AUTHOR: Charlotte D. Gruber; Anthony J.

Onwuegbuzie
TITLE: Effects of Block Scheduling on Academic Achievement Among High School
Students
SOURCE: The High School Journal 84 no4 32-42 Ap/My 2001
The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it is reproduced
with permission. Further reproduction of this article in violation of the copyright is
prohibited.
ABSTRACT
Although block scheduling has become increasingly popular in the past decade, only
a few researchers have investigated its effect on academic achievement. Therefore,
this study was conducted to determine the effects of block scheduling on academic
achievement between 115 high school students who received instruction via a 44
block schedule and 146 students who received instruction via a traditional schedule.
A series of independent t-tests, utilizing the Bonferroni adjustment, was conducted to
compare grade point averages and scores on the Georgia High School Graduation
Test (GHSGT) between the two groups. Findings revealed no statistically significant
difference in grade point averages or in scores on the Writing portion of the GHSGT
between the two groups. However, statistically significant differences were found for
Language Arts (Cohen's d = .34, moderate), Mathematics (d = .52, large), Social
Studies (d = .51, large), and Science (d = .46, large) scores. For each of the
statistically significant differences, students who received instruction via a traditional
schedule received the higher GHSGT scores.

Block scheduling has been employed in some form or other in school systems for
decades (DiBiase & Queen, 1999; The Oregon Department of Education, 1996). Early
in the 1960s J. Loyd Trump was instrumental in the development of the modem
concept of block scheduling (The Oregon Department of Education, 1996). Trum's
scheme eliminated rigid class schedules and replaced them with instructional
sessions that varied in length from 20 minutes to 100 minutes (The Oregon
Department of Education, 1996). During the 1980s, more and more educators,
policymakers, and other stakeholders began to perceive the school schedule as an
under-utilized resource that had the potential to improve student outcomes (Francka
& Lindsey, 1995). For example, Clauset and Gaynor (1982) identified that time played
an important role in determining school improvement. Moreover, the report of the
National Commission on Time and Learning (1994) perhaps provided the greatest
impetus for provoking interest in school learning time and its effect on educational
outcomes. The Commission declared that the future of public education depended on
the effective use of school time.
Currently, block scheduling is defined as a restructuring of the school day into
classes longer than the traditional 50-minute period classes (Adams & Salvaterra,
1997; Georgia Department of Education, 1998). DiBiase and Queen (1999)
discovered that some type of block scheduling could be found in high schools
throughout the nation today. In fact, according to Rettig and Canady (1996),
approximately 50% of high schools in the United States use some type of block
scheduling. Similarly, Cawelti (1994) estimated that as many as 40% of high schools
in the United States were utilizing a block-scheduling format.
An increase in block scheduling in the past decade has been attributed to several
factors. Input from the business community calling for "fundamental change" in
education has motivated schools to evaluate current practices (Justiz, 1984; National
Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983; The Oregon Department of Education,

1996). Furthermore, block scheduling has become a popular method for attempting
to meet the needs of gifted and atrisk students (The Oregon Department of
Education, 1996). Additionally, schools are converting to block scheduling in an effort
to improve student test scores, reduce discipline problems, and to enhance learning
through longer learning class periods (The Oregon Department of Education, 1996).
Additionally, block scheduling has been utilized to (a) address current accountability
demands; (b) simplify the school structure; (c) improve educational outcomes among
all students; and (d) provide the flexibility and organization needed to produce the
best schools in the world (Edwards, 1993).
ADVANTAGES OF BLOCK SCHEDULING
According to Carroll (1990), short instructional periods cause students to feel
overwhelmed by the variety of academic material, numerous sets of class rules,
multiple homework assignments, and disjointed curricula. Therefore, restructuring of
the school day into blocked periods of 90 minutes helps to alleviate many of the
problems associated with a traditional schedule because students have four classes
for which to prepare, rather than six or seven (Carroll, 1990). Carroll's (1990) findings
were similar to those of Matarazzo (1998), who found that student satisfaction, as
measured by attendance, dropout rate, discipline referrals, and student suspensions,
rose after implementation of a block schedule. Also, Matarazzo (1998) noted that
block scheduling positively changed students' attitudes toward school and their
approach to learning. Similarly, decreases in discipline referrals and dropout rates
were found to be the result of block scheduling in studies conducted by Eineder and
Bishop (1997) and Mistretta and Polansky (1997). Congruously, increases in
attendance and grade-point averages were revealed in an investigation of blockscheduled schools in Georgia (Georgia Department of Education, 1998).
Attitude toward school is an important factor in determining the extent to which a
child is willing to be an active member of the teaching-learning process. Also, attitude
plays an equally important role in how teachers view their contributions to the
educational process. In a qualitative study of teachers' attitudes toward block
scheduling, some of the advantages of a 44 block schedule identified by teachers
were that they had fewer preparations, more time at school to undertake their duties,
less students per semester, and less paper work (Hurley, 1997a). Students in the
same inquiry stated that they liked the block schedule because they had less
homework.
DISADVANTAGES OF BLOCK SCHEDULING
One commonly-cited disadvantage of block scheduling is that missing 90 minutes
of class on the block schedule is equivalent to missing two class periods with respect
to the old system of scheduling (Hurley, 1997b). One teacher in Hurley's (1997a)
study indicated that although block scheduling allows more time for in-class
activities, it provides less time for field trip activities. However, even though teachers
readily cited the disadvantages of block scheduling, Hurley (1997a) concluded that
data collected in his inquiry supported the claim that most teachers perceived the
advantages of block scheduling to outweigh the disadvantages.
Any movement from traditional methods requires adjustments on the part of the
participants. Howard (1998) and Shortt and Thayer (1997) identified some of the
problems associated with moving from traditional scheduling to block scheduling.
According to these authors, provisions must be made for appropriate staff
development before block scheduling is introduced into the school system. Also,
someone must determine before implementation of block scheduling how teacher
performance will be evaluated. Howard (1998) stated that the amount of instructional
time is an important topic, and decisions need to be made regarding instructional
time before implementing block scheduling. Additionally, the effects of students
moving into the school system must be considered. Other items that may become

problems if not adequately prepared for are software accommodations for scheduling
and bookkeeping procedures to compute dropout rates and other statistics (Howard,
1998).
BLOCK SCHEDULING AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
Mixed results concerning the effects of block scheduling on academic achievement
have been reported in the available literature. Some investigations, such as those
conducted by McGorry and McGorry (1998) and Hess, Wronkovich, and Robinson
(1999), show that students in block-scheduled classes are more successful
academically than are students in short-period classes. Other researchers, such as
those conducting investigations for the Georgia Department of Education (1998),
have reported no significant difference between block scheduling and short-period
scheduling as far as student success is concerned.
The majority of educators recognize that there are other variables to be considered
when studying the effects of block scheduling in a school. For example, curriculum,
instructional strategies, family support, and socioeconomic conditions are other
factors that affect student performance (The Oregon Department of Education,
1996).
According to McGorry and McGorry (1998), the number of honor roll students
increased by 5% to 10% for students who were in a pilot program of block
scheduling. Also, the number of students making an "A" grade in mathematics and
Science classes was 15% higher for students in the pilot program than for the rest of
the student body which was not on a block schedule. Snyder (1992) found a
significant improvement in grade point average and in semester examination grades
throughout the school in almost every department after block scheduling was
implemented. In both Snyder's (1992) and McGorry and McGorry's (1998)
investigations, evidence was found to substantiate the claim that students performed
better academically after implementation of block scheduling. Interestingly, a
summary of block scheduling findings by the Georgia Department of Education
(1998) revealed that the greatest advantage found for block scheduling pertains to
an improvement in the school climate for both teachers and students.
DiBiase and Queen (1999) reported that scores on social studies examinations for
students on a block schedule far exceeded those of students who were not on a block
schedule, as measured by the California Achievement Test. Additionally, differences
in social studies final course averages were found to be statistically significant, with
students who received instruction via a block schedule outperforming students who
received instruction via a traditional scheduling method (DiBiase & Queen, 1999).
Veal (1999) conducted a study at a midwestern high school that used a tri-schedule
(i.e., block, traditional, and hybrid) scheduling format. Although the hybrid method
was found to be the most effective for most students, the block component improved
students' grade point average, attendance, and attitudes about school.
DiRocco (1999) discussed how the adoption of block scheduling at Lewisburg
Middle School in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania affected student achievement. A
comparison of students who received the majority of their academic instruction via a
traditional schedule of six classes per day lasting 40 minutes each for 180 days was
made with students who received the majority of their academic instruction via a
block schedule of classes meeting for 82 minutes every other day for 90 days.
Results of DiRocco's (1999) investigation revealed that final course averages, grade
point averages, and the means of four out of six achievement tests were higher for
those students who received instruction via the block-schedule method. Thus, the
findings of DiRocco's (1999) investigation support the results of some researchers
(e.g., DiBiase & Queen, 1999; Eineder & Bishop, 1997; Hess et al., 1999) that
students who receive instruction via a block schedule achieve higher levels of
academic achievement than do students who receive instruction via a traditional
short-period schedule.

In contrast to the results of Snyder (1992) and McGorry and McGorry (1998),
researchers from the Georgia Department of Education (1998) found no clear-cut
evidence to support the theory that block scheduling has a positive effect on student
achievement. Additionally, some Canadian studies concerning block scheduling
revealed that block scheduling was detrimental to student achievement (Raphael,
Wahlstrom, & McClean, 1986). In particular, results of one Canadian study conducted
by Raphael et al. (1986) concerning block scheduling indicated that academic
instruction on a block schedule contributed to lower academic achievement than on a
traditional schedule (Raphael et al., 1986). Additionally, in Hurley's (1997a)
investigation, one teacher noted that there are fewer total instructional hours for
each class on a block schedule. As a consequence, it is difficult to expose students to
the material they need in order to pass the state-administered end-of-course exams
(Hurley, 1997a). Moreover, Raphael et al. (1986) found evidence of either adverse
effects or no benefit in student attitudes regarding Mathematics. However, findings in
this study did indicate an improvement in student attitudes toward science classes.
Nevertheless, student performance in Grades 12 and 13 was reported to be
significantly lower for students in block-scheduled classes than for those students in
yearlong classes.
Bateson (1990) studied 30,000 10th-grade students who took science courses
either in year-long or semester-long blocks. Interestingly, students in the year-long
courses significantly outperformed both those students taking science in the first
semester and those taking science in the second semester. Bateson's study
suggested that first-semester students had forgotten a significant amount of the
class material by the time they were administered the examination at the end of the
year, contrary to the popular belief that retention is not a problem associated with
block scheduling.
Veal and Schreiber (1999) found that block-schedule students scored significantly
higher on a test of mathematics computation than did traditional-schedule students.
Also, no statistically significant difference in performance levels was found between
the two groups with respect to reading and language achievement. Similarly,
although the block-schedule students in Cobb, Abate, and Baker's (1999)
investigation maintained consistently higher semester and cumulative grade point
averages than did the traditional-schedule students, the former performed
significantly less well on standardized mathematics tests. Also, no differences in
academic achievement emerged between the two groups with respect to reading and
writing standardized test scores.
PURPOSE OF STUDY
Despite the popularity of block scheduling, relatively few empirical research
investigations have been conducted to determine the effects of block scheduling on
academic achievement (Czaja & McGee, 1995; Khazzaka, 1997; O'Neil, 1995). As
noted above, the studies in existence have led to mixed findings (Slate & Jones,
1999). Thus, more research is needed in this area (Hottenstein, 1998; Wronkovich,
Hess, & Robinson, 1997). The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of a
44 block schedule among high school students. In the 44 model classes are
taught for 90 minutes per day and students complete four classes per semester
(DiBiase & Queen, 1999). As noted by DiBiase and Queen (1999), the 44 model is
one of the most popular variations of block scheduling.
It was hypothesized that there is a difference in academic performance, as
measured by grade point average, and scores on each section of the Georgia High
School Graduation Test (GHSGT), between high school students who receive
instruction via a 44 block schedule and high school students who receive instruction
via a traditional six- or seven-period schedule. It was hoped that the present results
would provide educators and other stakeholders with additional empirical information
about 44 block schedules.

METHOD
PARTICIPANTS
Participants consisted of students who either graduated (n = 146) from a high
school in the state of Georgia in the academic year 1996-97, or who graduated (n =
115) in the academic year 1999-2000. Through the use of an a priori power analysis,
these group sizes were deemed to provide acceptable statistical power (i.e., .91) for
detecting a moderate difference in means via a parametric independent I-test (i.e.,
Cohen's [1988] d = .5) at the (two-tailed) .05 level of significance, maintaining a
familywise error of 5% (i.e., .0083 [.05/6] for the six achievement measures)
(Erdfelder, Faul, & Buchner, 1996).
Students who graduated from that particular school in 1997 attended high school
on a traditional six-period day schedule. In academic year 1997-1998 the high school
moved to an alternative scheduling method referred to as the 44 block schedule.
Therefore, the 1999-2000 graduating class received instruction via a 44 block
schedule for three years.
Enrollment at the high school where the study took place is currently 501 students
in Grade 9 through Grade 12. The majority of high school students live in the county,
and approximately 2% of the student body lives in surrounding counties. High school
completion rate for students who were enrolled in the ninth grade is 61%, compared
with the state average of 69% ("Georgia Public Education," 1998). Approximately
37% of the student body in Grades 9-12 at the high school is eligible to receive
free/reduced lunches. Also, 38% of these students were eligible for ("Helping
Outstanding Pupils Excel") HOPE Scholarships in the 1997-98 school year, compared
to the state average of 60% ("Georgia Public Education," 1998).
INSTRUMENTS
In 1991, Georgia Assembly determined that students seeking a high school
diploma must pass a set of tests including the areas of Writing, Language Arts,
Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies (Georgia Department of Education, 2000).
The new tests, which were called the Georgia High School Graduation Tests (GHSGT),
were phased in, with students entering the ninth grade between July 1, 1991 and July
1, 1993 being required to pass Language Arts, Mathematics, and Writing (Georgia
Department of Education, 2000). Students who entered the ninth grade between July
1993 and July 1994 were required to pass Language Arts, Mathematics, Writing, and
Social Studies (Georgia Department of Education, 2000). Those students entering
ninth grade after July 1994 were required to pass the first four areas plus the Science
test (Georgia Department of Education, 2000). Either the school counselor or
teachers administer the GHSGT. All portions of the GHSGT, with the exception of
Writing, are multiple-choice tests. The Social Studies section represents the longest
subscale, consisting of 90 items; Science has 80 items, Math has 70 items, and
Language Arts has 60 items. Consistent with the number of test items, students are
allowed 80 minutes for the Science and Social Studies tests and 60 minutes for the
Language Arts and Math tests (Georgia Department of Education, 1991).
Scores on each subscale of the GHSGT range from 400 to 600. Students must
score a minimum of 500 points on each of the five areas of the GHSGT in order to be
eligible to receive a high school diploma (Georgia Department of Education, 2000).
Students are required to take the GHSGT in their junior year of high school, with the
Writing test being administered in the fall and the four content areas administered in
the spring (Georgia Department of Education, 2000). Retesting is conducted for those
students who do not pass any part of the GHSGT, and students may have five
opportunities to take the GHSGT before their scheduled date of graduation (Georgia
Department of Education, 2000). However, students may return to their high school
to attempt the graduation test(s) again in the event that they do not successfully
complete the battery of tests before they leave school with a Certificate of

Performance or a Special Education Diploma (Georgia Department of Education,

2000). Test Scoring and Reporting Services in Athens, Georgia is responsible for
scoring the GHSGT (S. Cramer, personal communication, February 21, 2000).
Although written verification was unavailable, personal communication with Steve
Cramer, Associate Director of Test Scoring and Reporting Services, revealed that
reliability of the total raw scores is calculated for each test administration. For the
most recent main administration of the GHSGT, the Kuder-Richardson-20 reliabilities
were: .88 for English/Language Arts; .93 Mathematics; .93 Social studies; and .90
Science (S. Cramer, personal communication, February 21, 2000). Grade point
averages were obtained from the permanent school records.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURES
This research utilized a causal-comparative research design, also known as an ex
post facto design (Huck, 2000). The two groups that were used in the investigation
were the 1996-97 graduating class of the high school and the 1999-2000 graduating
class of the high school. The 1996-97 graduating class received instruction via a
traditional six-period schedule for four years of high school. On the other hand, the
1999-2000 class received instruction via a 44 block schedule for three years.
Cumulative grade point averages for the two groups were compared to determine if a
difference in level of achievement existed between the groups. Also, Georgia High
School Graduation Tests (GHSGT) scores for the 1996-97 graduating class of the high
school were compared to the high school graduating class of 1999-2000 to determine
if there was a statistically significant difference in achievement levels of the two
cohorts. Scores for each of the five areas of the GHSGT were analyzed and compared
for both of the groups. Data were included in this research for every student in the
two graduating classes.
Comparing the block-schedule and the traditional-schedule students was justified
because the two groups of students appeared to be similar with respect to a number
of variables. In particular, qualitative analyses revealed no notable changes in the
curricula in the years for which the achievement data were collected. Second, only
3% of the students who took the GHSGT in the 1999-2000 graduating class moved
into the school district in their junior year, which is the year that the students take
the battery of tests for the first time. Third, teacher turnover in each of the three
years of block scheduling remained constant at approximately 16%. Finally, during
the period for which the test score data were collected, the racial composition of
students (e.g., 1997-1998 school year: 22.9% Black, 75.8% White, 0.9% Hispanic,
0.1% Asian, 0.3% Multiracial) remained stable, as did the gender composition (e.g.,
1997-1998 school year: 51.8% male, 48.2% female).
DATA ANALYSIS
An independent samples t-test was utilized to test the research hypothesis that
students who receive instruction via a 44 block schedule have different levels of
academic achievement, as measured by GPA, than do high school students who
receive instruction via a traditional schedule. In contrast, however, because an
examination of the skewness and kurtosis coefficients pertaining to the scores on
each portion of the GHSGT suggested departures from normality, a non-parametric Itest (i.e., Mann-Whitney) was utilized to compare the two groups on these
standardized test measures (Onwuegbuzie & Daniel, 2000). Bonferroni's adjustment
(Huck, 2000) was used to maintain an overall error rate of 5%.
RESULTS
Means and standard deviations for grade point averages and scores on the GHSGT
for block-schedule and traditional-schedule students are shown in Table 1. The
independent I-test revealed no statistically significant difference in GPA between the
two groups, t (196.60) = .67, p > .05. With respect to scores on the five subscales of

the GHSGT, Bonferroni's adjustment (Huck, 2000) led to an alpha level of .01 (i.e., .
05/5). The Mann-Whitney test revealed no statistically significant difference in scores
between block-schedule students and traditional-schedule students on the Writing
portion of the GHSGT, (u = 6667.00, p > .05). On the other hand, traditional-schedule
students had statistically significantly higher scores on the Language Arts subscale (u
= 6333.50, p < .01). Using Cohen's (1988) criteria, the effect size associated with
this difference was .34, which is small to moderate. Similarly, traditional-schedule
students had statistically significantly higher (u = 5414.50, p < .01) scores on the
Mathematics segment of the GHSGT than did block schedule students. The
associated effect size for this difference was .52, which is moderate according to
Cohen (1988). Also, traditional-schedule students had statistically significantly higher
scores on the Social Studies portion (u = 5992.50, p < .01) than did block-schedule
students. The associated effect size of .51 for this difference was moderate (Cohen,
1988). Finally, traditional-schedule students had statistically significantly higher
scores on the Science subscale of the GHSGT (u = 6002.00, p < .01) than did blockschedule students. Using Cohen's (1988) criteria, the effect size of .46 associated
with this difference was moderate.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of block scheduling on
academic achievement by comparing 115 high school students who received
instruction via a 44 block schedule and 146 students who received instruction via a
traditional schedule. Results of this investigation indicate that block scheduling does
not have a positive effect on academic achievement among high school students. In
fact, in the areas of language arts, mathematics, social studies, and science, block
scheduling appears to have a moderate negative impact on academic performance.
The present finding that block scheduling has a negative effect on academic
performance is consistent with result that has emerged from Canada (i.e., Raphael et
al., 1986). These two findings do not support the view that extended periods of
learning time lead to an increase in learning or retention of material taught.
Apparently, teaching material in a more focused manner does not necessarily result
in a higher degree of learning. Thus, as educators seek to match instruction to the
needs of the learner, block scheduling may not be the answer.
However, caution should be exercised in interpreting the present results due to
possible threats to internal and external validity that were present. An important
threat to the internal validity of this investigation was history (Gay & Airasian, 2000),
which emerged from the attendance policy at the high school where the study took
place. After implementation of the 44 block schedule in the academic year 19971998, the high school revised its attendance policy such that students were no longer
denied course credit based on number of absences. An immediate effect of the
elimination of an attendance policy was that average daily attendance declined from
91% to 88% ("Block Scheduling," 2000) in the three years that block scheduling had
been in effect at the high school. Hurley (1997b) stated that missing 90 minutes of
class on a block schedule is equivalent to missing two classes on a traditional sixperiod schedule. Therefore, the 3% decline in average daily attendance represents a
significant amount of lost instructional time at that school. As such, it appears that
students who were absent from school were not receiving the instruction that they
needed in order to be academically successful.
To the extent that these findings are replicable, it is possible that inadequate
implementation of the 44 block schedule played a role, at least in part, in
preventing gains in academic achievement from being realized. Indeed, Onwuegbuzie
(2000) conceptualized that implementation is a common and serious threat to
internal validity in many educational intervention studies. According to Onwuegbuzie
(2000), this threat often stems from differential selection of teachers. In particular, as
the number of instructors involved in an instructional innovation increases, so does

the likelihood that at least some of the teachers will not adequately implement an
initiative to its fullest extent. Such lack of adherence to protocol on the part of some
teachers might stem from lack of motivation, time, or resources, inadequate
knowledge, implementation anxiety, poor self-efficacy, poor attitudes, stubbornness,
and so forth (Onwuegbuzie, 2000). Consequently, it is possible that such a lack of
adherence to the 44 block schedule protocol at the school district under
investigation explains, at least in part, the reductions in academic achievement. In
any case, future research should investigate the extent to which implementation
threat prevailed in the school district.
Another component of the implementation threat that may have occurred is
related to time. That is, it is possible that three years may not be a sufficient period
of time to observe positive gains in academic achievement. However, Schroth and
Dixon (1995) contended that three years was adequate to observe positive gains.
Moreover, what is particularly disturbing is that academic performance decreased
after three years of the 44 block schedule. No significant differences in academic
achievement between the treatment and control groups perhaps could have been
overlooked; however, decrements in academic outcomes must be taken seriously,
thereby justifying much more research in this area. Further, it is possible that the
findings would have been different if the effect of block scheduling had been studied
for longer than three years. Indeed, Scbroth and Dixon (1995) recommended
studying block scheduling for three to five years to obtain the most valid results.
A framework that offers great potential for studying the role of implementation
threat in the 44 block schedule is that pertaining to Rogers (1995). In his seminal
work, entitled, The Diffusion of Innovations, Rogers (1995) identified the following
five stages individuals go through in deciding whether to adopt a new innovation: (a)
knowledge (e.g., awareness and comprehension), (b) persuasion (e.g., formation of
attitude), (c) decision (e.g., trial, followed by adoption or rejection), (d)
implementation (i.e., actual use), and (e) confirmation (i.e., continued use). Thus,
researchers in the future should consider comparing teachers whose students
experience gains in academic achievement after implementation of the 44 block
schedule to their lower-achieving counterparts with respect to these five stages.
These five stages also could be analyzed via narrative profile formation techniques
(Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998; Witcher, Onwuegbuzie, & Minor, in press). For example,
average narrative profiles could be compared for these two sets of teachers (Witcher
et al., in press).
If differences are found in the degree and speed that teachers adopt the 44 block
schedule, then the characteristics of the organization (i.e., the local school district
under study) (Rogers, 1995) should be examined further. In addition, as
recommended by Rogers, the attributes of the innovation should be studied. Rogers
(1995) identified the following five major attributes that influence how quickly an
innovation is likely to be adopted: (a) relative advantage, (b) compatibility, (c)
complexity, (d) trialability, and (e) observability. According to this author, innovations
are likely to be adopted more slowly if (a) they offer advantages such as high initial
cost, relative economic disadvantages, increase in discomfort, savings in time and
effort, and social status; (b) if they are not compatible with the values, beliefs,
perceived needs, and goals of the teachers and administrators, as well as the parents
and other stakeholders; (c) if they are difficult to understand, to implement, and to
utilize; (d) if they are not phased in gradually; and (e) if they do not produce invisible
results. Thus, each of these components should be scrutinized.
Due to the relatively small sample and the fact that the school was located in a
geographically-restricted area, it is likely that population validity and ecological
validity were threats to external validity (Gay & Airasian, 2000). In other words, the
results of this investigation can be generalized only to a population similar to the
present high school because student populations differ substantially from one school

district to another. Consequently, replications of this study are needed across

different school settings and locations.
IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Because of the threat to internal validity stemming from the attendance policy, it is
necessary to address the issue of attendance when planning for future research.
Although this investigation revealed that block scheduling has not resulted in higher
grade point averages and higher test scores on the Georgia High School Graduation
Tests, other studies (e.g., DiBiase & Queen, 1999; DiRocco, 1999; Eineder & Bishop,
1997; Hess et al., 1999; McGorry & McGorry, 1998; Snyder, 1992) have found that
block scheduling has had a positive impact on academic achievement in some
schools. It is suspected that revising the attendance policy at the high school may
have negated any positive effects of block scheduling in this particular school
system. Therefore, it is recommended that this study be replicated in an environment
where the attendance policy has been consistent before and after implementation of
block scheduling.
Also, future research should attempt to address teacher preparation and staff
development. Apparently, professional development is a key factor in determining
the success of block scheduling (Shortt & Thayer, 1997). Obviously, using allotted
instructional time in the most effective way to present material to students should
increase academic learning. Consequently, future studies should be undertaken to
determine how well instructional time is used on a daily basis.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE ACTION
As educators become increasingly more accountable for students' learning, it is
imperative to determine the best instructional methods. If block scheduling, all
variables being equal, does have a positive impact on academic achievement, then
that should be the scheduling method of choice. However, if traditional scheduling is
found to be the better scheduling method as far as academic achievement is
concerned, then that should be the preferred scheduling method. Educators must
continue to document the effects of block scheduling. Moreover, the effectiveness of
block scheduling should not be restricted to academic achievement, but other
educational outcomes should be studied. Such outcomes include discipline and work
ethic, as well as affective variables (e.g., attitudes, motivation). Additionally, these
findings should be shared and compared among educators and other stakeholders.
CONCLUSION
Although the use of block scheduling is widespread in the United States, its
effectiveness is still unclear. The relatively few empirical examinations have led to
mixed findings, with some studies documenting positive outcomes (McGorry &
McGorry, 1998; Hess et al., 1999), whereas others have reported either no significant
effect (Georgia Department of Education, 1998; Hall-Turner, Slate, & Onwuegbuzie,
2000), or a detrimental effect (Raphael et al., 1986). The present finding appears to
belong to the latter camp. Specifically, at the high school under investigation, blockschedule students attained lower levels of achievement than did their traditionalschedule counterparts with respect to several academic areas.
The body of contradictory findings in this area suggests that what works best for
one school system does not necessarily work best for another. Thus, block scheduling
may be the answer to raising test scores and grade point averages for one school,
whereas a traditional scheduling method may work best for another school. It is only
by continuing research in this area, utilizing both quantitative and qualitative
techniques, that educators can decide whether to retain, modify, or discard this
method of scheduling.
ADDED MATERIAL
Charlotte D. Gruber

Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie
Valdosta State University
Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations of GPAs and GHSGT Scores as a Function
of Schedule

GPA
Writing
Language Arts
Mathematics
Social Studies
Science

Block Schedule
M
SD
n
84.77
6.77
115
520.12
28.19
106
530.21
29.06
112
514.63
25.49
113
505.39
19.86
114
499.48
15.89
111

Traditional Schedule
M
SD
n
84.21
5.41
146
523.55
21.16
134
539.94
27.68
145
528.78
28.52
144
517.29
28.46
144
508.64
23.81
137

REFERENCES
Adams, D., & Salvaterra, M. (1997). Structural and teacher changes: Necessities
for successful block scheduling. High School Journal, 81, 98-106.
Bateson, D.J. (1990). Science achievement in semester and all-year courses.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 233-240.
Block scheduling: BOE wants to know if longer classes are really helping students
to learn. (2000, February 24). The Alma Times. p. 1.
Carroll, J.M. (1990). The Copernican plan: Restructuring the American high school.
Phi Delta Kappan, 72. 358-65.
Cawelti, G. (1994). High school restructuring: A national study. Arlington, VA:
Educational Research Service.
Clauset, K., & Gaynor, A. (1982). A systems perspective on effective schools.
Educational Leadership, 40(3), 54-59.
Cobb, R.B., Abate, S., & Baker, D. (1999). Effects on students of a 4 X4 junior high
school block scheduling program. Education Policy Analysis Archives, [On-line serial],
7(3), 1-20. Available at: http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa
Czaja, M., & McGee, J. (1995). Block scheduling: Learning boom or bust? American
Secondary Education, 23(4), 37-39.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).
New York: John Wiley.
DiBiase, W.J., & Queen, A. (1999). Middle school social studies on the block. The
Clearing House, 72, 377-384.
DiRocco, M. D. (1999). How an alternating-day schedule empowers teachers.
Educational Leadership, 56, 82-84.
Edwards, C. (1993). Restructing to improve student performance. NASSP Bulletin,
77(553), 77-89.
Eineder, D.V., & Bishop, H.L. (1997). Block scheduling the high school: The effects
on achievement, behavior, and student-teacher relationships. NASSP Bulletin, 81, 4554.
Erdfelder, E., Faul, F., & Buchner, A. (1996). GPOWER: A general power analysis
program. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28, 1-11.
Francka, I., & Lindsey, M. (1995). Your answers to block scheduling. American
Secondary Education, 24(1), 21-28.
Gay, L.R., & Airasian, P.W. (2000). Educational research: Competencies for analysis
and application (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Georgia Department of Education. (1991). Research. Evaluation & testing Student
Learning & Assessment(Rule Number 160-3-1-07). Atlanta, GA.
Georgia Department of Education. (1998). Brief summary of block scheduling
findings. Retrieved February 14, 2000 from the World Wide Web:
http//:www.ga.doe.K12.ga.us/sla/ret/block.pdf
Georgia Department of Education. (2000). Georgia High School Graduation Tests

(GHSGT). Retrieved March 29, 2000 from the World Wide Web:
http//:www.k12.ga.us/sla/ret/ghsgtabout.html
Georgia Public Education Report Card. (1998). Bacon County Schools. Retrieved
February 13, 2000 from the World Wide Web:
http//:www.168.31.216.185/4d.acgi$sch_RC
Hall-Turner, B., Slate, J.R., & Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2000). The effect of block
scheduling on academic achievement among Georgia elementary school students.
Manuscript submitted for publication.
Hess, C., Wronkovich, M., & Robinson, J. (1999). Measured outcomes of learning
under block scheduling. NASSP Bulletin, 83 (611), 87-95.
Hottenstein, D. (1998). An "unobjective" look at "objective" math research
involving block scheduling. NASSP Bulletin. 82(597), 117-120.
Howard, E. (1998, January). The trouble with block. The American School Board
Journal, 35. Retrieved October 11, 2000 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.asbj.com/199801/asbj0198.html
Huck, S.W. (2000). Reading statistics and research (3rd ed.). New York: Addison
Wesley.
Hurley, J.C. (1997a). The 4X4 block scheduling model: What do teachers have to
say about it? NASSP Bulletin, 81(593), 53-63.
Hurley, J.C. (1997b). The 4X4 block scheduling model: What do students have to
say about it? NASSP Bulletin, 81(593), 64-72.
Justiz, M.J. (1984). It's time to make every minute count. Phi Delta Kappan, 65,
483-485.
Khazzaka, J. (1997). Comparing the merits of a seven-period school day to those of
a from period school day. The High School Journal, 81(2), 87-97.
Matarazzo, T.M. (1998). Block scheduling: A comparison of block scheduling and
traditional scheduling and its relationship to student achievement, student
satisfaction and teacher methodology in a junior-senior high school in New Jersey.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 60, 3-A. (University Microfilms No. AAM99-23831)
McGorry, E., & McGorry, S.Y. (1998). Intensive scheduling: A hybrid model for the
junior high. The Clearing House, 71, 149-152.
Mistretta, G.M., & Polansky, H.B. (1997). Prisoners of time: Implementing a block
schedule in the high school. NASSP Bulletin, 81(593), 23-31.
National Commission on Excellence in Education, (1983). A Nation at Risk.
Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
National Commission on Time and Learning (1994). Prisoners of Time. Washington
DC: Author. Retrieved December 7, 2000 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.edu/public/emu_programs/tlc/toc.html
O'Neil, J. (1995). Finding time to learn. Educational Leadership, 53(3), 11-15.
Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2000, November). Expanding the Framework of internal and
external validity in quantitative research. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the Association for the Advancement of Educational Research (AAER), Ponte Vedra,
Florida.
Onwuegbuzie, A.J., & Daniel, L.G. (2000, April). Common analytical and
interpretational errors in educational research. Paper presented at the annual
conference of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
Raphael, D., Wahlstrom, M.W., & McLean, L.D. (1986). Debunking the semestering
myth. Canadian Journal of Education, 11(1), 36-52.
Rettig, M.D., & Canady, R.L. (1996). All around the block: The benefits and
challenges of a non-traditional school schedule. AASA Online, 8(53). Retrieved
February 16. 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.aasa.org/SA/sept01.htm
Rogers, E.M. (1995). The diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: The Free
Press.
Schroth, G., & Dixon, J. (1995). The effect of block scheduling on seventh grade
math students. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 387 887)

Shortt, T.L., & Thayer, Y.V. (1997). A vision for block scheduling: Where are we now?
Where are we going? NASSP Bulletin, 81(593), 1-15.
Slate, J., & Jones, C. (1999). Teachers' expectations for and reactions to block
scheduling: Attitudes before and after a brief trial. Research for Educational Reform,
4, 63-69.
Snyder, D. (1992). 4-Block scheduling: A case study of data analysis of one high
school after two years. (Research report No. 143). Chicago, IL: Annual Meeting of the
Midwest educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 414 626)
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and
quantitative approaches. Applied Social Research Methods Series (Vol. 46). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
The Oregon Department of Education. (1996). Alternative scheduling options at the
secondary level. Retrieved January 13, 2000 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.ode.state.or.us/cifs/alternative/altschre.htm
Veal, W. (1999). What could define block scheduling as a fad? American Secondary
Education, 27(4), 3-12. Block scheduling effects on state
Veal, W., & Schreiber, J.B. (1999, September 19). Block scheduling effects on state
mandated test of basic skills. [22 paragraphs] Educational Policy Analysis Archives.
[On-line serial], 7(29). Available at: http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa1v7n29.html
Witcher, A., Onwuegbuzie, A.J., & Minor, L. (in press). Characteristics of effective
teachers: Perceptions of preservice teachers. Research in the Schools.
Wronkovich, M., Hess, C., & Robinson, J. (1997). An objective look at math
outcomes based on new research into block scheduling. NASSP Bulletin, 81(593), 3241.