FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W57742432> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W57742432 startingPage "178" @default.
• W57742432 abstract "This study compared the academic achievement of high school students on the block schedule with the academic achievement of high school students on the traditional schedule. The goal was to determine what impact if any block scheduling would have upon academic achievement. The sample included secondary students from two high schools in the same school district in the Southeastern region of North Carolina. The four North Carolina End-of Course tests (Algebra 1, Biology, English 1, and U. S. History), which are required of all students who graduate with a diploma, provided the necessary data. T-tests were used to compare the two groups' means for each of the four subject areas to determine if a significant difference existed at the .05 level of significance. The findings revealed that students on the traditional schedule scored significantly higher on the Algebra 1, Biology, English I and U. S. History tests than students on the block schedule. Background Since the National Commission on Excellence in Education published its report, A Nation at Risk (1983), Americans have questioned our educational effectiveness. In the 1980's and continuing into the 1990's, school administrators and teachers have been criticized regarding the inefficient and ineffective use of school time. The National Education Commission on Time and Learning (1994) published a report addressing national concerns regarding allocations of time and use of the school day for instructional purpose. According to the report, learning in America is a prisoner of time. For the past 150 years, American public schools have held time constant and let learning vary. The rule only rarely voiced is simple: learn what you can in the time we make available. It should surprise no one that bright, hardworking students do reasonably well. Everyone else from the typical student to the dropout - runs into trouble. The degree to which today's American school is controlled by the dynamics of clock and calendar is surprising even to people who understand school operations (National Education Commission on Time and Learning, 1994, p. 7). Cushman (1989) emphasized that today's secondary schools are designed as though students face the same lifestyles their grandparents did while noticeable differences are obvious. Previously, students learned punctuality, obedience to authorities, and tolerance of repetition,k boredom, and discomfort. During the 18th and 19th centuries, students were trained for farm and industrial work. According to Edwards (1991),judgment, decision-making, creativity, high technological knowledge and independence were neither taught nor expected. The 1990's called for different thinking, behaviors, and practices. Society and its expectations have changed drastically. Things that were once objectionable are now required such as creativity and technology issues. In an effort to better meet society's expectations and to make better use of gained knowledge, educators are now focusing on educational restructuring. One such focus has been the school calendar year. Another focus has been the time scheduled for classes. Secondary educators now ask the question, Does the traditional high school schedule most appropriately meet the instructional demands and expectations of teachers and students? An even more poignant question emerges- How does student achievement vary with different class schedules? Purposes of the Study The purpose of this study was to compare the test scores in selected school subjects (Algebra 1, Biology, English I and U. S. History) for students on a traditional class schedule with those on a block schedule. In the early 1990's, the allocation of instructional time (Edwards. 1991: Canady & Rettig, 1993; and Schoenstein, 1944) has been investigated from different perspectives. Yet, there is a lack of scientific support regarding the effect of block scheduling on student academic achievement. …" @default.
• W57742432 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W57742432 creator A5046219782 @default.
• W57742432 creator A5079939437 @default.
• W57742432 date "2000-09-01" @default.
• W57742432 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W57742432 title "A Comparative Study of Block Scheduling and Traditional Scheduling on Academic Achievement." @default.
• W57742432 hasPublicationYear "2000" @default.
• W57742432 type Work @default.
• W57742432 sameAs 57742432 @default.
• W57742432 citedByCount "41" @default.
• W57742432 countsByYear W577424322012 @default.
• W57742432 countsByYear W577424322013 @default.
• W57742432 countsByYear W577424322014 @default.
• W57742432 countsByYear W577424322015 @default.
• W57742432 countsByYear W577424322016 @default.
• W57742432 countsByYear W577424322017 @default.
• W57742432 countsByYear W577424322019 @default.
• W57742432 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W57742432 hasAuthorship W57742432A5046219782 @default.
• W57742432 hasAuthorship W57742432A5079939437 @default.
• W57742432 hasConcept C111919701 @default.
• W57742432 hasConcept C145420912 @default.
• W57742432 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W57742432 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W57742432 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W57742432 hasConcept C200111062 @default.
• W57742432 hasConcept C203151758 @default.
• W57742432 hasConcept C2776034101 @default.
• W57742432 hasConcept C2777352838 @default.
• W57742432 hasConcept C2781206393 @default.
• W57742432 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W57742432 hasConcept C68387754 @default.
• W57742432 hasConcept C81369262 @default.
• W57742432 hasConceptScore W57742432C111919701 @default.
• W57742432 hasConceptScore W57742432C145420912 @default.
• W57742432 hasConceptScore W57742432C15744967 @default.
• W57742432 hasConceptScore W57742432C17744445 @default.
• W57742432 hasConceptScore W57742432C199539241 @default.
• W57742432 hasConceptScore W57742432C200111062 @default.
• W57742432 hasConceptScore W57742432C203151758 @default.
• W57742432 hasConceptScore W57742432C2776034101 @default.
• W57742432 hasConceptScore W57742432C2777352838 @default.
• W57742432 hasConceptScore W57742432C2781206393 @default.
• W57742432 hasConceptScore W57742432C41008148 @default.
• W57742432 hasConceptScore W57742432C68387754 @default.
• W57742432 hasConceptScore W57742432C81369262 @default.
• W57742432 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W57742432 hasLocation W577424321 @default.
• W57742432 hasOpenAccess W57742432 @default.
• W57742432 hasPrimaryLocation W577424321 @default.
• W57742432 hasRelatedWork W127078713 @default.
• W57742432 hasRelatedWork W130328792 @default.
• W57742432 hasRelatedWork W157170745 @default.
• W57742432 hasRelatedWork W1960607983 @default.
• W57742432 hasRelatedWork W1964146782 @default.
• W57742432 hasRelatedWork W1970778483 @default.
• W57742432 hasRelatedWork W1993640735 @default.
• W57742432 hasRelatedWork W2017033015 @default.
• W57742432 hasRelatedWork W2020400628 @default.
• W57742432 hasRelatedWork W2043510775 @default.
• W57742432 hasRelatedWork W2053751171 @default.
• W57742432 hasRelatedWork W2057563009 @default.
• W57742432 hasRelatedWork W2061190675 @default.
• W57742432 hasRelatedWork W2089905252 @default.
• W57742432 hasRelatedWork W2093688744 @default.
• W57742432 hasRelatedWork W2097962438 @default.
• W57742432 hasRelatedWork W2141626052 @default.
• W57742432 hasRelatedWork W2151221549 @default.
• W57742432 hasRelatedWork W2169758674 @default.
• W57742432 hasRelatedWork W271205637 @default.
• W57742432 hasVolume "27" @default.
• W57742432 isParatext "false" @default.
• W57742432 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W57742432 magId "57742432" @default.
• W57742432 workType "article" @default.