Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Public education has options with regard to educational settings and structures. States and school districts may select varying lengths for the school year, the school day, and individual class periods. For example, one option for the length of individual class periods is the schedule type selected to teach mathematics Algebra I classes. In Utah, one measure of students’ achievement is the score on the state's end-of-level criterion-referenced test (CRT) for Algebra I. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between student achievement, as indicated by Algebra I CRT scores, and the schedule type used to deliver Algebra I classes. The schedule types compared in this study were: traditional, trimester 3/3, trimester 2/3, and block A/B. The research questions focused on relationships between the schedule types and student scores on Utah's CRT for Algebra I. Data were obtained from the Utah State Office of Education and included the scores for over 40,000 students, from over 300 different schools, who took the identical Algebra I CRT at the end of the same school year. Data were also obtained from each school district to determine the schedule type of each participating student. A multinomial logistic regression analysis and a t-test analysis were conducted to determine relationships between Algebra I CRT scores and schedule types. The results indicated significant differences in student achievement based on the schedule type overall and for individual grade levels. Generally, the earlier the grade level, the higher the CRT score. Within individual grade levels, there were statistically significant and non-significant differences. The schedule types that were generally related to higher Algebra I CRT scores were those where students spent more time in the mathematics classroom and where students’ mathematics classes met daily. The results suggest the value of daily time spent in the mathematics classroom and may assist educators when considering options for school structures in mathematics that foster student achievement.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adelman

, & Pringle

(1995). Education reform and the uses of time. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(1), 27–29.

Arbaugh

, Herble-Eisenmann

, Ramirez

, Knuth

, Kranendock

, & Quander

(2009). Linking research and practice: NCTM research agenda conference report. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Arnold

D. E.

(2002). Block schedule and traditional achievement: A comparison. NASSP Bulletin, 86, 42–53.

Bass

(2005). Review of the 4th and 8th grade algebra and functions on NAEP [ElectronicVersion]. Algebraic Reasoning: Developmental, Cognitive, and Disciplinary Foundations for Instruction. Retrieved March 2, 2010 from http://www.brookings.edu/gs/brown/algebraicreasoning.htm

Biesinger

, Crippen

, & Muis

(2008). The impact of block scheduling on student motivation and classroom practice in mathematics. North American Society for Social Philosophy, 92, 191–208.

Burke

, Erickson

, Lott

, & Obert

(2001). Navigating through algebra in grades 9–12. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Canady

, & Rettig

(1993). Unlocking the lockstep high school schedule. Phi Delta Kappan, 75, 310–314.

Chen

C-K.

(2005). Analyzing student learning outcomes: Usefulness of logistic and Cox regression models. Association for Instructional Research, 5, 2–20.

Chen

C-K.

, & Hughes

(2004). Using ordinal regression model to analyze student satisfaction questionnaires. Association for Institutional Research, 1, 1–13.

10.

Cobb

, Abate

, & Baker

(1999). Effects on students on a 4 × 4 junior high school block scheduling program. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 7(3), 1–23.

11.

Cohen

, Cohen

, West

, & Aiken

(2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

12.

Copple

, Yanne

, Levine

, & Cohen

(1992). Briefing paper on effective practice. Washington, DC: Pelavin.

13.

Deuel

(1999). Block scheduling in large, urban high schools: Effects on academic achievement, student behavior, and staff perceptions. The High School Journal, 83, 14–25.

14.

Ellis

G. H.

(2004). A comparison between selected 4 × 4 block schedule schools and seven-period traditional schools as measured by the public schools in North Carolina end-of-course tests in algebra and biology. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A, 68(10), 4149.

15.

Evans

, Tokarczyk

, Rice

, & McCray

(2002). Block scheduling: An evaluation of outcomes and impact. The Clearing House, 75(6), 319–323.

16.

Flynn

, Lawrenz

, & Schultz

(2005). Block scheduling and mathematics: Enhancing standards-based instruction. North American Society for Social Philosophy, 89, 14–23.

17.

Fuligni

, & Stevenson

(1995). Time use and mathematics achievement among American, Chinese, and Japanese high school students. Child Development, 66, 830–842.

18.

Garson

(2011). Logistic regression. Retrieved from http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/PA765/logistic.htm

19.

Geerstle

, & French

(1993). Structuring schools for student success: A focus on instrumental change. Maiden, MA: Massachusetts State Department of Education.

20.

Glenberg

, & Andrzejewski

(2008). Learning from data: An introduction to statistical reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

21.

Gravetter

, & Wallnau

L. B.

(2005). Essentials of statistics for the behavioral sciences. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

22.

Gruber

, & Onwuegbuzie

(2001). Effects of block scheduling on academic achievement among high school students. The High School Journal, 84, 32–42.

23.

Gullatt

D. E.

(2006). Block scheduling: The effects on curriculum and student productivity. North American Society for Social Philosophy, 90, 250–266.

24.

Haas

(2005). Teaching methods for secondary algebra: A meta-analysis of findings. North American Society for Social Philosophy, 89, 24–46.

25.

Hancock

, Mattox

, & Queen

(2005). The effect of block scheduling on middle school students’ mathematics achievement. North American Society for Social Philosophy, 89, 3–13.

26.

Howard

(1997). Block scheduling and advanced placement mathematics: When tradition and reform collide. American Secondary Education, 26, 13–16.

27.

Jenkins

, Queen

, & Algozzine

(2002). To block or not to block: That's not the question. The Journal of Educational Research, 95, 196–202.

28.

Lawrence

W. W.

, & McPherson

D. D.

(2000). A comparative study of block scheduling and traditional scheduling on academic achievement. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 27, 78–82.

29.

Lewis

, Dugan

J. J.

, Winokur

M. A.

, & Cobb

R. B.

(2005). The effects of block scheduling on high school academic achievement. North American Society for Social Philosophy, 89, 72–86.

30.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

31.

National Education Commission on Time and Learning. (1994). Prisoners of time: Report of the national education commission on time and learning. Washington, DC: Author.

32.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards. Washington, DC: Authors.

33.

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002).

34.

Queen

A. J.

(2009). The block scheduling handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

35.

Rosario

(2000). Communitarianism and the moral order of schools. In Franklin

B. M.

(Ed.), Curriculum & consequence: Herbert M. Kliebard and the promise of schooling (pp. 30–51). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

36.

Schoenfeld

A. H.

(2002). Making mathematics work for all children: Issues of standards, testing, and equity. Educational Researcher, 31, 13–25.

37.

Sizer

(1997). Horace's school: Redesigning the American high school. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

38.

Spencer

, & Lowe

(1994). The use of block periods for instruction: A report after two years. Nashville, TN: Mid-South Educational Research Association.

39.

Thomas

, & Galambos

(2004). What satisfies students? Mining student-opinion data with regression and decision tree analysis. Research in Higher Education, 45, 251–269.

40.

Trenta

, & Newman

(2002). Effects of a high school block scheduling program on students: A four year longitudinal study on the effects of block scheduling on student outcome variable. American Secondary Education, 31, 54–71.

41.

Utah State Office of Education. (2011a). Education graduation information. Retrieved from http://www.schools.utah.gov/CURR/gradinfo?High-School-Requirements.aspx

42.

Utah State Office of Education. (2011b). Educational directory. Retrieved from http://www.schools.utah.gov/default/directory.pdf

43.

Veal

W. R.

, & Flinders

D. J.

(2001). How block scheduling reform affects classroom practice. The High School Journal, 84, 21–31.

44.

Wronkovich

, Hess

, & Robinson

(1997). Repudiation, reinvention, and educational reforms. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35, 292–304.

45.

Zepeda

S. J.

, & Mayers

R. S.

(2006). An analysis of research on block scheduling. Review of Educational Research, 76, 137–170.

Relationships between Classroom Schedule Types and Performance on the Algebra I Criterion-Referenced Test

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References