Skip to main content

Full text of "ERIC ED458269: Evaluation of an On-Going Block Scheduling Program."

See other formats


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)