Dissertation/Thesis Abstract

Block versus Traditional Scheduling in High School: Teacher and Student Attitudes
by Spence, Martin James, Ed.D., Lindenwood University, 2020, 141; 28022943
Abstract (Summary)

The focus of this study was to identify the preferred schedule type (block or traditional) for students and teachers in high schools. Additionally, the purpose of the study was to explore why high schools should assess how time is used during the school day. Survey responses about time management practices of students and teachers at one high school were reported, and implications for how to construct a schedule based on the survey responses were explored. Students and teachers with experience in block and traditional scheduling formats were surveyed for the study. Participants received an online survey and were asked to respond to statements regarding their attitudes and perceptions of block and traditional scheduling. Teachers felt that students were more productive and experienced greater academic growth in block scheduling. Students strongly believed there were more opportunities for academic growth in block scheduling. Twenty-five percent of the teachers felt students had greater accommodations for learning styles in a block schedule. Seventy-two percent of the teachers strongly agreed the school climate was more positive in a block schedule. Students (22%) also felt there was a more positive climate in the block schedule environment. The findings of this study provide school decision makers with evidence of the preferred learning schedule of students and teachers.

Indexing (document details)
Advisor: DeVore, Sherry
Commitee: Grover, Kathy, Spencer, Tina
School: Lindenwood University
Department: Education
School Location: United States -- Missouri
Source: DAI-A 82/1(E), Dissertation Abstracts International
Source Type: DISSERTATION
Subjects: Secondary education, Educational evaluation
Keywords: Learning schedules, Time management Practices
Publication Number: 28022943
ISBN: 9798662411104
Copyright © 2020 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy Cookie Policy
ProQuest