Undergraduate Courses

A Clemson University study investigated the relationship between number of classes per week and student retention in a management science statistics course (Ward and Gowan, 1989). A sample of 180 students was enrolled in four class sections taught by the same professor. Two sections met on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, while two sections met on Tuesday and Thursday. Results indicated no interactions between the two class-meeting categories and a variety of variables, including: gender, age, SAT verbal and math scores, current cumulative withdrawal hours, original drop hours allowed, hours attempted, hours earned, grade point average, and major. After controlling for these variables, results indicated differences in the retention rates of students depending upon enrollment in MWF or TTh classes. Students meeting Monday, Wednesday, and Friday had a 13.5% lower dropout rate from the course than students meeting two days per week. The authors indicate that there is a need for further research to determine the underlying cause, although they suggest that students with poor study and attendance habits may benefit from the additional weekly class meeting. Courses, which cover material in fewer class meetings, may provide an increased chance for lower ability students to struggle, fall behind academically, and perhaps eventually be forced to drop the course.

Psychology professors, Ray and Kirkpatrick (1983), studied the impact of different course scheduling formats on increased learning and attitudinal changes regarding human sexuality. Undergraduate students enrolled in either a time intensive course (three hours a day, five days a week for three-weeks) or a traditionally scheduled course (three hours a week for fifteen weeks). Both groups of students showed a significant increase in sexual knowledge and a significant change in attitude as measured by the Sex Knowledge and Attitude Test administered as a pre- and post-test. The expectation that the semester group would experience more change was not supported by the data, as changes within the two groups were essentially the same. The authors concluded that the scheduling format was not the important factor in determining the level of change that occurred as a result of their course.

A pilot study conducted at LaGuardia Community College explored the implications of numbers of class meetings per week on student success rate in a basic writing course. Fifty sections of the writing course were spread out over a scheduling format in which sections met for two, three, four, or five times per week. Results indicated that the attainment and application of basic writing skills did not vary significantly across the four types of scheduling formats (Brookes, 1985).

Time Intensive Courses
(nontraditional, part-time, and continuing education)

In response to the growing number of nontraditional students seeking post-secondary education, many colleges have implemented a variety of class scheduling formats to meet the needs of these students. The research comparing students' learning experiences in time intensive courses to those of students in equivalent semester-length courses, however, has not kept pace with the increase in nontraditional scheduling nor fully explored ways to maximize the learning opportunities for students.

Scott (1996) sought to compare the students' learning experiences in four college classes: an intensive and a semester-length English class and Marketing class. Students were asked to evaluate their class experience and to identify the attributes of an "ideal" intensive and semester-length course. Data were drawn from field notes, videotaped class sessions, classroom documents, and interview transcriptions. When the ideal attributes (instructor characteristics, effective teaching methods, comfortable learning environment, meaningful assignments, and appropriate forms of evaluation) were present, the students preferred the intensive course format over the semester-length course since it allowed for more focused, concentrated learning.

Henebry (1997) conducted a study comparing the academic performance of students in three different scheduling formats of a financial management course. The scheduling formats included:  (1) a night class that met once a week for two hours and forty minutes, (2) a day class meeting for two seventy-five minute sessions twice per week, and (3) a day class meeting for fifty minutes three times per week. The data reviewed ten years of grade reports (1986-1995) consisting of 5,135 students' end of semester course grades. No significant differences were found between the average grades of the students, thus indicating that none of the scheduling formats appeared to be superior to the others in enhancing the academic performance of students. Although there was no clear advantage of one schedule over the others for grade attainment, there were discrepancies between the scheduling formats in regard to student withdrawal rates and nonpassing grade rates. Student withdrawal from class rates was lowest for the 3-days-a-week class with the 3-day and 2-day classes exhibiting a lower nonpassing grade rate than the once a week class. It appears, therefore, that the scheduling format may have a greater impact on the marginal student who may require more frequent contact time for academic success. Messina (1996), using data from 91 students enrolled in time intensive courses, found comparable academic achievement (end of semester grades) with students in similar classes that followed a 15-week semester scheduling format.

Research shows that successful pedagogical approaches for time intensive classes incorporate varying teaching techniques and actively involve the students in the learning process, thus maintaining their participation level and interest (Lasker, Donnelly, and Weathersby, 1975). Additionally, intensive classes allow for more in-depth discussions, experiential activities, combination of theory with practice, and enhanced student-faculty interactions (Messina, 1996).

Time intensive course research has also been conducted across a variety of academic disciplines. These include: psychology (Ray and Kirkpatrick, 1983), education (Austin, Fennell, and Yeager, 1988; Brackenbury, 1987; Lombardi, Meikamp, and Wienke, 1992), mathematics (Caskey, 1994), business (Van Scyoc and Gleason, 1993), foreign language (Buzash, 1994), and literature (Scott, 1994). Comparisons between the academic achievement (exam scores, semester grades) of students in time intensive courses and students in the semester length format of the courses indicated either no significant differences in academic achievement between the two groups or greater gains by students in the time intensive format.

In summary, the literature strongly indicates that time intensive courses, regardless of when they are offered (summer, intersession, weekend, or regular semester) produce comparable or enhanced academic achievement, as measured by exams or semester grades, in comparison to equivalent semester long courses. Additionally, research supports the use of time intensive courses across disciplines. Intensive courses have been found to foster academic achievement, stimulate group discussion, improve student-faculty interaction, and promote active learning and creative teaching techniques.

Graduate Courses

The literature base for scheduling formats and their effect on student learning at the graduate level is minimal and tends to be concentrated in the field of education. Williams (1992) investigated the academic achievement of three groups of graduate education students enrolled in the "Introduction to Research" course. The data were collected from 543 students over a three-year period. The course scheduling formats included courses that met (1) one night a week during the semester, (2) four weekends during the semester, and (3) twice a week for eight weeks during the summer. Results indicated that academic achievement, as measured by the average score on two teacher-constructed exams, was not affected by the different scheduling formats.

A study conducted by Barclay (1990) explored students' attitudes regarding the course and the degree of implementation of course content in their elementary classrooms. Graduate students enrolled in the "Early Childhood Reading" course had the option of three scheduling formats: (1) four mornings a week for three weeks during the summer, (2) all day for one week during the summer, or (3) one evening per week for fifteen week during the fall semester. For consistency, the same professor taught all three sections. At the end of the fall semester, students responded to a questionnaire indicating their attitude about the course and their implementation of course content. Results indicated the scheduling format of the course did not have a significant effect on students' perception of the course or on the number of strategies and ideas they had incorporated into their teaching.

In summary, the academic achievement, attitude, and implementation of course content by graduate students did not appear to be influenced by the course scheduling format " time intensive or semester course.

High School Courses (Block Scheduling)

A conservative estimate based on survey results indicates that approximately fifty percent of high schools across the nation have adapted block scheduling. Gordon Cawelti (1994) defines block scheduling as "a daily schedule that is organized into larger blocks of time (more than sixty minutes) to allow flexibility for a diversity of instructional activities." Research on block scheduling can be organized into five topical threads: academic performance, instructional methodology, student/teacher interaction, school environment, and challenges.

Effects on academic performance

The effects of block scheduling on academic performance have been investigated through analysis of GPA, honor roll achievement, number of failures, dropout rates, and standardized test scores. Studies consistently show that students' grades and standardized test scores improve, honor roll totals increase, and failure and dropout rates decline when block scheduling data are compared to data for traditional scheduling (Buckman, King, and Ryan, 1995; Edwards, 1995; Hottenstein and Malatesta, 1993; Rettig and Canady, 1999; Schoenstein, 1997).

The effects of block scheduling on academic success were almost immediately apparent in a study conducted at Philo High School in Ohio. During the first two years of block scheduling, the number of ninth-graders attaining honor roll status during the first marking period doubled, with a corresponding year-long attainment of honor roll status  at a 92% increase over the totals for the traditional scheduling format. The academic performance of juniors and seniors who had experienced both the traditional and block schedule at the high school was also analyzed. These students achieved a 24% increase in the number of As earned and a 15% decrease in the number of failing grades during the first year of block scheduling. Additionally, there was significant improvement in their overall GPAs and frequency of honor roll attainment (Eineder and Bishop, 1997).

Effects on instructional methodology

Advocates of block scheduling indicate that an extended instructional period necessitates a wider variety of instructional methods and more active involvement of students in the learning process. Pedagogical studies report that teachers in a block schedule environment employ more instructional strategies, individualize instruction more frequently, inject more creativity into their teaching approach, and use cooperative and active learning strategies more often than traditionally scheduled teachers (Bateson, 1990; Hottenstein and Malatesta, 1993; O'Neil, 1995). The longer time blocks, therefore, allow for a more flexible and productive classroom environment and provide opportunities for instructional innovation and interactive student activities (Irmsher, 1996). This shift in the instructional approach positively impacts the quality and focus of instruction and thus sustains students' interest, attention, and learning (Calvery, Sheets, and Bell, 1999).

Wilson and Stokes' (2000) study discovered a relationship between students' perceptions of variations in teaching strategies used in the classroom and their perception of the effectiveness of block scheduling. The more students perceived that teachers varied their teaching strategies, the more effectively they perceived block scheduling. A similar study conducted at Philo High School indicated that 97% of teachers and 77% of students felt a wider variety of classroom projects and activities were completed with the block scheduling in comparison to traditional scheduling (Eineder and Bishop, 1997).

Effects on Student/Teacher Interaction

Reports from block scheduled high schools state that the scheduling format has a positive impact on the instructional climate by improving student/teacher and student/student relationships (Brophy, 1978; Canady and Rettig, 1995; Munroe, 1989; Reid, 1995). Survey results indicate that students in block scheduled high schools report receiving more help from their teachers and develop better relationships with their teachers (Eineder and Bishop, 1997). The results of a pre- and post-test, administered to students as their school transitioned to block scheduling, indicated the amount of individual attention that students received from teachers increased from 5% to 18% (Calvery et al., 1999). Students believed that teachers got to know them better during the longer blocks of time, thus resulting in more teacher/student interaction. Teachers also indicated that one of their preferences for block scheduling included better relationships with students (Wilson and Stokes, 2000).

Effects on school environment

Block scheduling appears to have a positive influence on student behavior and attendance patterns. Results from the nearly one hundred case studies, dissertations, and reports completed on block scheduling, reported that the number of discipline referrals was typically reduced by 25 to 50%. Teacher and student attendance also increased slightly (Rettig and Canady, 1999). Dropout rates decreased from 4.6% to 4.0%, while average daily attendance increased from 93.7% to 94.7% at Philo High School over the first two years of implementing block scheduling (Eineder and Bishop, 1997).

Challenges

Change can often be painful and controversial. Research suggests at least two years of planning should precede implementation of block scheduling and the needs of all constituents be considered (Irmsher, 1996). For students, absences or recovery from an illness may be more difficult to negotiate. Unless specific plans are made, students may experience difficulty recovering from class absences since this scheduling format is not as forgiving of students' absences as traditional scheduling (Wilson and Stokes, 2000). There are some indications, however, that because of this factor, the more motivated students have fewer absences in the block scheduling format (Rettig and Canady, 1999).

Adequate staff development is essential for block scheduling to be successful. Teachers who are accustomed to fifty minute time blocks need assistance in gaining necessary skills and strategies to successfully teach in a longer block of time. Active involvement of students in meaningful and productive activities requires both general and discipline specific training. Additionally, since block scheduling explores and implements new instructional methods, activities, and assignments, appropriate assessment tools need to be designed to accurately evaluate student learning (Irmsher, 1996; Wisconsin Association of Foreign Language Teachers Task Force, 1995).

Summary

As reported at the beginning of this section, approximately 50% of high schools across the nation have adapted block scheduling. An important observation is that few, if any, reports have been published that document block scheduled high school that have returned to the traditional schedule. Students prefer block scheduling over the traditional format primarily for interpersonal reasons, including: the ability to get more work done in class, more teacher help, more frequent participation in activities and projects, and better relationships with teachers. Teachers displayed a preference for block scheduling for reasons that centered on enhanced teaching strategies. Nearly all methodologies mentioned student-centered, inquiry-based activities such as group projects, writing, and cooperative learning.

POD Listserv

Question posted:

Syracuse University is exploring the implications of moving the University towards a course scheduling agenda in which undergraduate classes would meet for two 80-minute time blocks per week rather than three 50-minute time blocks per week. Areas such as pedagogy, student learning, time management, scheduling procedures, etc. are all of great importance in analyzing the feasibility of this proposal. For those who have experienced this type of class scheduling:

1)  What concerns arose?

2)  What were the positive and negative effects?

3)  What suggestions do you have for a school considering a change to such a  schedule?

 Responses were received from:

Rutgers
Purdue/DeVry University
St. Thomas University
Nichols College
Kwantlen University College

 Reactions to 80 minute time blocks:

      -The longer block of time allows for more time on task, greater depth of coverage, and less review time at the beginning of each class. (Kwantlen University College)

      -Rutgers has used the 80 minute time blocks for decades. The longer block of time allows for extended problem solving and other involved tasks.

      -The longer block of time requires a variety of activities to avoid students losing interest. If the program relies on active learning, the added time helps in completing the activities during the session. (Purdue/DeVry University)

      -Initially the 80 minute time block took some adjusting to in regard to pedagogy. The longer time period permits for a couple of different tasks and the incorporation of active learning. (Nichols College)

      -St. Thomas University offers 50 minute classes on MWF and 75 minute classes on TTh. Faculty who are interested in various types of active learning pedagogies tend to select the longer class times and those who prefer to lecture select the shorter time periods. The real issue appears to be pedagogy and their schedule is flexible enough to accommodate this.

AAU Listserv

Question posted:

Syracuse is looking at some alternative to the MWF/TTh scheduling of classes, so I have another variation on the questions that have previously been asked about class scheduling. For those of you who offer classes only or primarily in 80-minute blocks, or have 4 or 4 ½ day instructional weeks:

1)  What is you day/time schedule?
2)  What is the rationale for such scheduling?
3)  What are the positive and negative effects?
4)  What concerns did/do you have and others have about
such a schedule?
5)  What suggestions do you have for a school considering a change to such a schedule?

 Responses were received from:

Ohio State
Carnegie Mellon
Columbia University
Rutgers
University of Oregon
University of Arizona

 Concerns with 80 minute time blocks:

      -Utilization of classroom space, particularly early morning and Fridays
      -Scheduling requests aimed at midday (10 am " 2pm)
      -Lost classroom time with 80-minute classes (last 30 mins. in the 2 hour block)
      -Scheduling requests aimed at midweek
      -Insufficient room capacity at midday
      -Increased demand for e-classrooms

 Suggestions for implementation of 80 minute time blocks:

      -Ohio State is moving toward a policy that establishes a percent limitation for each department for classes offered at any one time during the day. This should spread the course offerings out across the day thus utilizing the early morning and later afternoon and evening hours for classes. Also, with more flexible start/end times they have managed to achieve more overall space utilization.

      -Columbia University established a policy in which no more than 10% of a department's offerings may be scheduled in any one time/day slot.

      -Rutgers addressed the inefficient use of one day a week by offering classes on MTh, MW, TF, TTh, and WF. They have spread the classes throughout the day by beginning the first block at 8:10 AM and the last block at 9:10 PM.

      -University of Arizona uses a 70% rule in which colleges may schedule no more than 70% of their classes during prime time.

      -University of Oregon requires each school and department to distribute their course offerings over all five days of the week and over the full class day. Classes must be scheduled proportionally over four of the five time zones. Additionally, classes must begin on the first hour of the zone, not the half hour. The zones include:

            Zone I (20%) 8:00 and 9:00
            Zone 2 (40%) 10:00, 11:00, 12:00, 1:00
            Zone 3 (25%) 2:00 and 3:00
            Zone 4 (15%) 4:00 and 5:00
            Zone 5 (optional) 6:00 and 7:00

Summary

The impact of course scheduling formats on student learning was examined across a variety of student populations. Undergraduate research indicates that the course scheduling format was not an important factor in the academic achievement of students. One study did find, however, that a higher course dropout rate (13.5%) occurred for students in classes meeting two days per week compared to students meeting three times per week. The researchers concluded that marginal students might benefit from additional class meetings. The research comparing students' learning experiences in time intensive courses to those of students in equivalent semester-length courses reports comparable or enhanced academic performance, which was supported by research across a variety of academic disciplines. Graduate research suggests that academic achievement was independent of differing course scheduling formats. High school results consistently indicate that students' grades and standardized test scores improved with block scheduling.

The pedagogical implications of various course scheduling formats were very clearly addressed in the literature. The combined research indicates that the success of longer instructional time blocks lies with the effectiveness of the pedagogical approach.

The literature, as well as the responses from faculty through the POD listserv, indicates that longer class periods demand a variety of teaching methods and active involvement of students in the learning process. To this end, the call for faculty development is evident throughout the literature. Combining lectures or activities from two fifty-minute classes into a lesson plan for an eighty-minute class session is not an appropriate teaching strategy. Thus, active involvement of students in meaningful and productive activities requires both general and discipline specific training. Simply changing the class scheduling format without enlisting the support of the faculty and providing them with the appropriate developmental resources compromises the learning experience of the students.

References
Austin, T., Fennell, R., & Yeager, C.  (1988). Class scheduling and academic achievement in a non-traditional graduate program.  Innovative Education, 12, 79-90.
Barclay, Kathy.  (1990).  A comparison of alternative course scheduling at the graduate level.  Reading Improvement, 27(4), 255-260.
Bateson, D.  (1990).  Science achievement in semester and all-year courses.  Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 3, 233-240.
Brackenbury, R.  (1987).  What is more elusive than the learning of philosophy?  Educational Research Quarterly, 93-96.
Brookes, M.  (1985).  Time in learning: Does distribution make a difference?  Community/Junior College Quarterly of Research and Practice, 9(3), 291-296.
Brophy, B.  (1978).  Semestering and the teaching-learning situation.  Canadian Journal of Education, 3, 47-54.
Buckman, D., King, B., & Ryan, S.  (1995).  Block scheduling:  A means to improve school climate.  NASSP Bulletin.
Buzash, M.  (1994).  Success of two-week intensive program in French for superior high school students on a university campus.  Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Central State Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, Kansas City, MO.
Calvery, R., Sheets, G., & Bell, D.  (1999, November).  Modified block scheduling:  An assessment of teacher's and student's perceptions.  Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Point Clear, AL.
Canady, R., & Rettig, M.  (1995).  The power of innovative scheduling.  Educational Leadership, 3.
Caskey, S.  (1994).  Learning outcomes in intensive courses.  Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 42, 23-27.
Cawelti, G.  (1994).  High school restructuring: A national study.  Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.
Edwards, C.  (1995).  Virginia's 4x4 high schools:  High school, college, and more.  NASSP Bulletin.
Eineder, D., & Bishop, H.  (1997).  Block scheduling the high school:  The effects on achievement, behavior, and student-teacher relationships.  NASSP Bulletin, 81(589), 45-54.
Henebry, K.  (1997).  The impact of class schedule on student performance in a financial management course.  Journal of Education for Business, 73, 114-120.
Hottenstein, D., & Malatesta, C.  (1993). Putting a school in gear with intensive scheduling.  The High School Magazine, 2, 28-29.
Irmsher, K.  (1996).  Block Scheduling.  Eric Digest, No. 104.
Lasker, M., Donnelly, J., & Weathersby, R.  (1975).  Even on Sunday: An approach to teaching intensive courses for adults.  Harvard Graduate School Education Association Bulletin, 19, 611.
Lombardi, T., Meikamp, J., & Weinke, W.  (1992).  Learning gains and course time format in special education. Educational Research Quarterly, 15, 33-38.
Messina, R.  (1996).  Power package:  An alternative to traditional course scheduling. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 396787.
Munroe, M.  (1989, February).  Block:  Successful alternative format addressing learner needs.  Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association of Teacher Educators, St. Louis, MO.
O'Neil, J.  (1995).  Finding time to learn.  Educational Leadership,3.
Ray, R., & Kirkpatrick, D.  (1983).  Two time formats for teaching human sexuality. Teaching of Psychology, 10, 84-88.
Reid, L.  (1995).  Perceived effects of block scheduling on the teaching of English.  ERIC Document No. ED 382950.
Rettig, M., & Canady, R.  (1999).  The effects of block scheduling.  School Administrator, 56(3), 14-20.
Schoenstein, R.  (1997).  From the Roy J. Wasson High School, Colorado Springs, Colorado Web site.  URL: http://k12.oit.umass.edu/block/Before-After.Stats.txt.
Scott, P.  (1994).  A comparative study of students, learning experiences in intensive and semester-length courses, and of the attributes of high-quality intensive and semester course learning.  Paper presented at the meeting of the North American Association of Summer Sessions, Portland, OR.
Scott, P.  (1996).  Attributes of high-quality intensive course learning experiences: Student voices and experiences.  College Student Journal, 30, 69-77.
Van Scyoc, L., & Gleason, J.  (1993).  Traditional or intensive course lengths?: A comparison of outcomes in economics learning.  Journal of Economics Education, 24, 15-22.
Ward, H., & Gowan, J.  (1989).  Statistics course retention associated with classes meeting different days of the week.  College and University,64(2), 199-207.
Williams, Wayne.  (1992, February).  The relationship between class scheduling formats and the academic achievement of graduate students.  Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association of Teacher Educators, Orlando.
Wilson, J., & Stokes, L.  (2000).  Students' perceptions of the effectiveness of block versus traditional scheduling.  American Secondary Education, 28(3), 3-12.
Wisconsin Association of Foreign Language Teachers, Whitewater.  (1995).  Redesigning high school schedules.  A report of the Task Force on Block Scheduling.

Table of Contents | Issues | Credits |
NTLF.com Home

© Copyright 1996-2003. Published by James Rhem & Associates, Inc.
(ISSN 1057-2880) All rights reserved worldwide.
Web Weaving ™ By InfoStreet, Inc.
Email the Webmaster

---