Teaching in the Block: Perceptions from Within

Alternative scheduling, also referred to as block scheduling, is gaining more attention as educational systems explore various methods of how time is used. The purpose of this qualitative multiple case study was to explore the experiences of three high school English teachers in their second year of transition from a traditional seven period day schedule (45 minute periods) to a block four period day schedule (87 minute periods). Data were gathered from the three participants through interviews, observations, and collection of documents. Analysis of collected data involved reviewing, coding, categorizing, synthesizing, and interpreting data for each case study. Presentation of findings includes discussion of themes within each individual case as well as a cross-case analysis of the themes. This study focuses upon two major themes which emerged from the data analysis: variety of instructional strategies and depth of content taught. Findings suggest that the block schedule provided more opportunities for instructional strategies that actively engage the student in learning and that the altered time format allowed the teachers to provide more depth of content within their classrooms through in-depth materials, discussions, and projects. The results of this study have implications for curriculum, instruction, and staff development related to block scheduling. Introduction Nationwide, the goal of providing successful education to our youth in today’s current educational institutions has begun to focus on how time is used in the classroom. Time is one of the key factors in planning and implementing curricula, regardless of the content area being discussed. Until recently, time, in regard to education, was measured and shaped by the Carnegie Commission, in which students’ seat-time in a given subject is equated to completion or mastery of that subject (Kruse & Kruse, 1995). The amount of seat-time leads to an award of so many credits, with a set number to be reached before graduation. Each major subject is allotted an equal amount of time over the course of a school year, while less “scholarly” subjects are allotted less time. These time frames were set at approximately 45 minutes to provide for various courses to be taught each day. Therefore, a traditional time format at the high school level included seven to eight 45-minute periods in which content was to be taught (Kruse & Kruse, 1995). While other aspects of education changed, the time structure of the school day was not perceived as a changeable factor. However, over the past decade, inquiry in regard to the effectiveness of the traditional structure of the school day has occurred, and alternatives have begun to emerge as educators attempt to redefine how time can most effectively be used. In 1983, Joseph Carroll noted that time was a factor that could be modified, and he particularly focused upon the length of time used for instructional class periods and how increased class time could improve instruction (Carroll, 1994). Once this issue was addressed, other educators began to look at time as a factor that could be manipulated. In 1991, the National Education Commission on Time and Learning examined the quality and adequacy of the time U. S. students devoted to learning. Through this study, time and how it is allocated, both within the school day and the school year, began to be perceived as a flexible factor, and methods for adaptation or modification of time began to be examined to provide more effective teaching and learning processes that would lead to greater success for students in education (Anderson, 1994). As the focus was placed upon how time is managed in education, practitioners began to attempt new methods of utilizing time to improve educational processes for students. One aspect of this change process redefined the structure of the school day, with longer blocks of time per class and fewer classes per day.