
so they would fit on roughly the same scale as GPA and the derived ability score.
Chart D: Cumulative GPA, Ability, and ACT
The year is the class graduation year. The numeral after
the year is the number of years in block scheduling.
Fourth, is there a relationship between block scheduling and attendance? As can be
seen in Chart E and Table 3, the multiple directions of average attendance, varied by grade level.
9
12
did not seem to be significantly related to time in block scheduling. There were so many cross
currents of movement up and down in attendance patterns, that trends relating block scheduling
to attendance were not clear.
Chart E: Average Days Absent
The year is the class graduation year. The numeral after
the year is the number of years in block scheduling.
Table 3: Block Schedule and Days Absent by Year
ABSEN9 j
ABSEN10
ABSEN11
ABSEN12
YRBLOCK
Pearson
Correlation
- .002 1
.022
.119
-.013
Sig. (2-tailed)
.970 j
.621
.008
.803
N
490 j
496
497
375
Fifth, is there a relationship between Band and student grades? Band showed a
positive relationship with the four academic subject areas and the cumulative GPA. The
relationship was significant in math, English, and social studies but not in science.
Table 4: Credits earned in Band and Grade Point Average
CUMGPA
GPAMATH
ENGGPA
GPAS
| GPASS
BAND
Pearson Correlation
.178
.109
.088
.075
.092
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
.015
.049
.096
.041
N
499
499
499
499
499
10
13
Another version of the fifth question was raised during the preparation of this report,
“How does the relationship between band students’ academic achievement under block
scheduling compare with their achievement outside/before block scheduling?” Overall,
Band students had essentially the same GPAs cumulatively and in the four academic subject
areas whether they were in or out of block scheduling with the exception of English and social
studies where those in block scheduling did better than those not in block scheduling. See
BBLOCK in Appendix F, page 27.
Sixth, is there a relationship between Band and passage of OPT scores? Just as with
block scheduling, students typically begin participation in the High School Band after they start
high school while the OPT is given before they start high school. The relationship between the
passage of the OPT and participation in Band was a matter of chance, especially for those
students who passed one or more of the OPT sub-tests in the eighth grade.
Table 5: Band Credits and Passage of Ohio Proficiency Tests
| I Pearson Correlation
WRITING
READING
MATH
CITIZEN
SCIENCE
.005]
.012
-.027
.004
-.065
| BAND | Sig. (2-tailed)
.903]
.796
.555
.926
.208
1 |n
499
499
499
499
373
Seventh, is there a relationship between Band and ACT scores? The number of
credits earned in Band and scores on the ACT test seemed to head in the same direction.
However, this correlation is not strong enough to be considered significant.
Table 6: Band and ACT Scores
ACT
BAND
Pearson Correlation
.117
Sig. (2-tailed)
.075
N
234
4
it
Eighth, is there a relationship between Band and attendance? The collected data did
not show a significant relationship between participation in Band and attendance. Whether
attendance was up or down for band participants over time was merely a matter of chance.
Limitations
This was an evaluation of a program that had been operating since the 1997-1998 school
year. In order to establish a causal relationship between block scheduling and improved
performance, it would have been necessary to begin a research protocol before beginning the
program. In these situations, the best we can do is establish support for a concept/program but
not direct evidence of cause and effect
Block scheduling had been in place for only three years; hence, no graduation class had
experienced and left records of a full high school career on block scheduling. Graduates in the
class of 2000 were in block scheduling for grades 10, 11, and 12. The class of 2001 has records
for their experience in grades 9, 10, and 11. Since their senior year was underway during the
study, year-end data was not available. The class of 2002 had two years of experience and
records under block scheduling, grades 9 and 10. Those students were experiencing their third
year in block scheduling at the time of the study.
The evaluation was based on a sampling of the total student population from the classes
of 2000, 2001, 2002, and the pre-block scheduling class of 1997 (used as a control).
The statistical analyses comparing block scheduling and student grades, proficiency
scores, ACT scores, and attendance yielded correlations, not proof of cause and effect.
Band had far fewer participants than the general student population, as one would expect
since band members are a subset of the total student body. This meant there were fewer scores
to consider and more questions to raise about any relationship between participation in band and
the four selected performance measures. In addition, it was not possible to determine how many
students would have taken band but for the block schedule. Available data only documents what
was done, not what might have been done given other circumstances.
The ACT test is typically taken during the student’s junior year at school. This meant
that for this evaluation, those students with the most years in the block scheduling environment,
the class of 2000, would have had only one year before they took the test and been in its second
year in block scheduling. Only the class of 2001 would have had two years before taking the
test. The class of 2002 had a few students take the ACT earlier than normal. In the sample there
were 12. Since the earlier ACT takers are not likely to be representative of the ability of the full
class, reliance on their scores as indicative of class performance was not appropriate.
Finally, identifying the number of block scheduling graduates who renewed Studied
Community Trust merit scholarships offered little information without a track record for
graduates who did not experience block scheduling. Additionally, the graduation class that
experienced more than half their high school years in block scheduling just graduated the spring
before the study began and had not yet sought to renew their scholarships. Therefore, the third
question raised by the Board was beyond the scope of available data and not considered further.
Summary Conclusion
The literature that included statistical analysis of data was mixed in relating improvement
in student achievement and block scheduling. Many variables beyond the schedule, both in the
school and in the community or home, can and almost certainly have influenced student
achievement. Left unexamined were variables related to preparation or in-service of the teachers
for teaching in the block format, the teaching methodologies used by the teachers, and the effect
of moving from an older cramped building to a new, spacious high school building.
13
16
The goal of this study was to provide the reader with a careful, detailed analysis of some
of the measurable effects that might be related to block scheduling in one mid-western high
school. In this case, the students who were being educated in a block-scheduling environment
appeared to do as well as students in the traditional environment in most indicator areas and
showed a significant positive relationship with better achievement in the academic subject areas.
Hence, there is support for the inference that block scheduling has “an influence” on academic
success in this high school.
References
Chesapeake Public Schools. (1996, October). 4 x 4 block schedule evaluation. ERIC
Document Reproduction Service. (ERIC No. ED427037)
Cobb, R. b. Abate, S. and Baker, D. (1999, February). Effects on students of a 4 x 4
junior high school block scheduling program. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 7(3).
Retrieved September 24, 2001, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n3.html
Guskey, T. R. and Kifer, E. (1995, April). Evaluation of a high school block schedule
restructuring program. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED3 84652)
Lawrence, W. W. and McPherson, D. (2000, September). A comparative study of block
scheduling and traditional scheduling on academic achievement. Journal of Instructional
Psychology, 27(3), 178-182.
Mutter, D. W., Chase, E., and Nichols, W. R. (1997, Winter). Evaluation of a 4 x 4
block schedule. ERS Spectrum, 75(1), 3-8.
14
17
Pisapia, J. and Westfall, A. L. (1997, January). Alternative high school scheduling:
Student achievement cmd behavior. Research report. Richmond, VA: Metropolitan Educational
Research Consortium. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED41 1337)
Snyder, D. (1 997, October). 4-block scheduling: A case study of data analysis of one
high school after two years. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Educational
Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED414626)
Stanley, A. and Gifford, L. J. (1998, November). The feasibility of 4x4 block scheduling
in secondary schools: A review of the literature. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Mid-South Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED429333)
Williams, L. M. (1999). Effects of block scheduling on grade point aver ages. ERIC
document Reproduction Service. (ERIC No. ED432039)
i
8
15
Table of Appendices
Appendix A: Variables List 17
Appendix B: Correlations: Total Sample 18
Appendix C: Regression: Total Sample 19
Appendix D: Correlations at Specified Years in Block Scheduling 20
Appendix E Table of Significant Correlations Sorted
by Years Experience in Block Scheduling 23
Appendix F: Band Participants —
Correlations Before and After Block Scheduling 27
16 19
Appendix A
Appendix A: Variables List
Year
Class year
Yrblock
Years in block scheduling
Cumgpa
Overall GPA; Cumulative GPA
ACT
ACT scores
Ansence9-12
Number of days absent from school for each school year
Writing
Passed or not passed Writing on the OPT
WTT
Number of times needed to pass Writing
Reading
Passed or not passed Reading on the OPT
RTT
Number of times needed to pass Reading on the OPT
Math
Passed or not passed Math on the OPT
MTT
Number of times needed to pass Math on the OPT
Citizen
Passed or not passed Citizenship on the OPT
CTT
Number of times needed to pass Citizenship on the OPT
Science
Passed or not passed Science on the OPT
STT
Number of times needed to pass Science on the OPT
Band
If they were in Band and how many credits earned
Ability
IQ score placed in range from 1 (low) to 3 (high)
GPAMath
Overall GPA for Math
ENGGPA
Overall GPA for English
GPAS
Overall GPA for Science
GPASS
Overall GPA for Social Studies
BBlock
Band member before (1) or during (2) Block Scheduling
17
20
Appendix B: Correlations: Total Sample
CQ
•3
c
<D
O.
<
1 I I
ill
CM
CM
Appendix C
Appendix C: Regression: Total Sample
Variables Entered/Removed b
Model | Variables Entered
j Variables Removed j Method
1 | GPAS, ABILITY, ACT, GPASS, GPAMATH, ENGGPA® j
! . | Enter
a All requested variables entered,
b Dependent Variable: YRBLOCK
Model Summary
Model |
R
R Square j Adjusted R Square
Std. Error of the Estimate
1
.595®
.354 j .337
1.1350
a Predictors: (Constant), GPAS, ABILITY, ACT, GPASS, GPAMATH, ENGGPA
ANOVA b
Model
Sum of Squares
df j
Mean Square
F
Sig.
1
Regression
160.239
6
26.707
20.732
.000®
Residual
292.414
227 1
1.288
Total
452.654
233
a Predictors: (Constant), GPAS, ABILITY, ACT, GPASS, GPAMATH, ENGGPA
b Dependent Variable: YRBLOCK
Coefficients 8
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized Coefficients
t
Sig.
Model
1 B
Std. Error 1
Beta
1
(Constant) j
2.290
.398
5.745
1 .000
GPASS
.946
.141 1
.712
6.727
1 .000
ABILITY j
-.262
.198
-.099
-1.325
j .186
ACT
-.101
.028
-.321
-3.560
.000
GPAMATH |
-.185
.122
-.144
-1.509
.133
ENGGPA |
-5.367E-02
.151
-.042
-.355 1
.723
GPAS
.122
.138
.097
.885 1
.377
a Dependent Variable: YRBLOCK
19
23
Appendix D: Correlations at Specified Years in Block Scheduling
Correlations When No Years in Block Scheduling
c
<u
Q<
<
' ' 3
5§2
S §2
£83
5§3
«83
1 1 3
§32
s s a
i§2
l_
I 2
at m :
§§ C
5 § c
2| c
§§ C
■ c
= §c
set
^ « r-
-ok
§ ■*
58 ft
n
? 8 3
2s2
Ns
s 3 3
8 3 2
!§2
3 5 3
s§2
ha
113
■ 3
Eli
II
S 8 3
(NO-
i§2
Ns
§52
212
s§2
a
8 S C
§12
lii
t s a
MS
§22
§ i 2
3 3
Fl2
283
§§2
R *
ll
<x 5? :
§ § 2
Fl2
Fis
3 2 2
S ® 3
® 3
' 3
i i -
583
§§2
® 3
£83
(NO-
§ 5 S
«p § 3
s o —
”83
m o —
5 2 3
§83
§32
5 83
SI
2 S 3
O (D -
522
Ns
a 8 3
i§2
§ 2
c § a
mo*-
§ § 3
§ § 2
i i 3
§ s a
t <o
51
2 s a
2 S 3
2 8 3
a§2
153
§ 3
I § 2
s i 2
i § 2
?§2
883
H
s a 2
?32
S> n ^
882
§§3
2 3
§32
5 r a
588
I 3
If
i $
§ S 2
8 5 3
§ § s
M 2
§ 2
§ 5 S
IIS
c a a
m m ^
* s 2
§52
§§ fc
ll
sis
IIS
SIS
8 2
M 2
IIS
s s a
Ns
6 § 5
s 2 2
286
s s a
in o *-
it
s
Fis
3
Fis
§ § 2
MS
5 3 3
532
? 3 2
? i 2
§33
g§*
r 8 3
i § 2
k § 2
9 8 3
Fis
2 I 2
s22
N 2
8§ c
a § 2
?d
! 8 3
g § 2
8 5 3
! S 3
582
2 § a
! 2 a
F§2
a s 2
I s
c § 2
fcg 3
R § 3
R 8 3
§ S 3
£ £ 3
583
§ § 2
§ § 2
3 § 2
S a 3
s§2
£
£
^ ?
T) e
5 5
3 *
| §
II
£ I
* |
-e 5
ll?
ill
1 5 *
|3?
LD
CM
o
<N
CM
O
ERIC
Correlations When Two Years in Block Scheduling
'X
-3
a
<L>
Qu
<
a
5 2 a
§13
^ § a
a o>-
is a
§33
i § 2
s§2
a § 2
a
§ 3
e s
82 =
sr
§ 8 ;
2 —
(D O
J s
3 2
12-
§ 1
lia
113
l§3
§33
s a a
o *n
ft 8 2
2 8 3
S S N
333
s a a
O ® 1-
a
! 3 2
T7TFT
a § 2
2 Q (N
<N 3 «-
a s 2
§32
| § s
§82
8 8 S
8 8 S
ass
5 ^
815
a a
ass
§ 2
ft 8 S
F§3
i 2
5 § 2
a a
las
§ § 2
a
g § 2
F§2
12-
L n s
ft 8 2
?32
3 5 S
2 a i
g S 2
3i?2
2 8 S
§ 2
325
8 § 2
S2
2 3
i a
§§2
a a a
s s a
! § 5
§E2
a § 2
§82
§§
a § 2
Fs a
••O'-
i 1 3
s § 3
§ a
r §s
a a a
s m a
u
s 1 3
Fia
s § a
i§a
1 3
313
3 S 3
3 3 3
a § a
3 i 3
2 § 3
i § 3
313
§13
313
Fia
5 §a
a § 2
3 § 2
s § a
a s a
(NO'-
2 § 3
5 5 a
332
Jm ft _
®S2
§ 3
8 — ft a
00 —
2§3
§ s a
§23
ri_.
a § s
ur> o in
a f
§3
313
§ a 3
§13
i § 3
s § 3
s § a
to CD CN
CD 5 ^
IS
I <3 :
Fi a
t82
ass
1 3
213
13
Fia
a a a
a a a
s a
§ 2
? § 2
s a 2
Fl3
i 5
5 8 a
ft 8 2
»
213
3 5 a
Fia
Fia
i 1 3
® 2 2
ft ^ a
CN O
s s a
k s a
o 8 -
51
a
- S 5 :
g§2
ft 8 £
FF «
s ft a
313
a 1 3
in:
5 § 2
&s 3
• o a
s a a
313
313
ft • i
3 § S
Ss
5 8 S
c 5 8 S
Fi 3
313
; g 2
s a 3
S8S
§13
13
§5-
s 1 3
£
ta
_ a
I $ -.
f i
3 1
! i 1
i 2 2
a b x>
i | 1g
i>
CM
CO
CM
O
ERIC
Correlations When Three Years in Block Scheduling
Q
T3
C
V
Q.
£
CO
CM
ts
ts
00
CM
Appendix E
Appendix E
Table of Significant Correlations
Sorted by Years Experience in Block Scheduling
For those marked with an asterisk (*), the significance level is .05 (5%).
All others are significant at the .01 (1%) level.
No Block
2 Years in Block
3 Years in block
Cumulative GPA & ACT scores
Cumulative GPA & OPT Math*
Cumulative GPA & Band*
Cumulative GPA & Ability
Cumulative GPA & Math GPA
Cumulative GPA & English GPA
Cumulative GPA & Science GPA
Cumulative GPA & Soc. St. GPA
Cumulative GPA & OPT Reading*
Cumulative GPA & OPT Math
Cumulative GPA & OPT Citizenship
Cumulative GPA & OPT Science
Cumulative GPA & Ability
Cumulative GPA & Math GPA
Cumulative GPA & English GPA
Cumulative GPA & Science GPA
Cumulative GPA & Soc. St. GPA
Cumulative GPA & ACT Scores
Cumulative GPA & OPT Writing*
Cumulative GPA & OPT Reading*
Cumulative GPA & OPT Math
Cumulative GPA & OPT Citizenship
Cumulative GPA & OPT Science
Cumulative GPA & Band
Cumulative GPA & Ability
Cumulative GPA & Math GPA
Cumulative GPA & English GPA
Cumulative GPA & Science GPA
Cumulative GPA & Soc. St. GPA
ACT scores & Cumulative GPA
ACT scores & Ability
ACT scores & Math GPA
ACT scores & English GPA
ACT scores & Science GPA
ACT scores & Soc. St. GPA
(None shown for OPT scores and
Band because at least one of the
variables was constant.)
ACT scores & Ability*
ACT scores & Science GPA*
ACT scores & Cumulative GPA
ACT Scores & OPT Science
ACT scores & Ability
ACT scores & Math GPA
ACT scores & English GPA
ACT scores & Science GPA
ACT scores & Soc. St. GPA
OPT Writing & OPT Reading
OPT Writing & OPT Math
OPT Writing & OPT Citizenship
OPT Writing & Ability
OPT Writing & OPT Math*
OPT Writing & OPT Science
OPT Writing & Cumulative GPA*
OPT Writing & OPT Reading
OPT Writing & OPT Math
OPT Writing & OPT Citizenship
OPT Writing & Ability
OPT Writing & English GPA*
OPT Writing & Soc. St. GPA
OPT Reading & OPT Writing
OPT Reading & OPT Math
OPT Reading & OPT Citizenship
OPT Reading & Ability*
OPT Reading & Cumulative GPA*
OPT Reading & OPT Math
OPT Reading & OPT Science*
OPT Reading & Ability
OPT Reading & Science GPA*
OPT Reading & Soc. St. GPA*
OPT Reading & Cumulative GPA*
OPT Reading & OPT Writing
OPT Reading & OPT Math
OPT Reading & OPT Citizenship
OPT Reading & Ability
OPT Reading & English GPA*
OPT Reading & Soc. St. GPA
23
30
Appendix E
No Block
OPT Math & Cumulative GPA*
OPT Math & OPT Writing
OPT Math & OPT Reading
OPT Math & OPT Citizenship
OPT Math & Ability
OPT Citizenship & OPT Writing
OPT Citizenship & OPT Reading
OPT Citizenship & OPT Math
OPT Citizenship & Ability
OPT Science (none shown because
at least one of the variables is
constant)
Band & Cumulative GPA*
Band & Ability*
Ability & Cumulative GPA
Ability & ACT Scores
Ability & OPT Writing
Ability & OPT Reading*
Ability & OPT Math
Ability & OPT Citizenship
Ability & Band*
Ability & Math GPA
Ability & English GPA
Ability & Science GPA
Ability & Soc. St. GPA
2 Years in Block
OPT Math & Cumulative GPA
OPT Math & OPT Writing*
OPT Math & OPT Reading
OPT Math & OPT Citizenship
OPT Math & OPT Science
OPT Math & Band (negative)
OPT Math & Ability
OPT Math & Math GPA
OPT Math & English GPA
OPT Math & Science GPA
OPT Math & Soc. St. GPA
OPT Citizenship & Cumulative GPA
OPT Citizenship & OPT Math
OPT Citizenship & OPT Science
OPT Citizenship & English GPA
OPT Citizenship & Science GPA
OPT Citizenship & Soc. St. GPA
Science & Cumulative GPA
Science & OPT Writing
Science & OPT Reading*
Science & OPT Math
Science & OPT Citizenship
Science & Ability
Science & Math GPA
Science & English GPA
Science & Science GPA
Science & Soc. St. GPA
Band & OPT Math (negative)
Band & Ability (negative)*
3 Years in block
OPT Math & Cumulative GPA
OPT Math & OPT Writing
OPT Math & OPT Reading
OPT Math & OPT Citizenship
OPT Math & OPT Science
OPT Math & Ability
OPT Math & English GPA
OPT Math & Science GPA*
OPT Citizenship & Cumulative GPA
OPT Citizenship & OPT Writing
OPT Citizenship & OPT Reading
OPT Citizenship & OPT Math
OPT Citizenship & OPT Science
OPT Citizenship & Ability
OPT Citizenship & English GPA
OPT Citizenship & Science GPA*
OPT Science & Cumulative GPA
OPT Science & ACT Scores
OPT Science & OPT Math
OPT Science & OPT Citizenship
OPT Science & Ability
OPT Science & Math GPA
OPT Science & English GPA
OPT Science & Science GPA
OPT Science & Soc. St. GPA
Band & Cumulative GPA
Band & Math GPA
Band & English GPA*
Band & Soc. St. GPA*
Ability & Cumulative GPA
Ability & ACT Scores
Ability & OPT Writing
Ability & OPT Reading
Ability & OPT Math
Ability & OPT Citizenship
Ability & OPT Science
Ability & Math GPA
Ability & English GPA
Ability & Science GPA
Ability & Soc. St. GPA
Ability & Cumulative GPA
Ability & ACT Scores*
Ability & OPT Reading
Ability & OPT Math
Ability & OPT Science
Ability & Band (negative)*
Ability & Math GPA
Ability & English GPA
Ability & Science GPA
Ability & Soc. St. GPA
OPT
OPT
OPT
OPT
OPT
OPT
OPT
OPT
OPT
OPT
24
31
Appendix E
No Block
Math GPA & Cumulative GPA
Math GPA & ACT Scores
Math GPA & Ability
Math GPA & English GPA
Math GPA & Science GPA
Math GPA & Soc. T. GPA
English GPA & Cumulative GPA
English GPA & ACT Scores
English GPA & Ability
English GPA & Math GPA
English GPA & Science GPA
English GPA & Soc. St. GPA
Science GPA & Cumulative GPA
Science GPA & ACT Score
Science GPA & Ability
Science GPA & Math GPA
Science GPA & English GPA
Science GPA & Soc. St. GPA
2 Years in Block
Math GPA & Cumulative GPA
Math GPA & OPT Math
Math GPA & OPT Science
Math GPA & Ability
Math GPA & English GPA
Math GPA & Science GPA
Math GPA & Soc. T. GPA
English GPA & Cumulative GPA
English GPA & OPT Math
English GPA & OPT Citizenship
English GPA & OPT Science
English GPA & Ability
English GPA & Math GPA
English GPA & Science GPA
English GPA & Soc. St. GPA
Science GPA & Cumulative GPA
Science GPA & ACT Score*
Science GPA & OPT Reading*
Science GPA & OPT Math
Science GPA & OPT Citizenship
Science GPA & OPT Science
Science GPA & Ability
Science GPA & Math GPA
Science GPA & English GPA
3 Years in block
Math GPA & Cumulative GPA
Math GPA & ACT Scores
Math GPA & OPT Science
Math GPA & Band
Math GPA & Ability
Math GPA & English GPA
Math GPA & Science GPA
Math GPA & Soc. T. GPA
English GPA & Cumulative GPA
English GPA & ACT Scores
English GPA & OPT Writing*
English GPA & OPT Reading*
English GPA & OPT Math
English GPA & OPT Citizenship
English GPA & OPT Science
English GPA & Band*
English GPA & Ability
English GPA & Math GPA
English GPA & Science GPA
English GPA & Soc. St. GPA
Science GPA & Cumulative GPA
Science GPA & ACT Score
Science GPA & OPT Math*
Science GPA & OPT Citizenship*
Science GPA & OPT Science
Science GPA & Ability
Science GPA & Math GPA
Science GPA & English GPA
Science GPA & Soc. St. GPA
Science GPA & Soc. St. GPA
Soc. St. GPA & Cumulative GPA
Soc. St. GPA & ACT Score
Soc. St. GPA & Ability
Soc. St. GPA & Math GPA
Soc. St. GPA & English GPA
Soc. St. GPA & Science GPA
Soc. St. GPA & Cumulative GPA
Soc. St. GPA & OPT Reading*
Soc. St. GPA & OPT Math
Soc. St. GPA & OPT Citizenship
Soc. St. GPA & OPT Science
Soc. St. GPA & Ability
Soc. St. GPA & Math GPA
Soc. St. GPA & English GPA
Soc. St. GPA & Science GPA
Soc. St. GPA & Cumulative GPA
Soc. St. GPA & ACT Scores
Soc. St. GPA & OPT Writing
Soc. St. GPA & OPT Reading
Soc. St. GPA & OPT Science
Soc. St. GPA & Band*
Soc. St. GPA & Ability
Soc. St. GPA & Math GPA
Soc. St. GPA & English GPA
Soc. St. GPA & Science GPA
25
32
Appendix E
No Block
2 Years in Block
3 Years in block
34 significantly correlated pairs
0 negative correlationships
46 significantly correlated pairs
2 of them negative correlationships
56 significantly correlated pairs
0 negative correlationships
Total potential pairs (OPT
science was not required of this
class and 4 ACT relationships
were not identified due to a lack
of variation in the OPT fields) =
62 pairs
Total potential pairs (the 5 OPT
tests and the band relationships
with the ACT Scores were not
identified due to a lack of variation
in either the OPT or ACT fields) =
72 pairs
Total potential = 78 pairs
54.8% of potential pairs are
significantly correlated in a
positive direction.
63.9% of potential of potential
pairs are significantly correlated
6 1 . 1% are significantly correlated
in a positive direction.
7 1 . 8% of potential pairs are
significantly correlated in a
positive direction.
If the 4 pairs eliminated due to
a lack of variation were
considered as significantly
correlated, then there would be
38 significantly correlated pairs
out of a potential 66.
Then 57.6% of the pairs would
be significantly correlated.
If the 6 pairs eliminated due to a
lack of variation were considered
as significantly correlated, then
there would be 52 significantly
correlated pairs out of a potential
78.
Then 66.7% of the pairs would be
significantly correlated with 64. 1%
significantly correlated in a
positive direction.
71.8% of potential pairs are
significantly correlated.
26
33
Appendix F; Band Participants — Correlations Before and After Block Scheduling
LTD
CO
r-'-
<N
CO
Appendix F: Band Participants — Correlations Before and After Block Scheduling
Ph
*3
c:
<D
Cu
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)
National Library of Education (NLE)
Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)
TM033432
Reproduction Release
(Specific Document)
L DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION :
Title:
Evaluation of an On-Going Block Scheduling Program
Authors):
Louis Trenta & Isadore Newman
Corporate Source:
Publication Date: October 26, 2001
II. REPRODUCTION RELEASE:
In order to disseminate as widely as possible timely and significant materials of interest to the educational community, documents
announced in the monthly abstract journal of the ERIC system. Resources in Education (RIE), are usually made available to users in
microfiche, reproduced paper copy, and electronic media, and sold through the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). Credit is
given to the source of each document, and, if reproduction release is granted, one of the following notices is affixed to the document.
If permission is granted to reproduce and disseminate the identified document, please CHECK ONE of the following three options and
sign in the indicatedspace following.
The sample sticker shown below will be affixed to all
Level 1 documents
The sample sticker shown below will be affixed to all
Level 2A documents
The sample sticker shown below will be affixed to all i
Level 2B documents
PERMISSION TO KfcPKOtJUU*; AND
DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL. HAS
tlEKNGkAN'lfcD I3Y
pekmisnjun iu Kfcntuinjct am;
DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN
MICROFICHE. AND IN ELECTRONIC MEDIA
FOR ERIC C0LLCCT10N.su USCRIBERR ONLY.
HAM HECK GRAVED HV
—
TO 'TUB EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
INFORMATION CENTER I ERIC)
1* bRM ISSKW K > RhPK< WCt AMI :
DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN
MICROFICHE ONLY ItAS ttgEN GRANTED BY
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
. INFOR MAT ION CENTER i ERIC);
Gy
Id THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
IN FORMATION CEN1 ER (ERIC)
Level 1
Level 2A
Level 2B
t
t
-
□
1 : -
i
Check here for Level 1 release, permitting reproduction
and dissemination in microfiche or other ERIC archival
media (e.g. electronic) and paper copy.
Check here for Level 2A release, permitting
reproduction and dissemination in microfiche and in
electronic media for ERIC archival collection subscribers
only
Check here for Level 2B release, permitting reproduction:
and dissemination in microfiche only
Documents will be processed as indicated provided reproduction quality permits.
If permission to reproduce is granted, but no box is checked, documents will be processed at Level 1.
I hereby grant to the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) nonexclusive permission to reproduce and disseminate this
document as indicated above. Reproduction from the ERIC microfiche , or electronic media by persons other than ERIC employees and \
its system contractors requires permission from the copyright holder Exception is made for non-profit reproduction by libraries and
other service agencies to satisfy information needs of educators in response to discrete inquiries
Printed Name/Position/Title:
k Louis Trenta, Assist. Prof. & Isadore Newman, Prof.
yj / ^
Orgamzation/Address: '
Dept, of Ed. Foundations & Leadership
The University of Akron
Akron, OH 44325-4208
Telephone:
330 972-6951
Cov ‘
330 972-2452
E-mail Address:
ltrenta@uakron.edu
Date:
October 19, 2001
III. DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY INFORMATION (FROM NON-ERIC SOURCE):
If permission to reproduce is not granted to ERIC, or, if you wish ERIC to cite the availability of the document from another source,
please provide the following information regarding the availability of the document (ERIC will not announce a document unless it is
publicly available, and a dependable source can be specified. Contributors should also be aware that ERIC selection criteria are
significantly more stringent for documents that cannot be made available through EDRS.)
IV. REFERRAL OF ERIC TO COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION RIGHTS HOLDER:
If the right to grant this reproduction release is held by someone other than the addressee, please provide the appropriate name and
address:
V. WHERE TO SEND THIS FORM:
Send this form to the following ERIC Clearinghouse:
Telephone: 301-405-7449
ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation
Toll Free: 800-464-3742
1129 Shriver Laboratory (Bldg 075)
Fax: 301-405-8134
College Park, Maryland 20742
ericae@ericae.net
http://ericae.net
EFF-088 (Rev. 9/97)
